The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-05-26

that they would never revert 20 TIE uie Of
he pariih. Would thefe nninihers have
ever held the Globes for .ien- sson right
Would they not on the contrary have al
! ways held them FOR public purpoies only
When thoEc public Gcrvices have ceaied
then, does it not follow that the only rights
of the miniTters have expired with them
The law has always recognized the di:tinc-
ton between priVate and fdneiai property.
The firtt is indefeafble. 1t is, perhaps it
ought always to be, inviolable by the deci-
iion of the leriila:ive or Judiciary power.
The laft is fubjeet to conditions and if
thoie conditions are not required to be per-
. formed, or if circumstances will not permit
them to be performed, does not the truit
ceaie and the property revert to the origi-
nal owner In the prefent cafe, property
was vetted IN the Minifters on certain con-
ditions. The duty was impofed upon
them of supporting the doctrine and difci-
pline of the Church of England. When
that Office necellarily expired when
the Church OF England was fwept a.
way by our revolution with every veitige
of our old political efabliihment what du-
ty was left for theie minifters OF the Anglo
Virginian Church to difcharge? Where
was their office What plea then, can they
reafonably advance in fupport of their pre-
tentons Preeedsnft are not wanting to
juftify this doctrine. If civil officer is
appointed by the legillattire, with GER
tain remuneration i'll money or land, does
not this property revert to the public, when
his Office is aboliihed unlefs indeed the
contribution has deprived them OF the pow
err of aboliihing the Office, by declaring that
the officer fhall continue in office during
good bebaviom." But fome enlightened po-
litiCians have even ai1erted, and moi ref
pectable body has already determined, that
| this constitutional reftriction does not pre-
| vent them from aboliihing the office Hjelf
| When therefore (Mr. N. faid) ne coniider-
ed the conditional tenure, on which thefe
Clebe lands mutt have been held by the
nliniiters and when he confidered the ef
| feet of the revolution in multiplying this con-
dition he could not but fuppofe that the
Giebe lands would not have belonged to
lucceeding m'nifers, had ezen any method
have exifted for continuing this fucceffion
But the church itfelf has contributed tc
weaken the validity of its own pretentions
to the Giebe lands by the modefty OF it's
CLAIMS. Why did it not extend its de.
mands farther /? IF it founded its right &c
| theie lands upon the act of l74s, why has
1t not alto put in its claim to the annual
ftipend OF 10000 lbs. of Tobacco, which
that law allowed as an additional compen.
iation to its minfers?
/, 1t may be commended, however, that the
property was not vefted in the nniniiters bu.
IN the Ieej2rie5 and that, therefore, whe-
| Their the tuccei1ion of miniiters could be
| kept up or not, the veftries Crowded tbei,
fuccefiion could be maintained) would fill
Pofiefs the mott compleat right to theie
lands.-It would be fufficicnt to reply to
this argument, that no decd has been pro-
duced making over this Glebe to the vef-
try. No infrument of conveyance of the
Globes, in general, has been exhibited
1t IS probable that the deeds were made
to the minihers.-- But euen if deeds
were made to the veitries thenlfeives, it is
probable that the public purpofe to which
the land was to be appropriated, would
have been eXpreEed on the very face of the
inftrumcnt. This purpofe would have
consequently decided the exihence of their
right, and the revolution, or any other COM
petent caute, which fhould have decided
that this purpofe could or fhould no lon
ger be fulfilled, would have given a death
blow to the rights of the veftry.-But
eOen if deeds of this tenour were not
made to the vefry-if deeds free from
any fuch condition had been made
over to them, they will not fupply COM
plete or even satisfactory foundation
for fbe;r Calm. Will this court in a great
constitutional queftion require that every
little technical form of the law fhould be
obierved Mr.. Call has himfelf placed this
cafe upon equity he ventured to confder
the church as a corporate body, although
1t did not poiiefs technical charter. Nav
we not in the fame manner throw aide the
forms of law and boldly aliert, that thefe
deeds, though not technically, were fill fub-
ttantially them as 3abEc ruRce5 only,
If they poffened this property on a differ
ent ground, would they not ALTO have been
entitled to the right of alienation And vet
this right was never claimed or exercifed by
them. If then they were tynReeS only, for
what purpofes was this truit committed to
them For two only; the fupport of the
lncumbents, and the benefit of the public.
The firft has been already provided for
the law has literally extended to them the
hand of indulgence. And for what tnbHl
benefit will it be iaid that this trut is con-
ferred OH the vefry? Is it for the public
generally ? No.It is for the benefit of a par
Henlar feet. AS the public benefit then is
not now TO be promoted by this convey
ance as even the interefts OF that particu-
lar feet to which the property was originally
transferred, have expired with that feet;
how can it becontended, that this truf has
not alto ceafed, & that this property lhould
not eOgIcqaentir revert IF property be con-
veyed for the payment Of 4 debf, it alwaysre-
yerts to the original owner, when that debt
is mid or ,vhen II ie no Innner dlIe TIL