SPEECH 
 
 OF THE 
 
 HON. JAMES NOXON, 
 
 OF ONONDAGA, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 TRINITY CHURCH BILL. 
 
 Delivered March 26, 1857. 
 
 ALBANY : 
 
 WEED, PARSONS & COMPANY, PRINTERS, 
 1857. 
 
Digitized by 
 
 the Internet , 
 
 Archive 
 
 
 
 in 2014 
 
 
 
 http://archive.org/details/speechofhonjamesOOnoxo 
 
SPEECH 
 
 IN SENATE, ) 
 March 26, 1S57. J 
 
 In Committee of the Whole, Mr. Petty in the Chair. 
 Mr. Noxon: 
 
 It is well known, Mr. Chairman, that at the last session of 
 the Legislature a committee was appointed on the part of the 
 Senate, to take certain testimony in matters relating to Trinity 
 Church, by way of filling up a gap which had been left by that 
 church, unanswered, in certain resolutions which were propos- 
 ed by the Senate of 1855, calling upon the Corporation of 
 Trinity to make answers to certain questions then propounded. 
 The resolutions to which I allude will be found in the report of 
 the committee of January 29, 1857. 
 
 The committee proceeded to the city of New- York some 
 months prior to the meeting of the Legislature. It notified the 
 proper parties connected with the church that the committee 
 was in session. The notice was served on the officers of the cor- 
 poration. As one of the committee having that matter in 
 charge, I had hoped that the corporation of Trinity Church 
 would see fit to come before the committee, and to make such 
 statements of facts as would enable us properly to discharge 
 our duty. But we were disappointed, not only in hearing from 
 Trinity Church, in person, but also in finding that one member 
 of the vestry refused to testify before the committee on the 
 
4 
 
 grounds, as stated by him, that there was a controversy going 
 on between the corporation and the committee, and that it was 
 not proper for him to answer questions put to him by the latter. 
 Your committee, having no power in the matter, could not com- 
 pel this man to testify ; but I ought to say, in justice to him 
 and to Trinity, that he has since consented to come before the 
 committee and give his testimony. 
 
 It is proper to state, Mr. Chairman, that I look upon all mat- 
 ters regarding the law now proposed to be amended as not af- 
 fected by the great mass of testimony presented to the Senate ; 
 but as involving, more properly, a simple question of law. I 
 do not look upon that testimony, in any particular, as bearing 
 on the real question now before this committee. It has regard 
 only to the manner of executing certain powers conferred on 
 the corporation by grants and by laws of the State of New- 
 York ; but I cannot think that it has much to do with the prin- 
 ciples involved in the present discussion. I ought, at least, to 
 state how the committee viewed it; and what the grant — the 
 original grant — as we have looked upon it, had in contempla- 
 tion when it vested certain property in the corporation now 
 known as Trinity Church ; and T shall refer to the report by 
 way of giving a history of a matter which is now one of the 
 most exciting questions that has for sometime agitated the city 
 of New-York, and, indeed, the country at large. 
 
 In the original charter of 1697, all the right Trinity Church 
 had to the chapel and grounds adjoining will be found set forth 
 in the extract from that charter, on page 3 of the special com- 
 mittee's report. It is declared therein " That the aforesaid 
 church [meaning the church erected previous to 1697, on the 
 site upon which Trinity Church is erected], erected and built 
 as aforesaid, and situate in or near the street called the Broad- 
 way, within our said city of New-York, and the ground there- 
 unto adjoining, inclosed and used for a cemetery or churchyard, 
 shall be the parish church and churchyard of the parish of 
 Trinity Church, within our said city of New-York ; and the 
 same is hereby declared to be forever separated and dedicated 
 
5 
 
 to the service of God, and to be applied therein;" and I call 
 now the especial attention of the Senate to the precise language 
 employed : " to 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 established by our laws, and to no other use or purpose 
 whatsoever." 
 
 And it is further declared in the same charter that the royal 
 will and pleasure is to make and create, and the Rector of said 
 parish, " together with all the inhabitants from time to time in- 
 habiting and to inhabit in our said city of New-York, and in 
 communion of our aforesaid Protestant Church of England, as 
 now established by our laws, are created a body corporate," &c, 
 and then follows the name of the corporation created, which 
 is in these words: "We have ordained, constituted, and de- 
 clared by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, do 
 ordain, constitute, and declare, that he (Lord Bishop of Lon- 
 don) and his successors, and all such of our loving subjects as 
 now are or hereafter shall be admitted into the communion of 
 the aforesaid Protestant Chuch of England, as now established 
 by our laws, shall be from time to time, and forever hereafter, 
 a body corporate and politique, in fact and 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." 
 
 So it will be preceived, when we start off with the original 
 charter, that it grants the chapel and grounds for the use and 
 behalf of the inhabitants of the city in communion of the Pro- 
 testant Church of England, as then established by law. It is 
 further declared in the same charter, that to manage the affairs 
 of the corporation there shall be annually elected two Church- 
 wardens, and twenty Vestrymen, " by the majority of votes of the 
 inhabitants of the said parish in communion as aforesaid" — that is, 
 with the Protestant Church of England as then established by 
 law. 
 
G 
 
 These are all the provisions to which it is necessary to call 
 the attention of the committee, in order to show the nature of 
 the original grant, and the persons who were entitled to vote 
 under it. 
 
 The parish, by the grant, was declared to be the only parish 
 in the city, and there can be no question the original intention 
 was to convey this property to the members of the Episcopal 
 Church (or Church of England) inhabitants of the city of New- 
 York. The letter and spirit of the grant is too plain to admit 
 of any controversy. 
 
 When we come to the next legislation in regard to the cor- 
 poration, we find that in 1704 the Colonial Legislature confirmed 
 the grant of 1697, by an act 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 estab- 
 lished. In the first section of the act it is declared that " the 
 Rector," &c, " and their successors," be able to sue, &c. (here 
 enumerating the powers of the corporation), and by section 6 
 of said act, it is enacted " that it shall and may be lawful for the 
 inhabitants aforesaid to assemble and meet together on Tuesday, 
 in Easter week, annually, at the said church, to choose two 
 churchwardens and twenty vestrymen, communicants of the 
 said church, to serve and officiate for the next ensuing year, by 
 the majority of the voice of the said communicants so met and 
 not otherwise." 
 
 As to the meaning of " the inhabitants aforesaid," as used 
 in this section, the title of the act and the previous sections 
 give no room for doubt. The title expressed the act to be for 
 granting -privileges and powers to the Rector and inhabitants of the 
 city of New -York, of the communion of the Church of England; and 
 the recital was that the inhabitants of the city of the communion 
 of the Church of England had by voluntary contribution erected 
 a church and purchased a site. The first section provided that 
 the Rector and inhabitants of the said city, in such communion, 
 should be known in law by the name of "The Rector and inhabi- 
 tants of the city of New-York in communion of the Church of 
 
7 
 
 England as by law established." The second section provided 
 that the Rector and inhabitants, and their successors, should 
 have the right to purchase, take and hold real estate. The 
 third section provided for presentation of a new Rector 11 in case 
 of death of the Rector," by the Churchwardens and Vestrymen of 
 said church annually elected by the inhabitants in communion as 
 aforesaid. 
 
 In 1705, the grant of Queen Anne is made to this corporation, 
 thus created under the charter of 1697, and the colonial act of 
 1704. In the grant itself, it is recited that, whereas the rector 
 and inhabitants had been incorporated, with power to take lands, 
 and that the corporation by their petition to the governor of the 
 province of New York had prayed that the Queen would grant 
 and confirm to their use, the farm known as the Queen's Farm, and 
 which had before been known as the King's Farm, and also the 
 Duke's Farm, following these recitals we come to the grant. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth : 
 
 From what is the Senator reading ? 
 
 Mr. Noxon : 
 
 From Queen Anne's grant. It says : " Know ye by our special 
 grace," &c, " We have given, granted, ratified and confirmed, 
 in and by these presents, for ourselves, heirs and successors, 
 we do give, grant, ratify and confirm, unto the said rector 
 and inhabitants of the city of New York, in communion 
 of the church of England, as by law established, and their suc- 
 cessors, all and singular, the said farm," &c, " to have and to 
 hold said farm, the several leases, &c, unto the said rector and 
 inhabitants of the city of New York, in communion with the 
 church of England, as by law established, and their successors 
 forever." 
 
 No further legislation was had in regard to the corporation until 
 after the revolution. In 1781 an act was passed making such 
 alterations in the charter of the corporation as to render it more 
 conformable to the Constitution of the State. In the third section 
 of that act it is enacted as follows : 
 
 III. Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid. That all 
 persons professing themselves members of the Episcopal Church, 
 
8 
 
 who shall either hold, occupy or enjoy a pew or seat in the said 
 church, and shall regularly pay to the support of the said church, 
 and such others as shall in the said church partake of the holy 
 sacrament of the Lord's Supper, at least once in every year, being 
 inhabitants of the city and county of New- York, shall be entitled 
 to all the rights, privileges, benefits and emoluments, which, in and 
 by the said charter and law first above mentioned, are designed 
 to be secured to the inhabitants of the city of New-York in com- 
 munion of the Church of England. 
 
 And preceding this third section is a preamble in the following 
 language : " And whereas doubts have arisen on those parts of the 
 said charter and law first mentioned, which speaks of inhabitants 
 in communion of the said Church of England; for removal, 
 whereof," sec. 3, " Be it further enacted, &c." 
 
 These doubts here alluded to, are as to that part of the char- 
 ter which speaks of the people " in communion of the church 
 of England," to whom were granted the rights and privileges 
 of the original charter. It will be perceived that now, for the 
 first time, we hear the Protestant Episcopal Church mentioned 
 instead of the Church of England ; a change made necessajy 
 by the revolution. So that under this act, the only change 
 made, is that it gives the same powers to persons in communion 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church, which were formerly con- 
 ferred on those in communion of the Church of England. It 
 adds, also, one other class to those entitled to vote — those who 
 are pew-holders in the church and pay regularly towards its 
 support. 
 
 It is claimed by the present corporation, that in the third sec- 
 tion which I have read, wherever the word " church" occurs, 
 it refers to Trinity Church, and indeed it is absolutely necessary 
 that this position should be taken, for if it does not refer to 
 Trinity Church, but has reference to the Church of England, it 
 is most apparent that the exclusive right claimed by Trinity 
 Church is in derogation of that act. Now, it is most remark- 
 able, that in the body of the act of 1784, the words " Trinity 
 Church" are not to be found, and the title of the act which 
 speaks of making alterations in the charter of the Corporation 
 
r 
 
 9 
 
 of Trinity Churchy was clearly an assumption of the existence 
 of a corporation which never existed by charter or law until 
 1814. The attention of the committee is called to the reasons 
 expressed in the preamble for the enactment of section three. 
 What are the doubts spoken of in the preamble ? Are they 
 not upon the charter and act of 1704, which speaks of inhabi- 
 tants in communion of the Church of England? And when 
 section three makes provision for removing these doubts, is it 
 not an imposition upon the credulity of men to maintain that 
 the word church refers to anything else but the subject matter 
 which the section was designed to explain ? It is not neces- 
 sary for us to go beyond this act ; a legislative construction is 
 given as to the corporators. The provision is broad and plain, 
 that communicants and pew-holders in the Episcopal Church, 
 being inhabitants of the city of New- York, are entitled to the 
 privileges and 'emoluments which by the charter and act of 
 1704 were designed to be secured to the inhabitants so being 
 in communion. 
 
 The applicants for the modification of the law of 1814, by 
 virtue of the act of 1784, have secured to themselves rights and 
 privileges, upon which they can rest with entire confidence. And 
 I most cordially invite discussion and debate upon the provisions 
 and spirit of that act. 
 
 In 17S8 — four years afterwards — an act was passed which 
 authorized the corporation to take and use the name of " The 
 Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New- York, in communion 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New- York," 
 and confirmed all grants, deeds, and conveyances made to them 
 under their former name. No other alteration was made in the 
 act of 1788 at all material to this matter. 
 
 We have no further legislation in respect to the corporation, 
 from 1788 until the act of 1814; and I beg to call the particu- 
 lar attention of the Senate to the words of certain sections of the 
 act. By the first section, the title of the corporation is altered; 
 and it is provided that "from and after the passage of this act, 
 the said Corporation of Trinity Church, instead of their present 
 name, shall take and use the name of 4 The Rector, Church war- 
 
10 
 
 dens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, in the City of New 
 York.' " 
 
 By section two of the same act, it is provided " that all male 
 persons of full age, who, for the space of one year preceding any 
 election, shall have been members of the congregation of Trinity 
 Church aforesaid, or any of the chapels belonging to the same, 
 and forming part of the same religious corporation, and who 
 shall hold, occupy, or enjoy a pew or seat in Trinity Church, or 
 in any of the said chapels, or have partaken of the holy commu- 
 nion therein within the said year, and no other persons, shall be 
 entitled to vote at the annual elections for the churchwardens and 
 vestrymen of the said corporation." 
 
 Now, it will be perceived by the committee, that if under the 
 original grant of 1697, and under the colonial act of 1704, and the 
 act of the Legislature of the State in 1784, the inhabitants of the city 
 of New- York in communion of the Church of England, or of the 
 Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, had a right to vote 
 on matters relating to the Corporation of Trinity Church ; then the 
 act of 1814 struck down that right and took it away from them. 
 Under the act of 1814 it will be seen that all grants given to com- 
 municants in other Protestant Episcopal churches not immediately 
 attached to Trinity, were annihilated ; that if there is any such 
 thing as a vested right on the part of the inhabitants of New-York 
 in communion of the Protestant Episcopal church, the object and 
 effect of section 2 of the act of 1814 was to strike down their privi- 
 leges, given under the Colonial acts and the acts of the Legislature 
 of the State. 
 
 The special committee, believing that the original intent of all 
 the acts up to 1814 was to vest in the Protestant Episcopal people 
 of New- York the right to vote for vestrymen in Trinity Church, 
 have introduced a bill to restore to them those rights. By section 
 two of the act now under consideration, we do restore to them 
 those rights, while we take away not one privilege ever granted 
 to the church. We are but asking those members who now control 
 the affairs of the corporation, to allow those who were corporators 
 with them up to 1814, to share those privileges they both then 
 enjoyed in common. 
 
 It may be urged that prior to the act of 1814, the parties for 
 
11 
 
 whose rights we now contend, did not discharge those duties 
 or avail themselves of those privileges. But this is not a mat- 
 ter for us to consider. The only question which should guide 
 us here, is whether they really possessed the rights stripped 
 from them in 1814. As a purely legal question, I put it to the 
 Senate to say whether that act of 1814 was not distinctly opposed 
 to the spirit and letter of the original grants. 
 
 I am not here at this time, Mr. Chairman, to charge Trinity 
 Church with having come to this Capitol to get that act through 
 the legislature by wicked and improper motives. She may 
 have had the purest intentions for aught I know or care at the 
 present time, in securing that law ; but the question is, what 
 are we to say and to do now that the subject is presented to us? 
 
 The Senate knows, and I know the difficulties this legisla- 
 ture has experienced in investigating this matter. The first 
 thing we did, when the abuses of the corporation were brought 
 to our notice, was simply to pass resolutions designed to elicit 
 the facts in the case. But they were useless, for she defied us. 
 Trinity Church haughtily defied the State of New-York. She 
 was a corporation, with grants with which we could not inter- 
 fere. She had vested rights which were out of our power to 
 touch. No legislature, she said, could call her to account for 
 the manner in which she discharged the duties conferred upon 
 her in her grants and laws. Sir, I believe that these corpora- 
 tions are only the creatures of law, and that they are all bound 
 to report to us their acts and to abide by the decision and judg- 
 ment of the legislature. 
 
 But Trinity Church does not stop here. Not only does she deny 
 the right of the Legislature to interfere in any manner with her 
 affairs ; but when deeming it prudent to report, how does she do 
 so ? She reports by spreading out on your tables no names of her 
 corporators ; and when taxed with the omission, says she did not 
 suppose you needed them. Why ? did not the Senate understand 
 what they wanted ? Is Trinity Church to come here and say 
 to the Senate that she did not understand herself, nor know 
 what she required? Sir, I accord more justice and more intelli- 
 gence to the Senate of 1855 than to suppose they adopted resolu- 
 
12 
 
 tions, calling for certain information, without understanding what 
 they were about. But although Trinity Church would not then 
 allow us to have the names of her corporators, she finally does so. 
 She yields inch by inch — protesting at every step — until finally 
 what do we find her doing ? Why, she comes to us at last, not 
 insolent and protesting, but begging — humbly begging — and 
 petitioning, in the form of remonstrances, the Legislature of the 
 State of New-York to let her alone, and not to take away her 
 powers. I ask Senators to look at the flood of remonstrances from 
 all parts of the State that have been poured into this Chamber. 
 They come from the same power that would not only control the 
 Legislature, but is controlling, with iron and despotic will, all the 
 churches in the State of New- York belonging to the same denomi- 
 nation, who have been the recipients of her bounties. 
 
 And yet this is called a Religious Corporation. God save the 
 word ! A Religious Corporation ! why it has not the least 
 scintilla of spiritual life — it is like all other corporations without 
 soul. It grovels among the things of this earth — among matters 
 with which a purely religious corporation could have no connection 
 or sympathy. Its affairs are managed, and its duties performed 
 by standing committees, responsible to no one. 
 
 There has been a good deal of feeling manifested in this mat- 
 ter of Trinity Church, but it has been occasioned by persons 
 interested in getting up such feeling. In order to carry out 
 their plans, it seems the Senate is first to be attacked and then 
 the Special Committee. What are the charges made against 
 the committee? We are accused of having spread false things 
 before the public. It is for the Senate to say whether the facts 
 we set forth are not fully justified by the evidence. 
 
 Mr. Spencer : 
 
 Will the Senator give way? It is now past the usual hour 
 for adjournment, and I desire to move that the committee rise 
 and report progress. 
 
 Mr. Noxon yielded the floor for the motion, and the commit- 
 tee rose and the Senate adjourned. 
 
13 
 
 IN SENATE, Thudsday, 1 P. M. 
 The Senate resumed the consideration of the Trinity Church 
 bill, Mr. Darling in the chair. 
 
 Mr. Noxon said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman: In addressing the committee upon this bill, I 
 desire to briefly recapitulate the points I have taken in support 
 of the bill, in order that the committee may bear in view, and 
 have in their minds the true question before the committee. 
 The statement I first made was that the title of the corporation, 
 created by the grant from the English Crown, in 1697, was, 
 " The Rector and Inhabitants of our said city of New-York, in 
 Communion of our Protestant Church of England, as now es- 
 tablished by our laws." Second. That under that grant the church 
 and churchyard were " forever separated and dedicated to the 
 service of God, and to be applied therein, to 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 established by our laws, 
 and to no other use or purpose whatsoever." Third. That for 
 managing the business of the corporation, there were annually 
 elected two churchwardens and twenty vestrymen, " by the 
 majority of votes of the inhabitants of the said Parish, in com- 
 munion as aforesaid." Fourth. That in 1704 this grant was 
 confirmed by the colonial act which conferred " sundry privi- 
 leges and powers on the Rector and Inhabitants of the city of 
 New-York, of the communion of the Church of England, as by 
 law established." Fifth. That the estate known as the Queen's 
 Farm, was granted in 1705 by Queen Anne, unto " The said 
 Rector and inhabitants of the city of New-York, in communion 
 of the Church of England, as by law established, and their suc- 
 cessors all and singular." Sixth. That in 17S4 an act was 
 passed to make the charter of the corporation of Trinity more 
 conformable to the constitution of the State ; and that section 
 3 of that act, to clear up doubts which had arisen on those 
 points of the original charter which spoke of inhabitants in 
 
14 
 
 communion of the Church of England, declared that members 
 of the Episcopal Church, who were communicants, or held pews 
 in the church and paid regularly towards its support, should 
 have the right to vote. Seventh. That in 17S8 the title of the 
 corporation was changed to " The Rector and Inhabitants of 
 the City of New-York, in communion of the Protestant Episco- 
 pal Church in the State of New-York." Eighth. That in 1814, 
 all the corporators who were not communicants of Trinity, or 
 her parishes, were cut off from the rights and privileges enjoyed 
 by them under the original charter and subsequent acts. 
 
 Perhaps I ought to say, before leaving this branch of the case 
 (which treats of the rights of Trinity Church as now claimed, and 
 under the acts and grants of the Crown and of the Colonial 
 and our own State legislatures), something with regard to the 
 manner in which the passage of the act of 1814 was procured, and 
 what led to its adoption. There can be no question that so far 
 as the Protestant Episcopal people of the city of New- York were 
 concerned, there were a great number who had rights secured to 
 them under the original charter, who were opposed to the act. I 
 ought to say that the act of 1814 never really received the sanction 
 of the Council of Revision. There was a division in the Council 
 on that question; and it was necessary, in order that the act of 
 1814 might become a law, that it should pass the Council of Re- 
 vision. The Council at that time consisted of D. D. Tompkins, 
 Governor, Chancellors Lansing and Kent, William W. Van Ness, 
 Ambrose Spencer, and Robert Yates. Perhaps not from that time 
 to the present has there been a more distinguished and abler set 
 of jurists assembled together, than the distinguished men who 
 composed that Council of Revision. When the question came up, 
 there was but one of the Council of Revision who finally voted 
 upon it, who favored the act of 1814. Chancellor Lansing him- 
 self long entertained objections to the bill ; and unless he had 
 passed over and voted on the other side, it never would have be- 
 come a? law. Kent, Lansing, Spencer, Yates — every one of those 
 distinguished men, then the brightest luminaries of the State — 
 every one of them originally opposed the act of 1814. I may add 
 that from the testimony, it appears that one of those men — Chan- 
 
15 
 
 cellor Kent — known and distinguished, not here alone, but 
 throughout the world, after voting for the bill, pronounced it as 
 his opinion that the law was unconstitutional. I speak of Chan- 
 cellor James Kent. 
 
 Now it is clear that as the matter stood, the act of 1814 was 
 not, as is contended, conceded on all hands to be right. There 
 were rights to be affected by that act ; but the fact is, the council 
 of revision placed great reliance in Judge Troup the leading 
 Vestryman of the church, who promised that the government and 
 management of the affairs of the church, under the law of 1814, 
 should be the same as it had been prior to its passage. They 
 then fell in with his views, and allowed the law to pass. I do 
 not believe there can be any question but that the mind of Chan- 
 cellor Lansing was influenced by Judge Troup, as to the rights 
 affected by the bill of 1814, and the management proposed after it 
 should become a law. But for the influence of Judge Troup over 
 Lansing, who presented the objections to the Council of Revision, 
 he never could have been prevailed upon to have voted against 
 his own unanswerable objections. 
 
 I have now said as much as is necessary respecting the ques- 
 tions of law. 1 will now proceed to examine the evidence given 
 before your committee. 
 
 It will be recollected that by the resolution which passed the 
 Senate in 1853,Trinity church was called upon to set forth the value 
 of her real estate. It is well known how Trinity church reported. 
 Whether the corporation in their answer to the resolution of the 
 Senate were actuated by high and noble principles it is not for 
 me to say ; but I must revert to it in order that the Senate may 
 understand what the value is. 
 
 The reply of thejChurch was grounded upon the valuation of 
 the assessors and not upon the value she herself puts upon the 
 property. And what is that valuation? About $1,500,000. 
 Your committee in prosecuting the labors you had assigned to 
 them, and in taking testimony for that purpose, proceeded dif- 
 ferently. They called witnesses who knew the property, to prove 
 the value of the real estate owned by the corporation, and the 
 proof thus elicited is submitted to the Senate. I would refer Sena- 
 tors to the report to show them that the actual value of the 
 
16 
 
 property upon which this valuation of a million and a half was 
 put, exclusive of buildings } amounts to about six millions of 
 dollars. 
 
 Mr. Wads worth : 
 
 Will the Senator tell us what incumbrances there are upon that 
 property ? 
 
 Mr. Noxon : 
 
 It has no incumbrances that are worth speaking of. The 
 mortgages and securities the church possesses outside this real 
 estate, leaves her, in the judgment of your committee, with 
 property in her hands worth nearly if not quite 810,000,000. 
 I ought, in justice to the appraisers, to say, that one of them, a 
 responsible person, stated he would take every dollar of the 
 property at its valuation — six or seven millions — and pay cash 
 for it. 
 
 I now desire to call the attention of the committee to the 
 valuation of some portions of the property by the corporation 
 and by the special committee ; and I do this in order that the 
 committee may understand whether or not there was a design 
 on the part of the corporation of Trinity Church to make any 
 concealment in the matter of their property, without myself 
 charging such design directly upon them. And first, I refer 
 Senators to page 8 of the report of the select committee made 
 in 1S55 ; in which they will find that the corporation estimates 
 the value of No. 351 Broadway, at $12,081.56. This property 
 is estimated by one appraiser at $100,000, and by another at 
 $115,000. I also refer you to the valuation by the corporation, on 
 page 9 of the first report, of the lots Nos. 136, 138, 140, and 
 142 Chambers-street — which I believe is the depot of the Hud- 
 son River Railroad — which valuation is $2S, 827.40. And what 
 is the proof on this point? Why, the proof is, that when the 
 committee come to value this property, they find the fact to be 
 that Trinity Church leases the same lots at a ground rent of 
 $5000. This she herself fixes to be at the rate of 5 per cent, 
 on the value; thus making the valuation of the property, by 
 her own estimate, one hundred thousand dollars. 
 
17 
 
 I may be permitted to say here that this negotiation, by 
 which Trinity Church fixed the valuation of the Chambers-street 
 property at $100,000, was made about two months before the 
 report which they submitted to the Senate. 
 
 I call the attention also to the report, where this corporation 
 values the lot 275 Greenwich-street at $6840.60, a lot which 
 by actual sale a few days previous to the report, was sold for 
 the sum of $20,000. 
 
 Again, no mention whatever is made by Trinity Church 
 of the St. John's square property. It was a matter of too little 
 consequence to report the valuation which the church put upon 
 the square; and yet it is estimated by Trinity herself, in a ne- 
 gotiation for its sale, at the modest sum o^four hundred thousand 
 dollars ! 
 
 But these discrepancies in the valuations are all explained 
 and excused by Trinity in a few words, when she says " why, 
 in our report we took the assessors* valuation." 
 
 I would next call the attention of the committee to another 
 branch of the case — that relating to the corporators. We have 
 now some information respecting them. Although in reply to 
 the original resolutions of the Senate, we could only get the 
 number of the corporators, and not the names ; the committee, 
 in taking testimony, did, through the reports sent to them on 
 behalf of Trinity Church, find what were the names of com- 
 municants in the church, and of the pew-holders, and the total 
 number entitled to vote as corporators. And I may here say 
 that we have had placed upon the files of the Senate, since our 
 last report, memorials impugning in a measure the action of the 
 committee in regard to the report she made relative to the list 
 of corporators. These memorials set forth the charge that the 
 committee have drawn conclusions not warranted by the testi- 
 mony. A protest was then placed upon our files against the 
 committee, asserting that they have made charges against the 
 corporation not borne out by the evidence. Now, what was 
 the statement of the committee on this point? Simply that it 
 had been a most difficult matter for several years, even to get 
 2 
 
18 
 
 a sight at the list of corporators. I beg to call the attention of 
 the committee to some points in the reported evidence; and I 
 will ask them, after loooking at the testimony, to say whether 
 we were right in that assertion, or whether Trinity Church is 
 right in charging that we are dragging her before the Senate to 
 place her in a false position. 
 
 I say that for eighteen years — eighteen long years — one of 
 her own clergymen, who ministered at her own altar, was not 
 allowed to look into the list of corporators of that church. I 
 refer the Senate to page 83 of the first report. Dr. Higbee 
 swears that he has been an assistant Minister in Trinity Church 
 for 18 years, and says : " I have never been able to see a list of 
 the corporators of Trinity Church. Dr. Wainright and myself 
 have made several efforts to obtain such a list unsuccessfully. 
 Dr. Wainright, after being made bishop, told me he did re- 
 ceive such a list." In examining the Comptroller of the church, 
 in New-York city, some questions came up, suggested by the 
 replies of the Comptroller, as to the list of corporators. The 
 question was put to him, u Have you a list of the voters in 
 your possession?" To which he answered, " One of the lists 
 was lost and afterwards found, and the number but not the 
 names was added to our report. T presume their names are in 
 the office ; if the committee of the vestry authorize me to fur- 
 nish such list I will do so?" 
 
 Why, is it not strange that the Comptroller of such a corpora- 
 tion as this, testifying before a committee of the Senate, should 
 affect so little knowledge of the affairs of his own church? Is 
 it not strange that when questioned as to the list of corporators, 
 he should fall back upon the " Committee of the Vestry," and 
 say, " if the Committee of the Vestry authorize me to furnish 
 such a list, I will do so?" 
 
 At page 64, in assigning a reason why the names of the cor- 
 porators were not given in the report, the comptroller in a 
 communication addressed to the committee states it to be : 
 " because the vestry were not aware that the liberty to inspect 
 a list of such names had ever been refused to any corporator." 
 
19 
 
 The Senators will pay particular attention to these words. I 
 now desire to call the attention of the committee to the testi- 
 mony of the rector, on page 55 of the second report. It will 
 be borne in mind that the language used by the comptroller is, 
 that he was not aware that the liberty of inspecting the names 
 had ever been refused to any of the corporators. Was he not 
 aware that Bishop Wainright had tried for years to get a list 
 of the corporators, in vain? Was he not aware that the vene- 
 rable rector himself had refused to show Bishop Wainwright 
 such list? I will now proceed to read the testimony of Dr. 
 Berrian, as to the difficulty of obtaining a sight of the names 
 of the corporators : 
 
 Q. You speak of a resolution having passed the vestry, in 
 relation to allowing Bishop Wainright to take a copy of a list 
 of corporators. What called for this action on the part of the 
 vestry? A. The reason was, the bishop wrote to me request- 
 ing the list from me. I replied that I had no power myself to 
 lend the book, though he had the right to examine it. 
 
 Q. When was it? A. I think it was in 1853, shortly after 
 he became bishop. 
 
 Q. Had he applied for it previously without success? A. I 
 understood that he applied to a clerk in the vestry office, who 
 declined, as I did, because he had not the power to do it. 
 
 So then we find the bishop asking not only the rector, but a 
 clerk in the vestry office — trying in some manner or other to 
 get a list of the corporators. But to continue : 
 
 Q. Did he ask to see it? A. I do not know; I presume he 
 did ; I think he asked me to see it. 
 
 Q. Did you show it to him? A. I think not. 
 
 Q. Why not? A. I have not the custody of the book. It 
 is not in my office or custody. 
 
 I ask the committee to pay particular attention to the language 
 here used by the Reverend Doctor, and to see whether he is 
 not attempting to be a little scholastic over this matter, and 
 endeavoring to select his words somewhat carefully. But we 
 come to the next question : 
 
20 
 
 Q. Who had it? A. At that particular time it was with me. 
 
 I suppose by the way the answer is given, the Rev. Doctor 
 sought to avail himself of a special plea, as some lawyers are 
 apt to do. Although the book was with him in fact, yet in the 
 eye of the law it was not with him. I now call attention to 
 the language used, after it has been admitted that the book 
 was in his hands. 
 
 Q. Why did you not show it to him ? A. I had it for the 
 purpose of entering the names of new communicants, and the 
 changes by death and removal. 
 
 Q. Did that prevent your showing it to him? A. I had no 
 control in the matter. I looked upon the book as belonging to 
 the comptroller and not to me. 
 
 Well, we might stop right here and ask, who is the head of 
 the Corporation of Trinity Church — the comptroller, who is 
 simply the agent of the corporation, or the Reverend Rector? 
 The Rector seems certainly to have an idea that he has no 
 power over whatever is in the possession of the comptroller or 
 any other officer. The evidence continues : 
 
 Q. What are your powers, if any, over the books of the cor- 
 poration ? A. I have the sole custody of the parish register, 
 containing the records of baptisms, marriages and burials; and 
 those are the only books over which I have any control, though 
 they are all open to my examination. 
 
 Q,. Do you know of anything in the act of incorporation, or rules 
 of the vestry, to prevent your showing the book to any person who 
 applies to see it ? A. I do not. 
 
 Q,. Then I again ask why you did not show it to him ? A. Be- 
 cause I thought it was the proper business of the comptroller to let 
 him see it. 
 
 Now, then, they come here with their memorials, crowding the 
 files of the Senate, and say that your committee have egregiously 
 erred in saying that there was ever any difficulty in obtaining a 
 list of the Corporators of Trinity Church ! 
 
 I cite now — without particular reference to it — the testimony of 
 John De Wolf, for many years Vestryman of Trinity Church, and 
 who testifies that he never saw the list, although ten years a 
 
21 
 
 vestryman. And yet they say that the reason they do not produce 
 the names of their corporators is because they supposed that any 
 person applying could at any time have obtained the list! 
 
 But this is not all. Perhaps the richest thing of the whole is 
 the statement they make as to the ninety-two corporators that are 
 communicants of Trinity Church and all her parishes, and the two 
 hundred pewholders ; making in all about three hundred to ad- 
 minister the vast funds of the corporation. May I not stop here 
 and ask, if Trinity Church has in one hundred and sixty years 
 added to her communicants ninety-two persons : if she has done 
 thus much for the cause of the Episcopal church, what may we 
 expect that she will come to in one hundred and sixty years more ? 
 
 But when she makes this report to the Senate and spreads out 
 before us her ninety-two corporators, and her two hundred pew- 
 holders, even then she does not tell the truth ; because we have 
 evidence to show that not over one hundred and twenty-five of the 
 three hundred returned here, are now at the present time communi- 
 cantsor pew-holders in the church. I desire to present to the commit- 
 tee better evidence bearing on this question, and shall refer them to 
 the report for that purpose. The list containing the names will 
 be found on page 68, in a schedule annexed to a communication 
 from the comptroller to your committee, by which he makes an 
 exhibit of the corporators who are not pew-holders. The number 
 is ninety-two. On the next page, sixty-nine, the whole number 
 of corporators as pew-holders, is made two hundred and twenty- 
 one. So there are in all, as stated in these schedules, three 
 hundred and thirteen corporators of Trinity Church. Now I have 
 before me evidence to show that from the ninety-two names sent 
 in to the Senate of the State of New- York as being corporators, 
 communicants of that church, the following should be deducted : 
 
 Two are dead — 
 
 Mr. Brooks : 
 
 Will the Senator state whether they were dead at the time the 
 report was made? 
 
22 
 
 Mr. Noxon : 
 
 One has died since the report — the other was dead at the time; 
 twenty-two have no directory address; seven have removed from 
 the city; four have. gone over to other churches. 
 
 Nine are Rectors, Clergymen, &c, and ten are Vestrymen. 
 
 This makes a total of 54. 
 
 But from these we should perhaps deduct the Vestrymen, Rec- 
 tor, Clergymen, &c, numbering 19. This would leave, as the 
 corporators of Trinity Church who are communicants, 57. 
 
 This is all. The Corporation of Trinity Church presents here, 
 through its officers, a list of the corporators, and the facts show 
 that its 92 dwindled down to 57. 
 
 But let us go a little further. We will not stop at the corpora- 
 tors who are communicants ; we go on to the corporators who are 
 pew holders. The Senators will recollect that at page 69, the 
 the number of these is put down at 221. Of these, 18 are sup- 
 posed to be dead — at least they cannot be found, nor are their 
 names in the Directory. 42 have removed from the city of New- 
 York. 45 are known to be dead. 
 
 Mr. Brooks : 
 
 Will the Senator allow me to ask him, if, at the time the report 
 was made, 42 of the pew-holders were absentees from the city? 
 
 Mr. Noxon: 
 
 Yes, sir; and I will add that 49 had removed to other congrega- 
 tions ; 15 were Vestrymen, Sexton, Clerk, &c, and 2 are not 
 Episcopalians. Now there may be some power or other trans- 
 mitted by the dead and the absent by which to enable the corpo- 
 ration to swell up the number to 221. But the total number not 
 to be found among these pew-holders — including one duplicate 
 name — is 168. If we deduct from this the 15 Vestrymen of the 
 church, Sexton, &c, it will leave 68 as the actual number of pew- 
 holders. So that the whole number of corporators in Trinity 
 Church, in New- York city, is actually 57 communicants and 68 
 pew-holders — making a total 125. 
 
 Mr. Noxon at this point gave way for a motion to rise and report 
 progress, and the Senate adjourned. 
 
23 
 
 IN SENATE, March 27, 12£ M. 
 The Senate, in committee of the whole, resumed the considera- 
 tion of the Trinity Church bill. 
 
 Mr. Noxon said : Mr. Chairman — while addressing the Senate 
 yesterday, and at the time the committee reported progress on this 
 bill, I was making some remarks in regard to the corporators, and 
 I was showing that in the report made by Trinity Church to the 
 Legislature of the State of New- York, the number of corporators, 
 as communicants, was set down as 92, and the number as pew 
 holders at 221, making 313 in all who were represented on the 
 part of the corporators as entitled to vote in the election of war- 
 dens and vestrymen in that church. I also said the representa- 
 tions made by that corporation to the Legislature of the State of 
 New- York were untrue; for that instead of there being that number 
 of corporators, there were but 57 of the one class and 68 of the other, 
 making the total number 125. 
 
 I now call the attention of the committee to another branch, and 
 perhaps a more interesting branch, of this case in connection with 
 Trinity Church. It is claimed on the part of the persons who 
 have been deprived of the rights secured to them under the origi- 
 nal charter and the laws of the State of New- York, that the trust 
 entrusted to this corporation, under the charter and laws, is ad- 
 ministered by them on party grounds; and that in addition to the 
 administration of the fund on party grounds, the aid they render 
 to the churches of New- York, and to those in the country, is ren- 
 dered in such a manner as to create a dependence on the corpora- 
 tion of Trinity Church, on the part of those who receive such aid. 
 This, I say, is the claim made on the part of the men who state 
 that they are dispossessed and deprived of rights guaranteed to 
 them in the original charter, by the law of 1814. 
 
 I beg leave to call the attention of the committee to that part 
 of the evidence bearing on this branch of the case ; and I ask 
 them to say, from the proof, whether this corporation, in ad- 
 ministering the fund given for the benefit of all, does so im- 
 partially and fairly, or partially and for the benefit of those only 
 who side with Trinity? And first I call the attention of the 
 committee to page 83 of the first report, in which the evidence 
 
24 
 
 of a clergyman of the Episcopal Church, who had been for 18 
 years a minister in the city of New-York, is given. He swears 
 before the committee that he has been acquainted with Trinity 
 Church, and the management of her fund in a considerable de- 
 gree, and says, " 1 do not consider the trust has been adminis- 
 tered in such a way as best to promote the object for which it 
 was given. Their course, in certain instances, to my knowlege, 
 has been partial. I speak of their partiality as a fact, to my 
 certain knowledge. It is a notorious fact, that while some 
 churches have had aid to an excessive amount, others have been 
 entirely cut off* or proscribed." 
 
 I also call the attention of the committee to page 104 of the 
 first report, on which page will be found the testimony of a 
 clergyman of the protestant Episcopal Church, who holds a high 
 position in the city of New-York. I allude to the Rector of 
 Grace Church, that venerable and pious man, who, speaking on 
 the very point to which I am calling the attention of the com- 
 mittee, gives the following evidence : 
 
 The question is put as to whether, in his opinion, Trinity 
 Church is doing her utmost to make the capital of the corpora- 
 tion available for the founding, support or promotion of reli- 
 gious, charitable or educational institutions or purposes? The 
 answer is, " from outward observation of their acts, I should 
 say not." 
 
 The question is then propounded, "In what respect?" He 
 replies: "Because they have not multiplied churches through- 
 out the city to any extent, in proportion to their means. The 
 aid which they have extended to feeble churches has been done 
 reluctantly and offensively, either by taking mortgages on the 
 churches to which they advanced money, or by annual pay- 
 ments to the support of the minister; in either way increasing 
 their power over the corporations and ministers of the church to 
 an extent which was fatal to all independence of thought or 
 action on the part of such corporations or ministers. The 
 tendency of this action is to enable her to exercise an over- 
 whelming influence throughout the diocese." 
 
25 
 
 I beg also to call the attention of the committee to the testi- 
 mony of Dr. Anthon, at page 109 of the first report. 
 
 Dr. Anthon was an assistant Minister in Trinity Church from 
 1S31 to 1836. The question is propounded to him as to the 
 effect which the manner of making grants and loans, or aiding 
 churches, has upon freedom of speech and freedom of action 
 on the part of parishes and clergymen. A. In my opinion the 
 effect is seriously to impair their independence. 
 
 Q. Jn application for aid, has Trinity Church, in your opinion, 
 favored those whose party views and actions were similar to her 
 own ? A. Unquestionably. For instance, while the applica- 
 tion of St. Jude's church was pending, which was ultimately 
 refused, it is said grants were made St. Luke's, the Holy Apos- 
 tles, Dr. Seabury's, and others. 
 
 I beg also to refer the committee to page 10 of the new re- 
 port, and to call their attention to the testimony of Dr. Haight, 
 who was sworn as a witness on the part of Trinity Church, in 
 the proceedings taken before the committee, and who says : 
 
 " In looking over the list of parishes whose churches have been 
 mortgaged to Tiinity Church, I find eight, the clergy and lay 
 delegates of which, for a series of years, on all leading questions 
 spoke and voted differently from the Rector and lay delegates of 
 Trinity. Two of these are mortgaged for $25,000, two for $20,000, 
 one for $5000, the other three for smaller sums. So, also, in 
 regard to the churches which have received grants of land and 
 money, or annual stipends. I find nearly thirty which have 
 taken the same independent course in convention, without regard 
 to the course of Trinity." 
 
 There are 130 of that class of churches alluded to by Dr. Haight, 
 which have received grants or stipends from Trinity ; so that out 
 of 196 churches, we have 38 who have dared to raise their voices 
 against the iron power Trinity Church would have exercised 
 over them. 
 
 I also call the attention of the committee to a newspaper article 
 which has been placed in the hands of almost every member of 
 the Senate, headed " Trinity Church. — Answer to the charges. 7 
 
26 
 
 I refer to that part of the statement which professes to give the 
 amounts that have been appropriated by Trinity Church to the 
 "High Churches" and "Low Churches," taking the twenty 
 largest appropriations to the city churches and the country 
 churches. In this connection, St. George's, St. Mark's, Grace 
 Church, Christ Church, St. Michael's, St. James', St. Andrew's, 
 St. Thomas', Ascension, St. Peter's and St. Bartholomew's are 
 mentioned as the "Low Churches " in the city ; and St. Stephen's, 
 Zion, St. Clement's. St. Luke's, All Saints', St. Philip's, Annuncia- 
 tion, Nativity, and the Church of the Redeemer, as the " High 
 Churches." The gifts to " Low Churches," the paper I hold in 
 my hand says, have been $822,000. To « High Churches " 
 $254,000. By which it would appear that Trinity Church was 
 really doing more for the " Low Church " in the city of New 
 York than for the " High Church." 
 
 I now desire to call the attention of the committee to this most 
 significant fact; a fact that stands out boldly, which, if we were 
 not well acquainted with the nature and character of the gifts 
 and grants of Trinity, might blind the eyes of the committee 
 to the facts as they in reality exist. But how is it in truth ? 
 The gift to St. George's church was made in 1812. That to 
 St. Mark's in 1795. That to Grace Church in 1804 to 1811. 
 That to Christ Church in 1805. And following down through 
 the several gifts and grants, we find them nearly every one 
 made prior to 1812. Since 18 L4, where are the gifts and grants 
 made by Trinity to the high and low churches of the city of 
 New-York. The only gifts bestowed upon the low churches of 
 the city since 1814, are those to St. Thomas ($32,000) in 1827 ; 
 to Ascension ($15,000) in 1829 to 1835 ; and to St. Bartholo- 
 mew's in 1839; making a total of $71,000 for all the gifts and 
 grants since 1812, instead of $822,000. So when this error is 
 corrected, it stands " gifts and grants to 4 Low Churches' since 
 1814, $71,000 and 1 High Churches' $254,000, or more than 
 double." 
 
 And while I am speaking of the gifts and grants by Trinity 
 Church to the churches in the city of New-York, I cannot re- 
 frain from mentioning one case, that of the Church of St. Mat- 
 
2? 
 
 thew, in the city of New- York, a little church, with a debt of 
 $1300, who came begging, imploring and beseeching Trinity- 
 Church to grant her aid. At that very time Trinity was pour- 
 ing into the treasuries of the high churches her hundreds and 
 thousands of dollars ; but she allowed St. Matthew's to die, and 
 her doors to be closed within the very sight of her own proud 
 spires. And no excuse is offered for this. Clergyman after 
 clergyman is called upon to give a reason why St. Matthew's 
 was thus treated; but none is given. They say it is a very 
 unpleasant subject to talk about, but we never get at the 
 fact as to what there is so unpleasant about it, or why they 
 allowed her to die at the same time that they were giving to 
 the rich churches up town their hundreds and thousands of 
 dollars. I have heard it whispered that it was because the 
 pastor of the church was not exactly the man to preside over a 
 congregation. 
 
 I should like to know whether this can be considered a suffi- 
 cient reason why the congregation of St. Matthew's should see 
 their church expire within the very sound of the music of the bells 
 of Trinity. I should like to know whether this can be a suffi- 
 cient reason why Trinity, with the wealth given for aid of all 
 the Protestant Episcopal Churches in her possession, should 
 allow her children to die without stretching forth a helping 
 hand. And yet this corporation would tell us that in the dis- 
 tribution of the funds there is no party consideration ! 
 
 Sir, this despotism of Trinity Church does not stop with the 
 churches of New-York. We have seen it exemplified here, so 
 plainly that he who runs may read, that the power of Trinity 
 is wielded over the entire church, and that those in the country 
 which have received her aid are now called upon to influence 
 the legislature in her behalf. Witness the flood of memorials 
 that have poured in upon us. I ask what the Episcopal 
 Churches outside of New-York can know of this proceeding ; 
 what can they know of the proceedings here at the Capitol? 
 What alarm has been sent abroad to say to them " remonstrate 
 against this law a law, the proposition of which not one out 
 
2S 
 
 of a hundred of them can be acquainted with. I beg to direct 
 the attention of the committee to these remonstrances. It will 
 be seen that they all come from one press, that they are stereo- 
 typed, and sent out by Trinity Church unto all the churches of 
 this state who have received aid from her, and who are re- 
 quired to remonstrate, blindfold, against the passage of this 
 law. Here is the memorial : 
 
 To the Hon. the Senate and House of Assembly of the State of New- York. 
 
 The Remonstrance of the undersigned Members of the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church of the United States, Inhabitants of 
 Whitestown, in the State of New-York, not belonging to the 
 Parish of Trinity Church, New-York, respectfully represents: 
 
 That your Memorialists are opposed to any repeal, altera- 
 tion, or modification by the Legislature, of an Act entitled 
 " An Act to alter the name of the Corporation of Trinity Church, 
 and for other purposes," passed on the 25th of January, 1814. 
 They are convinced that such action, by casting doubt upon the 
 exclusive rights of the present Corporators of Trinity Church 
 to vote at the elections for Church Wardens and Vestrymen of 
 that Parish, which they have enjoyed and exercised, without 
 disturbance, under that Act for forty-three years, would destroy 
 confidence in the security of property. Your Remonstrants 
 foresee, moreover, that the direct effect of such appeal, modifi- 
 cation, or alteration would be very injurious to the interests of 
 country Parishes, and would encourage litigations dangerous to 
 the peace of the religious community, of which your Remon- 
 strants are members; and that if the parties promoting such 
 litigations should succeed, the elections of Trinity Church 
 would become scenes of disorder and unseemly contest between 
 rival parties seeking the control and management of her estate. 
 And your Remonstrants will ever pray, &c. 
 
 1 should like to know who told Trinity Church that the 
 Senate in its action sought to throw doubts on the rights of her 
 corporators; I should like to know where Trinity and her cor- 
 poration can find any provision in the proposed law that can 
 
29 
 
 cast doubt on the right of her corporators ? Why, Sir, this bill 
 seeks to make plain those rights. No person here asks that 
 any doubts shall be thrown over these rights. We ask, that 
 those who are corporators now should still remain corporators, 
 and that they should go a little further and restore rights to 
 those corporators who have been deprived of them. This the 
 country churches do not know anything about. There could 
 not be found one in opposition to the bill, if they knew the 
 egregious wrong suffered by those to whom it seeks to do 
 justice. 
 
 They next say that injustice is intended to country parishes. 
 How so? What injustice? You simply open the doors, and 
 allow those for whose use the property was set apart by grants 
 and charters, to vote and have a choice in the selections of the 
 Vestrymen and Wardens who are to administer that fund for their 
 use. But they tell us that the men who apply here for this law, 
 are proposing matters that must be for the injury of the country 
 churches. I can only say that I can point to four of the names 
 among the signatures on the memorial for the bill, who have 
 given, and are annually giving more to the country churches than 
 Trinity herself, with her millions of property. And yet you would 
 tell me that we are injuring the country churches ! They say, 
 too, that the law would encourage litigation ; but they do not tell 
 how. I can hardly perceive how it would encourage litigation to 
 allow parties to vote who are entitled to do so. 
 
 There is a common error abroad in the land that this property 
 and Queen's Farm are the property of Trinity Church. It is the 
 most egregious error that ever crept into the brain of the most 
 credulous man. Trinity Church never had any right to the 
 property as Trinity Church. She has not to this day any right, 
 except what she gets under the law of 1814. To whom then does 
 the property belong? To the corporators. And who are the cor- 
 porators ? Why the Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen — of what 
 church ? Not of Trinity Church ; but the Rector, Wardens and 
 Vestrymen of the Church of England, as by law established. 
 Trinity has simply the name of the building ; but the corporation 
 that took the land as a corporation, had nothing whatever to do 
 with Trinity Church as a church. 
 
30 
 
 I now call attention to page 42 of the new report, which relates 
 to another branch of this subject, as to what Trinity has done. 
 She was called upon in the original resolution of the Senate to 
 report what she had done, by the way of endowing institutions of 
 charity or benevolence, for her own poor. Well, it is a remarkable 
 fact that Trinity Church — the most immense religious corporation 
 in existence within the bounds of the State — has done nothing for 
 institutions of charity or benevolence, even for her own poor. This 
 point is met by a question propounded to the Rector of Trinity, 
 who replies, " This appears to me a most remarkable statement. 
 It has liberally and amply endowed Trinity Charity School, which 
 lias been doing immeasurable good to her own poor, and others, 
 from generation to generation ; and which, from a munificent 
 bequest, of which she is just about to come in possession, promises 
 to become one of the most important institutions in the land. The 
 testimony on this point comes from a quarter where it was but 
 little to have been expected, and is calculated to leave a false 
 impression on the public mind. Neither Trinity Parish nor Trin- 
 ity Corporation have been so unmindful of their own poor, as the 
 report of the committee would seem to imply." 
 
 In this connection, it will be seen that the Rector, in order to 
 show that the statement that she has given nothing for such 
 purposes, cannot be true, gives evidence of the fact that she has 
 endowed " Trinity Charity School." I should like to know 
 how she has endowed that school ? It is now rich, and how 
 has it become rich ? By Trinity having given it lots when they 
 were hardly worth a song ; and now by the natural rise and 
 growth of the city, these lots, originally worth nothing, have 
 made the charity comparatively wealthy. But the Rev. Rector, 
 in speaking of this very subject, as to the institutions Trinity 
 has endowed, says "she has got her Dorcas Societies, her In- 
 dustrial Schools, her Parish Schools." Her schools are most 
 decidedly the richest specimens Thinity Church has made in 
 her " endowments" to institutions, to charity or benevolence. 
 " She makes annual and occasional collections," he further 
 says, " in her parishes." 
 
31 
 
 Well, I would like to know what church does not make these 
 annual collections. Why, if these are to be called endowments, 
 then the little, humble church to which I am attached, poor 
 and in debt as she is, is making endowments. But Trinity em- 
 ploys " lay agents," it is said, "whose business it is to give 
 needful assistance and counsel to the emigrant, on his arrival at 
 this port; to visit the suffering poor, and ascerain their fitness 
 for the bounty of the church, and to search out the ignorant for 
 religious instruction." 
 
 I do not know but that it is meant to claim this as an " endow- 
 ment," because it pays the men it thus employs a salary of $1600 
 a year. Sir. there is not in the annals of history, there cannot be 
 found in history, any other church, with such ample means, with 
 property large enough to endow every other church in New- York, 
 that does not raise her hands in support of her poor sister churches. 
 When asked for aid, her reply is that she is already in debt six 
 hundred thousand dollars. She owes this large sum, and cannot 
 give anything away. She would like to give, but is not able. Oh, 
 no ! When the churches of the city call upon her for aid, it is a 
 very easy matter for her to say " we can't give, because our debt 
 is $600,000, and that makes us poor," but she does not stop long 
 enough to tell us how that debt was incurred. She does not tell 
 us that churches in the city of New- York — wealthy churches — 
 have received from her hands, from time to time, those immense 
 sums of money which have taken from her treasury all she has, 
 and that therefore she has incurred this debt. 
 
 I may say, and I do say here, in justice to some of the vestry- 
 men of the church, that while some have favored the erection of 
 those magnificent temples, others have persistently resisted such 
 a policy; but in vain. They have brought in their estimates and 
 bills of $60,000; and when the structures have been built, they 
 have cost $260,000 or $270,000. 
 
 Sir, Trinity can, when it is to gratify those upon whom she can 
 rely for support and increased strength, put her hand into her 
 pocket, and with a princely liberality help to raise up magnifi- 
 cent and costly temples, carved and sculptured as by an Angel's 
 hand; but when a cry of help comes from those from whom she 
 
32 
 
 can expect no power, her reply is, " we should love to give, but 
 our debt will not allow us." 
 
 And how is it with regard to the interest of that debt 7 How is 
 the management of the fund carried on to-day ? Sir, the represen- 
 tatives of the corporation of Trinity Church, if not shielded be- 
 neath the garb of a religious society, would every one be sent to 
 a mad-house. With a debt of $600,000, and with their whole 
 vast property yielding thern less than $100,000 a year ! They 
 say it is out on long leases. This is not true, as a matter of fact. 
 Half of these long leases have already expired. They have three 
 millions of dollars worth of property, which at 7 per cent, would 
 yield them $210,000. But they prefer to keep their real estate — 
 and when I say they, I speak of the standing committee who re- 
 present Trinity Church in the green rooms of the councils, and 
 who use the funds, not for the purpose for which they were origi- 
 nally designed, but to keep them fast, increasing and swelling up 
 in their hands. Her policy now is not the same as it was prior to 
 1814. She holds her lands now, and builds magnificent churches, 
 and lays out immense sums upon them, and when the poor 
 churches come to beg of her, she has not a dollar for them. 
 
 And yet they tell us, with this immense amount of property in 
 their hands, that this is good management ! I wonder if the 125 
 corporators of the church understand what the management of 
 this fund by the corporation really is ? I wonder whether they 
 know what these vestrymen and wardens are doing? No, sir. 
 Not a word ever reaches them. No report is ever given to the 
 corporators. The wardens and vestrymen are placed there only 
 as trustees, and yet they never account for the management of the 
 fund to those for whose benefit it was orignally given. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, these remarks which I make about this corpora- 
 tion, do not affect Trinity Church nor her parishes and her clergy. 
 It is one thing when I say Trinity Church and her parishes, and 
 another when I say "this corporation." When I come to speak 
 of Trinity Church and her clergy, I can speak of the good they 
 are doing in the city of New-York ; for there can be no question 
 that they are doing great good in the cause of religion, and taking 
 care of their poor, as other churches do. But when I speak of 
 the corporation, I speak of it distinct from the clergy, for they 
 
33 
 
 know nothing about its affairs. There is not one assistant minis- 
 ter who has any knowledge of the affairs of the corporation. 
 
 Sir: This corporation deserves great credit for some things, 
 and I am willing to give her all that of right belongs to her. 
 She has erected Trinity Church at the head of Wall-street, 
 looking down upon the great money depot of that wealthy city, 
 with her lofty spire piercing the sky, and her merry bells ring- 
 ing out their music in the ears of all, and giving a pleasant 
 invitation to the rich and poor who love to sit beneath her sanc- 
 tuary. For all this — for the other magnificent edifices she has 
 built up in the city of New-York — for founding her sewing 
 societies and her industrial schools, she doubtless deserves high 
 credit. But I might stop here and ask whether, while she has 
 done all this, she has not a little overdone it, by fitting and 
 furnishing some of the churches in a style of splendor and 
 magnificence almost forbidding to the humble christian wander- 
 er who seeks to enter her doors. Her velvet cushions, her 
 crimson draperies, and all her gorgeous embellishments may 
 well attract the rich and luxurious, but the poor rarely seek 
 these magnificent structures erected by Trinity Church, to hear 
 the word of God from the minister's lips. 
 
 We have heard on several occasions within the last few years, 
 in the Senate halls, the voice of warning as to the power which 
 the Papal church exercises over the minds of men. We have 
 been continually reminded of the dangerous power which that 
 church wields over the will and action of its communicants. 
 We are reminded, too, from time to time, that there are power- 
 ful corporations in the State of New-York, which exercise an 
 undue control over the powers that be, in the state government. 
 The note of alarm is constantly sounded on this key. But I 
 ask, Sir, is there any power now existing, or that ever did 
 exist in the State of New-York, stronger, and bolder, and more 
 defiant than this corporation? A power that starting first in 
 the city of New-York, and which, when the Senate pass resolu- 
 tions affecting it, defies the Legislature of the State and proudly 
 says, "you have no right to call upon me for information." A 
 3 
 
power that, when the committee under the authority of the 
 Senate seek to discharge their duty, and to take testimony as 
 to the affairs of Trinity, would crush out that committee, and 
 hold it up to the scorn of the people of the State of New- York. 
 A power that is not content with the attempt to extend its influ- 
 ence over the committee, but creeps slowly and stealthily into 
 the Legislature, defies the State herself and declares that it 
 holds grants from the British crown, which are over and above 
 all laws of the State of New- York. 
 
 But I ask the Senate to remember that this power is, after all, 
 but the power of a grasping corporation. Although she has be- 
 hind her the proud spire of Trinity church, yet I know not why 
 she should have any more rights or authority here than a bank 
 corporation, an insurance corporation, or a railroad corporation. 
 
 Sir, this power rules also the Convention of her diocese. She 
 does not stop at ruling in the city and at the Capital of the State, 
 but she rules and controls by her own will the members of the 
 Convention of the Diocese. And what is probably more to be 
 regretted than aught else, she controls her Bishop. The Head of 
 the church is called to her aid, and puts forth his power in order 
 to defeat all, except those who bow and cringe to the despotic 
 power of this overbearing corporation. But not only does she 
 exercise this in the diocese in which she exists, and where her 
 business is carried on, but she goes into another diocese, and drags 
 into her meshes another Bishop. And yet we are told that Trinity 
 Church knows no party, and has no ambition ! 
 
 I have already said that this power rules the country church. 
 Yesterday morning, more by way of curiosity than from any 
 other feeling, I took up the list of remonstrances, to see who it 
 was from the country that was pressing these memorials regard- 
 ing the amendment of the law of 1814. I find that of tl.e 
 churches memorializing the Senate, there are in all 41. Of these, 
 5 are Low and 36 are High churches. 
 
 But however cruel, cold and merciless Trinity Church may 
 be in the use of the fund placed in her hands to aid the cause 
 of religion ; however much the interests of the Protestant Episco- 
 pal Church of the city of New-York may suffer from her policy, 
 
35 
 
 I would invoke here no feeling against her. I desire the cool, 
 calm, deliberate judgment of the Senate on the matters before 
 it. I ask for no excitement of feeling. Let us lay aside all 
 prejudices on either side, and meet this question as we meet all 
 other questions, unbiassed and uncontrolled by any influences 
 that may seek to reach us under the garb of religion. Let us 
 meet it with judgments clear, and with minds accurately fixed 
 on the true matters in dispute between the corporation as it 
 now exists, and the corporators whose rights were stripped 
 from them by the law whose injustice we seek now to redress. 
 I ask not that the bill introduced here may be supported by 
 any member of the Senate, unless he shall be satisfied that its 
 provisions are just. I ask not for legislative action against this 
 corporation unless those who were originally corporators under 
 the grant of 1697 and the laws of 1784 and 1788, are entitled 
 to rights of which they have been improperly deprived. But 
 if they have any vested rights under that original grant and the 
 subsequent laws, then I say that the Legislature of the State 
 of New-York is bound to protect those vested rights wrested 
 from them by the act of 1S14. 
 
 Sir, I speak not for the living only, but for those who are yet 
 to come, for they also are injured by the law. It was not for 
 the inhabitants of New York, in communion of the church of 
 England in 1G97 only, but for those inhabiting and to inhabit 
 the city, that the grant was made. It was to them and not to 
 Trinity Church that the property was given ; she was simply 
 trustee — nothing more. 
 
 Now as to the question whether or not she has administered 
 the funds wisely. If she had given to the poor churches as 
 she should have given ; if the fund had been distributed for 
 the good of the church and of the people, then I grant there 
 might be some ground for saying there should be no amend- 
 ment to the law of 1814. But if it is clear that prior to 1814 
 there was such trust, and that the property thus held for the 
 benefit of the inhabitants of the city of New-York is now im- 
 properly managed and unfairly appropriated; then it is not a duty 
 
36 
 
 we owe to those now upon the stage of life, and to all who 
 are to come after them, to reform these evils, and to rescue 
 from Trinity Church and her corporation the rights of these 
 parties so long divested from them. 
 
 Sir, the assertion is made that the original corporators have 
 enjoyed these wrongs so long, that they begin to ripen into 
 rights ! That the wrongs to these beneficiaries having been suffer- 
 ed to quietly exist for forty long years, they ought not now to 
 ask for their removal. I answer, that if there is a right exist- 
 ing — if these people were the original corporators — if the pro- 
 perty was granted to their use — then there is no power in the 
 legislature of the State of New-York which can divest them of 
 those rights or deprive them of that property. I repeat, that 
 if the original corporators had rights under the original grant, 
 no law that the State of New-York can pass can take aw T ay 
 those rights. They remain secure and inviolable for ever. 
 
 Mr. Chairman : I have already occupied the attention of the 
 committee for too long a time ; but I deemed it necessary after 
 examining the testimony, to briefly call the attention of Sena- 
 tors to matters which came up before the committee, because 
 I know it is impossible — voluminous as that testimony is — in 
 the press of other business to read one-half of it. I again call 
 upon Senators to enter upon the investigation of this matter 
 without passion or feeling; to exercise their best judgment in 
 deliberating upon it ; and if, in their opinion, the law of 1S14 
 did deprive these men of any of their rights, then I ask them 
 to place the original corporators in the same position they 
 occupied prior to the law of 1S14. There is to be no over- 
 turning of Trinity Church, as has been represented in the 
 country, and at this Capitol. The same men who are corpora- 
 tors now, will remain corporators still. The only amendment 
 offered, and the object of the bill, is to restore to the original 
 corporators the rights they enjoyed from the year 1697 up to 
 the year 1S14. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth commenced his reply, but had not proceeded 
 far, when interrupted by the hour of adjournment. 
 
37 
 
 IN SENATE, March 28. 
 At the conclusion of Mr. Wads worth's remarks, Mr. Brooks 
 said : 
 
 Mr. Chairman : I do not propose at this time to go into the dis- 
 cussion of the bill now under consideration, but shall content my- 
 self with now offering a substitute, reserving to myself the right 
 at some future day to occupy as brief time as possible in examin- 
 ing the merits of this bill offered by the Special Committee. 
 
 The substitute was read ; and Mr. Noxon, in reply to Mr. 
 Wads worth, said : 
 
 Mr. Chaiiman : Inasmuch as the substitute offered by the Sena- 
 tor from the 6th does, in effect, remedy in some degree what is 
 claimed to be one of the greatest wrongs ever perpetrated on per- 
 sonal rights, I do not know but that it will be acceptable to those 
 parties in New-York who have been injured by the act of 1814. 
 If I understand the purpose of the substitute, it is that Trinity 
 Church shall annually elect ten Vestrymen and one Church 
 Warden, and that ten Vestrymen and one Church Warden shall 
 be elected in the other parishes in New- York, and that these Ves- 
 trymen and Wardens thus elected shall have the care of this great 
 fund. 
 
 I care not, Mr. Chairman, how the object is attained. I have 
 no desire to press upon the Senate the particular bill reported by 
 the committee. I only wish that the rights of the original corpo- 
 rators, taken from them by the law of 1814, shall be restored to 
 them. 
 
 The Senator from the 31st has seen fit to say that I have only 
 touched the threshold of the legal questions involved in this dis- 
 cussion. Sir, I call the attention of the Hon. Senator to the fact 
 that he has only to read the charter and the subsequent laws to 
 discover his error. The charter tells the Hon. Senator that this 
 property in New- York, granted in 1697, was granted to the use, 
 of whom ?— of Trinity Church ? Oh, no ! but as the charter says 
 (and there is no mistaking its language), those inhabiting, and to 
 inhabit, the city of New- York in communion of the Church of 
 England.. Now I lay down the proposition that the language of 
 the charter cannot possibly bear any other construction than that 
 I have put upon it, and that it settles of itself all questions of law ; 
 
38 
 
 and when I call the attention of my honorable friend to the 
 charter — to the plain declaration on its face — it is for him to answer 
 if he has got any law to disprove it. It is not for me to produce 
 law for that which on its face must directly carry conviction to 
 every man. 
 
 But it does not stop at saying to whose use the property is 
 dedicated ; hut goes on to describe the persons who shall vote 
 for wardens and vestrymen. 
 
 If I understand the charter, and law of 1704, it is provided 
 that there shall be annually elected two wardens and twenty 
 vestrymen, and that those who vote for them shall be inhabit- 
 ants of — what ? — not of the parishes of Trinity or her chapels, 
 but of the city of New-York, who shall be communicants of the 
 Church of England. The subsequent act of 1784 says, " in com- 
 munion of the Protestant Episcopal Church." Now I ask the 
 Hon. Senator in view of the grant, which is too plain to ques- 
 tion, how he can say that I have only touched the threshold of 
 the legal question ? 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth : 
 
 Will the Senator allow me one moment ? I desire to direct 
 his attention to the fact that this was a charter to build the first 
 church and the first steeple in the city of New-York. 
 
 It first makes reference to the minister. Secondly it alludes 
 to the building of the church, and laying the foundation of the 
 steeple. Thirdly follows the royal grant of a certain church 
 and steeple, with ground adjoining, &c. It then goes on with 
 respect to expenses. A little lower down it speaks of the 
 " aforesaid church." Lower still, of the Rector of the aforesaid 
 church ; making it clear that when it speaks of the inhabitants of 
 New- York in communion of our aforesaid church of England, it 
 alludes to that single church to which the charter throughout 
 has reference. It is in view of these facts that I think it would 
 be well for the Honorable Senator not to jump so eagerly to 
 the 9th page of the charter, but commence at the beginning, 
 and he will then find that the words " in communion of our 
 
39 
 
 aforesaid church," allude to Trinity Church alone, as it alludes 
 to one Rector and to one parish. 
 
 Mr. Noxon : 
 
 1 am very willing to be called out on that branch of the charter, 
 because I have given great attention to it, and I think if the Hon. 
 Senator had taken the same pains to understand it that I have, he 
 would find that the first pages of the charter have no reference to 
 the grant. The church was already built. The preamble recites 
 what had been done. A minister had been sent into the country 
 " for the cure of souls." After a time this church was erected, and 
 after that, the then Governor of New- York, who had interested him- 
 self much in the church, petitioned for the grant. Then comes 
 the preamble in the charter, providing for a Protestant minister. 
 There was in 1693 no minister in New- York ; but in 1697 there 
 was. A little further on it recites the petition and then goes on 
 to state the inducements for the charter. The grant itself is en- 
 tirely distinct from this preamble. I tell the Hon. Senator that I 
 have commenced at the starting point, and perfectly well under- 
 stand what that grant is. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth : 
 
 If the Senator looks at page 11, he will find what the grant is. 
 
 Mr. Noxon : 
 
 My attention is called to page 11. I must say that the Hon. 
 Senator is wrong again. The allusion at that page is to the 
 furnishing, not to the erecting of the church. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth : 
 
 I was not wrong before. The church was in process of erec- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Noxon : 
 
 No Sir, it was finished. But the charter goes on to say what 
 the name of the church is. Then comes the next question as to 
 who was entitled to vote for wardens and vestrymen. The Hon. 
 Senator says I do not go into the legal argument. Sir, I present 
 facts — I present the grant, which says that the inhabitants of the 
 city of New York of that faith shall vote. 
 
40 
 
 The Hon. Senator, in his opening remarks, has said it is sought 
 by the advocates of this bill to accuse Trinity of certain crimes. 
 I can only say the charge is not the proof. The fact is, this belief 
 has grown up in the mind of my honorable friend, and is without 
 foundation. The idea that they whose rights have been taken 
 away by the law of 1814, and who desire that they shall be re- 
 stored, would tear away the graves of Trinity, is simply ridiculous. 
 There is no evidence on the point. But the Hon. Senator says 
 that it is charged as a great crime against Trinity that she would 
 preserve those graves. He also says that it is charged as a crime 
 against Trinity that she will not sell St. John's Park. I say that 
 it was part of the original agreement that the park was to be sold ; 
 and yet the Hon. Senator says that the church merely fixed a 
 price in order not to sell it. 
 
 I was a little astonished, Sir, to hear the Hon. Senator assert 
 that it was charged as a crime against Trinity that she rebuilt 
 her church. I said distinctly that it was an ornament and honor 
 to New- York to place the church there at that point. Not that I 
 think there is any necessity to have it at the top of the money 
 depot of the city; for they are not the men who attend Trinity 
 church, who hover about their money boxes in Wall-street. Who 
 are they, then, that attend the church ? The poor, in the lower 
 part of the city. The rich inhabitants of Wall-street attend the 
 church edifices in the upper part of the city. But the Hon. Sena- 
 tor says the objection to the building of churches was because it 
 was desired to divide up the property. Who proposes any such 
 thing ? Does the bill propose it ? Does the amendment propose 
 it? No such thing. There is no such proposition except in the 
 imagination of those who suggest it. 
 
 Now how is this great fund managed, that was to benefit all 
 the original corporators ? By one hundred and twenty-five 
 men. They are all that control the fund that was designed for 
 the benefit of all in communion of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church, residing in the city of New-York. And in what manner 
 are their elections managed ? 
 
 I call attention to the files, where the fact is shown that for 
 years less than thirty men have elected the vestry. 
 
41 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth : 
 
 1 have made the statement, and I repeat it, that any person 
 who is a communicant of that church is entitled to be a corpora- 
 tor. Any Episcopalian may join the parish and become a com- 
 municant if he please, and there is not an instance on record of 
 a single communicant being refused his vote. 
 
 Mr. Noxon : 
 
 I think there will be no difficulty in harmonizing the views 
 of the Hon. Senator and myself. The pewholders of the church 
 are protected. The act of 1314 protects them. I only make 
 the statement that this fund is controlled by 125 men, instead 
 of by the thousands of corporators who are dispossessed by the 
 law of 1814; and that less than thirty corporators elect these 
 Vestrymen who have endeavored to break down the committee 
 in order to overrule and override the Senate of the State of 
 New-York. 
 
 I might stop here and ask one single question — why is it there 
 is such avidity, such greediness on the part of the Yestry to hold 
 on to the power lodged in their hands by the law of 1814? The 
 Hon. Senator from the Thirty-first asks if Mr. Dix and Mr. Yer- 
 planck are to be impeached on this floor? No impeachment is 
 brought against them. The charge is not that the fund is con- 
 trolled by them. Indeed, they have resisted from time to time in 
 the vestry the acts of the standing committee. But the charge is, 
 that others hold on to and administer the funds; and why is it 
 they so pertinaciously hold on to the church property and lease it 
 out from year to year? Probably on account of some considera- 
 tion not yet brought before the Senate. 1 surmise that in these 
 same leases there is something that does not meet the eye. That 
 some friend stands behind, in the back-ground ; some son, or 
 father, or brother occupying this property, and making a profitable 
 thing out of these leases. I ask, what is it that should induce 
 them to hold on to this property, unless there is something that the 
 public cannot see ? 
 
 4 
 
42 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth : 
 
 Will the gentleman state the name of the vestrymen he thus 
 publicly impeaches ? 
 
 Mr. Noxon : 
 
 I impeach and charge no man. I surmise these things — that is 
 all. But can the gentleman inform us why it is that they thus 
 hold on to this power to lease this property on long leases ? 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth : 
 
 We can read that in the evidence. 
 
 Mr. Noxon : 
 
 The gentleman asks, if these original corporators are allowed to 
 come in, would the ministers now at Trinity's altars be permitted 
 to remain? I answer certainly they would, if they do their duty; 
 but if not, they would be removed, as they ought to be. Is there 
 no faith to be placed in the Protestant Episcopal Church outside 
 of Trinity? Is all a mob beyond her parishes? Does the Sena- 
 tor tell me that the Protestant Church has fallen so low that her 
 elections must be like the elections of the sixth ward, and that her 
 voters must be dragged to the polls with bloody noses, by the force 
 of cudgels? I do not believe that the Senator will make any such 
 impeachment of the honorable gentlemen who are here petitioning 
 for this law. 
 
 Again, the Hon. Senator has said that I charged upon Trinity 
 that she has done nothing for the cause of education. I do not 
 think I made any such charge. I did certainly speak of what 
 Trinity has done in the way of charity for her own poor. But 
 when the gentleman mentions her gift to Columbia College, I 
 would remind him that she has given nothing to that college since 
 1812. I do not deny that Trinity does much both for the city 
 and country; but while I admit she does much, I do complain that 
 she does not do half enough. While she is enrichihg herself by 
 holding on to her property, she does not give away half enough. 
 It cannot be that the men who come here and desire to have their 
 rights secured, are against the country; for they desire to increase 
 the gifts, and consequently the usefulness of Trinity. My honor- 
 
43 
 
 able friend says he is not an Episcopalian nor the son of an 
 Episcopalian. I trust that, being the son of an Episcopalian, I 
 can speak more confidently than himself on this point. I know 
 the character of the Protestant Episcopal Church ; and I should 
 be the last Senator on this floor to state that Trinity has not done 
 much in every department of religion for the good of the church. 
 
 She has given to churches in New-York ; but the complaint 
 is that she has given only feebly. She has only taken from her 
 fund grudgingly, when she might have bestowed liberally. 
 
 But the question is not what Trinity gives or withholds. The 
 question lies back of all that ; because, if the persons who 
 claim to have been wronged by the act of 1814, really have 
 rights and powers under the original charter, no powers in the 
 Legislature of the State can deprive them thereof. I think 
 that the question I started with must be met, and met fairly. 
 To whom does this property belong ? Does it belong to Trini- 
 ty as a close corporation, sealed from the eyes of the corpora- 
 tors, or does it belong to the corporators themselves? If it 
 does belong to them, then again I say no power in this Legisla- 
 ture can take it from them. Though the country should pour 
 in her petitions by the basket full, are we to suffer such con- 
 siderations to control us? Have we not the right to say that 
 these beneficiaries in the original grant shall not be deposed, 
 even if the restoration of their rights should tend to dethrone 
 the present Vestry of the church. 
 
 My honorable friend, in the couse of his remarks, has de- 
 clared that consecrated justice is on the side of Trinity. Where 
 can it be found ? In her one hundred and twenty-five corpora- 
 tors, who have wrested from the other corporators their just 
 rights? Tell me not of consecrated justice from those who are 
 steeped in wrong — Trinity Church never had any right in the 
 property she unjustly holds. Where is the grant giving her 
 such right? 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth : 
 
 It is in the charter. The charter gives her that right. 
 
44 
 
 Mr. Noxon: 
 
 No, it does not. It gives it to the corporators, not to the 
 church. The church usurps it, and yet the Senator talks about 
 its consecrated justice. Consecrated justice ! Why, I wonder 
 that the embellishments that surround her churches do not cry 
 out in judgment against her. Consecrated justice, in usurpa- 
 tion ! Consecrated justice, in daring wrong! Consecrated 
 justice, in robbing men of their rights ! 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth: 
 
 Why did not these men exercise their rights, if they ever 
 possessed them ! 
 
 Mr. Noxon : 
 
 The Hon. Senator asks why they did not exercise their rights. 
 Suppose any special right should be granted to him ; the non- 
 exercise of it would not invalidate it. There are rights of 
 which no refusal to exercise can deprive men; the right of suf- 
 frage, for instance. Does not that right remain with a man, let 
 him exercise it or not, until he goes down to the grave ? I ask 
 the Senator from the 31st if it would not be a bold proposition, 
 should a man not exercise his right to vote for 40 years, to 
 refuse his ballot when at last he came to offer it at the polls ? 
 And so of every other right, the exercise of which is voluntary 
 and not compulsory. My Hon. friend has seen fit to liken these 
 original corporators who came here asking for this bill, to a 
 person who should go into the Astor House and insist upon 
 entering into a partnership in the property with its owner. Sir, 
 I would ask him here, whether Mr. Astor would forfeit the 
 rights he possesses in that property unless he should every day, 
 or every week, or every month, come and stand around the bar- 
 room and claim his rights ? These men ask but the renewal of 
 an original partnership, from which they never were dissolved 
 except by an unconstitutional law. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth : 
 If the Hon. Senator will allow me, I will ask him why, if this. 
 
45 
 
 great wrong is really done to any corporator, be does not offer his 
 vote at the annual election ; and when his ballot is refused, apply 
 at once for a mandamus and seek his remedy in the courts? 
 Why have these men been thus wronged for one hundred and 
 fifty years, when the courts are ever open, and Judges sit ever 
 ready to protect the constitutional rights of the people? 
 
 Mr. Noxon : 
 
 I will tell the Senator why. If the case was the case of a 
 single individual there would be no difficulty about it. But it is 
 not, and there are too many interested to make it practicable or 
 advisable to go to the courts. Why, it would be the delight of 
 Trinity if eight thousand persons should each come into the courts, 
 for Trinity Church would enjoy the protracted law suits till the 
 suitors all went down into the grave. I say it is the right and duty 
 of the Senate to interpose and protect the people of the State of 
 New-York from a litigation involving hundreds of thousands of 
 dollars. The idea has long since been proposed by Trinity, that 
 these questions should be tested by the courts of law, in order 
 that she might string an interminable law suit along for years ; 
 but as soon as the injured persons come here for the redress that 
 is their right, the cry of the church is that " it will produce liti- 
 gation." It is the solemn duty of the legislature to repeal at once 
 all laws which are clearly unconstitutional, without waiting the 
 tardy step of the courts. 
 
 The Senator from the 31st says that he trembles for the 
 church and for the country if this bill should be enacted. Sir, 
 I tremble for both, if this power, thus consecrated to injustice, 
 is to rule the State of New-York and her counsels, if this corpo- 
 ration, created by the law of 1814, is to mould the Legislature, 
 as she does the church, to her will. The manner in which she 
 exercises and wields the power she does possees, is seen in 
 every paper that has been laid upon our desks. I see that the 
 Honorable Senator from the 27th, in presenting one of the 
 memorials of these subsidized country churches, thought fit to 
 say with emphasis that it was from a low church. 
 
46 
 
 Mr. Hale : 
 
 I said from a church low in funds, which had never received 
 the bounty of Trinity. 
 
 Mr. Noxon : 
 
 If she is low in funds, then probably she is an applicant fo,r 
 that bounty. These churches do not come here on behalf of 
 Trinity, unless some secret spring moves and controls their 
 action. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Senator from the 31st was a little 
 nighty in imagination, when depicting the serious consequences 
 that would follow the passage of this bill. It does not appear 
 to me that the matter should excite such an outburst of elo- 
 quence. Why, who are the corporators of the church now ? 
 Do they not elect the Vestry? What is to occasion this tearing 
 down of the church — this division of family from family — this 
 severing of friend from friend ? The bill before us simply 
 mentions the persons who, as communicants of the Protestant 
 Episcopal church in New-York, are to be entitled to vote for 
 vestrymen of the church. And then what ? Can the gentleman 
 suppose that the Episcopalians in New-York are so lost to a 
 sense of justice as to elect annually to the positions of wardens 
 and vestrymen such men as are fit only to be elected at the 6th 
 Ward polls? Sir, I have more confidence in the Episcopalians 
 in and out of the city of New-York than not to believe that they 
 are men as upright and honorable as any of those who appear 
 here as the special advocates of Trinity. Can it be possible, I 
 ask, that the Hon. Senator believes the Episcopalians of New- 
 York would elect men who would not discharge their sacred 
 trust faithfully and impartially? I think when he comes to 
 reflect upon this subject more maturely, he will recall any such 
 insinuation. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the bill now under consideration does not, as I 
 have said, alter the Vestry, but only says who shall elect them. 
 Now, sir, I think if the citizens of New-York, outside of Trinity, 
 could have only a single member elected in that corporation, it 
 would do much good. Just one — to act as a check upon the 
 
47 
 
 Vestry. But, no ; even that proposition would not be listened to 
 by the church. The design is that the corporation shall be a close 
 one ; that neither the Rector, nor the Bishop, nor the corporation 
 shall know anything of its acts. It controls the Conventions of 
 the Diocese, so as to put into power High Churchmen only ; and 
 when it comes into the Legislature, it can be seen how entirely H 
 controls the country churches. I have said that the power of 
 Trinity is unquestionably greater than that of any railroad or bank, 
 or insurance corporation in existence. What other corporation is 
 there, I ask, that can do as this one has done ? She has poured 
 in memorials upon us as if wires, attached to every clergyman in 
 the State, led into the green room of her Vestry, and she had only 
 to pull them in order to work her will. 3Not five days had elapsed 
 when we found these memorials pouring in from churches in every 
 part of the State of New- York. 
 
 From all portions of the State come these remonstrances 
 against the Senate's touching Trinity, because, forsooth, she is so 
 sacred in the eyes of the country churches ! 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth : 
 
 It is the natural attachment of a child to its parent. 
 
 Mr. Noxon: 
 
 The Senator says it is the natural attachment of a child to its 
 parent. I ask him what does that parent do to her other children 
 in the State of New- York? And who are these children who 
 are coming here and displaying so much fondness and affec- 
 tion for their old mother church 1 Who, but those who are re- 
 ceiving or expecting bounties from her, or over whom she holds 
 mortgages which she could foreclose, if she pleased, to punish 
 them for neglecting her wishes ? 
 
 But, Mr. Chairman, it is not true, but a fiction arising in the 
 fancy of my Honorable friend, that the money of this church is 
 to be confiscated — the church to be torn down — the graves to be 
 violated— and the whole property scattered to the four winds, by 
 the vestry to be elected under the provisions of this bill. It is a 
 dream of the church, which I am sorry to say my Honorable 
 friend has expressed here as a waking dream, and not a sleeping 
 dream. 
 
48 
 
 I say it is a matter of impossibility to suppose these things pro- 
 bable, because when I mention the names of Luther Bradish, 
 Cambreleng, Winston, Brown, Minturn, Cooley, Jay and Wolfe, 
 the men who are accused of desiring to thus dismember Trinity, 
 every one must admit they stand too high in the city of New-York 
 to be reached even by the flights of fancy of my honorable friend, 
 who, in the excitement of debate, made this charge against them. 
 
 Mr. Wadsworth : 
 
 I ask the Senator if he does not think these gentlemen must 
 have been a little excited themselves when they declared that 
 there was in the church property "enough for all?" 
 
 Mr. Noxon : 
 
 Well, let us see what those words mean. I call attention to the 
 charge, and then to the following card, which I will read, and 
 upon which it is grounded : 
 
 New-York, March 23, 1857. 
 To the Editor of the Gospel Messenger, Utica, N. Y. : 
 
 Sir — In your comment of Friday last upon our "Statement and 
 Declaration," as the executive committee appointed at a large 
 meeting of the inhabitants of the city of New- York, in communion 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in regard to the affairs of 
 Trinity Church, you do us great injustice in stating the object of 
 our movement to be that the funds of the church shall hereafter be 
 applied " to city churches only" No such restrictive phrase has 
 ever been used by us, or was heard at the meeting which appointed 
 us, or has found expression in any of our more informal conver- 
 sation on the subject ; and, so far as we know, there is no restric- 
 tive design or desire cherished by any of ourselves, or of those 
 who act with us in this matter. This charge, to which we now 
 reply, has been from the first an altogether gratuitous injustice to 
 our motives, which we have always repudiated as utterly un- 
 founded. There is no reason why we of the city should have 
 any desire to diminish, in any way, the aid hitherto extended to 
 the country ; for we believe, and it has been proved, that there is 
 
49 
 
 enough for all ; and onr desire is, that all may impartially par- 
 ticipate therein. 
 
 L. BRADISH, ROBERT B. MINTURN, 
 
 S. CAMBRELENG, J. E. COOLEY, 
 F. S. WINSTON, WILLIAM JAY, 
 
 STEWART BROWN, JOHN DAVID WOLFE, 
 
 Committee. 
 
 Now, what do these gentlemen mean by saying that there 
 is " enough for all ?" Simply that there is enough in this great 
 fund of Trinity Church to aid not only the city, but the 
 country churches as well. What does the Senator mean by 
 stating that these persons are acting against the country 
 churches, and in the same breath finding fault with them when 
 they say there is "enough for all" these churches? I repeat, 
 Mr. Chairman, what I have before stated, that the charge 
 is entirely groundless, that these men are unwilling that 
 Trinity's fund should aid the country churches. I repeat that 
 they give more annually out of their own means to the country 
 churches than Trinity herself gives; and 1 say that it is to 
 prove their desire to assist the country churches that they use 
 in their card the words so offensive to the Senator from the 
 31st — "there is enough for all." 
 5 
 
1Ex IGtbrta 
 
 SEYMOUR DURST 
 
 ~t ' 'Tort nwiw ^irnflerdam- of Je JAanhatarus 
 
 IVben you leave, please leave this book 
 
 Because it has been said 
 " Ever thing comes t' him who waits 
 
 Except a loaned book." 
 
 Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library 
 Gift of Seymour B. Durst Old York Library