The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-05-23

ufufru6 itfslf property Is not lcafe pro-
perty? Even if it were otherwile, the poii-
ton would not be applicable to our eccle-
iiaftical property becauie in france the
property was given to the prisfboo4, but
here it was given to the ysJtgioYJ iociety for
Its own bsne6t. His end. petition is, that
falary in money may be taken away, why
not then land, if the ufe of land be fubAitu-
ted for ialary in money? this may be true,
iaid Mr.. Call, but It does not apply. II
may be jr!t 10 take away a falary, but not
to take away property already purchafed
and veited.-Yet, however accurate the
reaionings OF MIR. Nc Intoih may have been
on this fubie4, the particular cafe to which
he applies them, is very different from our
own. If. In France he aGerts the pro-
perty was conferred by the king: Calonne
atcribes It 70 private benefactions. But
here al the Glebcs were not given by the
fate, or individuals but mott of them
were acquired by the pariihcs. 2dly. Nc
lntoih was fpeakiRg of the powers of a con-
vcntion OF the people, who were called up
on to form contribution: here the Guefi-
or relates to the powers Of an ordinary le-
gillatufe, acting under contribution al
ready formed. Surely the legislature,
an individual for &c vices: and whereas the
! difference between rewarl'ing an individual
and focietY for is ft1-vices? The church
was fuppofed to be uieful fociety 4 grant
, of lands was made TO it. How can the le-
/ Culture then revoke this grant? Can it
REFINE the endowment of Wm. s. Mary
( College? Ifthey have power in one cafe
/ they have it in Others. stily. Nc Intoih
! l,,c nj ~ Iva. e Al =.
/ publication Of the cOnfiscated property in
Frqnee but here what does the egiilature
perform ? Without Jingle fault being laid
TO the church; without the finalleit in
Identification bc,rS allowed to it without
even the plaulible pretext OF fate policy,
its properly IS to be fwept away.
So far from the petition being true, that
/ the r'JktJ OF the church are contrary 70 the
/. Bill Of R'Shts, 1t may be coHtcnded, that
this re5eeiing law is itit IF unconstitutional.
IT IS contrary TO the Sd art. of the Bill OF
Rights, and 20 the 10th Zee. art. /. Of the
federal coaleitution.-The firf Of thefe de-
ciarcs, that " government, is or ought to be,
inftituted fer the common benefit, pro-
teel;on, and f-curity Of the people," &c.
Now what kind OF protection or fccurity is
that, where bri7ate property NAV be laid
: lSIO ~ DS tAC * SilI"-IIt WfSre the rights
! that are 've,qed in any iociety may be COM
| PleatlY detroyed, without any indemnifica-
! ton, without Jingle fault, without any
plea of public neceaity 1T is declared il,
! the fe6tion Of the federal contribution above
Ecferredto (among many other things) that
g no fate fall pats any es POI taEFo .aw."
! Can any act be a more open violation OF this
| claufe ofthe confitutionthanthea- ofIs0l?
The legislature Frfyefts certain rights in the
church, and qflsrsyarGJ paGes law, which
is intended 10 overftt thefe rights. He
hoped that the courtwou,d arref the pro-
| ceeding. He hopsd that they would think
with him, that it was sn ex 5ef fz6Fo law +;
and if they did, that they would exercife
| the fame power which they had once ex-
ercifcd in the cafe of Turner VS.. Turner,
and declare the law unconstitutional and
void.
After having made fomc remarks upon
ne jurisdiction OF the Chancery Courts in
this cas-. MIR. Call concluded his fpeech.
= Vinlicic GaN;eE.
/ FRO re FCNTygrJpD I