Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-06-02
Cl2 l-2 CENTS sIAeLEJ

N'N'' 'iSu( W duCDC Ns cyen L
our constitution then did not deprive our
legislature of the power Of passing these
conhrmatory acts since the revolution, the
laws and precedents of all countries will
not deprive ii of the power of repeating
them.
Ii from this general view of the arpu-
ment we descend to an investigation of,he
particular acts whiSn have been apneaIed
TO- we shall lind in them many reasons for
suspecting the validity of the title, which
they can C. nfer.
The act oil l7T6 has been confidently.
cited asacotemporaneouse of the
constitution. II we refer to the Journals of
hehuuse during that session, we shall ind
many petitions recorded on the subject of
reiigioh' hey shew that at that period of
political tervor, an alarm, had spread itself
over the country, for the salvation of the
church. twas perhaps necessary and no.
ilic toPass some law, which should quiet
these apPrehensions of the people. This
spirit OF concession gave biri h TO the act of
20, which with singular inconsistency
untoids The real principles Of our revoluti-
on, at the same time that it offers them I'D
rs sacrifice before the al,ars OF The Pro-
testant Episcopal Church. The susDi.
clon OF these violated principles appears
on the Uery face of the act, and eiyes
an ar OF uncertainty and weakness to
those claims, which il was intended 10 SUD-
port,
the act OF "a incorporates the church;
hut was 1t not at The particular request of
the ch'''cA ifSeff2 Why was this peti,ion
tHr charter laid before the assembly, if
they had not supposed their corporation
was dissolved, and their rights Invested by
our revolution? The act itself embraces
THIS opinion. 1t speaks Of the =. late ests-
oN>hed church: :" whereas the acf Of rs
dcnominates 1t the " chmch bv law esta-
ohshed." The question too still recurs
upon us,"helher this acl and all he others
which endow with property, q, not incon.
slstcn, with the constitution.
Iheact of'86 repeal this incorporatinos-
law. Does IT not thus countenance the
doctrine OF rcsumab(e rights?
The legislature have in many instan-
ccs SiHce TIE revolution, passed laws
to autherse the sale of glehes CIR vari-
Gus purposes. Hlay Tot these be regard
ed d, the modern exposition Of legislative
power?
The act of 1901 at last advances to close
the catalogue oflhc acts, that relate to the
church. ALTERNATING with adiscriminative
lnsf'ce reserved Tor che proper heirs every
kind Of property which TIC cEu. eli had re-
ceiVed from private donors af,rr having.
with laudable h5eraA,y, respected the
rights 81 the ihcumberls it determines
that the property should be sold aud ap-
proPrisied to the use of the poor of the
respective parishes, or to any other OBJ.
Jects whicl. majority Of The free AoIders
and house keepers therein may dlre6t.
MIR. Nicholas then recapituialed the
principal points, which he bad taken: that
The reUoi"fion had abolished the rights Of
the church TO the glebe property: that the
Bill Of Rights had come in to the aid fthe
revolution that all the aGls which had
been passed Since The revolution, had eli.
lher Conferred no rights, or If ihev had,
that they had not taken from tho legislature
the power OF iesumirg them.
Having made some remarks upon the
jurisdiction Of the court, he concluded
by hoping lha, The bill would be dismiss
sed.
(7o be continued.J