Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-06-02


established by law" go on? When the
very means, by which alone the church
could be perpetuated, were done away by
the revolution, how could the church be
SAID to SitrUiUe the reOoiution i? That state
ment then in the bill of complaint is not
perfectly compatible with truth "that If
the acl OF 1894 had not passed, the church
would have been carried on by the APP
'polntment of ministers and vestries rs IL
sual." For how could it have been CARR.
ed on, if, upon the death of the incumi6enss,
there existed no method Of appointing o.
Their ministers
But even il the succession Of ministers
could havebeen preserved; had there been
other methods Of Inducing them into the
rights and duties of the Virginia church
it would not follow that these Glebe lands
would be forever consecrated to their use
that they would never revert to the use of
the parish. Would these ministers have
ever held the Globes for their o7un right
Would they not on the contrary have al.
ways held them for public purposes only
When those public services have ceased
then, does it not follow that the only rights
oil the ministers have expired with them
The law has always recognized the distinc-
ton between nriUate and jfduciak property.
i he first is indefeasible. 1t is perhaps it
ought always to be, inviolable by the deci-
sion al the Legislative or judiciary power.
The last is subject TO conditions; and if
hoseconditiohs are not required 10 be per-
formed, or ii circumstances will not per-
NIT them to be performed, does not the
trust cease and the property revert to the
original owner! In the present case, pro-
perty was vested in the Ministers on GER
tain conditions. The duty was imposed
upon them OF supporting the doctrine and
discipline Of the Church of ENGLAND.
When that Office necessarily expired;
when the Church of England was swept
away by our revolution with every yes,icc
otour old t9Liticat establishment; what du-
ty was left for these ministers of the An
glo Virslnlan church tot isch -rge? Where
was their Office What plea then, can
they reasonably advance in supportoftheir
pretensions ? Precedents are not wanting
TO justify this doctrine. II a civil officer
is appointed by the legislature, with GER
tam remuneration in money or land, does
not thisproperty revert to the public, when
his Office is abolished unless indeed the
constitution has deprived them Of The pow.
err OF abo!ishing the office, by declaring
that the officer shall continue in Office
during good 6etaUior." But some cnlirht
ened politicians have even asserted, and
most respectable body has already deter
mined, that this constitutional restriction
does not prevent them from abolishing
the office itseLf When therefore (Mr. Y:
said) he considered the conditional te-
nure, on which these Glebe lands must
have been held by the ministers; and
when he considered the effect of the re.
volution in multiplying this condition; he
could not but suppose that the gIebe lands
would not have belonged to succeeding
ministers, had cVcn any method have ex.
listed for continuing this succession. But
the church itself has contributed to weak
Ell the validity Of its own pretensions to
the Giebe lands by the modes,y OK its
claims. Why did it not extend its de-
mands farther? If it founded its right to
these lands upon the act of l74s, why
has it not also put in its claim TO the an
nual stipend of 5000 lbs. of Tobacco,
which that law allowed as an additional
OO'h pCiISdllOu 70 It's MINIS GrS
Ii may be contended, however, that the
property was not vested in the ministers
but in the Uestrics 4; ard that, therefore,
whether the succession OF ministers could
be kept up or not, the vesiries Crowded
their succession could be maintained)
would still possessthe most complete right
TO these lands.-It would be sufficient to
reply to this argument, that no deed has
been produced making over Mia glebe to
the vestry. No instrument Of convey
ance Of the globes in general, has been
exhi5ited.-lt is probable that the deeds
were made to the minister's But cUeu
If deeds were made 10 the vestres them.
selves, it IS probable that the f,u6Fc pur.
pose 10 which the land was 70 be appropr-
aied, would have seen expressed on the
very face ot the instrument. This pur.
pose would have consequently decided
the existence Of laeir right, and the re-
volulion, or any other competent cause,
which sbonld have decided that Mia pur-
pose could or should no longer be fulfill
ed, would have given death blow IN the
rights Of ..ie vestry But eUcn lf deeds
r. Iro lem mol 10. B.