The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-10-13

remove from taxa ton a vast amount Of
property and place heavier burdens upon
the individual citizens.
He dwelt at length upon that PHASE VI
the question, and ut the CONCLUSION u MS
carefnlly-prepared and very abe duuiess
was greeted with applause.
An hour wcs consumed in its delivery.
Mlt. GLASS tOLLOWS.
& MIR. Glass said he could not help from
referring TO the many long essays elits'
had been reaI here relating to ineoiesai
history. He said the whole ground hau
pcen gone over three different times, ana
conditions notat all applicable to the pres
cnt age had been var;ously- elaborated, IN
Ill the issue in question had been lost slght
Of in multitude Of words I.
He said the sole argument, after extract
ing the ornamentation OF rhetoric, against
the amendment was that it would enable
churches to grow powerful and wealthy
He then went on to show that under the
present law there was no limit to the &C
QUESTION of property by churches. and the
amendment puts limit on such asqulsl-
ton. The amendment reads:
THE General Assembly shall limit by
law the extent to which corporations
formed for religious purposes shall be per
mitted to acquire or hold property.
Christ said the gates of he'll should not
prevail against His church. and here are
officers of that church proclaimlng mere
that all that stands between the church
and pcrdition. is a provision in the Virginia
Constitution.
He then said Dr. Duraway based his
whole argument on the idea that the
amendment would permit requests OF
property to churches, and DR.. Mcll"alne
stated that it could be done now If
smart enough lawyer was employed
MIR. Moore: do you believe that?
Nr. Glass: ''Well, it is perfectly prop
err to use one preacher against another
to show the absolute fallacy of their ar
gumcnts and break their force"
He said the whole thing resolved itself
into one single proposition. rs it posi-
BILE to separate the spiritual church from
the secular agencies that put its mis-
sion into operation?' That question has
not been answered and cannot be answer
cd He said under present conditions
churches could incorporate their agencies
without limit and did do so.
ONE FOR ALI.
DR.. Dunaway here said that the Baptist
Church had its foreign missionary agen
cy incorporated in only one body for the
whole State.
Mr.. Glass replied that the admission
proved the point he was contendinE for
that Incorporation already existed and
there was no limit, and that the great
hue and cry about secuariZng the
churches and the danger OF great wealth
was feigned and fallacious argument
He then declared that the mendicancy
of the church was one of its greatest
drawbacks now in reaching out for and
retaining lost souls.
II said the churches of to-day had
more power than ever before in the his
tory Of the world and was using it for
good
He asked if the proposed amendment
would produce such reign OF terror in
Virginia. Why was it that barb2r.sin DID
no exist III the fortytwo other States
Of tn. Union He confined: L y All
III about disassociating ctl..l and.
State. There's nothing in it. 1t has no.
thing 20 60 with the question Iefor7 us
Ny own church mixes in politics rcw.
1t mikes entirely too much. 1thers do.
We all know it.
Mr.. Withers-"what church do you
belong to-"
Mr.. Glass-"The same you do. The
Methodist Church, and you know all
about it better than 1 do" Great laugh
ter and applause0
In answer to a question from MT. j.
w. Gordon as to the legal effect of the
incorporating articles, Mr. Glass brought
rounds of applause by replying:
II am neither a lawyer nor theoloSan
as you are
Judge Hancock then injected a red-hot
speech against the amendment, in the
shape of a question.
Mr. Glass, resuming. said that a preach
er could exert as much and better in
fuence in the church of God by right
living and right conduct as by great pull
pit orarory and attention to the secular
affairs of the church. He then showed
that the passage of the amendment would
greatly facilitate the proper conduct of
the business affairs of churches with
out bringing on any Of the horrors depict
ed by the opponents Of the proposition.
IN RUNNING DEBATE.
Mr.. r. Walton Moore next spoke. He
said the amendment would greatly multi
ply the opportunities for acquiring prop
erty by churches and would make it pos
sble for every single congregation TO be
an Incorporated body.
to defend the report of the committee,
and cited several decided cases in support
of his contention that it would not be
for the best interest of the churches that
they be incorporated.
He engaged in a brief colloquy with
Messrs. Glass and Robertson. and then
went on eloquently to uphold his position
in defending the report of the committee.
He pleaded eloquently for his position.
and said there had come up no great
demand for this change in the organic
law of the State. Mr.. Thorn asked Mr.
Moore a question, which resulted in an
other colloquy, in which Mr.. Robertson
also too part and then Messrs. More ana
whipi lasted
for some moments.
A STRONG ARGUMENT.
Mr. Thorn followed Mr.. Moore and be-
gan by saying he would not say a>word,
but owing to charges made in the debate,
he felt it duty he owed the fidelity and
disinterestedness of the consecrated mem
ATHLETES FAILURE.