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

claufe in the Federal Contribution, was, tina. no
fate ihould pats any law, declaring an act alrea
dy committed criminal: that is, he limited the
application OF this claufe to the pafiing of oe-
nal i0evJ. He could fupport this contribution.
1T. by the very words themfelves ex-poif-facfo.
the plain meaning of which was, from (the tirnel
after (which) the .tsi7 was done end. by the
context of the contribution itielf, which in two
clauies QeSt. 9. s. 10. of art. u connects the
term es-poFofGdo with the expreilion 6iY Of az.
tHiiae'', & thus appears to communicate to the
hrft meaning E,nfIgr to the laft that is, TO
make 1t descriptive ola criminal action. Sd. by
the expedition which Biackj2one has given of #
IN ms commentaries Il. 46.) where he fpsaks of
laws being pafled by which, an action in itielf
indlpeIr1t, is made TO be criminal !; and in this
ienie IT was mott probably employed by the
convention.
But even admitting that this phrafe was not
intended to be confined TO a criminal ACTON.
Admitting that 1t was intended to apply TO ali
cafes whatloover that it is ANONYMOUS with
the word retrospective this claufe OF the con-
ititutlon even under this contraction of II.
would not apply to the prefent queGion. This
ciauie under this conjunction would nrob;h;t
any Retrospective laws from being pafIed. which
i,iight operate upon exiting rights. Mr.. Uav
denied that the law of 500 would come uDder
'niS DESCRIPTION. He denied that any exiting
05Tea rights had been or would be affected or
impaired by this law. He had on the contrary
attempted to prove, that no rights had been VEN
ed 1.-THE church. If there zvere uoue. th;s cl,,,.
OF the federal contribution even under the ,,,;-
oet latitude pirate did not forbid tbe leo;fI.-
ture pai1ing this law.
znu. But 1T is commended that this is a ;,,,:.;oJ
queition, which the Legislature have under, ten
to decide in defiance of the 5th feet. of tbe hin
Vi IightS. Let us enquire what is judicial
queitlon 1t is not fufficient that the GneIf;on
oe nighiy curious in itielf and that if be pene-
ldiy agita!ed through the country. This would
not make 1t judicial queftion. It is ~
the very exifence of judicial ouetf;on 81. ~
mould be between tevo or more perfons or r,,r
ties concerning the rights of individuals or cor
pofate bodies, which may at the inftapce of n.
parry injured be brought before the court R,,t
oefore the act of 500 paf1ed, the oueftion which
mtebt haze been agitated in this country ,r,s
completely a.fraa and therefore not judicial
mere was only one party to it, which was the
epHTf1 and how then could it have come before
.ne court III the church inftituted the fuit,
aga'nit Tv6om could it have been infttuted As
-ooa do I inc Id" or 1902 paiied however 6eond
party (the overieers of the poor) was at once
created. 1t was then only that judicial o,,efi-
on was lnitituted which the court m;qbt de-
clae' How then can it be faid, that the lepifla-
ture nave 1tept beyond their functions in deci-
aiiie ludlciai quetion, which bnt fo,. this uarr
law ltlelr, could never have come before the in
oiSiary that is, which but for this very law t.
i'I 1ouid never have become judicial oueftion,
Dut the legislature fuppofed there was not :.
81 gSn i" q"ijii0n much lefs a judicial oueftion.
1ooR tfJor granted, that after the death of
.hie ipents the Church had no rights, and
epTfa y r.
perty. Now if the church bad no r;obts +beua
could nave been no qne9ion, and the Legislature
were fe'fa1lp authorized to pats the law. The
ohiT queltlon before rs then, is not whether the
lieShidture mad any right to pats this law, but
WI the Church had right to this propertv
me legislature fuppofng the Church had no
..isht 10 TINS property, undertook to difpofe of
"a as their own. Would it not be fufficient for
a.s court 10 lnvalidate the law, qvbeu they are
W"''HJ 'ilal the Cb",tb had iuft claim.
| YOU'D IL not be monftrous for this court to
lay, the Church has no claim but the nuefi;on
"herhef they have claim or not is a judicial
f"s!toN' which the Legislature had no right 70
ueGide' and therefore the law is void The
iJuaeSs would lay, the Legislature have certainly
decided right but they had no right to decide
at an we will therefore pronounce the law
voio, oecauie the queftion ought to have been
referred 10 US Should the Legislature reply.
we oia NOT conceive that the Church had anv
n ~ 'hdt tnere was consequently any queiti-
on at all and you yourfelves have 70 deterrnin-
ca: Wh nat anfwer could the judges make? Or
t thS the Legislature ihould reply although
tnere 7vGS queftion, that queftion would not
DC condered as judicial one for it involved
no oPpoiite parties it could not have been
,t; before the Court but for the very law
whch we have enacted what anfwer could
the ludge make to this obfervation.
we are again brought back, faid MIR. Hay
10 the original queftion. Whether thofe rights
are valid which are fet up in oppofition to the
law He had attempted to prove that thew
were nor. he had attempted to prove, that
there were no rights in the Cbweb,
that there were none in the VeRry:
that the only rights which could bolFbiy have
exited were in the Pay7on,, and tlefe had
been refeived by the law.
ana that therefore the Legislature had certainly
the right ofdifpofng of this property, on the
death ofthe Incumbents.
MIR. Hay, concluded with hoping that the Bill
would be difmiled.