Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-06-18

commonly known and spoken Of among
laymen as q board, and closes by stating
that the commissioners cannot see how
any one could have the slightest difficult
twin fully identifying the beneficiary under
this ninetieth clause Of the will in the light
of the evidence and surrounding circum,
Stances After citing the charter granted
by the State Of North Carolina To the trus-
tees of the General Assembly of the United
States referred 10 above and the powers
therein granted 20 the General Assembly,
the court says: Thus not only at the date
Of the testator's death but at the date OIL
his will and long anterior thereto there was
this corporate hand in existence with law
ful authority TO receive this and like charl-
table donations for the purposes for which
the corporation was created, one of which
was to carry on the charitable work Of for
cign missions. and IL was 10 aid IN tins
work that the tcstator made the bequest III
question.
The answer 10 the defendants is quoted,
making detailed statement of the
changes that were wrought in the
body and name Of the Presbyterian
Church during and since the war between
the States. and the cause for cOniOunding
the name Board with that of Execu-
tive COmIttce.'
I'm the light of these facts, which are not
controversial. the case might here appro-
piatoly end at this point with decree re-
yCrsing the lower court and establishing
the validity of the bequest. But IN the ar
gument new propositions are advanced
both novel and untcnahle. IL seems con-
coded by the counsel that the Request IS 10
the Executive Committee of Foreign Mis-
SONS and the corporation designated 10y
the Legislature Of North Carolina. but 10
IS insisted with apparent earncstneSs that
i'm incorporating the trustees of the Gen
oral Assembly. under the above name, that
the Legislature IN effect Incorporated the
Southern Presbyterian Church; that such
% corporation Is repugnant 10 the Constltu-
ton of Virginia article VII section ~,
aud is against the policy OF the law.
One Of the counsel for the appel
liant incorporation gives an historical
review Of the legislation in Virginia bear
ing upon and truly Interpreting this pro-
vision i'm our Constitution, tracing II from
colonial times through the bill Of rights
and the series of acts which followed the
Constitution of 1880. The Constitution of
1851 and the subsequent codes of Virginia,
and the establishment Of different religious
corporations in this State, and after an ex-
haustive and scruuniZing review there Is
nothing in the provision Of the Consutu-
ton that could by possibility give the least
support 10 the argument that the bequest
IN this case Is repugnapt thereto. And
while all effort 10 regulate religion 10y law
or 90 force any particular faith on any IN
dividual IS forbidden by the Constitution,
vet religious associations are organized
and trusted, through incorporation, 20
enjoy the benefits of property. If the
Constitution viii recognize a corporation
for religions purposes IN Virginia IL will re-
cocuize one for the same purpose III North
Carolina. Otherwise il would be equally
plausible 20 contend that "a Virginia be-
quest 60 a citizen Of North Carolina would
be- invalid under the some section of the
Constitution The argument that the be
quest is m violation of the Virginia Con-
stitution if it proves anything proves too
much. else the Legislature has been r.
peatcdly violating the Constitution, as Q
has been incorporating similar church
agencies. OF that the unqucstioned leeisla-
tive policy has been 10 incorporate all
churches 10y the Incorporation of such
agencies.
The decision concludes: 1--WE are there
fore clearly Of opinion 20 reverse the said
decree and enter decree here declaring
sand bcqucst valid and PAYABLE to said cor
poration for the use aforesaid and TO re-
mand the cause 20 said Circuit Court 10 be
further proceeded in according TO tho
views expressed ~ this opinion"