Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1804-06-06

Transferred from one Clergy man 10 ara
ther, o. IRON one restry To anotaei as we'll
as from father to his scn.--lhe success
sion OF the latter y:ay Itself be said 20 be
the creature of civil polity. T Any other
destination may have been assigned to
the property of fathers any other law of
descenis might have been instituted, which
the wisdom OF the legislature might have
determined to adopt. 1t will not follow
then, that the property which was once
vested in the protestant episcopal church,
does not continue TO belong to il, because
the mode of succession is not the same as
Ii - in private estates. But it will follow,
that the investiture still continues invlolate
in spite of this difference, because every
mode of succession, even in private es-
iates, is itself the creature of civil govern
1nent, ard subject a. all times 10 its vari-
Gus regulations.
The Attorney general contends, howe
yer, that it was not the property Of the
church, but hubdc property and the rea-
son which he gives for it is, that it was
regulate by government. But what is
meant by IT. being. fu6hc property? Not
that 1t was the property OF all the indiuidu.
ais in the nation, but that it was the pro.
perry of the government and not of eve
ny branch of that, but merely of that
branch i'll which the property Of the state
was vested, that is of The crown. So that
the Attorney Generals proposition may
be thus expressed: These lands were the
property of the king, because they were
regulated by the government. But the
legislature extended its regulating power
tn Innunerable objects it made laws for
determining The property of individuals
It even exercised superintendent over
the conduct and manners of the people.
So that if,thc Attorney General POUNDS
the rights Of the crown upon the right
which the Legislature had 10 regulate the
property of the church, his position would
prove too much. Every thing then would
have belonged to the king. Personal pro-
perry and private services would have been
subject to his sovereign will. This ana
logical argument is confirmed by posi-
tive fact. The ministers had a freehold
in this property. If then 1t belonged to
the crown, how can this claim of the mi.
mister be supported If there be no way
theuto reconcile these incompatible rights,
must we not conclude that these construct
i've rights Of the pubic ought to give way
10 the express claims of the church
Bat the Attorney General contends that
1t was notthe property of the church: BE-
cause they did not possess the great and
indispensable right Of alienation. The fact
is true, but the conclusion is incorrect.
II the right Of alienation be the great test
of properly; if no one possesses right
in any properly, ia whom the right Of sell
ing it, dee, not attech, II win follow that
many species Of property will be annih,
lated by this rigid rule. Have no infants
certain rights in property, although they
cannot dispose Of it? WHAT shall be said
of estates held in mortmain? 1t will rot
be denied that he streets OF Richmond be
long to its Inhabitants and ye, have the
trustees Of The town the privilege of
selling them? A charitable sec ETY. may
be invested with property, without the
right ot alternating il. Mr.. Nicholas, TO
establish he validity of this test, should
have shown that all who own, could sell
and these facts would have contfaditted
that principle. This righ- of alienation
(it has been said) belonged to the legisIa-
tive body, and hence !, is concluded, II at
the globes belonged to the public. Mr..
Wickliam observed that the omnipotence
of Parliament could extend 10 innumera-
Die privileges. Many laws had been pass
ed TO sell property even Of individuals.
Fut this privilege, or any abuse Of it,
could never Justly make this private pro.
perry The property OF the state. Even
when the legislature had exercised this
powerof alienatioS, it had always spoken in
the language of permission, not of com.
Tnaud. X had empowered the vestries,
not obliged them to dispose of the globes.
The great argument which the Attor.
Dey General has brought forward in favor
Of his position that this futile property,
IS founded on the supposition, that these
Glebe5 have been purchased for the gcne-
rat goodby general assessment. Neither
OF these propositions is true, The G,,ess
Dem was not gfasroL (uhder the ordinary
acceptalion Of the word j nor were the
fiAriIoses Of this assessment. IL was not
general law, which operated uron every
t.jheble Individual in this state, Uf,aaut The
dist'r9ion Of Parishes; but it wa, ce-
reraI .sw which operated upon them win
this distinction. Il was general law, not
ta~.,-e 10 rcr,,e,,.oI III a.. .