The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-06-06

being effected. The counsel for the plaintiffs had
taken grounds which in his Judgment were entirely
fallacious. They claim that they have vested
right and that on the separation of the church, like
the dissolution Of partnership, the members have
= right 10 pro rata share Of the funds.
| He referred to the Maysve case, and said he
thought he should be able to show that decision
was altogether erroneous.
These plaintiffs had no vested right. They did
not possess the power Of alienation. They have
no right except as they answer the description of
| beneiciaries He cited in the 7th of Vesey's
| Reports, and Luke Us. Fuller, in the 9th of New
| tenants in common in this fund, they would have
power to dispose Of their interest, but one would
| be SO absurd as to claim such power forfthem
here. The fact was, the law gave them no rights
except beneciaries under the specific limitations
Of charitable use. He cited Vidal u.s. Girard's
Executors, Q Howard 1876; Beal Us. Fox, Geor.
gia Rep. 404; Burns Executors Us. Smith, ?
Vermont Rep, Morgan Us. Yates, Barbour's
Oh. hep, 242; the case of the Garden Street
Church, Paige, 70; Shotwell Us. Mott San
ford Oh. Rep. 46.
| The question might be raised whether this law
Of charitable uses had not been repealed in this
| State under the Revised Statutes. That it had
been in force and was still in force in all the States
OF the Union, even where the statute Of Elizabeth
was not adopted, was well settled by the Supreme
Court Of the United States, in the case in the I'd
Of Howard to which he had referred, but he was
obliged in candor to admit that the doctrine had
been assailed in this State by some of the dozen
| Supreme Courts created under the new Constitu-
ton, and he would therefore examine the point
| with the permission of the Court at greater length
| than would otherwise have seemed necessary.
lie then read the chapter of the Revised Statutes
in relation TO trusts, and argued thst it solely
designed to abolish private tru Is, and those only
which affected real estate. Public trusts, and pri-
waite trusts of personal property were still governed
| by the law Of charitable uses.
| Having cited Theuson's will case, he con-
| tinued-The court Will find in this case all The
elements which have considered existing in
| charitable uses. lou have the founders who have
| taken up the fund, and enlarged it from three or
four thousand dollars, to about or eight hun
dred thousand. All have contributed to the char.
| table fund.- some by labor, and they are all to be
considered as founders of this charity. You have,
| in the next place, the trustees who are brought
before this court, parties defendantsto this suit
| Mr.. Wood then stated the nature of the incorpo,
ration of this body, and referred the of De-
cor Us. Hendrickson, and the opinion of Chief Jus
tce Ewing also to Sheiford on Charitable Uses,
7i2; Macgoer Us. Airin, ID Pennsylvania Rep,
Johnsons Chancery Rep, 573, and illustrated his
views, by supposing that body of mechanics, ma.
sons, for instance, in New York, should enter into
subscription of s. EACH to be put into the hands
of trustees, that religious society should be
formed, and that the profits should be distributed
among superannuated members, would that not be
a charitable institution He referred to John
son Reports. LIVINGSTON Us. -, and Vermont
|
and 62l. !, therefore, submit, that the view taken
on the other side, that The benefciaries have
right 10 this property, as tenants in common, is not
tenable
| The learned gentleman continued to urge, at
considerable length, his views upon the court that
the church legally divided by the Gen
eral Conference, without the of the An
nual Conferences, and that there was no conduct
on the part Of the defendants which justified the
separation. There was no complaint that this
I intr holt and IL Al.
phrase in dsrespect, they have not undertaken to
interfere with slavery to abolish ito abolish it in
the church (; they have simply carried out those
views in which the brethren Of the South have
always concurred-vews of practical character,
| which were well calculated to serve the church,
both North and South. AT the early history Of
this church, there was disposition to abolish
slavery, but it was subsequently abandoned they
gave up all such preences; they came to the reso-
luton to let it alone to leave the States to them
selves and to deal with it was necessary for the
administration of the affairs of the church.
| Mr. Wood then referred to the fact, that up to
the time of Dr. Andrew, no bishop ever held slaves
| Iwo-thirds of the bishops have been taken from
the Southern States, and yet not one of them ever
held slave. Ancient usage is the common law
OF the church, and think it is conclusive evidence
that there has been one doctrine acted upon-tc
| elect no man to a bishopric who a stakeholder
AS to abstract questions of slavery, Mr.. Wood re.
terred to the manufacturing classes of Engla
|
! slaves of the South yet these men would not be
land for this "a h to abolish ihs 81 fs mannaetur
ing classes of England and the seris of Russia
Mr.. Wood continued to support his views by illus
tratons and cited several other authorities. At the
adjournment OF the court, he had not concluded
his argument.
| EIGHTH DAY.
There were comparatively few spectators in
court this morning. Mr. Wood resumed his areu
ment.
He said that, if he had not been so much ex
hausted, yesterday, he should have claimed the
indulgence of the court for halan-hour longer
and would then have completed what he had tt
say. He should not occupy much of their time
this morning. He would proceed to state the
grounds of objection to any assumption of power
on the part of the Conference, divide the churct
or its property. These funds were not the funds o
the M. T.. Church, but the funds of the specified
beneficiaries. The church merely had the man
agement, and the funds must go strictly to thost
who pointed out by the terms of The charity
He cited the case of The Attorney General Us
| Wilson, Is Fesey $40; Sheford on Mortmain FOL
He thought the Canada case had no referenc,
| to the subject The Canada Methodists were no
a constituent branch of the Methodist eEpiscopa
Church of the United States, and the alliance wa
| merely temporary one. They were a mere ap
pendage, and it was perfectly competent to seve
the connection at any moment, under the principle
$ ennncaed in the case of Miller Us. Griebel,
e DEMO.
The case cited by the counsel for plaintiffs, in
Peters 542, had no analogy TO the subject of thi
1 controversy. If it had been question as to tn
/ exercise of power the part OF the General Con
ference in erecting new Annual Conference with
S in the limits OF It's Jurisdiction, there would hav
r been some application. But here was a case
the erection of an independent, foreign conference
as it were. Would it be claimed that he Fedora
e Government had power to erect foreign States gu
Of its Territories
, The only ground on which this separation an
division of property could have been legally elTecre
| was by COMPROMISE, and even then The sanction G
y a Court of Eqniy would be required He cited
| IN this point, Sheiford on NORMAN COS; Attorne
; General Us. The Merchant I'ailors' Company,
y Vesey Black u.s. Lgan, Hirper's Is. c. Rep 2l5
" and Attorney General u.s. Warren, in Swanston
Reports
He would venture to say that, if little NOR
. time, and little more patience, had been excl
II cised, this compromise would have been effected
s But there always seemed TO be an unforuunat
haste in the differences in religious bodies In thi
+ connection, he read from the opinion of Chic
II Justice Ewing, in the controversy among the 81
: cley of Friends
e If this suit now out of the way he believe
e. that the whole difficulty would be amicaby settle
e ia eighteen months. There was some excuse to b
l. made for the Southern gentlemen. They had bee
= Iriiated by the aboli,ionsm which had taken pc,
d session OF the minds of SO many infatuated men
a The North. But the great body of the churc
= which he represented could not Justly have abe
% llton sentiments imputed to them. Nine-te nths
7, The disputes in the world settled by comprC
il mise, aud surely religious controversies ought NJ
l. to be the only exception.
The Hon. Reverdy Johnson then commence
Is the closing argument for the plaintiffs
| | said he IN III Il.