The sun., 1889-11-24
THE ONEIDA COM MUNITY.
PROCEEDINGS TO PROCURE A DITIsToN
OF THE PROPERTY.
The Case That Has Been over Two Years
In the Courts Finally Decided by Referee
Waters In Favor OF the Community.

| The Case That Has Been over Two Years
In the Courts Finally Decided by Referee
Waters In Favor OF che Community.
SYRACUSE, Nov 28-M. NJ. Waters, the
referee in the somewhat celebrated case OF
Charles A. Burt OF Rochester against the
Oneida Community, made report, and wrote
an opinion to-day favorable to the defendants
in the action. The plaintiffs father, Jonathan
Burt was one OF the organizers OF the Com
munity in 1s4s, the plaintiff being at the time
between 8 ora years OF age. 1t was agreed
among the members. as one ofthe proylsions OF
the contract OF association. that each would
contribute all his property absolutely to the
Community. and that the tenure thereof should
be according TO the principle stated In the
words: And the multitude OF them that be-
lieved were OF one heart and Of one soul.
neither said any Of them that auGht OF the
things which he possessed was his own and
they had all things In common" The plaintiffs
father, being the owner OF parcel OF real
estate valued at $l,400 in the county OF Madi-
son. transferred without consideration the
property to members, who were, by mutual
but unwritten agreement OF oil the parties,
agreed upon as grantees and property
holders for the sole benefit OF the
Community. Later those property holders
transferred the title to this and certain other
real estate TO the Oneida Community limited,
present time. In 1864, before he was 20 years
old, a written statement Of the contract was
prepared, and the plaintiff, with most OF the
other q, Iult memb bers Of the association. signed
the statement which was substantially as tol-
lowe: "
erty belonging to him or her becomes the
property of the ASSOCIATION. record OF the
estimated amount will be kept. and in case
OF the subsequent withdrawal OF member.
the association. according to its practice here.
toforo. will refund the property or an equal
amount. This practice, however. stands not
upon the ground OF obligation. but Of OK
pediency and liberality and the time and man
ner OF refundng must be estimated at the dis |
crction OF the association
The plaintiff continued to be member OF
the Community down to about tho year 1879.
In July 1880. because OF an arrangement made |
by him, whereby his services were to be given |
to outside parties, he was expel led from men, |
bership by o resolution a-sed by the govern |
ing body, who, were known as the Council.
Soonlaf srward he instituted proceedings to re- |
cover damages for his expulsion from the 30 |
ciety and to procure division OF all the Com
munity property among the members Of the as |
sociRtfOn. Referee Walters finds. as matters OF |
law. that the plaintiff is not vested with any |
proprietary interest in the property In ques- |
tion; that the defendant, the Oneida Commu
erty: that tho plaintiff has failed to establish
any cause OF action. and that the defendants
are clearly entitled to u dismissal OF the COM
plant with costs
The case has been on trial here at intervals
for the last two years. George II. Hart OF New
York was tho plaintiffs attorney. with I. X.
Fuller of this city as counsel Tracey, Nc
the defendats, with ex-senator Francis ker-
q cpnn9a