The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1804-05-30

contrary 10 the 18th article of Tire Bill of Rights.
Mr.. Wickham was not certain that the c~onititu-
ton does prohibit any efabliihment of religion.
The time may come, when the Legislature may
be OF that opinion. At all events, thefe laws do
not contravene this article, becauie they do not
confer any original right. They only give the
feet which was already hyperion to the other be-
fore the revolution, the means of enjoying lis
property better than before. Notwithstanding
the great ardor which had been manifeted on
this occahcn to guard the Bill Of Rights fromvi
%olation, he had fome doubts whether deviations
from this initrument had not occurred more OF.
tenhble than thefe laws on the Glebe lands. On
the other day, property was given to Mrs. Reed
in the cafe of Reed and Reed, without the con.
liberation of publ tervice. Property has been
given TO fchools, whichhowevergeneralthey may
be in their utility, cannot be iaid TO be pu5He in
itisutions or to be productive of public f~ervices,
The employment of 4 Chaplain by the legina-
tive body affords an inftance ola preference be.
ing given 10 one religious perfuaion above all
others.
1hefe laws then have veted property in the
Church. The laws may be repealed, but the
property cannot be thus diveGed. The Attor-
ney General has contended, that an af of At
iembly may repeal laws neutrality-suspicious.
and afterwards difpofe of their property. Mr..
w. admitted that when the property of corpo-
rations or of private individuals was taken for
pn6Ee purPoies, this right might exit in them.
But can they take property from A and give it
b, although b has a right to it, or although A
has none If they cannot do it dnrG7iy, they
cannot do it iHdirefJ. This brings US then to
two Guefions.
1T. Whether the Legislature have attempted
to exercife any fuch power?
I'd. Whether they have a right 10 do It ?
III. The acts of 1898 and 1901 may, in this
refpe6t, be confidered as one act, as they have
both the fame object in view. The hrft repeals
al laws iince the revolutions, as being u~nconfi-
%tutional. The fecond carries this law into ef.
feet, by vcitiDg this property in the overieers OF
the poor. Mr.. w. obferved, he would fay We.
ny. little on the inconfitency in thefe laws, IA
crificing the rights of the Church in The Glebe
lands, and in fill retaining Churchesand Church
Yards, and in giving emolument to the pre-
icnt incumbents.-Mr. W. faid, that the Object
OF both thefe laws was the fame. 1t was to
take away the property from the Church, and
olipoie of it or the ~queition of right. This was a
quettion which this Court alone was competent
todecide.l Ii was iimilar to any other q%ucition of
property. 1t was not one in which.the i7teysR,
of the Rate were directly concerned, in which
property was TO be transferred to The ufe o fthis
commonwealth. It was d quefion between the
Church and the Parifh. 1t was whether pro-
pSitI was u y I IdNSH from II ana gwen TO u.
Had the LeGiaataTe thSm any Il shht 10 decide
this q%uefion
2.Whcther this was a right which belonged to
the Legislature OF not, cannot be decided on alb
itraet principles. We mutt not go to enquire
what was done by Henry VIII of England, or
by the revolutiOniits Of France. The frt might
plead an arbitrary power the advocate OF tie
lat has founded their vindication on the ext
genCy of the times. Neither of thofe pleas can
be of any avail to our Legislative body. They
had a plain chart 20 go by, which refriGted their
powers, & whichnecefiity did not compel them
to abandon. They had the contribution before
them. They might have read in that, the con-
demnation OF their proceedings. The third ar
ticle ofthe contribution declares, that sthe Ie-
g~iflative, Executive and Judiciary departments
fhall be feparate and diftinct." If this article
means any thing, it devolves on the courts ex-
clufively, the power of deciding on property.
This privilege has been afIumed by the Legic-
lature, on the preient location. The acts of
1898 and 1901, are confequently unconfituti-
onal and void.
Mr.. Wickham inferred from thefe Ratements
that thele Globes were veted in the Church,
before the revolution that they were not di-
vcited by the revolution OF the Bill of Rights ::
that ofthe acts paIed fince the revolution, fome
have given an additional confirmation to the
rights of the Church, whilG the two, which de-
viate fromthis uniformity have refiilted from an
unconstitutional aflunption of power by the
Legislative body.
MIR. w. concluded with a few remarks on
the jurifdiction of the Court.
ITO BE CONTINUED