The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-06-02

in'ui, as corporate BODY, hold the GlebeS
already purchafed
the act of 1856, which, in repeating the act of
1884, faves to all religious focieties the pro-
perty to them belonging
taken ieparately or collectively, do not confer
and were not intended TO confer any nesp right
or property upon the church or upon its MI
niters but merely to aekHoSrleGge thoie rights
which the legiGlature fuppoied them to poileis
before the revolution.
Mr.. Hay then obferved, that he had attempt
cd to prove
that the C6Ucb had no rights;
that the Pej?yies had none;
that the coiPoration5 |5ie in whom rights were
veited ReesBasity terminated with the lives Of
the incunbents of l776, after which event,
and not before, the law Of 1902 operates;
and that the creation of any new rights fince the
year l776, had been expressly forbidden by
the Bill of Rights.
What tben is to become of this property? is the
queition, which we may n0sv be permitted to
invettigate. In anlwer to this Quenion, Mr.
Call has advanced his opinion, that the proper
ty reverted to the donors, and that the Com
monweath has no right in it. But even (faid
MIR. iay) if the Commonwealth has no right, is
f6ei,' want of right fufficicnt to authorize the
preient CLAIM /? If the Legislature undertake to
diipote of property not belonging to the Com
monwealth, will the Judiciary i!lue its proceis
to ar1eit their proceedings, except at the fut of
| thoie in whom the right is really veifcd Surely
| It is incumbent upon the plaintiffs in this as in
all other cafes to ihow their right, if they have
any; and ifthey do not, fhould not the ordins-
| ny courie of the law be followed ought not
the bill to be diimified? If this were not the
| cafe, this court, inftcad of being employed in
| the dignified and uieful Office of administering
juitice among the people, might be eternally in
VOWED IN coH/itnfioH1I diicuflions
But, lays Mr.. Call, this property reverts to
the d0no's. There was Qaid Mr.. H.l no differ
ence of opinion between them on this point
he only queition was, svbo qve,r the donors?
they mutt have been either private or public
But the rights of the hrf are expressly hved by
an exception in thisaGt.
Inc law mutt consequently relate to thofe
Sieoes only, which were purchafed at the ex-
penie OF the taxable proprietors of the feveral
parifhes, by virtue of the law of 174s, which
authorized the veitry to levy tax In equity
therefore, (and we are now before court of e.
quity) the donors mutt have been either the
Patih5ioneyS, who paid the tax to purchafe the
| SieDe; or the Commonwealth, which directed
the tax to be laid upon them. To call the tax
payers, the donors would be abfiIrd becaufe
they were compelled by the law to pay their
aheiiment. Forced loans' is an expref1ion,
wn'ch does not involve any abufe of language |;
put would 1t not be contradiction in Germs, to
ineak or t2ss. Sis Many OF thefe pariihion-
ers no doubt contributed their quota with very
reluctant mind. Two-thirds of the people at
the time of the revolution are faid to have been
Dlnenters. JEFF. Notes, p. 262. As the pa
| rllhioners then connot without the greateft a.
buie OF language be called donors, are we not
outlined in concluding that the commonwealth
which authorized the Allotment, was itfeIf the
aonor AS the fate therefore was the donor,
oiu not this property revert to the fate, upon
the diiiolutlon of the corporations Has the
nate therefore violated any rule of juftice or
equity, when by the act of 1902, it difpofes of
It's own property only?
But admitting the parifhioners TO have been
the donors; admitting upon this fuppolition
that the property reverted to their defendants
upon the difiolution ofthe corporations would
II not be utterly impofible to aicertain, qvk0
they are, or IN what proportion they ihouId
cisim Has not the law then very wifeiy olivia
ted this difficulty, by directing that fle ihould
DC made Tor the general good of the pariih
| Mr. Cali ieems however TO fuppoie that the
property reverted to the feller, who made the
deed. Certainly (faid Mr.. H. equity would re-
qulre, that 1t fhould revert to the perfon who
paid the money. An analogous cafe will eafily
demonttrate the propriety of this deltination.
Suppoie man juft before the revolution had di.
leeted (. SCOT to te laid out in the purchafe of
Giebe: ms executors purchafe, and deed is
made by the vender to the parton the corpo-
ration terminates with the death of the incum
bent. TO whom does this property revert !.
o the vender, or to the heir of the deceafed ,
Surely not to the frit who would in that cafe
retain the confederation, and refume alto the
land, tor which that confederation had been
paid. 1t muff then have reverted to the laIt.
| What the defendant of the documentary donor
is in this cafe, the commonwealth is in the oueC.
| ton before the court.
But even if MIR. Calls argument be correct
| ii the property does really revert to the Teller
and MOTTO the fate, how will this conclufion A.
vail bis pretenfons Do the appellants in this
cafe pretend that they were the original fellers
ofthis Gle5e It is not fufficient that he fhould
prove that the rate itfefba5 no right he ought
alto to have proved that the plaintiffs had
right. IT he does not fucceed in this ATTEMPT.
under what pretcxt can he come here TO arref
the proceedings of the law?
MIR. Hay concluded that it was iinnaterial
then whether the land reverts to the fate or
the par1ifioneTs. The Legislature has done
what 1t ought to have done. They have diff
Poied OF rights, which could not have belonged
to the cbarcb ittelf, or to the 1eRyie5 The on
ly right, which could have exifted, might have
relided in the paC/0ns, and notwithstanding this
right was evidently returned by the Bill of
Rights, the Legislature have with a commenda-