Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1911-01-13
THE MOTHER CHURCH
WILL Be CUT OUT
OPINION OF EMINENT LAWYERS
REGARDING MRS. EDDY'S
WILL.
New HAMPSHIRE and Massachusetts
Laws Prohibit Such Prince
ly Gifts.

Concord y H, Jan. 12.-The
residuary clause in the will Of Mrs
Eddy is null and void. in the opinion
OF former United States Senator
Chandler and Hannis Taylor. profess
sor of constitutional and international
law at George Washington university.
and others,- according to a statement
given out for publication. The clause
in question provides gift of $1,000,
coo to the First Church of Christ
Scientist OF Boston. known as the
Mother Church. The statute of New
Hampshire prohibiting a bequest to
a church of more than $4,000 annually
and one in Massachusetts forbidding
more than $4,000 annually is the basis
Of the opinion which was written by
Professor Taylor. formerly minister
to Spain
Referring to the residuary clause.
the opinion SAYS: 1t is null and
void As to the void gift. the tesla
triX died intestate and her estate
passed on her death to the next of
kin under the New Hampshire statute
of distribution
Besides Chandler and Taylor the
signers of the opinion are Attorneys
John w. Kelley of Portsmouth and
Dewitt G. Howe of Concord, who is
associated with Chandler as counsel
for the next friends" and William
l.. Chambers, a lawyer, of Washing
ton.
Later today a petition was filed in
the superior court here today by
Chandler and other attorneys asking
the court for construction Of Mrs
Eddy's will. particularly the clause
relating to the residuary estate
The petitioners also pray for an in
junction against any disposition of the
property question pending the con-
struction of the residuary clause. II is
said to be the plan of attorneys for
George w. Glover and DR.. T.. J. Foster
Eddy, the sons of Mrs. Eddy. to try to
have the question regarding the resid-
perior court to the supreme court for a
decision. No contest in the probate
court is expected.
The opinion which is long and elab-
crate one, says in part:
1T is difficult to understand how
anyone could have imagined, in the
presence of the positive prohibitions of
such statutes, that a testatrix, domi-
ciled in New Hampshire and governed
by its laws, could give. by will, such a
bequest to a single church in Massa-
chusetts governed by its laws.
AS New Hampshire was the domi-
ciled testatrix. its law determines in
the first instance, her capacity to give
by will. for any particular purpose. AS
the statute of New Hampshire posi-
lively forbade the testatrix to make so
large a gift to a single church, it is.
of course void The right to make
such statute and enforce it belongs
to New Hampshire alone.
Moreover, if the bequest be not void
for lack of power by the testatrix to
make it. still ii would be void by rea-
son of the lack of power of the lega-
tee, the Massachusetts corporation. to
take it. The Massachusetts statute
expressly provides that income gifts.
grants. requests and devices. made to
or for the use of any one church, shall
not exceed $4,000 a year. exclusive of
the income of parsonage or land
granted to or for the use of the min
lister. while that of New Hampshire
permits a gift to any one church in any
the income of which shall not
exceed $4,000 a year