SECOND EDITION. 
 
 TO THE SENATORS 
 
 • 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Senate of % &hk m futo Work: 
 
 
 BEING AN 
 
 I EXAMINATION AND EXPOSURE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 • 
 
 REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO WHOM WAS 
 REFERRED THE REPORT OF TRINITY 
 CHURCH, MADE IN 1855, 
 
 
 MADE 
 
 
 IX SENATE,. JANUAEY 29th, 1857, 
 
 
 AND 
 
 iiKommtttei) for |urtkr Inpirg. 
 
 
 BY A MEMBER OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 JOHN F. TROW, PRINTER, 377 & 379 BROADWAY, 
 
 
 CORNER OF WHITE STREET. 
 1857. 
 
 
 
SECOND EDITION. * 
 
 TO THE SENATORS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 SENATE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ; 
 
 BEING 
 
 An Examination and Exposure of the " Report of the 
 Select Committee to whom was referred the Report 
 of Trinity Church made in 1855," made "in Senate, 
 January 29th, 1857," and re-committed for further 
 inquiry. 
 
 BY A 
 
 MEMBER OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH. 
 February 12, 1857. 
 
 The Select Committee of the Senate of New York, to 
 whom was referred the Report of the Vestry of Trinity Churchy 
 in reply to the Resolutions of the Senate, passed April IZth, 
 1855, have, through their Chairman, Hon. Mark Spencer, Presi- 
 dent pro tern, of the Senate, presented their Keport, with volu- 
 minous ex parte testimony. That Keport, with the testimony, 
 is just published in the Senate Document No. 46, dated Jan. 
 29th, 1857. 
 
 The evident injustice evinced by the fact, that the testi- 
 mony was partial and consequently unfair, both to Trinity 
 Church and to the Commonwealth, prompted the Honorable 
 Members of the Senate of New York to recommit the Report 
 of the Select Committee by a decisive vote, implying, if not 
 censure, disapprobation. 
 
 * The -writer has had no opportunity for revising the proof of thejFirst 
 Edition. 
 
No cause that is good needs the crutches of ex parte state- 
 ment and false premises for its support. And the recoil 
 produced by the explosion of the offended sense of decency 
 and honor prevailing in the minds of Senators, must serve 
 to counteract and subdue the prejudice which such unfairness 
 is designed to inject into the public opinion. 
 
 Notwithstanding the unfinished condition of the question, 
 and before the " testimony " was printed, editors of the Church 
 and Secular newspapers have thought proper to endorse the 
 statements, arguments and conclusions of the Report of the 
 Select Committee, publishing through their columns, in edi- 
 torials of less or greater length, animadversions the most severe 
 against the Corporation of Trinity Church. And they threaten 
 to manufacture adverse popular sentiment under color of com- 
 ment on " the latter portion of the Report of the Senate Com- 
 mittee/' " which," they say, " is much the more important," 
 because " it touches not only Trinity Corporation, but the 
 rights of all the Churchmen in the City, and the interests of 
 the Church throughout the whole State." * 
 
 It might be good policy in Trinity Church to wait quietly 
 until all has been said that can be said, before she shall attempt 
 to reply. This policy would be merely the prudence of the 
 farmer who " hesitated to clear the paths about the house 
 until it had stopped snowing." 
 
 Nevertheless, since the " latter portion of the Report of 
 the Senate Committee " is confessedly of interest to " all the 
 Churchmen in the City," it is a sufficient apology for one 
 of them to claim a hearing from Honorable Senators and the 
 Public and the Church, while he too examines " the latter 
 portion of the Report of the Senate's Committee," together 
 with some of the " testimony " published in Senate Docu- 
 ment No. 46, now lying before him. 
 
 The foremost point is to examine the historical statements 
 and quotations from the Royal Charter and the Acts of the 
 Legislature, which the Select Committee report as being de- 
 rived and "condensed from information embodied in the 
 evidence." 
 
 » Church Journal, Feb. 4, 1867. See ib. Feb. 11, 1857. 
 
3 
 
 I. The Committee begin by stating that 
 
 " In 1697 the site of the Parish Church at the head of 
 Wall-street was given by the English Crown for " the use and 
 behalf of the inhabitants from time to time inhabiting, and 
 to inhabit, within our said City of New York, in communion 
 of our said Protestant Church of England, as now estab- 
 lished by our laws." • 
 
 But it is noticeable that the Committee do not state (what 
 appears in the " evidence " before them) that " the land which 
 forms the present Churchyard or Burying Ground of the 
 Church,"f formerly known as a' part of " the Queen's garden," J 
 was also given in the Charter from the English Crown " for a 
 Cemetery or Churchyard of the Parish of Trinity Church," 
 " to be for ever separated and dedicated to the service of God, 
 and to be applied therein to the use and behalf of the inhabi- 
 tants from time to time inhabiting and to inhabit within our 
 said City of New York, in communion of our said Protestant 
 Church of England, as now established by our laws, and to no 
 other use or purpose whatsoever, any statute law, custom or 
 usage to the contrary notwithstanding." § 
 
 This " condensing " of the " evidence " is quite significant 
 when it is borne in mind that a portion of this very Grave- 
 yard (now filled with the dust of " the inhabitants of the 
 city of New York ") is coveted and contended for by certain 
 persons, whom Trinity Church, under a sense of her pious 
 duty as custodian of the ashes of the dead, has resisted, with 
 cost of money and against offers of money. The controversy 
 concerning the Graveyard is not yet settled and is now pend- 
 ing. It is even notorious, through current newspaper 
 publications. The Select Committee could not be ignorant 
 of the efforts to profane the " dedicated " ground, nor of 
 the fidelity of Trinity Church in fulfilling her chartered 
 obligations to maintain the sacredness of the Graveyard. 
 And yet, notwithstanding the Charter recites that " the Pa- 
 rish Church and Churchyard of the Parish of Trinity Church 
 is declared to be for ever separated and dedicated to the ser- 
 
 * Senate Document No. 46, page 14. 
 f L. Bradish's Testimony, Ans. 1st, page 91. % Sen. Doc. No. 46. 
 § Charter, 1697, page 7. 
 
4 
 
 vice of God, and to be applied thereunto to the use and be- 
 half of the inhabitants, &c., and to no other tise ; the Select 
 Committee think proper to " condense" the testimony to that 
 degree which allows them only to state that u the Site of the 
 Parish Church" at the head of Wall-street was so given, 
 separated and dedicated to a sacred use for ever. 
 
 And it is worthy of notice that the Select Committee's 
 " Report" has been separately published in advance of the 
 " evidence," so as to prejudice public opinion by dogmatic 
 statement, without the accompaniment of the documents by 
 which their Report might be verified. 
 
 II. The second paragraph of the Report of the Select 
 Committee professes to recite the history of the Incorporation 
 of Trinity Church, in the following words and with the fol- 
 lowing punctuation :* 
 
 " The act of incorporation in the same year made the 
 u corporation to consist of the rector, ( together with all the 
 " inhabitants from time to time inhabiting and to inhabit our 
 " said city of New York, and in communion of our aforesaid 
 u Protestant Church of England, as now established by our 
 " laws and the legal title of the corporation was therefore 
 " declared to be : 6 The rector and inhabitants of our said 
 " city of New York in communion of our Protestant Church 
 " of England, as now established by our laws/ " 
 
 Such is the entire and exact Report of the Select Com- 
 mittee, purporting to be condensed from " information embodied 
 in the evidence," and professing to set forth a verbal quotation 
 from the Charter of 1697. It professes, likewise, by implica- 
 tion, to publish all that the said Charter contains essential to 
 the question of the " Incorporation." 
 
 That Charter of Trinity Church is not published in the 
 Report and accompanying documents of the SelectjCommittee. 
 
 And it grieves the writer to denounce the Committee's 
 Report : 1st, For omitting essential provisions of the Char- 
 ter : 2d, For reasoning from fragmentary quotations from 
 the Charter : 3d, For suppressing a word in that clause of 
 the Cliarter which the Committee professes to quote verbally. 
 
 * Senate Document No. 46, page 14. 
 
5 
 
 Wliy that word was suppressed, and why the maimed clause 
 purporting to be the " Act of Incorporation," which partic- 
 ularly describes the Corporators of Trinity Church, was thus 
 deliberately published in its garbled condition by the high 
 authority [of the Select Committee of the Senate of New York, 
 shall be exposed before this examination shall be closed. 
 
 The reader will see, by simple inspection of the paragraph 
 now under review, that the idea sought to be conveyed in that 
 Report, is this : that " all the inhabitants, from time to time 
 inhabiting and to inhabit the City of New York, and in 
 communion with the Protestant Church of England," were 
 invested, by the Charter of King William III. in 1697, with 
 indefeasible and with equal rights, as Corporators of Trinity 
 Church. By virtue, simply, of being inhabitants of the City 
 of New York and of being in communion with the Protestant 
 Church of England (or, as now in communion with the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in New York), any person, thus 
 qualified, may, under the said Charter, claim a right to vote 
 and to be voted for, in all Corporation" elections. This is the 
 very point and pivot of the controversy with Trinity Church. 
 
 The Select Committee affirm that "the Charter of 1697 » 
 secures the rights of a Corporator of Trinity Church to every 
 inhabitant of the City of Neiv York for all time to come, who 
 is also in communion with the Church of England (or the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church in New York) ; whether such per- 
 son be or be not a member of the parish of Trinity Church ; 
 whether or not he be ecclesiastically subject to the Hector of 
 Trinity Church ; whether or not he belong to some other 
 parish in the City of New York, and have no parochial relation- 
 ship to either the Rector of Trinity Church or the Rector of 
 any other Church. The qualifications of being " an inhabi- 
 tant of the City of Neio York, and in communion ivith the 
 Church aforesaid," constitute the only qualifications, under 
 the Charter of 1697, to make a man a Corporator of Trinity 
 Church. 
 
 This is the assertion of the Select Committee : this is the 
 " evidence " of many of those whom the Committee sum- 
 moned to testify ; this is the claim argued for, in the Report ; 
 this is the right which (the Committee say) the Charter of 
 
6 
 
 1697 confers ; and which right the act of the Legislature of 
 New York, passed 25 of January, 1814, takes away from com- 
 municants of the Protestant Episcopal Church, residing in the 
 City of New York. The very plea for revoking the Act of 
 1814 is grounded on the notion that the said Act " excludes "* 
 from the Corporation of Trinity Church " the great body of 
 Episcopalians of the City of New York," " deprives "f them 
 "of important franchises" ; " divests%them of their rights in 
 valuable estates granted and confirmed to them by legal and 
 valid acts," and therefore^ that the said of Act of 1814 is un- 
 constitutional, unequal and unjust. 
 
 Surely, then, every honest mind must expect that the 
 Select Committee of the Senate would quote, correctly, that 
 clause of the Charter of 1697, which, it is claimed, confers 
 those " rights " and " franchises," from the use and enjoyment 
 of which the great body of Episcopalians in the City of New 
 York are said to be M excluded," and of which they are 
 " deprived" and " divested !" And moreover, every candid 
 mind must demand that the Select Committee fairly and 
 truly, should recite any other clause or clauses in the Charter 
 of 1697, which expressly limit the general and comprehensive 
 franchise of " all the inhabitants of the City of New York " (if 
 such clause or clauses there be). And the ingenuous citizen 
 would, furthermore, require of his representatives in the Hon- 
 orable Senate of the State, to recite any provisions in the 
 Charter of 1697, which, by just inference, would limit, or in 
 any way define and interpret the questionable claim to the 
 estates of Trinity Church, so long administered by that Cor- 
 poration under the sanction of the charter of the crown of 
 England, confirmed to that Corporation by Acts of the Colonial 
 Legislature, enforced by the laws of the State and settled by 
 the decisions of Courts of Judicature. All this, one might 
 anticipate, in view of the immense evil which a disturbance of 
 a Christian and eleemosynary Foundation will cause to the 
 peace of the community and the harmony of the Church. 
 
 But the Select Committee content themselves with a 
 
 * L. Bradish's Evidence. See Doc. No. 46, p. 95. 
 f lb. p. 96. % lb. p. 96. § lb. p. 90. 
 
7 
 
 recital of a fragment of only one clause in the Charter of 1G97, 
 that recital being inaccurate, through the suppression of a 
 word, more or less important to the controversy. The writer, 
 therefore, proceeds to supply what is wanting, by quoting, in 
 the first place, the clauses of the Charter, omitted in the 
 Report of the Select Committee, which clauses bear upon, the 
 questions, " Who are the Corporators of Trinity Church ?" and 
 " How are Corporators of Trinity Church constituted ?" under 
 the Charter of 1697. 
 
 (1.) The Eector is the foremost and first named Corporator, 
 under the Charter. " There shall be a Rector to have care of 
 " the souls of the inhabitants of said parish, and a perpetual 
 succession of Rectors there/' 
 
 " And we further declare that the said Rector of the 
 " parish of Trinity Church in communion of our Protestant 
 " Church of England within our City of New York, shall and 
 u may for ever hereafter have a common seal." 
 
 "And we are graciously pleased to constitute the Lord 
 " Bishop of London the first Rector of said parish. And our 
 " Royal will and pleasure is that he, the said Lord Bishop of 
 " London and his successors, and all such of our loving subjects 
 " as now are or hereafter shall be admitted into the commu- 
 " nion of the aforesaid Protestant Church of England as now 
 " established by our laws, shall be from time to time and for 
 " ever hereafter a body corporate and politique, in fact and 
 u name, by the name of the Rector and inhabitants of our said 
 " City of New York in communion of our Protestant Church 
 " of England as now established by our laws. And that by 
 " the same name, they and their successors shall and may 
 "have perpetual succession, &c." 
 
 " And that the said Rector shall have the care of the souls 
 " of the inhabitants within the said parish and in the comniu- 
 " nion of the said Protestant Church of England." 
 
 " And our Royal will and pleasure is, further, that the 
 " patronage, advowson, donation, or presentation of and to the 
 " said Rector and parish, after the decease of the said first 
 " Rector, or the next avoidance thereof, shall appertain and 
 "belong to and be hereby vested in the Church Wardens and 
 " Vestrymen." 
 
8 
 
 " And that all the succeeding Hectors of said Parish and 
 " Parish Church (except the first Rector thereof hereby consti- 
 " tuted) shall be presented, collated, instituted and inducted 
 " as other Rectors, Persons and Vicars, respectively, are accus- 
 tomed to be." 
 
 "And we do give, grant, ratify and confirm unto the said 
 " Rector and inhabitants of our said City of New York, in 
 11 communion of our Protestant Church of England as now 
 " established by our laws, that the said Church and Cemetery 
 " or Churchyard, situate, lying and being within our said City 
 " of New York as aforesaid, shall be the sole and only Parish 
 * Church and Churchyard of our said City of New York/' 
 
 From these various citations from the Charter of 1697, it 
 is plain that the Rector is the Chief Corporator, and so im- 
 portant to the integrity of the Corporation that the Lord 
 Bishop of London was constituted Rector of Trinity Church 
 by the Charter, before any other persons and as the head of 
 the Parish, without whom there could be no " Parish." 
 
 And yet the reader will notice in the paragraph of the Se- 
 lect Committee's Report that the words, " the Rector," are 
 printed in small type, without any marks of quotation, as if 
 he were not an essential officer of the Corporation, but only an 
 appendage, annexed to " all the inhabitants from time to 
 time inhabiting and to inhabit our said City of New York." 
 
 And the inference which the Select Committee would have 
 the reader to draw from their singular mode of stating and of 
 printing the question, is, that " the legal title of the Corpo- 
 ration was therefore declared to be : " The Rector and inhabi- 
 tants of our said city of New York, in communion of our 
 aforesaid Protestant Church of England," conveying thereby 
 the idea that the Parish of Trinity Church was to be defined, 
 as coextensive with " the inhabitants of New York and in com- 
 munion of the Protestant Church of England ; " without any 
 necessary parochial connection with and acknowledgment of 
 the Rector of Trinity Church. But the reverse of the Com- 
 mittee's construction appears in the Charter. For, in the 
 Charter, the Rector is constituted first and foremost, and the 
 other Corporators are described as " inhabitants of the Pa- 
 rish ;" or as those inhabitants of the City of New York in 
 
communion with the Protestant Church of England who were 
 under the parochial jurisdiction of the Hector of Trinity 
 Church." 
 
 By making the Parish of Trinity Church the sole and 
 only Parish of the City of New York, the Charter of 1G97 
 constitutes the Rector of Trinity Church the sole and only 
 Rector of New York. And in such case, agreeably to the 
 laws and usages in Great Britain (except in special cases, 
 made and provided for especially), the geographical limits of 
 the Parish of Trinity Church would embrace the geographical 
 limits of the city and be coincident with them. 
 
 But it is highly important to observe that the citizens of 
 New York did not, by the Charter of 1697, derive their in- 
 terest in the Corporation of Trinity Church by virtue of their 
 " being inhabitants of the city and in communion with the 
 Church of England/' but by virtue of their being under the 
 jurisdiction ecclesiastical of the Rector of Trinity Church, 
 inhabitants of the Parish, and in communion with the Church 
 of England. 
 
 This essential relationship with the Rector was established 
 by the Charter of 1697,, even when the Parish and the City 
 were coextensive, and while Trinity was the only Parish 
 Church in New York. Much more, is this personal relation- 
 ship with the Rector, the mark and sign of a Corporator, 
 when the city of TSew York is composed of many Parishes. 
 For, if the Rectors and members of other Parishes may inter- 
 fere in the parochial concerns of Trinity Church, while the 
 Rector and members of Trinity Church may not intrude like- 
 wise into the concerns of those other Parishes, there would be an 
 inequality of prerogative injurious to the Rector and members 
 of Trinity Church, while giving supremacy to the Rectors and 
 members of all other Parishes ; enabling them by their greater 
 numbers to override and rule the Corporation of Trinity 
 Church. Or if, on the other hand, the Rectors and members 
 of Parishes may, mutually, invade the Parishes to manage the 
 affairs of one another, then all order will cease and confusion 
 will abound ; while the distinction of separate Parishes would 
 be at once ridiculous, then obliterated and brought to 
 nought. Besides, the Act of the Legislature for "incor- 
 
10 
 
 porating religious societies," which confines electors to their 
 several Parishes, would therehy be evaded, frustrated, and 
 made void. 
 
 Nor, in either hypothesis, would the evil stop here. But 
 Trinity Church would not only be prevented from choosing 
 her own candidates to be the managers of her estate, but she 
 would be deprived of sending her deputies to the Convention 
 of the Diocese, and thus be utterly silenced in the Councils 
 of the Church, while other Parishes would possess the double 
 vote of the Trinity deputation and their own besides. 
 
 In short, to deny to Trinity Church the separate and in- 
 dependent management of her Corporate concerns by admit- 
 ting the community of new Corporations to a voice in her 
 afTairs, is simply to extinguish Trinity Parish, to blot out her 
 existence by a matricide, as full of folly as of wickedness. The 
 same rule, therefore, still holds true, now as formerly, that the 
 inhabitants of New York, who, by the Charter of 1697, are 
 described as members of the Corporation, are those " inhab- 
 itants over whom the Rector of Trinity Church has the care 
 of souls, who are Ecclesiastically under the parochial juris- 
 diction of the Hector of Trinity Church, and luho are com- 
 municants " inhabiting the Parish" of Trinity Church. 
 
 But this view of the relationship of the Corporators, inhab- 
 itants of the city of New York, with the Eector and Parish 
 of Trinity Church, is studiously, and it may be said, artfully, 
 concealed in the printed Keport of the Select Committee. 
 
 (2.) The second point to be noticed is, the manner in which, 
 and persons by whom, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of 
 Trinity Church are to be chosen, according to the provisions 
 of the Charter of 1697. 
 
 The Report of the Select Committee, as well as the " evi- 
 dence " of some of the persons testifying before the Committee, 
 would fain persuade the reader, that "all the inhabitants of the 
 City of New York, in communion of the Church, may, as Cor- 
 porators, vote for Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity 
 Church, and also, that such inhabitants are themselves eligible 
 to be chosen as managers of the estate, and may serve, if 
 chosen, in the Vestry of Trinity Church." And this result 
 
 
 
11 
 
 is precisely what seems to be the object of the adversaries of 
 Trinity Church to procure. 
 
 But the " Charter m declares and prescribes that " there 
 " shall be annually and once in every year for ever, on the 
 " Tuesday in Easter-week, two Church Wardens and twenty 
 " Vestrymen, duly elected by the majority of votes of the in- 
 " habitants of the Parish, in communion as aforesaid." 
 
 And in case of a vacancy, the " Charter " requires that 
 " the Vestry or any eleven or more of them, shall and may 
 " elect a fit person, inhabitant and householder in the said 
 " Parish, to supply the same." 
 
 And the better to understand the meaning of the word 
 " Parish," as employed at the date of the Charter, and as still 
 in use and signification in the Ecclesiastical polity in England 
 and in this country, the authorities define a " Parish " to be 
 " the charge of a particular Hector or Priest!' No Act of 
 Parliament has ever defined the boundaries of Parishes, but 
 they have " been established as the circumstances of times, 
 places, or persons happened to make them greater or lesser."* 
 
 And so careful is the " Charter " to maintain the inde- 
 pendence of " the Parish," that it furthermore ordains "that 
 " the Church Wardens, for the time being, shall not, at any 
 w time, dispose of any of the pews or places in pews in the 
 " said Trinity Church, to any person, not an inhabitant of the 
 " said Parish." 
 
 The Charter is thus wisely solicitous to preserve the immu- 
 nities of the Parish from outside intrusion, and to protect the 
 parishioners against any invasion upon their exclusive rights 
 as Corporators. And the Select Committee would have had 
 no grounds for their preposterous assertions, if they had not 
 omitted whole clauses touching the questions " who are the 
 Corporators of Trinity Church ? " and " how are Corporators 
 constituted, under the Charter of 1697 ? " To this point — tJie 
 Succession of Corporators — we now ask the reader's attention. 
 
 (3.) The Select Committee affirm— that the Charter of 1697 
 " made the Corporation to consist of the rector, together with 
 all the inhabitants from time to time inhabiting, and to in- 
 habit our said city of New York, and in communion of our 
 aforesaid Protestant Church of England." The Committee 
 have presented this clause of the Charter as containing the 
 whole ansiuer to the question of the Successors. They convey 
 the idea to the reader, that the Charter is silent, except in this 
 
 * Burns' Ec. Law, 133 ; Jacob's Law Diet, Title Parish; Hook's Church 
 Dictionary; Stanton's do. Title Parish. 
 
12 
 
 one clause, touching " who are the Corporators and how are 
 they constituted.'*' And the Committee's Report corresponds 
 with the arguments, or (as they style them) " the evidence 7 ' 
 of some of the persons testifying. Accordingly, they would 
 have us believe that " all the inhabitants of the city of New 
 York, in communion, 7 ' &c, possess, under the Charter, a vested 
 right as Corporators ; that they need not have any title but 
 this supposed vested right. The right founded on election, or 
 the admission through form of election, is wholly ignored by the 
 Select Committee, as though the Charter contained no such 
 antecedent election, as a condition precedent to a claim to be 
 a Corporator of Trinity Church. The writer, therefore, sup- 
 plies the omission, by quoting the Charter as follows : " And 
 "We do of our like speciall grace, certaine Knowledge, and meer 
 " motion, give and grant unto the said Rector and inhabitants 
 " of our city of New Yorke in communion, &c, full power and 
 "'authority from time to time to appoint, alter, and change 
 " such days and times of meeting as they shall think fitt, and 
 "to choose, nominate and appoint so many others of ourLeige 
 " people as they shall think fitt, and shall be willing to accept 
 " the same to be members of the said church and corporation 
 " and body Politicque and them into the same to admit t and to 
 " elect and constitute such other officer and officers as they 
 " shall think fitt and requisite for the orderly manageing and 
 "dispatching of the affairs of the said Church and corporation 
 " and their Successors, and from time to time to make, ordaine 
 " and constitute or repcale such rules, orders and ordinances for 
 " the good and welfare of the members of the said church and 
 " corporation, so that those rules, orders, and ordinances be not 
 " repugnant to the laws of our Real me of England and of this 
 " our province/ 7 
 
 Did the Select Committee not observe this provision of the 
 Charter of 1697, for the election and admission of members 
 of the Corporation ? Did the witnesses, in their " evidence, 77 
 not see these pregnant words ? Was the withholding of this 
 clause an accident ? In the argument or " evidence 77 of the 
 witnesses why was this clause ignored ? 
 
 We answer boldly, because this part of the Charter utterly 
 dissipates the claim of a vested right to be a Corporator. 
 Because it confutes the argument that the Law of 1814 
 " divests 77 the inhabitants of New York of any right under 
 the Charter of 1697. Because the prerogative to "admit, 77 
 implies the prerogative to refuse admission. Because none 
 other but those persons inhabiting New York, and in coiniriu- 
 
13 
 
 nion, &c., at the date of the Charter, in 1G97, were "vested'' 
 by the Charter with the rights of Corporators in Trinity Church. 
 Because, finally, all fresh Corporators must (in addition to the 
 qualifications of being citizens and communicants) be " ad- 
 mitted " by a vote of the Corporation. 
 
 What shall the candid, honest, and true-hearted citizen 
 say in sufficient condemnation of this unworthy attempt to 
 hoodwink the community, and to deceive the members of the 
 Church in the City of New York in 1857, with the fancy that 
 the Charter of 1697 "invests" them with franchises, rights, 
 privileges, &c. f which the Law of 1814 " deprives them of," 
 " divests them of/' " excludes them from," denies them ; and 
 which Trinity Church is monopolizing without law and against 
 law ! 
 
 (4.) But this is not all. The writer proceeds to show a fault 
 in the Report, worse than mere omission of important provi- 
 sions in the Charter, bearing directly on the question in hand. 
 The Select Committee have suppressed a word in their pro- 
 fessed quotation from the Charter ! It is a little word. It 
 is only a preposition. But small as it is, that word is in the 
 Charter, and not recited in the Report which pretends to quote 
 from the Charter. And it is a word quite useful, and even 
 necessary for the just interpretation of the Charter itself, where 
 it describes the qualifications of the Corporators of Trinity 
 Church. The Charter says, " Rectors of the said Parish, to- 
 " gether with all the inhabitants from time to time inhabiting, 
 " and to inhabit." At this point the question arises, What 
 inhabitants are meant ? or, in other words, 1 inhabitants ' of 
 what domicil ? And the answer is " the inhabitants of the 
 Parish," just spoken of. The sense is quite clear in this con- 
 nection, to wit, " Rectors of said Parish, together with all the 
 inhabitants from time to time inhabiting and to inhabit " said 
 Parish. 
 
 Then follow two further qualifications of the Lay Corpora- 
 tors, to wit : They must be, 1st, " in our said City of New 
 York," and 2d, " in communion of our aforesaid Protestant 
 Church of England." 
 
 The threefold qualification of Lay Corporators, accordingly, 
 is prescribed in the Charter to be, persons inhabiting the Pa- 
 
14 
 
 rish, in New York, and in communion with the Church of 
 England. 
 
 But this interpretation of the Charter, so consonant with 
 other provisions, and so definite in its description of the Cor- 
 porators, is utterly repugnant to the pretended claims of per- 
 sons outside of the Parish, It is subversive of the arguments 
 or " evidence " of many of the witnesses whom the Select Com- 
 mittee summoned before them. It is opposed to the whole 
 drift and scope of the Committee's Report. 
 
 And how do the Committee meet the difficulty ? By 
 boldly suppressing the preposition " in" before the words 
 " our said City of New York;" substituting thereby, as the 
 governing word, the verb " to inhabit and by reciting this 
 clause, thus mutilated, and so changed in sense as, by a forced 
 construction, to suit their foregone conclusions ; and then re- 
 porting this inaccurate clause as the true recital from the 
 Charter, of the qualifications of the Corporators ! 
 
 The quotation of the Select Committee reads, persons "in- 
 habiting and to inhabit our said City of New York."* 
 
 The writer feels pitiful, in following the Select Committee, 
 to detect these inaccuracies. But as the task of detecting is 
 a sorry employment, so the duty of exposing the Committee is 
 a sad, but imperative obligation. 
 
 All that the writer chooses to trust himself to say, by way 
 of denouncing this false quotation, is, that the absence of that 
 word is a remarkable accident, or a culpable neglect in those 
 persons who have, in this Report, stigmatized the Comptroller 
 of Trinity Church, and who have accused the Corporation of 
 Trinity Church, from the year 1813 till 1857, with a " course" 
 of conduct consistent only "with deliberate and premeditated 
 fraud | M Physician, heal thyself ! 
 
 The writer has thus endeavored to show what has been 
 omitted and what suppressed in the second paragraph of that 
 portion of the Report of the Select Committee, which treats 
 of the history of the Incorporation of Trinity Church. 
 
 III. Let us pass on, next, to the third paragraph of the 
 same narration. The Report states as follows : 
 
 * Sen. Doc. No. 46, p. 14. 
 
 / 
 
15 
 
 " The act of the Colonial Legislature of 1704, confirms 
 the essential powers of the Corporation by the same title, 
 adding the words 1 and their successors/ " 
 
 The Report of the Select Committee, in reciting the above 
 act of 1704, conveys the idea that such an act exists, " con- 
 firming" and "adding" certain things ; and these things are, 
 Rector and inhabitants of the city of New York, and their 
 successors. But why did not the Committee state the fact 
 that the act of 1704 is repealed ? Why attempt to uphold 
 those Episcopalians who do not belong to the Corporation of 
 Trinity Church, in their pretension to be Corporators, by 
 naming the extinct act of 1704 ? The reason, on the face of 
 the Report is too plain to be hidden. It is evidently because 
 the act of 1704 " confirms the title " The Rector and inhabit- 
 ants of the City of New York, " and because the said act " 
 adds the words " and their successors." 
 
 It is curious to detect the littleness of the artifice of all 
 this. If the Act of 1704 were in being, then the words in the 
 Corporate title of Trinity Church in that act, to wit, " Rector 
 " and inhabitants of the City of New York and their succes- 
 " sors" would give color to the claim that the present genera- 
 tion of " inhabitants of the city of New York, in communion 
 with the Protestant Episcopal Church," are vested with the 
 rights of Corporators of Trinity Church. 
 
 A popular notion of " franchises," " rights," u privileges," 
 " vested interests," &c, might thereby be fostered in the minds 
 of " the great body of Episcopalians in the city of New York," 
 who under the delusive belief that they were "excluded," 
 "deprived," "divested," and wronged by Trinity Church, 
 would join in an assault upon Trinity Church, and would 
 unite in procuring a repeal of the Act of the Legislature of 
 1814. Besides, it is an easy thing to persuade the cupidity 
 of men that they have rights in property. And it is not diffi- 
 cult to rouse them to anger, if you can only inject the fancy 
 that somebody is withholding from them , their just rights. 
 For no other reason, that the writer can imagine, do the Select 
 Committee adduce " the Act of 1704," and recite its peculiar 
 title ; omitting, the while, to state the fact that no such act 
 has any being and force. 
 
16 
 
 It becomes necessary, therefore, to supply the neglect of 
 the Select Committee, by citing the clause in the Act of the 
 Legislature of the State of New York, " passed 17th April, 
 1784/' wherein the Act of 1704 was annulled, as contrary to 
 the new order of things brought about by the Revolution, and 
 repugnant to the Constitution of the State. 
 
 u In order to remove all doubts which may arise in the 
 K minds of any persons, with respect to the continuance, force, 
 " and effect of a certain Act of the Legislature of this State 
 " while a Colony, . . . passed on the twenty-seventh day of 
 " June, one thousand seven hundred aod four, entitled, ' An 
 " Act for granting sundry privileges and powers to the Rector 
 " and inhabitants of the City of New York of the Communion 
 " of the Church of England, as by Law established ; Be it 
 " therefore further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that 
 " the said Act ' (with others enumerated by their respective 
 " titles) is 1 hereby declared to be fully and absolutely abro- 
 " gated, abolished, annulled, repealed and made void, as in- 
 " consistent tvith and repugnant to, the Constitution of this 
 " State.'"* 
 
 And notwithstanding the Select Committee adduce this 
 very Act of 1784, in a following paragraph in their Report, 
 yet they avoid noticing the above quoted words (so strong and 
 so thorough that one would suppose they could not fail to 
 attract attention), and the Select Committee venture to allege 
 the abrogated Act of 1704, suggesting its peculiar title, as 
 though that Act of 1704 were still potential ! To state this 
 conduct of the Select Committee is sufficient for all honest 
 readers to condemn it. 
 
 IY. The Select Committee conclude their sketch of the 
 history of the incorporation of Trinity Church, in these words : 
 " The Legislature of New York, in 1784, confirmed all the 
 original powers of the Corporation without altering the Cor- 
 porate name, which, however, in 1788, was altered so as to 
 substitute the 1 Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of 
 New York ' for the 1 Protestant Church of England/ And 
 no further legislative action took effect until the year 1814."f 
 
 * Act of 1181. ■ f Sen. Doc. No. 46, p. 14. 
 
17 
 
 The writer would further add, that this Act of 1784, with 
 the consent of Trinity Church, enlarged the constituency of 
 the Corporation by admitting pewholders, and all persons oc- 
 cupying sittings, who regularly contributed to the support of 
 the said Church: and such others as should, in said Church, 
 partake of the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, statedly, 
 being inhabitants of the City and County of New York, and 
 professing themselves members of the Episcopal Church. 
 
 The Act of 1814, declaratory of the former Acts touching 
 the Charter of Trinity Church, so far regulates the constitu- 
 ent members of the Corporation, as to conform with the " Gen- 
 eral Statute " (under which all the Episcopal Churches in the 
 State of New York are governed), by the provision " That 
 all male persons of full age, who, for the space of one year 
 preceding any election shall have been members of the congre- 
 gation," &c., shall be entitled to vote at the annual elections, 
 for the Church Wardens and Vestrymen of the said Corpora- 
 tion. 
 
 The difference in the constituency of the parish by the 
 Act of 1784 and the Act of 1814, consists in substituting 
 " all male persons of full age " for " all persons ; " and in re- 
 quiring voters to have been members of the congregation for 
 the space of one year. These persons, with the regular and 
 stated communicants in the parish, constitute the members of 
 the Corporation of Trinity Church. 
 
 V. Following the Select Committee's Keport, it becomes 
 proper, at this stage of our discussion, to inquire as briefly as 
 possible into the history, and to state the recorded facts, re- 
 specting the Act of the Legislature, entitled " An Act to al- 
 ter the name of the Corporation of Trinity Church in New 
 York, and for other purposes," " passed January 25, 1814." 
 
 The above-named Act was passed on the petition of the 
 Vestry of Trinity Church, in their corporate title o£ "the 
 Kector and inhabitants of the City of New York, in commu- 
 nion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New 
 York." 
 
 The petition of the Vestry shows, 1. That the Corpora- 
 
 * Compare the Act of 1781 with Act of 1814. 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 tion had been a body corporate by virtue of their Charter of 
 1G97. # 
 
 2. That the Charter contemplated Trinity Church as the 
 sole and only Parish Church in the City of New York ; and 
 that it continued so to be until the Revolution, and for a num- 
 ber of years afterwards. 
 
 3. That the Act of the Legislature in 1784 enlarged the 
 number of Corporators (as noticed already) in the provision 
 for admitting persons holding pews and sittings, &c. 
 
 4. That since the passing of said Act of 1784, the pew- 
 holders, and the regular communicants of Trinity Church, and 
 the Chapel, have been admitted to vote at elections. 
 
 5. That furthermore, since the year 1784, owing to the 
 rapid growth of the City of New York, the churchmen in the 
 city have formed themselves into distinct Corporations, each 
 having its peculiar endowments and place of worship, with 
 Eectors and other officers of their own choice, independent of 
 Trinity Church, and free from all control and interference of 
 Trinity Church. 
 
 6. That, to all those Churches, whether formed with or 
 without the concurrence of Trinity Church, she had made 
 liberal donations, at the same time disclaiming any right or 
 disposition to intermeddle with their internal concerns, and 
 denying Jhem any right to vote in the elections, or to regulate 
 the affairs, of Trinity Church. 
 
 7. That, nevertheless, a few individuals belonging to such 
 separate Corporations, tendered themselves at the Annual Elec- 
 tion of the year 1812, and pretended to claim a right to vote 
 for Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church ; that 
 their votes were rejected, and no measures had been taken by 
 the rejected persons to establish the right so claimed. 
 
 . 8. That such attempts cannot fail to produce strife, and to 
 foster pretensions both unreasonable and mischievous. 
 
 9.* That in view of all these facts, and being especially 
 convinced that, since the formation of many distinct Churches, 
 the corporate name of Trinity Church, to wit, " The Rector 
 and inhabitants," &c, has become inapplicable, and ought to 
 be changed ; that all doubts respecting the persons entitled 
 
19 
 
 to vote for Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity 
 Church, ought |8 be finally obviated and settled. 
 
 10. That, furthermore, the law requiring certain religious 
 corporations to exhibit an inventory of their estates, is at- 
 tended with trouble and expense, and being once exhibited it 
 would be useless to exhibit it again, unless the Corporation 
 should have acquired further estates. 
 
 11. Therefore the petitioners pray that the honorable Le- 
 gislature "will pass an Act for altering the name of their in- 
 " corporation ; and also to obviate and settle the questions 
 " that might arise in consequence of incorporating other Epis- 
 copal congregations in the City of New York; and to do 
 "away the necessity of such inventory and account being ex- 
 " hibited more than once, unless upon the acquisition of addi- 
 " tional property by religious corporations." 
 
 Such is a fair and true abstract of the petition of Trinity 
 Church to the Legislature of the State of New York, setting 
 forth the reasons for the same, and containing all the motives 
 and persuasions which Trinity Church thought fit to urge upon 
 the Legislature to secure the passage of the act of 1814. 
 
 This document was before the Select Committee of the 
 Senate in 1857. And yet that Committee, in their Report, 
 now before us, scarcely allude to this petition of Trinity 
 Church ; which, the reader will observe, is dignified in its 
 utterance, clear in its statements, and cogent in its conclu- 
 sions. But the Select Committee, blind [to this authentic 
 document, sets forth an entirely different paper — a paper not 
 addressed to the Legislature, not written until after the Le- 
 gislature had passed the act of 1814 in both Houses, not 
 emanating from the Corporation of Trinity Church, not even 
 suggested by Trinity Church or its friends, but (as the paper 
 states on its face) suggested by another party ; a paper, the 
 responsibility for which is assumed by him ivho signed it — by 
 him only ; and not capable, one would think, of being tor- 
 tured into an authoritative "pledge," "promise/' or "'repre- 
 sentation," from either its writer or any other person or per- 
 sons ; being entitled " Remarks, &c," and consisting of argu- 
 ments, and signed by " Robt. Troup," under date of 6 Sept., 
 1813, in the city of New York. 
 
20 
 
 This private paper, the Select Committee of the Senate 
 have the hardihood to quote, as emanating from the Vestry 
 of Trinity Church, and containing " representations/' " prom- 
 ises/' and " pledges," which Trinity Church has falsified and 
 violated, and as setting forth the " inducements " to the Legis- 
 lature to pass this act of 1814.* 
 
 And on the conclusions drawn from their own reasoning 
 on these false premises,, the Select Committee charge upon the 
 Wardens and the Vestrymen of Trinity Church in 1813-14, 
 and upon the members of the Corporation since that time, 
 dishonesty and meanness, and (if they had dared) " fraud," in 
 procuring the act of 1814 under false pretenses. But let us 
 recite the Select Committee's words ; and afterwards the 
 writer will proceed to substantiate his accusations against the 
 Committee's statements, arguments, and conclusions. 
 
 " Your Committee do not charge that, in obtaining the 
 "law of 1814 under the representations employed for that 
 " purpose, the Corporation were guilty of deliberate and pre- 
 u meditated fraud, in setting forth inducements which they 
 " never intended to realize. But thus much your Committee 
 " feel bound to say, that if there had been any such fraudulent 
 " intention to obtain power under that law, in order to defeat 
 " the very ends which it proposed to secure, your Committee 
 " cannot see that it would have been necessaiy for the Cor- 
 " poration, in that case, to alter in any respect that which has 
 c * been their actual course, in order to carry out such fraudulent 
 " intention with entire success."f 
 
 These insinuations are serious charges against honorable 
 men. Emanating from the high station of Senators of New 
 York, these imputations acquire a force to crush those upon 
 whom they fall, unless those intended victims were sus- 
 tained in the strength of compact integrity. But if the 
 charges be false, no station is high enough to protect the 
 authors of the slander from a rebounding stroke winch shall 
 hurl them amongst the ignoble herd of detractors and false 
 accusers of their fellow-citizens. 
 
 The gentlemen against whom the accusations of the Select 
 
 * Sen. Doc. No. 46, p. 16, &c. 
 ] Sen. Doc. No. 46, Keport of Scl. Com. p. 26, 
 
21 
 
 Committee are aimed, are the Vestry of Trinity Church, and 
 especially the Committee of the Vestry, in 1813, who were 
 appointed to apply to the Legislature. That Committee was 
 composed of Richard Harrison, David M. Clarkson, Thomas 
 Barrow, Robert Troup, Jacob Le Roy, Peter Augustus Jay, 
 and Thomas L. Ogden. These are names of gentlemen whom 
 the breath of slander has never sullied in their lifetime ; and 
 it shall be the writer's pious tribute to their honored memory, 
 to protect those names from slander, now that they are dead. 
 
 It has been shown to the reader that the reasons of the 
 Vestry for applying to the Legislature for the act of 1814, 
 were set forth in their " petition ; M and that the Select Com- 
 mittee do not ground their charges against the Vestry on that 
 petition. And furthermore, the " petition " of Trinity Church 
 is the only extant authoritative document from which the 
 Select Committee might derive matter on which to base any 
 charges against the Vestry in the premises. 
 
 Accordingly, the Select Committee resort to the pamphlet 
 of Robert Troup, before mentioned ; where we follow on upon 
 the traces of their specious reasoning. 
 
 The Select Committee affirm that Ci as an inducement to 
 the Legislature to pass this act of 1814, Col. Tronp, who 
 appears to have acted throughout as the authorized agent of 
 Trinity Church in procuring its passage, declared before the 
 Council of Revision, c J udging from the past, it is morally 
 certain/ &c. 
 
 Now, in the first place, it is in proof before the Select 
 Committee, that Col. Troup's pamphlet, from which the Select 
 Committee make the quotations, was not written until after 
 the act of 1814 had passed both Houses of the Legislature. 
 
 We say that the evidence of this fact was before the Select 
 Committee, in the testimony of one of the witnesses whom 
 they had summoned. 
 
 The Hon. L. Bradish, in his 8th answer, says, '''From the 
 journals of the Legislature and the Council of Revision, which 
 I have examined, it appears that the petition of Trinity 
 Church, for the act of 1814, was presented in the Senate of 
 the State on the 17th March, 1813, a bill brought in, which 
 
22 
 
 was passed by that body on the 25th March, 1813, and by the 
 Assembly on the 2d of April, 1813." 
 
 In the " 11th Answer" of the Hon. L. Bradish, he alludes to 
 and quotes from the same Pamphlet of " Robert Troup," 
 giving its date, of " 6th of September, 1813." 
 
 Notwithstanding this evidence before the Select Committee 
 they do not scruple to allege an argument, uttered in Septem- 
 ber, as proof of " an inducement to the Legislature" to pass 
 an Act in the months of March and April preceding I 
 
 According to the logic of the Select Committee, the induce- 
 ment for the Act of the two Houses began to exist five or six 
 months after the two Houses had passed the Act ! 
 
 And, furthermore, the Pamphlet of Judge Troup is itself 
 a confutation of the allegation of the Select Committee, both 
 in the Title and in the first sentence. The title of the 
 Pamphlet is " Remarks on the Bill, entitled, An Act to alter 
 the name of the Corporation of Trinity Church, and for other 
 purposes." And the first sentence of the Pamphlet is this : 
 " The Bill was popular in both Houses of the Legislature, 
 and it passed by large mcgorities." 
 
 If the Select Committee of the Senate did really examine 
 the document from which they quote, sentence after sentence, 
 in their Report, a more glaring and scandalous misstatement 
 could not confound them. And yet the falsehood runs through- 
 out this Report, wherein the Remarks of Judge Troup, uttered 
 after the passage of the Act of 1814, are alleged as ex post 
 facto u inducements" to said Act. 
 
 In pity and in charity the writer has sought to find an ex- 
 planation in behalf of the Select Committee. 
 
 And the first hypothesis that occurs is this : that the 
 Select Committee did not write their Report ; it was com- 
 posed for them, perhaps, by many journeymen hands ; and 
 hence the incompatibilities, inconsistencies, and sophistries 
 manifest on its pages. But secondly, The Select Committee 
 have signed the Report, and thereby have assumed the re- 
 sponsibility for its statements and its issues. Therefore, the 
 plausible idea occurs, that the Select Committee did not mean 
 to have the reader understand the term " the Legislature," to 
 signify the " two Houses of Senate and Assembly," because 
 
<23 
 
 (as the State Constitution then stood) a " Council of Revi- 
 sion " existed to supervise the Acts which had passed both 
 Houses, with qualified power to veto such of said Acts as the 
 majority of the Council disapproved. Therefore, inasmuch as 
 Judge Troup's pamphlet was addressed to "the Council of 
 Revision/' and " the Council of Revision M was a quasi part of 
 the " Legislature," it may be affirmed that the u Legislature " 
 were " induced M to pass the Act of 1814 through Judge 
 Troup's persuasive reasoning before " the Council of Revision." 
 But this plea for the Special Committee will hardly serve, 
 because the Council of Revision happened (as Hon. L. Bradish 
 testifies in his 8th Answer before the Select Committee) to be 
 u equally divided. No order was made thereon, and the bill 
 became a law by lapse of time, without ever having received 
 the express sanction of the executive department of the 
 Government."^ 
 
 Accordingly, it appears that after all, only the two Houses 
 of the Senate and Assembly are the " Legislature " who passed 
 upon the Act of 1814, induced thereto by Judge Troup's 
 pamphlet, ivhich icas not then ivritten ! " 
 
 But, furthermore, this plea for the Select Committee is 
 confuted out of their own mouths : for the Select Committee 
 say in their Report, that " Under these inducements" (refer- 
 ring to a passage by them quoted from Judge Troup's pam- 
 phlet immediately jireced in g) "the bill passed BOTiiHousES."f 
 To casuists more adroit than honest, the writer must leave 
 the Statement of the Select Committee's Report to find a 
 plea to justify or even to extenuate such absurdities and 
 untruths. 
 
 The writer calls the reader's notice next to the reasoning 
 of the Select Committee, by which, with a sort of feline 
 stealthiness, they approach their conclusion of a " fraud." 
 
 The Statement of the Select Committee now under review, 
 firstly affirms, that " Col. Troup appears to have acted 
 throughout as the authorized agent of Trinity Church, in pro- 
 curing the passage"{ of the Law of 1814. 
 
 This very guarded and qualified statement of Col. Troup's 
 
 * Sen. Doc. 46, p. 95, and L. Bradish's Testimony, f Sen. Doc. Xo. 46, p. 7. 
 \ Sen. Doc. 46, p. 16, 17, 
 
24 
 
 u authorized agency," is soon magnified into an unquestionable 
 " authorized " agency, but so quietly and cunningly as almost 
 to escape observation. In the next reference to Col. Troup's 
 pamphlet, as quoted by the Select Committee, " Col. Troup " 
 disappears, and his place is supplied by a neuter pronoun. 
 " It ivas urged, as ' morally certain/ that the Corporators, 
 " &c."* " The frequent execution of this power," it was 
 "represented" "would break down" the estate of Trinity 
 " Church."f These quotations are cited from Col. Troup's 
 pamphlet. 
 
 Then, further on, a page or two in the Select Committee's 
 Keport, the " neuter pronoun " is made to give place to the 
 Vestry (while " Col. Troup " is introduced in a parenthesis, as 
 a subordinate). " The increase of population in the City of 
 New York, it was urged by the Vestry, through Col. Troup," 
 made it c: morally certain " that Trinity would,J &c. Again 
 " The new policy of Trinity Corporation has therefore disap- 
 pointed the authoritative representation of Col. Troup."§ 
 
 Then, in the very next paragraph, "Col. Troup" is dis- 
 missed, to appear on the stage no more, and Trinity Church 
 is put in the forefront, as making "pledges." " The Evi- 
 " dence," say the Select Committee, " shows that another evil 
 " has arisen out of this failure on the part of Trinity Church 
 u to fulfil the pledges under which she obtained the law of 
 " 1814."|| 
 
 The reader, who has followed the artful statements of the 
 Keport of the Select Committee, will now discern the method 
 by which the Committee has contrived to insinuate the charge 
 of " fraud " on Trinity Church, in procuring the enactment of 
 the law of 1814. 
 
 But the writer craves the reader's patience and asks him 
 to restrain his expression of indignation until he further 
 acquaints him with the utter contradiction of the statement 
 that Judge Troup has spoken in his Pamphlet at the sugges- 
 tion of the Corporation of Trinity Church. 
 
 In the first paragraph of Judge Troup's Pamphlet, he 
 says, " Two members of that Honorable Body (meaning the 
 
 • Sen. \le\x 40, p. 18. f lb. p. 18. J Sen. Doc. 46, p. 20. 
 
 § Sen. Doc. 4C, p. 21. Ib. p. 22. 
 
25 
 
 Council of Revision) were pleased to express a desire that the 
 subscriber would furnish them with his reasons in support of 
 the BiU." 
 
 But let us cite the whole paragraph, even at the cost of 
 tautology. 
 
 " The Bill was popular in both Houses of the Legislature, 
 and it passed by large majorities. Certain objections were, 
 notwithstanding, reported against it in the Council of Revi- 
 sion ; and these remain to be acted upon at the next meeting 
 of the Council. Two members of that Honorable Body were 
 pleased to express a desire that the subscriber would furnish 
 them with his reasons in support of the bill ; and in compli- 
 ance with this desire, the following remarks are most respect- 
 fully submitted." * 
 
 With this authoritative statement of Judge Troup himself 
 before their eyes, the writer, or any other honest man, finds it 
 impossible to pardon the Select Committee for their attempt 
 to identify "Trinity Church" with "Judge Troup," and to 
 make his private opinions and pious hopes, their " promises " 
 and u pledges." 
 
 And the writer therefore publishes it to the Church and 
 to the world that the Select Committee of the Senate of the 
 State of New York in 1857, passing over the published Peti- 
 tion of the Vestry of Trinity Church, in which Petition and 
 in that only, they authoritatively allege the reasons for the Law 
 o/1814, have, in their Report, set forth the private reasons 
 of an advocate in the character of pledges authorized by a Cor- 
 poration : and thereby, without any cause, they have held up 
 the Vestry of Trinity before the Senate as responsible for opin- 
 ions which they never expressed, and for promises which they 
 never made, and for inducements which they did not suggest, 
 and pledges which they never offered. And this iniquity of 
 the Special Committee is conceived and born in the design to 
 represent the Corporation of Trinity Church as obtaining the 
 Law of 1814 under false pretences, insinuating the odious im- 
 putation of " fraud " upon the memories of the dead, and 
 
 * Remarks on Trinity Church Bill before the Council of Revision, by Robert 
 Troup, Esq., one of the Vestrymen of Trinity Church, p. 1. 
 
26 
 
 upon the character of the living gentlemen, who have com- 
 posed the Vestry of Trinity Church since the year 1813. 
 
 VI. The writer furthermore arraigns the Report of the 
 Select Committee before the bar of public opinion in the mer- 
 cantile world. 
 
 The Report, before it attempts the positive charge of a 
 " course" of fraudulent conduct on the Vestry of Trinity Church, 
 prepares the reader for said charge by a financial statement. 
 
 Trinity Church, in her Report of 1855 to the Legislature, 
 in answ r er to their demands, presented an estimate of her es- 
 tate derived from the value of her lots as appraised by the 
 sworn Assessors of the city of New York, and from the value 
 of the houses belonging to her tenants, as appraised by her 
 own agents. 
 
 These agents were carpenters and masons, not Episcopa- 
 lians, except one of them, nor in any way under the influence 
 of Trinity Church. Furthermore, the Vestry employed a 
 public Consulting Actuary to calculate the value of the Rever- 
 sions, in order to reach " the present value " of her Estate. 
 
 The results of these appraisals and calculations, the Vestry 
 reported to the Legislature in obedience to their requisition. 
 The Special Committee to whom the Report of Trinity 
 Church was referred, have chosen to dispute the accuracy of 
 these Estimates of the property of Trinity Church. In doing 
 so, the Special Committee include Bonds given to Trinity 
 Church by the churches whom Trinity has endowed, notwith- 
 standing these bonds are never enforced. They have also reck- 
 oned into the account the interest on these bonds, although 
 the interest is never demanded, nor entered into her accounts. 
 They have ignored the declaration of the Vestry, that " these 
 bonds on the Churches are demanded in order to insure them, 
 perpetually to be used for the sacred purposes to which the 
 Churches are consecrated." But because, in the event of any 
 attempt to alienate those Churches, Trinity may demand the 
 repayment of the principal and interest of the bonds, the 
 Select Committee have chosen to reckon them as part of the 
 assets of the Corporation of Trinity. 
 
 The Select Committee have included, also, an interest of 
 Trinity Church in St. John's Park ; which the Vestry has 
 
27 
 
 refused to sell, except for an exorbitant price, set upon it in 
 order to discourage the attempt to bay it. In this way the 
 Select Committee has reported the estate of Trinity Church 
 to be "five times the amount," which the Report of 1855 
 estimated the estate. The object of the Select Committee, in 
 this exaggerated calculation, was, plainly, to convict the 
 Vestry of Trinity Church of falsehood, in underrating their 
 property. Now, the point to which the writer would ask the 
 attention of the honorable mercantile community is this*. 
 The calculation of the Select Committee, on page 12 of their 
 Keport, in Sen. Doc, No. 46, produces an aggregate sum of — 
 
 $7,092,544 76 
 
 Deduct on account 
 of Leases yet to run as 
 estimated in the Report 
 itself (say the Select 
 Committee), $1,222,338 29 
 
 Debt (of the Cor- 
 poration of Trinity 
 Church), 648,913 00 
 
 $1,871,251 29 
 
 Net total present value, $5,221,293 47 
 
 The Committee exclaim : " More than five times the net 
 total given in the Keport." 
 
 The merchant will notice, however, that the sum to " de- 
 duct on account of leases yet to run " (with seeming but most 
 delusive candor), is "estimated" according to the estimate of 
 Trinity Church in their "report" o/ 1855. 5 
 
 But this very estimate in the Report of 1855 is accused of 
 being only one-fifth of the true sum, in the opinion of the Se- 
 lect Committee. 
 
 Notwithstanding, the Select Committee, in spite of their 
 condemnation, adopt this very diminished estimate of " the 
 value of the leases yet to run," on the low percentage which 
 they themselves condemn. The purpose is patent. It is to 
 increase, by this means, the sum total of the estate of Trinity 
 
28 
 
 Church so as to deceive the Senate and the community with 
 the flourish of "more than five times the net value given in 
 the Report." It is to prove their false charge by false figures. 
 
 The writer has taken the trouble to resort to an accountant 
 and consulting actuary to ascertain, approximately, the 
 amount of the false estimate of the Select Committee. And 
 he finds it to reach the sum of §1,468,116 36, or nearly one 
 and a half million of dollars t 9 
 
 * The value of the lots, after deducting the estimated value 
 
 of the buildings, was, by the Report $2,668,710 
 
 The value of the same, as reported by the Senate Committee, is 5,874,023 
 
 Increase $3,205,313 
 
 But the above lots are subject to certain leases, expiring at different periods, 
 and consequently the present value of the lots is reduced by calculating the 
 reversion of the above leases, to $1,446,371 71, and raising the value of the lots, 
 the deduction thus made for running leases must likewise be increased in the 
 same proportion. 
 
 Assuming that the advance in the above valuation, by the Senate Commit- 
 tee, had been made by a uniform percentage (which may not be the case), the 
 value of the tenant interest would be raised by the same percentage to 
 $2,690,454 65. 
 
 This result is probably as near to the actual value as can be reached, with- 
 out going into a new and laborious calculation of each lot, and of each lease, 
 by themselves. The accurate computation of each separate reversion might 
 and would, no doubt, produce a different sum, but it could not be of any im- 
 portance, and probably not vary over five per cent, one way or the other. 
 
 J. F. ENTZ, 
 Accountant and Consulting Actuary. 
 
 NeiT York Life Ins. and Trust Co. 
 February 9th, 1857. 
 
 Furthermore : Deducting from the Select Committee's sum total, the items 
 which the Committee seem to be conscious are wrongfully introduced by them 
 (in order to swell the difference between the aggregate of their own estimate 
 and the estimate of the Vestry), to wit:— 
 
 St. John's Park $400,000 00 
 
 Church bonds and mortgages, with in- 
 terest to Jan. 1, 1857. 
 
 The exaggerated estimate of the Select 
 Committee, is 
 
 Add the Committee's mistake in their es- 
 timate of "the present value," as shown 
 above by the calculations of Mr. Eutz 
 
 Produces an over estimate of the Select 
 Committee, by their own shoiring, of a total 
 
 of. ) $2,440,079 25 
 
 571,052 89 
 - $971,952 89 
 
 $1,468,116 36 
 
29 
 
 Surely, this is an unfortunate exposure of the Select Com- 
 mittte of the Honorable Senate of the State of New York, 
 who are miserably striving to convict Trinity Church of finan- 
 cial errors ! Again we apply to this Select Committee this 
 sacred proverb, in all seriousness, " physician, heal thyself I" 
 
 There is but one more point to which the writer would call 
 attention. It touches the witnesses " whom the Select Com- 
 mittee relied on in framing their Report to the question, 1 How 
 many free Churches are there in New York V " Not one of the 
 witnesses mentioned Trinity Church, the noblest Free 
 Church of all. 
 
 In view of the examination which the writer has been at 
 pains to undertake, he would conclude with a sigh at the evi- 
 dence, which the Report of the Select Committee unfolds, of 
 the infirmity of sinful men, in their attempts to deceive them- 
 selves. But there is another feeling, also clamoring to be 
 heard and expanded. It is the feeling of indignation against 
 the Select Committee and their advisers ; it is the sentiment 
 of generous sympathy with Trinity Church ; it is the uprising 
 of outraged humanity, aroused to the conviction that its cre- 
 dulity has been abused, and its confidence in Senators impair- 
 ed, and its trust in brethren betrayed. 
 
 While, therefore, the writer (with the Select Committee) 
 condemns the former policy (now revoked) of the Vestry of 
 Trinity Church (as evinced in the leases of pews in Trinity 
 Chapel), in the attempt to prevent the enlargement of her 
 constituent corporators — while he advises the widest admission 
 of all, who are duly qualified, into the Corporation ; and while 
 he would cultivate and cherish intimate relationships of broth- 
 erhood with all fellow-churchmen : he would, at the same time, 
 repel the brethren of other corporations from intermeddling with 
 the corporate elections of Trinity Church, earnestly advocating 
 the stability of the law, and pleading with the Legislature of 
 New York to listen to no such representations as are set forth 
 in the Report of the Select Committee. Let it be by public 
 justice ordained, that the Law of 1814 shall stand ; for the 
 honor of the State ; for the peace of the Church ; for the 
 good of posterity ; and to the confusion of misguided zealots 
 and covetous men. 
 
30 
 
 The writer would now draw together the threads of his 
 examination and exposure of the Select Committee's Report, 
 by recapitulation. He indicts and denounces the Keport of 
 the Select Committee, as false and deluding, on these several 
 counts : 
 
 1. It states only that "the site" of Trinity Church at the 
 head of Wall street, is a vested and consecrated property, 
 omitting to include the grave-yard and cemetery adjoining. 
 
 2. It omits to recite certain clauses of the Charter of 1697, 
 necessary to the question touching the " admission " of Cor- 
 porators into the Corporation of Trinity Church. 
 
 3. It suppresses an important word in the clause of the 
 Charter of 1697, which it professes to quote verbatim. 
 
 4. It reasons inconclusively from its falsified premises. 
 
 5. It has adduced an act of the Colonial Legislature, as 
 being potential, which is abrogated and annulled as unconsti- 
 tutional. 
 
 6. It has appealed to prejudices and to covetousness, hold- 
 ing forth expectations to the inhabitants of New York, which 
 have no good foundation. 
 
 7. It has neglected to state the true grounds on which 
 Trinity Church applied for the Law of 1814. 
 
 8. It has substituted the arguments of an advocate, in the 
 place of the reasons of the Corporation. 
 
 9. It has held up these arguments, so substituted, as in- 
 ducements to the two Houses of the Legislature to pass the 
 Law of 1814. 
 
 10. It has alleged those arguments as " inducements " to 
 the said law, though the law was passed by the two Houses of 
 the Legislature, months before the arguments were penned 
 and published. 
 
 11. It has, on these fallacious representations, insinuated 
 the odious charge of fraudulent conduct in the Vestries of 
 Trinity Church, since 1813. 
 
 12. It has falsified figures in its own representation of the 
 Estate of Trinity Church, by its method of estimating the 
 " present value " of said estate. 
 
31 
 
 13. It has committed all these wrongs on Trinity Church, 
 on the Honorable Senate, on the Community, on Justice, 
 Truth, and Ilonor — knowingly, and wilfully, and shamefully. 
 I have the duty of subscribing myself, 
 A Member of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 
i£x IGibrts 
 
 SEYMOUR DURST 
 
 When you leave, please leave this book 
 
 Because it has been said 
 "Ever thing comes t' him who waits 
 
 Except a loaned book.'' 
 
 
 Avf-ry Architectural and Fine arts Library 
 
 (in i 01 Si ynkm'k B. I)i rsi Old York Lihrary