Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-06-16
overseers of the Poor Ofthe said County.

From this principle it follows, that all
the acls passed since the revolution can
not be supposed to CONFER any absolute
property upon the church, or TO make it
over TO-. It's use. In fact;
The act of l776 which reservesthe Globes
already purchased
The act of 1884, which directs that the
vestries shall, as corporate body, hold
the Globes already purchased;
The ACT of 1886, which,in repeaIingthe a6l
of 1884, saves to all religious societies
the property to them belonging;
Taken separately or collectively, do not
confer and were not intended to confer a.
ny new right or property upon the church
or upon its ministers: but merely to ac-
Knowledge those rights which the legisla-
ture supposed them to possess before the
revolution.
MIR. Hay then observed, that he hal att
te npted TO prove
1 nat the church had no rights;
That the veStrieS had none;
That the CORPORATIONS sole in whom rights
were vested necessarily terminated with
the lives of tn incumbents of l776, at
of 1902 operates;
And that the creation of any new rights
since the year l77s, had been express
ly forbidden by the Bill of Rights.
What then is to become of this property |?
is the question, which we may no7Y be per.
mitted TO investigate. In answer to this
question, Mr.. Call has advanced his OPT
mon, that the property reverted TO the do
mrs, and that the commonwealth has no
right in it. But even (said MIR. Hay) if
the commonwealth has no right, is their
want Of right sufficient to authorize the
present claim If the legislature under
take to dispose of property not belonging
to the commonwealth, will the Judiciary
issue its process to arrest their proceed
ings, except at the suit of those in whom
the right is really vested ? Surely it is in
cumbent upon the plaintiffs in this as in
all other cases,to show their right, if they
have any ; and il they do not, should not
the ordinary course Of the law be followed:
ought not the bill to be dismissed Ifthis
were not the case, this court, instead Of
being employed in the dignIfed and use
full Office of administering justice among
the people, might be eternally involved in
constitutional discussions.
But, says MIR. Cali, this property reverts
10 the donors. There was (said Mr.. H.
no difference of,opirion between them on
this point. The only question was 7oho
mere the donors? They must have been
either private or public. But the rights
oil the first are expressly saved by an ex.
ception in this act.
The law must consequently relate to
those Globes only, which were purchased
at the expense OF the taxable proprietors
of the several parishes, by virtue of the
law of l748, which authorised the veslry
TO levy tax. In equity therefore, (and
we are now betore court of equity The
donors must have been either the tiariSM-
Oners, who paid the tax to purchase the
Glebe or the commonwealth, which direct
ed the tax to be laid upon them. To call
the tax payers, the donors would be abb
surd; because they were compelled by
he law topay their assessment. "Forced
-" is an expression, which does not
lvolve any abuse of language but would
1t not be contradiction in terms, to speak
of forced gifts D.? Many of these parshion-
ers no doubt contributed their quota with
vegy reluctant mind. Two thirds ofthe
people at the time of the revolution are
said to have been dissenters. jeff. Notes,
p. 262. AS the parishioners then cannot
without the greatest abuse of language be
called donors, are we not justified in con
Guiding that the commonwe alth which All.
thorised the assessment, was itself the do
nor i? AS the state therefore was the do
nor, did not this property revert to the
state, upon the dissolution Of the corpo
rations Has the state therefore violated
any rule of justice or equity, when BY the
aet OF l8Oz, it disposes of its own proper
~ only!
But admitting the Pensioners to have
been the donors admitting upon this sup
position that the property reverted to their
descendants upon the dissolution of the
corporations; would it not be utterly i'm
possible 10 ascer ain, 7Oho they are, or in
what frofortioH they should claim Has
not the law then very wisely obviated this
difficulty, by directing that sale should
be made for the general good Of the pa
Iish?
Mr.. Call seems however to suppose
that the property reverted to the seller,