Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-06-16

1t must then have reverted To the last
What the descendant OF the Parliamentary
donor is in this case, the commonwealth
is in the question before the court.
But even if Mr. Calls argument be COR
rect; 1t The property does really revert %
the seller and not TO the state, how will
this conclusion avail his pretensions? Do
the appellants in this case pretend that
they were the original sellers of this Glebe?
IL is not sufficient that he should prove
that the state itself has no right: he ought
also to have proved that the plaintiffs
had right. If he does not succeed in
this attempt, under what pretext can he
come here to arrest the proceedings of the
law?
MIR. Hay concluded that it was imma-
terial then whether the land reverts 10 The
state or the parishoners. The legisla-
ture has done what it ought TO have done.
They have disposed Of rights, which could
not have belonged to the church ITSELF or
10 the Uesfries. The only right which
could have existed, might have resided IN
the harsoiis, and notwithstanding this right
was evidently resumed by the Bill of
Rights, the legislature have with COM
mendable liberality permitted them to re-
tain it. When this right has expired with
the tncum6enfs by the natural course of
The law, does the Legislature exercise the
power they undoubtedly possessed, of ap
Proprlating this property to the general
use ofthe country? No, They determine
that 1t shall be applied to the use of the
several parishes they are anxious if they
can to return this property into the hands
OF the descendants of the original purcha.
sers ; but finding this object lie beyond
The reach of their attainment, from the
numerous changes which have taken place
IN all the families of each parish, they at
tempt to Come as near this object as pos
sble by assigning this property to the use
oil the SohoIe parish. And yet we have
heard (said MIR. H.) the mos. violen, con-.
plants of the want of liberahIy and Justice
In the Legislative body.
I'd. Mr.. Hay proceeded next to the ex-
animation of those constitutional RESTRICT
ons, which the opposite counselha con.
tended were imposed upon the legisa-
iure. They had contended, that Art. |.
sec. 10. of the Federal Constitution, which
among other things prohibits any state
from passing any er-tost .factO MzU; and
that the 5lh section of our bill OF rights,
which declares that the icgisiQtiUe and ex.
ecuuve powers Of the state should be Sc
parate and distinct from the Judiciary
have each ofthem denied 10 the Legislative
body any such power over this question,
as they have assumed by the law of 1902.
Mr.. Hay did not concur with the opposite
counsel in opinion, on either of those to-
pics. t~I
LIST. He thought that the plain mean
ing OF this clause of the Federal Consti-
tuition, was, that 40 state should pass law,
declaring an ACT already committed cri.
nii'iat: that is, he limited the application
OF this CLAUSE to the passing Of henai lawS
lie could support this construction, LIST. by
the very words themselves ex- post-fa6to
the plain meaning of which was, f;on
(the time) after (which) the Zach was done.
End. By the context of the constitution
itself, which in two clauses (sec. 9, * TO-,
OF art. - connects the term cr- hoSt-/dcfo
with the expression bill Of duainder, and
thus appears to communicate To the first
meaning similar to the last ; that is, to
make IT descriptive of crlmlna! action.
Sd. By the exposition which Blackstone
has given of it in his CO nmentaries a..
40 where he speaks of laws being pass
ed by which, an action in itself indifferent,
is made 20 be criminal; and in this sense
1t was most probably employed by the
convention.
But even admitting that this phrase was
not intended to be confined to d crinii,ial
action. Admitting that il was intended
to apply to aHcases whatsoever; that it is
SYNONYMOUS with the word retrospective (;
this clause of the constitution even under
this construction of it, would not apply to
the present question. This clause under
this constructor would prohibit any re
Prospective laws from being passed, which
might operate upon existing rights. Mir
Hay denied that The law of 1902 would
come under this descripilon.-He
denied that any existing U~sted rights had
been or would be affe cled or impaired bv
this law. He had on the conr Try attempt.
ID to prove that no rights had been vest
ed in the church. If there were none,
this clause OF the federal constitution even
under the widest latitude of phrase did
not forbid the legislature passing this law.