The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1911-01-13
BODI STAYS AT MT. AUBURN.
Eddy Relatives Consent Glover suit q
'Frleutiiy" One. Chandler says.

Eddy Relatives Consent Glover suit q
Friendly" One. Chandler Says.
WAsHrNoToN. Jan IL FIX Senator
Chandler. counsel for the Eddy estate.
said in a statement to might
There has been a tendency toward a
difference OF opinion concerning the place
OF final burial but within the last two
days il has been adjusted by an expressed
willingness on the part Of Mr.. Glover
and DR.. Foster Eddy to have the inter
ment continue at Mount Auburn which
il the strong desire Of Gen. Henry NJ.
Baker. who is not only the executor
but n relative who was very much be-
loved by Mrs Eddy
simultaneously with this decision
il has also been concluded 10y the rela =
tives not to oppose the proving N the
will at Concord on January II. On No
vember 10. 1909. Mr.. Glover and DIR. Foster
Eddy agreed TO accept certain reasonable
sums of money and Ia stipulate that
Mrs. Eddy might give away the rest OF
her wealth Ivy will or deed as she might
wish Their present intention is to stand
by the agreement as they made IT,
"let they are advised that the exact
legal substance Of their agreement only
requires them not TO oppose the vestIng
of title under any lawful bequest or deed
that Mrs Eddy might have made. and
, that if any attempt of hers to give away
her estate is against public and statute
| law il must I've void. so that the property
will come TO them the same as IL no will
| had been found in existence after her
| death.
This being the legal view it is both
their privilege and duty TO bring friendly
| lawsuit to obtain decision OF the i'm
! portant question by the courts
1t has taken me a long time and much
examination of statutes and legal decl-
sions to feel sure OF my ground. Mrs
Eddy organized the First Church. Scientis;
in Bo-,o in 1892 by making deed OF
trust in which she declared that she
organized it under II certain chapter OF
the laws of Massachusetts. That very
chapter declared that no one church
should receive or hold property of NOR.
| than s. 600 income year, or say $i0. 600 II
principal Yet to that church she de
liberately undertakes by will to give
81, ,UW.ooO Necessarily IL Is null and
void as to all tn. two millions except
SiO.WO
The New Hampshire law reenacted il
1901 ia exactly the same az that OF Massa
chusetts except that II allows a bequest o
s.. .0Oo annually or a principal OF 500 900
IL equally with Massachusetts, prohibit
such a huge gift to one church as 81 900 .OOO
40 there is no conflict between the laws y
the two States. The law of New Hamp
shire governs, and there is little DANCE
that the State will allow to go outside IL
borders 50 600 OOO to become the absolut
property of legatee whom the law for
bids to take il from the estate OF persol
whom the law prohibits from giving il.
AT all events the directors of tn
Mother Church will welcome the institu
ton of the suits. II because Christian
Science has its vast corps Of healers o
disease and its doctrine Of NJ. A. NJ an,
possesses against all other religious sect
the gift of working miracles. redisCov ere,
in 1868. and expanded and taugh, by Mrs
Eddy. II is therefore exempt from tn
laws TO which other churches must sub
init and any local Christian Science churc
can have a two million fund. Christian
Science can count upon future growt
and expansion beyond all the other re-
ligions in the world and will rejoice AT re
; ceiving a judicial decision 30 strengthen
ing to it's power, already mary ellous
While if the court should happen to de
eide that 1t cannot, the present friendl.
: lawsuits must be treated as a natural an
: welcome method of learning. Of respectin
, and of obeying hereafter. although
ligious society, the paramount law o
America
Hannis Taylor, as one OF the counse
. for the heirs at law of Mrs Eddy, said
81 cannot fail to realize that her wi
must add notahl. link to the ever length
ening chain of case; of large beuue-'
to religious and charitable purpose
that have failed because OF some pal
pable omission TO recognize the lega
, limitations under which such gifts mus
be made " so famous a jurist as sam
, uel j. Tiden failed TO ascertain wha
he law permits II Is perhaps no marv'
, that Mrs Eddy should have violated tn
law of Massachusetts in attempting I
give TO a single church in that stat
, 81 900 .ooO when its statutes have for
century and "a half positively prohil,i'e
, such a gift in excess OF sum sufficien
, to produce an income Of 81 900 year
| But what iS more remarkable still
ths fact that such a gift a, Mrs. Edd,
/, has attempted to make il expressly for
, hidden by the law Of New Hampshire
, her domicile. in whose courts her wi
, is fled for probate and whose law gov
, erns absolutely her testSmentary capac
; ity TO make u gift for such a pirpos.
The law of Massachusetts a. to the capaI
, itv Of the church 10 take il can never aris'
, because the law of the domicile whic
, governs makes II impossible for the gil
, 10 be made. Any decisions Of the Massa
, chusetts courts IN conflict with the gener,
rule of American law on this suhjeC
, are therefore ,InimpOrtant.
The rule in question was defined wit
Z authoritative force hy Mr.. Justice Peel
= ham while a member of the Supreme Co,l
. Of the State Oi New York IN the matte
, of McGraw VS. Cornell University l52 n Y
A 35n In that case Cornell Cniverst
! lost n great bequest because il exceede
its charter power to take, The Cour
= held that the beQuest was void and there
r fore the property OF the heirs at law.
v 1T is hardlytnecessary to add that Mr.
n Fddv's heirs had no legal power to a,
( thorize her to make such a gift as is @,
/ pressly prohibited by the statutes Of Ne
q Hampshire and Massachusetts. They al
n not attacking her will "a n whole-the
: have agreed not to do that They al
= only attacking in friendly spirit II
4 void bequest."
CHINESE DIPLOMAT, NO QUEVI