INITY CHURCH PAMPHLETS. OLLECTED FOR THE CORPORATIOS. 18 57. \ \ I I I V I 1 CONTENTS. 1. Charter. 2. Repo-rt of Commtssiotiers of Land Office of 3. Memorial of Tiinity Church to t]i£ Leylaluture in LSoiJ. 4. RemarTis on Trinity Church Bill. Troup. 5. ClarTc's Minority Report. 6. Examination of ClarFs Minority Report. T. Report of Committee of Assemllij, 1S47. 8. Remonstrance of Tnnity Church, 1847. 9. Communication of Vestry, Feh. 20, 1856, to Samtc. 10. Facts versus Fancy. 11. Reports of Senate Committee. 12. Argument of Counsel. ' 13. Remonstrance and Protest. 1-4. Debates. 15. To the Senators, etc. 16. Letter of Mr. Barnard. 17. A Ward for Trinity Church. 18. A Review, etc. 19. The Title, Parish Rights and Projxrty. I CONTENTS. PACE. Charter of Trinity Church in the city of New-York, granted in 1697, 5 to 16 Act of the Colonial Legislature of Jane 27, 1701, granting sundry privileges and powers to the corporation of Trinity Church, 16 to 21 Section 36 of the State Constitution of 1777, 21 Act of 17th April 1784, making alterations in the charter of the corporation of Trinity Church, and repealing certain acts, 22 to 26 Act of 10th March 178S, altering the name of the corporation of Trinity Church, . 27 Petition of the corporation of Trinity Church in 1813, upon which was founded the act of 1814, 28 to 30 Act of 25th January, 1814, to alter the name of the corponnion of Trinity Church and for other purposes, 31 to 33 Objections proposed to the last mentioned act, in the Council of Revision by Chancellor Lansing, 34 to 35 Vote of the Council of Revision upon the objections, 35 Proceedings in the Senate on the bill, 35 to 36 Proceedings in the Assembly on the same, 36 to 37 Opinion of Attorney-General (A. Van Vechten,) upon the effect of the bill, 37 Extracts from act of 6th April, 1784, respecting religious incorporations, 38 " " acts of 1801 and 1813, on same subject, 39 to 40 Amendatory act of March 5th, 1819, on the same subject, 41 Queen Anne's grant to Trinity Church, November 20lh, 1705, 41 to 44 Confirmation thereof, 14th April, 1714, 44 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 https://archive.org/details/trinitychurchpamOOtrin CHARTER OF THE CORPORATION OF TRINITY CHURCH* GULIELMUS,' Tertius, Dei Gratia AngUa, Scotia, Franci(B et Hibernicn, Rex fidei Defensor, 8fc. To all to whom these Presents shall come, sendeth greeting : Whereas, by an act of assembly made in the fifth year of p^^^^^^j^ , our Reigne, entitled " An act for settling a Ministry and Rais- reciting act ing a maintainance for them in the city of New Yorke, countys "emb^rfi693, of Richmond, Westchester and Queens county;" among: p'SI"!'"? 1 ■ • 1 • • 11 1 1 n 1 ^ Protestant other things therein conteined it is enacted that there shall be minister in called, inducted and established, a good sufficient Protestant Minister to officiate and have the care of souls within our said city of New Yorke, and for his better encouragement to attend the said service, it is thereby further enacted that there shall be annually, and once in every year, assessed, levyed, collected and paid for the yearly maintainance of the said minister within our city and county of New Yorke the sume one hundred Pounds currt. money of our province of New Yorke, to be assessed, levyed, collected and paid in such man- ner and proportion as is further directed in the Body of the aforesaid act, relation being thereunto had may more fully and at large appear. And Whereas, at the same time when ^ the aforesaid act was made, there was not erected any public then no pub- church or building within our said city whereunto such a good [hee'i^.'^'' sufficient Protestant minister might have been inducted for his orderly officiating of his duty in the public worship and service of God according to the Rites and ceremonys of our Protestant Church of England Established by our laws : And Whereas, our trusty and well beloved Benjamin Ffletcher, our captain-Generall and Governour-in-Chiefe of our said province of New Yorke and Territoryes depending thereon • This copy is printed in conformity, as nearly as possible, with the record in the Secretary's office. It differs veiy little, except in the spellinsf, from that appended to Judge Troup"s pamphlet, which is supposed to have been copied from the original charter, conformed to the modern spelling. Where there is any difference in words between the two, those in Judge Troup'gcopy, and not in the Secretary's record, are inserted between brackets. 6 CHARTER OF 1697. Contribu- tions for a church. Petition of certain per- sons to tlie Governor, for grant and confirm- ation of church and certain grouiid> ; and that church and ground may be dedicated 10 public worsliip; i in America, hath by liberall and bountifiill donations as well as by his pious example influenced many of our loving sub- jects who have likewise religiously contributed according to their respective abilityes several sumes of money which by our said captaine-Generalls direction have been employed and laid out for the erecting and building a church and laying the foundation of a steeple within our said city that the public worship and service of god in manner aforesaid might be more orderly and reverendly performed by the aforesaid minister. And Whereas, our loving subjects Coll Caleb Heathcote one of our Council of our said province Major William Merret Mayor of our said city of New Yorke, John Tuder, James Emott, William Morris, Robert Lurting, Thomas Clarke, Ebenezer Wilson, Samuel Burt, James Evertts, Nathaniel Martson, Michael Howden, Thomas Wen- ham, John Crooke, and William Sharpas, citizens and inhabi- tants of our said city of New Yorke, and the present mana- gers of the affairs of our said Church of England within our said city ot New Yorke, have by their petition, presented unto our said trusty and well beloved Benjamin Ffletcher, our said Captain-Generall and Governour in chiefe of our said province of New Yorke and terreitoryes depending thereon in America prayed our royall grant and confirmation of a certaine church and steeple that hath been lately built within our said city of New Yorke, together with a certaine piece or parcel! of ground thereunto adjoyning scituate lye- ing and beeing in or neere to a streete without the north gate of our said city commonly called and knowne by the name of the Broadway, conteining in breadth on the East end as the said streete of the Broadway rangeth Northward three hun- dred and tenn foot until you come unto the land lately in the tenure and occupation of Thomas Lloyd Deed : and from thence towards the west in length by the said land until you come unto Hudson's River and thence southward along Hud- son's river three hundred and ninety-five foot all of English measure, and from thence by the line of our garden Eastward unto the place of the said street in the Broadway where first begunn, and that the said church together with the cemetry or church yard thereunto adjoyning may forever hereafter be dedicated and consecrated to the public worship and service of God according to the Rites and ceremonies of the protes- tant church of England as now established by our laws ; which said church and steeple, scituate, lying, and being within our said city as aforesaid, having been built and erect- ed at the charge of our said trusty and well beloved Benja- min Ffletcher, our said Captaine-Generall and Governour as aforesaid and of severall other of our loving subjects, inhabi- tants within our said city and province. And Whereas, our said loving subjects in their s?id humble petition have like- CHARTER OF 1697. 7 wise prayed that We would be graciously pleased for the better accomraodation and conveniency of the inhabitants of our said city of New Yorke, that the same church might be church may made Parochiall and incorporate into one body Politicq in ochT^lnS be fact and name by the name of the Rector and inhabitants in incorporated r 1 Tt ir^T^ii vriih certain communion of the Protestant church of i^ngland as now powers and established by our laws ; and that as such, they and their successors may have, hold, use, occupy and enjoy all the rights, benefits, advantages, privileges, immunityes, Mortua- rys and appurtenances as are usually held and enjoyed by all or any of our Parochiall Churches of our Church of England within our Realme of England, and also that We would be further graciously pleased to appropriate unto our said church ^"^^^^ the aforesaid yearly maintainance of one hundred pounds money and enacted by the aforesaid act, and make our further Royall madel"* grant of a certaine quantity of our land neere adjoyning to the said church unto the said petitioners in trust for the use of our said church and corporation. Now, know ye that in consideracon of the great charge inducements that our said trusty and well beloved subject, Benjamin Ffletcher, our Captain-Generall, as aforesaid, and the rest of our aforesaid loving subjects, inhabitants within our said city &c., have been at in the erecting of the said Church, and laying the fou'idation of a steeple, and the further great charge that must unavoidably acrew for the finishing the said church and steeple, and the providing it with suitable ornaments, as also for the erecting and providing a house neere the said church for the habitation of a minister to officiate in the said church in manner aforesaid, as well as of our pious inclinations to pro- mote, propagate, and encourage all our loving subjects within our said province in that reverend and Godly duty, in wor- shiping and serving God according to the commendable rites and ceremonyes of our Protestant Church of England as now established by our laws, have therefore thought fitt, and do hereby publish, grant, ordaine, manifest, and declare that our church Royall will and pleasure is, and by these presents do, grant ands?round and declare that the aforesaid church, erected and built as r°5h church^' aforesaid, scituate in and neere the street called the Broadway, '^Jioflhe' within our said City of New-Yorke, and the ground thereunto {^^"churlh'* adjoining, inclosed and used for a Cemelry or Church yard, lo use oi cer- shall be the Parish Church and Church yard of the Parish of" Trinity Church, within our said city of New York, and the same is hereby declared to be for ever separated and dedeca- ted to the service of God, and to be applyed therein [thereun- to] to the use and behalfe of the inhabitants from time to time inhabiting, and to inhabit, within our said City of New Yorke, in communion of [with] our said Protestant Church of Eng- land as now established by our laws, and to no other use or purpose whatsoever, any statute law, custome, or usaare to the contrary in any ways notwithstanding. And that Ihere tain inhabi- tants. 8 CHARTER OF 1697. tor in perpe ■_ shall be a Rector to have care of the souls of the inhabitants tuauucces- of Said Parish, and a perpetual succession of Rectors there. Bisiio of ^^^^^ presents constitute our rif^ht, trusty, and London°fir5t Well bcloved the Right Reverend Father in God Henry Lord heTndw"'' Bishop of London, and of our Privy Councill, the first Rec- 10 tor thereof. And we have further thought fitt and, at the humble request of our said loving subjects, are graciously . pleased to create and make him our said Right trusty and well beloved and Right Reverend Father in God Henry Lord Bishop of London and his successors, Rectors of the said Pa- rish, together with all the inhabitants from time to time inha- biting, and to inhabit in our said City of New Yorke, and in communion of our aforesaid Protestant Church of England^ as now established by our laws, a body corporate and Poli- tiq, with the powers and privileges hereinafter mentioned. And_ accordingly our Royall will and pleasure is, and of our speciall Grace certaine knowledge and meere motion We have ordained, constituted, and declared, and by these pre- sents for us, our heirs and successors, do ordaine, constitute, and declare that he, the said Right trusty and well beloved Persons in- Right Reverend Father in God, Henry, Lord Bishop of Lon- coiporated. ^^^^ j^j^ successors, and all such of our loving subjects as now are or hereafter shall be, admitted into the communion of [the] aforesaid Protestant Church of England as now esta- blished by our laws, shall be from time to time and for ever hereafter a body corporate and politique, in fact and name, vm&tioa.""'' name of the Rector and Inhabitants of our said City of New Yorke, in communion of our Protestant Church of England as now established by our laws. And that by the Powers of ^^^^ name they and their successors shall and may have per- corporauon petuall successiou, and shall and may be persons able and to sue and be* j ii » -i . •ued. capable m the law to sue and be sued, to plead and De imple- ded, to answer and be answered unto, to defend and be de- fended in all and singular suits, causes, quarrells, matters, actions, and things of what kind or nature soever, and also Totate to have, take, possess, receive, acquire, and purchase, lane's, tdif&S."' tenements, heredtTrmetifs, or any goods or chattells, and the To lease and '^ase, grant, demise, alien, bargain, sell, and dis- Beii. pose of at their own will and pleasure, as other our liege peo- ple, or any corporation, or body politicque within our realme of England or this our Province may lawfully do, not exceed- Limitaiionof ing the yea.rlyjvalue of five thcHisand pouncls, the statute of mortmaine or any other statute law, custome, or usage to the contrary hereof in any ways notwithstanding. And that the Hightsof said Rector shall have the care of the souls of the inhabitants rector. -within the said parish, and in the communion of our said Protestant Church of England as now established by our laws. And have and enjoy to him and his successors for ever one messuage or tenement and appurtenances intended to be erected on part of the said church-yard, or near there- CHARTER OF 1697. 9 unto as conventiently as can be procured. And our Royall "^^^^"y" will and pleasure is, further, that the patronage, advowson, vesuy. donation, or presentation of and to the said Rectory and Pa- rish after the decease of the said first Rector, or the next avoidance thereof, shall appertain and belong to, and be hereby vested in the Churchwardens and Vestrymen, or the major part of the said Vestrymen, together with either of the Churchwardens of Trinity Church for the time being. And that all the succeeding Rectors of the said Parish and Parish Church (except the first Rector thereof hereby consti- tuted) shall be presented, collated, instituted, and inducted as other Rectors, Persons, and Vicars respectively are accus- tomed to be ; and we further declare it to be our Royal will and pleasure that the first Rector, and all the succeeding Rectors thereof, shall and may have, take, and enjoy such and the like Oblations, Mortuaryes, Eastei books or Ofl'erings, have ccndii and other Ecclesiastical Dutyes arising within the said Parish of Trinity Church, as the Vicar, Rector, or parson of St. Mary Bow, within our city of London, in our Realme of England now enjoyeth, and shall have such and the like profits of burialls in the said Church, as the same shall be limited in the instrument of dedication thereof. And we further declare that the said Rector of the Parish of Trinity Church in communion of our Protestant Church of England within our city of New Yorke, as now established by our laws, shall and may forever hereafter have a common Common scale, to serve and use for all matters, causes, things and af seal, fairs whatsoever of them and their successors, and the same seale to alter, change, breake and make new from time to time, at their will and pleasure, as they shall think fit. And further we will and ordaine, and by these presents do declare and appoint, that for the better ordering and manageing of the affairs and businesse of the said Corporation ; there shall Annual eiec- be annually and once in every year forever on the Tuesday densandTes- in Easterweek two Church Wardens and twenty Vestrymen "■>'""^"- duly elected by the majority of votes of the inhabitants ofyo^ers. the said Parish in communion as aforesaid, which Church Wardens and Vestrymen shall be from time to time subject vesiry sub- to our laws and statutes now in force or hereafter to be made for the choice of Church Wardens, Overseers of the Poor and such other like Parish officers and other Parochial! dutyes within the said Parish in like manner as the inhabitants of any Parish within our Province are or might be subject and liable unto (except where it shall be otherwise hereby ap- pointed.) And we do by these presents constitute and ap- point Thomas Wenham and Robert Lurting the first Church Firstchurch Wardens of the said Parish and Caleb Heatbcote, William Merritt, John Tuder, James Emott, William Morris, Thomas Clarke, Ebenezer Wilson, Samuel Burt, James Evetts, Na- men/'"^' thaniel Marston, Michael Howden, John Crooke, William 10 CHARTER OF 1697. Duties and perquisites. Accountable for moneys. Rejrnlatiou ofalfairs of the parish. Vacancy of vestrymen. Disposition of pews. Assistant to rector, liow appointed. Clerk and sextons. „ Tlieir fees. Sharpas, Lawrence ReatJe, David Jamison, William Huflrlle' ston, Gabriel Ludlow, Thomas Burroughs, John Merrill, and William Janeway the first Vestrymen of the said Parish, to have and to hold and execute their said respective offices till the feast of Easther, [Easter] which shall be in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and ninety-eight ; and the said Church Wardens shall have and receive such and the like church dutyes and perquisites as the Church Wardens of the said Parish of St. Mary Bow do, may, might or ought to re- ceive and shall be accomptable for the same, and all other moneys as shall come to them as Church Wardens in such manner as Church Wardens of any other Parishes within our city of London are or ought to be. Ami we further declare it to be our Royall will and plea- sure that tlie Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen shall make the number of the whole to be twenty-three persons, and the said Vestrymen or any eleven or more of them whereof the Rector for the time being or his assistant or clarke by appointment and one of the Church Wardens to be two, shall and may have and exercise the like power and au- thority for the ordering and regulating the affairs of the said Corporation and Parish of Trinity Church as the Vestry of the said Parish of St. Mary Bow now have and exercise in reference to Parish affairs, and upon the death or other void- ance of any such vestrymen they or any eleven or more of them shall and may elect a fit person, inhabitant and house- holder in the said Parish to supply the same. And we fur- ther ordaine and declare, that the Church Wardens for the time being shall not at any time dispose of any of the Pews, or places in Pews in the said Church, to any person not an inhabitant thereof, nor without the consent and allowance of the Vestrymen for the time being or any eleven or more of them. And our further will and pleasure is, and we by these presents declare, that the Rector of the said Parish for the time being shall and may by and with the consent of the said Vestrymen and Church Wardens for the time being or any eleven or more of them, whereof one of the Churche's War- dens to be one, from time to time nominate one able Protest- ant minister in Priest's orders to reside in the said Parish to* be Preacher and assistant to the said Rector and his succes- sors in the celebration of the Divine Offices of Praying and Preaching and other dutyes incident to be performed in the said Church and Parish, as the said Rector shall require of him, and likewise to nominate a fitt person to be Clarke of the said Parish and one or more Sexton or Sextons, to which Clarke or Sextons respectively there shall be such and the like dues, fees, perquisites and profits paid and allowed as shall be establishetl by the said Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen in manner aforesaid, which said Preacher, assist- ant, Clarke and Sexton or Sextons and every of them shall CHARTER OF 1697. Jl continue in his said place during his or their naturall lives, if ^^""1- °rec- they shall so long inhabit there, except for some offence or misgovernment by them or any of them committed and un- lesse for cause reasonable proved they shall be displaced by the said Rector for the time being by and with the consent of the said Vestrymen or any eleven or more of them ; and that the Church Wardens of the said Parish of Trinity Church for the time being shall and are hereby required from time to time to pay the yearly sume of ten pounds to the Gierke to ■ be appointed as aforesaid out of the profits and other the du- tyes and perquisites to them accrueing in the said Church and Parish by four quarterly payments, that is to say on the feast of St. Michaell the Arch Angell, the birth of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the annunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary and St. John the Baptist or tenn days after every of the said respective feasts by equal! and even por- tions. And we further ordaine and declare, that the said Church Wardens and Vestrymen or any eleven or more of them are by these presents authorised and required within the space and time of three hundred days next and after the sealing and enrolling of these presents to make or cause to be made an estimate in writing under the hand or hands of b'S'eof some sufficient person or persons qualified for the same of the g^^^j^'J^t"'^ charge and finishing the said Church and steeple and provi- churchr&.<:- ding a clock and one or more bells for the same and other works necessary and requisite in and about the said Church and steeple, and of building a convenient house for the said Rector, and such sume or sumes of money as shall appear to them upon such estimate to be in their judgment competent to accomplish the premises and to satisfy and pay the debts incurred for or bv reason of the said Church, shall be by . J /• ^1 1 1 11 1 Amount how them or any eleven or more of them charged upon all and to be raised.' every of the inhabitants in the s^id Parish, to be by them paid in seven years by twenty-eight quarterly and successive payments, the first whereof to commence and become payable to the Church Wardens for the time beiog, who are hereby authorised to receive the same at the first of the feast dayes aforesaid as shall happen after the assessing and taxing thereof, and the rest to be successively to them also quarterly paid at the successive feast dayes aforesaid until all the said twenty-eight quarterly payments shall be made and finished. And the said Church Wardens and Vestrymen or any eleven or more of them are hereby required and authorised within three hundred aud sixty-five dayes next and after the sealing and enrolling of these presents to assess, tax and rate the first of the said quarterly payments after a pound rate or other- wise, as they shall think most reasonable, equall and meet, and in like manner to assess every other of the said quarterly payments within fourty dayes after the time of payment of the next preceding quarterly payment. All which said as- 12 CHARTER OF 1697. i1i'b"coiifir-' sessraents shall be confirmed and allowed by two" Justices of med. the Peace within the said Parish and in communion of the said Church as aforesaid under their hands and seals and be collected by such persons inhabitants of the said Parish as by I the said Vestrymen or any eleven or more of them shall from time to time under their hands and seals appoint. Deficiency And We further declare that if the estimate and computa- how raised. ^-^^^ made as aforesaid shall not be sufficient to discharge the debts incurred about the building and finishing of the said Church and Steeple and other the works hereby intended to be done, the said Vestrymen or any eleven or more of them shall and may charge and assess such additional! sum or sums upon the said inhabitants of the said Parish in communion as aforesaid as shall be needful to perfect and accomplish the same so as such additionall sume together with the sume Amount li- hereby charged and payable by the said twenty-eight quarter- miied. ]y payments exceed not in the whole the sume of five hundred pounds. contrncis to And We further declare it to be our Royall will'and plea- J"^ ^o^j^'"*'' sure that the church wardens of the said Parish of Trinity Church shall cause all the debts, credits and contracts made and to be made with or by the artificers and workmen em- ployed or to be employed for any work or building to be made or done in or about the said Church Steeple and pre- mises to be entered and registered in one or more book or books to be kept for that purpose, and the said Vestrymen or any eleven or more of them out of the money collected and paid to the said Church Wardens upon the said quarterly payments or by any other ways or means for the use afore- said, shall in the first place pay and discharge or cause to be paid and discharged, all such debts as shall become due unto w^be'fi'rtt'"' artificers and workmen imployed or to be imployed in paid. and about the finishing the said Church Steeple, house and premises, and shall issue and pay or cause to be issued and paid to the said artificers and workmen as aforesaid all and every sume and sumcs of money now or hereafter due and payable unto them their executors, administrators or assigns, proportionably according to the dates of the registering of their debts and credits as aforesaid with moderate interest if need shall be for their forbearance thereof. And We further declare that the Church Wardens of [for] the said Parish for the time being together with any eleven or more ra""J"opay of the said Vestrymen shall upon the Tuesday of |in| Easter preacherl [^^^ter | Week yearly forever, or at any time within tenn days and for eon- after the Said Tuesday tax, rate and assess the yearly sume of chSges. thirty pounds upon the Inhabitants of the said Parish in Com- munion as aforesaid, for the payment of the Preacher assistant to be nominated and appointed as aforesaid, and for the pay- ing and defraying the other contingent charges that may yearly accrue within the said Parish which said assessment CHARTER OF 1697. 13 shall be confirmed and allowed in such manner as other the assessments hereby appointed to be made as aforesaid, and be collected and paid yearly to the Church Wardens for the time being by such person and persons as the said Church Wardens and Vestrymen shall appoint at the four usual], or times of the year before mentioned, the first payment to begin and be made at the [that] feast day next and after the said preach- er assistant shall be presented and enter to assist the said Rector in the said Church in manner aforesaid, and the said Church Wardens or either of them shall pay the said yearly same of thirty pounds over and above all charges and deductions for collecting the same to the said Preacher assistant tor the time being to be nominated as aforesaid upon the said four usuall feasts or terms in the year by even and equal portions. And We further ordaine and declare it to be our Royal! will and pleasure that the said Church Wardens, together F^'^^''"'' ■with eleven or more of the Vestrymen of the said Parish ciiufcb, &c shall and are hereby authorised from time to time to make rates and assessments in manner aforesaid for the repairing and amending the said Church, Steeple, Cemetery or church yard of the said Parish -when need shall be, the said rates taxes and assessments for repairing and amending the church and premises to be paid to the said Church Wardens of the said Parish and those and all other the said last mentioned taxes rates and assessments to be made and collected, con- firmed and allowed as aforesaid, and moreover of our special grace certaine Knowledge and meer motion, We do give grant ratify and confirm unto the said Rector and inhabitants of our said City of New-Yorke in communion of our Pro- testant Church of England as now established by our laws The said that the said Church and Coemetry or Church yard scituate ?emet^y^o lying and being within our said City of New-Yorke as afore- the only - - -- - P - - - •! . - - . parish and said, shall be the sole and only Parish Church and Church church yard of our said City of New Yorke. And our Royal plea- sure is and we by these presents do declare that the said Rec- tor of the said Parish Church is a good sufficient Protestant Minister according to the true intent and meaning of the said Act of Assembly made in the aforesaid fifth year of our Reigne entitled an Act for the settling of a ministry, &c.,and as such We do further of our like speciall grace certaine Knowledge and meer motion give grant Ratitye endow ap- Confirmation propriate and confirm unto the said Rector of the Parish of ^efiJo^^M Trinity Church within our said City of New Yorke and his pounds for successors forever -the aforesaid yearly maintainance of one hundred pounds directed by the said Act of Assembly to be yearly laid assessed and paid unto the said sufficient Protestant minister for his yearly maintainance, to have and to hold the said yearly maintainance of one hundred pounds aforesaid unto him the said Rector of the Parish of Trinity Church within our said City of New-Yorke and his successors to the 2 14 CHARTER OF 1697. sole and only proper use benefit ami behoofe of him the saitl Rector of the Parish of Trinity Church within our said City of New Yorke and his successors forever. And We doe by these presents strictly charge require and command the How 10 be Church Wardens and Vestrymen yearly constituted elected raised. and appointed by the aforesaid Act of Assembly made as aforesaid that they faithfully truly and without fraud annually and once in every year forever levey assess and collect the said yearly maintainance of one hundred pounds current money aforesaid according to the rules directions and clauses in the said Act of Assembly mentioned and under the pains and penaltyes therein contained and that the said Church Wardens mentioned in the aforesaid Act of Assembly do an- AniJpaid. uually in four quarterly payments pay the said yearly main- tainance of one hundred pounds leveyed, assessed and col- lected as aforesaid unto the said Rector of the Parish of \ Trinity Church and to bis successors forever as of right they r ought to do without any delay, lett, hindrance refusal! dis- ij turbance or molestation whatsoever as they and every of them will answer the contrary under the pains and penaltyes in the said Act of Assembly ordained. And We further declare that upon any neglect or refusall of the said Church Wardens and Vestrymen (appointed by the said act") of their ievvina" V(K=trsr liable . •' u }■ 1 • *u -1 1 ■ t ■ toactionfor asscssmg Collecting and paying the said yearly maintainance raKe ajid° hundred pounds as aforesaid that it shall and may be pay above lawfull for the Said Rector or incumbent of the said Parish for the time being to prosecute the said Church Wardens and Vestrymen in an action of debt in any of the Courts of Re- cord within our said province wherein no Essoine, protection or wager of law shall be allowed any thing contained in the said Act to the contrary hereof in any wayes notwithstand- ing. And We do of our like speciall grace certaine Knowledge and meer motion give and grant unto the said Rector and Power to at- inhabitants of our city of New Yorke in communion, &c meellns!"'^ full powcr and authority from time to time to appoint, alter, and change such days and times of meeting as they shall To admit think fitt, and to choose, nominate and appoint so many bersonh?' Others of our Leige people as they shall think fitt, and shall corporation, willinci to acccpt the same to be members of the said and to con- n 1 _ i , i t. i- • i i stitute other church and corporation and body roliticque and them into officers. ^j^^ same to admitt and to elect and constitute such other officer and officers as they shall think fitt and requisite for the orderly manageing and dispatching of the affairs of the said Church and corporation and their Successors, and from To make time to time to make, ordaine and constitute or repeale such ordlnmices. Tulcs, ordcrs and ordinances for the good and welfare of the members of the said church and corporation, so that those rules orders and ordinances be not repugnant to th(^ laws of our Realme of England and of this our province. And We CHARTER OF 1697. 15 further declaie, and by these presents doe give, grant, lycence and permitt unto the said Rector and inhabitants, &c., that the said Church Wardens and Vestrymen, or any other appointed by them may from time to time and at all times hereafter upon the Lords day after divine service, or at any to receive other time or times when they shall think [it 1 convenient take voluntary 1 r 1 •!• pits by eol- and receive the tree and voluntary gifts, alms, contributions, lectionsfor and offerings of all or any of our loving subjects, which col- po^"^' lections, gatherings or receivings shall be imployed by them for and towards the finishing of the said church steeple and premises, or any other pious and charitable worke as to them shall seeme meete and convenient, any Statute or Laws to the contrary hereof in any wayes notwithstanding. To have and to hold, all and every of the premises, together with all and singular the rights, customs, usages, benefits, members, advantages, advowsons, presentations, Mortuarys, oblations, Grant to be offerings, ffees, perquisites, profits, Royaltyes, hereditaments and appurtenances whatsoever unto the said church, church yard and premises belonging, or in any wise appertaining unto them the sd. Rector and inhabitants of our said city of New Yorke in communion of the Protestant Church of Eng- land, as now established by our laws and their successors To the sole and only use, benefit and behoofe of them, the said Rector, inhabitants, &c., and their successors forever. To be holden of us, our heirs and successors in ffree and com- Nature oi' mon soccage as of our mannour of East Greenwich in our county of Kent within our Rcalme of England, yielding, rendering, and paying therefor yearly and every year unto us, our heirs and successors on the feast day of the annuncia- tion of our blessed Virgin Mary at our City of New Yorke the yearly rent of one Pepper Corne, if the same be lawfully Yearly rent demanded in lieu and stead of all other rents, dues, dutyes if tiemanded. and demands whatsoever for the premises. And lastly, We do for us, our heirs and successors, ordain and grant unto the said Rector and inhabitants, &c., and their successors by these presents, that these our grants shall be firme, good effectuall and available in all things in the law to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever accord- ing to our true intent and meaning herein before declared, ^5 and shall be construed, reputed and adjudged in all cases To be favor, most favorable, and on the behalfe and for the best benefite stmed for and behoofe of the said Rector and inhabitants, &c., and their successors, altho expresse mention of the true and yearly value, uncertainty of the premises, or any of them in these presents are not named, or any statute, act, ordinance, provi- sion, proclamation, or restriction heretofore had, made enacted, ordained, provided, proclaimed or [and] restrained, or any other matter, clause, or thing whatsoever, to the contrary hereof in any wayes notwithstanding. And We further declare it to be our Royall Will and pleasure that nothing herein con- benefit of corporation. 16 CHARTER OF 1697. Not to street taincd nor any clause or article here [herein] above mentionet! grants to shall be construcd or taken to abridge or take away any right Cheches, privilege, benefite, liberty or Lycence that we have htretofore granted unto any church in communion of our Protestant faith within our said Province of New Yorke, any thing con- tained herein to the contrary hereof in any wayes notwith- standing. In testimony whereof, wee have caused the Great scale of our said Province to be hereunto affixed. Witnesse our trusty and well beloved Benjamin Ffletcher, our Captaine Generall and Governour in Chiefe of our Province of New Yorke, and the territoryes and tracts of land depending thereon in America and Vice- Admirall of the same our Lieut- tennant and Commander in Chiefe of the Militia and of all the forces by sea and land within our Collony of Connecti- cutt and of all the fforts and places of strength within the same in Council at our ffort in New Yorke the Sixth day of May, in the ninth year of our Reigne Annoq. Domi. 1697. BEN. FFLETCHER. By his Excellenceyes command, David Jamison, D. Sec'ry. State of New York, Secretary's Office. I have compared the preceding with a certain Instrument in writing recorded in this office in Book of Patent's No. 7, page 82,, &c., and do certify that the same is a correct tran- scrip therefrom, and of the whole of said Instrument. ARCH'D CAMPBELL, Dep. Sec. of State. Albany, June 20, 1845. COLONIAL ACT OF 1704. (From Van Schaack's edition, p. 60.) CHAPTER CXLI. (Repealed An Act for granting sundry Privileges and Powers to the by sec^^e^f Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New York, of the aVui7S4: Communion of the Church of England, as by Law estab- lished. Passed the 27th of June, 1704. Whereas, the Inhabitants of the city of New-York, of the Communion of the Church of England, as by Law estab- lished, for some years past, by voluntary contribution of themselves and others, favoring the Church's Interest, have erected a Church within the said City, for the service and worship of Almighty God, called, and known by the name of Trinity Church; and have purchased and procured, and do COLONIAL ACT OF 1704. 17 quietly and peaceably hold, use, exercise, and enjoy the said Church, with ihe Cemetry or Burying- place, and a certain Tract of land belonging thereunto, bounded easterly upon the street commonly called the Broad-way, containing in Breadth, on the West side of the said street, three hundred and ten foot, or thereabouts, from the north-east corner of the ground commonly called the Queen^s Garden^ to the land of John Hutckins, Esq.; thence by a straight line along the north side of the said Burying-Place, continued to Low Water Mark of Hudson's River; thence by a line Southward along the said River three hundred ninety and five foot, all English measure ; and from thence by the line of the said Garden easterly, to the place where it begun ; together with sundry Powers, Rights, Privileges, and Preheminences, necessary for the manageing of the afi'airs of the said Church ; which by the Blessing of God has been attended with great success ; and the congregation thereof being much increased, calls for suitable Encouragement ; To the end therefore, that such re- ligious work may be founded upon some lasting foundation, grow up and become fruitful, to the praise and glory of God, the good example of others, and the benefit of their posterity and successors. 1. Be it enacted hy his Excellency Edward Viscount Cornbury, Captain General and Governor-in-Chief of the Colony of New-York, by and with the consent offler Majes- tyh Council, and this General Jlssembly, and by authority of the same, That from henceforward forever hereafter, the Rector and Inhabitants of the said City of JYew-York, in Communion of the Church of England, as by law established and their successors, be, and shall be able and capable in the law, for the maintainance and recovery of their estates, rights, and privileges whatsoever, to sue, and be sued, plead and be impleaded, to answer and be answered unto, defend and be defended by the same name of the Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New- York, in Communion of the Church of Eng- land as by Law established, in all suits. Quarrels, Controver- sies, Causes, Actions, Matters and Things whatsoever, in any Court or Courts of Common Law or Equity whatsoever ; and that by the same Name they and their Successors do and shall lawfully have, hold, use exercise, and enjoy all and singular their said Church Burying Place, and Land thereto belong- ing, with the Hereditaments and Appurtenances, heretofore by them and their predecessors by whatsoever Name or Names the same were purchased and had, or to them given or granted, and by them or any of them used and enjoyed for the Uses aforesaid, to them and their Successors, to the sole and only proper Use and Benefit of the said Rector and In- habitants, and their Successors forever, in as firm and ample Manner, in the Law, as if the said Rector and Inhabitants had been legally incorporated, and made capable in the Law COLONIAL ACT OF 1704. to take, receive, purchase, have, hold, use, and enjoy the snme, at, and before the purchasing, taking, receiving, and holding of the said Cemetry, and Lands thereunto belonging, and law- fully had, held, and enjoyed the same; any Law, Usage, or Custom to the contrary thereof, in anywise notwithstanding. IL And be it further enacted hy the Authority afore- said^ That the said Rector and Inhabitants and their Suc- cessors by the same Name from henceforward, forever, have, and shall have full Power, good Right, and lawful Authori- ty, to have, take, receive, acquire and purchase, and use, and enjoy Lands, Tenements, and Hereditaments, Goods and Chattels ; and to demise, lease and improve the said lands te- nements and hereditaments, and to use and improve such goods and Chattels, to the benefit of the said Church, and other pious uses, not exceeding Five Hundred Pounds yearly Rent, or Income ; any Law, Usage, or Custom to the Contrary here- of in any Wise notwithstanding. And it shall and may be lawful for the said Rector and Inhabitants, and their Suc- cessors to finish and adorn the said Church, alter enlarge, and amend the same or any part ; as also to erect and build a convenient dwelling House, Garden, and Appurtenances, for the Use of their Rector for the Time being, a Vestry Room, Charnel House, and other necessaries of tlie said Church ; and to enclose, support, and maintain the same from Time to Time, as there shall be need thereof. III. And be it further enacted hy the Jluthority afore- said, That the said Church and Premises, be from hencefor- ward forever set apart and separated for the Religious Uses aforesaid ; and that the Patronage and Advowson of the said Church, and Right of Presentation (after the Death of the Present Rector, or upon next Avoidance, and forever there- after) shall belong and appertain to the Church- Wardens, and Vestrymen of the said Church, annually elected or to be elected, by the Inhabitants aforesaid, in Communion as afore- said, in Manner hereafter mentioned, and expressed, or to the major part of said Church- Wardens and Vestry men for the Time being, whereof one Church-Warden always to be one ; which Rectors shall be instituted and inducted into the said Church, in such manner, and always as shall be most suita- ble and agreeable to her Majesty's Instructions to his Excel- lency the Governor of this Colony for the Time being, and that Canonical Right and Authority, which the Right Reve- rend Father in God, Hetiry Lord Bishop of London and his Successors, hath, and shall have over the said Church. IV. And be it further enacted hy the Authority afore- said, That the succeeding Rector or Incumbent of the said Church, next after the Death or other Avoidance of Mr. William Vesey, present Rector and his Successors forever, be, and shall be instituted, authorized, and empowered, tu have, and receive, and shall have, and receive the sum of COLONIAL ACT OF 1704. One Hundred Pounds yearly, raised and levied upon the In- habitants of the said City, iov the maintenance of a good sufficient Protestant Minister in the City aforesaid, by virtue of an act of General Assembly, of this Colony, made and enacted in the fifth year of the Reign of King William and Queen Mary, entitled, act for settlincr a Ministry, and raising a Maintenance for them in the City of New- York, Covnty of Richmond, West-Chester and Queen's County : any Law, Custom, or Usage, to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding. V. And be it further enacted hy the Authority afore- said. That it shall and may be lawful for the said Rector and Inhabitants, in Communion as aforesaid, and their Succes- sors, forever hereafter, to have, and use a common Seal ; and the same to alter, break, and new make at their discretion. VI. And be it further enacted by the Authority afore- said, That it shall and may be lawful for the Inhabitants aforesaid, to assemble and meet tosrether on Tuesday in Easter Week, annually at the said Church, to chuse two Church-Wardens, and Twenty Vestry-men, Communicants of the said Church, to serve and officiate for the next ensu- ing year ; by the Majority of the voice of the said Commu- nicants, so met and not otherwise ; which said Church-War- dens so chosen, and hereafter to be chosen annually, have, and shall have like Power, and Authority to do, execute and perform their said Offices, respectively as Church-Wardens and Vestry-men in England have, unless some particular dif- ference may happen, by the express power and direction of this present Act of General Assembly. And it shall, and may be lawful for the said Church W^ardens, or one of them at any Time or Times, and so often as shall be needful, to call a meeting of the Vestry-men of said Church, to meet the Rector for the Time being, if any there be, and Church ^Vardens or one of them ; which said Rector and Church Wardens or one of them, and Majority of the Vestry-men, for the time being, have, and shall have Power to make such Rules and Orders, for managing the affairs of the said Church as they or the said Rector and one Church Warden, with the Major number of the Vestry-men, so, from Time to Time met and assembled, shall agree upon; which said majority of Vestry-men together with the Rector and one Church Warden at least, shall have the sole Disposition and order- ing of all payment of the Church's Monies ; all which Rules, Orders and payments shall be fairly entered and kept in books for that purpose ; Provided, nevertheless, in case of the Death of the said Rector, and before the said Church be supplied with another, that the same Powers and Autho- rities relating to the making of Rules and Orders, as also the Disposition and payment of the Church's Money, be fully invested in the Church Wardens for the time being, by and COLONIAL ACT OF 1704. with the Advice and Consent of the Major number of the •whole Vestry-men, and not otherwise, to be entered r.nd kept in manner aforesaid ; anything herein contained to the con- trary thereof notwithstanding. And it shiill and may be lawful for the said Church Wardens and Vestry-men, or Ma- jor Part of them, whereof, one Church Warden always to be one, without their Rector, to establish and regulale all Fees and Perquisites of their Rector, Clerk, Sexton, and other officers of said Church, provided none of the Fees or perquisites shall exceed the Fees or Perquisites usually taken in England by such Officers respectively, with regard to the Difference of the Value of Money in this Colony ; as also for the said Church Wardens and Vestry-men or major part of them, with their said Rector to regulate c.nd order the Per- quisites of the Church growing and coming by the breakinc of the ground in the Cemetry or Church Yard, and in the Church for burying the Dead, provided the Perquisites for breaking the ground in the Cemetry or Church Yard shall not exceed the Perquisites reserved and mentioned in the Grant thereof made by the Mayor, Aldermen, and Common- alty of the City of JYew-York, for the use of Trinity Church aforesaid ; And in Case the Church Wardens or Vestrymen or any of them* happen to die within the year it shall be lawful for the Inhabitants aforesaid, in Communion as afore- said at any Time, upon such Emergency to meet at the said Church upon Notice given by the Rector, to elect and chuse others so qualified as aforesaid in their Room; who shall have full Power and Authority to do, execute and perform the Offices of such as they shall be so chosen to succeed, re- spectively, until the Time of next annual ElecUon. And upon the Alteration of any Church Warden, by Death or otherwise the preceding Church Warden or Wardens of the said Church, shall deliver over to their Successors, in that Office all Deeds, Charters, Evidences, Books, Matters, and things whatsoever, belonging to the said Church, in their Custody by Indentures containing an Inventory of them, in- terchangeably under their Hands, which Indentiires shall be exhibited and shewn to the Vestry-men at first Meeting, next after such annual Election, or other alteration happening. VII. And be it further enacted by the Authority afore- said, That it shall and may be lawful for the Rector for the Time being, of the said Ciiurch upon avoidance of such Offi- cers, to nominate and appoint a Clerk, Sexton, or Sextons for the said Church ; and that the Clerk, Sexton, or Sextons of the said Church be, and continue in their respective Offi- ces during their -natural lives, unless they voluntarily surren- der, become incapable of serving by sickness or other infir- mity, or misbehave themselves, in which case it shall be in the Power of the Rector of tha said (Church for the Time being, with Advice and Consent of the Church Wardens, or EXTRACT FROM CONSTITUTION OF 1777. 21 one of them, and Vestry-men, or major part of them to xlisplace or remove such Officer and Officers so misbehaving themselves, and not otherwise. VIII. And lastly, bk it enacted by the authority afore- said, That tbi-s present Act, and the several Powers, Privi- leges and Liberties therein and thereby granted to the Rector and Inhabitants aforesaid, in Communion as aforesaid, and their Successors forever be, and shall be construed and under- stood most favorably for the Benefit of said Church, accord- ing to the true Intent and Meaning of his Excellency the Governor, and Council and Assembly aforesaid. IX. Provided, Nevertheless, That this present Act of General Assembly, nor anything therein contained, shall be construed or understood to extend to abridge or take away the Indulgtncy or Liberty of Conscience, granted or allowed to other Protestant Christians, by an Act of Parliament, made in the first year of the reign of the late King William and Queen Mary of blessed memory, entitled An Act for exempt- ing their Majeslie's Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church cf England, from the penalty of certain Laws or by any other Law or Statute of the Realm of England or this plantation ; anything in this present Act contained or miscon- strued to the contrary thereof in any ways notwithstanding. EXTRACT FROM THE STATE CONSTITU- TION OF 1777. Section 36. And be it further ordained, That all grants of land within this State, made by the King of Britain, or per- sons acting under his authority, after the fourteenth day of October, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be null and void ; but that nothing in this Constitution con- tained shall be construed to affect any grants of land within this State, made by the authority of the said King or his predecessors, or to annul any charters to bodies politic, by him, or them, or any of them, made prior to that day. 3 22 ACT OF 1784. ACT OF 1784. Preamble reciliiig charter. Preamble reciting act June 27, 1704. Preamble- Reciting parts of the charter in- consistent with the con- stitution. Preamble. Reciting other parts of the char- ter and laws against the religious equnlity designed by the consti- tion. Part of the old charter, and law rtlaling to the church repealed. Jin act for making such Alterations in the Charter of the Corporation of Trinity Church, as to render it more con- formable to the Constitution of the State. Passed 17th April, 1784. (Taken from Vol. 1 of Jones and Vai-ioU's edition, p. 128.) Whereas by letters patent under the great seal of the then colony, and now State of New-York, bearing date the sixth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand six hun- dred and ninety-seven, many of the inhabitants of the city of New-York, members of the Church of England, were erected into a corporation, by the name and style of tlie Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New-York, of the Protestant Church of England, as by Law established. And whereas, on the twenty-seventh day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and four, the Legislature of the then colony, and now State aforesaid, did pass a law, entitled, "An Act for granting sundry Privileges " and Powers to the Rector and inhabitants of the City of " New- York, in Communion of the Church of England, as " by law established." And whereas those parts of the said charter which render necessary the induction of a rector to the said church by the governor, according to such instructions as he shall from time to time receive from his Britannic majesty, and such other parts of the said charter and law as admit and acknow- ledge that rights exist in the bishop of London, in and over the said church, are inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the constitution of this state. And whereas certain other parts of the said charter and law, and of a certain other law passed the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand six hun- dred and ninety-three, by the Legislature of the then colony aforesaid, entitled, " An Act for settling a Ministry, and " raising a Maintainance for them in the City of New-York, " and County of Richmond, Westchester, and Queen's " County," are contradictory to that equality of religious rights which is designed to be established by the constitution of this state : L Be it therefore enacted by the people of the state of JYew-York, represented in Senate and Assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, that so much of the charter to the said body corporate above particularly mentioned, and so much of the said law first above particu- larly mentioned, as relate to the induction of the rector by the governor, to the powers or authority of the bishop of ACT OF 1784. 23 London, in and over the said corporation, and to the collect- ing and levying a sum of money upon the city of New-York, for the use of the rector or incumbent in the said law men- tioned, be, and they are hereby repealed and annulled ; and Jj^^^^^g that nothing in this law, nor no non-user, or mis-user, between served, not- the nineteenth day of April, one thousand sev^n hundred and Tonus'liror"^ seventy-five, and the passing of this law, shall be in any wise ""suser. construed to annul, injure, repeal, or make void the said charter, or the said law first above particularly mentioned, where the same are not inconsistent with the constitution of this state. II. Jlnd he it further enacted^ and it is hereby enacted by church-war- the authority aforesaid, that the church-wardens and vestry- frymtJl'^to*^' men of the said corporation, or a majority of them, be vested ^uctTrecwr with full powers to call and induct a rector to the said church, so often as there shall be any vacancy therein. Jlnd ivhereas doubts have arisen on those parts of the said Preamble, charter and law first above mentioned, which speak of inhabi- tants in communion of the said church of England ; for re- moval whereof ; III. Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that Description all persons professing themselves members of the Episcopal whJrX"ibe Church, who shall either hold, occupy, or enjoy a pew or f"e"charier^' seat in the said church, and shall regularly pay to the sup- nghu, ic. port 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 inhabitents of the city and county of New-York, shall be entitled to all the rights, pri- vileges, 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 whereas by the events of war, and in consequence of Preamble, the capture of the city of New-York by the troops of his Britannic majesty, many of the well-affected inhabitants of describing the said city, who by the said charter and law were entitled I^J)t°vo°e"for to vote for members of the said corporation, were prevented Ihe'^or^ra''- from the due exercise of their rights, and many others who remained in this city, were deteried from voting by well- grounded apprehensions of the forces of his Britannic ma- jesty, then in possession of the said city ; by reason whereof no elections were held, but under the influence of the government of Groat Britain, then at open war with this state ; And whereas the council appointed by the act of the Le- Preamble- gislature, entitled, " An act to provide for the temporary " government of the southern parts of this state, whenever ?e1ermma^* "the enemy shall abandon or shall be dispossessed of the [J^™ "^'^^Jj'jj, " same, and until the Legislature can be convened," passed respecting the twenly-third of October, one thousand seven hundred 24 ACT OF 1784. in lime persons. and seventy-nine, upon the petition of sundry persons, styl- ing themselves members of the said church ; and after a lull hearing of certain other persons, claiming to be the church- wardens and vestrymen of the said church, reciting that there was, in the opinion of the council, reason to believe, that the dissensions respecting the said church mighi materi- ally endanger the peace of the said city, did, in effect, deter- mine the said places of church-wardens and vestrymen to be vacant; and by their ordinance, dated the twelfth day of January, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four, did And estate of vest the estate, real and personal, of the said corporation, in lion^esied James Duanc, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris, Isaac Sears, William Duer, Daniel Dunscomb, Anthony Lispenard, John Rutherford, and William Bedlow, to be retained and kept by them, or any five of them, until such time as further legal provision should be made in the premises ; Preamble. whereas it appears, that the following persons have been nominated and chosen, by a very respectable number of the members of the said corporation and society, as church- wardens and vestrymen, and by their humble petition have prayed that the said persons may be appointed as such. Present IV. Be it therefore further enacted, and it is hereby enacted densand™' by the authority aforesaid, that James Duane and Robert R. appo/iued" Livingston be the present church-wardens of the said corpo- ration ; and that Anthony Griffiths, Hercules Mulligan, Mari- nus Willet, John Stevens, Robert Troup, Thomas Tucker, Joshua Sands, Richard Morris, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris, Isaac Sears, Daniel Dunscomb, William Bedlow, William Duer, John Rutherford, Anthony Lispenard, Thomas Gren- nell, William Mercier, Thomas Tillotson, and Christopher Their con- Miller, be the vestrymen of the said corporation ; the said office?'^^ church-wardens and vestrymen to hold their places until the first usual day of election for church-wardens and vestrymen, which shall be held after Easter Sunday, which will be in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty- five ; and that in the mean time in case of any vacancy by vacancin J^^'h or resignation of the rector, or either of the church- how to be wardens or vestrymen, such vacancy to be filled up by the remaining church-wardens and vestrymen, m such manner as is prescribed in and by the charter and law constituting the said corporation as aforesaid. V. Provided nevertheless, and be it further enacted, by the "0^*0. authority aforesaid, that nothing in this act contained, shall .■having the ^6 coustrued, deemed, or taken to prejudice or injure the if^*" "ciilim* '"'g^^ or title of any person or persons whatsoever, to any of anu. the lands or tenements occupied or claimed by the corpora- tion aforesaid' And in order fully to carry into full effect those parts of the constitution of this state, which declare that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, ACT OF 1784. 25 without discrimination or preference, shall for ever hereafter be allowed within this state to all mankind, and that all acts of the Legislature of this state while a colony, and all parts thereof which may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of christians, or their ministers, be abrogated and rejected as repugnant to the said constitu- tion. And in order to remove all doubts which may arise in the Preamble, minds of any persons with respect to the continuance, force, and eflfect of a certain act of the Le^islatuie of this state cenainicts. while a colony, passed on the twenty-second day of Septem- ber, one thousand six hundred and ninety-three, entitled, " An Act for settling a Ministry, and raising a Maintenance " for them in the City of New York, County of Richmond, " Westchester, and Queen's County ;" and also of one other act, passed on the twenty-seventh day of June, one thousand seven hundred and four, entitled, " An Act for "granting sundry Privileges and Powers to the Rector and " inhabitants of the City of New- York, of the Communion " of the Church of England, as by Law established ;" and also of another act, passed on the fourth day of August, one thousand seven hundred and five, entitled, "An Act for the " better explaining and more etFectually putting in Execution implying a " an Act of General Assembly, entitled, An Act for settlinsr pre-emi- . > . n^nc6 ot the " a Ministry, and raising a Maintenance for them in the City church of " of New-York, County of Richmond, Westchester, and aboveolher, "Queen's County;" and also of one other act, passed on the twenty-seventh day of July, one thousand seven hundred and twenty-one, entitled, " An Act for the more equal and " impartial assessing the Minister and Poor's Tax, to be " raised within the City and County of New-York, Queen's " County, W^estchester County, and the County of Rich- ''mond;" and also of one other act, passed the twenty-first day of September, one thousand seven hundred and forty- four, entitled, " An Act to alter the Time ol electing Ves- " trymen and Church-wardens in Richmond County ;" and also certain parts of one other act, passed the twenty-ninth day of November, one thousand seven hundred and forty- five, entitled, " An Act to enable the Inhabitants of the City " of New-York, to choose annually two Vestrymen for each " respective Ward within the said City," which do grant cer- tain Immunities, Emoluments, and Privileges to the Episco- pal Church, or that mode of Religious Worship, commonly called the Church of England, in the City and County of New-York, and the Counties of Richmond, Queen's and Westchester, and do establish and maintain the Ministers of that Denomination within the said Counties ; and do also declare or imply a pre-eminence or distinction of the said Episcopal Church, or Church of England, over all other churches and other religious denominations. 26 ACT OF 1784. VI. Be it therefore further enacted by the authority afore- said, that the said acts for settling the ministry, and raising a maintenance for them in the city of New York, counties of Richmond, Westchester, and Queen's county ; for granting Such acts sundry privileges and powers to the rector and inhabitants of repealed, the city of JYew-York, of the communion of the Church of England, as by law established ; for the better explaining and more effectually putting in execution an act of the General Assembly, entitled, An Act for the settling the Ministry and raising a Maintenance for them in the city of New- York, County of Richmond, Westchester, and Queen's County ; for the more equal and impartial assessing the Minister and Poor's Tax, to be raised in the City and County of New- York, Queen's County, Westchester Coun- ty, and the county of Richmond ; for altering the Time of electing Vestrymen and Church-wardens in Richmond County ; and also such certain parts of the act for en- abling the inhabitants of the city of New-York to choose annually two vestrymen for each respective ward within the the said city, as do imply such pre-eminence and distinc- tion, be, and are hereby declared to be fully and absolutely abrogated, abolished, annulled, repealed, and made void, as inconsistent with, and repugnant to the constitution of this state : And it is hereby further declared, that nothing in this act contained shall in any wise be construed or understood to give any kind of pre-eminence or distinction to the Episco- pal mode of religious worship within this state ; but that an fwern"reii- uuivcrsal equality between every religious denomination, ac- gious deno- cording to the true spirit of the constitution, towards each mmatioDS. ,1111, • 1 other, shall for ever prevail. confirmntinn VII. Jlnd bc it furtlicr enacted by the authority aforesaid, of powers o( nothiug iu this act contained, shall be deemed, esteemed, corporalioii. i- 1 , ° 1 r • 1 adjudged, or construed, to enlarge or connrm any right, power, or authority, but such as the said corporation legally had, held, and enjoyed on the nineteenth day of April, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, and such other powers, rights and authorities as arc expressly given by this act. ACT OF 1788. 27 ACT OF 1788. [Taken from vol. 2 of Jones and Varick's edition, p. 346.] An Act to enable the Corporation of Trinity Church in the city of JVew-York to assume the name therein mentioned. Passed 10th March, 1788. Whereas the corporation of Trinity Church in the city of PreamMe New-York, were by an act of the Legislature of the late Inh jlfne','^ Colony of New- York, passed the twenty-seventh day June, in the year one thousand seven hundred and four, enabled to sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, answer and be an- swered unto, defend and be defended, by the name of the Rector and inhabitants of the city of New-York, in commu- nion of the Church of England, as by law established. And whereas, the said act was repealed by the Legislature of tliis And its re- State, on the seventeenth day of April, in the year one thou- sand seven hundred and eighty-four, but the said Corporation have continued to use the name therein specified, and by their humble Petition to the Legislature of this State, have prayed that they may be enabled to assume 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 ;" therefore Be it enacted, by the people of the State of JS^ew-York, re- presented in Senate and Assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same. That the said corporation shall and may, from and immediately after the passing of this act, ^f^'Iorpora- 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 by the same name shall be capable to sue and be sued, pie. d and be pleaded, answer and be answered unto, defend and be defended, and that all grants, deeds, and conveyances, made to or by the said corporation, between the said seventeenth day of April, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-four, anil TiUes con- the passing of this act, wherein they are named or menticned 6™*=")- by the name of the Rector and Inhabitants of the city of New- York in Communion of the Church of England, as by law established, or any other name or names, shall be good, valid, and effectual in the Law, in like manner as they would have been .if the said act passed the twenty-seventh day of June, in the year one thousand seven hundred and four, had never been repealed, or as they would respectively have been if the said corporation had been properly named in such grants, deeds, or conveyances. PETITION OF TRINITY CHURCH IN 1813. PETITION OF CORPORATION OF TRINITY CHURCH, APPLYING FOR THE ACT OF 25th JANUARY, 1814. To the Ho7wrable the Legislature of the State of JVew- York : The Petition of the Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New-York in communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New- York : Respectfully showeth : That so long ago as in the year one thousand six hun- dred and ninety-seven, your Petitioners were incorporated by letters patent under the great seal of the colony of New- York, and have ever since continued to be a body politic and corporate, by virtue of their said charter. That at the time of granting the same, it was contem- plated that Trinity Church therein mentioned, should be the sole and only parish church of the Protestant Episco- pal denomination, in the said city, and that in fact it con- tinued to be so until the Revolution, by which the inde- pendence of the United States was obtained, and for a num- ber of years after that memorable epoch. That soon after the revolution above mentioned, an act of the Legislature passed for making such alterations in the charter of the corporation of Trinity Church as to render it more conformable to the constitution of the State : by one clause whereof all the rights, privileges, benefits and emoluments which in and by the said charter were designed to be secured to the inhabitants of the City of New- York in communion of the Church of England, were conferred upon all persons professing themselves members of the Episcopal Church, who should hold, occupy, or enjoy a pew or seat in the said Church, and should regularly pay to the support of the said Church, and such others as should in the said church partake of the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper at least once in every year, being inha- bitants of the said city. That since the passing of the act [above 'referred to, the pew holders of Trinity Church and of the churches or • The determination to apply to the Legislature appears upbn the minutes of the Vestry of the 4tli of January, 1813, in the following form : " Resolved, That Richard Harrison, David M. Clarkson, Thomas Bar- " row, Robert Troup, Jacob LeRoy, Peter Augustus Jay, and Thomas L. " Ogden be a Committee on the State of the Church, with full power to " make such application to the Legislature at its ensuing session, relative " to the affairs of this Corporation, as the said Committee shall judge to '' be proper." PETITION OF TRINITY CHURCH IN l8l3. chapels belonging to the said corporation, and the regular communicants therein, have been the only persons admitted to vote at elections for church-wardens and vestrymen of the said corporation according to the just and fair construc- tion contemporaneously and ever since given to the said act. Your Petitioners beg leave further to show, that in con* sequence of the rapid and unexampled increase and pros- perity of our country since the said revolution, and the cor- responding growth and population of the City of New- York, Trinity Church, aforesaid, with the churches and chapels belonging to its corporation, became insufficient for the accommodation of all the inhabitants of the said city who professed themselves members of the Protestant Epis- copal Church, or wished to become so, on which account, and for a variety of other reasons not necessary to be sug- gested, numerous persons of this description have been in- duced from time to time, to form themselves into distinct corporations, each having its own peculiar endowments and places of worship, with rectors and other officers of their own choice, totally independent of any control or inter- ference of your Petitioners. That a number of such religious corporations have ac- cordingly been organized as the law directs, some with and some without the concurrence of your petitioners ; to all which your Petitioners have made liberal donations, and with whose internal concerns your Petitioners or any of the members of the corporation of Trinity Church, as such, do not claim any right to intermeddle ; nor do the said corporation possess or claim any right for themselves or their members to vote in the elections, or regulate the affairs of Trinity Church. Nevertheless, a few individuals belonging to such sepa- rate corporations, have recently pretended to claim that right, and at the last annual election of church-wardens and vestrymen of Trinity Church, held in the month of March, in the year 1312, two or three persons being members of incorporated churches, separate and distinct from your Pe- titioners, tendered themselves as voters ; but their voles under an ordinance previously passed by your Petitioners, were rejected, and no measures have been yet taken to en- force or establish the right so claimed. It must be obvious, however, that attempts of this na» ture cannot fail to produce strife and litigation, and to fos- ter and keep alive pretensions of the most unreasonable na- ture and of the most mischievous tendency. Your Petitioners are, moreover, sensible that since the formation of such distinct corporations, the corporate name by which your Petitioners are designated has become inap- plicable, and ought to be changed ; as they do not compre- 4 PETITION OF TRINITY CHURCH IN 1813 hend in their body all the inhabitants of the city of New- York who now profess to be of the Protestant Episcopal Church ; and your petitioners are further convinced that it has become essential to the peace and harmony of said church, that all doubts respecting the persons entitled to vote for church-wardens and vestrymen of Trinity Church, which may exist or arise in consequence of the said separate in- corporations, should be finally obviated and settled. Your Petitioners beg |leave further to represent, that the law which requires religious corporations in New-York, Albany, and Schenectady, to exhibit an inventory and ac- count of their estates and revenues at certain periods, is attended with considerable expense and trouble, without producing any valuable effects ; that after such inventory and account has once been exhibited it cannot be useful to exhibit it again, unless the corporation should acquire further estates ; and that as far as the corporation of Tri- nity Church is concerned, they have hitherto complied with the law, and hold no property (their communion plate and church furniture excepted) other than what they held and were possessed of long before the said revolution, and are legally entitled to hold by the charters and grants of the ancient government, confirmed and established by the Le- gislature of the State ; though your Petitioners have great- ly diminished that property by grants and donations to Columbia College, to a free School which the Legislature has incorporated, to a Society formed for the promotion of religion and learning, and to many churches and religious societies, not only in the city of New-York but elsewhere in differents parts of the State. Your Petitioners therefore pray, that your Honorable Body will pass an Act for altering the name of their incor- poration ; and also to obviate and settle the questions that might arise in consequence of incorporating other Episco- pal congregations in the city of New-York ; and to do away the necessity of such inventory and account being exhibited more than once, unless upon the acquisition of additional property, by religious corporations. And your Petitioners will ever pray, &c. By order of the Corporation of Trinity Church in the city of New-York. [l. s.] T. L, Ogden, Clerk. ACT OF 1814. ACT OF 1814. (Taken from Session Laws of 1814 : p. 5.) Jtn act to alter the name of the Corpcration of Trinity Church, in JVeto- York, and for other purposes. Passed January 25th, 1814. Whereas, at the time of passing the act, entitled, "An^^^i^,, *' Act for making such alterations in the Charter of the Cor- " poration of Trinity Church, as to render it more conforma- ble to the Constitution of the State," and for some years afterwards, the said corporation, although possessing several places of public worship besides Trinity Church, was the only incorporated religious society in the city of New-York in communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this State ; but several other religious societies, of the same de- nomination, have since been formed in the said city, and duly incorporated. And whereas, by an act passed the tenth day of March, in the year of our Lord 1788, the said corporation of Trinity Church was enabled 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 ; " which name the said corporation, by their petition to the Legislature, pray may be altered, as having now become improper ; and that such fur- ther legislative provisions may be made as to remove all doubts respecting their charter rights, occasioned by the for- mation of other religious societies in the said city of New- York. Therefore I. Be it enacted by the People of tho State of JVew-ForA;, represented in Senate and Assembly, That from and after the passing of this act, the said corporation of Trinity Church, instead of their present name, shall take and use the name of Corporaw The Rector, Church-Wardens, and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, in the city of New- York." IL And be it further enacted, That all male persons of full age, who, for the space of one year preceding any elec- ^-^^na tion, shall have been members of the congregation of Trinity qualified lo Church aforesaid, or of 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 communion therein within the said year, and no other persons, shall be entitled to vote at the annual elections for the church-wardens and vestrymen of the said corpora- tion. III. And be it further enacted, That all grants and con- veyances heretofore made, or that hereafter may be made by corporation ACT OF 1814. S?o"'oth. ^^^^ corporation of Trinity Church of any of their lands, er corpora- tenements, and hereditaments, to any other religious society, now incorporated, or that may hereafter be duly incorporated, shall be and the same are hereby declared to be valid and Pioviso eflfectual. according to the tenor thereof ; pro vided the an- nual value of such lands, tenements, and hereditaments, at the time of such grant or conveyance, together with the other estate real and personal of such other religious corpo- rations, shall not exceed the annual sum which they are or may be respectively entitled to hold. IV. ^nd whereas Saint George's Church, in the city of ReciiaJ. New-York, formerly called Saint George's Chapel was one of the chapels heretofore belonging to the corporation of Trinity Church, and the pew-holders in the said chapel, and others qualified according to the charter of Trinity Church, and the laws of the State, were corporators of the said cor- poration of Trinity Church. And whereas, by mutual agree- ment and consent, the said chapel, called Saint George's Chapel, with such of the corporators of the corporation of Trinity Church as belonged thereto, or statedly worshipped in the said chapel, have been set off, and organized as a dis- tinct religious society, and have incorporated themselves as such, under the name of the Rector, Church-Wardens, and Vestrymen of St. George's Church in the city of New-York : and the corporation of Trinity Church have granted to, or vested in the said newly incorporated n^ligious society, the exclusive right to the said chapel, with the appurtenances, and which are now enjoyed accordingly : but doubts are entertain- ed as to the legal validity of the said transaction ; therefore, IV. Be it further enacted, That the separation of St. Chtuch^de! George's Chapel, in the city of New-York, from the corpo- par"e* ration of Trinity Church, shall be, and hereby is confirmed : chureh from and that the said church now called St. George's Church- Church. shall not at any time hereafter be held or taken to be a church or chapel belonging to Trinity Church, so as to qualify any of the congregation thereof to vote at the elec- tions of church-wardens and vestrymen of Trinity Church above mentioned. And the said religious society called the rector, church-wardens and vestrymen of Saint George's Church, in the city of New-York, shall have a right to all And to OS temporalities derived from the corporation of Trinity se"ss iu^se- Church as aforesaid, and may enjoy the same in as full and taie.'* *°" beneficial manner as any such religious corporation can hold and enjoy its temporalities, howsoever the same may be acquired. V. Jlnd be it further enacted, That when, and as often as Corporation shall sccm expedient to the said rector, church-wardens, ""rt^'other '^"'^ Vestrymen of Trinity Church, in the city of New- York, cKrches, to divide the congregation or corporators belonging to the said corporation, it shall be lawful for them so to do, by set- ACT OF 1814. 33 ting apart, as a separate church, any of the churches or cha- pels that may belong to and form part of the said corpora- tion, provided the same be done with the assent of a majority pronso. of the persons entitled to vote as aforesaid, who shall belong to such church or chapel intended to be set apart, and who shall attend a meeting to consider of such separation after at least ten days' notice previously given for that purpose in the said church or chapel, during or immediately after divine ser- vice ; and such separation so assented to, shall take effect according to the terms agreed upon between the parties ; and the members of the congregation of such church or chapel so separated, shall immediately thereafter cease to be mem- bers of the corporation of Trinity Church above mentioned, and may proceed to incorporate themselves according to law as a separate congregation of the said Protestant Episcopal Church ; and being so incorporated, may receive from the said corporation of the Trinity Church, any grant, convey- ance, or gift of any chapel or other real or personal estate for its separate use, and may hold and enjoy the same accord- ingly, as fully and beneficially as any such religious corpora- tion can hold and enjoy its temporalities, howsoever the same may be acquired. VI. And be it further enacted, That in every case where no religious a church or religious society which has been, or may be duly '"u'^J^to gig incorporated, shall have exhibited such account and inventory an inventory as is specified in the ninth* section of the act entitled, "An acquire' ad'^ Act to provide for the incorporation of religious societies," per'ty'"'' it shall not be necessary for such church or society again to exhibit any account and inventory, unless the said church or society, subsequently to such exhibition, shall have purchased or acquired any lands, tenements, or hereditaments within this state, any act, law or usage to the contrary notwith- standing : Provided always, that nothing in this act con- tained shall be construed to affect, or defeat the right of any person or persons, or of any body corporate, to the estate, real or personal, now held, occupied, or enjoyed by the cor- poration of Trinity Church. [• The tenth section of the law as revised and re-enacted in 1813.] CHANCELLOR LANSING'S OBJECTIONS. Chancellor Lansing^ s Objections, and the vote of the Council of Revision thereon. At a meeting of the Council of Revision at the Council Chamber in the Capitol, the 25th clay of January, 1814, Present, His Excellency, Daniel D. Tompkins, President. Mr. Chancellor Lansing, Mr. Chief Justice Kent, The Honorable { Mr. Justice Van Ness, Mr. Justice Spencer, \ Mr. Justice Yates. The following objections having been reported by his Honor the Chancellor, at the last sessian, to the bill entitled, " An Act to alter the name of the Corporation of Trinity Church in New-York, and for other purposes," as improper to become a law of this State, viz : " 1. Because if the members of the several incorporated societies in communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church of this State, formed in the city of New-York after the pas- sing of the act entitled, ' An Act for making such alterations in the charter of the Corporation of Trinity Church, as to render it more conformable to the Constitution of this State," have a right to vote at the annual elections for the church- wardens and vestrymen of Trinity Church, though not hav- ing been members of the congregation of Trinity Church within one year preceding any such election, or any of the Chapels belonging to the same ; and forming part of the same religious corporation, and holding, occupying, or enjoy- ing a pew in the said Trinity Church, or any of the Chapels thereof, or not having partaken of the holy communion therein, within such year, in consequence of the rights and privileges vested in them by the laws of this State and the incorporation of Trinity Church, the limitation of the right of election provided by the bill may divest or impair such right. And if any doubts exist respecting such right of suf- frage, it is consistent with the salutary principles of the con- stitution of this State to refer them to judicial cognizance as the appropriate and legitimate resort of adverse claimants in controverted cases of that description. This principle has been heretofore recognized by the Council in an analogous case, and which received the sanction of the honorable the Assembly by an almost unanimous vote, as will appear by a reference to their Journals of the 7th of February, 1810. " 2. Because the Charter being a private grant, and it not appearing by recitals or otherwise, what are the existing doubts respecting the rights and privileges thereby given, the Council are deprived of ihe means of judging whether any vested corporate rights are not violated by the restric- tions and provisions contained in this bill. CHANCELLOR LANSING'S OBJECTIONS. " 3. Because the saving contained in the proviso to the last section of the bill ' of the right of any person or persons, or of any body corporate to the estate, real or personal, now held, occupied, or enjoyed by the Corporation of Trinity Church,' is nugatory, inasmuch as all such rights, so far as they respect the corporators, depend principally upon, and are inseparably connected with, the right and privilege ot being a member of the Corporation, and voting for church- wardens and vestrymen who have the management and dis- position of the temporalities belonging to the corporation. The Council proceeded to consider the same, and the ques- tion being put thereon, there were in favor of the objec- tions : His Excellency , the Governor, Mr. Justice Spencer, Mr. Justice Yates. Against them : Mr. Chief Justice Kent, Mr. Chancellor Lansing, Mr. Justice Van Ness. No order therefore was made thereon. State of New-York, ? Secretary's Office. ^ I certify the preceding to be a true extract from the Min- utes of the (late) Council of Revision of this State in this office. ARCH'D CAMPBELL, Dep. Sec. of State. Albany, June 17, 1845. PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO THE ACT OF 1814. Extracts from Journals of the Legislature. SENATE. 1813, March 17. — The petition of the rector and inhabi- tants of the City of New-York in communion of the Protes- tant Episcopal Church, in the State of New-York, praying that an act may be passed altering the name of the incorpo- ration, and settling the question that might arise in conse- quence of the incorporating other Episcopal Congregations in said city, and doing away the necessity of exhibiting an inventory and account of their estates and revenue more than once, unless upon the acquisition of additional property, was read. Thereupon Mr. Haight moved for leave to bring in a bill pursuant to the prayer of the petitioners. PROCEEDINGS OF LEGISLATURE IN 1814. Ordered, That leave be given to bring in such bill. Mr. Haight, according to leave, brought in said bill enti- tled, " An Act to alter the name of the Corporation of Trinity Church, in the city of New-York, and for other purposes," whieh was read the first time, and, by unanimous consent, was also read the second time, and committed to a committee of the whole. March 18. — The memorial and remonstrance of the mem- bers of the Protestant Episcopal Church, inhabitants of the city of New-York, remonstrating against the passage of a law sanctioning the proceedings of Trinity Church in said city, or affecting the rights of the Episcopal inhabitants of that city who are members of the Congregation of Trinity Church, was read and referred to the committee of the whole, when on the bill entitled " An Act to alter the name of the Corporation of Trinity Church, in the city of New- York, and for other purposes." March 20.— The Senate then resolved itself into a com- mittee of the whole on the bill entitled " An Act to alter the name of the Corporation of Trinity Church ;n New-York, and for other purposes," and after some time spent thereon, Mr. President (De Witt Clinton) resumed the chair, and Mr. Van Buren, from the said committee, reported that the said committee had gone through the said bil', added a proviso, and agreed to the same, which he was oirected to report to the Senate, and he read the report in Ms place, and delivered the same in at the table, where it was again read, and agreed to by the Senate. Ordered. That the bill be engrossed. March 25.— The engrossed bill, "An Act to alter the name of the Incorporation of Trinity Church, and tor other purposes," was read a third time. Debates were had thereon, and Mr. President put the question, whether the said biU should pass, and it was car- ried in the affirmative. The yeas and nays being called for by Mr. Root, seconded by Mr. Van Euren, were as follows : — Affirmative, 21 ; Ne- gative, 9. HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY March 30. — Resolved, That the Attorney-General be, and he hereby is, requested to report to this house, whether, in his opinion, the passage of the bill entitled " An Act to alter the name of the Corporation of Trinity Church iii New-York, and for other purposes," would in any wise defeat or vary any existing vested rights under the charter granted May 6th, 1697, to the Rector and inhabitants in communion of the Protestant Church of England as now established by our laws, or any acts altering the said charter. OPINION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, Sec', 37 March 31. — The house then resolved itself into committee of the whole on the bill entitled " An Act to alter the name ot Trinity Church in New- Fork, and for other purposes;" and, after some time spent thereon, Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. Adams, from the said committee, reported progress, and asked for and obtained leave to sit again. Four o'clock, p. m. — The Attorney-General, in obedience to the resolution of the Honorable the Assembly of the 30th day of March, reported as follows, to wit : That he has examined a printed copy of the charter granted in the year 1697 to the Rector and inhabitants of the city of New-York, as then established by law, and the acts altering the said charter, together with the bill referred to in the said resolution, entitled, " An act to alter the name of the Corpo- ration of Trinity Church in the city of New-York, and for other purposes," and that he is of opinion that the passage of the said bill will not defeat or vary any existing vested rights under the said charter and acts. All which is respect- fully submitted. Ab. Van Vechten, Attor. Gen. April 2 — The house then resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the bill entitled " An Act to alter the name of the Corporation of Trinity Church in New- York ;" and after some time spent thereon, Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. R. Clark from the said committee, reported that in proceeding on the said bill, and after the same had been read in committee, Mr. Ross made a motion that the committee should agree to reject the same. That debates were had thereon, and the question having been put, whether the committee would agree to the said motion, it passed in the negative. That the yeas and nays were called for by Mr. Henderson, seconded by Mr. Taylor, and were as follows, to wit : — Nega- tiv^e, 66 ; Affirmative, 23. Four o'clock, p. m. — The engrossed bill from the Hono- rable the Senate, entitled " An Act to alter the name of Trinity Church in the city of New-York, and for other pur- poses," was read the same time. Resolved, That the bill do pass. Ordered, That the Clerk deliver the bill to the Honorable the Senate, and inform them that this house have passed the same without amendment. April 2, 1813. — Bill received by the Senate, and an order entered, that the Clerk deliver the same to the Council of Revision. April 5, I8l3. — Bill received by the Council of Revision, and referred to Chancellor Lansing, who reported objections thereto. See ante, p. 34. 6 ACT OF 1784 FOR RELIGIOUS INCORPORATIONS, EXTRACTS FROM " Jlrt Act to enable all the religious deiiominations in this State to appoint Trustees, who shall he a body corporatey for the purpose of taking care of the temporalities of their respective congregations^ and for other purposes therein mentioned^ Passed 6th April, 1784. [ Taken from Jones and Varick's Editions of Laws, vol. 1, p. J04, p. 109.] "1. Be it therefore enacted by the people of the State of Jfew-York, represented in Senate and Assembly, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, That from and after the passing of this Act, it shall and may be lawful to and for the male persons of full age, belonging to any churchy congregation, or religious society not already established ■within this State, or which may at any time hereafter be within the same, to assemble and meet together at the churchj meeting-house, or other place where they statedly attend for divine worship, and then and there by plurality of voices, to elect, nominate, and appoint any number of discreet and pru- dent persons of their church, congregation, or society, not less than three, or exceeding nine in number, as Trustees, to take the charge of the estate and property belonging to their respective churches, congregations, or religious societies, and to transact all affairs relative to the temporalities of their respective churches, congregations, or societies : That at such election every male person of full age, who has statedly wor- shipped with the said church, congregation, or society, and has formerly been considered as belonging thereto, shall be entitled to a voice at such first election." " XIV. And be it further enacted by the authority afore- said, That it shall and may be lawful, to and for every reli- gious corporation cseated by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Colony of New- York, to have, hold, occupy and enjoy, lands, tenements, goods and chattels of the yearly Talue of one thousand two hundred pounds, although the Let- ters Patent by which such corporation respectively were created, should contain a clause or clauses restricting and limiting the annual revenue and income of such corporation, at a sum less than one thousand two hundred pounds; any law, usage, or custom to the contrary in any wise notwith- standing." ACT OF ISOI FOR RELIGIOUS INCORPORATIONS. 99 EXTRACT FROM *'^a act to provide for the incorporation of religious societies. Passed March 27th, 1801. [Taken from Keat and Radcliffe's edition, toI. 1, p. 33t),] ^ 1. Be it enacted by the People of the State of J^ew-York, Protestant represented in Smate and Assembly, That it shall be lawful fhurches* for the male persons of full aoje, of any church or congrega- ^J^,^"' lion in communion with the Protestant Episcopal church in this State, who shall have belonged to such church or con- gregation for the last twelve months preceding such election, and who shall have been baptized in the Episcopal church, or shall have been received therein either by the right of confirmation, or by receiving the holy communion, or by purchasing or hiring a pew or seat in said church, or by some fotherj joint act of the parties and of the rector, whereby they shall have attached themselves to the Protestant Epis- copal church, and not already incorporated, at any time to meet for the purpose of incorporating themselves under this act, and by a majoritj' of voices, to elect two church wardens and eight vestrymen, and to determine on what day of the week called Easier week, the said offices of church wardens and vestrymen shall annually thereafter cease, and their suc- cessors in office be chosen ; of which first election notice shall be given in the time of morning service on two Sundays previous thereto, by the rector, or if there be none, by any other person belonging to such church or congregation, and that the said rector, or if there be none, or he be necessarily absent, then one of the church wardens or vestrymen, or any other person called to the chair, shall preside at such first election, and together with two other persons, shall make a certificate under their hands and seals, of the church war- tlens and vestrymen so elected, of the day of Easter week, so fixed on for the annual election of their successors, and of the name or title by which such church or congregation shall be known in law ; which certificate being duly acknowledged or proved by one or more of the subscribing witnesses, before the chancellor or one of the judges of the supreme court, or one of the judges of the court of common pleas of the county where such church or place of worship of such congregation shall be situated, shall be recorded by the clerk of such county in a book to be by him provided for that purpose, and that the church wardens and vestrymen so elected, and their successors in office of themselves, but if there be a rector, then together with the rector of such church or congregation, shall form a vestry, and be the trustees of such church or congregation ; and such trustees and their successors shall thereupon by virtue of this act, be a body corporate by the 40 ACTS OF 1801 AND 1813. ti^M°of''"' "'"^6 or title expressed in such certificate ; and that the per- churchww sons qualified as aforesaid shall, in every year thereafter, on iiTmcnregu- the day in Easter week so to be fixed for that purpose, elect such church wardens and vestrymen, and whenever any va- cancy shall happen before the stated annual election by death or otherwise, the said trustees shall appoint a time for hold- ing an election to supply such vacancy, of which notice shall be given in the time of divine service, at least ten days pre- vious thereto ; and such election, and also the stated annual elections, shall be holden immediately after morning service, and at all such elections the rector, or if there be none, or he be absent, one of the church wardens or vestrymen shall pre- side and receive the votes of the electors, and be the return- ing officer, and shall enter the proceedings in the book of the minutes of the vestry, and sign his name thereto, and offer the same to as many of the electors present as he shall think fit, to be by them also signed and certified ; and the church wardens and vestrymen to be chosen at any of the said elec- tions, shall hold their offices until the expiration of the year for which they shall be chosen, and until others be chosen in their stead, and shall have power to call and induct a rector Trustees ^^ich church Or Congregation as often as there shall be a when andi vacancy therein : Provided however, That no meeting or howto meet, j^^^j.^ such trustees shall be held, unless at least three days notice thereof shall be given in writing under the hand of the rector or one of the church wardens ; and that no such board shall be competent to transact any business unless the rector, if there be one, and at least one of the church wardens and a majority of the vestrymen be present ; and such rector, if there be one, and if not, then the church wardens present, or if both the church wardens be present, then the church warden who shall be called to the chair by a majority of voices, shall preside at every such meeting or board, and have the casting vote. [The preceding section was re-enacted in the revision of 1813, in the same words, excepting omissions which are in- cluded in brackets, of certain words in the act of 1801, not contained in the act of I8l3 See 2 Rev. Laws of 1813, p. 212, and vol 3. Rev. Stat. (2d edition,) p. 206.] AMENDAMENTORY ACT OF 1819. AMENDAMENTORY ACT OF 1819. An act to amend the act, entitled " An act to provide for the incorporation of religious societies.^' Passed March 5, 1819. Chap. 33, p. 34. ^ 1. Be it enacted by the People of the State of JVew-York, represented in Senate and Assembly, That it shall be lawful for the male persons, of full age, belonging to any church, congregation or religious society, in which divine worship shall be celebrated according to the rites of the Protestant Episcopal church in this State, and not already incorporated at any time to meet for the purpose of incorporating them- selves, and of electing church wardens and vestrymen, and to proceed to make such election, and to effect such incorpo- ration in like manner as by the first section of the act hereby amended, is authorised to be done by persons possessing the qualifications therein specified : Provided, That no person not possessing those qualifications shall be permitted to vote at any subsequent election of church wardens and vestrymen. § 2. And he it further enacted. That all incorporations of churches or congregations heretofore formed or made under the first section of the act hereby amended, although by per- sons who may not have belonged to such churches or congre- gations for the last twelve months then preceding, shall be deemed valid and effectual, in like manner, as if formed or made by persons qualified according to the provisions of the same section. § 3. And be. it further enacted. That it shall be lawful for each and every of the religious incorporations created, or to be created, within the city of New-York in pursuance of this act, or of the act hereby amended, to take and hold real and personal estate of the annual value or income of six thousand dollars, any thing contained in the fourth section of the act hereby amended to the contrary notwithstanding. QUEEN ANNE'S GRANT. Anne, by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, &c.. To all to whom these presents shall come, or may concern, send greeting : Whereas, the Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New- York, in communion of the Church of England as by law established, were (by an act of Assembly made in the third QUEEN ANNE'S GRANT. year of our reigne, entitled An act granting sundry privi- leges and powers to the Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New- York, of the communion of the Church of England as by the law established,) incorporated by the name of the Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New-York in com- munion of the Church of England as by law established, and made persons corporate in the law to sue or to be sued in any action or matter whatsoever ; and by that name they and their successors should hold and enjoy the Church there called Trinity Church, burying- place and lands thereunto belonging, by whatever name or names the same were pur- chased and had ; and that the said Rector and Inhabitants, and their successors by the same name from thenceforward should have good rights and lawful authority to have, take, receive, acquire, and purchase and use and enjoy lands, tene- ments and hereditaments, goods and chattels, and to demise, lease and improve the said lands, tenements and heredita- ments, and to use and improve such goods and chatties to the benefit of the said Church and other pious uses, not exceed- ing live hundred pounds yearly rents or incomes, with diverse other privileges and powers to them the said Rector and In- habitants, and their successors, as by the said recited act more at length it doth and may appear. And whereas the said Rector and Inhabitants of the said City of New-York, in communion of the Church of England as by law established, by their petition to our right trusty and well beloved cousin, Edward Viscount Cornbury, our Captain General and Governor in Chiefe in and over our province of New-York and territories thereon depending in America, and Vice Admiral of the same, have humbly pray- ed that wee would grant and confirm unto them and their successors for the use of the said Church, all those our severall closes, peeces and parcells of land, meadows and pastures formerlly called the Duke's Farme, and the King's Farme, now known by the name of the Queen's Farme, with all and singular ye fences, inclosures, improvements and appurte- nances whatsoever thereunto belonging as the same are nov/ in the occupation of and enjoyed by George Ryerse of the City of New-York, yeoman, or by any former tenant, scitu- ate, lying and being on the Island Manhattans in the city of New-York aforesaid, and bounded on the East, partly by the Broadway, partly by the Common, and partly by the Swamp, and on the West by Hudson's River, and also all that our piece or parcell of ground, scituate and being on the south side of the churchyard of Trinity Church aforesaid, commonly called and known by the name of the Queen's Garden, fronting to the said Broadway on the East, and ex- tending to low water marke upon Hudson River on the West, all which said premises are now lett at the yearly rent of thirty pounds, which reasonable request wee being willing to QUEEN ANNE'S GRANT. grant ; know ye that of our especiall grace, certaine know- ledge, and meer motion, we have given, granted, ratified and confirmed in and by these presents, for ourself, our heirs, and successors, we do give, grant, rattify and confirm unto the said Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New-York in com- munion of the Church of England as by law established and their successors all and singular the said farme lands, tene- ments and hereditaments hereinbefore mentioned, as the same are hereinbefore particularly stt forth, with the appurte- nances and every part and parcell thereof or thereunto be- longing or accepted, reputed, or taken as part parcell or member thereof as the same now are held, occupied and en- joyed by the said George Ryerse, or have been heretofore occupied and enjoyed by any former tenant or tenants, and all rents, arrearages of rents, issues and profits thereof, and of every or any part or parcell thereof together with all woods, underwoods, trees, timber which now are standing and growing, or which hereafter shall stand and grow in and upon the premises hereby granted, or any part thereof, and all feedings, pastures, meadows, marshes, swamps, ponds, pooles, waters, watercourses, rivers, rivolets, runs and streams of water brooks, fishing, fowling, hawking, hunting, mines and minerals, and all and singular the ways, passages, ease- ments, profits, commodities and appurtenances whatsoever to the said farm, several closes, peects and parcells of land and premises belonging or in any wise of right appertaining (ex- cept and always reserved out of this, our present grant all gold and silver mines.) To have and to hold the said farme, severall closes, pieces and parcplls of land and premises hereinbefore granted and confirmed or meant, mentioned, or intended to be hereby granted and confirmed with their and every of their appur- tenances (except before excepted) 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 succes- sors forever. To be holden of us, our heirs and successors in free and common socage as of our Manor of East Green- wich in our County of Kent, within cur kingdom of England, yielding, rendering, and paying therefore yearly and every year unto us, our heirs and successors at our City of New- York aforesaid to our Collector and Receiver General there for the time being, on the feast of the Nativity of our bless- ed Saviour the yearly rent of three shillings current money of New-York in lieu and stead of all other rents, services, dues, duties and demands whatsoever, Provided always, and our present grant is upon this condition that if our Capt. Generall and Govr. in Chief for the time being of our said Province of New-York, shall at any time hereafter cease or forbear the yearly payment of six and twenty pounds for the house rent of the Rector or Minister of Trinity Church of QUEEN ANNE'S CONFIRMATION. New-York aforesaid, which is now paid out of our revenue in the said province, and at such time, no suitable house shall be erected and built for the proper use and convenient dwell- ing of the Rector of the said Church for the time being, yt then the said Rector and Inhabitants of the said City of New- York, in Communion of the Church of England as by law established, and their successors shall from thenceforth yearly, and every year, out of the rents and profits of the hereinbe- fore granted lands and premises, pay and discharge the same for and until such suitable house shall be erected and built for the proper use and convenient dwelling of the Rector of the said Church for the time being, any thing herein before in this oiu" grant conteined to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding. In testimony whereot we have caused these our letters to be made pattents, and the seal of our said province of New-York to our said letters pattent to be affix- ed and the same to be recorded in the Secretary's Office of our Province. Witness our Right trusty and well beloved cousin Edward Viscount Cornbury, Capt. Generall and Govr. in Chief in and over our province aforesaid and territory de- pending thereon in America and Vice Admirall of the same &c. in Council at our fort in New-York aforesaid the three and twentieth day of November, in the lourth year of our reigne anno Dm. 1705. State of New-York, Secretary's Office. I certify the preceding to be a true copy of certain let- ters patent as of record in this office, in Book of Patents No. 7, page 338, &c. In testimony whereof I have hereunto affixed the L. s. seal of this Office, at the City of Albany, the 9th day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty. ARCH'D CAMPBELL, Deputy Secretary. QUEEN ANNE'S RECOGNITION AND IN- STRUCTIONS OF APRIL 14, 1714. Anne R. Trusty and well beloved, we greet you well. Whereas, our trusty and well beloved, the Rector, Church Wardens, and Vestrymen of Trinity Church in our city of New-York, have by their humble address, represented unto us, that our right trusty and our right well beloved cousin and councillor Edward, Earl of Clarendon, our late governor of our province of New-York, did grant a lease of our farm QUEEN ANNE'S CONFIRMATION. to them for seven years, under the rent of sixty bushels of wheat yearly payable unto us, (the like having been before granted to Colonel Benjamin Fletcher, Governor under our late royal brother. King William, with the like reservation,) but as these rents were esteemed a perquisite of the several governors, for the time being, the said Colonel Fletcher, who was a great benefactor and promoter of the first settling of that Church, did remit the rent during his time for that pious use, as also did the Eail of Clarendon, so much as accrued under the lease granted in his time. And that the said Earl, for promoting the interest of the said Church, and settling a lasting foundatioa for its support, did by virtue of the authority derived from us, under our great seal of England, grant the same farm under the seal of our pro- vince of New-York, to the Rector and inhabitants of the city of New-Ynik, in communion of the Church of Kngland, as by law established, and their successors for. ever, under the yeaily rent of three shillings. But that the corporation of the said Church, are now pro- secuted in our Court of Chancery, there in our name, for the several rents reserved on the leases before granted, and by the several governors before remitted, and that our letters patent for the said farm, are rendered disputable, and there- fore humbly imploring, that we will be graciously pleased to give such directions for stopping the said prosecution as we shall think fit. We takmg the premises into our royal consideration have thought fit to signify our will and pleasure unto you, and accordingly our will and pleasure is, that immediately upon receipt hereof, you do stop the prosecution now carrying en in our court of chancery there against the said corporation, and do not suffer any further proceedings to be had in that suit, until we shall signify our further pleasure to you, and for so doing, this shall be your warrant, and so we bid you farewell. Given at our Court of St. James, the 14th day of April, 1714, in the thirteenth year of our reign. By her Majesty's Command. BOLINGBROKE. THE TRINITY CHURCH TITLE. REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE LAND OEFICE. MADE TO THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY, MAT 12, 1836. MEMORIAL OF ^l)e Corporation of ^rtnitg C()itrcf), TO THE LEGISLATURE. March 26th, 1853. &c., &c. PUDNEY & RUSSELL, PRINTERS, Xo. 79 John-Street. 1855. NOTE IN 1846. In 1835 there appeared, in the New- York Gazette, a publication under the signature of Vindex, upon the subject of the Trinity Church title, with a Memorial to the Legislature, founded upon the views of the writer. The House of Assembly referred the matter to the Com- missioners of the Land Office, who made the Report that is contain- ed in the following pages. Vindex's argument appears to have been adopted by Counsel, in a late case before the Assistant Vice Chan- cellor of the First Circuit. (See New-York Evening Post, of Fri- day, Feb. 13th, 1846.) The reminiscence of this Report, and of the principles it contains, and the conclusions arrived at in it, may quiet some present disposition to revive the same questions. The signers of this document were, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Comptroller, the Treasurer, and the Survey- or General of the State, ex officio Commissioners of the Land Office. The Hon. Greene C, Bronson was Attorney General at the time of the reference and the hearing of the parties, but being ele- vated to the bench of the Supreme Court on 6th January, 1836, the proceedings were continued and concluded in the time of his suc- cessor, who acquiesced in the Report, the argument being on paper. ADDITIONAL NOTE IN 1855. Very extraordinary pretensions and very mistaken ideas respect- ing the Trinity Church title having been lately revived by parties speculating upon the chance either of extorting money from the Church, or of disposing of shares in the enterprise of a suit by the State, for the partial benefit of the informers it has been consider- ed advisable again to re-publish the Report of the Commissioners of the Land Office, made to the Legislature of 1836. As the principles of Law and Justice never alter, and changes in the Statutes cannot affect vested rights, a perusal of this paper may prevent improvident commitments, induced by the representations and persuasions of in- terested parties, with, unfortunately, some show of encouragement by the Public Authorities. Those inclined to examine the evidence of the Church's right to the property, will find complete and overwhelming testimony in the Report of the case of Bogardus vs. Trinity Church, in Sandford's Chancery Reports, vol. iv., pp. 633 and 369. 0tate of Nero-gork. No. 321. IN ASSEMBLY, V May 12, 1836. REPORT Of the Commissioners of the Land- Office, on the memo- rial of Wm. Cochran, tTohn William Fay, and sundry other inhabitants of the city of New- Yorh, in relation to Trinity Church. TO THE ASSEMBLY: The Commissioners of the Land Office, to whom was referred the memorial of William Cochran, John Wil- liam Fay, and sundry other inhabitants of the city of New- York, in respect to Trinity Church in that city, have the honor to present the following H £ p 0 r t: The memorial was referred to the Commissioners on the 30th Mai'ch, 1835, and the report has been delayed to this time by the desire of the Commissioners to afford to the parties concerned an opportunity to be 4 REPORT OF THE COMinSSIONERS heard, if they should so desire, and by other circumstan- ces which it was not in their power to control. A day was appointed for the hearing during the recess of the Legislature, and the proper notices were given, as well to the memorialists as to Trinity Church. The latter appeared by counsel, from whom a paper was subse- quently received, stating the legal grounds on which the church claims to hold its corporate property. The memorialists suggest, that there is in the city of New- York an ecclesiastical body, called " The Rector, Church-Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church in the city of New- York that said " church is in posses- sion, and receives the profits, of a very extended landed estate ;" that the revenue of said church was formerly limited by the Legislature of this State "to the sum of twelve hundred pounds per annum of the then currency," " which would amount to three thousand dollars of the present currency ;" but that its present revenue " very much exceeds the sum to which it is limited" by law, and that the immense wealth of Trinity Church gives it " a preponderating influence, not only in the affairs of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this State, but in those of the United States." That in the opinion of the memorialists, the possession of so great wealth by this society, is inconsistent with the spirit of the government and Constitution of this State ; and that, in permitting it so to be held, the government give a preference to " a particular religious denomination." The memoriahsts, therefore, pray that " the whole of said real estate, or OF THE LAOT) OFFICE, 5 so mucli thereof as creates the excess of revenue, be- yond the amount limited, may be taken to and for the people of this State ; and that the Legislature T\all take such proceedings in the premises as may seem proper." On the sixth of May, 1697, William III., King of England, granted a charter of incorporation to a rector and certain inhabitants of the city of Xew-York. This charter recites, amongst other things, that certain in- habitants of said city had, by their petition, represented that a church had been built within said city, at the charge of the governor of the then province of New- York, and several other inhabitants of said city, and prayed that said " church might be made parochial and incorporate into one body politic, in fact and in name and that a yearly maintenance might be appropriated unto said church, and also that his majesty would make a royal grant of a piece of land near adjoining to said church, for the use of said church and corporation ; wherefore in consideration of the premises, and of the great charge which must accrue in finishing said church, «fec., and in erecting and providing a parsonage house, Sec, his majesty granted and declared that said church, " situate in and near the street called Broadway," in the city of New- York, " and the ground thereunto adjoining, inclosed and used as a cemetery or church-yard," should be the parish church and church-yai'd of the parish of Trinity Church, within said city, and dedicated to the service of God, and applied thereunto for the use of 6 REPORT OF THE COHEMISSIONERS those who might from time to time be inhabitants of the city of New-York, in communion with said Protest- ant Church of England, as then established by the law, and to no other use or purpose whatever ; and that there should be a rector, and a jserpetual succession of rectors in said parish, the Bishop of London being thereby constituted the first rector. The charter also declared and provided, that said Bishop and his success- ors, rectors of said parish, and the inhabitants of said citj, in communion as aforesaid, should be a body corpo- rate and politic, in fact and in name, by the name of " The Hector and Inhabitants of our said city of JSFexu- Yoi'h^ in communion of our Protestant Church of Eng- land^ as now established hy our laws^'' with perpetual succession, and power to have, acquire, and purchase lands, goods and chattels, and to use, lease, and dispose of the same as other liege people, " or any corporation," within the realm of England or said province might law- fully do, " not exceeding the yearly value of five thou- sand pounds." It was also declared by said charter, " that the said church cemetery, or church-yard," should " be the sole and only parish church and church-yard of" said city of New-York ; and a certain yearly mainte- nance of one hundred pounds, directed by an act* of the general assembly of said province, was in and by said charter granted to said rector and his successors for- ever, to be levied and collected according to said act ; the * This act was passed 24th March, 1693. Livingston and Smith's edition of the Provincial Laws, p. 18. OF THB LAND OFFICE. 7 said premises, riglits, &c., to be liolden by said corpora- tion in free and common socage, at the yearly rent of one pepper corn, if demanded. This is an epitome, so far as is deemed to be material, of the original charter of Trinity Church, in the city of New- York. An act of the Legislature of the province of New- York, passed the 27th of June, 1704, * recites that Trin- ity Church had been erected by the voluntary contribu- tions of sundry inhabitants of the city of New- York, who had also purchased and procured, and held and en- joyed " the said church, with the cemetery or burying- place, and a certain tract of land belonging thereto." The act then proceeds to declare that the rector of said church, and the inhabitants of said city, in communion of the Church of England, as by law established, and their successors, should possess corporate powers, and as such corporation, might " hold, use, exercise and enjoy" the said church, burying-place, and land thereto belong- ing, by whatsoever name or names the same were pur- chased and had, and " in as firm and ample a manner in the law, as if the said rector and inhabitants had been legally incorporated" before the purchasing, ta- king, receiving, and holding the same. It is probable that the title of the corporation to the church, burying-place and land adjacent, had been called in question before the passing of this act, and that a principal object of the provision which has been recited, * Livingston and Smith's edition of the ProTincial Laws, p. 60. 8 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS was to confirm that title and render it incontestable. The first step in the origin and progress of Trinity Church, appears to have been the . erection of the church by voluntary contribution, and the acquisition of a title of some description to the land on which the church was erected, and the^ land adjacent thereto. In whom this title was vested, does not appear ; but by the sixth section of the act last referred to, it appears that the title had been conveyed by the corporation of the city of New- York, "yb?- the use of Trinity Church." The church, however, had not then been incorporated, and was therefore incapable of taking a legal title. The charter of incorporation was subsequent to this grant and to the erection of the church ; but this, although it gave to the body thereby created a capacity to acquire and receive title to the church property, did not, in fact, invest it with that title. That could only be effected by subse- quent legal conveyance to the corporation ; or in case the title had previously been transferred in an informal manner, for the benefit of those who were thus incor- porated, the Legislature might correct such defects and informalities, and thus vest the title according to what had been the real intention of all parties. This is what the act of 2Yth June, 1704, was intended to ef- fectuate ; and hence it provided, that the corporation should have and hold said church, burying-place and land, by whatsoever name the same were purchased or granted, in as ample a manner as if said corpora- tion had been created hefore such purchase or grant had been made. OF THE LAND OFFICE. 9 The act of 27th June, 1704, also declares that said corporation may acquire and purchase lands, tenements and hereditaments, goods and chattels, and lease and improve such lands, «fec., in amount, however, " not ex- ceeding five hundred pounds yearly rent or income,'" This corporation was, therefore, not only originally created by the King's charter, but it was subsecpently declared by the Provincial Legislature to be a corpora- tion, and to possess such general powers as the original charter had assumed to confer upon it. On the twenty-third day of November, 1705, Lord Cornbury, Governor of the Province of Kew- York, in the name, and as the act and deed of Queen Anne, made a lease, by which certain pieces of land, formerly called the Duke's farm and the King's farm, and then known by the name of the Queen's farm, as the same were then in the occupation of and enjoyed by George Ryerse, or by any former tenant, situate in the city of New- York, " and bounded on the east partly by the Broadway, partly by the common, and partly by the swamp, and on the west by Hudson's river ; also, all that one piece" of land " on the south side of the church-yard of Trinity Church," called the Queen's garden, were granted and confirmed to said corporation, to the use " of the said rector and inhabitants of the said city of New- York, in communion of the Church of England, as by law established, and their successors for- ever^ to be holden"' in free and common socage, paying the yearly rent of three shillings. 10 REPOET OF THE COMMISSIONERS The Corporation of Trinity Church is understood to possess and claim title to several pieces of land in the city of New- York. 1. The land on which the church was erected, and the church-yard thereto adjoining, &c. These lands seem, in part, to have been purchased hy voluntary contribu- tions, and the residue granted by the city of New- York, for the use of Trinity Church, before the corporation was created. The title of the corporation to these lands was confirmed by the act of 2Ttli June, llOi. 2. The Duke's farm, the King's farm, and Queen's farm ; all meaning the same piece of land. 3. The King's or Queen's garden, as it was called, on the south side of the church-yard. The two last pieces were conveyed to the corporation by the lease of 1*705, of which an abstract has been given. Upon these sources of title, together with an uninter- rupted possession under them, the Corporation of Trinity Church relies to establish its present right to the pro- perty in question. It has been suggested, however, that the lease execu- ted by Governor Cornbury, in 1*705, being in perpetu- ity, was, on that ground, null and Void ; and it is true that an act of the Provincial Legislature of 12th May, 1 699,* declares that it shall not be in the power of any Governor of the Province of New-York, " to grant or ♦Livingston auJ Smith's edition of (he Provincial Laws, yt. 33, eh. 79, 1)3. OF THE LAND OFFICE. 11 demise for any longer than his own time in the govern- ' ment, any of the lands hereinafter mentioned, that is to say : Nutten Island, the Kings farm, tlie King's garden., the swamp, and fresh water," " being the demesne of his majesty's fort at New- York, and for the benefit and accommodation of his majesty's governors and com- manders in chief for the time being." But this act was repealed by an act passed on the 27th of November, 1702.* It is true, that the repealing act was annulled by Queen Anne, the 26th of June, 1708, and the restrain- ing act of 12th May J 1699, was at the same time con- firmed by her majesty. But, although the power of the crown, to annul acts of the Provincial Legislature, was indisputable, and they were required to be transmitted to the Sovereign of Great Britain " for approbation or disallowance ;" and, if disallowed, were, " from thenceforth," void, and of none effect, yet, until so disallowed, they were, to all in- tents and purposes, laws. The power of the Provincial Governor to make leases of the crown lands was, there- fore, unlimited in 1705, when the lease in question was made. This lease seems, therefore, to have been valid and effectual in its inception, and to have been so re- garded during the continuance of the Provincial gov- ernment. It appears from an entry in " Quit-Rent Ledger, No. * Livingston and Smith's edition of the Provincial Laws, p. 52 ; and Bradford's edition of the Provincial Laws, p. 196. 12 REPORT OF THE COMJVnSSIONERS 1," of the office of tlie Receiver General of the Province of New- York, and which is now in the Comptroller's Office, that the rent of three shillings per annum, re- served by the lease of the 23d November, 1705, was paid in full to the 25th of December, 1Y50. It also appears from Quit-Rent Book, D., in the Comp- troller's Office, that on the 20th of September, 1786, the rent for eleven years preceding the 25th December in that year, was paid to the State, and that a farther sum of two pounds two shillings, being fourteen times the amount of one year's rent, was paid by way of com- mutation, and in full satisfaction ' and discharge of said rent. This payment was made under and pursuant to the act of the first of April, 1786, which declares that such payment " shall be a good discharge of such quit- rent forever".* The lease of 1705 seems, therefore, to have been re- garded as a subsisting and valid grant, not only by the Provincial Government to as late a period as 1750, when rent was paid upon it, but by the government of this State, in 1786, when the rent reserved was finally com- muted and satisfied. There is probably no room to doubt but that the Cor- poration of Trinity Church has, by its agents and ten- ants, held and possessed the lands in question, claiming an absolute and indefeasible estate therein, free from all rents and charges, &c., from the commutation and pay- ment of said quit-rent, in 1786. If this is so, it would * Jones and Varick's edition of the Laws, Vol. I., 250. OF THE LAND OFFICE. 13 seem to be clear, that if the people of this State then had a right to said lands, that right has been lost, and is barred by lapse of time. By the act of 26th Febru- ary, 1T88, the right of the people of this State to sue for the recovery of lands is limited to forty years after the right of action accrued ; and the same period was continued down to the late revision of the laws of this State.* The limitation in England, and in the Province of New- York, was sixty years. An act, passed the 17th of April, 1784, f makes cer- tain alterations in the charter, " to render it more con- formable to the Constitution of the State ;" and the act of 10th March, 1788,J authorizes the corporation to take and use the name of " The Rector and InJiabitanis of the city of New- Yor\ in communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the State of Neiv- YbrX-," and con- firms certain conveyances made to or by said corpora- tion, by " any other name or names" whatever. An act of the 14th March, 1806, § recites that a charity school had, for a considerable number of years past, been under the care and management of the Cor- poration of Trinity Church, and that said school had lately been endowed by said corporation. It then prO' ceeds to incorporate the trustees of said school, and de^ clares that they shall, in each year, render an account to the Corporation of Trinity Church. * 1 K. L. p. 184, and the acts there referred to. fHolt and Loudon's edition of the Laws, 7th Session, p. At. X lb. 11th Session, ch. kvi. ^ Laws of 29th Session, p. 126. 14 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONEES The act of 25th January, 1814,* changed the name of the corporation to that of " The Rector^ Clvwrch- War- dens^ and Vestrymen of Triniiy Church, in tlie city of New- YorTcP This statute confirms the separation which had previously taken place between said corporation and Saint George's Chapel, and the transfer of property which had been made by the Corporation of Trinity Church to that chapel. It also authorized, the Corpora- tion of Trinity Church, as often as should seem expedi- ent, " to divide the congregation or corj)orators belong- ing to said corporation," by setting apart, as a separate church, any of the churches or chapels that may belong to, and form a part of the said corporation." The Legislature of this State have, therefore, repeat- edly recognized the Corporation of Trinity Church as a legal, valid, and subsisting corporation. It is, however, urged, that the annual income of the corporation greatly exceeds the amount at which it is limited by the original charter, and by legislative enact- ments binding upon said corporation. The Commis- sioners of the Land Office are not apprised of the amount of this income ; but it is probably true that it exceeds the sum of five thousand pounds mentioned in the original charter. It is not, however, pretended that the property now owned by Trinity Church would have produced anything like an income of five thousand pounds when it was conveyed to the corporation. The present large income arises from the great appreciation • Laws of that Session, p. 5. OP THE LANB OFFICE. 15 of the lands conveyed to the corporation by the lease of 1V05, not, as is understood, by any acquisition of prop- erty since that time. It is, however, not supposed that any forfeiture of charter or income, whatever may be the amount of such income, can follow from this rise in value of the real estate owned by the corporation. {8ee 2 Inst. V22.) This principle is plainly recognized in the 6th section of the act of 25th January, 1814, (3 R. 8. 299,) which declares, "that in every case where a church or religious society which has been, or may be, duly incorporated, shall have exhibited such account and inventory as is specified in the ninth [tenth] sec- tion of the act, entitled 'An act to provide for the incorporation of religious societies,' it shall not be ne- cessary for such church or society again to exhibit any account and inventory, unless the said church or society^ sibbsequently to such exhibition, shall have purchased or acquired any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, luithin this Stated In conclusion, the Commissioners of the Land Office are of opinion, 1. That " The Hector, Church- Wardens, and Vestry- men of Trinity Church, in the city of New- Yorh^'' are a valid corporation, with full power to hold the real es- tate which has been referred to. 2. That it has a valid, subsisting and absolute title to the lands referred to. 16 REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS, &C. 3. That it also is entitled to the rents and profits of said lands, without any regard to the amount of income which they may yield. Which is respectfully submitted. S. BEAEDSLEY, JOHN A. DIX, A. C. FLAGG. A. KEYSER, WILLIAM CAMPBELL. Albany, May 12th, 1836. state of Nctu-ffiark. No. 63. IN SENATE, Mae. 26, 1853. MEMORIAL Of the Rector^ Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, in the city of New- YorTc. To the Honorable the Legislature of the State of New-York : The memorial of the Rector, Cliurcli Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, in the city oT New- York, Respectfully Shows: That your memorialists have seen a copy of certain petitions addressed to your honorable body by Christo- pher C. Kiersted and others, on the subject of an action pending in the Supreme Court, brought by the said Kiersted against your memorialists, sundry of their offi- cers, and the People of the State of New- York. The. professed object of the said petition is to obtain the passage of a law, by which a preference may be given to the said action, so as to expedite the final de- cision. 2 18 MEMOEIAL. Your tnemorialists interpose no objection to a gen- eral law by which a preference shall be given in all courts to actions in which the People of the State are parties or are interested. On the contrary, your memo- rialists fervently desire such a law, if it will have any effect in terminating the litigation which has been for twenty-two years and upwards maintained by the coun- sel for Mr. Kiersted in his name, and in the names of other persons pretending some claim upon the property of your memorialists,and which has heretofore invaria- bly terminated in the defeat and failure of all such claims. But your memorialists doubt whether it would be ex- pedient, by a special law, to recognise the principle that the State has properly been sued in one of its own courts ; a general law, properly framed, would avoid such a recognition. ^ But the real object of the petitioners would appear to be, to excite suspicion of the title of your memorialists to a large portion of the real estate they have held and enjoyed without any successful molestation for one hun- dred and fifty years, under a grant from the Sovereign of Great Britain. A further object appears to be, to in- duce the belief that the State has a valid claim to some portion of the same property, and by appeals to cupidity, endeavor to enlist the efforts of the Legislature and pub- lic officers in co-operation with the petitioner, Kiersted, and his counsel, to despoil your memorialists. The long and very inaccurate statement of transactions and assu- MEVrORIAL. 19 med facts whicli make tlie petition so voluminous, was not at all necessary or even useful to promote the profes- sed object, and could only have been inserted, as it ap- pears to your memorialists, for the purposes above indi- cated. To alloTV such a statement to remain among the pub- lic archives of the State without any answer, contradic- tion or explanation by your memorialists, might furnish new material for the petitioner and his counsel to ques- tion the rights of your memorialists. Your memorialists, therefore, and for the sole pur- pose of excluding any conclusion or inference from their silence, hostUe to their rights and interests, beg leave to lay before your honorable body a few facts and refer- ences to public documents and proceedings, which will place the claim and pretences of the j)etitioner5 in their true light, and which will exhibit the absurdity of the pretext of any claim, right, or interest of the State in any property held by your memorialists. I. By a patent recorded in the office of the Secretary of State, in Book of Patents, No. 7, page 388, &c., dated the 23d day of November, in the year 1705, there was granted to the corporation represented by your memo- rialists, forever, by the then Governor of the Colony of New-York, the tracts of land in the city of New- York then known as the Duke's farm and the Queen's farm, and the tract known as the Queen's garden, at a perpet- ual rent of thi"ee shillings current money of New- York annually. 20 lIESrOEIAL. II. A recognition and confirmation of that grant by Queen Anne on the 14th of April, 1Y14, the original of which has been repeatedly produced in the courts of this State, and particularly in the controversies with the petitioner, Kiersted, and his associates. It seems to have been deemed convenient by the petitioners to omit all notice of, or allusion to, these papers in their petition. III. A report of the Commissioners of the Land Office, dated May 12, 1836, signed by Samuel Beardsley, John A. Dix, A. C. riagg, A. Keyser and William Campbell, made in pursuance of a reference to them by the House of Assembly, on the 30th of March, 1835 ; in which re- port the title of your memorialists to the lands mention- ed in the petition called the Duke's farm, the Queen's farm, and the King's or Queen's garden, was fully inves- tigated, and also the right of your memorialists to hold property yielding a greater income at that time than was prescribed in the charter of the corporation. The conclusions of the commissioners are thus stated by them : " 1st. That ' the Rector, Church Wardens and Vestry- men of Trinity Church, in the city of New- York,' are a valid corporation, with full power to hold the real estate which has been referred to. " 2d. That it has a valid, subsisting and absolute title to the lands referred to. " 3d. That it also is entitled to the rents and profits ME3I0EIAL. 21 of said lands, without any regard to tlie amount of in- come which they may yield." IV. During more than twenty years past, different persons, claiming by the same title as the petitioner, have commenced suits in the courts of this State for the recovery of the real estate held by your memorialists, under the said patent and confirmation. Previous to 1830, one Bogardus, claiming, as the peti- tioner does, to be an heir of Anneke Jans, commenced proceedings in the Court of Chancery against your me- morialists to recover a part of the Queen's farm. The case was elaborately argued, and decided in favor of your memoriahsts by the late Chancellor "Walworth. (See 4th Paige's Reports, 178.) It "was carried by appeal to the Court for Correction of Errors, where the decision of the Chancellor was affirmed. (See 15th "Wendell's Eeports, page 111.) Scarcely had the above suit been determined, when another was commenced by one Jonas Humbert, also claiming as an heir of Anneke Jans. The complainant's bill was demurred to, whereby all that he thought proper to set forth was admitted,* the demurrer was sustained by the Chancellor, and the bill was dismissed. (See 7th Paige's Reports, page 195.) This also was carried by appeal to the Court for the Correction of Errors, and the decision of the Chancellor was sustained by the * See 2d note on page 23. 22 MEMORIAL. unanimous vote of the members of the coiwt. (See 24th Wendell's Keports, page 587.) An issue of fact was afterwards made in the name of Bogardus, claiming as an heir of Anneke Jans, in his suit in the Court of Chancery above mentioned, by his filing a replication to the plea therein ; which was deci- ded against the complainant by the late Vice-Chancellor Sanford, upon fnll, complete, and overwhelming testimo- ny on the part of the defendants. (See 4th Sanford's Chancery Reports, page 633.'"') From that decision no appeal was taken. Nine other suits were brought in the Supreme Court by one Cornelius Brouwer, in 1847, shortly after the de- cision in the last mentioned cause, claiming as an heir of Anneke Jans, and after the causes were at issue, the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit. The exceedingly able, learned, and elaborate opinions of Justice Cowen, in 24th Wendell, 587, and of Vice Chancellor Sandford, in 4th Sandford's Chancery Re- ports, 633, cover the whole ground, and will richly repay, by their perusal, any time that may be occupied in inves- tigating the grounds of the pretended claims. It was supposed that these repeated decisions, of one uniform tenor, would have extinguished all hoj)es of success among the claimants. * Idem. p. 3G9. I MEMORIAL. 23 But it was reserved for tlie fertile genius of the coun- sel, wlio had commenced and conducted all these suits, (except those of Brouwer in the Supreme Court'^') to de- vise a new form of proceeding, and the petitioner, Kier- ^ sted, was brought into the field, in whose name an ac- tion was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of the city of New- York, in July, 1851, against your memo- rialists, upon the old claim of being an heir of Anneke Jans. To his complaint in this action, your memorial- ists demurred, thereby admitting all his allegations.! For some reason which your memorialists cannot ex- plain, another action was brought by the same counsel in the name of the same Kiersted, against your memo- rialists, in the Supreme Court, in April, 1852, while the action in the Common Pleas was pending. The com- plainant was compelled to elect between his actions, and he abandoned that in the Court of Common Pleas. Your memorialists again demurred to the complaint, and there the matter rests for the present. Had the plain- tiff elected to continuQ his suit in the-New-York Common Pleas, it could, from the then state of business in that court, have been brought to a hearing long since. This brief history of the proceedings against your * That of Humbert should also have been excepted. t The demurrer is a technical admission, as it were, for the sake of the argument. It is never taken as establishing the facts alleged by the oppo- site party; on the contrary, after the demurrer is decided, his allegations may be denied and disproved, or shown to be unproved. 24 MEMORIAL. memorialists, and of the present proceedings, will prob- ably enable your honorable body, and all others, to de- termine what the probabilities are of future success, and what grounds of claim exist against your memorialists, either by the heirs of Anneke Jans or by the State. Respectfully submitted. By order of the Corporation of Trinity Church in the city of New-Tork. [ L. S. ] Dated March 2Uh, A. D. 1853. Mem. — In 1854 a similar petition was presented, and the following Act was passed without opposition, it being, in fact, as stated in the preceding Memorial of the Vestry, very desirable that a hearing and decision of the cause should be had as soon as possible. But that was not the real object of the petitioners for the Act. The defendants had to push on the argument against the obstacles that are usually interposed by unwilling parties and ingenious counsel. The cause was heard in November, and decided on 9th April, 1855. The Bill was dismissed, with costs. AN ACT To authorize a more speedy Trial and Termination of a certain Suit pending against the People of this State, and others Passed April 15th, 1854. The People of the State of New- York, represented in Senate and Assembly^ do enact as follows : — § 1. The Attorney General of this State is hereby authorized to call for trial and argument, a certain suit, now pending in the Supreme Court of the First District, wherein Christopher C. Kiersted is plaintiff, and the Corporation of Trinity Church and the PeojDle of this State are defendants, at any term of said court, or of the Court of Appeals of this State, in its present and all its future stages, in preference to any other suit or 26 AN ACT FOE SPEEDY TRIAL OP SUIT. suits on the calendar of eitlier of the said courts ; and the same preference shall be given to any other suit or proceeding which the Attorney General may deem it expedient to institute, with a view to ascertain, adjust, or enforce the rights of the State, either as against the said Kiersted, or the Corporation of Trinity Church, or other claimants. Mem. — The proceedings of the Commissioners of the Land Office, men- tioned in the next document, are alluded in the second prefatory note on back of title, which was printed before it was known that on the 2d March they had revoked their former action in the matter. [Vide p. 31.] 0tatc 0f JQ'ctu-gork. No. 21. IN SENATE, Jan. 22, 1855. COMMUNICATION From the Attorney General in anstoer to a resohition of • the Senate. The Attorney General has received tlie following resolution of the Senate : " He-solved^ That the Attorney General be requested to inform the Senate whether he has, since the adjourn- ment of the Legislature of 1854, commenced- any suit on "behalf of the people of this State, against the Corpora- 28 COMMUNICATION. ration of Trinity Churcli ; and if any suit has been or is about to be commenced, that he be requested to com- municate to the Senate his authority or reason for such proceedings." And in reply thereto, respectfully submits the follow- ing :— No such suit has been commenced. The authority to commence such suit is given by the resolutions of the Board of Land Commissioners, passed June 10th, 1854, and amended August 31st, 1854, a copy of which is hereunto annexed; by reference to which it will be seen, that such authority depends upon certain conditions to be performed on the part of the i-elator or memorialist named in the said resolutions. Those conditions not having been complied with on his part, as neither the evidence nor the bond required has been furnished to the Attorney General, no proceedings have been instituted by him in pursuance of the authority confer- red by the said resolutions. Eespectfully submitted, &c. ■ OGDEN HOFFMAN, Attorney General. PEOCEEDnTGS 29 At a meeting of the Commissioner's of the Land Office, at the Secretary's Office, June 10, 1854 : Present — E. W. Leavenworth, Secretary of State ; James M. Cook, Comptroller; Robert H. Pruyn, Speaker of Assembly ; John T. Clark, State Engineer and Sur- veyor. The memorial of Rutger B. Miller, on behalf of him- self and others, setting" forth that they are in possession of evidence showing that the title of the property called the King's farm, in the city of New- York, and claimed by Trinity Church, is vested in the People of the State of New- York, and offering to guarantee the State against all expenditures of cost and expenses of suit, in case the Attorney General should deem it expedient to exercise the powers conferred upon him by the act of April 15, 1854, chap. 280, the consideration of the guarantee to be one quarter of the land recovered according to its value, was read : Thereupon, Resolved, That in the opinion of this Board, the At- torney General should commence a suit to test the title of this State to the King's farm, provided the State shall be indemnified agreeably to the Statute in such case made and provided, against all costs growing out of the same, and to the satisfaction of this Board : Provided, however, that before such suit shall be commenced, the proper evidence showing the title of the State to the said farm should be shown and lodged with the Attor- 30 PROCEEDINGS ney General ; and provided, also, that said suit shall not be settled or discontinued without the consent and sanction of this Board. JResoT/ved, also, That in the event of a recovery, the person or persons furnishing the evidence on which such recovery shaU be had, shall be entitled to such per cent- age on the amount recovered, as is provided by the laws of this State. The question being taken on the adoption of the above resolutions, Messrs. E. W. Leavenworth, Pruyn and Cook, voted in the affirmative, and Mr. Clark in the negative. At a meeting of the Commissioners of the Land Office, at the Secretary's Office, August 31, 1854: Present — E. "W. Leavenworth, Secretary of State ; Sanford E. Church, Lieut. Governor ; James M. Cook, Comptroller ; E. G. Spaulding, Treasurer ; Robert H. Pruyn, Speaker of Assembly. Paper marhed A. Resolved, That the proceedings of this Board, of June 10, 1854, in regard to the memorial of Rutger B. Miller, be so amended, as to substitute for the second resolution the following : Resolved, That by virtue of the authority conferred upon this Board by sections one and six, title four, chap- ter nine, part first of the Revised Statutes, in regard to OF THE LA^T) OFFICE. 31 lands of the State belonging to the Common School ^ Fund, the person or persons furnishing the evidence upon which such recovery shall be had, shall be entitled to the per centage of twenty-five per cent, of the value of lands recovered, as heretofore allowed by the laws of this State in cases of escheat. He-solved, That the amount of the bond of indemnity referred to in the first resolution of June 10, 1854, be, and the same is hereby &xed at five thousand dollars, with security, to be approved by the Comptroller, and that the State will in no event be liable for counsel fees paid or incurred on behalf of the State in said litigation. At a meeting of the Commissioners of tlie Land Office^ at the Secretary's Office^ March 2f/, 1855 : Present — Elias W. Leavenworth, Secretary of State ; Henry J. Eaymond, Lieut. Governor ; James M. Cook, Comptroller ; Elbridge G. Spaulding, Treasurer ; Ogdon Hoffinan, Attorney General. "Whereas, the Attorney General having submitted to this Board the testimony in regard to the title of Trinity Church to the King's farm, which was furnished to him by Eutger B. IMiller, and the same being unsatisfactory, Resolved^ That the resolution of June 10th, 1854, directing the commencement of a suit, and that of Au- gust 31st, 1854, in relation to the bond, be, and the same are, hereby rescinded. 32 PROCEEDINGS OP THE LAND OFFICE. State of JVetv- York, ) Secretarxfs Office. J I certify the foregoing to be a true extract from the minutes of the Commissioners of the Land Office. Dated Albany, April 6th, 1855. A. G. JOHNSON, Deputy Secretary of State, aiid Cterlc of the Commissioners of the Land Office INDEX. Page Prefatory Notes 2 Eeport of the Commissioners of the Land OiEce in 1836 3 Memorial of the Corporation to the Legislature in 1853 17 The Act to authorize a more speedy Trial and Termination of a certain « Suit 25 Communication of the Attorney General to the Senate in 1855 27 Proceedings of the Commissioners of the Land Office in 1854 29 Same, in 1855, rescinding those of 1854. . . ., 31 No. 63. IN SEMTE. MAR. 26, 1853. MEMORIAL Of the rector, chuich wardens and vestrymen of Trini- ty Church in the city of New- York. To the Honorable the Legislature of the State of J\''eio-York : The memorial of the Rector Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church in the city of New- York, Respectfully Shows : That your memorialists have seen a copy of certain petitions addressed to your honorable body by Christopher C. Kiersted and others, on the subject of an action pending in the Supreme Court, brought by the said Kiersted against your memorialists, sundry of their oflftcers, and the people of the State of New- York. The professed object of the said petition is to obtain the pas- sage of a law by which a preference may be given to the said ac- tion, so as to expedite the final decision. Your memorialists interpose no objection to a general law by which a preference shall be given in all courts to actions in which the people of the State are parties or are interested. On the con- trary, your memorialists fervently desire such a law, if it will have any effect in terminating the litigation which has been for twenty-two years and upwards maintained by the counsel for Mr. Kiersted in his name, and in the names of other persons pretend- ing some claim upon the property of your memorialists, and which has heretofore invariably terminated in the defeat and failure of all such claims. [Senate, No. 63.] 1 2 [Senate But your memorialists doubt whether it would be expedient, by a special law, to recognise the principle that the State has proper- ly been sued in one of its own courts ; a general law, properly framed, would avoid such a recognition. But the real object of the petitioners would appear to be to ex- cite suspicion of the title of your memorialists to a large portion of the real estate they have held and enjoyed without any suc- cessful molestation for one hundred and fifty years, under a grant from the Sovereign of Great Britain. A further object appears to be to induce the belief that the State has a valid claim to some portion of the same property, and by appeals to cupidity, endea- vor to enlist the efforts of the Legislature and public officers in co-operation with the petitioner, Kiersted, and his counsel, to de- spoil your memorialists. The long and very inaccurate state- ment of transactions and assumed facts which makes the petition so voluminous, was not at all necessary or even useful to promote the professed object, and could only have been inserted, as it ap- pears to your memorialists, for the purposes above indicated. To allow such a statement to remain among the public archives of the State without any answer, contradiction or explanation by your memorialists, might furnish new material for the petitioner and his counsel to question the rights of your memorialists. Your memorialists, therefore, and for the sole purpose of exclu- ding any conclusion or inference from their silence, hostile to their rights and interests, beg leave to lay before your honorable body a few facts and references to public documents and proceedings, which will place the claim and pretences of the petitioners in their true light, and which will exhibit the absurdity of the pre- text of any claim, right or interest of the State in any property held by your memorialists. I. By a patent recorded in the oflSice of the Secretary of State, in book of patents No. 7, page 388, &c., dated the 23d day of No- vember, in the year 1705, there was granted to the corporation represented by your memorialists, forever, by the then Governor of the Colony of New- York, the tracts of land in the city of New- York then known as the Duke's farm and the Queen's farm, and No. 63.] 3 the tract known as the Queen's garden, at a perpetual rent of three shillings current money of New- York annually. II. A recognition and confirmation of that grant by Queen Anne on the 14th of April, 1714, the original of which has been repeat- edly produced in the courts of this State, and particularly in the controversies with the petitioner, ELiersted, and his associates. It seems to have been deemed convenient by the petitioners to omit all notice of, or allusion to, these papers in their petition. III. A report of the commissioners of the land oflftce, dated May 12, 1836, signed by Samuel Beardsley, John A. Dix, A. C. Flagg, A. Keyser and William Campbell, made in pursuance of a reference to them by the House of Assembly, on the 30th of March, 1835 ; in which report the titleof your memorialists to the lands mentioned in the petition called the Duke's farm, the Queen's farm, and the King's or Queen's garden, was fully inves- tigated, and also the right of your memorialists to hold property yielding a greater income a^ that time than was prescribed in the charter of the corporation. The conclusions of the commissioners are thus stated by them : " 1st. That ' the Rector Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity church, in the city of New- York,' are a valid corporation with full power to hold the real estate which has been referrea to. " 2d. That it has a valid, subsisting and absolute title to the lands referred to. " 3d. That it also is entitled to the rents and profits of said lands, without any regard to the amount of income which they may yield." IV. During more than twenty years past, different persons claiming by the same title as the petitioner, have commenced suits in the courts of this State for the recovery of the real estate held by your memorialists, under the said patent and confirma- tion. Previous to 1830, oneBogardus, claiming as the petitioner does, to be an heir of Anneke Jans, commenced proceedings in the 4 [Senate Court of Chancery against your memorialists to recover a part of the Queen's farm The case was elaborately argued, and decided in favor of your memorialists by the late Chancellor Walworth. See 4th Paige's Reports, 178. It was carried by appeal to the Court for the Correction of Errors, where the decision of the Chancellor was affirmed. See 1 5th Wendell's Reports, page 111. Scarcely had the above suit been determined, when another was commenced by one Jonas Humbert, also claiming as an heir of Anneke Jans. The complainant's bill was demurred to, where- by all that he thought proper to set forth was admitted, the de- murrer was sustained by the Chancellor and the bill was dismis- sed. See 7th Paige's Reports, page 195. This also was carried by appeal to the Court for the Correction of Errors, and the decision of the Chancellor was sustained by the unanimous vote of the members of that court. See 24th Wendell's Reports, page 587. An issue of fact was afterwards made in the name of Bogardus, claiming as an heir of Anneke Jans, in his suit in the Court of Chancery above mentioned, by his filing a replication to the plea therein ; which was decided against the complainant by the late Vice-Chancellor Sandford, upon full, complete and overwhelming testimony on the part of the defendants. See 4th Sandford's Chancery Reports, page 633. From that decision no appeal was taken. Nine other suits were brought in the Supreme Court by one Cornelius Brower in 1847, shortly after the decision in the last mentioned cause, claiming as an heir of Anneke Jans, and after the causes were at issue, the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit. The exceedingly able, learned and elaborate opinions of Justice Cowen in 24th Wendell, 587, and of Vice-Chancellor Sandford in 4th Sandford's Chancery Reports, 633, cover the whole ground, and will richly repay by their perusal any time that may be oc- cupied in investigating the grounds of the pretended claims. It was supposed that these repeated decisions of one uniform tenor, would have extinguished all hopes of success among the claimants. No. 63.] 5 ■ * But it was reserved for the fertile genius of the counsel, who had commenced and conducted all these suits (except those of Brower in the Supreme Court) to devise a new form of proceed- ing, and the petitioner, Kiersted, was brought into the field, in whose name an action was brought in the Court of Common Pleas of the City of New York, in July, 1851, against your memorialists upon the old claim of being an heir of Anneke Jans. To his com- plaint in this action, your memorialists demurred, thereby admit- ting all his allegations. For some reason which your memorial- ists can not explain, another action was brought by the same counsel in the name of the same Kiersted, against your memorial- ists in the Supreme Court, in April, 1852, while the action in the Common Pleas was pending. The complainant was compelled to elect between his actions, and he abandoned that in the Court of Common Pleas. Your memorialists again demurred to the com- plaint, and there the matter rests for the present. Had the plain- tiff elected to continue his suit in the New York Common Pleas, it could from the then state of business in that court, have been brought to a hearing long since. This brief history of the proceedings against your memorialists, and of the present proceedings, will probably enable your honor- able body, and all others, to determine what the probabilities are of future success, and what grounds of claim exist against your memorialists, either by the heirs of Anneke Jans or by the State. Respectfully submitted. By order of the Corporation of Trinity Church in the city of New York. WM. E. DUNSCOMB, Clerk of the Vestry and Church Warden. [ L- s. ] WM. H. HARRISON, Comptroller and Church Warden. Dated March 2ith, A. D. 1853. REMARKS TRINITY CHURCH BILL, BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF REVISION. BY ROBERT TROUP, ESQ., ONE OF THE VKSTKYMEN OT TRINITY CHURCH. NEW-YORK: PRINTED BY T. & J. SWORDS, No. 160 Pearl-street. 1813. REPRINTED BY JAMES A. SPARKS, No. 161 Fulton-street, opposite St. Paul's. 1846. NOTE. These " Remarks " are re-printed from a copy that, with man- uscript corrections and notes came from Judge Troup's own hand. There can be no doubt but that the same alterations and additions were made upon every copy that was authoritatively issued. They are incorporated in the present edition. A few references, and two or three brief notes with brackets [ ] for convenience have been added. New- York, January, 1846. PREFACE TO THIS REPRINT. The following pamphlet was published in 1813, previous to the decision of the leading cases in the courts of the United States and of this State respecting State laws affecting the obligation of contracts. That part of it which seems to maintain the power of the Legislature to vary the elective franchise in corporations, is therefore not expressed with that precision which doubtless would have been used had the case of Dartmouth College vs. Woodward, in 4th Whea'-on's Reports, and other cases, been knovra to the vm- ter. The distinction is now, and for years has been, settled by those cases, between public and private corporations. While " a " grant of political power — a civil institution to be employed in the " administration of the government " is subject to legislative con- trol, — yet a private " eleemosynary institution incorporated for the " puipose of perpetuating the application of the bounty of do- " nors " to public and charitable purposes, possesses franchises which are the subject of a contract between the government and the parties incorporated, so that they cannot be repealed or altered by a State legislature. The case referred to by Judge Troup, extend- ing the right to vote for charter- officers in New-York, if justifiable at all, is to be maintained on the ground of this distinction, that the corporation of that city is a public one — a mere ci\'il institution em- ployed in the administration of the government ; and of course, the case is not applicable to a private corporation. Judge Troup was not contending for the authority of the Legislature to alter the qual- ifications of the electors or corporators of Trinity Church ; he had already demonstrated that the act of 1814 made no alteration, but his object was to satisfy the Council of Revision, that conceding for the sake of argument the point assumed in the objections re- ported to the Council — viz., that "the limibation of the right of " election provided by the bill " (of 1814) " may divest or impaii" " existing rights of corporators, he proceeds to call the attention of the Council to the great difference between the case that had been cited in those obiections 2s anaJogous of a clear violation of CONTENTS. Pag k 1 . Remarks on the Bill entitled, " An Act to alter the name of the Corporation of Trinity Church in New-York, and for other purposes. . . . . .4 2. Charter of the Corporation of Trinity Church. . . 39 3. An act for making such alterations in the Charter of the Corporation of Trinity Church as to render it more con- formable to the Constitution of the State. . . 56 4. An act to enable the Corporation of Trinity Church, in the city of New-York, to assume the name therein men- tioned. . . . . . . .62 •5. An act to alter the Name of the Corporation of Trinity Church in New-York, and for other j^urposes. . 63 6. Memorial of Thomas Farmar and Benjamin Ferris, for them- selves and others, to the Legislature. . . .67 7. Resolution of the House of Assembly referring the Bill to the opinion of the Attorney General. . . .68 8. Report of the Attorney General. . . . .68 9. Objection of the Council of Revision to tlie Bill entitled " An Act granting Relief in certain cases to the Inhabit- " ants of the Town of Brooklyn, in Kings county ;" re- ferred to by the Council in their first objection to Trinity Church Bill. 60 REMARKS On the Bill entitled " An Act to alter the Name of the Corporation of Trinity Church, and for other Purposes. The Bill was popular in both Houses of the Leg- islature, and it passed by large majorities. Certain objections were, notwithstanding, reported against it in the Council of Revision ; and these remain to be acted upon at the next meeting of the Council. Two members of that Honorable Body were pleased to ex- press a desire that the subscriber would furnish them with his reasons in support of the bill 5 and, in compli- ance with this desire, the following remarks are most respectfully submitted. In the year 1697, a charter was granted by the Crown of Great Britain to the Episcopal inhabitants of the city of New York, 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." The charter or- dains, " that the church erected and built and situate " in and near the street called the Broadway, within " our said city of New York, and the ground there- " unto adjoining, enclosed, and used for a church-yard " or cemetery, shall be the parish church, and church- "yard of the Parish of Trinifif Church, within our " said city of New York, for the use and behoof of " the inhabitants, from time to time, inhabiting, or to " inhabit within oar said city of New York, in com- "munion of our Protestant Church of England, as " now established by our laws."* And also " that the "said charcli and cemetery, or church-yard, shall be "the sole and only parish church and cemetery, or [* Vitle Chaitei-, jjost. lines 141 — 155.] 6 " church-yard, of our said city of New York."* And the charter further ordains, " that there shall he annu- " ally, and once in every year for ever, on the Tuesday '■'in Easter week, two church-wardens and twenty ^ vestrymen duly elected by the majority of votes of " the inhabitants of the said parish in communion as " aforesaid."t And " that the church-wardens, for the " time being, shall not, at any time, dispose of any of " the pews or places in the said church, to any person " not an inhabitant thereof, nor without the consent " and allowance of the vestrymen for the time being, " or any eleven or more of them."| And " that the " rector of the said parish^ for the time being, shall " and may, by and with the consent of the said vestry- " men and church-wardens, for the time being, or any " eleven or more of them, whereof one of the church- " wardens to be one, from time to time, nominate one " able protestant minister, in priest's orders, to reside " in the said parish., to be preacher and assistant to the " said rector and his successors in the celebration of the " divine service of praying and preaching, and other "duties incident to be performed in the said church " or parish.) as the Rector shall require of him 5 and " likewise to nominate a fit person to he clerk of the " said parish.) and one or more sexton or sextons."*^ From these passages of the charter it is obvious that the charter contemplates the city of New York as Composing one parish, and Trinity Charch as the parish church., to be governed by one rector and one set of church-wardens and vestrymen., and as the church in which the parishioners are to assemble and worship. For many years, after the charter was granted. Trinity Church, from the small population of the city. "* Vide Charter, lines 499—503.] 't " Idem, lines 259— 263.J X •' Idem, " 313—319.1 '§ " Idem " 320—334.] 7 was large enough to contain all the Episcopalians of the city 5 and, of course, no other Episcopal church was erected ; but, as the numbers of the city increas- ed, it was found necessary to provide other buildings for public worship 5 and hence St. George''s and St. Paul's chapels were erected some time before the Revolution. Chapels by the practice of the English Church, are of two kinds ; the one adjoins the mother church, and is part of it ; the other, where the parish is large, is separate from the mother church, and is commonly called a chapel of ease 5 because it is built for the ease of the parishioners living at a distance from the church. But the chapel of ease, though separate from the moth- er church, is likewise considered as part of it. The Church-Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, following the example of their EngUsh ances- tors, founded St. George's and St. Paul's Churches, as chapels of Trinity Church. The natural effect of this system was, that these three churches formed one church — their several congregations were knit into one body— rand the communicants, in each congregation, went, on Easter Tuesday, to the poll of Trinity Church, and voted for the same Church-Wardens and Vestrymen; and these by their office, took all the churches under their common government. As the charter incorporates those who are in com- munion with the Church of England, communicants alone, before the Revolution, were admitted to the privilege of voting for charter officers ; and the records of Trinity Church furnish no instance of a contrary practice. Such, before the Revolution, was the condition of Trinity Church ; in which there certainly was nothing repugnant to the prominent ideas pervading the whole charte.1 — that the city should constitute one entire parish — that Trinity Church should be the sole par- ish church — and that one Rector should have charge of the parish. 8 After the Revolution a different order of things arose ; partly from the principles which grew out of that memorahle epoch ; but chiefly from the quick growth in the population of the city. Many friends of the Revolution believed that the right of voting, for Church-Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, by being confined wholly to the communicants, stood on a basis too narrow. The influence of this belief determined a considerable num- ber of Episcopahans, in 1784, to apply to the Legisla- ture for an extension of the right of voting, so as to vest it, in common with the communicants, in the pew and seat holders who should regularly pay to the sup- port of the church. The Legislature readily granted the extension ; and, for a long time afterwards, the pew and seat-holders, together with the communicants in Trinity Church, and its chapels, were received as voters at the elections for Church-Wardens and Ves- trymen. The city^ in reality, during such period, con- tinued, as before the Revolution, to be one parish^ and Trinity Church the sole parish church. At length, however, it came to pass that the Epis- copalians, by the increased population of the city, were too numerous to be accommodated with pews and seats in Trinity Church and its chapels. In this situation a respectable portion of Episcopalians had recourse to the act, entitled, " An Act to provide for the Incorporation of Religious Societies," for relief ; and, in the year 1793, they incorporated themselves, under that act, by the name of " Christ's Church." The precedent, thus set by the corporators of Christ's Church, led other portions of E[)iscopalians, at difl'erent times, to adopt the same measure ; and thus no less than nine Episcopal churches have lately been incor- porated on New York island 5 in which number is included St. George's Church, which, until its incor- poration, was one of the chapels of Trinity Church. All these churches have been consecrated in the customary form, and regularly admitted into union 9 with the Episcopal Church in the State, by being received as distinct and independent members of the State Convention *, and, accordingly, each of them has been privileged to vote, separately from Trinity Church, on every question agitated in the Convention. The members of the new corporations elect their own Church-Wardens and Vestrymen ; and they nei- ther hold pews or seats in Trinity Church 5 nor do they commune in that church, or contribute to its support. The Vestries of the new corporations ap- point their own Rectors, Clerks, and Sextons; and they manage all the spiritual and temporal concerns of their churches as they please 5 paying no regard whatever to the Vestry of Trinity Church. The members of Trinity Church hold no pews or seats in any of the churches built by the new corpora- tions ; nor do they commune in those churches, or con- tribute to their support.* The Vestry of Trinity Church has never claimed a right to interfere with the elections of the new corporations, or with the appointment of their Rectors, Clerks, or Sextons, or with any other of their affairs, whether spiritual or temporal ; nor have the members of Trinity Church ever asserted a right to vote at the elections of the new corporations. As a consequence of the new incorporations, the con- gregation of Trinity Church may now be said to consist of those only who attend worship in that church and Us chapels, St. Paul's Church and St. John's Church ; the latter having been recently built as a chapel by Trinity Church. The new corporations, without any exception, have received liberal donations of real and personal estates from the corporation of Trinity Church ; and there ap- pears to subsist between the new churches and Trinity * A few of the members of Trinity Church, who reside out of town in the summer season, have pews in St. Michael's and St. James's Churches, for the convenience of attending pubUc worship during the summer. These two churches are some miles distant irom the centre of the city. 10 Church, the same cordiaHty that subsists between an af- fectionate mother and her equally affectionate children. It is true, that no member of either of the new cor- porations ever claimed, or pretended to claim, a right to vote for the Church- Wardens and Vestrj men of Trinity Church prior to the election held for those of- ficers in March, 1812. At that election several persons, known to be members of new corporations, oflered themselves as voters ; but they were rejected, because neither of them was a pew or seat-holder, or communi- cant, in Trinity Church, or either of its chapels : and one of these persons, after the bill had passed the Sen- ate, instituted a suit, for the ostensible purpose of trying his claim ; and the same person again offered to vote at the election held in April last. Although it was public in the city, for weeks before the application was made, that the Vestry of Trinity Church was about applying to the Legislature, among other things, for an interpretation of the charter relative to the right of voting ; yet the new corporations, con- demning the claim to vote set up by some of their mem- bers, declined taking any step in opposition to the bill. And so odious was the claim to three of the corpora- tions, that they spontaneously offered to join with the Vestry in soliciting a legislative act to extinguish it. One solitary memorial, however, was presented against the bill, and this was from Thomas Farmer, as "Chairman," and Benjamin Ferris, as "Secretary," of the committee appointed by a meeting of Episcopa- lians, at Mechanic-Hall, called to denounce the Vestry, and the Ecclesiastical Court, for their proceedings in the case of the Rev. Cave Jones. This meeting was held more than a twelvemonth before the Vestry ap- phed to the Legislature, and when their application was not even meditated. The memorial complains, in general terms, of the usurpations of the Vestry, and prays that they may not be sanctionod. What usurpations are here alluded to the subscriber is at a loss to conceive. The Vestry has 11 done nothing more than to confine the right of voting to the pew, and seat-holders, and communicants, in Trinity Church and its chapels ; and to hold and pos- sess the property which it held and possessed long before the Revolution, and to which it derives title from charters and grants of the colonial government, con- firmed by the Legislature of the State. And as to the use which the Vestry has made of its property, it will be seen, on examining the state of it, that it has been greatly diminished by donations to Columbia College, to a free-school whch has been incorporated, to a so- ciety formed for the promotion of religion and learning, and to many churches and religious societies, not only in the city, but in various other parts of the State. Tiie bill, in its passage through the Houses, met with little opposition, except from its presumed interference with the elective franchise ; and, in the House of As- sembly, it was referred to the Attorney -General to report " whether, in his opinion, its passage would, in any " wise, defeat or vary any existing vested rights under " the charter, or any acts altering it." The Attorney- General reported that he " had examined the charter, and the acts altering it, with the bill referred to him j " and he was of opinion that its passage would not de- " feat or vary any existing rights under the acts or " charter." As the claim to vote has a tendency to create im- easiness in the minds of the members of Trinity Church in particular, and to excite dissentions among Episco- palians in general, one of the objects of the bill is to obtain such an interpretation of the charter as will ef- fectually extinguish the claim. Tlie name of the corporation, since the new corpo- rations have been instituted, has become inapplicable ; as Trinity Church does not now unite, in its body, all the inhabitants of the city who profess to belong to the Episcopal Church ; and a second object of the bill is to have the name of the corporation altered. Same Lawyers, of eminence, entertain doubts 1:^ whether the grants of real estate made by the corpora- tion of Trinity Church to the new corporations are le- gal 5 which doubts are said to spring out of the ancient rule of I'higlish law, declaring, " that no corporation " can make another corporation either by usage or " pr<\s( ription, or by any other means than by the au- " thoi ity of the King's charter empowering tliem to do " so by (express words j"* and a third object of the bill is to remove these doubts, and to render the grants valid. St. George's Church, being a chapel of Trinity Churcii, was recently set off as a separate church, and has b('(!!i incorporated, and endowed by agreement be- tween the congregation of that church and the Vestry ofTriicty Church; and the same Lawyers, for the like r^ ason, doubting the regularity of the transaction, a fourth object of the bill is to have the transaction confii jn u!. Ju' L !ig from the past, it is morally certain that the future •i;creaseofthepo])ulationof thccity will strongly reconiiiK iul to the cor[)oration of Trinity Church the policN <>i' dividing its corporators, and setting them off, in sci-iu ate churches, with suitable endowments ; and, to enable the Vestry to do this, in a mode free from all legal (iou[>ts, and with the assent of a majority of the corpo :)!:>rs to be set off^is fifth obj-'ct of the bill. By ( ninth section of the act for incorporating re- ligious , Mcieties, it is demanded of every religious so- ciety . !■ 'ady incorporated, or to be incorporated, in the cii it ;s of New York, Albany, and Schenectady, to exhibit, ' iice in every three years, an account and in- vento' it allits estate, both real and personal, on pain, if thaiv default, of ceasing to exist as a body corpo- rate. Tiic account and inventory so demanded have often !.( (Mi exhibited by the Corporation of Trinity * 1 Kysscssetl of tbc sam.e, and until the "Legislature can be convened," passed the •fficos. twenty-third of October, one thousand seven humli ; and seventy-nine, upon the pelition of sundry per- sons, st\ ling themselves memliers of the said church ; and after a full hearing of sundry other persons, claiming to be the ciiurch-wardens and vestrymen of the said church, re- 59 citing that there was, in the opinion of the council, reason to believe that the dissentions respecting the said church might materially endanger the peace of the said city, did, in effect, determine the said places of church-wardens and vestrymen to be vacant ; apd by their ordinance, dated the twelfth day of January, one thousand corporation ves- seven hundred and eighty-four, did vest the es- ^ p"'""^- tate, real and personal, of the said corporation, in James Duane, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris, Isaac Sears, William Duer, Daniel Dunscomb, Anthony Lispenard, John Ruth- erford, and William Bedlow, to be retained and kept by them, or any five of them, until such time as further legal provir^ions should be made in the premises ; A)id whereas it appears, that the following persons have been nominated and chosen, by a very respectable preamble number of the members of the said corporation and society, as church-wardens and vestrymen, and by their humble petition have prayed that the said persons may be appointed as such. IV. Be it therefore further enacted, and it is herebij enacted by the (luthoritij aforesaid, that James Dua.nf^ and p,«sent church- Robert R. Livingston be the present (i^^\rc\i-'l'^'^\'[^^^^^^^-_ wardf'ns of the said corporation ; and that An- "d- thonv Griffiths, Hercules Mulligan, Marinus Willet, John Stevens, Robert Troup, Thomas Tucker, Joshua Sands, Ricliird Morris, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris, Isaac Sears, Daniel Dunscomb, William Bedlow, William Duer, John Ruth rford, Anthony Lispenard, Thomas Grenneil, William Mercier, Thomas Tillotson.and Christopher Miller, be the ves- trymi'U of the said corporation ; the said church- Their contiou- ward 'ns and vestrymen to hold their places un- aucemoffice. til th'" first usual day of election for church-wardens and vesti vmen, which shall be held after Easter Sunday, which will lie in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hun- dred and eighty-five ; and that in the mean time in case of any vacancy by death or resignation of the rec- vacancies how tor, or either of the church-wardens or vestrymen,'" ""^ "p- such vacancy to be filled up by the rem uning church-war- dens and vestrymen, in such manner as is prescribed in and by the charter and law constituting the said corporation as aforesaid. V. Provided nevertheless, and be it further enacted, by the au- 60 Proviso thority aforesaid, that nothing in this act contained, shall be construed, deemed, or taken to preju- Savin" the ri''ht ^^'^^ injure the right or title of any person or or title of claim- persons whatsocver, to any of the lands or tcne- iBents occupied or claimed by the corporation aforesaid. And in order fully to carry into full effect those parts of the constitution of this state which declare, that the free ex- ercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall for ever here- after be allowed within this state to all mankind, and that all acts of the Legislature of this state while a colonVr and all parts thereof which may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians, or their ministers, be abrogatetl and reject<3d as repugnant to the said constitution. And in order to remove all doubts which may arise in Preamble, thc minds of any persons with respect to the con- tinuance, force, and effect of a certain act of the Reciting certain Legislature of this state while a colony, passed on the twenty-second day of September, one thousand six hundred and ninety-three, entitled, " An Act for set- *'tlinga Ministry, and raising a Maintenance for them in the " City of New-York, County of Richmond, Westchester, and " the Queen's County ;" and also of one other act, passed on the twenty-seventh day of June, one thousand seven hun- dred and four, entitled, " An Act for granting sunch-y Pri- "vilegesand Powers to the Rector and inhabitants of the " City of New- York, of the Communion of the Church of "England, as by Law established;" and also of another act, passed on the fourth day of August, one thousand seven ,^p,yj„„ 3 p^^. hundred and five, entitled, "An Act for tiie bet- cminenceonho u tBT exfjlainino; and more effectually nutiiiia in Church of Eiig- ' . yi i a i i land above "Exccution an Act ot (jcneral Assemblv, en- " titled. An Act for settling a Ministry, an(i rais- " ing a Maintenance for them in the City of New- York, "County of Richmond, Westchester, and Queen's County ;" and also of one other act, passed on the twenty-seventh day of July, one thousand seven hundred and twenty-one, entitled, " An Act for the more equal and impartial asses- "sihg the Minister and Poor's Tax, to be raised within the "City and County of New- York, Queen's County, VVest- " Chester County, and the County of Richmond ;" and also 61 of one other act, passed the twenty-first day of September, one thousand seven hundred and forty-four, entitled, " An " Act to aher the Time of electing Vestrymen nnd Church- *' wardens in Richmond County ;" and also certain parts of one other act, passed the twenty-ninth day of November, one thousand seven hundred and forty-five, entitled, " An "Act to enable the Inhabitants of the City of New-York, to "choose annually two Vestrymen for each respective Ward " within the said City," which do grant certain Immunities, Emoluments, and Privileges to the Episcopal Church, or that mode of Religious Worship, commonly called the Church of England, in the City and County of New-York, and the Counties of Richmond, Queen's and Westchester, and do establish and maintain the Ministers of that De- nomination within the said Counties ; and do also declare or imply a pre-eminence or distinction of the said Episcopal Church, or Church of England, over all other churches and other religious denominations. VI. Be it therefore further enacted bij the authority aforcmii, that the said acts for settling the ministry, and mising a maintenance for them in the citv of New-York, counties of Richmond, Westchester, and Queen's county, for surh acts re- granting sundry privileges and powers to iherec- tor and inhabitants of the city of New York, of the cominu- nion of the Church of England, as by law established, for the better explaining and more effectually putting in execu- tion an act of the General Assembly, entitled, " An Act for " setiling the Ministry and raising a Maintenance for ihem "in the City ot'New- York, County of Richmond, Westches- " ter, and Queen's County, for the more e(|ual and impartial assessing the Minister and Poor's Tax, to be raised in the "City and County of New-York, Queen's County, West- " Chester County, and the County of Richmond," fur "alter- " ingthe Time of electing Vestrymen and Church-wardens "in Richmond County ;" and also such certain parts of the act tor "enabling the inhabitants of the city of New-Y(irk to choose annually two vestrymen for eac h respective ward within the said city," as do imply such pre-eminence and distinction, be, and are hereby declared lobe fully and ab- solutely abrogated, abolished, annulled, repealed, and made void, as inconsisttint with, and repugnant to the con- stitution of this slate : And it is h( - -by further declared, that nothing in this act contained sh^.l in any wise be con- 62 strued or understood to give any kind of pre-eminence or distinction to the Episcopal mode of religious worship with- Equaiiiy be- ^his State ; but that an universal equality be- dlnorainalio'ur cvcry rellgious denomination, according to the true spirit of the constitution, towards each other, shall for ever prevail. VII. A?id he it further enacted by the -CMthoritij aforesaid, thatnothingin this actcontained, shall be deemed, esteemed, adjudged, or construed, to enlarge or confirm any right, power, or authority, but such as the said corporation legally had, held, and enjoyed on the nineteenth day of April, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, and such other powers, rights and authorities as are expressly given by this act. AN ACT To cvahle the Corporation of Trinity Church, in the City of New-York, to assume the Name therein mentioned. Passed 10th March, 1788. Whekeas the corporation of Trinity Church, in the city Preamble of Ncw-York, wcrc, by an act of the Legislature of the late colony of New-York, passed the twenty- seventh day of June, in the ye;ir one thousand seven hun- dred and four, enabled to sue and be sued, plead and be im- pleaded, answer and be answered unto, defend and be defend- ed, by the name of the Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New- York, in Communion of the Church of England, as by Law established. And whereas the said act was repealed by the Legislature of th;s State, on the seventeenth day of April, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty- four ; i)ut the said corporation have continued to use the name therein specified, and by their humble petition to the Legislature of this State, have prayed that they may be enabled to assume and use the name of " The Hector and " Inhal)itants of the City of New- York, in Communion of "the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New- York." Therefore Be it enacted by the people of the State of New- York, repre- sented in the Senate and Assembly, and it is hereby enacted by 63 .. the authority of the same, that the said corporation Corporation"- V J ' ' , of T r i n i t y gtiall and may, from and immediately after the aDdufe'a r^w passing of this act, take and use the name o-' the "uTa^dbelued Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New-York, thereby. jjj Communionof the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York ; and by the same name shall be capable to sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, an- swer and be answered unto, defend and be defended ; and And all that all grants, deeds, and conveyances made to grants made or by the Said corporation, between the said sev- Mder''^'thrir enteenth day of April, in the year one thousand between" «r: scvcn huudrcd and eighty-four!^ and the passing of *^^d°'"'°'"' ^^^^ ^^^■> wherein they are named or mentioned by the name of the Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New-York, in Communion of the Church of Eng- land, as by law established, or any other name or names, shall be good, valid and effectual in law, in like manner as they w^ould have been if the said act, passed the twenty- seventh day of June, in the year one thousand seven hun- dred and four, had never been repealed, or as they would respectively have been if the said corporation had been properh' named in such grants, deeds, or conveyances. AN ACT To alter the name of the Corporation of Trinity Church, in New- York, and for oilier Purposes. Passed January 25th, 1814. Whereas, at the time of passing the act, entitled, " An Recital. " Act for making such alterations in ihe Charter of " the Corporation of Trinity Church, as to render it more con- '* formable to the Constitution of the State," and for some years afterwards, the said corporation, although possessing seve- ral places of public worship besides Trinity Church, was the only incorporated religious society in the city of New- York in communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this State ; but several other religious societies, of the same denomination, have since been formed in the said city, and duly incorporated. And whereas, by an act passed the tenth day of March, in the year of our Lord 1788, the said corporation of Trinity Church was enabled to take and use the name of " The Rector and Inhabitants i.f the City of 64 New- York in Communion of the Protestant Episcopal " Church in the State of New-York ;" which name the said corporation, by their petition to the Legislature, prny may be altered, as having now become improj)er ; and that such further legislative provisions may be made as to remove all doubts respecting their charter rights, occasioned by the formation of other religious societies in the said city of New- York. Therefore I. Be it enacted hy the Pcojilc of the State of New- York, represented in Senate and A^sembJij, That from and after the passing of this act, the said coi poration of Trinity Church, instead of their present name, shnll take and use the Corporate name of " The Rector, Church-Warden^*, and nume. n Vestrymen of Trinity Church, in the City of New-York." II. And he it further enacted, That all male persons of Persons qudi- ^^^^ ^"^"■i who, for tlic spacc of OHO year preceding ficdtovote. any election, shall have been members of the con- gregation 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 communion therein within the said year, and no other persons, shall be entitled to vote at the annual elections for the church-wardens and vestrymen of thi! said corporation. III. And he it further enacted, That all grants and con- corporation veyauccs heretofore made, or that hereatler may may pant [jemadc bv tlic Said corooraliou of Th n i t v C h n fch lands to other J ^ 1 i "i t corporations, of auy of their lands, tenements, and heredita- ments, to aijy other religious society, now incorporated, or that may hereafter be duly incorporated, shall be and the same are hereby declared to be valid and effectual, accord- Proviso '"S '•^^ tenor thereof; provided the annual value of such lands, tenements, and hereditaments, at the time of such grant or conveyance, together with the other estate real and personal of such other religious corpo- rations, shall not exceed the annual sum which they are or may l)e respectively entitled to hold. IV. And. whereas Saint George's Church, in the city of Reeitai. Ncw-York, formerly called Saint George's Chapel, was one of the Chapels lieretotbre belonging to the corporationof Trinity Church, and the pew-holders in the said h apel,and others qualified according to the charter of Trini- 65 ty Church and the laws of the State, were corporators of the said corporation of Trinity Church. And whereas, by mu- tual agreement and consent, the said chapel, called Saint George's Chapel, with such of the corporators of the corpo- ration of Trinity Church as belonged thereto, or statedly worshipped in the said chapel, have been set off, and organ- ized as a distinct religious society, and have incorporated themselves- as such, under the name of the Rector, Church- Wardens, and Vestrymen of St. George's Church in the city of New-York : and the corporation of Trinitj' Church have granted to, or vested in the said newly incorporated religious society, the exclusive right to the said chapel, with the appurtenances, and which are now enjoyed accordingly : but doubts are entertained as to the legal validity of the said transaction. Therefore Icit further e/iac^et?. That the separation of Saint George's Chapel, in the city of New- York, from the ^^^^^^ ^ corporation of Trinity Church, shall be, and hereby ciuirchdeciar'- is confirmed : and that the said church, now called churcr''from Saint George's Church, shall not at any time here- '^"""^ after be held or taken to be a church or chapel belonging to Trinity Church, so as to qualify any of the congregation thereof to vote at the elections of church-wardens and ves- trvmen of Trinity Church above mentioned. And the said religious society called the rector, church-wardens, and ves- tiymen of Saint George's Church, in the city of New- York, shall have a right to all the temporalities derived ^j,^ po«.=e<5 from the corporation of Trinity Church as afore- jl^^^ep^r^'e es- said, and may enjoy the same in as full and bene- ficial a manner as any such religious corporation can hold and enjoy its temporalities, howsoever the same may be acquired. V. And be it further enacted, That when, and as often as it shall seem expedient to the said rector, church- wardens, and vestrymen of Trinity Church, in the j^*;°''p°™"j,°JJ^ citvof New-York,to divide the congregation or cor-^'j-er cimrcii- porators belonging to the said corporation, it shall be lawful for them so to do, by setting apart, as a sepa- rate Church, any of the churches or shapels that may belong to and form part of the said corporation, provided the same be done with the assent of a majority of the p^.^^.^^^ persons entitled to vole as aforesaid, who shall belong to such church or chapel intended to be set a- 66 part, and who shall attend a meeting to consider of such separation after at least ten days notice, previously given for that purpose in the said church or chapel, during or imme- diately after divine service : and such separation so assent- ed to shall take effect according to the terms agreed upon between the parties ; and the members of the congregation of such church or chapel so separated, shall immediately thereafter cease to be members of the corporation of Trinity Church above mentioned, and may proceed to incorporate themselves according to law as a separate congregation of the said Protestant Episcopal Church ; and being so incor- porated, may receive from the said corporation of the Trin- ity Church, any grant, conveyance, or gift of any chapel or other real or personal estate for its separate use, and may hold and enjoy the same accordingly, as fully and benefi- cially as any such religious corporation can hold and enjoy its temporalities, howsoever the same may be acquired. VI. A7id be it further enacted, That in every case where No religious ^ church or religious society which has been, or society bouud mav bc dulv incorporated, shall have exhibited to file aninven- ^. ^ ^ , tory unless such accouut aud mvcutory as is specifiea in the Idduionai'pio- ninth* section of the act entitled, "An Act to perty. providc for the Incorporation of religious So- cieties," it shall not be necessary for such church or society again to exhibit any account and inventory, unless the said church or society, subsequently to such ex- hibition, shall have purchased or acquired any lands, tene- ments, or hereditaments within this state, any act, law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding : Provided always, that nothing in this act contained shall be construed to af- fect, or defeat the right of any person or persons, or of any body corporate, to the estate, real or personal, now held, occupied, or enjoyed by the corporation of Trinity Church. [NoTR. — The Petition of tlie Corporation of Trinity Church for the Act of 1814 was appenrled to Judire Troup's remarks, prece- ding the following Memorial ; but inasmuch as it is inserted " in hcBC verba" in the recent Remonstrance of tliat Corporation which is also printed, it has not been considered necessary to swell out this pamphlet by its repetition here.] * [The tit YorxGS, Alex. L. McDonald, Saml. G. Raymond, G. C. Verplanxk, John I. Morgan, David B. Ogden, Vestrymen. SCHEDULE A. At a meeting of the Rector, Church- Wardens and Vestry of the Protestant Episcopal Church of St. Mark's in the Bowery, in the city of New-Yoik, April 16th, 1812. Present — The Rev. Doctor Harris, Rector. Mr. Ogden, and Mr. Minthorne, Wardens. Messrs. Hoffman, A. Ogden, Turnbull, Bird, Norroway, Fish, Vestrymen. Mr. *Ogden presented to the Vestry for consideration the draft of a letter to the Vestry of Trinity Church in the -,ords following, viz: * 'William Ogden and Mangle Minthorne were the church-wardens. Martin Hoff- man, George Turnbull, Anthony Norrowaj-, Andrew Ogden, Robert Bird and Nicho- las Fish were the vestrymen present. They are all deceased. The vestry, when full, consisted often persons besides the Rector. Ada3i Tredwell, E. W. Laight, Teunis Quick, Peter A. Mesier, A. L. Underhill, Wm. Johnson, Philip Hone, w^m. e. dukscomb, Wm. H. Harison, Robert Hyslop, Henry Cotheal, Philip Henry, 12 New- York, April 16, 1812. Gentlemen: We believe that it is eminently the duty of Christians to live to- gether in brotherly affection ; and that the obligations to discharge this duty lie with greater weight on the members of the same Church. Feeling as we ought the full force of this sentimentj we have learnt with regret, that some of our Episcopal brethren, assert the claim of a general right in all the Episcopal Churches on this Island to vote at your Elections, for Churchwardens and Vestry- men. Whatever color may be given to this claim by any ambigu- ous words to be found in your charter, we sincerely take pleasure in declaring that the congregation of St. Mark's Church, which we represent, have no desire to assert the claim, and that we will, at any time hereafter, cheerfully unite with your respectable body in an application to the Legislature, if the measure shall be thought expedient, for an act to explain the charter, and confine the right of voting solely to the congregations of the Churches under your im- mediate government ; and we beg leave to add, that we shall cheer- fully unite in such application as well from the earnest wish we have to restore harmony and establish peace by removing the unea- siness which, we understand, the claim has created in the minds of many of the members of Trinity Church, as from the strong sense we entertain, that the measure itself is dictated by the natural fit- ness of things, and more especially by the never to be forgotten rule of doing to others what under similar circumstances we should like to be done to ourselves. With the most respectful consideration We are. Gentlemen, Your humble Servants. On motion. Resolved^ That the same be adopted, and that the Clerk ot this Vestry prepare and transmit to the Vestry of Trinity Church a copy of the same under the seal of this Corporation. Extract from the proceedings of the Vestry of St. Mark's Church. Nich's. Fish, Clerk, [h. s ] 13 At an adjourned Meeting of the Corporation of Trinity Church in the City of New-York, held in their Vestry office on the 14th day of January, An. Dom. 1846. The Special Committee appointed at the last meeting of the Vestry on the subject of an intended application to the Legislature at its present session, for the repeal in whole or in part of the Act of the 25th January, 1814, relating to this Corporation, and who were instructed to report a proper Remonstrance to the Legis- lature, presented such Remonstrance prepared by them, which was read, and it was thereupon Ordered that the same be adopted, and that it be engrossed and signed by the Rector, Comptroller, and Clerk officially, and by the Churchwardens and Vestrymen, or such of them as shall see fit to sign the same • and that the Comptroller and Clerk affix the seal of this Corporation thereto, and that the same be thereupon forwarded and presented to the Legislature. Extract from the Minutes, Wm. E. Dunscomb, Clerk. Your Memorialists further respectfully represent that the present petitioners for the repeal or modification of the said law of 1814, are some of the same persons who so last year petitioned. That the ap- plicants then chiefly consisted of members of a few, and not exceed- ing five or six, religious corporations of the city of New-York, some of which have been largely endowed, and made rich and indepen- dent by, and out of ihe property of your Memorialists ; and the others of which have received from your Memorialists, such aids in money as relieved them from debt and embarrassment, and to such amounts, as must preclude all just expectation of having future con- tributions voluntarily made from the same source. That, on the other hand, whilst no Church in its corporate capacity, or as a body, joined in the application for the repeal or modification of the said act, ten other Religious Corporations in the City of New-York, and of the communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York, respectfully signified to the Honourable the Legisla- ture, at the same session, their earnest desire that there should be no interference whatever with the corporate rights of your Memo- rialists, as may appear by the acts and proceedings of those Churches, respectively, either duly certified by the proper officers, or else 14 signed by all the members of their vestries present at the meetings, and now on the files of the Honorable the Senate, and to which your Memorialists beg leave to refer. Thai in addition to such remon- strances of the Church Corporations, other remonstrances to the same effect were presented to the Legislature at the same session, and are now remaining on the files of the Honorable the Senate. That it appears that the Remonstrances last mentioned were respec- tively signed and presented by the male members of the Corpora- lion of Trinity Church generally, and by 825 other persons, male members of tho Protestant Episcopal Church, who reside in the city of New-York, and were not of the parish of Trinity Church, and who had, therefore, precisely the same rights as the said applicants had, if they had any at all, under the charter of your Memorialists, or the laws affecting it, and that such remonstrances were also signed and presented by several other members of the Protestant Episcopal Church, who resided out of, but on the confines of the said city. And Your Memorialists further respectfully represent that coun- sel for the Petitioners were last year heard before the committee of the Honorable Senate, to which the matter had been referred, and that two professional members of the vestry also appeared and ar- gued there in behalf of your Memorialists. That a report* was made to the said Senate on the 9th day of April, 1846, by the said com- mittee, recommending " that no legislative action be had on the subject, and that the prayer of the Petitioners be denied and on the same day a minority report f was made by one of the commit- ee, who brought in a bill to repeal the said act of January 25th, 1814 And that the said reports and bill were never taken up and con- sidered by the said Senate, notwithstanding your Memorialists were anxious for the same, and by their officer and agent repeatedly re- quested and urged their consideration. To this statement of the occurrences at the last session of the Legislature, your Memorialists beg leave to add and further repre- sent, that another annual election of churchwardens and vestrymen of your Memorialists' corporation took place whilst those proceed- ings were pending, and that the same qualifications which had been uniformly required, since the year 1814 inclusive, were prescribed at the said election, that no resistance or objection was made to such • Senate Doc No. 118, of IbK. t Senate Doc. No. 117, of 1840. • 15 requirement, anil that no person appeared at such election and de- manded permission to vote who was not thus qualified: thus one more year is added to the previous 32 of silent submission to, and acquiescence in the said law. Your Memorialists, therefore, humbly Pray that they may not be disturbed in those rights which they have now so long beneficently exercised, but that if there is any doubt of the validity or the con- struction of the said law, the decision may be left to the rightful jurisdiction of the courts of our country. And your Memorialists will ever pray, &c. By order of the Rector, Churchwardens and Vestrymen of Trinity- church, in the City of New- York. WM. BERRIAN, D. D. Rector, WM E. DUNSCOMB. Clerk, WM H. HARISON, Comptroller. > Church-wardens. Wm. Moore, Wm. H. Hobart, Henry Youngs, Alex. L. McDonald, Samuel G. Raymond, G. C. Verplanck, Philip Henry, David B. Ogden, Anthony J. Bleecker. Vestrymen. [l. s.] Adam Tredwell, E. W. Laight, Teunis Quick, Peter A. Mesfier, A. L. Underbill, Philip Hone, Wm. E. Dunscomb, Wm. H. Harison, Robert Hyslop, Henry Cotheal, Thomas L. Clark, ir. 0 * OPINION OF MESSRS. TROUP, HAMILTON AND HARISON. In consequence of a resolution of the Vestry of Trinity Church of the ninth of November instant, we have considered the subject therein mentioned, and are of opinion that the Corporation of St. MarWs Church can have no valid pretensions^ either at law or in equity, to any part of the property of the Rector and inhabitants of the City of JYew-York, in communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York ; but nevertheless for greater caution, we approve of their taking from the Corporation of St. Mark's Church a Deed in the form of that marked A, when the lots lately set apart for that purpose are conveyed to the said Corpora- tion. New-York, the 21st November, 1801. Rob't Troup, Alexnnder Hamilton, Rich. Harison. • See Parish Annals, a Sermon, etc., by Henry Anthem, D. D. New- York: 1815. pp. 33 and 34. , IVo. 45. m SENATE, FEB 20, 1856. COMMUNICATION Of the Vestry of Trinity Church, in the city of New- York, to the Honorable the Senate of the State of New- York, in reply to resolutions of the Senate, passed April 13th, 1855. To the Honorable the Senate of the State of JVew-YorIc : The rector, church wardens and vestrymen of Trinity Church, in the city of New- York, having received from the Clerk of your honorable body a copy ol the resolutions of the Senate, passed on the 13th day of April, 1855, in the words following : " Resolved, That the vestry of Trinity Church, in the city of New- York, be and they are hereby required to report to the Senate of this State, on or before the seventh day of Janu- ary next, the number and the names of the persons entitled, under an act to alter the name of the corporation of Trinity Church, in New-York, and for other purposes, passed January 25th, 1814, to vote at the annual elections for church wardens and vestrymen of the present corporation of Trinity Church, specifying those who vote as communicants, and those who vote as pew holders in the said church, and the names of the per- I Senate, No. 45.] 1 2 [Senatb sons so entitled, who did actually vote at each of the three last annual elections held for the choice of church wardens and vestrymen of said corporation; also Resolved, That the said vestry be and they are hereby directed to report to the Senate of this State, on or before the seventh day of January next, the amount of money expended by said corporation in building or in aiding and assisting to build free churches in the destitute portions of the parish of Trinity Church, as originally constituted and declared, and the names of such churches, with the amount expended upon each; also the number and names of the churches in the city of New- York, built, in whole or in part, by the said corporation, within the last five years, and the amount expended on each; the number and names of the Protestant Episcopal churches situated in the city of New-York, in feeble and necessitous circumstances, which have been aided and assisted by the said corporation within the last five years, and the amount of such aid and assist- ance, afforded annually or otherwise, to each; also the number and names of the churches in the city of New-York endowed by the said corporation within the last five years, and the amount of such endowment in each case; also, " Resolved, That the said vestry be and are hereby required to report to the Senate of this State, on or before the seventh day of January next, whether any, and if any, what appropriations have been made by them during the last three years to institn- tions of charity, benevolence or learning, in the city of New- York, and the amount to each ; also. Resolved, That the said vestry be and they are hereby directed to report to the Senate of this State, Avithin the first week of January next, the estimated value of each lot and parcel of land owned by the said corporation in the city of New- York, irrespective of the leases thereon. Resolved, also. That said vestry report to the Senate of this State, on the first week of January next, a statement of the number of lots belonging to said corporation, the leases of which have expired within the five years ending on the first of No- No. 45.J 3 vember, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, and whether said lots have been re-let, or have been sold," Make the following REPORT: But before entering upon the statements hereinafter contained, the vestry beg leave, respectfully, to aver that they furnish the information requested by the Senate, not as acknowledging the power of the Senate to exact such information, but in order that they may not be deemed to be wanting in respect for your honorable body, or unwilling to display to the public the state of this corporation, its financial condition, and the management, by this vestry, of its property. They feel satisfied that the facts presented in this paper will remove any unfavorable impression detrimental to the interests of Trinity Church, which may have been occasioned by representations which, it is conjectured, have induced your honorable body to pass the resolutions above contained. But being charged with the care and guardianship of a large property and important rights, they beg leave, respectfully, to represent that the requiring of such reports as that asked for by the resolutions of the honorable Senate, is not justified by any legal principle, and is oppressive of this corpo- ration. If there should, at any time, be any just cause of com- plaint against this corporation, the courts are open and are adequate to afford a remedy; and the entering, by the Legisla- ture, upon an investigation into the affairs of any single corpo- ration, which investigation, if it has any materiality, properly belongs to such courts, is an assumption of their powers, and is burdensome upon the corporation affected, by calling upon it to justify itself, by laborious statements, or production of evi- dence to a tribunal which has no power to decide. This corpo- ration has, within a few years past, made answer to two similar calls for information from the houses of the Legislature, the one contained in the resolutions of your honorable body, of the 9th day of March, 1846, and the other contained in the resolutions of the honorable the House of Assembly, of March 4th, 1854. There is no provision in the charter of this corporation, and no general statute requiring it to report to the Legislature, and be- cause this vestry have found the answer to these repeated requirements expensive and onerous, and believe them to 4 [Senate be an infringement of the chartered rights of Trinity Church, they humbly protest against the right of the Legislature, or either branch of it, to call for reports from this vestry relative to the condition or affairs of this corporation. In reference to the inquiry as to the corporators of Trinity Church, the vestry state : That the total number of the corporators is 305, of whom 92 are communicants, and 213 are pew holders. The total number of communicants, both male and female, reported at the last annual convention of the diocese, was at that time about 800. This was shortly after the time when the number of the clergy of the parish was increased to nine, with a view to promote the influ- ence of religion among the poor residing in the lower wards of the city, and their worli having then been recently commenced, a considerable increase may be expected to the number of com- municants above reported, after a sufficient time shall have elapsed to show the result of their labors. A like increase may also be expected from the persons worshiping in the new Trinity Chapel lately erected, who for the space of one year shall have been members of the congregation of that chapel. This new chapel was principally built for the accommodation of the parishioners and their families wlio had been a long time in the parish, but had removed too far from the parish church and chapels to continue to worship therein, and thus by inducing their return to increase the number of our constituency. This being an ancient parish, a large number of its pew owners have deceased, and their pews are owned by their families, many of whom occupy them or let them to others for occupancy. The number of such pews is 124. A number of pews amounting to 44 are also owned and occupied by females. These classes of pew owners are of course not enumerated among the corporators because they are not entitled to vote. Since the present effort was commenced for the spread of the gospel among the poor in the lower wards of the city, the churches there situated, viz : Trinity Church, and St. Paul's and St. John's Chapels, are well attended, and their congregations are increasing. The congre- gation of the new Trinity Chapel is full. To further this effort No. 45.J 5 among the poor, the vestry have kept 133 pews belonging to the church, or of which it has the use, free for occupancy by all. These pews are many of them among the best in the church and chapels, and are as follows, to wit : Church pews. No. in Trinity Church, 43 " St. Paul's Chapel, 36 " St. John's Chapel, 22 Pev;s of which the Church has the use for one year. In Trinity Church, 13 In St. Paul's Chapel, 13 ' In St. John's Chapel, 6 • 133 These 133 pews afford 665 free seats. Besides these there are in the aisles of Trinity Church and Trinity Chapel about 400 " " Making the total number of free seats, 1065 and at all evening services all seats are free. The corporators voting at the annual election for church wardens and vestrymen have been generally few for a long series. The cause of this may be found in the confidence re- posed in the discreet and prudent management of the affairs of the vestry, (a body consisting of 23 persons) and in the fact that in the absence of any contest the corporators have not deemed it important to exercise their privilege of voting, except to a limited extent. The number of voters at the annual elections in each of the years next mentioned were respectively as follows, to wit : In 1846, 97 " 1847, 43 " 1848, 37 " 1819, 54 " 1850, 23 6 [Senate In 1851, " 1852, « 1853, « 1854, " 1855, 65 29 127 26 32 In reference to the inquiry as to the estimated value of each lot and parcel of land owned by this corporation in the city of New- York, the vestry annex hereto a schedule marked A, show- ing as to each lot its situation; its value with the buildings thereon (the property of the tenants) as assessed in 1855, by the officers of the city for the purpose of taxation (except such as are exempt from taxation, which are particularly noted) ; the estimated portion of such value for the buildings; the net value of the lot deducting the buildings, irr^pective of the leases; the annual ground rent reserved to the church ; the expiration of the term, and the present value of the reversion and of the ground rents to the church. From this schedule it will ai-)pear that the total value of the property embraced therein, irrespective of the leases and of the buildings, is |2,668,710. The total amount of the annual rents thereof is $71,301.97; and the present total value of the reversions of the church therein, including present value of ground rents, is $1,984,322.62. Within the period of the five years ending 1st of November, 1855, referred to in the res- olutions of your honorable body, the leases of 84 lots belonging to this corporation have expired. Of these 47 lots have been re-let, and the reversions in fee of 37 have been sold. And during the same period 76 other lots of the church have been sold cither to the tenants, or, the lots being vacant, to other purchasers; making the total number of lots sold within said five years one hundred and tliirteen. That the Senate may be fully informed of the resources of this corporation, and of the charges to which they are applied or are properly applicable, the vestry do not content themselves with giving the information asked by the resolutions of your honora- ble body. The Senate will perceive that the whole present value of the No. 45.] 7 landed estate of Trinity Church exclusive of the present value of rents, is $1,446,371. 71. In the management of the property of this corporation it has been the policy of the vestry for a long series of years, by gifts of lots or by proceeds of sales, as opportunity afforded, to aid other churches in the city of New-York and in various other parts of the State, and to found or assist by the same means in- stitutions of learning or charity, or to contribute to the mainte- nance and support of the organization of the church in this State; and by reason of these gifts and sales the landed estate has been and is gradually diminishing in extent, so that now, out of the lots originally owned by Trinity church, computed as the vestry believe accurately at 2068, not more than 691 remain. But owing to the peculiar nature of the property, and the fact that the lessees alone offer to purchase leased lots, sales have at times been slow; and the vestry, mainly in order to meet the pressing needs of other churches and institutions, has incurred a large debt in an- ticipation of such sales. This debt on the 1st May, 1855, the end of the last financial year, amounted to $648,913; and in effect for the most part represents a gift of an equal amount in value of laud to other churches or institutions, for it must be provided for out of sales of such lands. The lots included in the foregoing valuation comprise all the real estate of this corporation, excepting so much as is occupied by churches or grave-yards. Besides this real estate, at the end of the last financial year it possessed bonds and mortgages, taken from purchasers upon sales of land, amounting to $199,469.41. Thus the whole productive estate of Trinity Church is cor- rectly stated as follows : Real estate, $1,446,371 71 Bonds and mortgages, 199,469 41 Cash in bank at the end of the last financial year, 19,399 46 Deducting the debt, $1,665,240 58 648,913 00 Shows the whole nett value to be $1,016,327 58 8 [Senate This statement will make it manifest that this vestry has done its utmost to make the capital of the property of this corpora- tion available for the founding or support or promotion of reli- gious, charitable or educational institutions or purposes. Not for her parish nor tor her churches has she thus disposed of this estate, nor has she for herself or her own people incurred this large debt; but for other parts of the church of God — to spread his gospel for the increase of true knowledge, and to diffuse the blessings of charity, Trinity Church has hastened to dispense abroad out of her own bounds, the surplus which she could spare. It has been said by persons belonging to other churches in the city of New- York, not of the corporation of Trinity Church, that this excess has been given all over the State, and that it ought to have been distributed within that city. But not so have this vestry read their duty. They have exercised a dis- cretion (not limited in its application by law to any section of the State,) to give where it seemed most for the advantage of the church to which they belong. They have the greater inter- est and solicitude concerning the city of New-York, and espe- cially those parts of it which are within the bounds of this parish ; but it has never been their policy to confine their distri- bution of the surplus property of this corporation to the churches in this city. The vestry have thus endeavored to show the present condi- tion of the capital of Trinity Church, and the disposition hith- erto made of it. But they desire further to exhibit the present income of the church and the purposes to which it is devoted and is applicable. The revenue of the church then is as follows : Rents from real estate as per schedule A, $71,301 97 Pew rents (estimated at), 11,163 50 Interest on bonds and mortgages ($199,469.41) at rates varying from 6 to 7 per cent., 13,962 85 Amounting in the whole to, , $96,428 32 From this must be discharged the following annu- ally recurring expenses : No. 45.] 9 ' Interest on $648,913 of debt, at rates varying from 5 to 7 per cent,. . . $41 ,895 51 Expenses of parish for schools and visitation and relief of the poor, 3,850 00 Salaries to clergymen and to officers of this corporation, 40,300 00 Expense of maintaining choirs and music in four churches, and re- pairs and supplies, 17,276 00 Annual allowances to other churches now made by the vestry. To the Church of All Saints, N. Y. $500 " " Holy Evangelists, N. T., 1,200 " " St. Stephens, N.Y. 500 " " The Nativity, " 1,025 " " St. Clements, " 400 " " St. Philips, " 400 " " St. Peters, " 400 » Christ Church, " 400 To the Church of St. Andrews, " 300 " " Holy Apostles" 300 « " The Epiphany" 300 " " St. Matthew, " 500 " Zion Church, " 300 " Church of St. Marks, Williams- burgh,..; 300 " St. Luke's Church, N. Y., 2 , 100 " Church of St. George the Martyr, N. Y., 1,100 " Mission Chiu-ch among Seamen, N. Y., 800 ^< Chui-ch ot the Good Shepherd, N. Y., 200 " Church of St. John, the Baptist, N. Y., •.. 200 " Church of The Transfiguration, N. Y., 500 10 [ Senate To Church of the Holy Martyrs,N.Y. lit /inn ilie Advent, OA A bt. Mary, on A ZOO u All Angels, " OA A zOO St. John the Evange- list, N. Y., MO St. Paul's Church, Williamsb'g, ■i/in oto Church of the Intercession, N. Y. O AA zOU a St. Timothy, " u The Holy Innocents, N. Y., ^AA a The Messiah, N. Y.,.. O AA a ^AA u St. Cornelius, Gover- nor's Island, N. Y., onn 1 Ann Church of St. George, Flushing, L.I., 4uU ii St. Paul, Owego, . . . iO (( St. John, Clayville, t AA 100 (( a St. John, Monticello, 100 a a Zion Church, Sandy Hill, Wash'g'n co.. 140 16,875 00 Annuities to widows and families of de- ceased clergymen, 3,300 00 For support of mission in Africa, 250 00 123,746 51 $27,318 19 It is apparent that in the present position of their affairs it is not in the power of the vestry of Trinity Church to render as- sistance to any great extent to other churches, the want of which, this vestry conjectures, has prompted an application to your honorable body, and has been the remote cause of the action to which this communication is a response. And the same cause, the inability to distribute a surplus which the vestry did not No. 45.] 11 possess, has limited the appropriations of money to the relief of other chirrches for the five years referred to in the resolutions, in like manner as it is a restraint for this year. Tlie debt has not within that time been diminished but increased, whilst the vestry has sold as much land as there was demand for. More- over, demands of a different kind press upon the vestry. All but one of the churches of this cori^oration are situated in the lower part of the city, surrounded by the poor, the ignorant, and the emigrant; a district which (with the single exception of a floating chapel for seamen) all other churches and congrega- tions of our communion, and with few exceptions of other com- munions, have deserted. The duty has therefore fallen upon Trinity Church to gather the people of this district, who belong to the Protestant Episcopal church, into four churches : Trinity Church, St. Paul's Chapel, St. John's Chapel and St. George's, in Beekman street, to minister to them the holy oflGLces of religion ; to aid and to instruct them, and to that end to establish and maintain schools and to devise and execute a judicious sys- tem of alms-giving, and of the visitation and giving advice to the poor, through clerical and lay assistance and labor. On such plans for the good of the poor has the vestry now entei-ed. They have been in part devised and in part executed, and fur- ther measures for the attainment of the same ends are yet in contemplation. Hence must arise a considerable increase of the annual expenses of Trinity Church for the benefit of her own people, and a proportionate want of power to respond to the applications for aid from other congregations. To such appli- cations she has ever been willing to respond, regulating her gifts by her ability and her judgment of what was required for the good of the church ; but she has never been able to keep pace with the unreasonable and exaggerated notions both of the duty of her vestry and of the value of her estate which have long been entertained by many members of the Protestant Episcopal church. It has already been stated in this communication that this cor- poration has, by gifts and grants of money and land made from time to time for a long series of years, greatly diminished its estate. The vestry now proceed to make briefly a statement of such gifts and grants, not, however, confining themselves to thg 12 [Senate periods or to the objects specified in the resolutions of your hon- orable body, and the vestry beg leave to express the hope that the information they have thus afforded, both that in direct response to the inquiries of the Senate, and that not required by the resolutions herein inserted, may be satisfactory to your hon- orable body. This corporation made the donations of property or land to free churches situated in the city of New York, and for the purposes and within the years next hereinafter respectfully stated, to wit : 1807. St. Michael's Church, to aid in building the church, $2,000 00 1809-13. To St. Michael's and St. James' Churches, for their support,.. 2,000 00 1813. St. Michael's and St. James' Churches, 1 ,400 00 1813. St. Michael's and St. James' Churches, 900 00 1809. Grant of six lots of ground in Chambers, Vesey and Warren streets to same churches. 1832-47. To the city Mission Society in annual allowances for the sup- port of several free churches. of which such society were the owners and had the charge,. . . 22,500 00 The Church of the Nativity : 1834-35. To aid in building the church, $5,000 00 " Payments to the same for its support, 12,111 00 1847^9. To aid in building the Church on a new site, 9,000 00 26,111 00 Churches for seamen : 1844-55. For their support, 6,100 00 No. 45.] 13 Church of St. Cornelius, Governor's ■ Island, for soldiers : 1846. To aid in building the church,.. $500 00 1847-55. For the support of the church, 1,500 00 |2,000 00 The Church of the Good Shepherd : 1850-55. For the support of the church, 2,250 00 The Church of the Epiphany : 1847-50. For the support of the church, $2 ,375 00 1848. To save the church from sale un- der foreclosure, 6,500 00 8,875 00 The Church of the Holy Evangelists : 1847. To save the church from sale un- der foreclosure, $5,466.10, less proceeds of subsequent sale of Vandewater Street Church, $1,250.64, 4,215 46 1847-55. For support of the church, 3,975 00 Paid for the purchase of St. George's church, in Beekman street, now occupied by the Church of the Holy E vangeli sts , and for charges upon such pro- perty, 30,660 33 The estimated value of a release executed by the corporation of Trinity Church, of lots of land belonging to the corporation ol St. George's Church, from cer- tain conditions, the release from which formed part of the con- sideration upon which the latter church agreed with Trinity Church to convey to such person as she should appoint, the pro- perty occupied by St. George's Chui'ch, in Beekman street. This property was, after such 14 [Senate agreement, by appointment of the corporation of Trinity Church, conveyed to the Cliurch of the Holy Evangelists, with- out payment of any considera- tion by them, but upon their executing a mortgage upon such property to Trinity Church for $50,000, the amount agreed upon between them, $25,000 00 $63,850 79 The Church of St. Mary's : 1836-55. For support of the church, . . 7,789 13 Free Church in East Broadway : 1855. Towards the support of the church, 100 00 The Church of the Messiah : 1838-55. For the support of the church,$2,550 00 1850. To aid in fitting up place of worship, 100 00 2,650 00 The Church of St. Barnabas, (the first church of that name,) : 1850-53. For its support, 300 00 The Second Church of St. Barnabas : 1853-54. For support of the church,.. 400 00 The Church of the Holy Martyr's : ] 848-50. For the support of the church,$l ,700 00 1850-55. In annual payments of $200 each, to enable the church to pay the expense of altering the church, and of increasing the number of sittings, 1,000 00 2,700 00 The Church of St. Judas : 1850-53. For the support of the church, 800 00 The Church of the Holy Innocents : 1853-55. For the support of the church, $650 00 No. 45.] 15 1855. To pay an assessment upon the church, $200 00 " To save the church from sale un- der foreclosure, 590 57 " For the support of the church,. . 750 00 $2,190 57 The Church of St. John, the Evan- gelist : 185.3-55. For the support of the church, "400 00 The Church of St. Ann's for deaf mutes : 185a-55. For the support of the church, 1 ,300 00 The Church of All Angels : 1850-55. For the support of the church, 1,050 00 The Church of St. Matthews : 1847-55. For the support of the church, 2,925 00 The Church of St. Simons : 1845-55. For the support of the church, 2,000 00 $172,590 92 Within the five years last past this corporation has made the gifts to other churches in the city of New-Tork, not free, and for the purposes next hereinafter stated : Church of St. Stephens for its support, $2,000 00 " St. James, " 1 ,800 00 Zion Church, « " 1,200 00 Church of St. Andrews, " " 1 ,200 00 " St. Clements, " " 1,600 00 « St. Lukes, " " 4,500 00 « All Saints, " " 2,000 00 « St. Phillips, « " 1,600 00 " St. Peters, " " 1,600 00 " The Holy Apostles, " 1 , 500 00 « St. George, the Martyr, " 300 00 " The Annunciation, " 26,800 00 " The Advent, " 750 00 " The Intercession, " 400 00 16 [Senate Church of Emanuel, for its support, $6,718 00 " St. John, the Baptist, " 800 00 " The Transfiguration, " 2,750 00 " St. Timothy, " 400 00 " The Redeemer, " 500 00 $58,418 00 Together with the assumption, by this corporation, of the payment of the interest of |5&,418-and $9,000, for which this church is mortgaged. No other amounts have been given or expended by this cor- poration for other churches situated in the city of New-York during the specified period. Within the same period the vestry under authority derived from an act of the Legislature, have purchased land in Twenty- fifth street in the city of New- York, and have built thereon a chapel styled Trinity Chapel, at a cost for building and site of • $227,164,82. It is now finished, and divine service has been performed therein since the 17th April, 1855. During the same period Trinity Church has made the grants and appropriations to other churches situated in difierent parts of the State out of the city of New-York, which are next stated, that is to say. To churches in Albany county, $1,000 00 " Chautauque " 1,050 00 « Columbia " 6,250 00 " Dutchess " 1,900 00 " Greene " 1,800 00 « Herkimer " 300 00 « Jefierson " 600 00 « Kings " 13,400 00 « Livingston " 400 00 « Madison " 200 00 « Oneida " 3,500 00 « Onondaga 250 00 No. 45.] 17 To churches in Orange county, $2,400 00 " Oswego " 200 00 Otsego " 250 00 « Queens " 2,000 00 « Rensselaer " 1,500 00 « Richmond " 1,200 00 « Rockland " 300 00 « Schoharie " 500 00 « St. Lawrence " 712 50 « Saratoga " 1,000 00 « Suffolk " 1,500 00 « Sullivan " 600 00 <' Tioga " 490 00 « Ulster " 300 00 « Washington " 1,700 00 " Wayne " 1,550 00 " Westchester " 2,000 00 $48,852 50 During the three years preceding the 13th day of April, 1855, Trinity Church has made the following and no other appropria- tions to institutions of charity, benevolence and learning in the city of New- York : Grants of burial plots in Trinity Cemetery. To the orphan asylum a plot containing 621 square feet. To the society for the relief of aged and indigent females, a plot containing 300 square feet. To the Protestant Episcopal Mutual Benefit Society, a plot containing 600 square feet. To Christ Church, a plot to be selected. To the Orphans' Home, a plot to be selected. The inquiiy of the Senate relates to a time when the proceeds of sales of land have been in a great measure required for the purpose of affording increased church accommodation for the [Senate, No. 45.] 2 18 [Senate congregations of Ti'inity Church, and when the expense of main- taining and performing the manifokl offices and duties connected with such a charge as falls upon this church has greatly in- creased. But the following condensed statement will lead to a just estimate of the unvarying policy, governed by which this corporation has from an early day continually dispensed abroad the property with which it was endowed. From the year 1790 to the 15th February, Church gave and appropriated In Iota. To churches in the city of New- York, not free, 122 " Albany county, " Allegany " " Cattaraugus " " Cayuga " " Chatauque " " Chemung " " Chenango " " Columbia " « Cortland " " Delaware " " Dutchess " " Essex " " Franklin " " Fulton " " Genesee " " Greene " " Herkimer " " Jefferson " " Kings " 2 " Livingston " " Madison " " Monroe " " Montgomery " " Niagara " « Oneida " 4 1855, Trinity In money. $493,125 70 1 Q 00 Ron fin 1 I uu , < uu QOrt Qon oUU Q ■inn AA 7 C\(\ nn uu 1 ,650 uu 21 ,150 00 400 00 400 00 400 00 1 ,500 00 10 ,300 00 7 ,250 00 2 ,700 00 30 ,410 00 2 ,500 00 500 00 4 ,700 00 2 ,000 00 1 ,600 00 2 ,100 00 No. 45.J 19 In lots. In money. To churches in Onondaga county, $5,950 00 " Ontario " 4,050 00 " Orleans " 2,500 00 " Orange " 6,975 00 « Oswego " 4,025 00 " Otsego " 3,070 00 « Putnam « 1,800 00 " Queens " 13 11,550 00 " Rensselaer " ...... 9,250 00 « Richmond " 5,500 00 " Steuben " 1,000 00 « Seneca " . .• 2,050 00 « St. Lawrence " 5,750 00 » Saratoga " 4,523 80 « Schenectady " 4,100 00 « Suffolk « 3,100 00 « Sullivan « 1,500 00 " Tioga " 1,270 00 « Tompkins " 350 00 " Ulster « 3,000 00 " Washington " 2,950 00 « Wayne " 3,450 00 " Westchester " 5 15,900 00 « Wyoming " 300 00 « Yates " 1,000 00 Lots, 146 $721,419 00 and from the year 1748 to this time they have given For the general purposes and advance- ment of the church and of religion, 35 lots and $19,652 00 For general and public purposes, ... . 17 " " 750 00 To institutions of learning and charity schools, 115 " " « 5, 776 87 And leased for 63 years, free of rent, . 5 " For the support of the Episcopate and and church organizations and socie- ties, 72,988 58 20 [Senate Annuities and donations to aged and infirm clergymen, and to widows and families of deceased clergymen, 126 ,934 38 Being a total for tlie purposes last enumerated, of 172 lots and $286,111 83 Thus has this corporation administered its estate, freely grant- ing it for the spread of religion in all parts of the State for the support of ministers of the gospel, and the succor of their families, and for the aid and endowment of institutions of learn- ing. It has for these purposes paid and appropriated in money $1,287,392.75, and given a large numer of lots of land; by these means diminishing its property to one-third its original extent. The vestry have, in this communication, ventured to give a more complete statement of the condition and acts of the church than is expressly called for by the resolutions of your honorable body, because they deemed it expedient for the more perfect justification of this corporation, and because they were confident that the Senate would receive it as an answer more satisfactory than a more limited return. WM. E. DUNSCOMB, Comptroller. No. 45.] ill 3 If IPii I I iii Mf! m t 0} saoisj3A3j JO anxTjj, 21 £ it 1 f For the whole of Burr lease as above stated, . . . do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do aqi JO 9Ai}03ds3jjj sSurpimq Saponp -ap-cegiaianiBA ^a^j ilillligliiiiiiPJlilil •sSmpnnq 3q> ilEiiiiiilliilliimil joj aniBA passassB JO aoiyod pojutuijsa •sju^nsj aqi JO i}j3doid aq; Sut -aqjan^l aqi 'ccgX ni sSaipimq pan joi JO amBA passassB ssojq iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliilil Between what streets. Variok and MoDougal, do do do Varick and Hudson,, do do 1, do ' do do do do do do do do do do do do Hudson and Greenwich, do •iaajisjoapjg •laajis jBqii no gaiiuojj ■OS. 'sstiOH 22 [SenaW •qDinqo aq"} : 00 »o S5s g sssSBsSSIIsisiSS; 1 I gq} JO aAiiaadsaui sSaipiinq Sai^onp ■sSaipiinq oq'j JO uopiod paiuuijisa •stuDaai aq? JO ifijadojd aqi 3a; -aq J9HU1 aq} '5?8T a; sSaipi;nq pais ^oi JO aniBA passassu ssoio 1 ;oo ^ ° o o o ooo oo o o ooo o oo ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ iirriiiiliiiiiiiiiieri Mi III mmmmmmm^ 'iiiiiiriTiiFfiMii :oo ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ •}aoi)Sjo apig I'sqii uo Sai^aoij oo ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ •0^ asnojj No. 45.] 23 o $1,227 77 1.276 88 1,227 77 1,227 77 1,276 88 1,276 88 1,915 32 1,-173 32 1,571 54 1,325 99 883 99 1,571 64 1,375 10 1,325 99 1,031 32 1,375 10 = o oo oo o o oo o coooo oooooaooeooooooooooooo •o •§•§■§•§•§ •§•§•§•§•§ -o •§ -o -o -O -c -o -o -u -c t ooooooooooooooo^ iiiiillilllliliiiilill i E g § § ? ^ g § 5 iiJjjipijiSl|i| s §S25SSi§§§ti§§5§g§5Sgg ,0_= O^X X S O ^ - "0^"^ Sx^O O CD = t-CC O g iipjiip.iy.iiii i Varick and McDougal, . do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do Varick and Hudson, . . . do do do do do do 1 ° ° o o o 1 °.§^oooc c oc o o o o oo > 24 [Senate •0^ asnoH No. 45.] 25 II 00,0 00,^0 0 0 0^^00 ooooo^o^ooooooooooo 000000 .goooo 00 000 00 00 00 00000 00 000^0 00 00 o 000000 ;2 1 .s liilifiliiifi rriilllil liiiiiiiiiii ifflli iiiiiiiiiiifi 1 00 0000000000000 ooooooog |.§.§oo 000000 1 00 0000000000000 ^^^^^^^■^^^^^ ■^■S^^.^^ .§.§00000000000 l.§.§.§ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000^ 0000000000000 1 l.§.§ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 26 [Senate 1 1,129 55 1,424 21 1,031 32 982 21 1,473 32 1,325 99 1,424 21 1,031 32 1 $589 33 785 77 1,129 55 982 21 1,129 55 689 33 1,473 32 1,178 66 7S6 66 736 66 1,031 32 1,031 32 1,.325 99 1,325 99 982 21 When term ex- pires. f Annual ground rent. For the whole of Burr lease as above stated, . . . do do do do t il ::: do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do ■S3SB3I 3t(1 JO aiiioadsain sSutpimq Sujionp -ap '5581 ui aniTjA o i i i i iiiiiiiiiifiii •sSaipiinq sq^ joj onjuA possassE JO aoiiMd paj'Buii'jsg ifiifiir 1 iiiiiliifliiii rn M .- 1- 1-1 ^ rHi-l rH i-H •siuBua? oqi JO ifiaodoad aqj Sai -aq jawi aq^ 'gjgf ui sSuipiinq puTj }0| JO an[BA passassD ssojg iiiiiili $104,800 1 s illliiiiiiiili Between what streets. Varick and Hudson, Hudson and Greenwich, do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do Varick and Hudson, .... do do do do do do do do do do do do do do ■100113 JO optg z "JODJIS ITjqn uo Suijuojj Joooooco oo o ooe o o o o o oo ri i-i IH ii ri No. 45. 1 27 C£ ^ — O ?t t~~ X— »— ' " r— — »0 3i «0 r-- -O O ^ t— t— • $40,592 00 982 21 982 21 1,031 32 1,031 32 883 99 883 99 883 99 883 '9 834 88 1,080 44 •1,127 11 ° 0 = 00 = 0 = o =§.§.§.§2.200 °° 00 = 00 oo 00000000000 °.§.§.g.§.§.§ = »o.§°oo 0000000000000 §§.§^ = 000000 .2 °o 00 00 0.2 0.2^5 00 o» 00 002 00 00 0 ^^^^^.§§.§§^.§ iliiililiiiiliillililliiiil i "1 liiiiiiliiiiiiiiilililliiii s |ijj_iiipiil 4,300 4,500 4,000 3,000 1,800 1,700 1,800 4,000 4,200 4,200 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,501) 4,500 5, 500 6, 500 4,000 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 5,000' B, 500! C, 500' «,500 0,500 $107,8111' Ssggigesggg ^ « .^T « .iTcT .0 oTrr ! 1 ^.§.§.§.§.§o|oo.§ = = = = 0000000000 00 1 §§ 0^0 oo|0 0000 0000 0000 00 00^0 > §§§00000000 §§§000^0000 §§0000000000000000000000000 |§§§Ooooooo 0 = 0^^3 =.§.§.§.§.§000^^^ 00 0000000 |§oooooooo^ 28 [Senati 0} suoisaoAOj JO oni'BjY 1 i iiisiiiiiiiii When tenn ex- pires. 1 1 o = o o o o o , o o o o oooooooooooo < i 1 s i 1 ^oooooooooooo oooooooooooo 1 q 3 ^oooooooooooo oooooooooooo 1 •S3S1!0[ aqqi jo oAnoodsojai sSuipiinq Sui^onp ^iiiiiliiliii iiiliiiSiill •s3i ipjinq oqi aoj 8n[HA passassB JO uojijod pa^Baipsj \ I 1 « \mMMmm 111111111=11 •sinuuai oq^ JO iCjJ3do.iJ oq-) 3ui -aq sqi 'ggsf a; sSuipijnq puu }0[ JO oni^A psesassi! ssojq ^illllliiliii llilliiillii Between what streets. 1 do do do do do do do do do do do do do do Varick and Hudson, . . . do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do Hudson and Greenwicl do do do do i do do do do •133J1SJO opig j oooooooooooo oooooooooooo 5T!qii uo Sniiuojj 'ooooooooooo£^ooooooooooo^ •0^ osnoji No. 45.] 29 3,928 86 343 11 294 66 $37,223 41 •§ r\ OOOOOOOOO oooooooooooooooooooo o o°°oooooo o = ° = = ooeo oooo ■§■§ •§ ^^■§-§-2^^.§.§ o = ° ° °o o oo oo o o o o o o o oo i 11 _, oooooo = = o 0=00500000 = 00 = 00 = 000 CO 37,000 11 $122,100 1 iMim%n iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii II i 2 1 iiiiiiiii MmmmmuMii s •§ i 1 0 °.§o = oooo| ooooooo|oooooooooooo > > •§ ■§•§ £^.§.§.§.§.§=.§°£^°° = ° = = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000^ §g5 30 [Senate 0} BU0ISJ0A3J JO aniBjY $9.33 10 1,031 32 o $1,080 44 1,031 32 736 66 736 66 736 66 736 66 933 10 $5,991 50 §982 21 933 10 933 10 834 88 834 88 834 88 834 88 785 77 687 55 1,129 55 736 66 903 55 When term ex- pires. i Annual ground rent. For the whole of Burr lease as above stated, . . . do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do •S3S"B3[ aqi JO OAjiDsdsajj; -op 'SS8I °! sniBA 11 i 1 iiilSli $12,200 iiiiiiiilili ^^^^^^^^ ■sSuipjinq oqt JOJ OniBA P3333SSB JO noi^jod pa^umitsg 11 1 1111111 C^CS CS M <-i 1 liiiiiiiilil « do do . . do do . . Hudson and Greenwich; do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do Spring and Vandam, do do . . . < do do . . . 1 do do "... . do do ' .... § > 0000000000000000^0000000 .§00000000000000000000000 33 I Senate •qoinqo oqi 0? saoiBi3A3j JO oniuj^ When term ex- pires. I Soooooo ooooooooooooooooooo 5 13 -^3 -a 'T=n3 T3 73 13 T3 -C 73 ^3 -a TJ < Annual ground rent. For the whole of Burr lease as above stated, . . . do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do •S0SB3I aqi JO 3Ai}Dods3Jji s3uj|)]mq Sa;)anp -ap '5581 ui aniTjA :i§iiii liiiiSiiiiiisiiiiii •sSaip]inq aq} joj oniUA possasST! JO Hoiiaod pa^Tioiiisa iiiipi liiiiiiiiiiiyiiiii COCCC^CS 1-1 i-l »H r-t r-i i-H •fflU'Baai aqi JO jC^Jodoad aq} gut -aq aq? 'gggi UI sguipiinq pun lot JO anjoA passassB ssojf) liiiiii MUMimMimsum Between what streets. Vandam and Charlton, . . do do do do . . do do . . do do . . : -| do do . . do do . . do do . . do do . . do do . . do do . . do do . . do do . . do do . . Spring and Vandam, . . do do . . do do . . do do . . do do . . Vandam and Charlton, . •^aaj}S JO opig •}oaj}s luqtt uo Sui^uojj •0^ asnoH No. 45 .J 33 687 55 442 00 491 11 640 22 638 44 638 44 1,227 77 1,031 32 982 21 i, $6,089 73 687 55 638 44 638 44 1,817 10 1,227 77 982 21 2,357 31 1,718 87 1,325 99 984 21 1,080 44 J, 227 77 1,7I» 87 1,227 77 2,062 65 1,473 32 oo° = o o o O W ^3 T-) ooooooooooooo^ °.§°.§oeooo o o o:go c = o o o o c o = liiliilii iitilllgilii 2,400 1,400 ,300 1 , 300 i,700 !,500 !,000 t,800 ?,600 !,700 !,000 !,200 !,500 1,600 !,500 1,200 1,000 1,100 1,000 900 900 1,000 1,200 l,fioo 1,400 2,000 $47,000 $1,400 1,100 100 900 900 900 1,200 iliililliiiill ii liiiiiili $111,000 $3,000 2,500 1,500 1,600 1,800 2,200 2,000 1,900 2,500 n%mTmum%T% Charlton and King, . . . do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do King and Hamersley, . do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do Spring and Vandam,. do do do do do do do do do do do do Vandam and Charlton, . do do do do do do do do do do Charlton and King,., do do do do do do. . oo o o o o = oo °c ° »o o o o oo o o [Senate No. 45.] 3 34 I Senate •qajnqo aqf 0^ SU0ISJ3A3J JO ani^A a O. I I I g o o o o o o o o o o o o o o I 6 o 1^ = ° = o o o o o o o I iillfiiiiiiilli ilfiiiiiiiiirii ifii'miiiiiiii^ 3^ o o| o o o o o o o o o| I ^ I § 1 § i-t f-H ri »H »H IHIIIIII Iliifpp ||i|f||ii •S3SBDI JO 8Ap33(IS0J.lI sSinpimq Sai^onp -ap'gggi ni aniBA !)3ij joj aniHA pDssosSB JO noi')jod pa'CBtnilsg JO jf^jadojd aqi Sat -DqjsnTJl oqi '5581 at sSuipimq pan }0[ JO OniBA P3SS3SS1B SSOJQ •laaj^a jo apig No. 45.] 35 s 1 iisiiii iiiiii li m r o = ooo o o o o c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o .§.2 o » .§.§oo°oooooooooooooooo^oooooo oooo .§.§000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oooo iiiililiiiili iiliiii iiiiii WP. C4 CO i iillSllilllif ; mum ium 1 i,8no, 1,60(1 1,800 i liiiiiiliiili MUM ^^^^^^ i $6,000 4,500 7,000 5,000 $22,500 O oooo OOj^O oooo OOo| oooo oooo CO 1 1 « I J, .§.§ OOOO o| oooo oooo «oo oooo oooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo |ooo ^.§.§.§.§.§.§.§ o.§oooo^^ooo ooo oo o oo o g o o o 36 [Senate 0^ BuoisaaADj jo oniUj^ 04 ^> tf) 1^ fTi m J ' M 1^ 1^ ts_ f^S K_ 1^ ^-4 \ SsigsHsiili^llJBEsJsligl 1 ft 1 j < I °.§^.§° o° ° ° = ° o ° ° = o°oo ooo oo : Annual ground rent. For the whole of Burr lease as above stated, . . . do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do •sasusj aq} JO 9Ai}oadsajai sSuipiinq Suiionp -ap'558l °! sni^JA ')a^ 1 -iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiii •sSuipjmq aqi joj aniTiA passassTj JO noi^jod pa^isuiijsj lillliiigBiiiiiiiililllii r-H ,-1 i-H WMC^ r-i r-i ,-t r-i M • i-l M •siauua} aqi JO iCjjadoJd oqi 3ui -aqja??^! aqi 'ySSl ui sSuipiinq puu ^0[ JO anjBA passassB ssoiQ 1 Jjjpjj^ipjjeiililiiiii Between what streets. Spring and Vandam, . . do do . . do do . . do do . . do do . . Vandam and Charlton, do do do do do do do do do do do do do do Charlton and King, . . do do . . do do . . do do . . do do . . do do . . King and Hamersley, . . do do do do do do do do do do . . •!)3ajis JO apig •laajis 5Bq4i uo Sujiuojj 1 -0^ asnOQ No. 45. J 37 II O O I <= o o CQ O t- •■^t 1 CO f 5 C-^ to o w ■is H H < 38 [Senate t-ooooooooooocoooooooo ooooooooooooooooooo •73 'O 'C "TD 'w 13 'O 'O 'O T3 13 T3 rQ rc3 13 'S T3 'O •S3SU0[ Dq-J JO 9AT'J03dS3JJt S^'uip^inq Sui^onp O O O O O O O O »0 O Ot-OOOCOOsO»tO •s3uip]inq aq^ JO uoi^aod ps^TjinT^s^ JO jC^jadoad oq'^ Sui -aq jo^^m aq^ ^^cgi ui s3uipixnq puB qo[ JO anjUA passassTJ ssoio OOOOOOOOOiO'O OOiOOOOOOOr-iM 00000000000 00000000000 <3>iOO»000'00000 ifiOOOOOOOO C^OOOOOOOO 000000000 000000000 c>aC4ooo>ootQo •^oaais JO opig •^aojis uo Suiinojj "^'''^JLl 00C0Q0000S0>0»0s0sOOOOO--f-«^.-' I rHT-ci-lrHi-ii-ti-(i-ii- JO iijadoad aqj 3ut -aq lanvi aqi 'gest ai s3uipitnq puB to( JO ani'BA passDSSB ssojf) i 1 ill t-^ 0^0 00 00 00 o ^000000^00000, •133a?SJ0 Dpig I ° 00 00 o|o 00 00 000 00 CO 00 00 00 I'sqii uo Saiiaoa^ o o o o i 000 00 0000 00 000 00 o^ No. 45.] 41 ?3 2 .§.§000 oooo o o o o oo oo o oo o 00^0000000000000 0=0 000 0 ^ ^ •§■§-§ ^ ■§ ^ ■§•§■§ ^ ■§-§•§ ^ ■§ ^ ■§ -i •§ iUMimuimimuM 3 i s £^ iiiiiiiiipiiiisiiiiiii I ith, Varick and Hudsoi lo do do lo do do lo do do lo do do lo do do lo do do = :::::::::: foo 0 00 o|o 0 0 00 00 0 of 000 0 0 42 [Senate •^uoj JO 3n\n\ luosojj §550 72 550 72 10,642 20 11,174 30 13,373 SI 5,015 75 11,453 27 8,277 84 13,302 25 13,646 75 422 07 10,550 10 1 932 36 264 61 793 83 507 29 543 53 817 57 1 4,514 17 1 817 57 1 6,425 86 15,361 04 gggo gogggg J5gg-S gg §§§§§ pii pile -11-- if. iiiia 01 uoisjaApj JO anjB^ $10,308 20 10,308 20 2,782 63 2,344 70 3,119 81 3,575 111 2,908 291 3,671 14, 3,508 .57 3,119 81 5,786 00 8,839 25 3,528 OOl 7,834 44 12,081 56 13,413 00: 13,117 12l 10,764 30i 11,037 98, 8,900 OOj 6,557 091 2,590 66 6,131 30 4,204 75, 1 4,502 38, a iiil lliliiiiligiiisiliril m JO aAiioacIsDiJ! sSaipimq 3m}onp -ap '5581 m aniBAia^i •pSaipimq aq} joj oniTSA passassB JO noi(aoa pa^uaiiisa •sjUBua; ^^% jO ii-iodoad oqi Sai -aq aaHB[ aqi 'SS81 ui sSuipimq puB 101 JO aniBA passassB ssoiQ $16,0001 16,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 23,000 13,000 22,000 18,000 15,000 31,000 17,000 23,000i 12,00o| 43,000' 46,000i 46,000 23,000 23,000 12,000 9,000 11,000 8,000 17,000 32,000 1 1 1 Ciiurch and Greenwich, . . . 1 do do do do do do do Broadway and Church, . . . do do do . . . do Chapel and Greenwich, . . . do MuiTay and AVarren, do do Church and Chapel, do Chapel and Greenwich, . . . do do do Broadway and Church,... do •■»a9iis JO apig 1 i do : do do An North, do do do do do 1 do jWcst, do ■ do do do do do ■ do i Fronting: on > street. Fulton do do do 1 do Vesey, , i do 1 do , Barclay, , 1 do 1 do Mun-ay, , do I do do Broadway, .... do 1 do Warren, < do do do do do do do •0^ dBpi No. 45.] 43 ■w cc ^^^^ > = O O O Til -* liiiii s siiiiiiiili liiiesiiiii iiiiii »-i W -^Cq ffQ CO 0^ CQ C<; CO O 1-1 iH* iiiiii 5 iiiiilliiliiSliiiiiiiiii iiiiii n n If r^' ^^^^^ __o _o I I |o = =|°oooooo|oooo| o|o||oooo oooooco oo=|oo 00 = 0|000000 0 0 0 0 0 0|OOOOOOOOC| 0 0 0 0 = 0 cooooo 44 [Senate •^U3J JO anii!A ^aosojj $225 00 130 00 120 00 100 00 120 00 150 00 135 00 150 OO ^ 400 00 75 00 150 00 150 00 150 00 150 00 150 06 240 00 100 00 130 00 140 00 140 00 130 00 140 00 •qDjnqo aqt $2,111 77 2, 135 62 10,000 00 1,731 S)0 1,385 52 1,316 23 865 21 1,388 51 711 76j 906 47' 1,016 60 2,998 97 845 35 1,316 24 1,026 29 894 35 1,3R7 83 1,315 22 3,362 79 1,228 71 1,261 59 1,915 68 409 59 1,192 20 617 52 When term expires. y'rs. m's. d"s. ■S3SB31 aqi JO OAiiDsdsaaji sSuipimq Suiianp -ap'SSSinjaniB'^^^N ililiiiiSsiiliililiililiili •sSuipiinq aq; joj an\xs\ psssasaB JO uojiaod p3}i)uiiisa iiiilllii 3,100 3,300 3,300 1,90(1 1,70(1 3,500 3,800 3,500 200 2,300 900 1,150 1,100 2,600 •sjanua} aqi JO Xyadcid aq? Sui -aq i3}}«i aq? 'gggl ui sSuipiinq puu ?0[ JO aniBA passassB ssoiQ 1,000 , 000 ,000 ,500 ,2110 ,10(1 ,1110 ,500 ,0110 ,500 ,200 ,500 iiiiiiilliiiii •}a3j}S JO ap!S 0 ^ o « Om o •0^ duw •o^ asnoji No. 45. J 45 WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWeWWWWWWWMWM f¥¥¥I§l liilliliiiBliillliiSiliiiiii :i ; = : 2,800 2,400 2,200 2,800 3,000 3, 000 3,800 3,800 3,500 3,500 5,000 5,000 6,000 3,200 2,200 2,600 3,200 3,000 3,000 4,00(1 5,000 3,20(1 4,500 4,000 4, (iO0 5,500 5,000 19,000 28,000 ilMIIII B 9 « 4 % ;^ A ^ 2 <^ I 46 [Senate •^a3j JO oniBA lassajj 0} saoiai3A3i JO 3niT!j\^ rHi-l iH rH M r-t r-T cT r-f^i-? pass aiisssiai s 3 i sai l| 5 iiiififfirfipf N (m" (m" C? (^^ r: r^' rn" im Dqi JO OATjoadsajJi sgaipimq Sajionp -ap '5581 °T ant-BA ^a^j ^iiii liliililiiigsii mi •sSntpiinq aq} "joj oniUA pa3593SB JO noi'^jod pa}T!nii^S3 P fill pjjjiiipiiiii mi •siauaaj aq^ JO Xjiadcid oq) Sal -aq '598 i ni sSajpimq pun }0( JO aniBA passossB ssojig I 111 Ui 1 : •^aaijs JO apig Ifll •0^ osnoH No. 45.J 47 i p i 1 1 ills B I 1 mmm^ ies — gi i — i-^-g§g§"^^^~il¥i¥iT¥n§"§ 1 as ill lisi III issaaaiss laa 1-- O O O O O ci c> OC iio:ri:o"irofiiTTW fiifromiwmim (.rove ana rsarrow, Banow and Morton, .... do do . . • ■ do do .... do do .... do do .... do do .... do do .... do do .... do do .... do do .... do do .... (irovo and Barrow, 4 4 4 §^ %4 I 1 i §■% %4 %4 : ! : Clarkson and Lo Hoy, .... do do .... do do .... e . 48 [Senate •}aoi JO aniTJA ^aasajj $2,746 40 1,368 70 1,373 20 1,961 72 2,661 36 1,330 68 1.254 65 1,900 97 1 ,765 55 1,373 20 1,373 20 1,373 20 1,414 19 1,1: 1 35 1,131 35 3.011 02 8S8 92 851 13 7S0 20 1,010 14 808 U 1.255 51 $350 00 180 on 175 00 250 00 350 Ool 175 no 165 00 250 00 225 00 175 00 175 00 175 00 175 00 140 00 140 on 372 611 110 on 120 00 no 00 125 00 100 00 160 00 •qojnqo oqi 0) suoisJOASJ JO anicjv $2,087 84 1,>t'8 66 664 31 1,091 37 2,799 32 515 6fi 515 6H 1,178 66 1,091 37 854 n ^96 47 2,277 65 1,535 80 871 06 779 36 1,902 56 939 82 920 65 920 65 779 36 641 83 1,043 92 When terra expires. y"rs m's. d's- oqt JO ♦Ajiosdsaji; sSuipiinq Sujionp -op 'c'SHi ni aniUA mil iiiiiiiii iiiiip.iii •sSuipiinq aq") joj aniTjA pas^asSB JO aoijjod pajBoijisa lllll liliiiiii liliiiiili •s-)ui!uo} aq} JO X^jadoad aqj 3ui -aq aoiiui aqi 'gcg[ ni sSuipimq puu 50( JO aniUA passassu ssojg liiiiliiiiiilililililllliii Between what streets. Clarkson and Le Roy, .... do do do do do Le Roy and Morton, do do do do Morton and Barrow, . . . . do do do do Barrow and Christophi do do do do do do do do Barrow and Morton, do •laajis JO apig 1 'i |.§.§.§oooo = ooooo»oeooooooeeoo •ON ^ ^ S i iiiii iiiiiiiiii ijjjj„iip.riil i Em ^^tr^^CO C^M M ro « cTeC Co' W Cc'm M eo lO •o'to'i-l i-l M rl M rH I-l f-1 I-* 1 liiii piiiipii peipiii ip i pj If i piii ipjpjpjpjipj_pp„pp i PI II do Franklin and N. Moore, .. do do do do do Hubert and Laight, do do do Hamersly and Clarkson,., o o g o e o e ^ = » = » « « » o ° » » » = o o o o o o o^^^^^^ = = ?? - -V+[Seiiate, No. 45.] 4 "^"^ 50 [Senate aocoooo>oocoaooooococooooococ4 00 CO Jt- o CO M t— o »C ift o o saoisj3A8J JO oniu^/V ^ O M CQ (O Oi CO O O S 3q> JO oAT?oads3JJt o o o o o o <=. : >cioooooooooo 1 o o o > O o S CO efi ■i 'tj^ ^ •sSaipiinq oq:) JOJ WIT!A pOS93SSB JO uoi^od pa'^'Biupsg CiOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO CO rH r-« <=s O < O O 5 C5 lO ; •B^u'Baaj aq^ JO ^^ladojd oq'; Sai -3q JO^^'Bi oq^ 'qgsi m sSuipjinq pn^B "joi JO oniuA passass^ ssoj£) ooooooooooooooooooo o o o o o O O O O i3 O O CO t*x^- •^03j:js JO opig 'o o oo oooo o oooo o o mOOOo ooo-goo t-t-t^**- CC 00 «OCOcO^OcOc0^cOcccOc050cOcoeOOCOcOCOC«3CC?OCOCOcOcDcO No. 45.1 51 gl §§§§§§§ S§5i§§§§§§5§§§i§§ §§§§ 2S §§§§§§§§ §§2lsSl^illlis2i2 sill iiiiiiii i i ii i iiiiiiiiiiiiffiiiiiiii i I i o o o c =1 o o o o| 111: ooooococ o o oo o .g.§|°ocoooooo|oooooc = oo iliisiiii i I ii I gsssiisiiii-ssgs-g^ [Senate "§¥§§¥§ fill §§§§£§§§ 3., In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. R. C. VALENTINE, StERROTTPBH and Et.KaTROTTPtBT. 17 Dutch-at., cor. Pulton N«w TORK. FACTS AGAINST FANCY. There are occasions when, in the proud conscious- ness of having" acted rightly, we are, nevertheless, accused unjustly, that- we are restrained by a sense of self-respect from answering the charges, and would rather suffer in silence than subject ourselves to fresh humiliation. This is especially so in the case of individuals with noble minds. It is so, in a degree, likewise, with public men, who have no private aims, and are labouring solely for the good of others. Such is, precisely, the situation of Trinity Church. She has gone on from generation to generation with the steady aim and constant desire of doing all the good in her power, without regard to the in- gratitude for her favors, or the injustice and violence of popular clamour, and so, I think, she would pro- ceed for the time to come, were it not abundantly manifest that there is a concert of action and a com- bination of all elements against her, which, by means 4 of gross misrepresentation and unu'ortliy disparage- ment, are intended to cripple and destroy lier, and whicli, I trust in Grod, may be signally defeated. It woidd be a curious thing if all the secret motives could be analyzed and detected, wliich unite men of such different minds so heterogeneously, in this strange combination against Trinity Church. Polit- ical and religious prejudice, restless agitation, un- bridled cupidity, the jealousy of wealth and influence in all their forms, however beneficently and usefully emj)loyed, are enough to account for the eager activity of worldly men in this unworthy pursuit. But, disappointment, with others, in the unreasonable expectations of the bounty of Trinity Church, which, in many cases, it was out of her power to gratity ; the neglect of visionary schemes for enlarging her usefulness, which, practical men, on the bare sugges- tion of them, could not always see fit to carry out ; and, above all, the root of bitterness in the entertain- ment of sound Church principles, and the manful maintenance of them at all times, through good and evil report ; these are the faults which, on the part of some, can never be forgotten, and of others, never forgiven. Down with her, down with her, even to the ground, " by law" if they can, " without law" if they "cannot." It is not my design, in the statement which I am about to make, to notice the legal or political ques- tions in relation to the title of Trinity Church. These have been so often determined and settled in all 6 their aspects, by the opinions of the Chancellor, the conclusions of the Land Commissioners, the decisions of the inferior courts, the higher courts, and the court of final appeal, as to make it a matter of wonder that credulity should still be as blindfold, and agita- tion as restless, as if no decisions in the case had ever been made. I intend merely to meet the more common objec- tions and popular errors Avhich so generally prevail in regard to the wealth, the duties, and failings of Trinity Church, and to discuss them with temper, candour, and truth. Among the most conspicuous of these errors, is the exao^oferated notion, which is almost universally entertained, of the enormous and unbounded wealth of this great Corporation. It is the theme of the press, the subject of legislative enquiry, the longing of avarice, the temptation to rapacity, the excuse for sacrilege. It is a fruitful topic, which may be treated in a variety of ways, but, in almost all cases, however, to answer one common end. In some it is done thoughtlessly, in ignorance and delusion ; in others, with wilfulness and malice, and the most pernicious intent. It is surprising, nevertheless, to behold occasionally, intel- ligent, conscientious, and devout men, adopting this popular error without examination, and giving cur- rency to it with all the extravagance and absurdity of popular belief This was painfully illustrated at the late Convention of the Diocese, in the case of an honorable man, distinguished for the warmth of his 6 feelings and tlie strength of his prejudices, but, never- theless, very generally respected for the honesty of his purposes and his great moral worth. After indulging in a course of remark against Trinity Church, from which he should have been restrained by filial rever- ence to the memory of his venerated father, who, for several years, was a "Warden of that Church, and who adorned the station as he did every other which, in the fullness of his honours, he was selected to fill ; and after having had abundant opportunities of learning the actual condition of the parish from his pure and honored brother, who, for seventeen years, was a Vestryman of the same, and who died in its bosom ; he, nevertheless, united in the general cry against its enormous wealth for the accomplishment of a particular purpose, and gave a touch of exaggera- tion to his picture unequalled by all who have gone before him. "The dreams of avarice have never conceived it." Now what is it 1 This wealth is not to be deter- mined by fanciful conjecture, but by sober calculation and absolute fact. It is to be determined, so far as the measure of its bounties is concerned in the relief of others, beyond the immediate wants of the parish itself, l)y its present and available means, and not by its remote and contingent results. What, then, are these available means 1 According to the statement in the History of Trinity Church, prepared by the Rector with the fullest opportunities of information and with great accuracy and care, the gross revenue of 1 the Corporation from ground rents, pew rents, and every other source, had never in any one year reached a higher point than $57,932 37. After de- ducting the interest on the debt of about $440,000, amounting to $24,802 31, the net income thereof was, in 1847, only $33,130 06. This was the sum total, as declared in all the gravity of history by a minister of truth. This was the sum total as declared by the solemn testimony of the Comptroller, before a Committee of the Legislature. And if the one is not to be credited on his responsibility as a conscientious historian, nor the other on the sacredness of an oath as a christian, there is an end of faith among men, and no higher sanction can be given. But in order to present the whole subject with frankness and candour, and to leave no room for sus- picion in honourable minds of evasion or doubt, it is proper to state, that, from great changes in the general Talue of property in this city within the last few years, the income of Trinity Church has been materially in- creased. But what is it, with this somewhat sudden and unexpected advantage, at the present time 1 The gross amount of it from ground rents, pew rents, and every other source, was, on the first of May last, $89,486 54. After deducting, then, the inter- est on its present debt of $648,913, (which was mainly incurred by her benefactions to others,) amounting to $34,781 28, the net income of Trinity Church is precisely, neither more nor less than $54,705 26. And is this amount for an ancient Cor- 8 poration witli a large landed property ia a great and flourisMng city, " beyond the dreams of avarice V The wonder is, that it should be so small. This is only to be accounted for from the fact, that the greater part of the Church Estate is out on lease at a mere nominal rent, and which is not to expire for several years. Now this income of Trinity Church, when reduced by arithmetical calculation to its actual amount, and com- pared with the general notions of its unlimited, extent, is an instance of the fallacy of popular delusion with- out a parallel in the annals of mankind. It is equalled, as there is good reason to believe, by tbe income of tbe Associate Reformed Dutch Churcli of this city, against which there is no clamour, as I am very sure there is no ground. It is exceeded by the income of the Sailor's Snug Harbour, in the further increase of which all benevolent minds would rejoice. It is both equalled and surpassed by the incomes of many individuals in this great commercial metropolis, which are viewed without jealousy, and enjoyed in quietness and ease. Tlie general ground of complaint, then, against Trinity Church, is based on the fallacious assumption of her having the power to do what each one desires, and what she, in the plenitude of her power, sees fit to will. The wealth of Croesus would not be suffi- cient for the purpose. But, nevertheless, all appli- cants for her favour hold on to this opinion with un- flinching tenacity, in spite of the most sober represen- tations and all rational belief. The perplexity and 9 embarrassment, therefore, of this Corporatiofn, from such an incorrigible 6rror, can only be conceived and appreciated by men of sound wisdom and calm judg- ment, who are accustomed to look at things as they actually are, and not, as to superficial minds, they falsely appear. Now, how, then, is the charge of the sordid avarice of Trinity Church, in the view of her real, but not fancied means, to be met ? I answer, emphatically by her deeds. There is nothing in this country nor any other, so far as I know, that can be compared with them. From the time that she reached the point when her income exceeded her reasonable wants, to the time that it had gone far beyond them, she has, in due proportion, dispensed them with a freedom and liberality which have made her wealth ,a general bless- ing. But as assertion is one thing, and proof is an- other, I will proceed at once to establish the truth of the declaration. And I beg the patience of the reader for the dryness of the facts, on account of their im- portance and pertinency to the matter in hand. In the statement of these facts I must have recouree to the most reliable means of verifying them, and I am not aware of any better than those which are fur^ nished so minutely and fully in the History of Trinity Church. 10 " GRANTS, GIFTS AND LOANS OF TRINITY CHURCH. " In the early part of the history of this parish, it stood in need of assistance itself, and was, therefore, altogether unable to attend to the wants of others. The first instance of its bounty towards a neighbouring church, recorded in the min- utes, was in the gift of the communion cloth, pulpit cloth, and cloth for the desk, to Mr. Peter Jay, for the church at Rye, in the year 1745. Since that time, in every alteration and im- provement of Trinity Church and its Chapels, its gifts to needy congregations of articles of all kinds have been innu- merable ; baptismal fonts, communion plate, chandeliers, lus- tres, pulpits, desks, stoves, bells, iron gates, iron railing and other fences, flagging stones, carpets for chancel and aisles, and almost every thing which can enter into the construction and serve for the decoration of the Sanctuary. These, how- ever, though a seasonable relief to pari.shes which were limited in their resources, are scarcely worthy of being noticed in connection with its lavish bounties and munificent grants to most of the churches throughout the State. There is hardly a form in which tlieir liberality could promote the interests of religion, that it has not assumed. When unable to con- tribute largely, they did it judiciously, and according to their ability. Thus we find at a time* when infidelity was very prevalent here, that 200 copies of a work entitled the Antidote to Deism were purchased by the Vestry, and committed to the Rector and Assistant Ministers for distribution, and shortly after 500 copies of Watson's Apology. As there was no Bible and Common Prayer Book Society in that day, the Vestry, in consideration of the great feeble- * 1797. 11 ness and urgent wants of the Church, in some slight degree anticipated the establishment of such an institution. In 1797, they gave to the committee of the Convention for Propagating the G-ospel 150 copies of the Book of Common Prayer, and 100 copies to Christ Church, Duanesburg. In the following year 50 copies to Christ Church, Ballston. 500 copies were afterwards given to the Rector for distribution, together with 200 copies of Hobart's Companion for the Altar. And in 1807, 200 copies of Fowler's Exposition of the Book of Common Prayer. On another occasion an appropriation was made of ^ 100, which the Rector was to expend in Prayer Books. The Vestry also committed to the Rector, for the pro- motion of religion upon the frontiers of this State, £150, $375 In 1799, They gave to the Committee for the Propaga- tion of the Gospel $412 1805, do do do 250 1807, do do do 250 At one time they appropriated £200 towards fur- nishing land for a Negro Burial-Ground, . . $500 And at another, they entrusted to Mr. Ellison d£100 for defending the rights of the Church at Johnstown, $250 Grants for General and Public purposes. 1786, 3 lots of ground for the use of the Senior Pastors of the Presbyterian Congregations in this city.* 1765, An order was passed relative to the establishing a ferry from Roosevelt's Dock to Paulus Hook, * Lots No. 255, 256 and 257 of the Church Estate, in Robinson-street, now Park Place, worth at least, it is supposed, at the present day, $50,000. 12 with conveyances of 2 lots to the Corporation for tlie purpose.* 1771, Contribution towards building a market on Hud- son's river,t $500 1775, Appropriation of two lots on the north side of Ve- sey-street for a pier and slip. 1800, Towards building a market in Brannon-street, $250 Land appropriated for the same purpose in Du- ane-street. * It being represented to the Board, that Alderman Roosevelt intended to pro- pose to the Corporation of the City of New- York to grant and convey to them two water lots belonging to him, adjoining the water lots of this Corporation, upon eondition that the ferry across Hudson River, between this city and Powles Hook, should be established and fixed from his said lots, but inasmuch as the said two lots will not be sufiicient to accommodate the said ferry without the addition of so much of the water lots belonging to this Corporation adjoining the said two lots and of equal dimensions therewith, and this Board considering the conven- iences and advantage arising to the public from said ferry : Thereupon Resolved, That the}' will also grant and convey to the said city Corporation two of their lots adjoining the said two water lots of Alderman Roosevelt, and of equal di- men.sions, for the use of the said ferry, but for no other use or purpose whatso- ever, upon condition that the said ferry is to be established and fixed there forever ; but if the said ferry shall be removed from thence, that then the said two water lots so granted by this Corporation for the use aforesaid, shall again revert and be in this Corporation. t Whereas, The Oswego Market, now standing in the Broadway, is ordered to be removed, and it is proposed that a new one be erected on part of the lands upon Hudson's River belonging to this Corporation, for which purpose a sub- scription paper has been exhibited as well by a number of the Church Tenants as others northwajd of Partition-street, who have engaged to raise about Three Hundred Pounds towards erecting the said Market ; Thereupon it is resolved and agreed. That this Corporation will also contribute the sum of Two Hundred Pounds towards building the said Market, and will release their right and claim to the ground on which the same is proposed to be built for the use of a Market forever, upon the condilion that the Mayor, Aldennen and Commonalty of this city will grant and confirm to them the water lots agreeable to the prayer of the petition now before the said Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty for that purpose. 13 And also for a market in Christophcr-btreet. be- tsveen Greenwich and Washington-streets. 1810, 2 lots of ground for a free school in Hudson- street. 1815, A further grant of lots of ground for the Free School Society. Donations and alloicances to aged and iiifirm Clergymen, and others, whose incomes toere inadequate to their support. 1795, The Rev. G-eorge H. Speerin, . . . . § 375 1796, The Rev. Wm. Hammel, paralyzed at an early period in his ministry, and rendered incapable of self-support, who received an allowance of £100 per annum for thirty years, . . . 7,500 1796-99, The Rev. Dr. Dibble, • . . . .625 1796-99, Rev. Wra. Ayres, .... 625 Rev. Dr. Bowden, .... 500 1797, Mr. A. Lile, 1S5 1801-1814, The Rev. Daniel Nash, . . . 1,1.50 1801, Rev. R. G. mitmore, . . . 450 1801-1804, Rev. Henry Yan Dyke, . . . 1.025 1801, Rev. Philander Chase, ... 250 1803-1806, Rev. Peter A. Albert, Rector of the Church Du St. Esprit, 1,000 1803-1807, Rev. Edmund D. Barry, assistant of the same, 1,2,50 1809, Rev. John Reed, 200 1810, Rev. Wm. Harris, Rector of St. Mark's Church, 1000 1810, Rev. Wm. Smith, D. D., . . . .500 1811- 13, Rev. Elias Cooper, Yonkers, . . 750 1812- 13, Rev. \Villiam PoweU, of Coldenham, . 500 14 1 Q1 O -14, Rev. Cyru.s Stebbins, . . . . i ^1,050 1 01 O Rev. Joseph Perry, , ... . 450 Rev. Jonathan Judd, ..... 250 1812. Rev. John Brady, ...... 125 1812, Rev. Asa Cornwall, ..... 100 1812- ■1816, Rev. Ralph Williston, .... 2,250 1813, Rev. Mr. Prentiss, . . . . , 500 1813-14, Rev. David Butler, 400 iolo— ±4:, xtev. IN. 13. ijurgess, ..... 500 1814, Rev. John Urquhart, ..... 150 1814, Rev. H. J. Feltus, 250 1826, Bishop Croes, ...... 1832, Rev. Moses Burt, ...... 150 1834, Rev. Wm. R. Whittingham, on two occasions, being spontaneous gifts of the Vestry to him, on his going to Europe for the recovery of his health, ........ 1,000 1835, Rev. Eleazer Williams, .... 250 1835, Rev. Dr. Hawks, as an agent of the General Convention, to collect materials, in England, for the History of the Church, 1,500 1835 to 1846, To the Rev. Dr. Rudd, a faithful and valued servant of the Church, an annuity of $250, . ' 2,750 1838, Rev. Gr. Mills, 250 1838, Rev. Dr. Seabury, for his highly acceptable services in the Parish, during a vacancy, (in addition to his salary), .... 1,000 1843- 1847, Donations, at different times, to the Rev. Dr. Lyell, Rector of Christ Church, 1,000 1846, Rev. John Grigg, ..... 300 15 Annuities to those who had, in a great measure, spent their lives in the Parish, and retired from infirmity and old age. Annuity of £,AQQ to Bishop Provoost, from 1801 to 1816, $15,000 of i£500 to Bishop Moore, from 1811 to 1816, 6,250 of deeOO to Dr. Beach, from 1813 to 1829, 24,000 And to the families of those who had died in its service, 36,900 Gifts to officers of the Church, Sfc, ^c, for their faithful services, in addition to their salary. 1837-1838, To N. Andrews, Porter of the Vestry Office, $400 1839^1841, To the Collector, 600 1839, Peter Erben, Organist, 300 1839, R. Slack, Sexton, 150 1841, To the widow of R. Slack, .... 250 1841, To a labourer, at Trinity Church, who had bro- ken his arm, 50 King^s, now Columbia College. 1752, ' Grant of land in the centre of the city, be- tween Murray and Barclay streets, and ex- tending from Church street to the river, the present value of which is, perhaps, $400,000. A great portion of this, however, being used for College purposes, and the residue, having been, for the most part, leased out on compar- atively low rents, by the State, when it took 16 charge of the College, immediately after the revolution, the income of the property bears no kind of proportion to its value, and is en- tirely inadequate to the support of the Insti- tution. Since this note, however, was written, in 1847, there have been unexpected changes in the value of the property still remaining at the disposal of the College, from the gradual progress of business towards this part of the city, and which may, therefore, very probably, make the present value of the grant, . $500,000 Grants and Gifts to Institutions for the Promotion of Re- ligion and Learning. CHARITY SCHOOL, NOW TRINITY SCHOOL. In the early history of the school, occasional gra- tuities were made to it by Trinity Church towards the support of the schoolmasters. In 1748, ground was given for the site of the school, and the deficiency in the subscrip- tions for the building of a school-house made up by the Vestry. In 1748, for the re-building of the same after it was burnt, . ... • • • $1>000 1800, A debt assigned to it of . . • • 5,276 87i Seven lots of land, bounded by Lumber, Rector, and Greenwich streets, worth, in 1847, $35,000, but, at present, not less, perhaps, ' at a very low estimate, than . 50,000 IT Donation of $1,000 Do of 7,500 Do of 1,000 1832, Grant of five lots of land, on Canal, Var- ick, and Grand streets, at a mere nominal rent, equivalent to a principal sum of, at least, 20,000 $85,776 871 Society for the Promotion of Religion and Learning. 1802, $ 1,000 32 lots of land in Barclay, Warren, Greenwich, Hudson, Beach and North Moore-streets, esti- mated, in 1847, at $120,000, but worth much more at the present time. .... 120,000 $121,000 Rent paid for the African Catechetical Institute. $ 262 1808, Appropriation towards the same, . . . 3,000 1819-1826, Ground rent assumed by the Vestry, at $330 per year, 2,210 Additional sum guarantied to it of . . 2,500 $7,972 General Theological Seminary. 1825 or 1826, Appropriation towards the building, $1,000 $3,393 17, the amount received under God- frey Coon's Will paid to the Seminary and $750 interest, 4,143 17 18 1835, Grrant towards its library, . . . $4,000 $9,143 17 Education and Missionary Society. 1833, Missionary branch, $ 300 Ann. allowance of $600 from Dec. 1839 to 1843, 2,400 1844, Missionary Fund of the Diocese, . . . 250 1842, Education Branch, 600 1843, 600 $4,150 Washington College — Hartford, Connecticut. 1833, $5,000 Episcopal Fund of the Diocese. 1836, $30,000 1838, House for the Episcopal residence, . . 20,000 1839 to 1843, Allowance to the Bishop of $1,600 per annum, ...... 6,400 Donations of $1,200 on two different occasions, 2,400 $58,800 City Mission Society. 1832, Annual allowance of $600 from 1832 to 1834, $ 1,200 1834-7, Do of $1,100 . . . 3,300 1837-46, Do of $1,800 . . . 16,200 1845, Donation, .... 600 1847, Do 1,200 $22,500 \ 19 G-rants, donations and loans to Churches. ST. mark's church, new- YORK. 1795, ^12,500 00 1798, (There are no means of ascertaining from the minutes of the Vestry, whether this was an additional grant or a part of the former one,) 5,088 81-j 181 87 . . . . . . 500 00 Two annual donations to Dr. Harris, the Rector, and noticed before under another head, 1,000 00 To which sums the following endowment in land on the Church was added : 5 lots in Warren-street, 1 in Church " 12 in Reade " 3 in Harison " 2 in Greenwich " 5 in Provoost " 28, which were worth, perhaps, in 1847, $131,500, .... 131,500 00 $150,770 68i From the sudden and almost magical change in the value of property between Fulton and Reade streets, in consequence of the advance of business to that portion of the city, the value of the 17 lots in Reade and Warren streets at the present time is probably doubled. 20 Grace Church, New-York. 1804, 1805, 1810, For the organ . 1811, Assignment of a mortgage for Grace Church was also built at the expense of this Corporation, for which the latter received no reimbursement, except in t"he sum arising out of the sales of pews, amounting to $30,000. In return for this. Trinity Church, with a wise forecast, and most benevolent intent, made a still further grant to Grace Church of several lots of land. 7 of which were on Rector-street, $3,750 1,000 15,000 1,500 7,320 50 on Vesey, on Barclay, on Warren, on Chambers, on Church, and on Reade, 25 in all. In referring to the minutes of the Vestry for the prices at which lots sold, the twelve of those which were on Chambers, "Warren, Barclay, and Vesey streets were worth $40,000 at the time ; and the thirteen on Rector, Church, and Reade streets, at least $26,000. The value of the whole number was stated to be, in 1847, $120,000. But at the present time, it is doubtless doubled. 21 St. George's Church. Donations in a variety of ways, . . . So, 104 62 14,000 184 25 30,946 83 Besides the grant of the following lots of land : 8 on Reade and Church streets, 4 on Grreenwich 6 on Murray 9 on Chambers 4 on Warren 1 on Barclay 1 on Beekrnan 33 in aU ; the estimated value of which, in 1847, was $170,000 170,000 8220,235 70 The present value of these lots is at least two-fold of that sum. With sucli liberal arrangements in the case of Grace Church, and such noble gifts and ample endowments to St. Mark's and St. George's, does the charge of nig- gardliness against Trinity Church come from this quarter with decorum and grace ? Could it have j^een supposed that this munificent Corporation would ever be made, as it has lately been in a public assembly, the object of denunciation and menace, of sarcasm, vituperation, and scorn, with tongues steeped in the gall of bitterness, and imaginations luxuriating in street, (« (( « and 22 all tlie wantonness of abuse, by tlie very persons wlio were sharing most largely in its bounty ? Whether sucli a violation of the law of kindness and all the amenities of social life can be reconciled with rifflit feeling, common courtesy, and Christian fellowship, I leave to the calm consideration and righteous j udg- ment, not only of those who hold the truth in love, but even of candid, worldly men. But this is not the oaly view of the case. It is con- fidently believed, and as it is thought on very good grounds, that the united incomes of St. Mark's Church, Grace Church, and St. George's, are equal at least to one-half of the net income of Trinity Church itself. If this conjecture be true, then, after all the suitable arrangements in these parishes are made, and all need- ful expenses incurred, there would still remain a cour siderable surplus beyond their own proper and peculiar wants. Now, what becomes of this surplus ? To what purposes is it applied ? To whom is it a boon, a blessing, and relief? I have never learned, neither have I ever met with a man who had. If, however, it is generously and beneficently applied to the good of others, it can then only be said that their repu- tation for liberality has suffered unjustly, in the public estimation, from their modesty. But, even though they may have acted on the principle of not letting the right hand know what the left hand doeth, it may still be doubted whether, in proportion to their means, they have exercised their bounty on a more liberal scale, or on broader and more comprehensive 23 grounds than Trinity Churcli has done, freely and indiscriminately, not partially and inquisitorially, nor with the nice regard to the peculiar views and party feeling's of those on whom it is bestowed, which too often directs and controls it in the case of others. Oct. 13, 1855. ^^^^^ • Grants, Donations and Loans to other Churches. 1795, St. Peter's, Westchester .... $750 1796, do. do 500 1809, 5 lots of ground on Reade, Chambers and War- ren streets. The value of which was, in 1847, about 22,500 But now at least double. 24,750 1796, Christ Church, Hudson, Columbia Co. . 2,000 1802, do. do. ... 1,500 1796, St. Peter's, Albany 6,250 1801, do. do 300 1797, St. George's, Flushing, L. I. . . . 1,250 1820, do. do. . . . 1,000 1809, 3 lots of ground in Warren-street, and 2 in Chambers-street, worth, in 1847, about . 19,500 But the value of which is now very gi-eatly in- creased. 21,750 1797, G-race, .lamaica, L. I. . . . . ^,250 1809, 3 lots in Lumber-street, and 1 in Rcade-street, worth perhaps, in 1847, about . . . 18,500 But now much more. 1820, 1,000 20,750 24 1792, St. James's, Newtown, L. I. . . . $1,250 1809, 1 lot in Reade-street, 1 in Grreenwich-street, and 2 in Lumber-street, worth perhaps, in 1847, 20,000 But at present much more. 21,250 1797, St. Anne's^ Brooklyn, L, 1. 1,000 1804, do. do. . . , , , 2 000 1809, 2 lots of frroiinr] in diamTiPTS-^strpp.f wnr+li npr- haps, in 1847, But at present, double that sum 1 fi nnn 1798, Christ Church, Poughkeepsie 1,250 1810, do. annual allowance of $250 for 5 years ....... 1,250 1813, do. do. for the Rector 250 1797, Trinity Church, New Rochelle . 1,250 Trinity do. Fishkill Village 1,000 1813, 500 For the Rector 250 St. Philip's Church, in the Highlands 750 1797, St. Peter's do. Peekskill . 750 1797, St. James's do. Goshen 1,250 1814, do. do. do. 625 1833, do. do. do, ... 1,500 1797, To the Church at New-Stamford 500 180% St. Peter's do. Stamford 200 1808, St. John's do. Stamford, Conn. 300 1797, To the Church at Salem or Campden 500 1797, Constantia, Lake Oneida .... 625 1830, do. do. .... 500 1797, To the Church at Ballston 625 25 1797, To the Church at Duanesburgh $750 1804, do. do. do. 1,000 1806, do. do. do. 500 1807, do. do. do. 250 1800, To the Church on Staten Island, north side 1,000 1802, St. Andrew's, Staten Island 1,000 1800, For parsonage at Yonkers 500 1801, do. do. ... 250 1800, do. Rye 750 1813, Christ Church, at Rye 500 St. James's, Milton, Saratoga Co. 248 For the Rector ..... 150 1802, Church at Burlington 60 Church at Otsego .... 60 1803, St. Luke's, Catskill .... 2,000 1804, do. do. .... 1,000 1811, do. do. .... 2,600 1804, St. George's, Schenectady, ^ 1,000 1808, do. do 300 1809, do. do. ... . 300 1804, Church at Philipsburgh . " . 300 Churches at Lansingburgh and Waterford 2,500 St. Paul's Church, at Troy 2,000 Church at North-Hempstead 2,000 Churches at Bedford and New- Castle . 1,000 1808, do. do. do. 150 1804, St. Paul's, Charlton .... 1,000 1836, do. do. .... 1805, St. Stephen's, New- York 300 1807, 2 lots in Warren-street, to ditto, worth, in 1847, 13,000 But now at least double that sum. Bonds granted to the same, amounting to 7,194 26 1813, Donation of $250 do. to the Rector . . . 250 1829, Annual allowance of $600, from Nov. 1, 1828, to Nov. 1, 1842, . . . 8,400 Donation 1,500 1831, do 500 1842 to 1846, Annual allowance of $300 . 1,200 1846, Annual allowance increased to $500 from Nov. 1. $32,594 50 1806, Christ Church, Cooperstown, (on conditions which it is presumed were fulfilled) . 1,500 1806, St. John's, Huntington, L. I. . . 300 1807, do. do. do. . . 250 1807, St. Michael's, Bloomingdale, N. Y., a dona- tion towards the building of . . 2,000 1809 to 1813, Revenue for St. Michael's and St. James' of $500 per annum . . 2,000 1809, Grant of 6 lots of ground to ditto, in Chambers, Vesey, and Warren streets, worth perhaps, in 1847, . . . 39,000 But now at least double that sum. 1809, St. James's, Hamilton Square, N. Y., a donation towards the building of . . 3,000 1813, To satisfy existing debts, ... 800 G-rant of 4 lots of ground to ditto, in ^ Chambers and Barclay streets, worth per- haps, in 1847, . . . . . 26,000 But now double that amount. To these two churches respectively, if they continued connected, a donation of $700 each, 1,400 27 In June, 1 825, by resolution, the allowance to these churches was restricted to the difference between $1,700 and the aggregate amount of rents then payable, or thereafter on any renewals of the leases payable on these 10 lots granted ; and as soon as the rents should in the aggregate amount to $1,700, the annual allowance was to be wholly discontinued. From 1826 the allowance was gradually reduced to about $150 per annum, and entirely ceased in 1832 $900 $75,100 1805, Christ Church, New- York, 4 lots in Barclay-st., worth, in 1847, about .... 24,000 But now at least double that sum. Communion plate, worth, perhaps, . . 100 1809 to. 1846, $500 per annum to the Rector . 18,500 1813, $250 towards the support of the Rector . 250 1814, $250 do do do . . 250 1827 to 1835, Annual allowance to Christ Church of $600 4,800 1835, Grant of 25,000 1846, Allowance to Assistant Minister . . 300 1843 to 1847, Donations to the Rector* . . 1,000 $74,200 1807, Caroline Church, Setauket, ... 800 Islip ^500 Trinity, Utica .... 2,000 1809, 3 lots of ground to ditto, in Reade-street, and 1 in Clark, present value about . . 12,500 Since materially increased. * Noticed before under another head. 28 1807 ±o\j / J Tn ihp nVinrpVi at Portsmouth N H i n,ooo Trinity, Greneva ..... 1,500 loio, do do. for the Rector . 250 1807 St. Peter's and St. Philip's 1,250 1808, Expense of the printing of the Proceedings of the G-eneral Convention* . . 304 21 1809, St. John's, Johnstown, .... 400 1810, Trinity, Newark, N. J., . 1,000 1811 101 J., Zion Church, N. Y., $900 per annum granted to it for 5 years, ..... 4,500 1 Q1 1 loll. do do ..... 720 1 fil do do ..... 5,000 1820, do do ..... 20,000 1831, do do ..... 8,000 1836, do do ..... 1,000 1846, do do annual allowance of $300 from May 1st, 150 $39,370 1811, Trinity, Fairfield, 500 1813, do do ann. all. for 7 years of $250, 1,750 do do do do. for the Rector, 1,750 do do do do. further sum of $250, 1,750 $5,750 1811, Caroline Church, Brookhaven, . 500 And an annual allowance for 2 years of $125, 250 1812, To the Church at Hamilton, St. Lawrence Co., 3,000 1812 to 1846, St. James', Hydo Park, ami. allowance of $250, 8,500 1813, St. James's, North Salem, 1,000 * For many years the expense of printing the Journal and other documents of both the General and State Conventions was defrayed by Trinity Church 29 1813, Trinity Church, Rensselaerville, for the Rector, $250 Clirist Church, Hampton, for the Rector, . 150 St. Paul's, Paris, for the Rector, . , 250 St. Peter's, Aurelius, for the Rector, . 250 1813, Trinity, Athens, 3,000 St. Matthew's, Unadilla, .... 1,400 Christ Church, Manlius, .... 1,000 1818 St. George's, Newburgh, .... 3,000 1819, St. Jolin's, Canandaigua, . . . 1,500 To the Church at Windham, ... 500 1830, Du St. Esprit, annual allowance cf $250, from 1830 to 1843, 3,250 1830 to 1846, St. Andrew's, Harlem, $300 per ann., 4,800 1832, do do do grant of . 4,000 1840, do do do do . 100 $8,900 1831, St. Clement's, annual allowance of $600 from Nov. 1, 1830, to Nov. 1, 1842, . 7,200 1836, do do grant of ... . 15,000 1844, do do the old organ of St. John's given to it. 1842, do do annual allowance of $400 from 1842 to 1846, . . . . . 1,600 $23,800 1820, St. Luke's, New- York, 3 lots in Hudson-street, 1827, do 2 lots adjoining — and 1834, do 3 lots more, value at least, in 1847, 30,000 Smce materially increased. 1827 to 1831, Annual allowance of $400, . . 1,600 1831 to 1842, do do increased to $600 6,600 30 1838, Grant of $10,000 1842 to 1846, Ann. allowance reduced to $400, 1,600 1846 to 1847, do do increased to $500, 500 1846, Donation, 1,500 $56,800 1827 to 1842, St. Mary's, Manhattanville, annual alloAvance of $300, 4,500 1842 to 1845, Annual allowance reduced to $200, 600 1836, 1,289 13 $6,389 13 St. Thomas', New- York, annual allowance of $600 from May 1, 1828, to Dec. 12, 1842, $8,100 do gift of . . . . . 3,000 do grant of .... 20,000 Annual allowance of $300 from Dec. 12, 1842, to same date, 1846, .... 1,200 $32,300 1827, All Saints, N. Y., annual allowance of $600 from July 30, 1827, to Dec. 12, 1842, 9,000 1829, do loan of .... . 8,000 1831, do donation of ... . 5,00D 1838, do grant of .... . 6,000 1839, do additional grant of . ■ . 2,000 1842, do ann. all. of $300 to May, 1845, . 750 1845, do do of $500 from May 1, 1845, to Nov. 1 1846, 750 $31,500 31 1829 to 1842, Church of the Ascension, N. Y., $600 per annum, $7,800 1842 to 1846, $300 per annum, . . . 1,200 1835, 1 lot in Vesey-street, worth, in 1847, about 6,500 But now at least double that sum. $15,500 1835, St. Philip's Church, New-York, . . 9,000 1838, do do . . . 2,000 1826 to 1843, Annual ground rent of $330 paid by Trinity, 5,610 1^43, Annual allowance of $300, ... 300 1843 to 1846, Annual allowance of $400, . . 1,200 $18,110 1831, St. John's, Delhi, 950 1832, St. Peter's, G-reenwich, donation of . . 1,000 Annual allowance of $300, from Feb. 4, 1832, to 1834, 600 1833, Donation of 1,000 1834, Aug. 4, ann. all. of $600, from 1834 to 1842, 4,800 1837, Grant of 25,000 1842, Annual allowance of $500, from 1842 to 1846, 2,000 ,34,400 1832, St. Peter's, Auburn, .... 2,500 St. Luke's, Rochester, $600 per ann. for 2 years, 1,200 1833, St. John's, Brooklyn, grant of . 4,000 1833, Christ Church, Ballston, .... 500 St. Paul's, Albany, grant of . . . 5,000 Trinity, Ulster, 1,000 St. John's, Angelica, Alleghany Co., 800 32 1833, St. John's, Monticello, .... $1,500 St. Andrew's, Walden, .... 600 St. Mark's, Hunt's Hollow, ... 500 St. John's, Sheldon, donation of . . 300 Trinity, Watertown, grant of . . . 1,000 1834, do do do . . . 500 1833, St. John's, Medina, .... 1,000 St. Paul's, Mosquito Cove, L. I., . . 500 1834, Calvary, Cairo, Greene co., . . . 500 St. Mark's, Le Roy, Genessee co., . . 500 Trinity, Constantia, Oswego co. . . 500 Trinity, Hector, 200 1833, St. Paul's, Syracuse, .... 1,000 1834, do do 800 Grace, Rochester, ..... 3,500 St. John's, Sodus, Wayne co., . . . 450 St. Peter's, Westfield, Chautauque co., . 320 St. Anne's, Fishkill Landing, ... 500 1837, do do do . . . 250 1838, do do do . . ' . 500 1834, Christ Church, Gilbertsville, Otsego co., . 400 Trinity Church, Elmira, Chemung co., . 500 1836, do do do . . 300 1834, Zion Church, Greene, Chenango co., . . 500 Grace Church, Mount Upton, Livingston co., 250 Trinity Church, Seneca Falls, Seneca co., . 500 1836, do do do . 500 1834, Christ Church, Sherburne, Chenango co., . 500 1833, St. John's, Kingston, Ulster co., . . 1,000 1837, do do do . . . 500 1839, do do do . . . 200 1833, Zion Church, Greene, Wayne co., . . 500 33 1833, Emmanuel Church, Norwich, Chenango co., $500 1836, do. do. do. . 250 1833, Grrace Church, Whiteplains, Westchester oo., 750 1833, St. Matthew's, Jersey City, N. J., . . . 1,000 1834, St. Paul's, Turin, 600 Church of the Nativity, N. Y., . . .4,000 1835, do. do 1,000 Annual allowance of $300 for about 10 years, . 3,000 1838, 1,000 1846, 300 $9,300 Annual allowance increased $100 from Nov. 1. 1835, Zion Church, Wappinger's Creek, Dutche.ss CO., . 500 1836, do. do. do. . . 250 1835, Emmanuel Church, Little Falls, Herkimer co., 1,500 St. John's, Cohoes, Albany co., . . . 500 St. Mark's, Jamesville, Onondaga co., . . 400 1834, Christ Church, Gruilford, Chenango co., . . 500 Zion Church, Rome, Oneida co., . . . 500 St. James's, Catlin, Tioga co., .... 300 St. Michael's, Geneseo, Livingston co., . . 500 1835, Christ Church, Danby, Tompkins co., . 250 St. Paul's, Tompkinsville, Staten Island, . . 2,000 1833, Christ Church, Oswego, 1,000 Christ Church, Walton, Delaware co., . . 500 St. Peter's, Oriskany, Oneida co., . . . 500 The Apostolic Church, Geddes, Onondaga co., . 500 St. James's, Hammond Port, Steuben co., . . 500 St. Thomas's, Bath, Steuben co., . . .500 St. Paul's, Durham, Greene co., . . . 500 St. Paul's, Brownville, Jefferson co., . . 500 34 1833, Trinity, Fredonia, Chautauque co., . . . $500 St. Paul's, Big Flats, Tioga co., . . . . 500 Calvary, Homer, Cortland co., . . . 500 Christ Church, Morristown, St. Lawrence co., . 500 1835, Zion Church, Avon, Livingston co., . . . 500 Christ Church, Lockport, Niagara co., . 1,000 St. John's, Fort Hamilton, King's co., . . 500 Trinity Church, Centreville, Ontario co., . . 300 St. John's, Medina, Orleans co., . . . 1,500 1835, St. John's, Troy, 1,000 St. Thomas', Mamaroneck, . . . .300 1836, do. do 500 Calvary, New- York, 1,600 1837, do ann. all. of $400 from 1837 to 1842, . 2,000 1842, do do S300 from 1842 to 1846, . 1,200 1847, do Grant of 18,000 1836, Emmanuel Church at Otsego, Otsego co., . . 750 St. Paul's, Holland Patent, Onondaga co., . 750 Trinity, Potsdam, St. Lawrence co., . . 1,500 St. John's, Ellicotsville, Cattaraugus co., . . 600 Christ Church, Oyster Bay, L. I., . . . 600 St. George's, Astoria, 1,000 St. Paul's, Waterloo, Seneca co., . . . 250 1837, do do do ... . 400 1836, St. Paul's, Sing Sing, Westchester co., , . 2,000 Trinity, Brooklyn, L. I., 1,500 St. Paul's, Lewistown, Niagara co., . . . 600 St. Paul's, Peekskill, Westchester co., . . 750 1837, do do do ... . 250 1836, St. Mark's, Candor, Tioga co., . . . . 400 St. Luke's, Half Moon, Mechanicsville, Sara- toga CO., ....... 350 St. Paul's, Hoboken, N. J., . . . . 1,000 St. John's, Mount Morris, Livingston co., . 750 35 St. James's, Batavia, Grenesee co., . $1,000 St. Peter's, Bainbridge, Chenango co., . . 300 St. Stephen's, Olean, Cattaraugus co., . . 750 Christ Church, Paterson, Putnam co., . . 750 St. Mark's, PennYann, Yates CO., . . .1,000 Trinity, Fayetteville, Onondaga co., . . 400 Zion, Palmyra, Wayne co., . . . . 500 1837, St. Paul's, Saratoga, 100 St. Bartholomew's, N. Y., ann. all. of $600 from 1837 to Dec. 12, 1842, 3,300 20,000 1842, Ann. all. of $300, from Dec. 12, 1842, to May 1, 1846, . . . ^ 1,050 1846, Ann. all. of $600, from May 1 to Nov. 1, .300 $24,650 1837, St. George's, Hempstead, . . . .500 St. John's, Cold Spring Harbour, . . .500 Trinity, West Troy, 800 200 St. John's, Johnson's Settlement, Chemung co., 300 Christ Church, Tarrytown, Westchester co., . 1,000 1837, St. Anne's, Port Jackson, Montgomery co., . 1,500 1838, do do do ... 500 St. Paul's, Poughkeepsie, .... 2,500 1839, do do 2,500 St. Paul's, Waterloo, Seneca co., . . . 400 St. Peter's, Peekskill, W. C, . . . . 1,000 St. Paul's, Flatbush, King's co., L. I., . . 1,000 St. Peter's, Lithgow, Dutchess co., . . . 200 Grace, Lyons, Wayne co., . . . . 2,000 1838, Church of the Messiah, N. Y., ann. all. of $300 to commence Dec. 1, 1837, . . . .300 36 1839, $150 paid $150 Ann. all. to commence anew from Oct. 1, 1838. 1838, Church of the Annunciation, N. Y., ann. all. of $600 from 1838 to 1842, . . . .2,400 1839, 6,000 1842, Ann. all. of $400 from 1842 to 1846, . . 1,600 $9,400 St. Luke's, Brooklyn, 1,500 1843, Churcli of the Redemption, N. Y., . . .375 1844 to 1846, ... .... 800 1845, St. Mark's, Williamsburgh, L. I., ann. all. of $300 from May 1, 1845, to Nov. 1, 1846, . 450 1845, Prot. Ep. Ch. Miss. Society for Seamen, ann. all. of $250 from 1844 to 1846, . . . .500 1846, Additional allowance of $250 from Nov. 1, 1846. 1845, St. Simon's, N. Y., 200 1846, do do 200 1845, Holy Apostles', N. Y., 300 1846, do. do 5,000 St. G-eorge the Martyr, N. Y., . . . . 250 1846, Church of the Messiah, N. Y., . . . • 125 St. L,uke's, Rossville, Staten Island, . . 1,500 Christ Church, Troy, 2,500 Chapel for Soldiers, on Governor's Island, appro- priation made, but not yet paid, . . . 500 Christ Church, Sag Harbour, .... 500 Christ Church, Marlborough, Ulster co., . . 300 Grace, Cherry Valley, Otsego co 300 St. Thomas's, Hamilton, Madison co., . • 300 St. James's, Fort Edward, Washington co., . 300 St. Mark's, Malone, Franklin co. . . • 400 37 Church of the Cross, Ticonderoga, Essex co., . $400 St. Paul's, Pleasant Valley, Dutchess co., . 500 1847, Church of St. George the Martyr, N. Y., . , 250 Church of the Grood Shepherd, N. Y., . . 200 St. Mark's, Willi^msburgh, .... 200 GHfts, Grants and Loans from 1847 to 1855 inclusive. Jan. 11, 1847, Christ Church, Dr. Lyell, . . 250 Annual allowance of ,$400 from May 1, • 1848, to Nov. 1, 1855, . . . 3,000 $3,250 April 12, Church of the Epiphany, to the Rector, 75 Annual allowance of $400 from the 1st of May, 1847, to Nov. 1, 1849, . 600 1850, Donation, $300 .... 300 Annual allowance of $300 from 1852 to 1855, 900 June 12, 1848, 6,500 $8,375 St. And rew's, Harlem, annual allow- ance of $300 from 1847 to 1855, . 2,400 Holy Apostles', annual allowance of $300 from 1847 to 1855, . . 2,400 April 12, Holy Evangelists', to the Rector, . 75 Annual allowance of $400 from the 1st of May, 1847, to the 1st of Nov., 1849, .... 600 June 12, 1848, 6,500 38 June 12, 1848, Annual allowance of $300 from Nov. 1, 1849, to Nov. 1, 1851, . . $600 Annual allowance of $500 from 1851 ^ol85i, .... 1^500 Annual allowance of $1,200 from 1854 to 1855, . . . 1,200 For the purchase of St. George's Cha- pel, in Beekman-street and ground, made over to the Church of the Holy Evangelists — assessments, re- pairs, alterations, and other ex- penses, .... 55,660 33 Besides an engagement to build a Sunday School-room after the wid- ening and regulating of Cliff-street. $66,135 33 St. Matthew's Church, to the Rector, 75 Annual allowance of $400 from the 1st of May, 1847, to the 1st of Nov., 1849, 600 Annual allowance of $300 from Nov. 1, 1849, to Jan. 1854, . . 1,250 Annual allowance of $100 additional for five years, to commence 1st of May next — of this increased allow- ance of $500, the sum of $750 is, I suppose, already paid, . . 750 $2,675 Zion, N. Y., annual allowance of $300 from 1847 to 1855, . . . 2,400 Nov. 11, 1850, St. Georgc'fj, Bee'kman-street, to main- tain services, 400 April 12, Jan., 1854, 39 June 28, 1847, Church of the Nativity, towards the building of the same, $5,000 Nov. 26, 1849, Towards do . 4,000 Jan. 8, 175 Oct. 8, 175 Nov. 12, 175 May 13, 1850, 350 June 10, 1,211 Oct. 3, 1853, For Parochial School, 200 May 8, 1854, 150 May 24, Towards Parochial School, 100 Nov. 13, do do do . . 200 March 12, 1855, 150 Oct. 8, Annual allowance of 8300 from 1S47 250 to May 1, 1852, .... 1,350 Annual allowance of S400 from May 1, 1852, to Nov. 1, 1855, . 1,400 ^4,886 Sept. 13, 1847, St. John's, Stoclcport, Columbia Co., All Saints', annual allowance of $500 1,000 from 1847 to 1855, . 4,000 St. Stephen's, annual allowance of $500 from 1847 to 1855, . 4,000 June 14, 1847, Trinity Church, Albany, annuity of $300 for five years. Sept. 13, Aimuity increased to $350 until the Vestry pay the sum of $5,000, . 5,000 July 12, 1847, St. Cornelius's, Grovernor's Island, to Jime 27, 1849, donations, $500 . Jan. 13, 1851, donation, $200 .... 500 200 40 Jan. 12, 1852, . ^200 Feb. 14, 1853, 200 Jan. 9, 1854, 200 Jan. 8, 1855, . ....... 200 il,500 Jan. 10, 1848, St. Luke's, New- York, . . 1,300 Continuance of the ann. allowance of $400 to the 1st of May, 1850, . 800 Oct. 13, 1851, 400 From 1851 to 1855, Annual allowance of $900 . 3,600 July 9, 1855, Rev;, Mr. Tuttle, .... 500 $6,600 St. Philip's, annual allowance of $400, from 1847 to 1855, . . . 3,200 April 23, 1849, Grant of 500 $3,700 St. Peter's, annual allowance of $400, from 1847 to 1855, .... 3,200 Feb. 14, 1848, Church of the Messiah, colored congre- gation, donation, .... 125 Feb. 12, 1849, 125 Dec. 10, 125 July 15, 1850, 125 Oct. 24, 1853, from the 1st of May next, . . 200 Jan. 9, 1854, 200 Feb. 13, 200 Dec. 11, 125 $1,225 41 Feb. 14, 1848, St. Simon's, Grerman Church, New- York, donation, ..... 200 Mar. 12, 1849, 200 Jan. 9, 1854, 200 Dec. 11, 200 Feb. 14, 1848, To the Church at Honesdale, marble font, designed by Ball Hughes. April 10, Mrs. Dr. Lyell, . . . .250 May 8, Mrs. Wm. H. R 100 May 8, Grace Church, Brooklyn, annuity of il,000 for 15 years, . . 15,000 June 12, St. Paul's, Richmond, Western N. Y. . 500 Christ Church, Shelburne, do. . 400 June 12, 1848, Church of the Holy Martyrs, . . 200 Oct. 8, 1849, 200 July 10, Donation, 200 April 8, 1850, 700 May 13, 200 Nov. Ih 200 $1,700 June 12, 1848, Grace Church, South Oyster-Bay, an annuity of $100 for 4 years, . . 400 Sept. 19, James A. Sparks, Clerk of St. Paul's Chapel, 300 42 Sept. 19, Church of the Annunciation, annual allowance of $400, from 1846 to 1848, $800 Do $900, from 1848 to March, 1853, 4,500 Afterwards interest on $20,000, till that sum be paid, . . . 20,000 Mar. 21, 1853, 5,000 $30,300 St. Clement's, ann. allowance of $400, from 1847 to 1855, . . $3,200 St. Mary's, Manhattanville, ann. all. of $200, from 1848 to 1855, . . 1,400 St. Barnabas', N. Y., ann. all. of $200. Mar. 12, 1854, Rev. Mr. Weaver, to pay off debt of St. Barnabas', .... 200 Church of the Advent, ann. allowance of $200, from May 1, 1847, to Nov. 1, 1855, 1,500 Sept. 17, 1848, Trmity Church, Granville, annuity of $75 till the principal of $1,000 be paid, 1,000 Oct, 9, 1848, Church of the Intercession, Carmans- ville, annuity of $100 till the princi- pal of $1,000 bo paid, . . . 1,000 Annuity of $200, from Nov. 1, 1853, to Nov. 1, 1855, .... 400 43 Nov. 11, The Rev. Mr. Clapp, . . . $100 Jan. 12, 1852, 100 Deo. 11, Mrs. Dr. Rudd, .... 125 St. John's, Clyde, Western N. Y., . 250 Church at Clayville, Oneida co.. Western N. Y., annuity of $100 until $1,000 be paid, 1,000 St. James's, Pulaski, . . . ,200 Bethesda Church, Saratoga, an annuity of 8200 for 5 years, . . ,1,000 Mar. 12, 1855, Emmanuel Church, N. Y. . , 800 Ann. all. of $300, from 1847 to 1855, 2,400 June 10, 1855, 100 $3,300 Feb. 12, 1849, Christ Church, Sag Harbor, . . 700 July 9, 1855, In four annual instalments of $200, . 800 $1,500 Feb. 12, St. Paul's, WUliamsburgh, . . 200 Dec, 10, 200 $400 Seamen's Mission, $600 per annum, from 1847 to 1853, . . . 3,600 do $800 per annum, from May 1, 1853, to Nov. 1, 1855, . 2,000 $5,600 April 9, 1849, Plot of ground in Trinity Cemetery, to ' , the N. Y. Institution for the blind. Sept. 16, 1851, do for the Orphan Asylum. 44 Nov. 10, Plot of ground in Trinity Cemetery, for the Prot. Epis. Mutual Benefit Society. Dec. 8, do for the Rector of St. Ste- phen's, and his successors. Do to the Society for the relief of aged and indigent females. Mar. 27, 1854, do for the Orphan's Home. April 23, 1849, Emmanuel Church, Adams, W. N. Y., $250 Oct. 8, Grace Church, Norfolk, . . .500 Oct. 8, St. John the Baptist, annual allowance of $200, from 1849 to 1855, 1,200 Oct. 14, 1850, 800 $^2,000 Nov. 26, Rev. H. JeUiff, . ... 100 Sept. 17, 1850, 100 Nov. 11, 100 Feb. 10, 1851, ........ 100 Nov. 10, 100 May 9, 1853, 100 June 11, 1855, . . 50 $650 Feb. 11, 1850, Church of the Transfiguration, annual allowance of $200, from Nov. 1, 1849, to May 1, 1852, . . .500 Do of $300, from May 1, 1852, to Nov. 1, 1855, .... 1,050 Mar. 8, 1852, 200 Sept. 25, 200 $1,950 45 Feb. 11, 1850, St. Paul's, Owego, W. N. Y., $70 per annum for 8 years, . . . $560 St. Stephen's, Schuylerville, . . 200 May 13, Church of All Angels', . . .150 Annual allowance of $200, from 1852 to 1855, 700 S850 June 10. Trinity, Windham, 8200, increased May 9, 1853, to . . . .300 To Samuel Maynard, a member of the choir of Trinity Church, . . 150 Christ Church, Manlius, . . .100 July 15, St. Thomas', Mamaroneck . . 600 Sept. 17, 1850, St. Paul's, Flatbush, . . .250 Church of the Good Shepherd, annual allowance of $200 from 1847 to 1855, 1,600 Rev. Ralph Hoyt .... 100 Mar. 10, 1851, 100 April 12, 1852, 100 Oct. 11, 100 Mar. 14, 1853, 100 $2,100 Oct. 14, St. James's, Theresa, W. N. Y., . . 250 Nov. 2, Christ Church, ^yllitehall, . . 1,000 Feb. 11, Rev. Benjamin Evans, . . 100 .Jan. 13, 1851, 100 Mar. 27, 1854, 300 46 Feb. 10, Bishop Upfold, an annuity of $250 for three years, on account of past ser- vices in the Parish, . . . $750 Dr. Ogilby, on his journey to Europe in pursuit of hoalxh, . . . 500 Mar. 10, Grift for the design of the church at Copake, Columbia county, . . 100 Jan. 12, 1852, 150 Ap. 14, St. Paul's, Kinderhook, . . . 1,000 May 28, 1851, Christ Church, Troy, . . . 2,500 Foreign Mission at Cape Palmas, an annuity of $250 until $5,000 be paid, 5,000 Ofi'ering at the Communion for Dio- cesan Missions .... 3,000 July 14, Trinity Church, Watertown, . . 600 Trinity, Redwood, .... 200 Dr. Schroeder, .... 1,000 Mar. 8,1852, .750 July 14, St. Luke's, Brooklyn, in six annual in- stalments, ..... 450 Oct. 13, 1851, Grace Church, Norfolk, for the Rev. Mr. Hanson, ... 212 50 Nov. 10, Grace Church, Canton, . . 250 Nov. 14, Annuity in perpetuity of $3,000 to Geneva College, until $50,000 be * paid, 50,000 Dec. 8, St. James's, "Williamsburgh, colored congregation, .... 100 Grace Church, South Middletow^n, . 1,750 Grace, Albany, in two equal annual payments, ] ,000 Dec. 10 Grace Church, Nunda, . . . $400 Jan. 12, 1852, St. Paul's, Brooklyn, ... 200 Dec. 13, 200 Dec. ] 9, 1853, Allowance to be continued of $200, . 200 Dec. 11, 1854, 200 $800 Feb. 9, Zion Church, Rome, .... 1,000 April 12, All Saints', Brooklyn, ... 300 June 14, 1852, Trinity Church, Fishkill, ... 500 Trinity College, Toronto, Canada West, 1,000 July 12, Calvary, Utica, .... 500 Grace, Waterville, towards Church and Parsonage, .... 1,000 Grace, South Oyster-Bay, . . . 400 St. Mary's, Beekman, . . . 400 Church and school, at Dearman, . 1,000 St. George's, Flushing, in four annual instalments, .... 2,000 Nov. 8, Trinity, Fairfield, .... 100 Dec. 13, St. Thomas', Hamilton, Western N.Y., 200 Rev. Mr. Leonard, .... 150 Jan. 16, 1853, Rev. Mr. Gallaudet, for Deaf Mutes, 300 Dec. 19, do 300 Dec. 11, 1854, St. Ann's, do., . 200 $800 St. George the Martyr, from May 1, 1853, to May 1, 1854, . . . 300 Feb. 14, 1853, St. John's, Clyde, Western N. Y., 800 48 * . St. John the Evangelist, i^. Y., from Nov. 1, 1853, to Nov. 1, 1855, an- nual allowance of $200, . . $400 St. Timothy, N. Y., do do . 400 Holy Innocents, N. Y., do $250, 500 Feb. 14, Church of the Redeemer, at Yorkville, an annuity for 5 years of $250. April 9, 1855, Interest on the mortgage for $5,000, $350, 5,000 Do also on the second, for $4,000, $280, 4,000 $9,000 Feb. 14, St. James's, Scarsdale, towards a par- sonage, .... . 1,000 Mar. 14, Church at Coxsackie, . . 500 St. Peter's, Forrestville, Western N. Y., 250 St. Mark's, Newark, Western N. Y., . 500 Nashotah Mission, in five annual in- stalments, ..... 2,500 Mar. 21, Church of the Messiah, Rhinebeck, . 1,000 May 9, Mrs. Dr. Ogilby, an annuity of $200 for 5 yeats, . . , . • • 1,000 Oct. 3, For Diocesan Missionary F«*id, 1853, 50 Dec. 19, 1853, Annual allowance to Mrs. Dr. Parks, $1,000, 2,000 Jan. 9, 1854, St. James's, Goshen, annuity of $140 for 5 years, ^^ . . . * > • 700 Zion ChurcV^rady Hill, annuity of $140 for 5 years, . . . 700 * # 49 Jan. 9, 1849, St. Matthew's, N. Y., annually $200, to commence the 1st of May next, 1,000 Jan. 9, 1854, St. Mark's, Williamsburgh, . . 6,000 Annual allowance of $300, from 1847 , to 1855, 2,400 * $8,400 Dec. 11, Annual allowance of $1,200 to the Provisional Bishop, until condition- ally the principal sum of $20,000 be paid, 20,000 Feb. 12, 1855, Dr. Bowden's family, an annuity of $100 for 5 years, .... 500 April 16, Mrs. Moses Marcus, .... 250 July 9, Church at Sharon Springs, . . 500 Rev. A. Guion, '300 Church of the Messiah, G-reenbush, Rensselaer co., . . . . 1,500 Christ Church, Hudson, . . . 5,000 St. Luke's, Jamestown, Chautauque county, ..... 1,000 All Saints', Milton, to the Rev. Mr. Hawksley, 300 Annual allowance to Mrs. Bishop Wainwright, from 1854 to 1855, . 2,000 There is aaother striking instance of the liberality and zeal of this venerable Corporation, which is de- serving of particular notice. On the Sunday after the Consecration of Trinity Chapel, which took place on the 17th of April, the Rector of the parish preached a sermon appropriate to the occasion, and concluded his * 50 discourse in the following earnest and impassioned strain, whicli seems almost to have been prophetic : " But, my brethren, carried away by the subject, and scarce- ly knowing where to stop, I have made a hurried sketch of the past, and have left but a moment for the future. Man's foresight is but folly, and that future is solely in the hands of Grod, to whom we cheerfully submit it. But liow beautiful and glorious does it nevertheless appear ! A new and important work is yet before us. In the course of things, and in the providence of G-od, nearly the whole of the lower part of the city has been brought under our spiritual care, and as it has thus become our especial province, so it is a source of grateful reflection that we have it in our power to discharge the duty which is set before us. The condition and character of our congregations have materially changed, but the population has not decreased. The gospel may still be preached to the poor, for whom our Lord had a peculiar concern ; to the strangers who visit our city, and who there find it as freely given as it was freely received ; to the young men engaged in mercantile or mechanical pursuits, who, in many instances, far from their paternal roof, and the wholesome influences of home, are exposed to temptations in every form, and who therefore stand in especial need of the pastoral care and ten- der guidance of the ministers of God ; to the casual attendants led thither by curiosity or convenience, who, unaccustomed to o?ir service, and ignorant of our system, are there very often disabused of their prejudices, and receive their first impres- sions in favor of the Church. With these several classes our church.cs may once more be filled to overflowing. " With wisdom and liberality also on the part of the Vestry - in establishing Parochial Schools, and in carrying out all need- ful arrangements for the prosecution of this work ; with self- 51 denial and patience, with untiring labor, with unconquerable perseverance, and unquenchable zeal on the part of the clergy ; with the hearty co-operation of zealous young men and devout and benevolent women in this Missionary cause ; and above all, with the help of Grod, without whom all labor is fruitless, and all efforts are vain ; it is impossible to conceive, though delightful to anticipate, the amount-of good which may yet be done." These pious wishes and heartfelt aspirations seem about' to receive their fulfilment much sooner than was hoped for at the time of their utterance. What was then only a fond expectation, arising out of the well-known liberality and zeal of Trinity Church, has now, in a measure, become a blessed reality. She has i*eadily adapted herself to her new relations, and en- larged her plans to fulfil the measure of her duties. The number of the clergy in the parish has been nearly doubled, with a view to the increase of its usefulness, and a more thorough attention to the spiritual and temporal wants of the poor and the needy, the helpless and friendless, the desolate and oppressed. New Sunday Schools have been formed, with an auspicious beginning, in addition to those which are already in active and successful operation. A com- mittep had already been appointed in reference to the establishment of Parochial Schools, for the purpose of uniting religious instruction with intellectual culture, of sanctifying all the faculties and powers of the mind, and of mating knowledge a blessing and not a means of perversion and abuse, as it too often is in its unhah 52 lowed state, if not an absolute curse. There is like- wise a disposition on the part of the Vestry to furnish every reasonable facility, and provide all additional aid which may be found needful, for the furtherance of the great work which is set before them, without an undue and " disproportioned" retrenchment in their bounty to others. And let it here be remarked, so far as our own Com- munion is concerned, that with one solitary exception, this field has been left to Trinity Church alone, and abandoned by all others ; that even this exception, of St. George's Chapel in Beekman street, would not have existed but for the kind interposition of Trinity Church, which saved it from destruction, when it was about to be sold and razed to the ground ; that after it was rescued and placed under a separate organiza- tion, it could not have been kept up except by her fostering care and continual aid ; that this aid has since been increased to the full amount of the salary of the Rector, and that being thus relieved from its heaviest burden, it has now been made a Free Church, under the care of the same self-denying man, who is pre-emiueutly fitted for its peculiar and important services. Is it meet and becoming then in those who have deserted the ground which Trinity Church so nobly maintains, to taunt her with sluggish inactivity and unfaithfulness in her duties ? These liberal arrangements, and this ample provision for the relief of the spiritual destitution of a large body 53 of people who would otherwise have had no helper nor guide, is noticed in connection with the enumera- tion of her bounties, since the objects for which they were made, were not merely of a parochial, but in a great measure of a public and missionary character. According to the statement in the History of Trinity Church, the aggregate amount of its gifts, loans, and grants, rating the lands at their prices in 1847, con- siderably exceeded Two Millions of Dollars. From the very material increase within the last few years, in the value of the lands with which many of the churches about half a century since were so amply endowed, and from the additional bounties which in such a va- riety of ways have recently been bestowed, this amount may very safely be stated at the present tim'e at Two Millions and a half; an amount more than equal, as is verily believed, to two-thirds of the value of the Estate (excepting the church edifices and burial-grounds) which now actually remains. Now, could it have been supposed, with these facts before the eyes of the world, and these benefits rising up to the memory of all who had gratitude enough to feel them, that the charge of niggardly parsimony and miserly hoarding could ever be brought against Tiinity Church ? Is it nothing to have had public spirit enough to co-operate by its bounty, in the improve- ment of the city wherein it was placed ? Is it nothing to have contributed to the propagation of the gospel at an early day in the destitute portions of the Dio- ces^e, and in later times to the City Mission, the Sea- 54 meii'd Mission, and all the kindred objects both at home and abroad ? Is it nothing to have relieved clergymen whose incomes were inadequate to their support, and of others bowed down with infirmity and age, who would otherwise have had no relief in the evil days which were coming upon them, and no solace in their sufferings and wants ? Is it nothing that the faithful men who had spent the best portion of their lives in the immediate service of the Parish itself, should have been enabled by its bounty to pass the rest of their days in freedom from anxiety, and to end them in com- fort and peace 1 Is it nothing that the families of those Avho had died in its service were neither forgotten nor neglected, l)ut soothed by its sympathy in their sor- rows, and a measure of bounty unknown in all others ? Is it nothing that gifts and grants have been made for the promotion of religion and learning to a variety of Institutions, from the very elements of knowledge in primary schools to the highest perfection of it in our colleges ? Is it notliing to have contributed largely towards the dignity and comfort of those whom God has made overseers of the Church, in this extensive and laborious Diocese? Is it nothing that the descendants of the poor, the helpless, and friendless Africans have been remembered, and in some reasonable measure relieved in their common education and their spiritual wants ? Is it nothing that churches in our city have been reared prematurely, which in the absence of the bounty of Trinity Parish might have waited for a long course of years without being brought into existence ; 55 that others throughout the State, with so feeble a be- gmning as scarcely to have lived either in conception or hope, have been brought into being, and are now healthy and strong ; and that scores of them have been relieved and saved, which would otherwise have per- ished as an untimely abortion 1 There is not enough, however, in all this, with the vastness of its amount, and the variety of its details, to satisfy the minds of the perverse and captious, nor of those perhaps in some instances, at least, who enter- tain no feelings towards Trinity Church but those of respect and good- will. She has nob indeed done all that unreasonable desire could covet, nor inventive in- genuity suggest, nor unlimited power and boundless benevolence could accomplish. Her bounty has not taken the form in which each one has seen fit to mould it, nor flowed in the channel into which each one would turn it. But nevertheless it will be acknowledged by all liberal and candid men, that it has been a great and a wide-spread blessing. But after all, who are the proper judges of the dis- position of her bounty, but the dispensers themselves ? Here are two and twenty men freely elected every year by the Parish, and chosen with especial regard to their fitness for the office, and who are responsible for the faithfal discharge of it to their constituents, their conscience, and their God. They give, to a very great ree, their time, their attention, and thoughts to the vast and complicated concerns of this great Corpora- 56 tion without compensation,* and very often to the de. triment of their private aifairs. They regard them- selves as the stewards of a sacred trust, for the execu- tion of which as for every other gift of God, they are accountable to the Giver. And they endeavor to ad- minister it with liberality and kindness, yet with wis- dom and prudence, not squandering in a day what should be a perennial blessing throughout all genera" tions. They may sometimes be mistaken in their views, and err in their course, for they are fallible men, but nevertheless there are those among them who in strength of intellect, in soundness of judgment, in prac- tical wisdom and practical benevolence, and in all the qualities of mind and heart which constitute excellence, as men and as Christians, may be advantageously com- pared with the proudest of their objectors. * The Comptroller and Clerk alone excepted. 57 WARDENS AND VESTRYMEN OF TRINITY CHURCH, From the foundation of the Parish to the present time. Thomas Wenham,* "Warden from 1697 to 1704. Vestryman from 1704 to 1706. Warden again from 1706 to 1709. Ves- tryman again in 1709. Coin. Robert Lurting,t Warden in 1697. Vestryman from 1698 to 1706. Warden again in 1706. Vestryman again from 1707 to 1714. Coin. Caleb Heathcote,* Vestryman from 1697 to 1699 ; and also from 1711 to 1714. William Merret,^ Vestryman from 1697 to 1700. John Tudor,ll " in 1697, and also from 1700 to 1703, and re-elected again in 1705. James Emott, Vestryman from 1697 to 1711, and re-elected in 1719. William Morris,ir Vestryman from 1697 to 1704. Thomas Clarke,* *, Vestryman in 1697. Warden from 1698 to 1700. Ebenezer Wilson, Vestryman from 1697 to 1705. Samuel Burt, " in 1697. James Evets, " from 1697 to 1700. * Member of his Majesty's Council. tMany years Alderman of Dock AVard, first Ward of the City, and Mayor of New- York from 1722 to 1735. JMember of Council and Mayor of the City from 1711 to 1714. 6 Member of Council, and Member of Assembly for several years for the City of New- York, and Mayor of the same from 1704 to 1709. II Recorder of New- York from 1704 to 1709. IT Chief Justice of the Province. * * Member of Council. 58 Nathaniel Marston, Vestryman in 1697, in 1705, from 170S to 1718, in 1724, and from 1727 to 1731. Michael Howden, Vestryman from 1697 to 1702, and from 1704 to 1710. John Crooke, Vestryman from 1697 to 1703, and again from 1705 to 1708. Warden from 1708 to 1713. Vestryman again in 1713. William Sharpas,* Vestryman from 1697 to 1699, from 1704 to 1706, and again in 1710. Lawrence Read, Vestryman in 1697, and in 1709. David .Tamison,t " from 1697 to 1704. Warden from 1704 to 1706. Vestryman again from 1706 to 1709, and Warden again from 1709 to 1714. William Huddleston, Vestryman from 1697 to 1714. Gabriel Ludlow, " in 1697, from 1700 to 1702, and in 1704. Thomas Burroughs, Vestryman from 1697 to 1702. William Janeway, " in 1697, and from 1702 to 1704. John Merret, Vestryman in 1697. Jeremiah Tothill, Vestryman from 1698 to 1705. Matthew Clarkson,! " from 1698 to 1700, and in 1702. William Nicol^ Vestryman from 1698 to 1702. William Anderson, " from 1698 to 1717. Richard AVillet, » from 1698 to 1700. Warden from 1700 to 1704. Vestryman again from 1704 to 1707, Warden again in 1707, and Vestryman again froni 1708 to 1721. * Member of Council. t Recorder of the City from 1712 to 172.5, and Attorney - General of the Province, t Secretary of the Province, 1G98. 1^ .■\ssociatc Judge, Member of Assembly from Suffolk County, and repeatedly Speaker of the House of Assembly. I 59 Robert Walters, Vestryman in 1698. Giles Gaudinean, " in 1698. Jonathan Hutchins, " from 1699 to 1702. Jonathan Guest, " from 1699 to 1701. Thomas Ives, " from 1699 to 1703, and from 1706 to 1708. Lancaster Syms, Vestryman from 1699 to 1704, and in 1705. Roger Baker, Vestryman from 1700 to 1702. Robert Skelton, " from 1700 to 1703. Peter Mathews, " in 1701, and in 1705. Jonathan Corbet, " from 1702 to 1705. William Peartree,* Vestryman from 1702 to 1704. Warden from 1704 to 1706. Vestryman again from 1706 to 1710, and again in 1711. William Smith,t Vestryman from 1702 to 1704. Robert Lettice Hooper, $ Vestryman in 1702, and from 1719 to 1725. Jon. Theobalds, Vestryman from 1702 to 1704. Jon. Burrow, " from 1703 to 1705. Thomas Davenport, " from 1703 to 1710, and from 1711 to 1717. Richard Harris, Vestryman in 1703, from 1706 to 1709, and from 1710 to 1715. Matth. Ling, Vestryman in 1703. Earth. Le Reux.!! in 1703, and from 1709 to 1714 William Bradford, Vestryman from 1703 to 1710. * Mayor of the City from 1703 to 1708. + Alderman of the West yVard for several years. t Colonel in the British Army. 9 Assistant Alderman of the East Ward. II Assistant Alderman of the West \^'ard. 60 Sampson Shelton Broughton,* Vestryman in 1704, from 1706 to 1708, and from 1709 to 1712. Daniel Honan, Vestryman from 1704 to 1706. John HutchinSjt " in 1704. Patrick Crawford, " in 1704. Thomas Clarke,* " from 1705 to 1715. Warden in 1715. Vestryman again from 1716 to 1718. Warden again in 1718. Vestryman again from 1720 to 1726, and again from 1727 to 1735. Col. Bayard,^ Vestryman from 1705 to 1712. Elias Neau, " from 1705 to 1714. May Biokley,ll Vestryman from 1705 to 1714. Warden from 1714 to 1719. Vestryman again from 1719 to 1721, and Warden again from 1721 to 1724. Mr. Bret, Vestryman from 1706 to 1709. Mr. Regnier, " from 1706 to 1709, from 1710 to 1712, and in 1713 Mr. Leathes, Vestryman from 1706 to 1708. Thomas Byerly, " in 1708, and in 1710. Cornelius Lodge, " from 1708 to 1720. Abraham Moore, " from 1709 to 1715 William White, " from 1710 to 1712. Peter Barberie, Jr., Vestryman in 1710, and again in 1712. Warden from 1713 to 1715. Vestryman again from 1715 to 1722. Warden again from 1722 to 1726. Vestryman again from 1726 to 1728. * Recorder of the City from 1702 to 1704, and Attorney - General of the Province. t Alderman of the West Ward. t Secretary of the Province, 1705. () Alderman of Dock Ward. II Attorney-General of. the Province, 1705, and Recorder of the City from 1708 to 1712. 61 Andrew Loran, Vestryman in 1710, and again from 1715 to 1717. Jos. "Wright, Vestryman from 1710 to 1712, and again from 1713 to 1727. John Reade, Vestryman in 1711, and again from 1713 to 1719. Warden from 1719 to 1721. Vestryman again from 1721 to 1733, and from 1738 to 1740. Mr. Jamain, Vestryman in 1711. John Stephens, from 1710 to 1715. Henry Vernon, from 1712 to 1731. John AValter, in 1712, 1714 to 1716, and 1717 to 1722. Simeon Soumaine, from 1712 to 1750. Robert Elliston,* from 1713 to 1726, in 1736, and from 1740 to 1756. Thomas Noxon, from 1713 to 1732. William Howard, from 1713 to 1715, and from 1718 to 1720. Gilbert Ash, from 1714 to 1718. Mr. Birchfield in 1714. WiUiam Davis, from 1714 to 1716. George Cocke, from 1715 to 1718. Joseph Reade, Vestryman from 1715 to 1717, and again from 1718 to 1721. Warden in 1721. Vestryman again from 1722 to 1756. Warden again from 1756 to 1770. Vestryman again in 1770. John Moore,t Vestryman from 1715 to 1719. Warden from 1719 to 1721. Vestryman again from 1721 to 1728. George Clarke, Warden from 1716 to 1718. John Hamilton, Vestryman from 1716 to 1719. Richard Worsom, " from 1716 to 1718. * Collector of his Majesty's Customs. j- Alderman of the South Ward for eight years. 62 Alexander Moore, Vestryman from 1716 to 1718, from 1719 to 1725, and from 1726 to 1729. Benjamin Hildreth, Vestryman from 1717 to 1727. James Dixon, '« in 1718. Jno. Auboyneau, " in 1718, and from 1725 to 1745. Jno. Balme, Vestryman from 1718 to 1724, in 1726, and in 1728. Edward Man, Vestryman from 1718 to 1720. Henry Wileman, " from 1719 to 1727. George Talbot, " from 1720 to 1724. Robert Crooke, " from 1720 to 1727. Joseph Murray,* " from 1720 to 1726. Warden from 1726 to 1758. William Dugdale, Vestryman from 1721 to 1725. Robert Livingston, Jr.,1- Vestryman from 1721 to 1761. Jos. Robinson, Vestryman from 1722 to 1724. Warden from 1724 to 1756. Vestryman again from 1756 to 1759. John Crooke, Sen., Vestryman in 1724, and from 1727 to 1731. Edward AntiU, Vestryman from 1724 to 1726. Thomas Hopkins, " in 1725. Jno. Searle, " from 1725 to 1727, and from 1728 to 1735. James Searle, Vestryman from 1725 to 1746. John Waldron, " from 1725 to 1732. John McEvers, " from 1726 to 1752. * Mr. Murray was ;i lawyer of great eminence in tlie city of Xew-York, about the middle of the last century. He was one of the Council, and Attorney- General of the Province, and was much celebrated in his day as a constitutional lawyer. t Speaker of the House of Assembly. 63 John Chambers, Vestryman from 1726 to 1757, and Warden from 1757 to 1765. Stephen Delaucey,''" Vestryaiau from 1727 to 1742. Augustus Jay,t Vestryman from 1727 to 1746. ^ John Moore, Jr., " from 1728 to 1750. Peter Vallette, " from 1729 to 1731. John Brown, " from 1729 to 1739. William Ricketts^ " from 1731 to 1736. William Hamersley, Vestryman from 1731 to 1753. Charles Crooke, " from 1731 to 1764. Nathaniel Marston, Jr., Vestryman in 1731, and from 1735 to 1770, and Warden from 1770 to 1779. Anthony Duane, Vestryman from 1732 to 1748. Peter Jay, " from 1732 to 1746. Richard Nicholls, " from 1732 to 1766. Ralph Barker, " from 1733 to 1736. Daniel Horsmanden,.]: Vestryman from 1734 to 1765. War- den from 1765 to 1769, and Vestryman again from 1769 to 1772. Henry Roe, Vestryman from 1735 to 1748. Robert Watts, Vestryman from 1739 to 1751. G-abriel Ludlow, " from 1742 to 1769. Edward Holland, " from 1745 to 1757. Abraham Lodge, " from 1749 to 1759. Archibald Fisher, " in 1746. Ebcnezer Grant, " from 1746 to 1760. Charles Williams, " from 1747 to 1774. Henry Ludlow, " from 1748 to 1760. Thomas Duncan, " from 1748 to 1759. * AMerman of the West Ward and Member of Assembly for several years, t Assistant Alderman of the South Ward. t Recorder of the city from 1735 to 174.7. One of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the Colonv, and afterwards Chief- Justice. 64 Robert Cromeline, Vestryman from 1750 to 1784. Thomas Moore, " from 1750 to 1762 Benjamin NicoU, " from 1751 to 1761. Greorge Harison, " from 1752 to 1765. Edward Mann, " from 1753 to 1770. John Aspinwall, " from 1756 to 1760. David Clarkson, " from 1757 to 1769. Warden in 1770, and Vestryman again from 1771 to 1777. Andrew Barclay, Vestryman from 1758 to 1777. John Troup, " from 1758 to 1762. Elias Desbrosses,* " from 1759 to 1770. Warden from 1770 to 1778. Robert Morrell, Vestryman from 1759 to 1761. Nicholas William Stuyvesant, Vestryman from 1760 to Theophylact Bache.t Vestryman from 1760 to 1784, in 1788 and from 1792 to 1800. Adrian Renaudet, Vestryman from 1760 to 1779. Robert R. Livingston,t Vestryman from 1764 to 1775, and Warden from 1784 to 1785. * Alderman of the East Ward for several years, and gratefully remembered for his legacies towards the establishment of a French Protestant Episcopal Church in this City, and towards the support of the Charity School. tFor many years a Governor and President of the New- York Hospital. t Recorder of the City ; Judge of the Supreme Court of the Colony ; one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence ; Chancellor of the State, and Minister to Paris under the Consulate and Empire. 1773. John Ludlow, Alexander Golden, Joseph Sackett, Thomas Hill, Edward Laight, Anthony Van Dam, in 1761. from 1761 to 1775. from 1761 to 1764. from 1762 to 1779. from 1762 to 1784. from 1762 to 1783. 65 John Charlton, Vestryman from 1764 to 1784. Warden from 1794 to 1806. Humphrey Jones, Vestryman from 1764 to 1772. Matthew Clarkson, " from 1765 to 1769. Benjamin Kissam, " from 1766 to 1783. John Tabor Kempe,* " from 1769 to 1778. Warden from 1779 to 1783. Miles Sherbrooke, Vestryman from 1769 to 1784. Mr. Smith, in 1770. from 1771 to 1782. from 1771 to 1784. from 1772 to 1777. Warden John Grriffith, " Gabriel H. Ludlow, " James Duane,t " from 1784 to 1794. Peter Groelet, Vestryman from 1772 to 1782. arove Bend, " from 1773 to 1778. Charles Shaw, " from 1774 to 1784. Christopher Smith, Vestryman from 1774 to 1781. James Desbrosses, " from 1775 to 1779. Warden from 1779 to 1784. Peter Van Schaick,* LL.D., Vestryman from 1776 to 1779 and in 1780. William Laight, Vestryman from 1777 to 1784, and from 1788 to 1802. David Seabury, Vestryman from 1777 to 1784. F. Phillippse, " from 1779 to 1782. Thomas Moore, " from 1779 to 1784. ♦ Attorney-General of the Province. t Member of the old Congress ; first Mayor of the City under the government of the State of New- York ; first Judge of the United States District Court upon the organizationof the Judiciary under the present Constitution of the United States ; receiving the appointment from Washington. t An eminent Lawyer and accomplished scholar. 66 Robert Watts, Vestryman from 1778 to, 1783. Warden in 1783. Warden from 1790 to 1804. William Ustick, Vestryman from 1778 to 1784. • Augustus Van Cortlandt, Vestryman from 1779 to 1784. Richard Harison,* LL.D., Vestryman in 1783, from 1788 to 1811, and Warden from 1811 to 1827. Stephen Skinner, Vestryman in 1783. * Recorder of the City from 1797 to 1801 ; a distinguishcJ Lawyer ; a fin classical scholar, and District Attorney of the United States, appointed by Wash- ington. f Eminent in the civil atTairs of the State, and the organization of the State Government ; preceded John Jay as Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court of New- York, 1779, which office he held until his retirement from public life, in 1791. t One of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence and a Member of the old Congress. He lived to the age of 93. ^ Sheriff of London — famous for his eloquence and popular talent — active in promoting the Declaration of Independence, his name frequently occurring in the political history of the times, and a wealthy merchant. II Member of the Continental Congress from 1777 to 1778. IT Member of the Legislature and Senate of this State, and Secretary of the same. John Smith, Thomas Ellison, Abraham Walton, Cadwallader Golden from 1781 to 1784. from 1781 to 1784. from 1782 to 1784. from 1782 to 1784. Richard Morris,t " from 1784 to 1785. Francis Lewis,* " from 1784 to 1786. Col. Lewis Morris, " from 1784 to 1785. Isaac Sears,^ " from 1784 to 1786. Wm. Duer,ll " from 1784 to 1787. Wm. Bedlow, " from 1784 to 1787. Daniel Dunscomb, Vestryman from 1784 to 1789. Anthony Lispenard, " from 1784 to 1787. Thomas Tillotston,ir " in 1784. 61 Col. John Stevens,* Vestryman from 1784 to 1787. Marinus Willet,t " from 1784 to 1785. Robert Troup,!: " in 1784, and from 1812 to 1817. Joshua Sands, ^ " from 1784 to 1787. Anthony Griffith, " from 1784 to 1787. Christopher Mdler, " from 1784 to 1785. Thomas Tucker, " in 1784. Hercules Mulligan, " from 1784 to 1787. Thomas Grinnell, " in 1784. WiUiam Mercier, " from 1784 to 1788. John Rutherford, II " from 1784 to 1787. John Lawrence, H "in 1784. James Farquhar, " from 1784 to 1801 John Alsop, " from 1784 to 1788. John Hunt, " in 1784. John Jay,** Warden in 1785, and again from 1788 to 1791. * First practical projector of Steamboats. + Colonel in the Revolutionary war — filled many honourable civil stations, and finally that of Mayor of the city in 1807 and 1808. t Colonel in the Revolutionary army — repeatedly in the Legislature — Judge of the District Court, and an eminent lawyer. \j Member of the Legislature and Representative in Congress. II Colonel in the Revolutionary army, and Senator of the United States from New-Jersey. H Judge Advocate in the army of the Revolution — member of the Continental Congress, from 1785 to 1787, and represented the city of New- York in Congress, from 1789 to 1793. ** Delegate to the old Congress, and President of the same — Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the old Confederation — Minister Plenipotentiary to Spain during the Revolution — first Chief Justice of the State — Commissioner with Adams and Franklin to negotiate a peace with England — Special Envoy to Great Britain for establishing a Commercial treaty in 1793 — Chief Justice of the United States from 1789 to 1794, and Governor of the State of New- York from 1795 to 1801. 68 Thomas Randall, * Vestryman from 1785 to 1791. Anthony L. Bleecker, Vestryman from 1785 to 1807. Warden from 1807 to 1811. Paschal N. Smith, Vestryman in 1785. Robert C. Livingston, " from 1785 to 1795. James Giles, t " from 1786 to 1789. Morgan Lewis, t " in 1786. Andrew Hamersley, " from 1787 to 1807. Hubert Van Wagenen, " from 1787 to 1806. Nicholas Carmer, " from 1787 to 1808. John Lewis, " from 1787 to 1795. Alexander Ogsbury, " from 1787 to 1800. Moses Rogers, " from 1787 to 1811. George Dominick, " from 1787 to 1792. Nicholas Kortright, » from 1787 to 1792. Wm. Bush, " from 1787 to 1789. Matthew M. Clarkson,^ " from 1788 to 1792. Samuel Bard, li " in 1788. Wm. Samuel Johnson,1[ " from 1788 to 1801. * Founder of the Sailors' Snug Harbour. + Major in the Revolutionary army — Commissary General of the State, after- wards Major-Genaral. t Major in the Revolutionary army, afterwards Judge of the Supreme Court and Chief Justice of the State — Governor of the State of New- York, and for many years, and until his death, President of the Cincinnati Society. () Colonel in the Revolutionary armj', and President of the New- York Hospi- tal, and of various other benevolent institutions. II An eminent Physician — a Medical and Scientific ,author — a Professor for many years, and finally President in the College of Physicians and Surgeons in New- York. IT Member of Council, and Judge of the Supreme Court in Connecticut — Delegate to the Congress of the old Confederation — Senator from Connecticut to the Con- gress of the United States — Doctor of Laws from the University of Oxford, and President of Columbia College. He was also a member of the Convention for 69 John Jones, Vestryman from 1788 to 1800. from 1788 to 1800. from 1789 to 1793. from 1789 to 1791. from 1790 to 1820. from 1791 to 1812. Warden Charles Startin, Greorge Warner, * Alexander Hamersley, Thomas Barrow, David M. Clarkson, from 1812 to 1815. Augustus Van Horne, Hugh G-aine,t Peter Stuyvesant, Jacob Le Roy, Francis Dominick, John Clark, Frederick De Peyster, Andrew Smith, George Stanton, Charles McEvers, Jr., from 1828 to 1839. Joshua Jones, John Onderdonkjt William Bayard, John McVickar, James Clark, Rufris King, ^ Warden from 1792 to 1797. from 1792 to 1808. from 1793 to 1799. from 1795 to 1815. from 1795 to 1812. from 1797 to 1812. from 1800 to 1812. from 1800 to 1814. in 1800. from 1800 to 1828. Warden from from 1801 to from 1801 to from 1801 to from 1801 to from 1802 to 1805 to 1812. 1821. 1832. 1821. 1812. 1806. forming the present Constitution of the United States, and took an active part in the earlier councils of our Church, and in the organization of the General Convention. * Member of the Legislature from this city. t Printer and Bookseller of this city, respected in his own day, and remem- bered with honour in this. t President of the Medical Society. ^ Member of the old Congress and of the Legislature of New- York — three times elected Senator of the United States — Minister to England under General Washington, and again under John Quincy Adams 10 Thomas Farmer, Vestryman in 1806. Wynant Van Zandt, jr.* " from 1806 to 1811. Thomas L. Ogden,t " from 1807 to 1839. Warden from 1839 to 1844. Nehemiah Rogers, " from 1807 to 1816. Warden from 1816 to 1842. John Lagear, " from 1808 to 1811. Garrit H. Van Wagenen, Vestryman from 1808 to 1812. Andrew Raymond, " from 1808 to 1818. Peter A. Jay, LL.D.,* " from 1811 to 1816, and again from 1842 to 1844. William Newton, Vestryman in 1811. Anthony L. Underhill, " from 1811 to 1825, and from 1826 to 1847. Edward W. Laight, " from 1811 to 1812, and again from 1818 to 1845. Warden from 1845 to 1851. Vestry- man to 1852. William Hill, Vestryman from 1812 to 1818. Francis B. Winthrop, " from 1812 to 1818. Jacob Sherred,^ " from 1812 to 1821. Peter Mackie, " from 1812 to 1823. Edward Dunscomb, II " from 1812 to 1814. Charles Ludlow, " from 1812 to 1815. * Alderman for many years of the First Ward. t An eminent Chamber Counsellor, a prominent member of many of our literary and ecclesiastical institutions, and an able and judicious delegate for a long course of years, both in the Local and General Councils of the Church. t Recorder of the City for several years, a distinguished Counsellor, President of the New- York Hospital, and filling, with credit, many other honourable and public stations. () A noble benefactor of the General Theological Seminary, to which he be- queathed about $60,000, the half of his fortune. II A Revolutionary officer, Sheriff of this City, and repeatedly a member of tho Legislature. 71 Thomas Skinner, Vestryman from 1812 to 1816. James Bleecker, (( from 1814 to 1842. William Moore,* (( from 1814 to 1824. Teunis Quick, li from 1815 to 1848. Henry McFarlan, 11 from 1815 to 1831. Jonathan Ogden, u from 1816 to 1833. Jonathan H. Lawrence, t " from 1817 to 1845. Thomas Swords, li from 1817 to 1843. Cornelius R. Duffie,t a from 1817 to 1823. Edward N. Cox, i( from 1818 to 1822. Peter A. Mesier, (( from 1818 to 1847. Benjamin W. Rogers, i( from 1821 to 1826. Gabriel Furman, k (( from 1821 to 1836. William Johnson, LL.D.,II " from 1821 to 1847. Ezra Weeks, (( from 1822 to 1834. John Watts, IT (( from 1822 to 1830. Charles N. S. Rowland, (( from 1823 to 1825. Robert Thomas, from 1823 to 1832. Beverley Robinson, a from 1824 to 1827. John T. Irving,** (I from 1825 to 1838. Charles Graham, from 1825 to 1826, and from 1832 to 1838. * A distinguished Physician, and Professor in the Medical Faculty of Colum- bia College. t A Revolutionary officer ; in after life a man of business and an accomplished merchjmt, and for many years President of the Pacific Insurance Company. t Afterwards founder and Rector of St. Thomas's Church. <) Alderman of the City, member of the Legislature, and President for many years of the Mutual Insurance Company. II For many years Reporter of the Supreme Court of New- York. IT President of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. ** Member of tlie Legislature of New- York, for many years First Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of the City of New- York, and a conspicuous member of various literary and benevolent institutions 72 Jacob Lorillard,* Vestryman from 1826 to 1839. Greorge Jones, " Philip Hone,t " William E. Dunscomb, " to 1855. Benjamin M. Brown, " William H. Harison, " to 1855. Adam TredwcU, " from 1843 to 1852. Robert Hyslop, . " Henry Cotheal, " John D. Wolfe, " Thomas W. Ludlow, " Thomas L. Clark, " William Moore, " William H. Hobart, Henry Youngs, " Alexander L. McDonald, " Samuel G. Raymond,! " John Q,. Jones, " Gulian C. Verplanck, " Philip Henry, " John I. Morgan, k " David B. Ogden,ll " Anthony J. Bleecker, " from 1827 to 1837. from 1828 to 1851 from 1830 to 1851. Warden from 1831 to 1839. from 1833 to 1852. Warden from 1833 to 1843. Warden from 1834 to 1855. from 1837 to 1849 from 1837 to 1845. in 1838. from 1838 to 1853. from 1889 to 1855. from 1839 to 1855. from 1839 to 1855. from 1839 to 1855. from 1843 to 1850. in 1843. from 1844 to 1855. from 1844 to 1855. from 1845 to 1849. from 1845 to 1849. from 1846 to 1855. * President of the German Society, the Mechanics' Society, and the Mechanics' Bank. t Mayor of New- York. > -. t Member of the Legislature. <) Member of Congress, and Collector of the port. II Member of the Legislature, Surrogate of the City of New- York ; a distin- guished Counsellor, and an able and powerful advocate in the Courts of this State, and in the Supreme Court of the United States. 73 John R. Livingston, Vestryman from 1847 to 1855. Greorge Templcton Strong, Vestryman, from 1847 to 1855 Samuel T. Skidmore, Vestryman from 1848 to 1855. William H. Falls, " from 1849 to 1855. Samuel Jones,* " from 1849 to 1853. John A. Dix, " from 1849 to 18^5. Richard H. Ogden, " from 1850 to 1855. (^yrus Curtiss, " from 1850 to 1855. G-eorge P. Cammann, " from 1851 to 1855. Abel T. Anderson, " from 1852 to 1855. Frederick Pentz, " from 1852 to 1855. G-overneur M. Ogden, " from 1853 to 1855. James J. Jones, " from 1853 to 1855. Who that is at all familiar with our local history, and feels any interest in it, can look back upon the names of these respected and venerated men, without a feeling of reverence for that ancient Corporation, whose concerns they have man- aged with so much prudence, whose wealth they have dis- pensed with so much liberality, and whose rights and privi- leges they have at all times so conscientiously and manful- ly defended ? Wlio that now belongs to this Parish, or who that was ever connected with it, can help feeling some hon- est pride in being a member of a body which associates him with those who in past generations adorned the age in which they lived, and with those who in the present day are held in honour and respect? ♦ Chancellor of the State, and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 74 But though there were at all times among the "Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, many who were eminent in the learned professions, distinguished as scholars, and exalted in rank and station ; yet the selection was by no means confined to them, but extended to persons in all the various classes and callings in life. There was, however, on every occasion, an uniform reference to the fitness, intelligence, and probity of those who were chosen for the discharge of these high and re- sponsible duties ; and I doubt whether there ever was a Cor- poration in this or any other country, who, during the long course of one hunded and fifty years, administered their affairs with stricter integrity, or who, in their personal characters, were more free from reproach. EEPORTS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE ON THE AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH, WITH THE TESTIMONY RElATllfE THERETO. ALBANY: VAN BENTHUYSEUr, PRINTER, 407 EROADWAY. 1857. FIRST REPORT Mr. Spencer, from the select committee to wliich was referred the report of the Vestry of Trinity church, in the city of New- York, in reply to the resolutions of the Senate, passed April 13, 1855, and who were subsequently authorized " to examine into the matters connected therewith, during tlie recess," submitted the following REPORT: That they met in the city of New-York, on Tuesday, the 2d of December, and sat during that day and the 3d, 4th and 19th and 20th days of the same mouth. Three days before, notice thereof (marked C in the appendix to the evidence) was given in writing to tlie Vestry of Trinity church, informing them of the time and place of meeting, and offering them the opportunity of presenting then, or at any time during the session of the committee, any statement or explana- tion in regard to any of the matters referred to it, which they might desire to present. On the first day a communication (marked D) was received from the comptroller of Trinity church, acknowledging the receipt of the notice, and adding that if your committee would communicate to him, for the vestry, what 4 REPORT OF SELECT COJIMITTEE statement or explanation was wanted in regard to any of the matters contained in the report, he would feel it his duty to sub- mit the same, and doubted not that the vestry would cheerfully and promptly furnish- the requisite statement or explanation. Your committee thereupon immediately addressed another note to the vestry (marked E,) desiring tlie names of the corporators entitled to vote and voting, as required under the first resolu tion of inquiry; also whether there were any additional mort- gages or securities beside those set forth in their last report to the Senate, and if so, the full particulars concerning them; and also, the real value of each lot or parcel of land owned by the corporation, irrespective of the leases thereon. A reply to this note not haring been recived on the 4th of December, a subpcena was served upon the comptroller, who appeared before your committee and testified; and a copy of his testimony, as given in the subjoined evidenccj was made out and sent to him at his request. On the 19th of December a reply (marked J) was received from the corporation, which not only touches upon the matters re- quested, but also furnishes additional information bearing upon new and unexpected points, opened during the examination of the comptroller. This communication is stated by the corpora- tion to be supplemental to their report^ presented to the Senate on the 20th of February, 1856, and it will therefore be referred to throughout this report, as the sappUmeyit. Your committee have had before them between thirty and forty witnesses, all of the highest respectability and most reliable character. Except those testifying merely to the value and prices of property, all these witnesses are members of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and known for their high standing in that communion. Eleven are clergymen, and three of them assistant ministers of Trinity Church. Four of the vestry (including one formerly a vestryman) appeared before us, only one of whom declined to be sworn. This declining was the more regretted, because that vestryman, being a member of the standing com- mittee — whicb appears, from the evidence, to possess nearly all the reliable knowledge of the affairs of the corporation — it was ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 5 hoped that his testimony would furnish explanations of no small importance to the vestry. In condensing the large mass of information laid before them, your committee w ill first consider the five original resolutions of inquiry, separately ; passing on thence to the additional matter introduced into their report by the vestry, beyond the limited inforniation requested, and including also, by order of the Sen- ate, the still more voluminous " matters connected therewith," the consideration of which has thus been necessarily involved by the " more complete," " expedient " and " satisfactory " ex- pansion given, of their own accord, by the vestry, to their report. First Resolution, " Resolved, That the Vestry of Trinity Church in the city of New-York be and tliey are hereby required to report to the Sen- ate of this State, on or before the seventh day of January next, the number and the names of the persons entitled, under an act to alter the name of the corporation of Trinity Church in New- York, and for other purposes, passed January 25th, 1814, to vote at the annual elections for church-wardens and vestrymen of the present corporation of Trinity Church, specifying those who vote as communicants, and those who vote as pew-holders in the said church, and the names of the persons so entitled, who did actu- ally vote at each of the three last annual elections held for the choice of church- wardens and vestrymen of said corporation." In their report to the Senate, the corporation gave the number of the persons thus entitled to vote, as 305, of whom 92 are communicants, and 213 are pew-holders. It also gave the num- ber of corporators voting at the annual election, not only for the three years requested, but for ten years past. But the report gave no names. The supplement states that the corporation then " designedly refrained from giving the names," supposing " that the names of such persons could not be material, because the vestry were not aware that the liberty to inspect a list of such names had ever been refused to any corporator," and "because the vestry believed that the Honorable Senate, upon receiving the re^or/, would not. 6 REPOBT OF SELECT COMMITTEE at least without evidence of such refusal, exert its authority for the enforcement of a mere private right." The evidence shows that two of the assistant ministers of the parish " have made several effurts to obtain such a list unsuccess- fully that the list is kej^t " in the joint charge of the comptrol- ler and rector ;" that one who has been a vestryman for six years has seen only "one list of the corporators, which was kept by Dr. Berrian at an election;" that another, who had been a vestryman for ten years, had "never seen a list of the corporators;" and, he added, that "the vestrymen were not allowed to see it, that he knew of;" and also that the comptroller himself, as appears in his evidence, though "presuming" that the names were in his ofQce, promised to furnish a copy of them to your committee, only in case he was authorized to do so by "the committee of the vestry." The vestry, however, not considering their objections to giving the names as " of sufficient importance to induce them to with- hold making answer," they supply the omitted lists of names, Avhich will be found in Schedule A, appended to the supfhment. "These lists," the vestry add, "are believed to be accurate " They state in the report that those who have removed too far from the parish church and chapels to continue to worship therein, are "of course, not enumerated among the corporators, because they aie not entitled to vote." It must, therefore, be an oversight, that among the names contained in these lists "believed to be accu- rate," there are those of persons who have removed from the city, and also of others who have long been dead — some of them for years. In regard to the fewness of the corporators entitled to vote for the managers of this large property, the vestry, in their report, set forth the probability of an increase, from the late increase of paro- chial work. They added : "A like increase may also be expected from the persons worshiping in the new Trinity Chapel, lately erected, who for the space of one year shall have been members of the congregation of that chapel. This new chapel was prin- cipally built for the accommodation of the parishioners and their families who had been a long time in the parish, but had removed too far from ihe parish church and chapels to continue to worship ON AFFAIRS OF TEI^■ITY CHURCH. 7 therein ; and tlius, by inducing their return, to increase the num- ber of our constituency." Although thus representing that this new chajjel was principally built with a view to increase the number of corporators, it appears from the printed form of lease given for pews the first year, that the said leases ran " for the term commencing on the firsr Sunday after Easter, and continuing to and including Easter-day in the next year, and no longer."' Thus, though a man might be a pew-holder all the Sundays in the year, he would not be a pew-holder (and consequently not a corporator) on the day, (Easter Tuesday,) when the annual elec- tion was held, since his lease expired just two days previous, and would not recommence until four days after. And to make this still more evident, each lease expressly stated in the printed " schedule," which forms part of the document, that " The above agreement, or the occupation of a seat, does not give to any person the rights and privileges of a corporator." Nor was this meant to apply only until such persons had " for the space of one year been members of the congregation of that chapel," as would seem to be stated in the report ; for, on the back of that same form of lease there are printed blank receipts for the pew-rent for the three subsequent years also, each embodying the same phraseol- ogy ; thus showing that the exclusion from the rights and pri- vileges of a corporator was intended to continue for four years at the least. It appears also, from the evidence of a vestryman, that this was so done in order " to preclude the creation of a corporator ;" and, as another witness testifies, this original ar- rangement was '• an ordinance of the vestry, interfering in some respects with the privilege of voting ;" which was subsequently rescinded. This rescinding is stated to have taken place in the April after the report of the vestry was presented to the Senate. It appears, too, that at one time, notwithstanding objection made on the ground that it was an " obstacle to voting," which was " contrary to the law," the vestry required that all corpora- tors desiring to vote " should give previous written notice of such desire to the rector." Second Rtsolution. Resolved, That the said vestry be and they are hereby directed to report to the Senate of this State, on or before the seventh day 8 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE of January next, the amount of money expended by said corpo- ration in building or in aiding and assisting to build free churches in the destitute portions of the parish of Trinity Church, as ori- ginally constituted and declared, and the names of such churches, with the amount expended upon each; also the number and names of the churches in tlie city of New-York, built, in whole or in part, by the said corporation witliin the last five years, and the amount expended on each; the number and names of the Protestant Episcopal churches, situated in the city of New- York, in leeble and necessitous circumstances, which have been aided and assisted by the said corporation within the last five years, and the amount of such aid and assistance, afforded annually or otherwise, to each ; also the number and names of the churches in the city of New- York, endowed by the said corporation within the last five years, and the amount of such endowment in each case. As to free churches, it does not appear from her report that Trinity has ever built any. The report mentions grants ot money and land, before the year 1814, to St. Michael's and St. James' Churches. Of the grants since that time there appear only $14,000 to aid in building and rebuilding the Church of the Nativity, and $1,600 towards building or enlarging free churches; of all which $1,100 has been paid within the last five years. In the report, by going back beyond the five years to the year 1847, the amount of $63,850.79 is set down as having been paid at different times for the Church of the Holy Evangelist (now occupying the old St. George's, Beekman-street.) Of this sum $25,000 appears to have been, not a payment of any kind, but only a vote of the vestry empowerina; St. George's, Stuyvesant square, to sell the lots formerly given by Trinity corporation, which vote of the vestry is estimated, by Trinity, to be worth $25,000 to St. George's, Stuyvesant square, and is therefore set down as so much paid for St. George's, Beekman street. As to " the churches in the city of New- York, built in whole or part " by Trinity corporation, " within the last five years, and the ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 9 amount expended in each," it does not appear from her report that there is any such church, except the new Trinity chapel, built for Trinity parish itself, at the cost of |227,1 64.82. Of Protestant Episcopal churches, not free, situated in the city of New- York, in feeble and necessitous circumstances, which have been aided and assisted by the said corporation within the last five years, the report gives a list of nineteen. All the sums thus given are stated to be ''for the support" of the said churches, no mention being made of building, enlarging or endowing; and the total of all for the five years last past is $58,418, of which nearly one half (26,800) was given to the church of the Annunciation alone. Of " churches in the city of New-York endowed by the said corporation within the last five years," it does not appear from the report, or otherwise, that there is one. Third Resolution. " Resolved, That the said vestry be and are hereby required to report to the Senate of this State, on or before tlie seventh day of January next, whether any, and if any, what appropriations have been made by them during the last three years to institutions of charity, benevolence or learning in the city of New-York." The report shows the gift of five plots in Trinity cemetry, one to Christ Church, and one each to the Orphan Asylum, the Society for the Relief of Aged and Indigent Females, the Mutual Eenefit Society and the Orphans' Home, The report adds that "no oth- er appropriations" besides these have been made during the last three years to "institutions of charity, benevolence and learning, in the city of New-York." It appears in the evidence that Trinity Church has never, at any time, established or endowed any institution of charity or benevolence, even for her own poor. Fourth li t^olution . " Resolved, That the said vestry be and they are hereby directed to report to the Senate of this State, within the first 10 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE week of January next, the estimated value of each lot and par- cel of land owned by tlie said corporation in the city of New- York, irrespective of the leases tliereon." This resolution asks for the estimated value, irrespective of the leases The report, however, is based wholly on the value assessed for taxation, which is notoriously less than the market value. From that assessed value, the vestry abstracted the value of the buildings as " estimated" by their own agents sent round for that purpose (these buildings being the property of the tenants). The residue was then still further reduced by making deductions for the length of time the existing leases have to run ; and the result is set down as the " present net value" to the church. The total " present value" of all the real estate is thus reckoned in the report to be $1,446,371.71. In their note to the vestry, your committee requested a state- ment of the real value of each lot or parcel of land, in accord- ance with the evident intention of the resolution. To this the vestry, through their comptroller, reply in the supplement that " they are unable to give any further answer on this point than th ;t contained in their report." " Statements upon such ques- tions" they consider to be " mere matters ol opinion." They say they " are unable to agree upon any estimate of their own ; nor do they think it right that they should discredit an official valua- tion of their real estate, upon the basis of which the tenants are bound to pay the taxes and assessments." Thus failing to procure from the vestry anything resting on a more reliable basis than the assessed values, your committee received such evidence as they could obtain concerning the prices paid to Trinity Church on new valuations for fresh leases, or on actual sales, of lots which are valued in the report, — such valuations and sales being at or near the time when that report was laid before the Senate. The " present value" of No. 251 Broadway is estimated in the report to be $12,081 .56. Mr. Jasper Grosvenor, the holder of the lease, testifies that he offered them |40,flOO for the reversion of that lot (the lease having sixteen years to run), which they refused. He paid them $10,000 for a stipulation to renew the lease, at its ox AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 11 expiration, for another term uf twenty-one years, upon the iisual terms. The "present value" of No. 136, 138, 140 and 142, Chambers- street is estimated in the report at $28,827.40. In December, about two months before the d;»te of the report^ the corporation itself, in a ne^iotiation with the Hudson Kiver Railroad Company, is proved to have fixed upon these same lots the valuation of $100,000 — the ground rent upon which sum the Hudson River Railroad Company agi-eed to pay. The " present value " of No. 275 Greenwich-street, is estimated in the report at $6,840.40. At actual sale, Trinity corporation is proved to have received for it from James H. Noe, a few days before the date of the report, the sum of §20,000. The " present value " of Nos. 283 and 285 Hudson-street, is estimated in the report at $1,964.44. Actual sale to Joseph Tucker, as he testifies, about two months after the roport was presented, realized to the church $20,000. It is shown that there ■was no change of any consequence iu the value of that property during the six months previous. The jH-esent value of No. 525 Greenwich-street, is estimated in the report at $1,375.10. Actual sale to Matthias Clark, about a week after the report was read, it proved to have brought the church $6,000. It is testified that there was no variation in value of any consequence during the six months previous. The aggregate net value of the following nine lots, Nos. 205 and 207 Fulton street, 36 and 48 Vesey street, 13 and 15 Barclay street, 83 Murray street, and 18 and 44 Warren street, is given in the report as $105,875. It appears in the evidence that, pre- vious to the date of the report, these same nine lots had been leased by the corporation on an aggregate valuation of $209,000. Besides these cases of actual sale or leasing on new valuation^ by Trinity corporation itself, estimates of the whole landed estate of the corporation have been laid before your committee, made under oath by four men represented to be of eminent ability and long experience. The two highest for the whole estate are by 12 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Abner L. Ely and John M. Dodd, and though independently made, yet almost exactly coincide in the aggregate. Mr. Ely is the agent for the Langdon branch of the Astor family, and is employed or consulted by insurance oflBces to make valuations for loans an real estate, as indeed are also the other three. Mr. Ely's valuation for the whole is |6,103,500, Mr. Dodd's $6,087,- 050~a difference of only |16,450; Mr. Ritch's is $5,431,520; the extreme difference between the estimates of these appraisers being only $671,980 in the aggregate. Messrs. Ely, Dodd and Ritch, on inquiry, all testify their willingness to purchase at their valuations. These valuations, moreover, are made for the ground alone, so that no deduction is required on account of buildings which are the property of tenants. The estimate of Mr. Aldrich is only partial, being for the down town lots alone, and differing but little from that of Mr. Ely. It is not here taken into the account. Two very considerable items of property are to be added to those stated in the report. The first is, the bonds and mortgages which Trinity corporation has required from churches to which she has made appropriations, which bonds are drawn bearing interest from the date of the grant. These mortgages now amount to $319,525.15, principal; and the interest, compvited up to January Ist, 1857, would amount to $252,427.71 additional; or $571,952.89 in all. These mortgages were omitted from the report^ say the vestry, because they were not productive of income. " They are in reality only held," says the suppliment, " to secure to the permanent use of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, the church buildings and property upon the security of whicli, this body has loaned money to other church corporations, for their aid and support. The vestry be- lieve that no measures have been taken to foreclose any of such mortgages, or to collect interest upon them;" and the comp- troller, Mr. Dunscomb, in his testimony, says : " Like other mortgages, there is a power to foreclose them, but we never take measures to collect them, — never have exercised the power." And yet the corporation has not only the legal power to compel payment, but tl)at power appears to have been exercised more than once. From the report itself it appears that these mort- ON AFFAIRS OF TRIMTY CHURCH. 13 gages do not suffice to "secure to the permanent use of the Pro- testant Episcopal Church" the buildings and poperty thus mort- gaged; for the Vandewater street Church was sold, and Trinity corporation appropriated the proceeds in partial repayment of her advances. From a report of the corporation to the House of As- sembly, in 1854, it appears also that premises of the Protestant Episcopal City Mission Society, thus mortgaged, were afterwards sold, and Trinity repaid herself to the amount of §8,720.51, prin- cipal, and 81,420 interest. Also in the testimony it will be seen that, in regard to St. Peter's Church, New-York, the corporation ■was tenacious of its legal rights both as to principal and interest, and refused to waive them, even for the benefit of a deeply em- barrassed parish. Your committee do not find, from the sche- dule B of these mortgages (attached to the supplement,) that the interest accruing on these bonds has ever been remitted on re- newing the mortgage, except in one instance. In some cases the interest now amounts to more than the principal. As these mortgages are therefore fully legal and valid, and may at any time be foreclosed, and are likely to be satisfied out of the pro- ceeds of every such church in case of a sale, it seems but right to your committee that they should not be altogether omitted in a statement of the property of the corporation. Another item, never heretofore inserted in any report made by Trinity Church, is her interest in St. John's-square. This is stated in the supplement to have been "an inadvertent omission." At the time of making the report, "it was not remembered that the corporation retained any beneficial property in the square which might, under certain contingencies, prove of large value." Circumstances during the past season having, however, brought this beneficial property to the remembrance of the vestry, that body, after much discussion, fixed upon the sum of $400,000 as that for which they would sell the interest in St. John's-square. That amount ought, therefore, to be added to the total of the property cf the corporation. It appears from the supplement that of the $199,469.41 of productive mortgages, mentioned in the report, $31,300 have been paid in, and $59,000 of new productive mortgages have been 14 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE added since the report was made. The present amount of this item is therefore $227,169.41. The report, after stating the net value of the laud in 1855 makes a further reduction by reason of the yet unexpired leases. The total amount of reductions on this account is $1,222,338.29. Supposing the same amount of deduction to be made from the estimates laid before your committee, and that the amount of the debt and the cash in bank remained unchanged, the true sum- mary of theproperty of tlie corporation will then appear,compared with that in the report as follows : IN THE REPORT. , Real estate, $1,416,371 71 Bonds and mortgages, 199,469 41 Cash in bank at the end of the last financial year, 19,399 46 $1,665,240 58 Deducting the debt, 648,913 00 Shows the whole net value to be, $1,016,327 58 AS PROVED TO YOUR COMMITTEE. Real estate (average of the estimates of Messrs. Ely, Dodd and Ritch, omitting altogether that of Mr. Aldrich,) $5,874,023 00 Productive bonds and mortgages, 227,169 41 Church bonds and mortgages, witli interest to January 1st, 1857, 571,952 89 St. John's-square, 400,000 00 Cash in bank, 19,399 46 $7,092,514 76 Deduct on account of leases yet to run (as estima- ted in the rc/jo/-/; itself,) $1,222,338 29 Debt, 648,913 00 1,871,251 29 Net total present value, $5,221,293 47 More than five times the net total given in the report. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 15 Or, if the church bonds and the beneficial interest in St. John's- square be deducted, as depending on uncertain or improbable cor,tingencies for their actual realization, the net total of the present ■productive estate of Trinity corporation -will still be $4, 249,340.58, which is more than four times the net total given in the report. Fifth Resolution. " Resolved, also. That said vestry report to the Senate of this State, in the first week of January next, a statement of the num- ber of lots belonging to said corporation, the leases of which have expired within the five years ending on the first of Novem ber, 1855, and whether said lots have been relet or have been sold." It appears from the report that, during the five years last past, forty-seven lots have been relet, and 07ie hundred and thirtem have been sold. The testimony is uniform and strong to the effect that large masses of leasehold property eventually became inferior in char- acter to property held in fee. The improvements on the lease- hold property of Trinity corporation are generally cheap and poor, being mostly the worst in the neighborhood. Below Du- ane street, however, the improvements are good. Thus far the original resolutions of inquiry. In her report, however, Trinity Church has not confined herself to merely giving the information thus requested, but has volun- tarily communicated a large amount of information besides, con- cerning her grants to the country churches as well as in the city, and from the year 1748 to the present time ; in ord^r as the re- port expresses it, to " lead to a just estimate of the unvarying policy, governed by which this corporation has from an early day continually dispensed abroad the property with which it was endowed." This opens a wide field; but under the instruction of the Sen- ate to your committee to examine not only into the report itself, but also into "the matters connected therewith," it is afield into which it is thus made the duty of your committee to follow, in 16 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE order to reach, — what the vestry desire to set forth, — " a just estimate" of the policy of the corporation. Tor this purpose, your committee condense as briefly as possible the full amount of information embodied in the evidence. In 1697 the site ot the parish church at the head of Wall street was given by the English crown for " the use and behalf of the inhabitants from time to time inhabiting and to inhabit within our said city of New-York, in communion of our said Protestant Church of England, as now established by our laws." The act of incorporation in the same year made the corpora- tion to consist of the rector," together with all the inhabitants from time to time inhabiting and to inhabit our said city of New- York, and in communion of our aforesaid Protestant Church of England, as now established by our lawsj" and the legal ti- tle of the corporation was therefore declared to be : " The rec- tor and inhabitants of our said city of New- York in communion of our Protestant Church of England, as now established by our laws." The act of the Colonial Legislature of 1704 confirms the essen- tial powers of the incorporation by the same title, adding the words "and their successors." The royal grant of what is commonly called the king's farm, (forming the bulk of the great estate of Trinity Church,) was made to the above incorporated parish, under the above corporate name, in the year 1705. The Legislature of New- York in 1784 confirmed all the original powers of the corporation without altering the corporate name, which, however, in 1788, Avas altered so as to substitute the " Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York," for the " Protestant Church of England ;" and no further legislative action took effect until the year 1814. The estate of Trinity Church originally consisted, according to the report, of 2,068 lots, of which, since the year 1748, 318 lots have been given away — 691 remain, and 1059, as is inferred, have been sold, yet, owing to the rapid rise of property in the ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 17 city of New- York, the value of the 691 lots remaining is many times greater than was originally that of the whole estate. Previous to the year 1814, it appears that the policy of the corporation was very liberal in making grants of land A. large landed endowment was given to King's (now Columbia) college and to Trinity school — institutions of learning in connection with the Protestant Episcopal church, as well as for several other public purposes. In regard to churches, the policy was clear and well defined. Within the fifteen years before 1814, Trinity had herself built and set ofif, as separate parishes with a competent endowment, three churches — St. Mark's, Grace and ' St. George's — besides giving several lots each to every one of the other churches then existing in the city as well as to a number of other churches out of the city of New- York. With this policy of landed endowments, and of building and setting off independent parishes, thus firmly established aud thus vigorously and liberally carried out, doubts were nevertheless entertained by some, whether it were a course which the cor- poration had legal power to pursue. Application was therefore made, by Trinity, for the law of 1814 — a law which makes a striking change in the title of the corporation, in the number of the corporators, and in the policy of the vestry. That law was asked for, on the part of Trinity^ on several grounds. As there were now other rectors and other incorpo- rated churches in the city, it was considered proper to change the title from " The Rector and inhabitants of the city of New- York in communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New- York," to " The Rector, Church-wardens and Ves- trymen of Trinity Church in the City of New- York." As the members of the other parishes had the right of voting for their own wardens and vestrymen, it was desired that they should be excluded from the right to vote for the church-war- dens and vestrymen who should administer the great church estate. To this exclusion, the parishes then in existence (though not all the members of them) were at that time willing to sub- 2 18 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE mit, inasmuch as they had all, " without any exception, received liberal donations of real and personal estates from the corpora- tion of Trinity Church," and yet, so strong was tlie feeling that all " the inhabitants of the city of New- York, in commun- ion of the Protestant Episcopal Church," had a chartered inter- est in that estate, that the very law, which excludes all from voting except members oi Trinity parish, ends with the proviso : " Provided always, that nothing in this act contained shall be construed to affect or defeat the right of any person or persons, or of any body corporate, to the estate, real or personal, now held, occupied or enjoyed by the corporation of Trinity Cliurch :" a provisio which proves the right to exist, while nevertheless it is made an empty abstraction by the previous exclusion from the right to vote, by which alone the right of property could be enforced. The III, IV and V sections of that law, forming the most voluminous and prominent part of it, are wholly devoted to the confirming of the past, and giving increased powers for the future carrying out the then well-established policy of the cor- poration, in promoting the growth of the church, by building, setting off, and endowing new churches with landed property enough to make them independent. Section III therefore de- clares valid all such grants and conveyances heretofore made, or that hereafter may be made. Section IV confirms the validity of the setting-off of St. George's Chapel, recognizing its full right to the endowment it had received from Trinity, as well as the consequent exclusion of its members from any further right to vote for church- wardens and vestrymen in Trinity parish. Section V provides for the future further subdivision of Trinity parish, dividing the congregation or corporators, by setting apart, as a separate church, any of the churches or chapels belonging to the parish (with the consent of those to be set off), and, after incorporation, gives such new parish full power to receive from Trinity " any grant, conveyance or gift of any chapel, or other real or personal estate for its separate use." And as an inducement to the Legislature to pass this act of 1814, Col. Troup, who appears to have acted throughout as the ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 19 authorized agent of Trinity Church in procuring its passage, de- clared to the Council of Revision -. " Judging from the past, it is morally certain that the future increase of the population of the city will strongly recommend to the corporation of Trinity Church the policy of dividing its corporators, and setting them off in separate churches, with suitahle endowments, and to enable the vestry to do this in a mode free from all legal doubts, * * * is a fifth object of the bill." And again he says : " The bill, when passed into law, would have the happy consequence of enabling the vestry of Trinity Church from time to time, as society shall advance, to separate the churches, with the consent of their congregations, and to endow them with competent estates. No power can be more congenial than this to the spirit of our republican system. The frequent execution of the power, likewise, by breaking down the estate of Trinity Church, would allay the fears of those honest republicans who look upon large estates as nurseries of sentiments hostile to liberty, and it would calm the minds of those enthusiastic devotees Avho believe that religious societies, when possessing wealth,seldom employ enough of it in the heavenly work of proi^agating the gospel." Under these inducements, and l^ecause the law appeared only to embody and perfect what had notoriously been long the estab- lished policy of the corporation, the bill, passed both houses. The other parishes of the city, having received a share of " real and personal estate," were silent ; but a strong remonstrance against the law, as being unjust, was made by a number of mem- bers of tlie Protestant Episcopal Church in the city of New-York, and serious doubts were felt as to the constitutionality of disfranchising a majority of those who, by the charter, were entitled to a beneficial interest in the property. The Council of Revision was equally divided — three against three. One of the three who voted for it was the late Chancellor Kent, who, as appears in the evidence, afterwards became satisfied that the law was unconstitutional, and repeatedly expressed his opinion to that effect. As it was, it became a law by lapse of time, without ever receiving the approval of the Executive. 20 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE The policy of parochial independence and landed endowment being thus embodied in the law, the record of the gifts and grants of the corporation will show us the manner in which it was carried into effect. It appears that, of the 146 lots that have been given to churches, 137 were given before 1814, and only 9 since. Of the 172 lots given to other purposes, 162 were given before 1814, and only lU since. Thus, in all of the 318 lots of land, (which is all that Trinity has ever given, from the beginning to the present day), 299 were granted before tlie law of 1814, and only 19 since. And for the last twenty years no land has been given at all for any purpose, except the five burial plots in the cemetery mentioned above. The policy of landed endowment, which the law of 1814 was asked for to facilitate, thus appears to have been almost immediately given up, and has now for a long time been totally abandoned. A similar contrast is found in other points. It was urged, as " morally certain," that the corporators would be divided, and chapels of Trinity set off in separate churches, with suitable en- dowments, but the corporators have never since been divided, nor Las any church or chapel been set off. The frequent execu- tion of this power," it was represented, would " break down," the estate of Trinity Church ; but as it has never since been ex- ecuted at all, the estate remains unbroken. The sales of lots have, indeed, reduced the geographical area of her lands; but the rise of property has made the present residue worth many times as much as the whole of the original King's farm. The estate cf the corporation has therefore been steadily, and of late years very rapidly, increasing in value, instead of being " broken down." The other great object of the original policy of Trinity corpo- ration, as embodied in the law of 1814, was as has been shown, the ecouragiug the formation of new and independent parishes; the endowment in land being, in fact, only a means to that end. Instead of land. Trinity has indeed continued to contribute to other parishes, but it has been wholly in the way of pecuniary grants, made either in specific sums or in annual appropriations ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 21 terminable at the pleasure of the vestry. And in order to obtain money to bestow in this way, more than half the original estate has been sold. The eflfect of this system, as appears from the evidence, has been to injure, instead of promoting the independ- ence of the parishes thus aided. The suras of money were in most cases soon spent, and were followed by an application for more. The possibility of a stopping of the annual stipend would, indeed, naturally have a tendency to produce as great a reliance upon Trinity for opinions, as for pecuniary support ; especially when it is viewed in connection with the evidence of strong par- tizanship in making the grants, which is given in such decided terms by many uf the witnesses, and strongly corroborated by the striking disproportion in the grants themselves, as stated in the report. Annual allowances are now made to no less than thirty- eight parishes, amounting in all to $16,875 a year. Again : at or before the year 1834, there appears to have been developed another feature of this new policy, as bearing upon parochial independence, and this was, the regarding these money grants as loans, and, as a consequence from this, the requiring in return a bond and mortgage on the church edifice of the parish thus aided, drawing interest from date. This mortgaging with interest is represented in the supplement, as only done in order to secure such buildings to the permanent use of the church; and it is added, that the interest is never demanded or paid, nor are such mortgages ever forclosed; but it is acknowldged that the vestry has full legal power to do both. There are now sixty-six parishes incumbered with these mortgages and accumulated interest, to the gross amount of nearly $600,000, all held by Trinity church, and they can hardly be considered in any other light than as mortgages upon that very independence which it was one object of the law of 1814 to secure. Nor is even this all, for the aid of Trinity, when given as an annual appropriation or pension, or on mortgage, has been regarded, not as the administration of a trust for the benefit of those to whom it belonged by the charter, nor yet as a loan on 22 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE good security, but rather as a pure gratuity, "a bounty," an act of "munificence," for which due "gratitude" was expected ever after; a mode of regarding the subject liable to interfere still further with the independence of those thus aided. The weight of this sense of obligation has been still further increased by the frequency and facility with which applications have been refused and the ungracious and wearisome reluctance with which grants are obtained when obtained at all. The result has been, th.at so far as the influence of Trinity has been able to make itself felt, the provisions of the law of 1814, for securing the independence of the parishes, seems to have been as completely frustrated as those intended to facilitate en- dowments in land. The increase of population in the city of New- York, it was urged by the vestry, through Col. Troup, made it "morally cer- tain" tliat Trinity would carry out the liberal policy embodied in that law. The population of the city has indeed increased from 105,000 in 1814 to 629,850 in 1855; but the corporators have not yet been divided, nor any church or chapel built and set off or endowed. One expensive pewed chapel has been, in- deed, lately built for Trinity parish itself in one of the weal- thiest portions of the city and iu the neighborhood of several other churches. The wards inhabited mainly by the working classes, however, appear to have been almost totally neglected. In the 4th, 6th, 13th and 14th wards, with a population of 100,- 499 souls, there is not a single Episcopal church. The 8th, 11th and 16th wards, with a population of 128,626 souls, have each biit one Episcopal church; and there are not in those wards missions or other arrangements of any kind for religious instruction by Episcopalians; nor does Trinity Church employ any clergyman as missionary at large anywhere throughout the whole extent of the city. One of the witnesses, a parish clergy- man, speaks of the spiritual destitution of the northwestern por- tion of the city as "awful," and tells us that a communication to Trinity vestry from responsible persons concerning a most noble proposal to remedy it, never received the slightest atten- tion tliat he was aware of. The increase of the city population ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 23 has been some 200,000 souls during the last ten years alone, and yet the increase of church accommodation for the poor is testi- fied to be " very inconsiderable." Trinity, it appears, has never built any church for the work- ing classes, or in those parts of the city chiefly inhabited by them; nay, during the past few years, it seems that three churches situated in districts almost wholly inhabited by the working classes, or those still more destitute, have been lost to the Episcopal church in those localities. Of these, the two down town were Zion on the Five Points, sold to the Romanists; and the old Christ church in Anthony-street, sold for secular uses; nor has any effort yet been made by Trinity to supply their place. The third, St. Matthew's, though surrounded by landed estate of Trinity corporation, and the first free church ever founded in the city of New-York by individual liberality, has at length , after in vain laying its wants before Trinity vestry for six months, been reconveyed to the donor, and is now shut up and offered for sale : and in another case, where a clergyman, who not only serves his own parish without salary, but pays largely beside towards its necessary expenses, offered to give, himself, two-thirds of the cost for a new free church and church schools, in a most destitute portion of the city, if Trinity would give the other third, the offer was left for a year afld a half unnoticed; and though renewed in a differrent shape a year ago, it has even as yet received no further attention, except to be unanimously reported against by the standing committee, to whom, of coui'se, it was referred. It is added, that the reason given by individual members for this refusal, is the want of present pecuniaz-y ability on the part of the vestry. Meanwhile of the few free churches which actually afford some small accommodation to the working classes, the greater part are stated to be but small, inferior buildings, and feebly supported. The new policy of Trinity corporation has therefore disappointed the authoritative representation of Colonel Troup, that it would make the Episcopal church keep pace with the increasing popu- lation of the city, as completely as it has frustrated the wise and liberal provisions for parochial independence by means of a competent endowment in land. 24 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE The evidence shows that another evil has arisen out of this failure on the part of Trinity Church to fulfil the pledges under which she obtained the law of 1814. The wealthy and liberal Episcopalians in the city, who give freely to other objects, will not relieve Trinity from her responsibility, by doing her duty at their own expense; and thus little or nothing is done, and the influence of Trinity succeeds in effectually preventing that very growth to which the law of 1814 gave her new powers in order to promote. Nor does it seem that a policy so injurious to the rest of the city has been really of advantage to Trinity parish itself. Its congregations have indeed had two new churches built for them, at a cost of over |600,000, the whole of which appears to have been paid from the corporation estate. But their own active liberality and zeal have been so far weakened, that their four congregations united do less, as is tes- tified, than some single independent congregation in the same city, with little or no endowment. And even the administra- tion of the vast and growing estate itself, seems to be affected by the same general torpor. There is so little interest in the vestry elections, that in eight out of the past ten years, an average of hardly ope in ten of the corporators cared to appear; and, on one occasion, only 23 persons voted for the 22 wardens and vestrymen. The same characteristic apathy appears to extend even to the action of the vestry itself, where nearly everything is left to a standing committee of six, with the comptroller and clerk; and a vestryman not a member of that particular com- mittee seems to know little or nothing of the business or state of affairs of the corporation. An annual statement of the affairs is indeed made by this committee, of late years, and is left in manu- script at the ofi&ce for the inspection of such of the vestrymen as may v/ish to see it; and a committee of vestrymen, not members of the standing committee, is appointed to examine this annual statement; but in so doing, as is testified by a vestryman who has served on such examining committee, they are permitted to inspect only such of the books of the corporation as are referred to in the statement itself. The statement is never printed, the ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 25 vestry thinking it " not worth while and the corporators, of course, appear to know nothing about it. It is no wonder that, in such a state of things, the question " Do you think that Trinity Church has done its utmost to make the capital of the property of that corporation available for the founding or support or promotion of religious, charitable or edu- cational institutions or purposes should be answered, as it has been by every witness asked, with a decisive " No ;" or, with a negative, half veiled in such careful qualifications as only make its meaning more pointed. And it is no wonder that the policy of the corporation and its results are, as they are testified to be, the subject of general complaint among Episcopalians. Your committee would present yet one more point of contrast between the results of the new policy and the old. The old policy gave to Columbia College its magnificent landed endow- ments ; gave to Trinity school the larger part of its rich estate ; did the same for St. Mark's, Grace, and St. George's churches ; as also for the Society for the Promotion of Religion and Learning, which is now wealthy from its land ; and a similar result has followed the many smaller endotvments of land to other churches. All this permanent and growing good was ac- complished by giving away only 318 lots. In carrying out the other policy, 1059 lots have been sold — more than three times as many as sufiiced for all those splendid endowments put to- gether ; and the result of this alienation of more than half of the original estate has been to promote dependency, feebleness and deadness, to the degree which has been testified. Nor in a merely pecuniary point of view is it any better. For while Trinity herself estimates the present value of those 318 lots to be, to those now holding them, at least a million and a half, her own report sets down* the aggregate of all the pecuniary grants and stipends paid out of the sale of the 1059 lots as only a trifle over one million ($1,007,530.83.) And time will make the 318 yet more valuable, with each year ; while the latter is for the most part gone already, leaving only those " unproductive mortgages, on interest," behind. 26 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE It will be seen that there is no question raised in regard to the personal integrity, and no impeachment of the purity of per- sonal motive, of any member of that corporation. Your com- mittee have merely, from the evidence before them, drawn an outline of the policy of the corporation, as embodied in its own acts before and since the law of 1814. And they find that " a just estimate of that policy is, not that it has been "unvarying," as the report claims in its behalf, but so completely changed as to be the opposite of that which it once was, and which it prom- ised to continue to be. Instead of being " unvarying," therefore, it has simply been reversed. There is one part of the law of 1814 which has not yet been referred to. It has been seen that the great majority of Episco- palians in the city of New-York, have been excluded from all vote or voice in the management of this great estate; and that no report is ever made, even to the corporators of Trinity par- ish, or the beneficiaries under the trust. It is well known that the convention of the Episcopal diocese of New-York is purely an ecclesiastical body, having no power to inquire into the management of the temporalities of any parish, and it does not appear that any knowledge of its affairs, which exists even among its own corporators, is derived except from the printed reports made to resolutions of enquiry passed by one or the other of the Houses of the Legislature. The Legislature, then, being the only body where responsibility can be clothed with practical effect, there is meaning in the following portion of the last section of the law of 1814 : '■^And be it further enacted, That in every case where a church or religious society, which has been or may be duly incorporated, shall have exhibited such account and inventory as is specified in the ninth section* cf the act entitled ' An act to provide for the incorporation of religious societies,' it shall not be necessary for such church or society again to exhibit any account and inventory, unless the said church or society, subsequent to such exhibition, shall have purchased or acquired any lands, tenements or hereditaments within this State, any act, law or usage to • The 10th section of the law as revised and re-enaoted in 1813. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHTRCH. 27 the contrary notwithstanding," Your committee suppose that it is in implied reliance upon this provision of the law of 1814 that the corporation, in its report, complains so griev- ously of your resolutions of inquiry. It does not " acknow- ledge the power of the Senate to exact such information ; " declares that such requisition "is not justified by any legal principle, and is oppressive of this corporation," and "an as- sumption of the powers of the courts." The vestry add, that they "have found the answer to these repeated requirements expensive and onerous, and believe them to be an infringement of the chartered rights of Trinity church ; " and they humbly protest against the right of the Legislature, or either branch of it, to call for reports from this vestry relative to the condition or atfairs of this corporation." The above quoted section of the law of 1814, would indeed excuse the corporation from making any additional account or inventory j no additional pro- perty having been purchased since the report of 1854 was made. Yet reference is made in the report, to " chartered rights," but not to this law of 1814. And it is a remarkabte peculiarity of the report and supplement, as well as the previous reports of 1846 and 1854, and other publications emanating from Trinity church (all of which have been consulted by your committee, as of the highest authority in behalf of the corporation), that in not one of them all is there the slightest allusion to the law of 1814, or any hint that any such law was ever passed. But though this section of that law was evidently intended to relieve the corporation from making any further report of its affairs, yet your committee are of the opinion that it can hardly bind this Legislature, when the very object of the inquiry, is to ascertain whether the other provisions of that same law have been fairly carried out. And in view of the true state of facts, as now drawn forth by this inquiry, namely, that only those parts of that law have been actually put in use which conferred upon the corporation the power to reverse the policy embodied in the remainder, and thereby to sacrifice everything promised, in order to carry out the only possibility which had been expressly dis- claimed when the law was asked for. In this state of the facts, which are thus made apparent, it seems but a natural conse- 28 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE quence that the complaint and protest of the report disappear altogether in the supplement. Tour committee do not charge that, in obtaining the law of 1814 under the representations employed for that purpose, the corporation were guilty of deliberate and premeditated fraud in setting forth inducements which they never intended to realize; for there is no doubt that, both in obtaining the law and in sub- sequently altering their policy, the members of the corporation were actuated by their honest convictions as to what was best for the interests of the church, as they understood them; and doubtless believed that the success of the section to which the Vestry belonged, and the carrying of the measures in which it was interested, was of more consequence to the ultimate good of the church, than any incidental evil resultiog from the change. But thus much your committee feel bound to say, that, if there had been any such fraudulent intention to obtain power under that law, in order to defeat the very ends v;hich it proposed to secure, your committee cannot see that it would have been necessaiy for the corporation, in that case, to alter in any respect that which has been their actual course, in order to carry out such fraudulent intention with entire success. It will be remembered that the terms of the original grant of the estate of Trinity Church stated it to be for the benefit of the inhabitants of the city of New-York iu communion of the Epis- copal Church. It appears from the report that a very large aggregate of grants has been made for the benefit of churches, individuals and institutions out of the city of New-York. Yet your committee have heard no complaint of any such appropria- tion. On the contraty, all the witnesses testifying are unanimous in denying that even the wish exists, in the city, to diminish or prevent the grants made for the aid of churches in the country. The evidence shows that those who complain most deeply of the policy of the corporation in other respects, are themselves liberal with their own means in aiding the poorer cliurches in the rural districts; and their only regret is, not that Trinity does so much for the country, but that she does not do more, both for the country and the city out of her abundant and rapidly increasing ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 29 means; instead of holding the estate, in mass, for steady accu- mulation. The committee consider that their duty terminates by placing before the Senate in this report the prominent and important parts of the testim «uy, and in submitting the documents re- ceived during the investigation, with all the testimony they have taken; which is now respectfully submitted, for such action by the Legislature as the importance of the interests involved may be supposed to require. M. SPEXCER, JAMES NOXOX, J. H. RAMSEY, Select Committee. EXHIBIT C. New- York, Nov. 29, 1856. To the Vestry of Trinity Churchy in the City qf JVew-York: Sirs. — On the 19th of February last you caused to be presen- ted, to the Senate of the State of New-York, a communication, in reply to a resolution passed by that body on the 13th of April, 1855. That communication was referred by the Senate to the undersigned, as a special committee. The Senate subsequently, by resolution, authorized the select committee, to whom had been thus r^erred the said report of Trinity Church, to examine into the matters connected therewith dm-ing the recess, and to report to the next Legislature. In pursuance of such reference and authority, and in dis- charge of the duties thus devolved upon them, the committee will meet on Tuesday the 2nd day of December next, at 10 o'clock A.M., at the rooms of the committee, in the Bank of Com- merce buildings, in Nassau street, opposite the Post Ofiice, in this city; and at the same hour and place on each succeeding day (Sundays excepted), until the said examination shall be com- pleted. Should the vestry of Trinity Church desire to present, to the committee, any statement or explanation in regard to any of the matters referred to them, the committee will afford them an op- portunity of doing so, at the place above mentioned, and at any time during the said examination, that may be most agreea- ble to the vestry of Trinity Church. We are, sirs, respectfully, Your obedient servants. EXHIBIT D. Office of the Corporation of Trinity Church, ? JVo. 187 Fulton street, JYew- York, Dec. 2, 1856. I To the Hon. M. Spencer, James JYoxoii and Joseph H. Ramsey, Special Committee of the Senate: Gentlemen — I duly received your communication of the 29th ult., addressed " to the vestry of Trinity church in city of New- York," saying you intended to meet this day, and on each suc- ceeding day, to examine the matters of its report to the Senate in February last, and that should the vestry desire to present to the committee any statement or explanation in regard to the matters of the report referred to it, the committee would afford them an opportunity of doing so. If the committee will be pleased to communicate to me for the vestry, what statement or explanation it wants in regard to any of the matters contained in the report, I will feel it my duty to submit the same, and doubt not they will cheerfully and promptly furnish the requisite statement or explanation to the committee. I am very respectfully, your obedient servant, WM. E. DUNSCOMB, Com'ptroller , 4rc. / EXHIBIT E. New-York, 2d Dec, 1856. To the Vestrymen oj Trinity Churchy in the city of JVew-York: Gentlemen — In reply to yours of this morning, the committee have to say that, they desire the information required under the resolutions of the Senate of April 13, 1855, in reference to the names of the persons entitled under an act to alter the name of the corporation of Trinity church, and for other purposes, passed January 15, 1814, to vote at the annual election f(»r church war- dens and vestrymen of the present corporation of Trinity church; specifying those who vote as communicants, and those who vote as pew holders in the said church ; and the names of the persons who did actually vote at each of the three last annual elections, held for the choice of church-wardens and vestrymen of said corporation; also whether the corporation of Trinity church have any additional mortgages or securities, besides those set forth in their last report to the Senate; if so, a schedule showing names of mortgagors, amount secured and unpaid, and when given. Also the real value of each lot or parcel of land, owned by said corporation, irrespective of the leases thereon. Very respectfully, etc., M. SPENCER, J. NOXON, J. H. RAMSEY, [Copy.] Committee. (A. No. 1.) EXHIBIT r. Office of the corporation of Trinity Church. mw-York, ./}prii — Jl. D., 1855. Received from Charles H. Clayton, the sum of sixty-four dol- lars, to and for the use of the corporation styled " The Rector, Church-wardens, and Vestrymen of Trinity church, in the city of New-York," for and in consideration of which the said corpo- ration doth, by these presents, grant and assign, to him and to his family, at the times, and upon the occasions, mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed, for the term commencing on the flrsi Sunday after Easter, in this present year, and continuing to and including Easter day in the next year, and no longer, the use and easement of the seat, slip, or pew, being in the chapel of the said corporation, erected between West 25th and West 26th streets, near to the Broadway in said city, called Trinity chapel; such seat, slip, or pew, being numbered one, and sit- uated on the east aisle^ west side. It being expressly understood, that such use or easement is subject to the regulations, and upon the terms and conditions set forth in the said schedule heretofore annexed. W E. DUNSCOMB, Comptroller. Schedule Of regulations respecting the pews in Trinity chapel^ and of the terms and conditions of the letting referred to in the above memo- randum^ and to be taken as part thereof : I The privilege, or right, granted by the above memoranaum shall not be assigned. II. The exclusive right, or privilege, above granted shall be claimed and enjoyed at and upon the following times and occa- sions only, that is to say : The ordinary morning and afternoon 3 34 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE services of every Sunday in the year, Christmas day, Good Fri- day, Accension day, and Thanksgiving day, and upon no other day, and at no other times of those days,, and upon no occasion of Divine service at night. III. After the expiration of the term for which the privilege or right within mentioned has been granted, that is to say, on one of the three last days of Easter Week, in the year 1856, the same privilege or right for another term, commencing on the next Sunday thereafter, and ending on, and including Easter Day in the year succeeding, be the term greater or less than a year, will be disposed of to the highest bidder, unless the pre- vious holder of such privilege or right shall apply and agree for the same belore such time, and pay the sum required there- for, at the office of said Corporation. Notice of the amount of rent demanded for the next term will be given to such of the occupants as shall have lodged in the office of the Corporation a memorandum of the place to which such notice shall be sent, one month before the time appointed for the letting. IV. The above agreement, or the occupation of a seat, does not give to any person the right and privilege of a corporator. Copies of the ordinance of the corporation to regulate the annual elections," &c., passed March 25th, 1844, can be obtained at the office of the corporation. V. No alteration shall be made in any seat, slip or pew, or of the furniture, without the consent of the vestry, or of their offi.- cer, agent, or servant duly authorised. VI. There shall be no name or mark put upon any seat, slip or pew. VII. If any repairs become necessary, notice thereof must be given to the sexton. VIII. During divine service, after the reading of the portion of the Psalter, the sexton may put strangers into the seats, slips or pews, that are wholly unoccupied by the tenant, or by some person for him. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 35 Office of the Corporation of Trinity Church, ? • April, 1856. i Heceived from Charles H. Clayton, sixty-five dollars, for the use of within mentioned pew No. one, in Trinity chapel, during the term commencing Easter Monday, in this year, and ending on the first day of May, next year, such use to he subject to the regulations, and upon the terms and conditions contained in the schedule annexed to within agreement, except the fourth. S65. Wm. E. DUNSCOMB, Comptroller. Office of the Corporation of Trinity Church, 185 . Received from dollars, for the use of within mentioned pew No. , in Trinity chapel, during the term commencing on the first Sunday after Easter, in this year, and ending on Easter Day, next year; such use to be subject to the regulations, and upon the terms and. conditions contained in the schedule an- nexed to the within agreement, % Comptroller. Office of the Corporation of Trinity Church, 185 . Beceived from dollars, for the use of within mentioned pew No. , in Trinity chapel, during the term commencing on the first Sunday after Easter, in tliis year, and ending on Easter Day, next year^ such use to be subject to the regulations, and upon the terms and conditions contained in the schedule iannexed to the within agreement Comptroller. EXHIBIT G. To the Rector^ Wardms and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, JVoJO-York: Gentlemen — The undersigned, Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Matthew's Church in this city, beg leave respectfully to repre- sent : That some three years since, they submitted to your corpo- ration a full statement of the condition, means and wants of this parish, and asked for such an appropriation from the church property in your trust, as would enable them to make some indispensable repairs and improvements — pay off the mortgage, which rests upon the parsonage house and lot — and some other debts. In about one year, that application was responded to by an increase of $200 per ann. for five years, to the $300 previous- ly received. In other words, it was a grant of $1000, payable in semi-annual instalments for that period. That was the only application we ever made to your body for aid, until the pre- sent : and this we beg to say will be the last, unless the response be more in accordance with the imperative necessities of our case. St. Matthew's was the first church ever founded in this city by individual munificence. It has no endowment whatever, and not one wealthy individual belongs thereto. It has been esta- blished nearly fourteen years. It is contiguous to the church estate in your custody, and many of its congregation live there- on. It is virtually a free church, and for some years was actu- ally so. Its revenues from pews does not now exceed $500 per ann. and is constantly growing less by the removal of its mem- bers to the upper wards of the city, and into its suburbs. It has a debt of about $1,300, beside a mortgage of $3,500 on the parsonage ; we have had to pay during the past year, over $400 for city taxes and assessments. The church edifice is old, unin- viting m appearance, and much needs repair. It cannot be encumbered by debt or lien of any kind. We have exerted ourselves to the utmost, and cannot consent to continue this struggle beyond the 1st of May next ensuing, unless such aid shall be received from the church funds in your custody as will enable us to cancel our present indebledness, repair, and put the church edifice somewhat on an equality with others around it, and ensure its rector a salary of not less than $1,200 per ann. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 37 We lay these facts before you, gentlemen, in the spirit of christian candor, and with all courtesy. It now remains with you to say, whether on the 1st of May next, this parish shall cease to exist, and the property be returned to the donor there- of, for the want of some of that nursing aid, which is now indis- pensable to its continuance. As you hold ample means, and hold them for such purposes in this city, on you must the re- sponsibility rest of so painful an event. In conclusion, gentlemen, it only remains lor us to solicit as early an expression of your pleasure in this matter as is con- venient : and to submit for your information the following reso- lution of our vestry, this day adopted : Resolved unanimously, " That this vestry, feeling assured, that from causes beyond their control, a crisis has come in the alfairs of this parish, which without extraneous aid it cannot survive, and cordially endorsing the statement of facts in the accompa- nying application to Trinity Church, do now agree and declare : That the continuance of this parish beyond the first day of May next ensuing, or its extinction at that time, be dependent upon the action of Trinity Church Corporation in the premises. And in the event of no satisfactory arrangement being had by the 1st of February next ensuing, tlie rector, and church-wardens, with Messrs. Burtnett, Bunn and Phelps, be, and are hereby appointed a committee, with full power, to arrange and settle all pecuni- ary obligations against the vestry, with any means belonging thereto at their disposal : with a view to restore the church edifice, lots, and appurtenances as received, to the Rt. Rev. Bp. Eastburn, in a legal manner." With high consideration, we are gentlemen. Very respectfully your ob't sevants, PHILIP REYNOLDS, ? ^ JOSIAH RHODES, \ ^^^rdens. DANL. BURTNETT, GEORGE JEFFERDS, WM. H. PHELPS, EWD. H. MERCER, i „ , MARTIN T. BUNN, ' ^^^^''^/'^ew. MOSES DEVOE, JOHN BOGERT, THOMAS BELL, EXHIBIT J, No. 1, Churcli edifice. No. 2, No. Ely's. Dodd"*. T t\ 4\ /-v»-» iTTi ^ Or 420 000 ft 16.000 No. 3, Church edifice. No. 4, 21.2x82.0 120,000 • $i6;Ooa 28.10x82.0 30,000 21,30a , 24.9x82.0 22,ooa i9,ooa 25x82.0 22,000 19,500 25x82.0 27,000 19,500 OK O-crOI fi 10,VUl/ 27.1x101.4 27,000 19,000 24.9x101.0 OO AAA OA AAA No. 5, oO,uiru ,UUU J.17 c\rt o,uuu 419 do 14x70 7 4,000 4 5nn 421 fin 1 Fl ^lYfS4 10 9 nno ^' jvuu 423 do 425 do 25x58 (4 ^OO^i 4,500 427 do , . 25x68 6,500 6,750 10 Hubert-st., 25x88 6,500 5,500 5,000 5,500 ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 41 No. 18. 173 Hudson-st., 23x100 $9,000 $9,000 175 do 23.3x100 9,000 9,000 177 & 179 do 33x70 10,000 10,000 181 do • 22.1x99.8 9,000 9,500 183 do 22.1x99.8 7,500 8,000 185 do 21.11x99.8 7,500 8,000 187' do 23.11x99.8 7,500 8,250 189 do 20.2x75 6,000 6,500 191 do 25.5x74 7,000 7,500 193 do 25.5x74.3 7,000 7,500 54Laight-st., 20.9x74 4,000 4,500 56 do 20.11x79 4,000 4,500 58 do 24.5x80 4,500 5,000 60 do 25.2x85 5,000 5,500 31 Vestry-st., 25x107 5,500 6,000 33 do 29.7x100 6,000 6,000 35 do 22x100 5,000 5 000 37 do" 20.6x96 4,750 4,750 39 do 21.5x94 4,750 4,750 41-45 do 62.9x86 church 32 do 25.7x104 5,500 6,000 34 do ; 25.1x90.8 5,000 5,500 36 do 24.10x90 5,000 5,250 38 do 25.1x89 5,000 5,000 40 do 25.3x88.6 5,000 5,250 42 do 25.1x88 5,000 5,500 , 3Desbrosses-st., 26.6x88 5,000 5,500 5 do 25.2x78.8 4,500 5,000 7 do 25.2x99.10 4,500 5,000 9 do 24.10x99.6 4,500 5,000 11 do 25x91 4,500 5,000 13 do 24.10x91.4 4,500 5,000 15 do 25x91.8 4,500 5,000 17 do 24x50 2,500 3,000 19 do 15.1x50 1,750 1,950 429 Greenwich-st., 23x100 10,000 10,000 431 do 25.6x100.8 7,500 8,000 42 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE. 433 Greenwich St., 26.4x100 7,500 6,000 435 do 25x101 7,500 8,000 437 do 21.7x59.9 4,000 4,500 439 do 28.11x59.8 5,000 5,500 441 do 23.3x59.8 6,000 6.500 443 do 26x100 7,000 7,500 445 do 26x100 7,000 7,500 447 do 24.7x100 7,000 7,500 449 do 25.8x100 7,000 7,500 451 do 25x100 7,000 7,500 453 do 25x64.2 4,000 5,000 455 do 25.8x58.9 6,000 6,500 No. 19. 4 Desbrosses-st., 24.2x90.8 5,000 6,500 6 do 25.6x89.3 5,000 5,750 8 . do 25.1x88.6 5,000 5,000 10 do 25.2x87.9 5,000 5,000 16 do 30x52.3 4,000 4,500 18 do 25.3x52.3 3,500 4,000 20 do 29x51.5 4,000 4,500 457 Greenwich-st., 25.6x50 5,500 6,000 459 do 25.6x50.2 4,000 ' 4,500 463 do 24x103 7,000 7,000 465 do 20.6x75 5,000 5,000 467 do 30x75.6 6,500 6,500 205 Hudson-street, 21.11x66.3 6,000 8,000 207 do 21.4x661 5,000 6,000 209 do 21.10x65.10 5,500 6,500 211 do 22.1x«4.1 7,000 8,000 484 Canal-st. ave., 51x120 30,000 30,000 61 Watts-street, 19.11x94.3 7,000 7,000 63 do 20x94.3 7,000 7,000 65 do 55.2x87.3 7,000 7,000 67 do 21.9x75 5,000 5,500 69 do 13x51 1,500 1,500 71 do 24.10x74 4,000 5,000 ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 43 No. 20. 182 Hudson street, 20x60 6,000 6,500 186 do 19.5x64 5,000 5,000 190 do 20x70 5,500 5,500 194 do 20x70 5,500 5,500 196 do 20x65 5,500 5,500 198 do 19.9x53 5,000 5,000 200 do 20.3x40 4,000 4,000 202 do 20x28 3,500 3,500 204 Canal street, 41x42 triangle, 8,000 9,000 464 do 2 .11x23.8 4,000 4,500 462 do 20.5x40 4,500 4,750 460 do 12x47 2,500 3,000 458 do 12x50 3,000 3,250 456 do 12x55 3,500 3,500 454 do 21.4x60 5,500 5,500 452 do 21.4x97 7,000 8,000 450 do 21.4x100 9,000 9,000 444 do 23.2x90 9,000 8,500 442-440 do 51.8x58 6 12,000 13,300 438 do (through to Vestry) 25x65 10,000 10,000 No. 21. 28 Renwick-st., 21x60 3,500 3,000 34 do 25x83.6 4,500 4,500 36 do 25x60 4,000 3,750 40 do 24.10x60 4,000 3,750 42 do 25.3x60 4,000 4,000 283 Hudson-st., 25x90 8,500 9,000 285 do 25x90 8,500 9,000 No. 22. 83 Varick-st., 25x86 5,000 5,500 85 do 25x100 5,000 5,500 89 do 25x100 5,000 5,500 91 do 25x100 5,000 5,750 93 do 24.10x53 4,500 4,500 35 Watts-st., 25.1x107 4,500 5,000 44 REPORT OF SFXECT COMMITTEE 37 Watts- St., 25.1x89 4,000 4,500 39 25x80 3,750 4,000 41 25x80 3,750 4,000 43 do 18.7x60.8 2,500 2,800 45 do 18x60 2,500 2,800 47 20x60 2,750 3,000 A Q An 20x55 2,750 2,800 51 do 20x48 2,500 3,000 53 do 20x42 2,500 3,000 55 do 20x35 2,500 ^ flflO ^ \J\J\J 485 483 581 1 Canal, Watts and Hud- j son-streets, 28.8x43 8,000 8,000 479 Canal (& Watts) streets 201x60 8,000 8,000 477 do 20.1x33 3,500 3,500 475 do 24.7x40 4,500 4,000 473 do 17.7x46 4,000 3,800 471 do 17.8x53 4,000 4,000 469 do 20x57 5,000 4,500 467 do 25.4x73 8,000 8,000 465-463do 25.10x100 8,500 8,300 461 do 22.10x87 8,000 9,000 459 do 17.10x100 7,000 8,000 457 do 17.10x100 7,700 8,000 455 17.10x100 7,500 8,000 453 do 17.10x100 7,500 8,000 451 do 17.11x88 7,000 6,500 449 do 17.11x80 7,500 6,250 447 do 17.10x75 No. 23, 6,000 6,250 417CaHal-st 419 do 25.10x76 I 26.4x72 \ 25,000 25,000 421 do 25.2x82.6 10,000 13,000 21.2x38 J iii-^luded in ( Canal-st. 162 & 164. 8 do 25x71 4,000 4,000 10 do 25x81 .8 4,000 4,000 15 Grand-st.,. 50x100 9,000 10,000 ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 45 S. E. corner of Grand and Varick-st., 86x93.6 $32,000 $32,000 80 Varick (cor. Grand-st.) 25x75 7,500 7,500 82 do •. ... 25x75 5,000 5,000 84 do 25x75 5,000 5,000 86 do 24x69 4,500 4,500 88 do 22x57 4,500 4,500 90 do 25x50 5,000 4,000 92 do col Watts, 25x50 5,000 5,000 539 Broome-st., 25x85 5,000 5,000 541 do 25x85 5,000 5,000 543 do 25x85 5,000 5,000 545 do 25x85 5,000 5,000 547 do 25x85 5,000 5,000 No. 24. 119 Varick-st., 25x90 6,000 6,000 121 do 25x90 6,000 6,000 123 do c. Domiuick,. 25x56.8 5,500 5,500 125 do 26x54.8 5,500 5,500 127 do 24x54.8 3,500 3,500 129 do 25x76.8 5,500 4,500 No. 25. 540 Broome c. Clark, 25x48.2 4,000 3,500 5 Clark St., 24.2x75.9 4,000 3,500 7 do 24x75.3 4,000 3,000 9 do ,.. 24x75.3 4,000 3,000 21 do c. Dominick,. 24.6x56.10 4,000 3,500 23 do 25x56.10 3,000 3,000 25 do 25x75 4,000 4,000 8 Dominick-st., 25x84.7 4,000 3,000 10 do 25x84.7 4,000 3,000 12 do 25x84.6 4,000 3,000 14 do 25.3x84.6 4,000 3,500 5 do 24.10x74.10 4,000 3,500 7 do 24.11x74.10 4,000 3,000 9 do 24.11x74x10 4,000 3,000 11 do '. 25.2x74.10 4,000 3,000 46 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE. ZD . OX i-t . 1 C\ . 1 1' AO AAA !lpO,UUU 24.2x99. 6 6,000 6,000 116 do 24.2x99. 6 6,000 6,000 120 do 24x48 5,500 4,000 No. 26. 25 5x78 . , 5 3,500 C C\C\f\ 5,000 538 do C.Clark,... 24 .6x65 4,500 5,000 6 Clark-st., 22 . 6x68 3,000 4,000 16 do 25x90 4,500 4,500 18 do 25x90 4,500 4,500 22 do 25x90 4,500 A K A A 4,500 24 do r\ K f\r\ 25x90 4,500 5,000 26 do 202 Sp: fing-st., c. Clark, . . . . 22x75 6,000 5,500 200 23.2x75 5,000 5,750 198 do 22.5x75 5,000 5,000 No. 28. 303 Hudson, n. w. c. Spring, 25 .8x50 . 2 C K A A 5,500 6,000 305 do 20 .dxoO 3,000 4,500 307 do 20 .3x50 3,000 4,000 309 do 20 . dx50 3,000 4,000 311 do 20 .3x50 35UOO 4,000 OA A-.T-O'fC 20 . 9x70 A e A A 450UU e AAA 0,000 315 do OA Ck-v-nK 2u . yx / 0 45DUU o,uuu 317 do OA Axr'7Fi 20 . 9x70 E A^'lA OjUOO 319* do 20.9x75 4,0UU 321 do s.w.cr.Vandam, 24.9x75 ry AAA 75OUU n AAA o,ouy 323 do n.w. do 32x25 0 AAA 3,000 0 AAA 3,000 325 do 17.11x25 T KA A 1,500 1 e A A 1,500 327 do 16.8x50 0 K A A 2,500 r\ K A A 2,500 329 do 16.8x50 2,500 0 K A A 2,500 331 do 16.8x50 2,500 C\ f\f\f\ 2,000 333 do 25x100 ft AAA D,UUU o,ouu 335 do 22.5x50 3,250 3,500 337 do 21x50 3,250 3,500 339 34x50 6,000 5,500 •These two lots inolude No. 80 Vandam-st. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHuaCH. 47 267 Spring-st., 25x100 269 do 25x100 271 do 21.10x100 275 do 25.2x100 277 do 25.2x100 279 do 25x100 281 do 25x100 283 do 25x75 285 do 25x50 315 do 24x25 317 do n.e. C.Greenwich, 26x25 82 Vandam-st., 20.10x113 84 do 22x113 86 do 25x113 88 do 25x173 90 do 25x113 92 do 25x113 94 do 24.10x113 96 do 21.8x38.6 98 do 16x38.6 81 do 25.1x50 90 Char 1 ton ,s.w.c.Hudson-st., 50x36.6 94 do 25x75 96 do 24.10x75 517 Green wich-st., 25x50 519 do 25x75 521 do 25x100 523 do 25x100 525 do 25x100 527 do 25x98 529 do 19.3x61.6 531 do s. e. c. Vandam, 19.6x61.6 539 do n. e. c. do 25 2x51 541 do 25.2x99.9 643 do 25x99.9 547 do 15x100 549 do 15x100 551 do 20x100 $7,500 i 17,500 6,000 7,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,500 5,000 6,000 4,000 5,500 1,500 2,000 2,500 4,000 5,000 5,000 5,500 5,000 5,500 5,000 5,500 5,000 5,500 2,000 5,500 5,000 5,500 5,"iOO 1,759 2,000 1,200 1,500 3,000 4,000 36 3 39 Hudson. 5,000 6,000 5,000 5,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,000 6,000 5,500 6,000 5,500 6,000 5,500 6,000 5,500 3,000 4,500 4,000 6,000 5,500 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 5,500 3,000 3,750 3,000 4,750 4,500 4,500 48 REPORT OV SELECT COMMITTEE 553 Greenwich-st., 25x75 555 do 25x75 No. 29. 141 Varick-st , 20x50 143 do 19x50 145 do 20.6x50 147 do 19.6x50 149 do 23x50 163-163 do 25x75 231 Spring-st., cor. Varick, 25x50 239 do 55x51 235 do 25x114 237 do 25.2x114 239 do 25.2x114 241 do 25x114 245 do 25.1x114 247 Spring-street, 25.3x114 249 do 25x114 251 do 25x114 253 do 25x114 255 do 25x114 259 do 25x50 261 do n. 6. cr. Hudson, 25x50 44 Vandam-st.s.w.cr. Varick 25x51 .4 46 do 25x51 48 do 25x100 50 do 25x100 52 do 25x100 54 do 25x100 56 do 25x100 58 do 25x100 60 do 25x100 72 do 25x100 64 do 25x100 66 do 25x100 68 do 25x100 70 do- 25x100 $5,000 6,000 2,500 2,400 2,500 2,400 2,700 5,000 5,000 3,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 4,000 6,000 4,000 2,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 5,000 6,000 $5,500 7,000 3,000 2,750 2,500 2,500 2,750 4,500 6,000 4,500 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 4,500 6,000 4,000 3,500 5,500 5,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 5,000 5,500 ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 49 51 Vandam St., 25x100 |4,500 $5,000 53 do 25x100 4,500 4,500 55 do 25x100 4,500 4,500 57 do 25x100 4,50o 4,500 59 do 25x100 4,500 4,500 61 do 25x100 4,500 4,500 63 do 24.10x100 4,500 4,500 65 do 26x100 4,500 4,500 67 do 20.6x100 3,750 3,750 69 do 29.8x100 5,000 4,500 71 . do 25x100 6,000 5,500 73 do 25x70 5,000 5,500 75 d? 25x70 6,000 6,500 62 Charlton st., 25x75 3,500 4,000 64 do 25x100 4,500 5,000 66 do 25x100 4,500 5,000 68 do 25x100 4,500 5,000 70 do 25x100 4,500 5,000 72 do 25x100 4,500 5,000 74 do 25x100 4,500 5,000 76 do 25x100 4,500 5,000 78 do 25x100 4,500 5,000 80 do 25x100 4,500 5,000 82 do 25x100 4,500 5,000 84 do 24.7x100 5,500 5,500 86 do 25x100 6,000 6,500 308 Hudson St., 17x50 2,500 2,750 310 do 17x50 2,500 2,750 311 do 17x50 2,500 2,750 314 do 29.8x50 4,000 4,000 316 do 28x50 4,000 4,000 318 do 28x50 4,000 4,250 320 do cor. Vandam St., 29x50 6,000 6,000 328 do 20.6x24.2 3,000 6,500 330 do 25.3x24 2,000 332 do 24.3x24 1,500 334 do 30.4x75.5 6,000 5,500 338 do 25.50.5 4,000 3,750 4 5a REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE. 25.3x50.5 $4,000 13,750 342 do 4,05sU 4,UUO 344 do cor. Charlton. St. , 25.3x37.7 5,500 5,500 No. 30. 223 Sp: I'ing, cr.Macdougal-sf . 42x100 9,000 11,000 225 do 20x100 4,500 5,000' 7 227 do 20x100 4,50a 5,ooa 229 do 20x100 4,500 4,800 231 do 20x100 4,500 4,80a 233 do 20x100 4,500 4,800 235 do 20x100 4,500 4,80a 237 do 20x100 4,500 4,800 239 do 25x100 6,000 6,000 241 do 20x105 4,500 4,800 243 do 20x100 4,500 4,800 245. do 25x100 6,000 6,000 247 do 25x100 6,000 6,000 249 do 25x105 6,000 6,000 251 do 25x99.5 6,000 J 6,000 253 do 25x99.5 6,000 6,000 255 do 16x9x58.2 2,000 3,000 257 do 21x58.2 2,500 3,500 259 n.w.cr. Varick-st.y .... 21x58.10 4,000 5,500 18x100 2,500 2,500 8 do 15x100 2,700 2,700 10 do 25x100 4,500 4,250 12 do 23x100 4,250 4,000 14 do 22.10x100 4,250 4,000 16 do 22.10x100 4,250 4,000 do 23x100 4,250 4,000 20 do 23x100 4,250 4,000 2-2 do 23x100 4,250 4,000 24 do 24.6x150 4,500 4,250 26 do 28.100 5,000 5,000 28 do 21.4x100 4,000 4,000 30 do 25.8x100 4,500 4,500 32 do 24.10x100 4,500 4,500 'ON APFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 51 S4 Vandam-st., 25x100 36 do 25.6x100 38 do , 22x100 40 do 20x49.6 7 do 17x100 9 do 25x100 11 do 25x100 13 do 25x100 15 do 25x100 17 do 22x100 19 do 28x100 21 do 25x100 23 do 19.8x100 25 do 20x100 27 do 20x100 29 do 20x100 31 do 20x100 33 do 25x100 35 do 25x100 37 do 18.6x75 39 do 18.10x75 41 do 18.10x75 »43 do ......... 18.10x74 45 do cr. Varick, 25x75 16 Charlton-st., 18.2x100 18 do 18.9x100 20 do 18.9x100 22 do 18.9x100 24 do 18,9x100 26 do 25x100 28 do 25x100 140 Varick-st., 16.5x64 142 do 21.8x64 142^ & 144 29x64 146 do 19x64 148 do 20x64 150 do 16.6x43 • This No. includes 160 Varick-street. $4,500 $4,500 4,500 4,500 4,250 4,000 2,500 2,500 3,000 3,000 4,500 4,000 4,500 4,000 4,500 4,000 4,500 4,000 4,255 3,750 5,000 4,250 4,500 4,000 4,000 3,500 4,000 3,500 4,000 3,500 4,000 3,500 4,000 3,500 4,500 4,250 4,500 4,250 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,250 3,000 3,250 3,000 3,250 5,500 5,500 3,000 • 3,500 3,000 3,500 3,000 3,500 3,000 3,500 3,000 3,500 4,500 6,250 4,500 5,250 3,000 3,000 3,000 ' 3,000 5,500 4 , 500 3,250 3,000 3,550 3,250 1,500 2,000 53 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE. 152 Varick-st., 16.6x43 $1,500 $2,000 154 do c.Vandam-st. 16.6x43 2,000 3,000 162 do 24.7x100 5,000 5,000 164 do 20x100 4,400 4,000 166 do 20x66 3,500 3,500 168 do 20x66 3,500 3,900 170 do 20x66 3,500 3,500 172 do C.Charlton, 20x66 4,500 4,500 No. 31. 345 Hudson-st., 20.8x50 3,000 4,000 347 do 20.9.v50 3,000 4,000 349 do 20x50 3,000 4,000 351 do 25x100 7,000 7,000 353 & 355 25x100 7,000 7,000 357 do 16.8x60 2,500 3,500 359 do 16.8x61 2,500 3,500 361 do s.w.c.King, 16.8x61 4,000 4,500 365 do 16.8x60 2,500 3 500 367 do 16.8x60 2,500 3,500 369 do 16.8x60 2,500 3,500 371 & 373 25x100 6,500 6,500 375 do 16.6x60 2,500 3,500 377 do .; 17x60 2,500 3,500 379 do 17x60 2,500 3,500 381 do 17x60 2,500 4,000 383 do 17x60 2,500 4,000 385 H dson, s. w. c. Ham- mersly, 23x38.6 4,500 4,500 91 Charlton, n. w. c. Hud- son-st...... 23x36.5 4,500 4,500 93 do 27.3x38.6 3,000 3,000 85 do 25.2x100 5,000 8,000 97 do 24.9x100 5,000 6,000 99 do 24.10x100 5,000 5,500 101 do 22x100 4,500 5,000 103 do 24.9x100 5,000 5,500 105 do 25x100 5,000 5,500 ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 53 107 Charlton-st., 25x100 $5,000 $5,000 109 do 25x100 5,000 5,500 111 do 27x100 5,250 7,500 96 King-street, 16.9x50 2,000 3,000 98 do 19x50 2,000 3,000 100 do 25x100 5,000 3,000 102 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 104 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 106 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 108 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 110 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 112&114 do see 571 Greenwich-st. 97 do 19x100 3,000 4,000 99 do 19.3x100 3,000 3,750 101 do 19.3x100 3,000 3,750 103 do 19.3x100 3,000 3,750 105 do 19.8x100 3,000 3,750 107 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 109 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 111 & 113 do see 572 Greenwich-st. 90^&90AHafnmersly-st.,.. 40x100 8,000 8,000 92 do .. 18x100 3,500 3,500 M do .. 18x100 3,500 3,500 96 do .. 18x100 .3,500 3,500 98 do • .. 18x100 3,500 3,500 100 do 18x100 3,500 3,500 102 do .. 18x100 3,500 3,500 104 do .. 18x100 3,500 3,500 106 do .. 19x100 3,500 3,750 108 do see 586 Greenwich-st. 557 Greenwich c. Charlton, 25x73 6,000 6,500 561 do 28.6x73 5,000 5,500 563 do 24.6x73 4,500 5,000 565 do 24.10x99.9 5,000 5,500 569 do 25.2x99.9 5,000 5,500 572 do C.Kings,.... 24.10x99.9 7,000 7,000 573 do 13.9x100 'i 573A do 18x100 )> 12,000 12,000 575" do 18x100 ) 54 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE. zoxlOO $5,000 $5,500 5,000 5,500 58a do 25x100 5,000 5,500 585 do 25x100 5,000 5,500 587 do c. Hammers- 25x100 7,000 7,000 No. 32. "171 111 va,iicJi c. vyxiaritoii, , , , O 1 xr'7K 6,000 5,500 17^4 JL 1 O 1 Q O-^rjK io . OX70 4,500 4,000 1/9 17 .oX7D 4,000 4,000 1 77 flrv io . DXlUU 4,250 4,250 1 7Q 1 IV 4,500 4,500 lOl CIO 1 A A 5,250 5,250 1 oo fin Oi* K-, 1 n A >iu , DXIUU 5,000 5,000 loo O 0-T7- A ZoXoU 4,000 4,000 1 Q7 lot do s. w. c. King, oo-w^; A zzxoU 5,000 5,000 lot) do s. w. c. do . . iao .4xoy 5,250 5,250 It) I An 24 .8x59 3,500 3,500 1 no 24 . 9x60 3,500 3,500 It^u An !4 / . /XbU 4,000 3,750 1 07 r\r, -iOXDU 3,250 do >&OXOt> o AAA 3,000 201 Q AAA 3,000 203 do 1 iXOa IiJ,7D0 2,750 205 do c. Hammersly,, 1 /XOd 4,000 4,000 ZOXIUO 5,000 5,500 69 Ofiir T rtfk ZOXlUl/ &,OU(l 5,500 71 do FiAA 0,DUU 5,500 73 do ^OXlUu 0,OUU 5,500 75 do laoxiuu 5,500 5,500 77 do O Pv-^ 1 A A, K KAA 5,500 5,500 79 do ZOXIUU KAA 5,000 K K A A 81 do OF^xT-l A A kaa 5,500 5,500 83 do 4,500 5,500 85 do A Ann 4,UUU 87 do 25x64 5,000 4,000 89 do c. Hudson, 23.6x36 5,000 5,000 ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 55 «8 $1,750 $1,750 70 do , 20x60 1,500 1,500 72 25x100 5,000 5,000 74 25x100 5,000 5,000 76 . . . 25x100 5,000 5,000 78 , 25x100 5,000 5,000 80 25x100 5,000 5,0J9O S2 25x100 5,000 5,000 84 25x100 5,000 5,000 86 26x100 5,000 5,000 88 20x50 2,000 2,000 90 do 20x59 2,500 2,500 69 49x100 10,000 9,000 71 do 25x100 5,000 4,000 73 25x100 5,000 4,000 79 25x100 5,000 4,000 81 25.3x100 5,000 4,000 83 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 85 do 25x100 5,250 5,000 .87 , , . 25x50 3,000 2,500 u«9 3,000 3,000 , , 21x100 4,000 4,000 €8 do 21x100 4,000 4,000 70 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 72 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 74 do 20x100 4,000 4,000 76 do , 20x100 4,000 4,000 78 , . . , 20x100 4,000 4,000 80 do , 20x100 4,000 4,000 82 do 25.6x100 5,000 5,000 84 do , . 25x100 5,000 5,000 86 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 88 do 32x50 4,000 5,000 . ,,. 25.6x25.9 2,000 2,000 248 do 14x75 3,000 3,000 354 do , 26x100 6,000 6,500 356 do 6,000 6,500 358 do 6,000 6,500 56 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE 360 Hudson-st. ^3,000 $3,5oa 362 do 3,250 3,500 364 do cor. King, 16.8x60 4,500 4,250 366 do 4,000 4,000 368 do 3,000 3,000 370 do 3,000 3,000 372 do 25x100 6,000 6,500 374 do 6,000 6,500 376 do 16.8x100 3,750 3,750 378 do 16.8x100 3,750 3,750 380 do 16.8x100 3,750 3,750 382 do 25x68 384 do cr.Hammersly 25x68 7,000 7,000 No 33. 15 Charlton-st , 23.4x100 5,000 4,750 17 do 23.4x100 5,000 4,750 19 do 5,000 4,750 21 do 5,000 4,750 25 do 5,500 5,500 27 do 20x100 4,000 4,200 29 do 4,000 4,200 31 do 20.2x100 4,000 4,200 33 do 4,000 4,200 35 do 4,000 4,200 37 do 5,500 5,500 39 do 25x100 5,500 5,500 41 do 4,250 4,300 43 do 21.6x100 4,250 4,300 45 do 4,25o 4,300 47 do. 4,250 4,300 49 do 4,250 4,300 51 do 3,750 3,750 53 do 4,000 4,000 55 do cr. Varick,. . . 25x37 3,600 3,500 28 King- street, 22x100 4,000 4,000 30 do 22.10x100 4,000 4,000 32 do 25x100 4,500 4,500 ON AFFAIRS OF TRIKITV CHURCH. 57 34 King-street, 25x100 $4,500 $4,500 36 do 20x100 3,500 3,500. 38 do ^ 20x100 3,500 3,500 40 do 20x100 3,500 3,500 42 do 20x100 3,500 3,500 44 do 20x100 3,500 3,500 46 do 25x100 4,500 4,500 48 do 25x100 4,500 4,500 50 do 25x100 4,500 4,500 52 do 20.10x100 3,500 3,500 54 do 20.10x100 2,500 3,500 56 do 20.10x100 3,500 3,500 58 do 20.10x100 3,500 3,500 60 do 20.10x100 3,500 3,500 62 do 20.10x75 3,000 3,000 64 do 25x75 4,000 4,000 27 do 25.4x100 4,500 4,500 29 do 28.6x100 5,000 5,000 31 do 21.6x100 3,500 3,500 33 do 23x100 4,000 -1,000 35 do 27.6x100 5,000 5,000 37 do 27x100 5,000 5,000 39 do 23.6x100 4,000 4,000 41 do 23.6x100 4,000 4,000 43 do 25x100 4,500 4,500 45 do 25x100 4,500 4,500 47 do 25x100 4,500 4,500 49 do 25x100 4,500 4,500 51 do 24.10x100 4,500 4,500 53 do 25x100 4,500 4,500 55 do 25x75 4,500 . 4,500 28 Hammersly street, 21.9x100 4,500 4,000 30 do 25x100 5,000 4,000 32 do 18.9x100 3,750 3,750 34 do 18.9x100 3,750 3,750 36 do 18.9x100 3,750 3,750 36| do 18.9x100 3,750 3,750 38 do 24.10x100 5,000 5,000 58 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE. 40 Hammersly-street, 25x100 5,000 5,000 42 do ,25x100 5,000 5,000 44 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 46 do 20x100 4,000 4,000 48 do 20x100 4,000 4,000 50 do 20x100 4,000 4,000 52 do 20x100 4,000 4,000 54 do 20x100 4,000 4,000 56 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 58 do 25.8x100 5,000 5,000 60 do 20x58 3,000 3,000 176 Varick-street, 38x25 2,000 2,000 1 no fir 1 on An 25x68 3,500 3,500 182 do 25x75 3,750 3,750 184 do 30.4x25 1,700 1,700 186 do c. King,- .... 44.6x25 3,750 3,750 190 do 16.5x50.0 3,000 2,500 192 19.6x50.5 2,250 2,250 192^ 19.7x50.5 2,000 2,000 192^ 19.5x50 2,000 2,000 194 25.6x75 4,000 4,000 196 do 21 .9x75 3,250 3,250 198 20.5x75 3,000 3,000 200 do 19.9x59 2,250 2,250 202 do 20x54.6 2,250 2,'2&0 204 do c.Hammersly 17.9x54.6 No. 34. 3,750 3,750 387 Hudson-st.jTi.w. c. Ham- mei'sly,. . . . 25x70 6,500 6,500 389 do 25x100 7,000 7,000 391 do 25x100 7,000 7,000 393 do 25x100 7,000 7,000 395 do 25x100 7,000 7,000 397 do 22x100 6,000 6,000 399 do 18x54 3,000 3,000 401 18x54 3,000 3,000 403 do s.w.cClarkson 17x54 4,500 4,500 405 do n. w. c. do 25x60 6,000 5,750 ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 59 4C*7 Hudson-Street, 25x60 409 do 25x100 411 do 21x100 413 ' do 29x100 415 do 25x100 417 do 16.8x71 419 do 16.8x71 421 do s. vv. c. Leroy, 16.8x71 93 Hammersly-street, .... 30 .25 95 do 25x100 97 do 25x100 99 do 25x100 101- do 25x100 103 do .... 25x100 36 Clarkson-street, 25x100 38 do 25x100 40 do 25x100 42 do 25x100 44 do 25x100 46 do 19.6x60 48 do - 19.6x57 50 do 19.6x55 52 do 19.6x52 45 dos.e.c.Greenwich 19.6x51 35 do 21x67 37 do 21x67 39 do 25x100 41 do 25x100 108 Leroy-st., 25x100 585 Greenwich-st, n. e. c. Hammersly, 29x67 587 do 24.5x63. 589 do 25x82.9 603 do 15.4x24 605 do 15.4x24 607 do 25x111 609 do 25.109 611 do 25x107 15,000 6,000 5,000 7,000 6,000 3,000 3,500 5,000 1,500 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,250 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 4,000 3,500 3,500 6,000 6,000 5,000 6,000 4,500 5,000 1,000 1,000 6,500 6,500 6,500 15,000 6,500 5,000 7,250 6,500 3,500 3,500 4,500 2,000 5,750 5,750 5,750 5,750 5,750 6,000 5,750 5,750 5,750 5,750 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,570 3,500 3,500 5,750 • 5,750 5,500 6,500 5,000 5,500 800 800 6,500 6,500 6,500 60 REPORT OR SELECT OOMMITTEE ■ No. 35, 207 Varick-st. n. w. c. Ham- raersly, 16.8x60 209 do 16.8x60 211 do 16.8x60 213 do 16.9x100 215 do 20.9x100 217 do 20.3x100 219 do 17.3x100 221 do 25x100 223 do 25x100 225 do s.w.cor.Clarkson, 25x100 47Hammersly-st., 25x100 49 do 25x100 51 do 25x100 53 do 25x100 55 do 26x100 57 do ........ 25x100 59 do 25x100 61 do 25x100 386 Hudson-st. cor. Ham- mersly, 18x59.10 388 do 18x59.10 390 do .... 18x61 392 do 21x61 394 do 25x100 398 do 25x100 8 Clarkson-st., 25x100 10 do 25x100 12 do 25x100 14 do 25x100 16 do 25x100 18 do 25x100 20 do 25x100 22 do 25x100 On Hudson-st., 8 lots, the front from Clarkson to Leroy-st., each, 26x100 $4,000 2,750 2,500 4,000 4,000 4,000 3,250 5,000 5,000 6,500 6,500 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,250 3,750 3,750 4,250 6,500 6,500 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,500 5,750 56,000 $4,000 2,750 2,500 3,750 3,750 3,750 3,250 5,000 5,000 6,500 6,500 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,500 3,750 3,750 4,250 7,000 7,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,500 5,750 56,000 ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 61 24 lots on Clarkson & Leroy 25x104 $24,250 $121,700 No. 36. 15.8x63.6 3,500 3,500 25x63.6 5,500 5,500 12.6x57 2,500 2,500 12.6x57 ' 2,500 2,500 442 do s. w. c. Mor- 25x75 6,000 5,750 447 do n. W.C.Morton 25x75 7,000 7,000 449 do 25x75 6,000 6,000 25x75 6,000 6,000 455 do 25x100 6,500 6,500 25x200 6,500 6,500 25x100 5,000 5,000 78 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 80 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 82 do 22 . 8x78 4,250 4,250 84 do 20x77 4,000 4,000 20x77 4, COO 4,000 90 do C.Greenwich, 20x77 5,500 5,500 25x75 4,250 4,250 24x100 4,800 4,800 24x100 4,800 4,800 79 do 24x100 4,800 4,800 80 do c.Greenwichj 20x50.2 4,500 4,500 25x100 5,000 5,000 163 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 25x109 6,000 6,000 25.1x95.9 6,000 5,750 25.1x92 6,000 5,250 2d . 1x114 6,000 6,000 25 . 1x110 6,000 6,000 641 do s.AV. C.Barrow, DO . tlxZo 5,000 4,750 No. 37 34x100 6,000 6,000 59 do 25x100 5,000 5,000 62 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE 61 15x100 5,000 5 onn 63 do 25x100 5 000 5 nnn 145 Barrow-Street Fk nnn D,(JUU 149 do 9Fivi on finn D,50U 144 do OKtI oo nnn D,UUU 5,000 146 do 25^1 00 fi nno f\ nnn 148 do 25vi on Pi 000 Fi nnn o,uuu 150 do lOO ^ 1 \J\J Fi Finn Fi F;nn 10 Grove-street , lO A. < O . O Q nnn 9 7Kn z, /ou 8 do X O A. < O , U 'i noo 9 7f^n 6 do 18x7'^ f? 000 9 75n 4 do 20x67 9 75n ^5 / ou 438 Hudson, n. e. c. Morton, onn 9 7Fin z, / ou 12 fi-srfiO 9 9 fin 9 9Fin A AO do 1 9. fiYfiO . 9 9 F.n 9 OFin All 444 do 19 fi-rfin . DXOU 9 OF^n o o pen 2,250 An 9 9F^n A 1Q A^ do lis . oxloO 2,750 2,750 A Kn do 1 9 '7t1 fin 9 i7f;n Z, /DU Ar\ do 19 f^Tion 1>6 . UA.XOV 9 7F10 9 75n / OU An 12 fi-rinn 9 7FiO 9 75n z, / ou 456 do 25x1 00 fi 000 fi noo U ,Ul/U 458 do 12 fixinn X • vF A. X V/ V 2 750 9 75ft 460 do 12 fixion X >W ■ vF A. J.\J\J 2 750 2 75ft 462 do s. e. c. Barrow, 25x1 nn 7 fSOO 7 5nft 464 do n. e. c. Barrow, 9J. fl-ei nn 7 fiflO 7 5nn 466 do 1 9 QttI nn 9 7Fin z, / ou 468 do 1 9 nn 9 7Fin 9 7Fin z, / ou 468 1 1 o QiT- 1 nn Z,/OU 470 do 19 ^Tinn 9 7f\0 9 75n ^, / OU 472 do 19 ^?Tinn 9 7fi0 9 75ft 474 do 12 '^ttIOO 9 750 9 750 476 do 12 2y100 X . A' A. X V/ V/ 2 750 2,750 478 do 9 750 2 75ft 480 do 24.6x100 6,000 6,000 482 do 24.6x100 6,000 6,000 No. 38. 636 Greenwich,n.w. C.Morton 25.1x60 5,500 5,500 638 Greenwich-st., 25.1x104 6,000 6,000 ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 63 25.1x105.0 6,000 6,000 642 do 25.1x107 6,000 6,000 644 do l<3.9x84.6 3,500 3,500 646 do 16.9x85.6 3,500 3,500 650 do 16.9x87.6 3,500 3,500 652 do 16.9x88.6 3,750 3,750 654 do s.w.c. Barrow. 16.8x89.6 5,000 5,000 656 don.w.c. do 26x80 6,500 6,000 658 do 22x80 4,500 4,500 660 do 19x80 3,750 3,750 662 do 19x100 4,000 4,000 664 19x100 4,000 4,000 666 do 19x100 4,0U0 4,000 668 do 19x100 4,000 4,000 19x100 4,000 4,000 672 do 17.8x.100 3,50u 3.500 617 Wash'n-stj.n.e.c. Leroy, 25x60 5,500 5,000 619 do 25x60 4,000 5,000 621 do 25x90 6,000 6,000 623 do 25x90 6,000 6,000 625 do 25x90 6,000 6,000 657 do 26x90 6,000 6,000 531 do s. e. cor. Barrow, 25x90 8,000 4,500 633 do n.e. cor. Barrow, 26x65 5,750 5,250 641 do 26x106.10 6,000 6,000 643 do 25x108 6,000 6,000 156 Christopher-st., s. e. cor. Warren-st. 25x44.8 6,000 5,500 154 do 5,500 6,000 152 do 5,000 5,500 150 do 5,000 5,500 148 do 5,000 5,000 146 do 5,000 5,000 144 do 4,500 4,750 No. 39. 465 Hudson-street n. e. cor. Barrow-st., 19.11x83 6,000 6,000 64 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE 467 Hudson-st., 20x83 $1,750 $4,750 r1r> 20x83 4,750 4,750 rln 36x125 ? 17,000 17,000 with rear equal to 36x175 ( 489 do 20x75 4,750 4 750 493 do 20x75 4,750 4 750 495 do 20x76 497 do flit on Christop'r, 20x77 fi 000 000 y\J\J\J 499 do s. .w. cor. do 23x67 4,500 3 500 160 Bar ro w-s tree t , 20x80 3 750 162 do Oyl JU u J 1 JU 164 do 7F>0 166 do 20x80 3,700 643 Greenwich-st.j n. e. cor. Barrow-st. 32x75 5,500 5,500 645 do 22x75 4,000 4,000 647 do 22x75 4 000 4 000 649 do 22x75 4,000 4 000 651 do 90\r7'S 653 do u-e the preceding to be the supplemental report of said corporation, adopted on the IGth day December, instant, made in response to a note of the Honorable Mark Spen- cer, James Noxon, and Joseph H. liamsey, a committee of the Honorable the Senate of this State, dated the 2d day of Decem- ber, instant, and that William E. Dunscomb, Esquire, by whom the said supplemental report is signed, is the comptroller of the said corporation. In witness whereof we have caused our seal to be here- [l. S.J unto alfixed, this eighteenth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six. By order of the Corporation of Trinity Church, in the city of New- York. RICHARD HAYDEN, Cleric of the Vestry. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 81 To the Honorable Mark Spencer^ James JVoxoi, and Joseph H. Ram- sey, a committee of the Honorable the Senate of the State of JVew- York: I, William E. Dunscomb, of the city of New- York, do hereby certify and declare that I am the comptroller of the corporation styled the Rector, Church- wardens, and Vestrymen of of Trinity Church, in the city of New-York, and that it is part of my duty to keep the books and accounts of said corporation; that the preceding supplemental report to the committee above-named, with the schedules annexed, marked respectively A, B, and C, have been made out by me or under my direction; that I know the contents thereof, and believe the same to be in all respecits just and true. WM. E. DUNSCOMB, Comptroller. Dated December \8th^ 1856- 6 EXHIBIT M. Examination of the Report of the Vestry of Trinity Church before Committee appointed by the Senate. New- York, 2d December, 1856. Present, Committee — Mark Spencer, James Noxon, Joseph H. Ramsey. Frederick M. Winston, sworn. — Q. Have you made yourself acquainted with the mortgages held by Trinity Church? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you obtain your knowledge from the oflBce of the reg- ister? A. I did. Q. Have you also examined the register's ofl5ce for all the mortgages of Trinity Church ? A. Yes, sir, Q. Is this a true account of said mortgages? A. It is, I believe. Q. Are these all the mortgages on the record from the begin- ning? A. I believe they are. Papers rendered by F. M. Winston marked exhibits A. and B. Copy of letter to vestry of Trinity Church, 29th November, on file, marked C. Reply of Trinity Church to above communication, on file, marked D. Copy of answer to Trinity Church, on file, marked E. Adjourned to 3d instant, 10 A. M. 3d December, 1856—10 ^. M. Committee met — Present, all the members. Charles H. Clayton sworn. — Q. Do you belong to the congre- gation of Trinity Church? A. Yes, sir. Q. Which one? A. Trinity chapel. Q. As one of the corporators? A. We hire a pew in the chapel ; there are no corporators there as pew holders ; a pew hold- er is not a voter except he be a communicant} they have raised ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHimCH. 83 the lease within a few months by which I hold my pew ; this is now the mode in which the pews are let. Lease left, filed F. The lease lasted one year when the alteration was made ; change took place about the last of last April. Q Do you think Trinity Church has done its utmost to make the capital of the property of that corporation available for the founding, or support or promotion of religious, charitable or educational institutions or purposes 1 A. I do not. John W. Ritck, architect^ sworn. — Have resided in the city of New- York since 1830 ; have been engaged as architect daily since 2d March, 1834, in this city ; have been in business for my- self since 1846. My business is principally improving property to make it productive to the owners ; have made many designs for buildings in all parts of the city, and consider myself able to judge of the value of real estate in all parts of the city. Have had before me a pamphlet schedule submitted to the Legislature by Trinity Church, and from that have made a sketch of all lots therein mentioned, and as accurately as possible without an actual survey. These maps are copies from the tax commis- sioners' office, made by surveyors employed by city officers to make assessments. The values placed upon the lots by me are believed to be accurate. This map of the city of New-York, shows by the red patches upon it the property owned by Trinity Church. One lot, 76 Chambers-street, I know, sold for $16,000, an actual sale, afterwards for $30,000, which was abandoned, since for $37,500, an actual sale, and is now worth $50,000, not the property of Trinity Church but in the immediate neigborhood My valuation is cash, for the ground only, what it would bring at auction at the Merchants' Exchange to-morrow. Abner L. Ely, sworn. — Reside in Green-street, am agent for the care of real estate, agent for the estates A. Loubat, C. F. Moulton and all the London branch of the Astor family. My occupation has led me to have acquaintance with property in all parts of the city ; have appraised property for insurance compa- 84 -IJBLEPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE nies to loan upon, I have looked at all the maps made by Mr, Hitch ; have put a valuation upon a majority where they were regular lots, which schedule of valuation he leaves and is marked. Said estimate of valuation is what it will bring "for cash in the auction room. There are a number of irregular lots on map 20, upon which I have put no valuation, also on map 22, also on map 32 ■ have estimated according to what property immediately opposite has rented for on short leases. The value of property has increased very much within a few years, from Fulton to Reade-street. I esteem the present market price too high to warrant permanent investments between those streets, and there- fbre the prices might be unjust to fix as the basis for the terms of a new lease of twenty-one years. The property from Reade to Canal-streets, is now changing, and there have been but few sales recently, from which to fix the present cash value. Rev. John Henry Hoharf, sworn. — Am assistant minister of Trinity Church ; have been minister in the parish eight years. Q. Do you think Trinity Church has done its utmost to make the capital of the property of that corporation, available for the founding or support or promotion of religious, charitable or educational institutions or purposes 1 A. I believe at present that there is a desire to make their property the most available : I believe that in certain matters, more might have been done to make the property available. Edward G. Higbee, sworn. — Have been assistant minister in Trinity Church for about eighteen years. Q. Do you think the vestry of Trinity Church has done its utmost to make the capital of the property of that corporation, available for the founding, or support or promotion of religious, charitable or educational institutions or purposes ? A. Almost from the period of my connection with the parish, there have been circumstances which have prevented in some degree the full benefit to be derived from this fund. I am at present not able to answer whether the vestry have done the most to make the fund so available. I understand that all communicants for one year preceding the election, and all persons holding a pew en AiTATRS OF TRmTTY CHTTRCH. 85 direct from the vestry, have the right to vote. I havB never been able to see a list of the corporators of Trinity Church, Dr. Wainwright and myself have made several efforts to obtain such a list unsuccessfully. Dr. Wainwright after being made bishop, told me he did receive such a list. The list is kept in the office of Trinity Church, and in charge of the controller ; on making enquiries for such a list, was told it was in the joint charge of said controller and rector. There was an ordinance of the vestry interfering in some respects with the privilege of voting in Trinity Chapel for a time, which was subsequently rescinded. Jesse Pound, sworn : Am clergyman in the Protestant Episcopal church, have been so for eighteen years in this city; was con- siderably acquainted with the proceedings of Trinity Church in managing their fund. I do not consider the trust has been ad- ministered in such a way as best to promote the object for which it was given. Their course, in certain instances, to my knowl- edge has been partial. I apeak 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. My period of ministry here ex- pired the first of May last; had charge of a free church in this city, principally attended by people who had no means of hiring their own seats. There was not a wealthy individual in the con- gregation; applied to Trinity church for aid to sustain the church, which was granted; a partial aid; $400, for several years, then reduced; then a movement was made to withdraw it. This was the first church founded in the city by individual charitJ^ For some reason, a prejudice was conceived; a proscriptive course towards it adopted and pursued. After fourteen years, the church died out. Six months after this took place, a full state- ment was made to Trinity Church of the condition and prospects of the church, with the purpose of discontinuing the church after the 1st of May, should they continue to withhold aid. Copy of above statement handed in and filed, marked G. Trin- ity Church allowed my church to be closed for want of such aid. At the very time this was permitted, Trinity Church was aiding 86 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE largely churches up town; they gave largely to St Luke's that very year, which had already received $70,000. To the church of the Annunciation, a wealthy church in Fourteenth-street, $25,000, besides large contributions before. The notice was given in November, 1855, to take effect 1st May following. St. Mat- thew's church was closed on 1st May; is now closed and offered for sale. The property has been re-conveyed to the donor. Herman D. Jlldrich, sworn: Merchant; resides No. SEast-Four- teenth-street; have lived in New-York thirty -five years. Am acquainted with the value of property in this city, below Canal and not west of Greenwich-streets. Am acquainted with the property marked on maps 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12;have put a value upon the property marked on above maps, based upon the usual terms of sale. Have a list of the property on these maps, with my valuation opposite each : Map. Lot. dtt 1 O HAA — same value as year ago. 1 O AAA do do 26,000 do do 205 do ... 21,000 do do . 21,000 do do , . . 10,000 do do 25,000- —10 per ct. advance on year ago. 48 do . . . 22,000 do do do do 30,000- —not much change- 13 do 29,000 do do 29,000 do do —5 per ct. advance on year ago. 83 do ,,, 21,000 do do 22,000- —10 per ct. advance on year ago. , 20.000 do do 18,000 do do , , , 18,000 do do ON AFFAIRS OF TKINITT CHURCH. 87 Map. Iiot. 7 273 Greenwich-street, 17,000- 275 do 18,000 277 do 14,000 279 do 18,900 281 do 9,000 136 Chambers-street, 25,000- 138 do 16,000 140 do 15,000 142 do 16,000 148 do 21,000 147 do 21,000 155 do 20,000 157 do 20,000 159 do 20,000 161 do 19,000 163 do 19,000 8 49 Warren-street, 25,000- 51 do 25,000 44 do 32,000 56 do 29,000 112 Chambers- street, 28,000 114 do 28,000 89 Reade-street, 18,000- 9 69 do 24,000 71 do 17,000 10 Warren-street, 40,000- 18 do 40,000 20 do 40,000 30 do 38,000 5 Murray-street, 40,000 7 do 40,000 9 do 40,000 251 Broadway, (depth 107 ft.) 120,000 252 do 90,000 256 do 90,000 •5 to 10 per ct. ad- vance on year ago. do do do do do do do do ■stationary. do do do do do do do do do do •10 per ct. advance on year ago. do do do do do do do do do do 50 pr. ct. advance. do do do do ■5 to 10 per ct. ad- vance on year ago. do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do OC^j REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Map« Lot. 10 156 Reade-street, 9,000 — 50 per ct. advance 11 104 do (if 25 ft fronfJ 20 000 f\c\ fir* 100 do 18 000 \X\J \X\f 108 do 19,000 do do 110 do do do 12 60 do do do 74 do 25,000 do do The Reade- street property has increased within a year full 50 per cent. Throughout that whole district a general advance has taken place within a year. Adjourned to 4th instant, at 10 A. M. New- York, Uh December^ 1856. Committee met. Present all the members. Rev. Stephen H. Tyng, sworn. Am rector of St. George's church J have been rector for eleven years and six months. Q. Is the statement in that report of Trinity Church relative to St. George's Church correct? A. To the best of my know- ledge and belief it is not correct. Q. Do you now speak of both paragraphs 1 A. I did refer to both, but would refer to particular statements. The whole con- sideration received by St. George's church, in consideration of the transfer of that property, was $25,000. I do not know of any other parties to whom additional moneys were paid. They make the cash transfer on the property $55,660.33 by their state- ment. To the best of my knowledge and belief, Trinity church never paid but $25,000 for St. George's church. I know nothing of the amounts paid for improvement of the church of the Holy Evangelist. Q. Do you believe the vestry of Trinity church has done its utmost to make the capital of the property of that coporation available for the founding, or support, or promotion of religious, charitable, or educational institutions, or purposes'? A. I do not believe they have. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 89 Q. Have they materially reduced the stipends formerly paid to clergymen in this city 1 A. 1 have heard no instance in which they have not; have heard several instances in which they have. Jasper Grosvenor, merchant, affirms : I do not know the value Trinity church places upon the lot corner Broadway and Murray- streets. Q. Did you ever make an offer for it under the lease \ A.I made an offer of $40,000, subject to the lease. I paid them 110,000 for the stipulation that they would renew the lease at its expiration on the usual terms. My lease expires in 1872 — the renewal to befor twenty-one years from that expiration. The ground rent of the present lease is $26.25 a year. I hold my lease from the original lessee, but it has passed through two or three hands in the mean time. John W. Todd, builder, sworn: Resides 155 West Twenty-first- street, New- York : have lived in New-York thirty two years ; my business has led me to become acquainted with the value of property in all parts of the city ; I have appraised the property shown on maps 1 to 19, inclusive ; will complete it in a short time, and hand it in to the chairman of the committee. Q. Can you state what is the general character of the improve- ments on this property 1 A. Except a lew buildings down town they are generally of a cheap nature. Q. What influence has such leases upon adjoining property 1 A. To deter improvement, Q. What influence upon property and growth A. To keep it back. John W. Ritch, recalled. — Have placed a value on all the pro- perty described on the maps, from one to thirty-nine, inclusive, except such plots as are used for burying grounds and church purposes, and such valuation appears upon the sheets of paper herewith delivered to the committee, numbered one to thirty- nine, inclusive. Maps and sheets filed, and marked H. The improvement generally upon this property is poor. Some por- 99' REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE tion of it is well improved. Many of them are of the worst character in their effect upon their neighborhood; would be much better for city and property owners if these leases were removed. The property below Duane-st. is well improved. These are the valuations of the lots, put upon them by Trinity Church, and by which they were relet before the last report to the Legislature was made, within three years. 205 Fulton-street, annual rent $1,000, on value : $20,000. 207 do do 1,000, do 20,000. 35 Vesey-street, do 1,225, do 24,500, 48 do do 1,050, do 21,000. 13 Barclay-street, do 1,250, do 25,000. 15 do do 1,250, do 25,000. 83 Murray-street, do 1,000, do 20,000. 18 Warren- street. do 1,425, do 28,500. 44 do do 1,250, do 25,000. I know this from my own knowledge, and from the record ofiBce. Valuation placed by the church upon the property occu- pied by H. R. Railroad depot, corner Chambers and Chapel-sts., was $100,000, about a year ago. Sullivan H, Westorij sworn. — Have been minister in the church for eight years. Q. Do you think the vestry of Trinity Church has done its utmost to make the capital of the property of that corporation available for the founding, or support, or promotion of religious, charitable or educational institutions or purposes ? A. With the organization they had, they did all they could — certainly in the lower part of the city. I do not feel able to answer the question. If their property is worth what it is rep- resented to be, I think they have not done all for the poor and the church they might have done. Luther Bradish, sworn. — I have been long acquainted with the vestry of Trinity Church, and the management of its trust, and was for many years a member of the congregation ami a pew- holder in the church. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 91 Q. Do you think the vestry of Trinity Church has done its ut- most to make the capital of the property of that corporation available for the founding, or support, or promotion of religious, charitable or educational institutions or purposes 1 A. I do not. It is a subject of serious complaint by churchmen throughout the city. Q What has been the operation of the law of 1814 on the church directly 1 A. The direct effect was to exclude a very large portion of the original corporators. Q. Have you examined the law of 1814, and do you think it in accordance with the terms of the original grants of said pro- perty 1 A. I have examined it, and consider it a flagrant violation of the original grants. I suppose it is susceptible of being ascer- tained who were entitled to vote previous to the law of 1814. All communicants of the church under the original charter, were entitled as corporators, to vote. The reports to the convention would prove who were entitled to be heard in 1814. A. In what other respect, if any, does the act of 1 814 differ from the originel grants 1 Trinity Church claims under the act of 1814, the absolute right of property belonging to this trust, and has exercised such right. I know that Mr. Troup, in behalf of Trinity Church, urged it as a reason for the act of 1814, in a pamphlet over his name, that it would enable Trinity Church to make these endowments. I do not know that Trinity Church has availed itself of this portion of the act. Q. In what respect has the vestry failed to do what was asked in the first question ■? A. In failing to aid feeble churches and to establish others where required in this city. The want of free churches throughout the city is severely felt Q. Did Episcopalians in the city petition the Legislature for the passage of the law in 1814 1 A. Churchmen throughout the city strenuously opposed the passage of the law. 93 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Mr. L. Bradish is requested to answer the following inter- rogatories : 1. From what source was the property now held by Trinity Church derived? 2. To whom and by what title was these grants made 1 3. For what purpose ? 4. After the change of government at the Revolution, to whom and under what title, and for what purposes were these grants renewed by the Legislature of this State in 1784 1 5. When did the present corporation of Trinity Church pro- cure a change in the title and control of this property ? 6. What was the nature of the change 1 7. What its effect upon the vested rights of corporators as originally constituted ? 8. What were the circumstances under which it became a law 1 9. Has the present law been quietly acquiesced in by " the inhabitants of the city of New-York, in communion, &c.," since the passage of said law, or have they resisted it as an illegal violation of their vested rights 1 10. Is it your opinion that the act of 1814, is subversive of the rights of individuals, and, therefore, unconstitutional and unjust 1 11. Did Col. Troup appear as counsel for Trinity Church in the effort made by that corporation to procure the passage by the Legislature of the law of 1814, by which the rights of original corporators were cut off? 12. Did he, in his argument before the Council of Revision, state, and in what terms, that if the law sought were passed, giving the control of this vast estate exclusively to the corporation of Trinity Church, she would go forward with more freedom and liberality than she had hitherto done, in setting olF and suitably endowing independent churches, and in dividing and distributing the large lauded estate which she had hitherto held as trustee for the " Rector and inhabitants of the city of New-Yorii, in com- munion with the Protestant Episcopal chiu-ch, in the State of New-York." ON AFFAIRS OF THINITY CHUHCH. •3 13. Have you examined the history of the grants of land by the vestry of Trinity church, as compiled and published by its rector, the Rev. Dr. Berrian 1 Will you state the dates, purposes, grantees and value of said grants of land-, as given in said history, previous to the passage of the la w of 1814 1 Also, the like facts as to the grants of land by said vestry, since the passage of the law of 1814, so as to demonstrate the comparative results of the law in question, upon the interests of religion and learning? 1st Answer. The property now held by Trinity church has been derived mainly from two royal grants, the first in 1697, under William III., king of England, consisting of the parish church and a part of the land known as " the queen's garden," which, together with two lots of land derived from other sources, forms the present church- yard, or burying ground of the church. The second in 1705, under Anne, queen of England, consisting of the tract of land known as " the duke's or king's farm," then " the queen's farm." Trinity church holds some other smaller pieces of real estate derived from other sources. 2d Answer. The first of the grants above specified, in my answer to the first interrogatory, was expressly " declared to be forever separated and dedicated to the service of God, and to be applied 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 whatso- ever, any statute law, custom, or usage to the contrary, in any ways notwithstanding." The second of the grants above specified, and by far the most important, was made to the corporation, by its corporate name, previously created, and known as " The Rector and Inhabitants of the city of New-York, in communion of the church of England, as by law established, and their successors." This corporation was created by charter under William III., of Eng- land in 1697, in the words following, viz.: 94 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE " And we have further thought fit, and, at the humble request of our loving subjects, are graciously pleased to create and make him, our said Right truly, and well beloved, and Right Reverend Father in God, Henry Lord Bishop of London, and his Successors, Rectors of said Parish, together with all the Inhabitants^ from time to time, inhabiting, and to inhabit in our said City of New- York, and in communion of our said Protestant Church of Eng- land, as now established by our Laws, as Body corporate and Politic ***** in fact and name, by the name of "TAe Rector and Inhabitants of our said City of JYew-York, in commu- nion of our Protestant Church of England^ as now established by our Laws.''"' The essential powers of this corporation were re granted by an act of the Colonial Legislature in 1704, to "The Rector and In- habitants of the City of New- York in communion of the Church of England, as by law established, and their Successors " The corporation thus created by the charter of William III., in 1597, and the act of the Coloniar Legislature, in 1704, is re- cognised in the grant of Ann, in 1705, and the grant made to that corporation, by its corporate name. All the inhabitants, from time to time inhabiting, and to in- habit in the city of New- York, and in communion of the Protes- tant Church of England as established by law, were corporators of the corporation created by the aforesaid charter of 1 597, and the act of the Colonial Legislature of 1704, and were, therefore, beneficiaries under the grants of William III., in 1697, and of Ann, in 1705. 3d answer. From the terms of the charter of William III , in 1697, of the act of the Colonial Legislature of 1704, and of the grant of Ann in 1705, it is evident that the purpose and object of these grants were the establishment and maintenance of the principles and services of the Protestant Episcopal Church throughout the city of New- York. 4th answer. By the legislative act of 1784, the corporation, created by the royal charter of 1697, and act of the Colonial Legislature in 1704, was saved from forfeiture, by reason of any ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. non-user or misuser between the 19th of April 1775, and the date of the said act of 1784; it being expressly enacted in the said law, "that nothing in this law, nor no non-user or misuser between the 19th day of April 1775, and the passing of this law, shall be in any wise construed to annul, injure, repeal or make void the said charter, or the said law first above particularly mentioned, where the same are not inconsistent with the Con- stitution of the State." In its manifest object of adapting the corporation to the new state of things produced by the Revolution, the consequent inde- pendence of the State, and the adoption of the Constitution of this State, the Legislative act of 1784 did not change the title of the corporation, or the rights of the parties interested, but expressly declared ''^that nothing in this act contained shall be construed, deemed or taken, to prejudice or injure the right or title of any person or persons whatsoever, to any lands or tenements occu- pied or claimed by the corporation aforesaid." 5th Answer. In and by the act of January 25th, 1814. 6th Answer. The act of 1814 authorized the corporation previously created, instead of its then corporate 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," "to take and use the name of '■The Rector, Church-wardens, and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, in the city of JYew-Yorlc' ^' This virtually created a new corporation, with new corporators, and new qualifications for the exercise of the right of voting for those who, as agents and trustees, were to manage and apply the large estates, in which, by the original grants, all the inhabitants of New-York, in communion of the Protestanc Episcopal church in the State of New- York, were legally interested. 7th Answer. By the Royal Charter of 1697, and the act of the colonial Legislature of 1704, all the inhabitants of the city of New- York, in communion of the Protestant Episcopal church, were made corporators of the corporation thereby created, and, as such, had the right to vote for the church-wardens and the vestrymen, who, with the rector, not only formed the vestry of 96 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE the parish church, but were the agents and trustees for the man- agement and application of the common property. By the act of 1814, all the inhabitants of the city of New- York, in communion of the Protestant Episcopal church were excluded from the corporation thereby created or newly mod- elled, and deprived of the right of voting at the annual elections for churchwardens and vestrymen of the said corporation, ex- cept " male persons of full age, who, for the space of one year preceding any election, shall have been members of the congre- gation of Tliuity church, or of 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 any of the said chapels, or have partaken of the holy communion therein within the said year." The act of 1814, also seriously affected the rights of property of those thus excluded, and who, by the royal charter of 1697, and the act of the colonial Legislature of 1704, were constituted corporators of the corporation thereby created, and beneficiaries under the valuable grants made therein, and in the royal grant of Ann, in 1705. For although in the act of 1814, it is provided " That nothing in this act contained shall be construed to affect or defeat the right of any person or persons, or of any body cor- porate to the estate, real or personal, now held, occupied or en- joyed by the corporation of Trinity church;" yet that act having already deprived the great body of Episcopalians of the right o^ being corporators, and voting for the agents and trustees of the common property, the saving of the mere abstract right of pro- perty is worth very little. The right of voting for the agents and trustees, who are to manage and apply the corporate or common property, is an essential incident of the right of pro- perty itself; is indispensable to the protection of such right, and necessary to give it full effect. The mere bald, naked, abstract right of property, without the right of electing the agents and trustees, who are to manage and apply such property, is practically of little value. The act of 1814, therefore, in ex- cluding the great body of Episcopalians of the city of New-York ram t\vi new corporation thereby created or materially changed; ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 9^ and in depriving them of the right of voting for the agents or trustees of the corporate or common property, not only deprived them of valuable franchises previously granted to, and enjoyed by them, but virtually divested them of their right of property; or rendered that right of little practical value. As a conse- quence, the valuable grants originally made for the use and benefit of the inhabitants, from time to time inhabiting, or to inhabit in the city of New-York, in communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and to the rector and inhabitants of the city of New- York, in communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church, since the passage of the act of 1814, seem to have been viewed and administered as the individual and exclusive property of the corporation newly created, or materially remoddled by that act; and the grants, which have since been made out of this property by the new corporation, have been presented as gratuities of that corporation, and not as appropriations of the proceeds of a trust fuud, to which the parties receiving such grants were justly and of right entitled. These grants have been claimed as acts of liberality, and not as the faithful execution ot a great trust, created and endowed for expansive benevolence, not for exclusive or restricted emolument. Sth Answer. From the Journals of the Legislature and the Council of Revision, which I have examined, it appears that the petition of Trinity Church for the act of 1814, was presented in the Senate of the State on the 17th of March, 1813, a bill brought in, which was passed by that body on the 25th of March, 1813, and by the Assembly on the 2d of April, 1813. On the 5th of April, 1813, the bill was received by the Council of Revision, and referred to the chancellor, who rei^orted objections to the bill. These objections were considered by the council on the 25th of January, 1814, when the vote thereon was equally divided. No order therefore was made thereon, and the bill became a law by lapse of time, without ever having received the express sanction of the executive department of the government. 9th Answer. The act of 1814 has not been quietly acquiesced in by the great body of Episcopalians in the city of New- York : on the contrary, from its passage to the present time, it has been 7 98 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE a continued subject of dissatisfaction, and occasional efforts for its material modification or repeal. 10th Answer. It is my deliberate opinion, after careful ex- amination, that the act of 1814 does attempt to deprive the great body of Episcopalians in the city of New-York of important franchises, and to divest them of their rights in valuable estates, granted and confirmed to them by legal and valid acts; and therefore that the said act of 1814 is unconstitutional, unequal, and unjust. Nor has the said act, in my opinion, as was prom- ised at the fime of its passage, advanced, nor is it calculated to advance, the great objects of Christian benevolence, for which the original corporation vias created, and so liberally endowed. 11th Answer. In a pamphlet over the name of " Robert Troup," dated 6th of September, 1813, and while the bill in question was before the Council of Revision, or its committee, the:e is thy following: viz., "'with his zealous exertions to pro- cure the passage of the bill through the two houses of the Legis- lature, and with this very humble attempt to recommend it to the approbation of ihe council." From this declaration of Colonel Troup, I conclude that he did appear as counsel or agent for Trinity church in the elfort'to procui'e the passage of the act of 1814. 12th Answer. In the pamphlet of Colonel Troup, above re- ferred to, in my answer to the 11th interrogatory, and which pamphlet appears to have been written in support of the bill in question, while it was pending before the Council of Revision, and witlx a view to induce its passage into a law, there are, among others, the following remarkable and very significant paragraphs, viz , "judging from the past, it is morally certain that the future increase of the population of the city will strongly recommend to the corporation of Trinity Church the policy of (Jividing its corporators, and setting them off in separate churches, with suitable endowments; and to enable the vestry to do this in a mode free from all legal doubts, and with the assent of a majority of the corporators to be set off, is a fifth object of the bill." ON AFFAIRS OF TR1N1T7 CHURCH. 99 Again : "The bill, when passed into a law, would have the happy consequence of enabling the vestry of Trinity Church, from time to time, as society shall advance, to separate churches with the consent of their congregations, and to endow them with competent estates. No power can be more congenial than this to the spirit of our republican systems. The frequent exercise of the power likewise, by breaking down the estate of Trinity Church, would allay the fears of those honest republicans, who look upon large estates as nurseries of sentiments hostile to liberty; and it would calm the minds of those e»thusiastic de- votees who believe that religious societies, when possessing wealth, seldom employ enough of it in the heavenly work of propagating the gospel." The action of the vestry of Trinity Church, previous and sub- sequent to the passage of the act of 1814, gives peculiar signifi- cance to these paragraphs of the pamphlet of Col Troup. 13th Answer. I have examined the history of the grants of land made by the vestry of Trinity Church, as presented in "an Historical Sketch of Trinity Church, New- York, by the Rev. William Berrian, D. D., the rector of the same," in a pamphlet entitled "Facts against Fancy, or a True and Just View of Trin- ity Church," supposed to be by the Rev. Rector of Trinity Church ; and in a conmunication ot the vestry of Trinity Church to the Senate of the State, in reply to resolutions of the same, passed April 13, 1855, transmitted to the Legislature Feb. 20, 1856. From these documents it appears that previous to the passage ol the act of 1814, grants of land were made, and are valued as follows, viz : Date. No. of Lot. Description of Property.' Value. 1748 Site of Trinity school, number of lots and value not given. (F. 16.) 1752 All these lands between Murray and Barclay-streets, and from Church- street to the river, being an endow- ment of Columbia College, (F. 15.) $500,000 00 1765 2 For a ferry from PaulusHook(H. 367.) Value not given. 100 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Date. No. of lot. Description of property. Value. 1775 2 In Vesey-street, for a pier and slip. Value not given. ( H. 368.) 1786 3 For the use of the senior pastors of the Presbyterian congregations of New-York, (H. 367,) $50,000 00 1798 28 To St. Mark's church, in the Bowery, viz: 5 in Warren-st., 1 in Church- street 12 in Reade- street, 3 in Har- • rison-street, 2 in Greenwich-street, 5 in Provoost-street ; value in 1847, $131,500. (F. 19,) 131,500 00 1800 7 To Trinity school on Lumber, Rector, av.d Greenwich-sts.; value in 1847, 135,000, now (F. 16,) 50,000 00 1802 32 To the society for promoting religion and learning in the diocese of New- York, situated on Barclay, Warren, Greenwich, Hudson, Beach & North Moore-streets — value in 1847, $120, 000, now much more, (F. 17.) 1805 4 To Christ church, New-York, on Bar- clay-street — value in 1847, $24,000, now (F. 27,) 48,000 00 1807 2 To St. Stephen's church, New-York, on Warren-&t; value in 1847, $13, 000, now (F. 25,) 26,000 00 1809 4 To St. James' church, Newtown, viz: 1 on Reade-st., 1 on Greenwich-st., 2 onLumber-st; value in 1847, $20,- 000, now much more, (F. 24.) 1809 5 To St. Peters', Westchester, on Reade Chambers and Warren-streets; value in 1847, $22,500, now (F. 23,) 45,000 00 1809 5 To St. George's, Flushing, viz : 3 on Warren-st., 2 on Chamber-st. ; value in 1847, $19,500, now greatly in- creased, (F. 23.) ON AFFAIRS OF TKINITT CHURCH. 101 Date. No. of lots. Description of property. Valne. 1809 4 To Grace church, Jamaica, viz: 3 on Lumber-st.,1 on Reade-st.; Value in 1847,$18,500,now much more.(F.23) 1809 2 To St. Ann's, Brooklyn, on Chambers St.; value in 1847, $13,000, now (F. 24,) $26,000 00 1809 6 To St. Michael and James', N. York, on Chambers, Vesey & Warren-sts., value in 1847, $39,000, now (F. 26) 78,000 00 1809 4 To Trinity church, Utica, viz : 3 on Reade-street, 1 on Clark-street; value $12,000, since materially in- creased, (F. 27.) 1810 2 For a free school in Hudson-street, lots and value not specified, (F. 13.) 1810 Land in Duane-st, for a market in Brannon-street, value not specified, (H. 368.) 1811 25 To Grace-church, New-York, viz : 7 on Rector-street, 2 on Vesey-st., 3 on Barclay-street, 2 on Warren- street, 5 on Chambers-street, 2 on Church-street, 4 on Reade-street; value in 1847, $120,000, now 240,000 GO (F. 20.) 1812 Land, supposed to be four lots, for a market on Christopher-street, be- tween Greenwich and Washington- streets; value not given. (H.231-2). 1812-13 33 To St. George's, N. Y., viz: 8 on Reade-street, 4 on Greenwich-street, 6 on Murray-street, 9 on Chambers- street, 4 on Warren-st., 1 on Bar- clay-street, 1 on Beekman-street; value in 1847, $170,000; now, 340,000 00 H. 249,250— F.21.) 102 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Date. No. of lots. DeBcription of proper tyr Value. 1813 4 To St. James's, New-York, on Cham- bers, and Barclay-streets; value in 1847, $26,000; now, (F. 26,) $52,000 00 Grants of Land made subsequent to the passage oj the act of 1814. 1815 Further grant of lots to the Free School Society, number of lots not given, supposed to be five; value not given. (F. 13.) 1820 3 To St. Luke's Church, N. Y. 1827 2 do do 1834 3 do do Value in 1847, $30 000; since ma- terially increased. (F. 29.) 1832 5 To Trinity School, N. Y., on Canal Varick,and Grand-streets, leased at a nominal rent for 63 years ; esti- mated equal to a capital of $20,000. (F. 17.) 1835 1 To Ascension Church, N. Y., on Vesey-street; value in 1847 ,$6,500; now, (F. 31,) 13,000 00 The number of lots in the foregoing statement includes only those grants of which the number of lots is given. It omits, therefore, the site for Trinity Church; the whole endowment of Columbia college, so far as the number of lots is concerned; land in Duane-street, granted for a market in Brannon-street; and land on Christopher-street, for a market on that street. From " the communication" of the vestry of Trinity Church to the Senate, made in February, 1856, it appears that the whole number of lots given to churches down to the 15th of February, 1855, was 146. Of these, 137 were given previous, and 9 sub- sequent to the passage of the act of 1814. It also appears that down to 1855 the whole number of lots given for the advancement of the church and of religion, for ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH 103 general and public purposes, and to institutions of learning and charity schools, and leased for 63 years free of rent, was 172, of which 162 were given previous and 10 subsequent to the pas- sage of the act of 1814. It then appears that down to February, 1855, the whole number of lots given by the Vestry of Trinity Church, for all purposes, was 318; of which 299 were given previous, and only 19 subsequent to the passage of the act of 1814. Of the 299 lots which were given p-evious to the pas- sage of the act of 1814, 167 were given within 15 years, 94 within 5 years, and 62 within 3 years, before the passage of that act. It also appears that within fifteen years before the passage of the act of 1814, the Vestry of Trinity Church built, set off, and endowed with landed estates, three churches; since the pas- sage of that act, not one. It also appears that since the passage of the act of 1814, the number of Episcopal parishes in the city of New-York has increased from nine to nearly fifty; but that not one ot all this increase has been built, set off, and endowed with landed estates by Trinity corporation. As an inducement to the passage of the act of 1814, U was urged as " morally certain " that the future increase of the pop- ulation of the city would strongly recommend to the corporation of Trinity church the policy of dividing its corporators, and setting them off in separate churches, with suitable endowments; and to enable the vestry to do this, in a mode free from all legal doubts, was an object of the bill. The bill was drawn up and passed accordingly; but since its passage, the corporators have never b en divided, set off, and suitably endowed. As a iurther inducement to the passage of the act of 1814, it was represented that the bill, when passed into law, would have the happy consequence of enabling the vestry of Trinity Church, from time to time, as society should advance, to sepa- rate the churches, with the consent of their congregations, and Jp endow them with competent estates : " That no power could be more congenial than this to the spirit of our republican sys- tem :" That " the frequent (execution) exercise of the power 104 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE likewise, by breaking down the estate of Trinity church, would allay the fears of those honest republicans, who look upon large estates as nurseries of sentiments hostile to liberty j and would calm the minds of those enthusiastic devotees, who believe ihat religious societies, when possessing wealth, seldom employ enough of it in the heavenly work of propagating the gospel." Since the passage of the act of 1814, "the happy consequence" thus promised, has not been realized ; the churches have not been separated and endowed with competent estates ; the power, so congenial with our republican systems, sought and granted, has not been exercised; the large and increasing estate of this powerful corporation has not been broken down, nor the fears of honest republicans allayed, or the minds of enthusiastic devo- tees been calmed. On the contrary, since the passage of the act of 1814, every other consideration and interest seem to have been made to yield to the new-born policy of accumulation, and paramount object of keeping that large and increasing estate together in one mass. The wise and salutary policy of landed endowments, which, previous to the passage of the act of 1814, had given away 299 lots, has, since the passage of that act, with its novel powers, and increased facilities, been so far paralyzed as to grant only 19 lots in all; and for more than twenty years last past, seems to have been abandoned. Since 1835 it does not appear that a single foot of this large and increasing landed estate has been given for any purpose whatever, unless it be some fine burial plots in Trinity cemetery, given to charitable societies. Instead of grants of land, the corporation seems to have con- fined itself of late, wholly to the practice of making pecuniary grants, either in the form of loans on mortgage, or in most cases, in small annuities, or annual stipends, dependent wholly upon the will of the donor. The effect of this would naturally be, as it is believed to have been, to interfere with the independence of both clergy and parishes. It is believed too, that this habitual leaning, for apnual support, upon this wealthy corporation, has had the ON AFFAIKS OF TKINITY CHURCH, 105- natural effect of weakeBing, rather than strengthening feeble parishes. The parishes which have received endowments in land, are, almost without exception prosperous and strong. They are now, not only independent of further aid, but are able and willing to aid others. Whereas a large proportion of those, which have only been aided by annual stipends in money, have naturally, and almost necessarily spent the money as fast as received, without acquiring any permanent strength, or any feeling of self- reliance; and consequently are now no more able to sustain themselves by their own inheritent and acquired strength, than they were many years ago. A return to the policy and practice of endowments in landed estate, as contemplated in the act of 1814, and was promised as an inducement to the passage of that act, can alone give a real and healthy development of church growth and parochial inde- pendence. This together with a more active and diffusive appropriation of this large and increasing trust estate, substitut- ing, for the policy of accumulation, and a too restricted, if not exclusive use, a more equal and just participation, can alone tully accomplish the great object of this trust estate, and faith- fully carry out the benevolent purposes of its donors; while a perseverance in the present policy, and a continuance of the sti- pendiary system, can only extend the list of pensioners on this fund, impair the wholesome spirit of self-reliance, promote pa- rochial debility, and personal dependence, and thus defeat a great object of active and diffusive christian benevolence. I cannot but think, therefore, tliat the passage of the act of 1814, and the new system, which if not induced by, has been pursued under it, have not promoted, in the best manner and highest practicable degree, the interest of religion and learning, but have been essentially injurious to both. The foregoing answers are mainly given from knowledge derived from a careful examination of the documents, or copies thereof, referred to therein; and I believe them to be just and true. L. BRADISH. JVew-York, Dec. 24, 1856. 106 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Samuel T. Skidmore appeared: Q. Are you a vestryman of Trinity cTiurch, and member of the standing committee'? A. Yes; I decline to be sworn, for tlie reason that in view of the communications passing between the committee and comptroller, it seems to me improper. Thomas H. Taylor^ sworn; Am rector of Grace church; have been so for nearly twenty-three years. Q. Do you think the vestry of Trinity church has done its ut- most to make the capital of the property of that corporation available for the founding, or support, or promotion of religious charitable, or educational institutions or purposes? A. From my outward observation of their acts, I should say not. Q. In what respect? A. Because they have not multiplied churches throughout 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, ei her by \ taking mortgages on the churches to which they advanced money, or by annual payments to the support of the minister; in either way increasing their power over the corporations and minister 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. Grace church, with about five hundred communicants, has no representation in this corporation, by the act of 1814; that act, together with the subsequent action of the vestry, has had the effect to cut all off, the same effect applies to all the churches in the city. In illus- tration of my opinion, I would state that a very worthy minister of a parish in the vicinity of the city, whose church was embar- rassed by a debt of some four thousands of dollars was told by his warden that he had applied to the controller of Trinity church for aid in their pecuniary embarrassment. The reply he received was, " we can give you no help, fur your minister voted against us at the last convention." The reply of the warden amounted to this, " our minister voted against the restoration of Bishop Onderdonk, but in doing so, we do not perceive how he voted ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHTRCH. 107 against Trinity Church." The controller replied, "to vote against measures approved by Trinity church is to vote against her, and we are resolved, for the future, to take care of our friends." The warden remarked, "if the course of our minister is to ruin me and his church, I will go his security that he will not oflfend in that way again." The minister, who came to me with this statement, then said, -'of course, nothing is left to me but to pay this debt, or to leave the church. As I cannot do the one I must seek for the bread for my children somewhere else, for the warden is my personal friend, and he is personally liable for the debt." He resigned his parish, and left the State. This Is but one of the many instances of the sort that has come to my knowledge. John D. Wolfe, sicom. — Am merchant in the city of New-York. Was formerly a vestryman of Trinity Church for about ten years. I was omitted at an election some eight or ten years since. Q. To you think the vestry of Trinity Church has done its utmost to make the capital of the property of that corporation available for the founding, or support, or promotion of religious, charitable, or educational institutions or purposes 1 A.. They did not much in the way of charity; for that general object I do not think they did. Have never seen a list of the corporators ; the vestrymen are not allowed to see it tliat I know of The reletting of lots when leases expired was done by a finance com- mittee to whom the offers were made and then approved by the vestry. They do not make annual reports of the affairs of the church nor are any published. William E. Dunscomb, sworn. — Am comptroller of Trinity Church. Q. In addition to the property set forth in the report to the Legislature, does not Trinity Church hold other bonds and mort- gages? A. There are unproductive mortgages on churches, taken for grants made which were not included. A sum of money is granted as a loan and mortgages taken for the aid granted to the churches; like other mortgages, there is a power to foreclose them, but we never take measures to collect them ; 108 KEPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE. never have exercised the power ; it is understood as being an ordinary loan, as aid to them, but giving Trinity Church the right to call for principal or interest. I have no recollection of measures being taken to foreclose. I cannot state the name of the persons entitled to vote. I have no authority to give the list of bonds and mortgages above referred to, and would consult with the vestry. Q. Have you a list of the voters in your possession 1 A. One of the lists was lost and afterwards found, and the number but not the names was added to our report. I presume their names are in the office ; if the committee of the vestry authorize me to furnish such list I will do so. Q. "What interest if any has Trinity Church in St. John's Park? A. Since its appropriation as a park, it has never been considered as property to be disposed of by the church ; they owned the whole park originally ; we have never made any negotiation for the sale of it ; do not know that owners have offered the church any sum for their interest ; the vestry did fix a value of $400,000 upon it. Q. DijJ you find it difficult to sell lots in their present condi- tion 1 A. We cannot sell them without first consulting our tenants, and nobody applies to purchase leased lots but them. On page 6 of the report, those 37 lots sold have been mostly sold to the tenants, and the 47 re-let have been re-let to the lessees. The church does sell lots in the neighborhood of War- ren and Murray-streets, where they have become valuable. Q. What was the inducement to continue under lease the pro- perty corner Muri-ay and Broadway-sts., when offered $50,000 for it 1 A . They have sold so much that they want to keep in reserve for all time something for the churches. The renewal of the leases is done by a committee. The value of the buildings separate from the lots, was estimated by sending around agents to enquire into the value of those buildings. Trinity Church makes an annual report to the body of the vestry of the affairs of the corporation, but does not publish it. The report is in the office, and open to the inspection of any member of the vestry. ON AFFAIRS OV TRINITY CHURCH. 109 Q. Have not the vestry been urged by Gen. Dix and others to publish it? A. Gen. Dix was anxious to have it published, but the vestry did not think it worth while; he wanted it published to be useful to the vestry, but not for general circulation. There have been two reports made to the Legislature which were published at large, but the others were not intended for general circulation. Copy of Mr. Dunscomb's testimony made and sent to him at his request. Cyrus Curtiss, sworn. — Am merchant in the city of New- York; am a vestryman of the Trinity Church; have been so for about 6 years; I have seen one list of the corporators which was kept by Dr. Berrian, at an election. There is an annual report of the affairs of the corporation made, but not published; some of the vestry have desired to have it published. Have been on a com- mittee to examine the annual report and examination of the accounts of the controller; they have access to all the books referred to in the annual report, and such only. Q. Why do you continue to relet lots instead of selling when the corporation is in want of funds 7 A. I cannot say because it is a subject that belongs to the standing committee of which I am not a member; do not know of the number of lots given away since 1814. It has been the policy of the vestry of late to give no lots, what they give is a donation. The pews in Trinity Chapel were let the first year in a manner to preclude the crea ■ tion of a corporator; by that act they deprived them of the pri- vilege of voting as a pew-holder, and on. the second year that restrictive clause was rescinded. My impression is, the stand- ing committee has the power to renew leases in the church. I do not know the value of the interest of the Trinity Church in St. John's Park. Q. Has no value been placed on itl A. I am not able to say that any value has been placed on it; the subject of selling it was referred to a committee. The business of the church is principally done through the standing committee, comprising about six besides the controller and clerk. I should suppose 110 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE the controller has the power to furnish a list of assets and cor- porators. Adjourned to Friday, 19th December, 10 A. M. New-York, Dec, 1856, 10 a. m. Committee met, present all the members. James H. JVoe, brush manufacturer^ iworn. — Q. Did you buy a lot of Trinity church within a year 1 A. I did; the deed is dated the 1st of May. Q. At what time did you make your bargain? A. In the lat- ter part of January or 1st of February, 1856. Q. Where was the lot 1 A. 275 Greenwich-street. Q. What price did you pay tor it? A. $20,000. Q. Do you know of any other lot sold in that neighborhood? A. No, sir. Supplementary Report in reply to a note of Hon, Mark Spenctr, James JYoxon and J. H. Ramsey, a committee of the Senate, bear- ing date December 2, 1856, from Trinity church, handed in^ marked J. Jibner L. Ely, recalled. — Q. Will you look at that appraisal and say which is yours ? A. The second column, with my name at the top, with the figures entered in black ink. Jno. W. Ritch, recalled. — Since last sworn I have collected several of the maps presented by me on that occasion, and the appraisal is my appraisal of the lots appearing upon the maps as corrected. The sum total is $5,431,520. The valuations numbered from 1 to 39 consecutively, correspond with the maps and are my valuations of the property represented on the maps. This valuation is made as the price they would now bring at auction. My valuations are so moderate that I can find pur- chasers for the sever^il lots at the prices I have named. Rev. Henry Jinthon sworn. — Was assistant-minister in Trinity church from 1831 to 1836. Q. Do you think, from what you saw during that period and up to this time, that the vestry of Trinity church has done its utmost to make the capital of the property of that corporation ON AFFAIES OF TRINITY CHURCH. Ill available for the founding or support of charitable religious and educational institutions? A. I do not. Q. Are the assistant-ministers members of the vestry ? A. They are not. While I was assistant I had a conversation with a Mr. Graham, one of the vestry, and I impressed upon him the neces- sity of establishing two funds, one for church buildings and one for church glebes, he replied that my policy was to open the strong-box and his was to keep it closed ; my reply was, no, your policy is to open it to your favorites. Q. In aid rendered by Trinity Church to other Episcopal churches of this city, since 1814, has such aid been spontaneous and voluntary to the extent of its means, or has it generally been given reluctantly, and after earnest and protracted solicita- tions 1 A. The aid furnished by Trinity Church since 1814 has been done upon applications, and not voluntarily, and such aid in many cases, I have reason to believe, has been reluctantly granted. Q. Have mortgages in many cases been required as security for the sum advanced 1 A. In several cases, to my knowledge, it has been done. Q. What effect has aid in these forms upon independence of speech and freedom of action on the part of parishes and clergy- men thus aided when they meet in our diocesan conventions and other church associations, and when there are diversities of opinion as to matters of morals and doctrine 1 A. In my opinion the effect is seriously to impair their inde- pendence. Q. In applications for aid, has Trinity church, in your opin- ion, favored those whose party views and actions were similar to her own 1 A. Unquestionably. For instance, while the application of St. Jude's church was pending, which was ultimately refasf d, it is said grants were made St. Luke's, the Holy Apostles, Dr. Sea- bury's, and others. Q. Have they refused aid on the avowed ground that the views of the applicants were not coincident with their own 1 112 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE A. It is my belief that they have; Q. Have they in any way endeavored to control the free opin- ion or acts of vestries or ministers who had received or were seeking aid for their churches 1 A. I know an instance where they refused aid because the rector had interested himself in obtaining signatures to a memo- rial to the Legislature for the repeal of the act of 1S14. It was in the case of St. Jude's church, in this city, in 1845. He was informed that the success of his application depended upon his keeping silence in the convention. It is my impression that the large grants of aid to the Church of the Annunciation, when country churches were refused aid in small suras of $300 to $400, showed the operation ofpartizan feelings. It appears to me, that tiie History of Trinity Church, by Rev. Dr. Berriau, from 1835 to 1847, shows that the grants to churches and individuals stand in the proportion of $80,000 to what are called high churchmen, to $8,000 to those who are called low church. (Pages 384, 385, 386, History of Trinity Church, by Dr. Berrian, the rector.) Q. What facts are in your knowledge to prove that the vestry of Trinity church has not done its utmost to make the capital of the property of that corporation available for the founding or support of charitable, religious, and educational institutions 1 A. In 1813, the property was of such value that the vestry, to calm the fears of the Legislature, in view of their great wealth, promised that their funds should be applied to the building of churches, from time to time, as the increase of population de- manded; the control of such churches to be relinquished to independent vestries, &c., suitable endowments to be made. In the forty-three years that have elapsed since 1813, the vestry have built Trinity church and its chapel, at a cost, it is said, of half a million, a sum which would have built twenty-five or thirty ordinary churches, and instead of endowing any churches have made loans to several, from time to time, taking mortgages on their property, &c., consequently holding them as their debtors. Q. Has the law of 1814 been acquiesced in by Episcopalians generally, or have they resisted it as an illegal violation of their ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHDRCH. 113 vested rights'? A. The law of 1814 has not been acquiesced in by Episcopalians in this city, and has been objected to, and strong efforts have been made by Episcopalians to have it repealed. Joseph Tucker^ sworn. — I purchased two lots of Trinity Church in April last, for $10,000 each; numbers 283 and 285 Hudsoor and destitute who are not ordinarily found within our churches, and who have to be in many cases sought after. Q. In the report of this committee, page 24, it is said of the congregation of Trinity Parish tliat their four congregations united do less, as is testified, than some single independent con- gregations in this same city, with little or no endowment. What have you to say on this subject ; and if it is so, is it charge- able at all to the administration of the aifairs of Trinity Church, by the Vestry 1 A. If the statement referred to, be true, it is not to be wondered at, inasmuch as two of the congregations of Trinity Parish are now mainly composed of strangers, transient persons, the working classes and the poor ; while even in regard to the other two congregations it may be affirmed, that neither of them, not even that of Trinity Chapel, compares in point of individual wealth with several other independent congregations. There has been a very great change, of late years in the down town congregations, in consequence of the removal of persons ot substance, to the upper parts of the city. I can see no con- nection whatever, between the alleged smallness of the contribu- tions of the members of Trinity Parish and the administration of the affairs of the Corporation. If there be a fault in the matter, it cannot justly, be Jaid to the charge of the Vestry ; it must rest with the clergy and the people. Q. Are you cognizant of any measures taken from time to time for the purpose of ascertaining who have been added to the corporators of Trinity Parish, and what difficulties are there in the city of New-York, in ascertaining who ceased to be corpora- tors ? A. I have been annually asked by the rector to make a return to him, of all such male persons who have to my knowl- edge become communicants in our parish, in order that he might add them to the list of corporators. In no case that I remember, have I been asked by any individual who had thus acquired the rights of a corporator, to return his name, but the return has been made at the desire of the rector ; there is great difficulty in the city of New-York in a large and miscellaneous ON AFFAIRS OP TRINITY CHURCH. 150 parish like ours, in ascertaining who of the male communicants have removed and the time of their removal*; the same diffi- culty is felt also in regard to pew holders ; sometimes there are temporary and sometim'^s permanent absences without notifica- tion to the rector or any of the clergy. Q. It is said in the report of tliis committee (page 24), that there is so little interest in the vestry elections of Trinity parish, that in eight out of the past ten years, an average of hardly one in ten of the corporators cared to appear ; is this state of things peculiar to Trinity parish, and does it indicate " torpor," im- puted in the report ? A. A like statement might be made, I apprehend, in regard to every parish in the city of New- York ; I was rector for nearly ten years of a large parish in the city, All Saints, which numbered from 100 to 150 corporators ; I never saw at any election, having presided at all, of wardens or vestrymen, more than four or five voters, except on one occasion at a period of great excitement in the church, when there were about thirty present ; I do not consider the non-attendance of the corporators on these occasions, as any evidence whatever of a want of interest in parish matters or as a sign of "torpor," but rather as a mark of their entire satisfaction with the administra- tion of the parish. In the case of All Saints church, the parish was united and highly prosperous. I;. Q. It is stated in the report of this committee, p. 21., that the effect of this system, (that is, the system by which Trinity Church has contributed to other parishes, wholly in the way of pecu- niary grants, made either in specific sums or in annual appro- priations, terminated at the pleasure of the Vestry,) as appears from the evidence, has been to injure instead of promoting the independence of the parishes thus aided. Is the statement cor- rect that the making pecuniary grants in either of such forms, or secured by mortgages, has had that effect ? State, also, what effect, if any, has aid in these forms had upon independence of speech and freedom of action on the part of parishes and clergy- men thus aided, where they meet in the diocesan conventions and other church associations, and where there are diversities of opinion as to matters of morals and doctrines ? A. I do not think that the aid bestowed in any of the forms mentioned, has 160 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE had the slightest effect upon the independence of speech and freedom of action* of the clergy or laity of the parishes aided. I have had some opportunity of noticing the course pursued by clergy and laity in our diocesan convention, having been for twenty years Assistant Secretary and Secretary of the same, dur- ing the greater part of which time there prevailed great diver- sities of opinion. In looking over the list of parishes whose churches have been mortgaged to Trinity 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 Rec-' tor and lay delegates of Trinity. Two of these are mortgaged for $25,000, two for |20,000, one for |5,000, 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. My opinion of the clergy and laity of the diocese of New-York is such that I do not think it would be practicable for any corpora- tion to buy their opinions or their votes. Of the churches last referred to, six received gifts of money and land, and twelve re- ceived gifts of money alone, two received gifts of land and a stipend, three received gifts of land alone, six received gifts of stipend alone. My knowledge of the votes of the lay delegates and clergy of the several parishes is derived from the fact that, lor a series of years it became my duty at every convention to call the ayes and noes on very many questions. Q. In applications for aid, has Trinity Church, in your opin- ion, favored those whose party views were similar to her own, or has she refused aid on the avowed ground that the views of the applicants were not coincident with her own ? A. I do not be- lieve that the question of church politics has ever entered into the distribution of the gifts of the vestry of Trinity Church, I never have heard of any application for aid which was refused upon the ground that the parties making it differed in theologi- cal or ecclesiastical opinions from the rector and vestry of Trinity Church. Q. What proportion of the whole number of Episcopal churches in the city of New- York have received aid, in some form, from ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 161 Trinity Church ? A. There are about fifty Episcopal churches in New-York city, and I think all of them, except two, have received aid from Trinity Church. Of these two, one, the Church of the Holy Communion, was built by one person, and the other, the Church of the Incarnation, was built by the wealthy congregation of Grace Church. By the committee : Q. What appropriations have been made by Trinity Church during the last three years previous to April, 1855, to institu- tions of charity, benevolence, or learning, in the city of New- York'? A. I do not remember of any made within that specific period. Those that I have already named, were made either before or after the period mentioned. Q. What means have you of knowing what motives govern Trinity Church in her grants to other churches 1 A. J have been connected with Trinity Church as one of the ministers for nearly ten years, and have been in the habit of frequent con- verse with the rector and several of the leading vestrymen in regard to their benefactions. Q. Have the clergy, other than the rector, any voice or vote in making gifts or grants 1 A. The assistant ministers are not members of the vestry, and therefore are not entitled to vote upon such questions. Whatever influence they may have in such grants arises from their official relations to the vestry. Q. When you speak of aid to churches, do you include those whicli give mortgages for what they receive ? A.I do, because it is perfectly well understood that those mortgages are not to pay interest, and are never to be collected unless under very extraordinary circumstances. Q. Do you or do you not know that when such mortgages are renewed, the accumulated interest is added to the principal 7 A. I have no knowledge on this particular point, but have never heard or known that the payment of any interest has been ex- acted. I have never heard of an instance where the accumu- lated interest has been added to the principal. 11 162 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Q. You spoke of new arrangements having been made within the past two years, can you fix the time more definitely ] A. I was assigned to my present position early in June, 1855. Q. Are there not in Trinity Church and all her chapels some paying pews 1 A . There are. Q. Is there not, sir, a great want of churches in certain parts of the city oi New^-York 1 A. There is undoubtedly a want of church accommodations in the city of New-York. Q. Is there a single Episcopal church in the 4th, 6th, 13th or 14th wards, in the city of New-York 1 A. I cannot answer that question without a map of the city. Q. Will you tell us, sir, when the present Trinity church was built? A. It was consecrated in 1846. , Q. Can you tell us what it cost 1 A. I do not remember the cost. Q. When was Trinity chapel built? A. It was consecrated in 1855. Q. What did it cost? A. |227,000, according to the report of the vestry. Q. How many persons will Trinity church and Trinity chapel seat? A. Trinity church will seat, as at present arranged, about 1,200; Trinity chapel about 1,000 persons. I have seen 2,000 persons in Trinity church on special occasions. Q. In yaur opinion, has the Episcopal church kept pace with the increase of population of the city ? A. It has not. Q. Do you consider that the church accommodations in the city have kept pace with the increase of Episcopalians in the city ? A. I think it has, and more ; inasmuch as the increase of population of the city of New-York has been very largely from foreign countries, from New England, and other parts of the United States, where the members of the Episcopal church have not been numerous. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 1«9 Q. Do you thiHk church accommodations of all denominationa iave inci-eased proportionately with the increase of population? A. I do not think that it has fully. It has measurably. Q. Do you know, sir, whether St. Matthew's church was shut up and offered for sale ? A, I have heard so. Q. Was Zion church, near the Five Points, sold to the Ro- manists? A. Yes, sir, it was; the congregation having removed up town and built another church. Q. Was Christ cTiurch, in Anthony-street, closed and soldi A. It was, under the like circumstances. Q. Were the three last named churches Episcopal churches? A. They were. Q. In the cases last mentioned, wherethe churches were sold) were churches required for the purpose of accommodating EpiS' copalians? A. I think not. Q. Do you know whether St. Matthew's church made appli- cation to Trinity for aid ? A. I do know that she made applica- tion, and that she received aid, and that the rector addressed two letters of thanks, on behalf of the vestry of St. Matthew's, for such aid. Q. How long was this before said church was closed ? A. I don't know. Q. Do yon know that Trinity church refused her aid 1 A. I have heard so. Q. Can you state the number of Episcopalians in the city of New- York. A. No, I cannot. Q. Do you know the number of Episcopalians that belong to. Trinity and her chapel] A. From five to six thousand, inclu- ding men, women and children. Q. What proportion is that of the whole number of Episcopa- lians in the city, as near as you can judgel A. I cannot answer this question, for want of sufficient data. I will examine the 164 KEPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE subject and give an answer. I estimate the number of Episco- palians in the city of New-York at from 40,000 to 50,000. Q. Could Trinity church now rent her pews in the lower down town churches? A. She could not, except in a few Instances. Q. Did not that fact necessarily compel Trinity to make those churches free? A. No; for she could have done as' Grace church, St. George's church, Christ church, Zion church did; sold her churches and built new ones up town. But preferring to keep her churches down town, in the changed condition ol the lower part of the city, it would not have been practicable to have rented her pews. Q. Do you know whether the other clergy attached to the chapels of Trinity make annual return of the new male com- municants to the rector? A. I presume that they do; I am asked as one of the clergy, I presume he asks the others. Q. Can you state whether the clergy who make these returns from the various chapels, are allowed to see the returns thus made ? A. I have no doubt but they would if they asked it. Q. Have you ever seen them, previous to the report of Trinity church to the Legislature in 1856? A. I cannot say whether I have or not; I never had occasion to look at the list. Q. Do you know whether Trinity church has ever foreclosed any of the mortgages taken for grants made by her ? A. I do not. Q. What does it cost Trinity church to support the two lay assistants you spoke of? A. Their present stipend is $150 each. Q. Of whom does the vestry of Trinity church consist ? A. Ihe rector, two church wardens, and twenty vestrymen. Q. What other otficers has Trinity church besides the mem- bers of the vestry and her clergymen. A. A comptroller and elerk of the vestry, both of whom are members of the vestry^ a collector, and one clerk in the office. Adjourned to 3^ o'clock, Monday P. M. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 1B5 Monday afternoon, February 6th, 3^ o'clock P. M. Present — Senate Committee — Senators Spencer, Noxon, and Bamsey. Counsel as before, Judge Parker and O. Meads', Esq. TESTIMONY INTRODUCED BY THE VESTRY. *restimony of Rev. Benjamin I. Haight, continued. Q. Do you think Trinity Church has done its utmost to make the capital of the property of that corporation, available for the founding, support, or promotion of religious, charitable, or edu- cational instructions or purposes 1 A. As the result of many years observation, during the last ten of which, I have been frequently in converse with the Rector and several of the senior members of the corporation, in reference to the appropriation of their funds to religious, charitable, and educational purpo- ses, I answer that I believe the Vestry has always been solicit- ous to make their property as available as possible for these great purposes, and, that when they have declined applications tor benefactions, or refrained fro^ entering upon, or prosecu- ting any enterprise^brought before, them, either by members of their own body, or by others, it has not been from any want of interest in schemes and plans of christian benevolence, or with any view of increasing their own estate, but solely from pru- dential considerations mainly growing out of their heavy debt, which has accumulated solely from their pecuniary grants. I do not believe that any other body of intelligent and prudent christian men of the same number, and chosen in the same way — that is, by a popular constituency — would have done more than the Vestry of Trinity Church, as constituted, for the last quarter of a century. Q. Will you name the free Episcopal Churches in the city ol New-York? A. All Angels, Epiphany, Holy Comforter, Our Saviour, Holy Communion, Holy Evangelist's, Holy Innocents, Holy Martyrs, Nativity, St. Cornelius, St. John the Evangelist's, St. Mary's, and St. Michael's ; the foregoing have church edifices proper. Besides these, there are the following free congrega- tions worshiping in halls : the Messiah and St. Ann's. Besides these, the following are at present suspended : Good Shepherd, 166 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE temporarily, the church being constructing ; St. Barnabas, St, Matthew's, and St Simon's. The former free church of St. Jud& has been merged in the church of St. John the Evangelist. By the Committee (a map presented): Q. Are there any Episcopal churches in the 4th, 6th, 13tb and 14th wards of the city of New- York? A. There are none. Q. In which of these wards was Zion church situated? A. In the 6th. Q. After viewing that map, do you still say that Zion church was not needed there 1 A. Such a question was not put to me. The question was whether it was required for Episcopalians in that vicinity. I answered that I thought not, and I think so still. If I had been asked whether it was not desirable that there should be mission churches in that and the other wards, for the purpose of supplying the ministrations of the gospel to the destitute of all classes and denominations, with a view to their spiritual benefit, and gathering them into the Episcopal church, I should have answered that I did think it desirable. Q. What would be the average number of persons that th& free churches you have named would accommodate? A. From 450 to 500 each. By Counsel for Trinity Church r Q. Though there are no Episcopal churches in the wards named, are there Episcopal churches close upon their confines 1 A. In the vicinity of the 4th ward there are two large churches, in the vicinity of the 6th there is one, in the vicinity of the 13th there are two, and in the vicinity of the 14th there are two. Rt. Rev. Horatio Potter called and sworn r Q. What is your place of residence, and your office in the Protestant Episcopal church ? A. My place of residence is in the city of New- York, my office is Provisional Bishop of the dio- cese of New-York. Q. What opportunities do your official position and duties afford you for obtaining information in regard to the condition. ON AFFAIKS OF TMNITY CHUBCH. 167 wants and interests of the various congregations in your diocese? A. It is made my duty by canon to visit periodically all the parishes of the diocese and inquire into their condition, and to maintain at all times general superintendence over the churches of the diocese. To which I may add, that persons belonging to the several parishes naturally come to me for advice and direction. Q. Has the law of 1814 in regard to Trinity Church been ac- quiesced in or noti I think it has been generally; no person has appeared in the courts to object to its constitutionality; had there been any real confidence in the existence of a right in members of other and independent congregations to be corpora- tors of Trinity Church, undoubtedly that right would have been asserted and maintained in the courts, both before and after 1814; for more than thirty years after the passage of the law of 1814, no attempt was made to procure its repeal; there might be cases of individual discontent, as there will be with things most just and reasonable, but they were of no account compared with the general acquiescence- and the absence of all formal at- tempts, either in the courts or before the Legislature, to object. Q. What, in your opinion, would be the effect of throwing open the corporation of Trinity Church, and allowing all per- sons in New- York, in communion with the Protestant Episcopal church, to become corporators in that bodyl A. The effect would be disastrous in very many ways; in the first place, as it would be, in my opinion, a violation of the original meaning and intent of the charter, a meaning and intent recognized and admitted for fifty years, it would constitute an act of public fraud and immorality, so gross as to be of evil influence through- out the whole country; but besides that, the immediate opera- tion in the city of New-York would be extremely injurious to the peace and well being of the church ; all the parishes in the city would be brought into conflict with Trinity Church and with each other. Trinity Church is a parish like any other in the city, except as to the amount of its wealth. Persons who were corporators in an independeet parish, having its own peculiar interests and objects, would be corporators also in Triniy church, 168 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE "where they would be present by their representatives to embarrass and control her parochial operations, and to take from her her means for their own purposes ; such foreign corporators might, and I believe would have selfish reasons for desiring to cripple the parochial work of Trinity Church, while they sought to build up rival churches of their own. Under such a system, Trinity Church would soon cease to be a parish, in the ordinary sense of the term. Her parochial work would be reduced and gradually ruined; and she would become the mere holder of a fund, a mere financial body, for whose wealth many thousands of persons, cut up into conflicting and rival sections, would be scrambling. The annual elections would present a scene most grossly unbecoming, highly injuri- ous to the character of the church and to the interests of religion, for those elections would be sure to be severely contested elee- tions, where several thousand persons would have a right to vote, and where there would be great temptation among the outstanding congregations to swell the number of their voters, by all sorts of means. There would be a temptation to unfair combinations among dilferent parishes and sections of the city to procure grants in favor of each other. All this would be a per- fect anomaly in the Episcopal church. I know of no cases in which the same person is corporator in the different parishes, the parishes being in a position to be rivals to each other. There are instances, probably, in which a person is a corporator in a city parish and also in a rural parish, where he has his country residence; but this is attended with no serious evil. In every system, whether of the family, the State, or the church, where a person is present within, to influence, to control, he is supposed to be a member of the system, with a kindly interest in it, with a generous devotion to its welfare, and subject to all its laws and authorities. But if the corporation of Trinity Church were thrown open, you would probably have vestrymen present to vote away its money, to control its counsels, who were enemies and aliens; interested in other parishes, but not in Trinity Church; not subject to its rector, not under its religious influ- ence, but present only to vex and harrass. This is not only a ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITV CHURCH. 169 violation of all the principles of the church, which require that every person present in a parish with any rights and privileges, shall be amenable to the spiritual authority of the rector, but is a violation of common sense, which requires that those who-vote or rule in a body, shall be bona fide members of it, and owe it a hearty allegiance. Q. What is your view in regard to the course of Trinity Church in rebuilding T^iuity Church at the head of Wall-street, and in building Trinity Chapel, in Twenty-fifth-street "? A. I think it was a very proper course. It was natural they should desire to retain the old site down town, so long endeared to them, and it was very important that the lower part of the city, which was in a way to be abandoned by all the other Episcopal congrega- tions, should not be abandoned by them. They owe it to the lower part of the city to maintain themselves there, among the poor, and their property enabled them to do so. In regard to the building of Trinity Chapel, up town, many of their old par- ishioners had moved far up town, with only very moderate means, in many cases, and it seemed the duty of Trinity Church to follow them and provide for them, and to seek to retain them as her parishioners. The erection of Trinity Chapel was there- fore a proper measure. As to the costly character of the two edifices, I consider that Trinity Church only did her duty in making them models of ecclesiastical architecture. Her wealth had been created mainly by the growth of the city. She there- fore owed to the city some contribution in the way of beautiful and magnificent edifices. And with her wealth, she owed it equally to the character of her own communion. Hau Trinity Church, with its means, limited itself to the erection of build- ings of a moderate cost, I have no doubt the parish would have been severely censured, both by the church and by the commu- nity generally. As a general thing, I believe a few costly churches are of great utility to the interests of religion. I have no doubt that Westminister Abbey has, in the course of ages, been worth to the influence of Divine Truth in the world, vastly more than all tliat it ever cost. 170 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE. Q. What is your opinion of the effect of the course of Trinity Church, in giving her aid to churches in the form of loans upon mortgages, rather than in the form of absolute grants? A. Those loans were absolute grants in reality, nobody ever sup- posed that the interest or the principal would be called for by Trinity Church. They never have been, in a single instance, although the cases have been very numerous, in which land mortgages have been given. When I consecrate a church, I al- ways wish to know whether there be any debt. I never regard a mortgage given to Trinity Church, in the light of a debt. I have never perceived, I do not believe, that such mortgages, in any way affect the independence of ministers, or laymen. It is very common indeed, to see the minister, and laymen of a Church, subject to a mortgage, voting against measures favored by Trinity Church. In convention, I doubt whether any one remembers or reflects, whether mortgages exist in particular quarters or not. The effect of these mortgages has, I have no doubt, been important in preventing the property of churches from being sold and alienated from their sacred use. And this, I have always understood, was the sole object of Trinity Church in requiring them. Q. St. Matthew's Church in New- York has been recently closed. Was it the duty of Trinity Church under the circum- stances, to have preventefl that result 1 A. I cannot say, that, under all the circumstances of the case, I would have advised Trinity Church to do differently from what she has done. Q. What is your view of the past management of Trinity Church in relation to the poor ? A. Trinity Church has done a great deal for the poor in many ways — She has provided free education for the poor, in schools and colleges — She has assisted in the erection of between one and two hundred (nearly two hundred) churches in the State. To say the least, a very large portion of all these grants must be considered as assistance granted to those who had not the means of doing all for them- selves. She has granted annuities in many cases to aged clergy- men and to the widows and orphans of deceased clergymen. She has schools for poor children connected with several of her churches and chapels. And finally, all her churches, down ori AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHtTRCH. 171 town, Trinity Church, St. Paul's, St. John's and Old St. George's, supported by her, are, to a very large extent, in the nature of a free provision for the poor. And besides these, there are several other churches, situated in districts much occupied by the poor, whi.h are largely assisted by Trinity Church. Q. It is alleged that in some districts of New-York there is a want of adequate religious provision for the poor ; can you state any facts bearing upon this matter? A. Some portions of the city are chiefly occupied by Germans; other inhabitants remove from those sections. There are consequently fewer persons than ■we might at first suppose capable of being gathered into Episco- pal congregations. There may be, and probably is, after all, a deficiency of church accommodation, but it is not as great in some quarters as it seems to be. By the Committee : Q. Do you think in seeking to retain the parishioners in Trinity chapel, it was right to seek to cut them olT as corpora- tors ? A. I have not understood that it was contemplated by Trinity church to cut off her parishioners as corporators. In the abstract I should say it would not be right to do so. I sup- pose it was intended to prevent a rush of strangers from com- ing in and making themselves corporators from interested motives. • Q. Did you ever see the lease under which the pews in Trinity chapel were leased? A. I have not. [Lease shown the witness.) Q. After examining the lease, do you not think it would cut them off as corporators ? A. It seems to do so, sir. Q. What appropriations were made by Trinity Church, for three years previous to April 1855, to institutions of charity, benevolence or learning in the city of New-York ? A. I have been in the city of New-York only a portion of that time, about a year and three or four months, and I am only generally cog- nizant of the fact that Trinity Church has been continually making grants to one object and another, without fixing my 192 B.EPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE attention to any in particular. I cannot say whether the grants here referred to are included in the grants that have been made. Q. Can you mention any appropriations of the kind spoken of, made at any time, and if so, at what time, and what Were they 1 A. I know that grants have been made to Columbia College and * I believe to Trinity school. I am not able to answer fully ; cannot specify the time. I may be permitted to say that my at- tention has been more particularly directed to grants at large for church buildings than to those objects. Q. Can you say that you know of any such appropriations, made within the last ten or twenty years 1 A. I cannot say that I can. Q. You answer the first question that the law of 1814 has been acquiesced in; has it been by the church in the city of New-York generally, outside of Trinity 1 A. My impression is, that until within a recent period, twelve or fifteen years, it has been. Q. During that twelve or fifteen years, has not (he great body of the Episcopal church, outside of Trinity, in the city of New- York, been dissatisfied with the law of 1814? A. I should not think so ; but, as I said before, my acquaintance with New- York, until within a year or two, has been only a very general one, and my opinion is partly formed from what I have known myself, and partly an inference from the absence of any formal attempt to controvert the law. Q. Previous to the law of 1814, did, or did not the inhabitants of New-York, in communion with the Protestant Episcopal church, outside of Trinity, exercise and enjoy the right of voting for wardens and vestrymen of Trinity church? A. I have always understood that they did not. Q. Do you not understand that right to have been guaranteed under the charter to those in communion with the church, and not belonging to the parish of Trinity church, in the city ot New- York? A. I do not. I may add, that the charter of my own late parish, St. Peter's, Albany, is in the same terms, and was Oir AFFAIBS OF THIIIITT CIHTHCH. 173 never held to guarantee rights to any one outside the parish. When the second congregation was formed, St. Paul's, in this city, (Albany,) St. Peter's church, having such a charter, had property, to which the members of St. Paul's church never set up any claim. Q. "What difficulties would arise in each of the Episcopal churches in the city of New-York sending a delegate to a con- vention to choose wardens and vestrymen to take care of the fund now administered by Trinity church ? A. I think it would be possible to suggest many difficulties of detail. But I have a general answer. The church is governed in accordance with long tried, well settled, traditional principles and practices, the precise nature of which is thoroughly understood from long experience. The system suggested would be an entirely anomaly in the church, both in this country and in England, and I should think a very dangerous one to adopt. Q. What has the government of the church to do with the administration of this fund? A. The church knows of no dis- tinction between the administration of church funds, and matters purely spiritual. They are all part and parcel of the same system. She doe? not know of money in any secular sense. I may add, in the case of every known church in this country and in England, the same body that regulates the spir- itual concerns of a parish regulates also its church fund as a religious act. Q. Is not the administration of this fund entirely and abso- lutely separate from all the religious and ecclesiastical care of the church, as a religious society ? A. I think not. Q. Wherein does she exercise any control 1 A. The imme- diate disposal of this fund is ordered in the presence of and by the rector, wardens and vestrymen of the parish. They are both immediately responsible to me as the bishop of the diocese, and are amenable to the church of this diocese assembled in convention. I do not mean, however, to be understood that I supervise the details of appropriations, or that my assent is essential to the validity of any grants by the vestry. 174 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Q. Is not the care of the bishop, rector, wardens and vestry- men, theoretical, and the practical care of this fund entrusted to a committee of the wardens and vestrymen'? A. I think the care of the bishop, rector, wardens and vestrymen, is not theo- retical, but practical, though the bishop, of course, is not a member of this body, and has only a general oversight over the afifairs of the church, As in any large body, which in this case amounts to twenty-three persons, there is a sub-committee which, however, takes cognizance not merely of money matters, but of matters bearing upon (he spiritual well-being of the parish, and which committee is appointed for the convenience of arranging and preparing business for the full meeting of the vestry, where it is deliberately passed upon. And I have to say, furthermore, that the care of the bishop and the rector is a reality, inasmuch as if the members of the vestry violated their duty they would be subject to be admonished and disciplined by the rector, and if they and the rector together, either or both, clearly violated their duty so as to be adjudged guilty of an offence capable of being made evident to me or the bishop, they would certainly be liable to be disciplined by him. Q. Do the wardens and vestrymen of Trinity Church report to the bishop or to the convention their action in relation to grants or aid to churches, or in relation to their general affairs ? A. They do not formally make a full report of all grants, but from the interest which attaches to the affairs of that parish, I believe its internal business is better known to the bishop and church at large, than the affairs of any other wealthy Episcopal congregation in the city of New- York, • I am not aware that there is any concealment. Q. Do they make an informal report? A. Various reports have been made at different times of the grants of Trinity Church, and I believe their proceedings generally transpire speedily. In some instances action is reported to me immediately. Q. If they make no report to you, how have you any super- vision over their affairs, except theoretically 1 A. The general course of the administration of affairs in the parish is well known. I presume it will be found that in every year the ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 175 receipts and the expenditures of the parish are known to a very considerable number of persons most interested. Q. Have you any knowledge whatever of the management of the affairs of Trinity Church 1 A. I have only a general knowl- edge of those of any parish. Q. What greater reason was there for abandoning the church at the Five Points, and Christ Church, than for abandoning Trinity Church at the head of Wall-street? A. The church at the Five Points and Christ Church, were independent parishes, and moved, I presume, of their own option to a more eligible portion of the city. Trinity Church might have removed to a more eligible portion of the city, so far as the character of her worshipers, for wealth, were concerned ; but preferred to retain a very old site, the oldest I believe in the city, and to continue to exercise her ministry in that very destitute portion of the city. Q. Were there not as strong reasons for retaining Zion church at the Five Points, as there were for retaining Trinity upon her site 7 A. I was not as well acquainted with the position of Zion church in those days as with that of Trinity, and it may have been very desirable that a church should have been retained in the place of Zion church. Q. Is or is not the effect of making loans to churches and tak- ing back bonds and mortgages for the money so loaned, to cause the churches thus receiving loans to vote in convention for the particular views Trinity Church espouses ? A. I can only judge from my own experience and observation, and sojudging should think not. I can recall many cases where such mortgages exist, and where the rector and the lay delegates quite habitual- ly vote on a side different from Trinity Church. My attention has never been called to any case where the independence of the rector and laity seemed to have been impaired in consequence of the existence of any mortgage. Q. Do or do you not know that in the grants of Trinity Church, she aids ten churches classed as " high church," where she aids one of opposite views ? A. I do not know that she 176 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE does; it may seem strange, but I never have looked at the grants of Trinity Church to see how that was. Q. Can you state the comparative number of the congregations known as ''high church" in this diocese, and those known of the opposite character? A. I can suppose that there are many con- gregations that would not care to have either terra applied; but if the line were to be strictly drawn, inclurling on one side or the other every congregation, I suppose there would be five or six of the "high church" to one of the "low." Q. What is the proportion in the city of New-York? A. lam not so well informed in regard to the city of New-York as in regard to the whole diocese, because a general vote is sometimes taken in convention showing the comparative numbers in the whole diocese, but nothing of the same kind occurs to show the proportion in the city, yet I have no doubt that the proportion of what would be called "low church" in the city, is somewhat larger than in the diocese generally. Q. Was there not a time in the city of New-York, when all Episcopalians in that city had a right to vote at the elections of Trinity Church? A. I am not aware that there was any such time, unless it was at a very early period when all Episcopalians were members of that parish. Q. What greater difficulty would there be in managing a larger property |of the church through the convention, than there is in managing the Episcopal Fund ? A. So that they were rightfully possessed of a larger property, I. think they might be able to manage it. By Counsel tor Trinity Church. Q. Say, whether there is not, necessarily, a most intimate con- nection between the spiritual and financial affairs of a parish, growing out of the fact, that the funds are to be applied with reference to spiritual interests ? A. Undoubtedly. Q. Had Trinity any control over the removal of Zion Church from the Five Points, or Christ Church from Anthony street 1 I am not aware that she had. t)N AVFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 177 T AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 181 Q. Who was the first rector of St. Jude. A. Rev. R. C. Shimeal. B. Did he afterwards become a Presbyterian minister? A He did, soon after he left the parish. By the committee. Q. It appears by the report of Trinity Chiirch, that she gave annually to St. Luke's $2,1 GO. What portion of that sum given to St. Matthew's would have sustained that church 1 A. One- half of it. Q. By giving one-half that sum that property would then, have been preserved to the Episcopal Church in the city 1 A, It would, Q. Did Trinity Church receive back from the City Mission Society any considerable portion of her advances to that institu- tion ? A. I have reason to believe they did from the sale of the property, but not from the society. Q. How was the property sold 1 A, It was sold under fore- closure of mortgages. Q. Did Trinity Church hold mortgages upon those two churches'? A. I presume not. Q. How then did she collect the money. A. The church of the Holy Evangelists was bought and paid for wholly by con- tributions of private churchmen. The church of the Epiphany partly so ; the other part, as I have been intormed by the trea- surer of that society, was obtained by mortgage of the two churches to the Howard insurance company for $13,000. When the security ceased there was no one to pay the interest, and the mortgages were foreclosed. Trinity, as I have been informed, became the purchaser. The Holy Evangelist's was sold, as I have been informed, for $15,000. Q. What description of people made up the congregation of St. Matthew's 1 A. They were persons in humble circumstances; large proportion of them were poor. There was not a wealthy individual in the congregation. 182 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Q. Wliat description of persons made up tlie congregation at St. Luke's"? A. They weree of a more respectable class, and much more means. By Judge Parker. Q. You have stated that half the allowance made to St. Luke's would have sustained St. Matthew's church. Do you mean that it would pay the indebtedness of the church and the mortgage on the parsonage? A. .\o, it could not do that. Q. How much would it have taken to do that and to put the church edifice in repair 1 A. About $6,000. That would have left the whole property clear. An annual stipend of $1,000 from Trinity, after paying this indebtedness and repairs, would have paid its rector $1,000 per year and all ordinary expenses of the parish. The whole annual expenses of the parish never exceeded $1,700. I am now rector of the St. Luke's church, at Rossville, Staten Island, and received an annual salary of $400 and a parsonage. By the committee. Q. "What was St. Matthew's worth at the time it was mortgaged! A. It was considered a chaep purchase at $1,500. It has ^been re-conveyed to Bishop Eastburn, the donor, who originally gave it to the City Mission Society. Rev. William Berrian, Rector of Trinity Church, called and sworn : Examination by counsel for Trinity Church. Q. How long have you been a minister of Trinity Church A. I am in the 46th year of my ministry in that parish; I was nearly seventeen years assistant minister, two years assistant rector, and have now been upwards of twenty-six years rector of the same. Q. State whether, from this long connection with the parish and your official station, you have become vere familiar with ils concerns 1 A. Legal questions being excepted, there are proba- bly few more so. ON AFFAIKS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 183 Q. What particular facilities have you for this kind of infor- mation from your position as rector 1 A. I preside at every meeting of the vestry, and as presiding officer all its business passes me as presiding offi:^er in the first instance, and if it be referred either to special committees or the standing committee, is generally more or less known to me in its progress, and always, of course, (unless referred with power,) before the final action upon it. Q. Has your attention been drawn to the affairs of this cor- poration in any other way which might make you still more familiar with them ? A. A few years since, I wrote the history of Trinity Church, the materials for which were drawn from the most authentic and reliable sources, and with as much re- gard to truthfulness and accuracy, as honesty of purpose and labor and care could possibly make it. I have, since that, writ- ten a vindication of this corporation, in a pamphlet entitled *' Facts against Fancy," from the unjust and unmerited asper- sions which have been cast upon it, and brought down the list of its gifts and bounties very nearly to the present time. I have also recently prepared a report to the vestry on the actual work- ing of the system in our parish under its present arrangements, which could scarcely fail, from its beneficent results, to satisfy every candid and unprejudiced mind. Q. Being so familiar with the affairs of Trinity Church, why did you not testify before this committee at its sessions in the city of New- York ? and why did not all the assistant ministers testify ? A. I was not summoned by the committee, and only three out of eight of the assistant ministers were , on what grounds the discrimination was made it is impossible for me to tell. Q. Is there any foundation for the charge that the standing committee possess nearly all the reliable knowledge of the affairs of the corporation 1 A. In no degree whatever. Q. Of whom does the standing committee consist and when is it chosen ? A. The standing committee consists of the Comp- troller, the clerk, and six other members of the body, who are selected from the whole number of the vestry, consisting of twenty-two members, on account of their supposed preeminent 184 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE fitness for the proper consideration of the subjects referred to them. The standing committee are elected every year. Q. What is the usual course of proceeding in regard to the matters referred to the standing committee 1 A. It is merely a matter of reference to report on them after due consideration. Q. Have the vestry in the meantime no control in the matter and no voice nor influence in the course of its proceedings ? A. So far from this, a full and circumstantial written report is made by the standing committee at each monthly meeting of the vestry, of all that has been considered and acted upon since the last meeting of the body, as well as very often upon matters undecided and postponed. Q. Are the recommendations of the standing committee con- clusive ? A. Ey no means ; they come back to the body un- doubtedly with great weight, from the care with which they are made up, but not in all cases with hearty consent and im- plicit submission ; and hence, very often when not approved by the vestry, they are either sent back to the committee for recon- sideration or at once rejected. Q. It is stated that two of the assistant ministers of the parish have made several efforts to obtain a list of the corporators, but unsuccessfully, can you throw any light on this point 1 A. In regard to one of the cases which I suppose to be alluded to, if right in my conjecture I think that I can. Bishop Wainwright applied to the rector for a loan of the book containing the names of the corporators, and subsequently modified his application to examine and take a copy of it, if he deemed it expedient. The rector replied, " with respect to the right of any corporator to examine the book there cannot be a doubt, but the taking a copy of the same is a question I do not feel competent to decide." The matter was submitted to the vestry who unanimously adopted the following resolution , " Resolved, That the Right Rev. Pro- visional Bishop of the diocese be permitted to inspect the book containing the names of the corporators, and to make such ex- tracts and copies as he should think proper." This list was afterwards drawn out and handed to the Bishop by the sexton of St. Paul's. The application for the list was made to th ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 185 rector, because the book was sent to him for the correction of the list by his annual statement of the new communicants which had been added to the parish, and the losses which it had sus- tained by removals and deaths. Q. Is the list of the corporators of Trinity Church kept in the joint charge of the Comptroller- and Rector? A. There seems to have been some misapprehension on this subject. The list is kept in the vestry office, and is under the sole custody of the Comptroller. My only agency in regard to this list, is, to make an annual statement on the meeting of the Vestry, immediately preceding the election of wardens and vestrymen at Easter; of the names of the new communicants, which have been added in the interval, and the decrease of the number in the same period, by death, or removal; in order to render the list more accurate and complete. This is done regularly every year, and how one vestry-man, if accustomed to be in his place, and giving any proper attention to the business before him, could have been ig- norant of the purpose for which it was done, or another, liaving never seen this list, a privilege which he had a right to demand , but, which he never appears to have claimed ; is to me a matter of surprise. Q. State, whether the book containing this list, is usually taken to the place, where the election of Wardens and Vestry- men is held'? A. I know that it is frequently, if not uniformly, and I believe that it is open to the inspection of any persons present, who may have the curiosity to examine it. Q. Can you inform us, whether it was one of the objects in building Trinity Chapel, to increase the number of the consti- tuency of Trinity parish 1 A. I think that I can. In the year 1848, observing the rapid changes that were going on in the lower part of the city, and, that in a very short period, we had lost by removal, more than half of our parishioners, I drew up a very careful and elaborate report of the comparative state of the parish, and submitted it to the vestry, which impressed them at the time, and subsequently led to the building of the chapel. As some of the motives and reasons which I presented, have a bearing on the matter in question, I beg leave to make 186 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE a brief extract Irom the report itself. "From 1840 to 1848, three hundrtd and thirty-five families and seventy individuals, appear to have left the parish. Of these a great part were born and brought up in it, and completely identified with it, anxious for its growth, jealous of its interests, accustomed to its arrangements, attached to its usages, friendly to its clergy, and to each other, and linked to it by such sacred and en- dearing associations, as nothing but the force of circumstances could have induced them to sever. Many of them, also, from their sociul position, their professional standing, their educa- tion, their wealth, and their influence, as well as fj-om their sound churchmanship, their unaffected piety and moral worth, gave a greater degree of lustre and dignity, both in the eyes of the world and the church, to the ancient and venerable corporation with which they were connected. But this was not all. There was then a wider range than there is now, for the choice of distinguished, upright, and intelligent vestry- men, who might be qualified to administer the sacred and im- portant trust committed to tlieir charge with a becoming libe- rality, and yet with such wisdom and prudence as not to impair in a day what might be useful to the church for ages to come." The purpose, therefore, was perfectly reasonable and natural, and such, it would seem, as every pious and judicious mind would sanction and approve; to regain and preserve tried and attached triends, to keep up the standard of our constituency to the elevation which it had always maintained, and to enlarge the means of our usefulness to others. It was not supposed that the new chapel would be entirely filled with those who were already corporators as pew owners in the other churches of the parish, nor has it turned out so, but that there would also be an addi- tion to their number, at least as communicants, among the new- comers. This is a simple and unvarnished statement of the mo- tives and reasons by which the vestry were actuated in the erec- tion of Trinity chapel. Q. What can you say on the subject of the establishment of free churches in the city of New-York, and the aid that Trinity church has afforded them 1 A. The plan of free churches in our ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 187 communion in this country, is a very recent affair, and altogether experimental, and with the exception of the church of the Holy Communion, and one or two others, nearly all that has been done in their behalf in this city, has been done by Trinity Church. Q. It is stated that it does not appear from the report of Trinity Church that it has ever built and free church? Has it done anything equivalent 1 A. Though that may be true, she has nevertheless done what may be regarded as a fair equiva- lent. The grants of |14,000, towards the Church of the Nativity, seems to be passed over slightly, as if it were a trifling affair. I doubt, however, whether if it were put up for sale to-morrow, it would bring much more than Trinity has bestowed on it. Q. "What has Trinity done in regard to St. George's chapel, in Beekman-streef? A. Through her instrumentality it was res- cued from destruction when it was about to be razed to the ground. The liberality and grace of this transaction, however, seemed to have been lost sight of in the report of the committee of the Senate, from an error, as they suppose, in the report of the committee ot the vestry. Q. Explain, if you please your meaning on this point 1 A. The vestry of St. George's wished a release of the condition on which the grant of lands from Trinity church was made to St. George's, in order that, being entirely unfettered, they might be sold to more advantage. This was, that there should be always a good and sufficient Protestant Episcopal church kept up in Montgomery ward. An arrangement had, therefore, been made between a committee of the vestry of Trinity church and a com- mittee of the vestry of St. George's, that, upon the release of this condition, the latter should deposit ten per cent of the purchase money arising out of the sale of a portion of their lands, for the purpose of carrying out this object, and allowing St. George's chapel to be sold. When the report of this arrangement came in, I expressed my great repugnance to it, as I had worshipped therein my youth; and in this feeling, I remember, Mr. Verplanck, Chief Justice Jones, and Gen. Dix entirely sympathised with me. It was. 188 « REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE therefore, sent back to the committee for reconsideration. The church was valued, by the vestry of St. George's, at $50,000. With their consent, the vestry of Trinity church agreed to take an abatement of $25,000 in the price of the chapel, in lieu of the obligation into which St. George's had just entered, and thus the venerable edifice was saved from destruction, and the condition of the gift fulfilled. The relief which was thus given to St. George's from the harrassing and expensive claims of pew owners in the chapel in Beekraan-street, and owners of vaults in the ground around it, in case the church had been torn down, and the land disposed of for more ordinary purposes; and the sum that would have arisen out of the reservation of ten per cent of the purchase money in the sale of a considerable number of their most valuable lots, were regarded, I believe, at the time, on both sides, as a fair equivalent for the deduction of- $25,000 from the price which was asked for the chapel. It was, therefore, for a full and valuable consideration that this deduc- tion was made ot $25,000, and not merely for "the worth of the vote;" though this valuable consideration could not have been obtained without it. Q. Beside the payment of assessments, repairs, alterations and other expenses, by Trinity Church, has anything else been done for St. George's in Beekman-streef? A. It has relieved the con- gregation entii-ely from the support of their minister, and as- sumed the payment of the whole salary itself; thus enabling it to become a free church, in a part of the city where one was much needed. Q. It is stated that it appears from the report of the commit- tee of the vestry, while nineteen churches not free have been aided in their support, in the city of New- York, within the last five years, no mention is made of building, enlarging and en- dowing them. How is this ? A. If it be so stated, it must have been from mere oversight; as some certainly have been aided in that way. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 189 Q. Which are they 1 A. Going back but a little way beyond the prescribed limits, the following grants have been made : June 12, 1848, the Holy Evangelists, $6,500 00 April 12, 1848, Free Church ot the Epiphany, 6,500 00 St George's Chapel, for assessments, repairs, altera- tions, &c., in addition to the purchase money,. . . 5,660 30 June 28, 1847, Church of the Nativity, towards building the same, 5,000 00 November 26, 1849, " " 4,000 00 Grace Church, Brooklyn, towards the debt incurred in its building, five annual instalments of $1,000 each, 5,000 00 March 21, 1853, Church of the Annunciation, 25,000 00 April 9, 1855, Church of the Redeemer, at York- ville, 9,000 00 January 9, 1854, St. Mark's, Williamsburgh, 6,000 00 And coming a little this side of the limit of 5 years. Free Church of the Holy Innocents, 5 ,000 00 Church of St. John the Baptist, 15,000 00 Making together, $92,660 30 Q. A question is made as to the endowment ot churches in the city of New- York, by the said cor|X)ration, within the last five years. What have you to say about such restriction as to time 1 A. Had the instructions of the committee been a little more enlarged as to time, and a little more comprehensive in their range, so as to include Williamsburgh and Brooklyn, which are almost virtually a part of New-York, it would be seen from the foregoing statement that there are no less than five free churches, and five not free, that have been aided in the building, enlarging, or endowing of the same. And that the aggregate amount of these grants for such purposes is $92,660.30. Q. Has Trinity done nothing more in behalf of free churches than you have already stated ? A. She has made annual allow- ances towards their support, to the following churches : the church of the Nativity, the Epiphany, the Holy Evangelists, the Holy Martyrs, the Good Shepherd, St. John the Evangelist, the 190 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Holy Innocents, St. Simons, St. Timothy, St. Cornelius, St. Bar- nabas, and the Seamen's Mission Churches of the Church of the Saviour and the Holy Comforter. Q. What were the amounts of these annual allowances'? A. They have varied according to the several necessities and circumstances of each particular case, but range from |200 to $1,200 per annum. Q. Could these free churches, in your opinion, have been sus- tained without the aid from Trinity Church ? A. I think that most of them would have languished, and been much less effec- tive in their operations than they now ai'e; and that the rest of them, in a short time, would have absolutely perished. Q. How far may Trinity Church itself be regarded as a free church 1 A. It is so in a great measure virtually, though not in name. The parish church is open to all every morning and evening each day in the year, almost literally, without money and without price ; and both the temporal and spiritual wants of the poor who frequent it, and who live in its neighborhood, are attended to with a watchfulness and kindness which have been seldom equaled among us, and never surpassed. The same thing may be said, in a degree, both of St. Paul's and St. John's. And even in Trinity chapel, kind arrangements have been made by free sittings, which enable the -rich and poor to meet together without any sense of humiliation. In the four churches of the parish there are in effect about twelve or thir- teen hundred free sittings. Q. But has not the number of these free sittings been greatly multiplied from the mere force of circumstances, arising simply out of the non-occupation of the pews by their owners without any action of the vestry in the matter? A. It was not so in regard to a great number of them, for it was expressly stipulated in the renting of the pews in Trinity chapel, that those who hired them should be exempted from all rent on their pews in the churches below, on the condition that they should be placed at the disposal of the vestry Q. And what disposition has the vestry made of them ? A. It has left them entirely free. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 191 Q. What have you to say in regard to the sale of Zion church, Christ church and St. Matthews, without any effort on the part of Trinity Church to prevent it and to convert them into free churches'? A. From the removal of so many families belonging to Zion church, and the consequent decrease of the number of Episcopalians in that neighborhood, the congregation was greatly reduced- All the efforts of the active, zealous and indefatigable rector seemed to be fruitless, and it was constantly dwindling away. Already, in grants, gifts and annual allow- ances, had Trinity bestowed on Zion $41,770, a sum larger than that for which it was actually sold. There must necessarily be some limit to her bounty, and especially in a case like this where a fresh outlay, even for a free church, seemed to hold out but little promise of an adequate return. Christ church also had received from Trinity the still larger amount of $77,450. After these lavish gifts and grants, why should not the corpora- tion of Christ church itself have turned it into a free church, and not left the reproach of neglect to be borne where it did not belong; with respect to St. Matthews, by the admission of its rector, it had fairly died out. In this state of things there seem- ed to be but little occasion for the interposition of Trinity Church . Q. The next enquiry, according to the resolution of the Hon- orable Senate, whether any, and if any, what appropriations have been made by them during the last three years to institutions of charity, benevolence or learning, in the city of New-York; to this enquiry what answer have you to make 1 A. The simple regret at the same restriction as to place, the city of New- York, and the still narrower restriction as to time, that in the enqui- ries before it, thus cutting her off" in the public mind, from the grace and credit of one of the noblest acts of munificence which Trinity Church, in the vastness ol her bounty, has ever done. Q. What is that ? A. The grant of $50,000 to Geneva College, and the arrangement by the church, to pay the interest on that sum, at six per cent, until the principal should be paid; which has enabled it to become a Free College, the first instance of the kind, I believe, throughout our land. 192 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Q. Is there any thing else since the ample endowment of Co- lumbia College, the Society for promoting religion and learning, Trinity School and Hobart Free College, that Trinity has done, for institutions of charity, benevolence, and learning 1 A. If aid to the board of missions, whose office is established in the city of New-York, or to the Missionary Committee of this dio- cese, whose deliberations are held in the same, be classed under this head; I may then mention, that $5,000 was granted to the former, on one occasion, in behalf of the African mission, and $3,000 at another, presented as an offering on the altar to the latter, for the benefit of our diocesan mission. Q. When, however, was this? A. In 1851, unfortunately again, a little too soon, to come within the very narrow limits prescribed by the Senate, for so comprehensive an inquiry. It may here be as well to account for the comparative smallness of her benefactions in these three years. Trinity Church was at that very time engaged in building a large, substantial and expensive chapel, for reasons which, as I have already stated, seemed to make it essential to her well being. But, notwith- standing this temporary check to the free course of lier boun- ties, the gifts, grants and loans of Trinity Church, from the close of 1847, to 1855, amounted to $331,800.83 exclusive of the abatement of $25,000, for reasons above stated, from the price of St. George's. Q. It is stated, that Trinity Church has never at any time, endowed any Institution of charity, or benevolence, even for her own poor. How is this 1 A. This appears to me, a most remarkable statement. It has, liberally and amply endowed Trinity Charity School, which has been doing immeasurable good to her own poor, and others, from generation to genera- tion, 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 ex- pected, and is calculated to leave a false impression on the public mind. Neither Trinity parish, nor Trinity corporation, have been so unmindful of their own poor, as the report of the committee would seem to imply. The communion alms, which, ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 19& in other churches, are often appropriated to mere general pur- poses, are in this parish, applied exclusively to the relief of the temporal and spiritual necessities of the poor. The private con- tributions of individuals, for the same benevolent purposes, in connection with our parochial charities, the Dorcas societies, the Industrial schools, and the Parish schools, bear some reasonable proportion to the ability of our people. Besides these, there are annual and occasional collections in the Parish, for St. Luke's Home, the Orphan's Home, the House of Mercy, and for the re- lief of human suifering and want, in other forms. These, ex- clusive of the collections for the House of Mercy, which are now in progress, amounting in the last conventional year, to between 7 and |8,000. In addition to this. Trinity Church corporation, makes an annual contribution of $2,000 towards^the communion fund, to supply the deficiencies in the offerings of the people, on account of the altered condition of things in the parish. It appropriates nearly $1,600 a year, to lay agents, 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 ascertain their fitness for the bounty of the Church, and to search out the ignorant, for religious instruction. It expends about $1 ,000 a year on the Parish school of St. Paul's chapel, and it likewise em- powers the Rector, with unlimited discretion, to give orders for the free burial of the poor, ot our own congregations, as well as of others, a privilege which is very frequently sought, and in almost all eases, cheerfully granted alike to all. Q. It is said that there is partizanship in the grants which Trinity Church has made. Is there any truth in this charge? A. As a christian man and a christian minister, I declare that I have never heard one which appears to be more unfounded and unjust. I have for twenty-eight years as assistant rector and rector, presided at the meetings of the vestry, and I have never heard a syllable from any member of that body in any applica- tion before them which would warrant the charge that it would be determined on partizan grounds. What influence the differ- ence of opinion maj exert on individual minds it is impossible 13 194 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE to tell; but I know very well that the question never comes up nor is even alluded to in the vestry itself. Q. How far would this distinction of partiality in the grants themselves be proved by a reference to the parties to whom they were made? A. So far as the city of New-York is concerned, it would be a distinction without a difference; for with two single exceptions, all the churches in New-York, amounting to the num- ber of fifty, have been sharers of her bounty. The following list of all the church corporations in the city of New-York, is taken from the journals of the convention. Those not njarked with a star have been aided by Trinity Church. It will be seen there are but two in the list that have not received aid from Trinity. The one, the Church of the Holy Communion, that was built by the relict of the late John Rogers, the other is the Church of the Incarnation, that occupies the building erected by Grace Church for a free church. New- York City and County. Advent, All Angels, All Saints, Annunciation, Ascension, Calvary, Christ, Crucifixion, Emmanuel, Ephiphany, Holy Com- forter, Our Saviour, Good Shepherd, Grace, Holy Apostles, *Holy Communion, Holy Evangelists, Holy Innocents, Holy Martyrs, •Incarnation, Intercession, Messiah, Nativity, Redeemer, Re- demption, St. Andrew's, St. Ann's, St. Barnabas, St. Bartholo- mew, St. Clement's, St. Cornelius, St. Esprit, St. George's, St. George the Martyr, St. James, St. John the Evangelist, St. John the Baptist, St. Jude's, St. Luke's, St. Mark's, St. Mary's, St. Matthew's, St. Michael's, St. Peter's, St. Philip's, St. Simon's, St. Stephen's, St. Thomas, St. Timothy's, Transfiguration. Q. But may not this aid have been rendered in different de- gree! A. It would be exceedingly difiicult to make a compari- son from actual facts, but I think that I may venture to say very safely, that if the aggregate amount of the favors and benefits received from Trinity by those churches whose rectors and ves- tries are supposed not to sympathise with her in her views, were set against the amount received by those whose rectors and ves- tries cordially do, that the groundless charge of undue partiality would be still more apparent. In this comparative estimate, however, must be included, what the corporation has done ON AFFAIHS OF TRINITY CHT7KCH. for St. Mark's church, Grace church, and St. George's, whose rectors, if we may judge from their evidence in the present inquiry, appear to have had no great good will towards Trinity Church, though with more reason for kind feeling and grateful recollection than all others. Q. Have you met with any instances among those called " low " churchmen, who have viewed this matter in a different light ? A. I have with one, which is somewhat striking. A few years since, a frank and high-minded clergyman, who prides himself on his low churchmanship, but who is as liberal in his feelings towards the views of others as he is honest in his own, after having read the history of Trinity Church, expressed to me his amazement at the extent of her bounties I remarked to him, however, that he would perceive they were indiscrimi- nately distributed, without regard to difference of opinion, among those who received them. And what if they had not been, he earnestly leplied, had not Trinity Church a perfect right to do what she pleased with her own, I am sure I would have done so. Q. Hearsay evidence has been received to show that a certain application for relief to the vestry of Trinity church had been repelled by the Comptroller, on the score that the parish, in whose behalf it was made, had not voted in favor of Eishop Onderdonk ; what do you say to this 1 A. If this statement be true, the subject, nevertheless, from its peculiar delicacy, has never been touched on in the vestry of Trinity Church, and I am very sure that it was never made the ground of any action in this body, either in one way or the other. Q. It is stated that the active liberality and zeal of the parish- ioners of Trinity have been so far weakened, that their four congregations united do less than some single independent con- gregations in the same city, with little or no endowment. Is this comparison well founded and just ? A. Far from it, I think. It is well known that from the lower part of the city, in which Trinity and St. Paul's are situated, and even as high up as St. John's, nearly all the people of wealth and condition have remo- ved and gone up town. Trinity church, though well attended is almost entirely filled with strangers, and the poor, only a very 196 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE scanty remnant of the former congregation remaining. The same may be said, in a measure, of St. Paul's, and in some degree, of St. John's The united ability of all three, for the exercise of charity, I do not believe, is equal to that of the congregation to which reference is supposed to be made. Q. What Episcopal churches, besides Trinity, St. Paul's and St. John's are left in the lower part of the city 1 A. None but Du St. Esprit and St. George's chapel in Beekman street. St. George's church has gone up among the rich, taking its ample endowment with it. Grace church, with all its parish and indi- vidual wealth, has done the same; and so likewise have Christ church and the Ascension; leaving their deserted poor in the lower part of the city, almost entirely to the care oi Trinity; and then >he is taunted with the scantiness of her collections, from those who, for the most part, have comparatively but little to give. Q. Is it true, as charged, that a general torpor pervades the whole concern. A. If there were even more ground for the charge than there is in regard to temporal matters, it is spirit- ually full of life and activity. Notwithstanding all the re- movals and all the changes which have taken place, it has not for years been in a more prosperous condition. It will appear from the report of the Rector made recently to the Vestry, that in the course of the last conventional year, 33 adults and 400 children were baptised in the parish, that 176 persons were con- firmed, that there are 1,100 communicants, that there were in the Sunday, parish and industrial schools, 1,307 scholars and teachers; and that, in the same period, there were about 2,000 Sunday and week-day services in the parish. Q. But is not this state of things in the parish, in some mea- sure, owing to the action of the Senate 1 A. Neither the fear nor favor of man had anything to do with it. The motives to this activity and zeal, I humbly trust, came from a higher power. In the fall of 1855, a committee was appointed by the vestry on the state of the parish to consider and report thereon, and with a more especial view to its future arrangements on the completion of tlie new chapel, several meetings were held on ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 19t the subject, and all the leading features of the system were marked out and settled, according to my recollection and belief, before the action of the Senate. Q. Itis also stated, apparently as an instance of the same torpor that there is so little interest taken in the vestry elections, and that in eight out of the past ten years, an average of hardly one in ten of the corporators cared to appear. Do you consider this the fair conclusion ? A. On the contrary, I think it the very reverse. It seems to me a decisive proof of the satisfaction and confidence of the corporators, in the general administration of the affairs of the parish. Did a different sentiment prevail, whatever their sluggishness, it would soon draw them out as all experience shows. Q. Do you think that Trinity Church has done its utmost to make the capital of the property of that corporation available, for the founding, or support, or promotion of religious, charita- ble or educational institutions or purposes 1 A. Making due al- lowance for unavoidable diversities of opinion and the fallibility of human judgment, and looking beyond the mere present mo- ment to perpetuity in the future, I think that it has. I have •never known any body of men act more thoughtfully, more up- rightly and conscientiously, than the vestry of Trinity Church in the administration of its affairs, nor any which, in its general character, surpassed it in wisdom and intelligence. Wednesday Afternoon, Feb. 18th. Present — Senate committee, Messrs. Spencer, Noxon and Ramsey. Counsel for Trinity, Judge Parker and O. Meads, Esq. Rev. John Henry Hobart recalled and cross-examined by coun- sel for Trinity Church — Q. So far as your knowledge extends, what, during the time of your connection with the parish, have been the policy, desire and action of Trinity church in relation to making the property of that corporation available for the founding, support or promotion of religious, charitable or edu- cational institutions or purposes 1 A. I believe, so far as I have 198 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE kuowletlge, that the vestry have acted in good faith, to the best of their judgment, in order to make their property available for the purposes named in the question. Rt. Rev. Bishop Potter, recalled by counsel for Trinity — Q. Have, or have not the grants of Trinity church made to other churches, in the form of grants of money, secured by mortgages or otherwise, or in the form of annual stipends, had the effect to promote dependency ,feebleness and deadness in the parishes thus aided, or what has been the effect of such grants in each of those forms of grants upon the internal condition of the parishes aided 1 A. I do not see why the assistance spoken of in the question should be injurious to the parishes in the respect mentioned in the ques- tion; nor do I believe that it has been; but on the contrary, bene- ficial. It has encouraged parishes to exertion in many instances, when otherwise they would have been unable to maintain them- selves. The feeling often has been, I think, that the parishes, after receiving such aid, have laid themselves under special obligations to exert themselves. If it was an absolute grant, with a mortgage, it did not differ essentially from any other gift, except that the obligation spoken of was increased. If it was an annual stipend, it was like the stipend granted by the missionary committee of the diocese, and those annual stipends have been provided for by the collective wisdom of the church in the diocese, as a part of her or- ganised system. It must imply an opinion,on the part of the whole church in the diocese, that that mode of rendering assistance is a useful mode, I have known many cases where the question of a church being able to establish itself in a given community, or being able to maintain itself, seemed to depend upon the assist- ance it received from Trinity church. Q. Will you explain more fully your meaning in regard to the nature of your supervision over the affairs of Trinity Church 1 A. It is with the affairs of Trinity Cliurch, as with those of every other parish in the diocese. The Rector, Wardens, and Vestrymen, are an integral portion of the church of which I am an overseer, and I cannot conceive, that in any part of their official conduct, they are exempt from a certain general re- sponsibility to me, nor is Ihe idea of such responsibilty des- ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 199 troyed by the fact that I do not supervise their appropriations, that my assent is not necessary to the validity of their grants, and that they make no report of their grants to me. Since I have been in office, a majority of the vestrymen of a parish, (not Trinity church,) laid before me, charges against their rector, of misconduct, in regard to the funds of the parish. I ordered a committee of inquiry. Had that committee found the charges warranted, in appearance, by the facts, the Rector would have been put upon his trial; but they were found to be ground- less. The transactions of the parish, out of which this diffi- culty arose, were not of a nature to be included in the usual reports to me, nevertheless, the case shows tliat there was a re- sponsibility to the head of the diocese, which extended to all those unreported transactions. Again, during the Episcopate of my immediate predecessor, there was a case, in which a rector charged his vestry with misconduct in the management of the funds of the parish. The Bishop ordered a committee of in- quiry. I was the chairman of the committee. Witnesses came before us, the conduct of the Vestry was inquired into, and a report made to the Bishop, that the allegations of the rector were unsupported by the facts. In this case, also, the transactions in question were not of that class which are ever included in the parochial reports to the Bishop. Nevertheless, they were so far under his general supervision, that there was room for his interposition if a special difficulty should require it. Let me further illustrate; I am to oversee the conduct of the clergy. It is the duty of a clergyman to visit his flock, but he does not report to me the number, or frequency of his visits, and no doubt there might be some degree of neglect, without my know- ledge, or without my considering it a case for special interfe- rence. So, any parish may commit many errors in church build- ing and in the management of its funds, without my knowledge, and without my thinking it a case for interference, even if I was aware of it. But this does not at all destroy the idea, so familiar to the mind of every churchman, the idea I had in my mind, in my former testimony, that the rector, wardens, and vestrymen of a parish, cannot act in any official way, in any matter pertaining to church property, and tlie interests of CO REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE the church, without a certain general responsibility to the head of the diocese ; and, as in the cases I have just cited, that re- aponsiblility, is not a mere theory, but a practical reality. By the Senate committee : Q. I should understand, sir, your first answer to imply, that you think it an advantage to a church to have its property under mortgage, do you so intend the reply 1 A. As I have be- fore stated in my testimony, I consider the mortgage a nullity, except for the purpose of preventing the sale of the church property and its alienation from its sacred use ; and, therefore, I consider it no disadvantage, and if I had a positive opinion to give I should incline to give the opinion that it was an advan- tage. I take it for granted that that opinion cannot be construed to be an opinion in favor of an incumbrance by mortgage in the abstract. Q. Are you aware that under such mortgages interest ac- cumulates, and that it is in the power of the holders to collect them 1 A. I am. Q. Do you by your answer in explanation, mean to be under- stood that you have any charge, direction or control, in any way or manner, over the funds administered by the corporation of Trinity Church ? A. I have already stated in a previous an- swer that I have no immediate oversight. Q. Have you any remote oversight A. My assent, I have already stated, is not essential to the validity of a grant ; I am not generally cognizant of the internal or financial affairs of that or any other parish, but I must think, as is implied in my former answer, that all the ofl&cial conduct of vestries is, in a general ecclesiastical sense, which I have partly explained in a former answer, subject to the jurisdiction of the head of the diocese. Q. Do you regard the funds controled by this corporation in the same light you do the financial affairs of other church cor- porations, not having large estates. A. In one respect I do. They are just as much the exclusive property of that corporation 6S the property of any. other church is. The magnitude of th» ON AFFAIKS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 201 property places it in certain general moral relations to the diocese at large, which have been very largely recognized by the parish. Q. Do you regard your control over this corporation and all others in this diocese alike. A. It has never occurred to me that there was any diiference. Q. For a misapplication or mal-administration of her fund, what discipline would you inflict 1 A.I have already stated that in the case of every parish there may be many errors, many omissions of duties, which would not call for any interposition. What action I might be induced take under particularly extreme circumstances, I certainly cannot foresee. Q. I do not ask you what action you might take. I ask you what power you have, by virtue of your office as bishop ? A. I have the power by canon of looking into the affairs of the parishes I visit. I have the power, by virtue of my office, of advice and admonition. If there be gross misconduct in the parish, it must be either with or without the connivance of the rector. It is not easy to be without. If it amounts to crime or immorality, it of course exposes the rector to be dealt with as in the case I have mentioned in a former answer. Q. Is not all your power of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature 1 A. Yes, sir. Examination by counsel for Trinity. Rev. William Berrian re-called : Q. Can you tell what gifts Trinity Church has made for the founding, or support or promotion of religious, charitable or edu- cational institutions or purposes, and what is the amount of such gifts made prior to the 25th of January, 1814, and what subse- quent to that date ? A. The following grants of land were made by Trinity Church, prior to 1814 : 1786, 3 lots to the senior pastors of the Presbyterian congrega- tions in this city. 1765, 2 lots to the corporation for the ferry between this city and Paulus Hook. 1775, 2 lots to the same for a pier and slip on the north side of Vesey street. 202 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE 1800, for a market in Duane-street ; and for another in Christo- pher-street. 1810, 2 lots for a free school in Hudson-street. 1752, grants of land, between Murray and Barclay-streets and extending from Church-street to the river, to Columbia college. 1748, Grants for the site of Trinity Church school. 1800, 7 lots to the same. 1802, 32 lots to the Society for the Promotion of Eeligion and Learning. 1795, 28 lots to St. Mark's church. 1811,25 lots to Grace church. 1812, 33 lots to St. George's. 1795, 5 lots to St. Peter's, Westchester. 1807, 3 lots to St. Stephen's. 1807, 6 lots to St. Michael's and St. James'. 1813, 4 lots to St. James'. 1805, 4 lots to Christ church. 108 lots from 1795 to 1805 inclusive. 1809, 3 lots to St. George's, Flushing ; 3 to Grace church, Jamaica; 3 to St. James', Newtown; 2 to St. Ann's, Brook- lyn; 3 to Trinity, Utica. Grants in money and a bond during the same period, $238,220 22| 1,500 00 $239,720 22| The following are the grants in land by Trinity Church, from 1814 to August, 1855 : 1815, a grant of land to the Free School Society. 1820, 3 lots to St. Luke's. 1827, 2 do 1834, 3 do 1835, 1 lot to the Ascension. 1832, 5 lots to Trinity school at a mere nominal rent. In money during the same period, $998,703 60 There may be some discrepancy, but if so my statement un- derrates. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 203 Q. How did you acquire the knowledge necessary to enable you to make the statement contained in your last answer? A. From a careful examination of the minutes of the vestry from 1697 to 1855. When I was in doubt I usually consulted the officers of the corporation, the comptroller and clerk, to clear it up, if they knew anything about it. Q. Is the statement correct that in addition to the require- ments of the law, the church required that all persons desiring to vote should give previous notice of such desire to the rector 1 A. I don't know of any such requisition. Q, Were there any, and if any, what Episcopal church corpo- rations in the city of New- York, prior to 1814, besides the cor- poration of Trinity Church 1 A. There were nine, to wit : St. Mark's, Christ's, Grace, St. George's, Du St. Esprit, St. Stephen's, Zion, St. Michael's, and St. James'. Q. Did the members of either of these corporations, independ- ent of Trinity Church, ever claim or exercise the right of voting as corporators of Trinity Church, before the act of 1814? A. I never heard of the exercise: but I think I have heard of the claim. I never heard of the claim being made but once prior to 1814. Q. Was it granted at that time 1 A. I do not think it was. I never heard that it was. Q. Was such a right ever claimed or exercised since 1814? A. I never knew it to be claimed but on one occasion, that was during my rectorship, when J was presiding. It was not exer- cised. It was accompanied by a threat that it Avould be exer- cised, but it was never carried out. I think it was between ten and fifteen years ago. It was by Mr. Walter M. Rutherford. Such a right has never been exercised. Q. Is the Kev. Robert S. Howland generally deemed a "high" churchman, or a "low" churchman ? A. He has always been reputed a "high" churchman. Q. Did the vestry in 1813, to calm the fears of the Legislature promise that their funds should be applied to the building of 204 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTBE churches from time to time as the increase of population de- manded, the control of said churches to be relinquished to in- dependent vestries, &c., and suitable endowments to bs made ? A. I never heard that they made such a promise, nor knew any thing about it until I read it in the report of this committee. By the Senate committee : Q. You stated yesterday that a large sum had been given to the church of the Nativity, I would enquire whether a mortgage was taken for it? A. I presume that it was, but perhaps not for the whole amount. There were two sums of $5,000 at one time and $4,000 at another, I presume that the mortgages were given for those two sums. Q. You stated yesterday that the vestry had a meeting, dis- cussed the subject and agreed to allow certain ministers to ex- amine the list of corporators; was that the first permission of that kind that had been given ? A. It was the first request that had ever been made to me, that I remember; my answer was that there was no doubt of the right of the corporators to examine the list, but to take a copy of it, it was not my province to deter- mine; I brought the question before the vestry as to the right to take a copy; the vestry resolved that the bishop might make such extracts, or take a copy of the whole of it if he desired. A copy was taken by the rector of St. Paul's and sent to the bishop. Q. Did not St. George's and some other churches named by you, relinquish all right to the property of Trinity Church and all right to interfere in its affairs? A. I have always under- stood that they had. Q. Did those churches ofifer to vote after that 1 A. Never, that I know of. Q. Did not Col. Troup represent Trinity Church in 1813, '14, at Albany ? A. He was a member of the committee of seven on the state of the church, and with full power to make application to the Legislature; the other members were Richard Harrison, David M. Clarkson, Thomas Barrow, Robert Troup, Jacob Le Roy, Peter Augustus Jay, and Thomas L. Ogden. 205 ON AFFAIBS OF TRINITY CHURCH. Q. Is there not a great want of Episcopal churches in some parts of the city of New-York ? A. I would say there is a want; I cannot say a great want, in the eastern part of the city, parti- cularly. Q. Did Trinity Church ever build a free church 1 A. She has in efifect; she has not in fact. She has given as much as would pay for the church. Q. What was the cost of Trinity Church 1 A. I think it was about $350,000; the chapel cost $227,000. Q. Do you think the Episcopal church in the city has kept pace with the increase of the population of the city ? A. I have always considered it has. Q. Was it not considered important by the clergy of the city and particularly by Bishop Wainright, to keep up Zion Church, at the time it was sold? A. I know it was by him; but I know nothing of the opinions of others. Q. Did Bishop Onderdonk ever exercise or attempt to exer- cise any power over the vestry of Trinity Church, as a vestry 1 A. Not that I remember. I think I can say he did not. Q. Are the recommendations of the standing committee al- ways reported to the vestry 1 A. Yes. Q. Did you ever know of the recommendations of the stand- ing committee being overruled by the vestry 1 A. Scores of times. 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 1 A. The reason was the bishop wrote to me requesting 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 7 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. 206 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE 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 uot in my office or custody. Q. Who had it ? A. At that particular time it was with me. 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. Q. What are your powers, if any, over the books of the corpo- ration ? A. I have the sole custody of the parish register, con- taining 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. Because I thought it was the' proper business of the comptroller to let him see it. Q. Why any more proper for the comptroller than the rector? A. Because the book is one that was under his custody. I have no other answer to give. Q. Was it placed there by law, or by action of the vestry 1 A. By usage, and the necessity of the case. Q. What churches were enlarged or endowed in the city of New-York, for the three years prior to April 13, 1855? A. Two; the church of the Annunciation, |25,000, and church of the Redeemer, at Yorkville, $9,000. OK AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 207 Q. At the time St. Matthew's made application to Trinity for aid, was it admitted by its rector that it had fairly " died outl" A. I understood it had, from the testimony. Q. Can you state when the application, in schedule G, was made to Trinity ? A. I do not remember exactly the date of it; less than two years ago. Q. Had it " died out " then 1 A. I believe it had. Q. Do they not state in the application, that unless you gave them aid, they will cease to exist in May following ? A. It appears to be so. Q. Did you then understand, when you received it, that it was already dead? A. I understood that it was in a low condition. I knew it to be so for a long time before. Q. Was her debt, as represented to you in that memorial, more than $4,800 — $3,500 of which was on the parsonage 1 A. It is represented in the application at $4,800. Q. Was the parsonage of that church separate from the church ? A. It was on ground that belonged to the church, and not adjoining it. Q. Why do you say the church w :s in a low condition, with only a debt of $1,3001 A. My impressions of its being so were made from conversations with Mr. Pound, the rector, that it was in a very languishing condition. Q. Have you stated the true and only reason for not giving her aid 1 A. I don't know of a^iy other, I am not aware of any other. Q. Was not one reason for refusing the aid that the request was disrespectful in its language? A. I do not know. Q. What was the church edifice and lot worth, in your judg- ment? A. I suppose $15,000, perhaps a little more. Q. Why did you not rescue her from her embarrassment? A. Because it was not thought worth the expenditure. It was surrounded with other churches. 208 REPORT OP SELECT COMMITTEE Q. Do you regard Trinity Charity school as an institution of charity or benevolence, within the meaning of the resolution propounded by the Senate? — (Resolution was read.) A. I do, in an eminent degree; I will state the reason why. First, the education of our own ignorant poor children; in the next place, for a long course of years they were aided in their clothing as well as education, and there are now 50 to 70 beneficiaries who, in addition to their instruction, receive stipends from $20 to $50 per year, to help them in their clothing, &c.; it is a day school. Q. What are the Dorcas societies 1 A. Societies for making garments for the poor. I regard these as benevolent societies; these societies are not aided by the funds of Trinity corporation. Industrials schools are those in which the poor, especially girls, are taught by the ladies, sewing, and where the garments are given away to the poor. They are not endowed by Trinity; one of the parish schools is endowed by Trinity, the others are sup- ported by private contributions of the parishioners. Q. Which do you allude to, as being spiritually full of life and activity, Trinity parish, or the Rector, Wardens and Vestry- men, in the administration of her fund? A. I mean that there is great activity and zeal on the part of the clergy of the parish, and of the congregations who unite in these efforts, and that the rector, the wardens, and vestrymen, heartily sympathize with them, and aid them in the prosecution of this work. - Q. How do you know the nine Episcopal churches which ex- isted prior to 1814, did not vote for vestrymen in Trinity parish? A. I was very intimate with Bishop Hobart, from 1805. He was very communicative to me, though a young man, and I have no recollection of ever having heard him say, that there was any exercise of such privilege. Q. Did you ever hear him say, they did not? A. No; I have been in the parish since the latter part of 1811, and certainly should have known of it, had it ever been exercised. Q. What was your position from 1811 to 1814, iathe Church? A. An assistant minister of Trinity Church. ON AFFAlaS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 209 Q. Do tlie records of the church show who voted in 1813 1 A. The clerk always takes down the names of the voters at the elections, with the several churches of the parish to which the voters belong. Q. Have you ever examined the record with the view to ^nd out whether the nine churches did then actually vote ? A. I have not Q. Are the lists of persons voting at last election, preserved in Trinity Church ? A. I preserve my own very carefully ; I do not know whether the clerk does. Q. If any such lists are to be found, would they not show whether any of the persons belonging to the nine churches, voted 1 A. If in existence, I suppose they would. Q. What are the salaries of each and all the officers con- nected with Trinity Church 1 A. The rector receives a salary of $3,500 per annum, and a house with a stable; the five assistant ministers get $3,000 per annum, and an allowance of |1,100 for house rent; three other assistant ministers receive $1,500 per annum, and no house; the comptroller receives $3,500; the clerk of the vestry $1,000 per annum; the collector $1,200 per annum, clerk in the office $1,200. Q. Is an allowance of $1,100 to all assistant ministers, for rent, sufficient ? A. With moderate views, it is. Q. Is the answer given on page seventeen of the report of Trinity Church the correct one 1 A. I presume it is correct It reads : Grants and Burial Places in Trinity Cemetery. To the Orphan Asylum, a plot containing 621 square feet. To the society for the relief of aged and indigent females, a plot containing 300 square feet. To the Protestant Episcopal Mutual Benefit Society, a plot containing 600 square feet. To Christ Church, a plot to be selected. To the Orphan's Home, a plot to be selected. . By counsel for Trinity — Q. How do these salaries, paid to the clergy of Trinity parish, compare with salaries paid to othe* 14 210 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE clergy in the city of New-York 1 A. They are considerably less; Dr. Tyng's salary amounts, I am told, to about $6,000; Dr. Hawk's, about $5,000 or $6,000; the rector of St. Thomas re- ceives $5,200. By the Senate committee — Q. Do you understand the act of 1814 to restrict the number of persons qualified to vote for chivrch wardens or vestrymen of Trinity Church, who had the right to vote before that time I A. I do not suppose that it was intended to restrict any who had a right; but let me add, that I do not think any bad the right before, who did. not belong to the parish of Trinity Church, Examination by counsel for Trinity. — Rev. Francis Vinion called and sworn — Q. What means have yon of being acquainted with the affairs of Trinity Church? A. I am an assistant min- ister there, and have been so since June 1855. Q. What number of ministers are there in Trinity parish, and how are they employed, and what are the character aad number of the congregations which attend the several churches in that parish 1 A There are nine ministers, the rector and eight assistants. Two are employed at the church, and two in each of the chapels; the rector having general supervision. At St. Paul's chapel, the only one I speak of, the congregation is composed of three classes : first, the old families retaining their seats; second, strangers from the hotels, clerks and sojourners of the city, engaged, for the most part, in mercantile business; third, mechanics, artisans, porters, washer-women, hucksters, and miscellaneous poor, who obtain their living by daily labor. Q. Will you be good enough to explain the arrangements for parochial work at St. Paul's chapel, and as to the work of that kind actually done by the ministers and others there employ- ed? A. There is a parish school employing two teachers with voluntary assistance from the women of the parish, to teach poor children the principles of religion, as professed by the Episcopal church, the elements of common learning; sewing to the extent of each making their own clothing, and as laboring to get their own living, and also instructions in church music. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 211 Tlie number of children is 80 or 100; also a Sunday school in- cluding oth«r children of the parish, taught by between twenty and thirty teachers of both sexes; two classes for advanced scholars, al«o a weekly Bible class for clerks and young men. The public services in the chapel are every Sunday morning and afternoon, five months in the year, and a night service ad- ditional tor seven months. I officiate statedly only in morning service, the other parts of the day being employed in other parts of the parish, at the church or chapel, and, therefore, can speak only of the congregation in the morning. Then it is large, as it is at all the chapels; the communion's offerings liberal, as shown from the fact that on Easter day they amounted to the sum of $270, and on Christmas day to $180, or thereabouts. At other times the contributions are generous- There is es- tablished in connection with St. Paul's chapel a mission house, open from 9 A. M, to 2 P. M., where one of the assistant minis- ters is present every day. There are two laymen employed to inquire into and examine every application for aid, and report the same to the office. The case is recorded in a book kept for that puipose, and a record made of all that was done in each case. The applicants are from vestrymen wanting clergymen, clergymen wanting parishes, poor wanting help, the sick medi- cine, the emigrant advice, kc. The office is in communication with most of the extant institutions of charity in the city of New-York. Cards are placed in hotels and eating houses, in- viting guests, in my own name, to attend St. Paul's chapel, where free sittings are provided. We have received letters from persons we have aided, expressing their thanks to Trinity Church. Q. Do you think Trinity Church has done its utmost to make the capital of the property of that corporation available for the founding, or support or promotion of religious, charitable cr educational institutions or purposes ? A. I can speak only of what I have known of Trinity Church since my connection with it in June, 1855, and I say in answer to the question, that I have observed an earnest disposition so to do on the part of the rector, wardens and vestrymen of that corporation. Adjourned to 4 P. M., Thursday. 212 REPORT or SELECT COMMITTEE, Thursday Aiternoon, Feb. 19, I&5T, Present, tlie Senate Committee^ Messrs. Spencer, Noxon and Eamsey;, Judge Parker and O. Meads, Esq., counsel for Trinity ehurch. Rev. Sullivan H. Weston recalled. Examined by counsel for Trinity Church. Q. Have you any explanation to make in regard to your answer contained in your former testimony ? — [ Referring to testi- mony taken before the committee in New- York.] A. I con- sidered that when I said that I could not answer the question, that that was the end of my testimony ; the chairman of the committee observing that that would do^and the rest of the answer as given was said after I had supposed my evidence was elosed,^ and as I supposed, in the way of conversation, to the committee ; and when I alluded to their property, I alluded to the current reports as to their boundless wealthy I was very desirous to come up and qualify, lest my former testimony might fee misunderstood. Q.. Do you think the vestry of Trinity Church has done its ntmost to make the capital of the property of that corporation available for the founding, or support, or promotion of religious^ charitable or educational institutions or purposes? A. I can answer that question as I did in the first instance. I do not know what their capabilities are, but my opinion was, that less should be given abroad and more in Trinity parish. By abroad I mean any where out of our parish. I do not doubt the sin- cerity of the vestry in trying to do the best they could. Q. Have you any different opinion on this subject than you had when examined before 1 . A. My opinion is the same now as then. Q. Was not the reply of the chairman of the committee, at the previous examination, that "that would do," intended to dis- miss yon % A. Yes. By the Senate Committee : Q. Is there not great complaint among the clergy of Trinity Church at the doings and dealings of the vestry 7 A I have heard some complaints. X)N AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH, 213 Q. If you had known, when you answered before that the property ot the church was worth $6,000,000 or $7,000,000 would, jou not have answered as before 1 A. My answer is, that I should want more done in the lower part of the dty, and less elsewhere, Q. Was it not, a short time ago, in agitation among the clergy of Trinity parish, to make a representation, in a united manner, of the wrong doings of the vestry ? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Were you not spoken to by some of the clergy about the necessity of some such interference to change the dealings and policy of Trinity Church ? A, Some of the clergy had agreed with me that more should be done down town, and this was pre- vious to their last action in appointing additional force in the parish. Q. Has not Dr. Higby and others, represented to you that the policy of the vestry was ruinous to the church? A. I do not remember of others, I know that Dr. Higby has spoken of the past policy as not being the best policy. Q. You spoke of appointing force in the parish ; when did it take place 1 A. About two years ago ; don't recollect the time nearer. By Counsel for Trinity Church Q. I want you to explain what you mean by saying you heard some complaints among the clergy, about the dealings and doings of the vestry 1 A. One complaint was in reference to the wish for increased expenditures down town, in order to meet the wants of the poor. Q. Were those complaints made, before the additional minis- ters of Trinity Church were appointed 1 A. They were. Q. If you had known that the whole income of Trinity Church was only about $100,000 per annum, should you say that they could accomplish more good with it than they have done t A. I think they could not. Q. You stated that Dr. Higby complained of the past policy as not being the best policy, in what respect, did he think it 214 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE not the best? A. One, was in reference to more enlarged pro- vision down town, and the other, in reference to the building of Trinity Chapel up town, to accommodate the parishioners who had moved up town. Q. Have both those defects been supplied 1 A. The chapel has been built and we need more means down town, in Trinity parish, if they can afford it. By the Committee : Q. Is there not a great want of Episcopal churches in New- York, for the accommodation of the poor, or working classes 1 A. Undoubtedly; heretofore, we have not had force enough to fill the churches we had; that, is now in a great measure re- medied. There is no necessity of building more churches in that part of the town, until those already constructed, are filled. Q. Is there not a great want of Episcopal churches in the eastern and northeastern parts of the city, for the poor or work- ing-classes ? A. I presume it is so; it is so represented. It is not in my parish. I do not know what the religious opinions are of the population in those parts of the city. Examination by counsel for Trinity church. — Samuel T. Skid- more called and sworn. — Q. Are you a member of the vestry of Trinity church'? How long have you been, and how long a member of the standing committee 1 A. I have been a member of the vestry about ten years, and of the standing committee some six or eight years. Q. Is there any rule of the vestry, or directions of the stand- ing committee, which prevents a corporator seeing the list of the corporators 1 A. None that I am aware of, or ever heard of. Q. Do you understand that any corporator has a right to see the list? A. I do. Q. If there has been a refusal to show such list, was it by any directions of the vestry, or standing committee ? A. No, sir; not that I am aware of. Q. Was ever any request, either for an inspection, or copy of the list of corporators, brought to the attention of the vestry ? ON AFFAiaS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 215 A. The attention of the vestry was called to an application by Dr. Wainright to get a copy of the list of corporators. Q. Was it granted ? A. It was, unanimously, I believe. Q. Was any other application, either for an inspection, or copy, ever made to the vestry 1 A. Not that I am aware of. Q. Have the grants made by the vestry been made in a parti- zan spirit, or with reference to " high" church and " low" church opinions ? A. I should say, decidedly not. I would say fur- ther, that the question of " high" and "low" church, during the time I have been in the vestry, has been very seldom, if ever, alluded to; and if I thought that an application, in all other respects meritorious, should be rejected on the ground of its being " low" church, I should resign my place as a member of the standing committee. Q. Have the vestry been, to your knowledge or judgment, partial in making their appropriations to other churches 1 A. 1 have always endeavored to be impartial myself, and I have no reason to doubt that the other members were actuated by the same motives. Q. What influenced the standing committee and the vestry in their action upon the application ot St. Matthew's Church 1 A. St. Matthew's made a large demand upon Trinity, larger than we thought we could reasonably grant, and we thought that in the then state of that parish, that a partial appropriation would do but little good. I would state that the application seemed couched in very peremptory terms, and I recollect that, as a member of the standing committee, I said we should divest our- selves of all feeling in consequence of the peculiar style of the application, and aid them if we could. We had very little faith of the church succeeding if we did aid them. There were other churches in the vicinity. Q. It is charged that the vestry of Trinity Church have mate- rially reduced the stipends formerly paid to clergymen in the city of New-York. How is the fact 1 A. Trinity Church has taken away stipends from certain churches whose congregations 216 REPORT OR SELECT COMMITTEE thej' thought did not need them, being abundantly able to 3o without them; and grants of stipends were made in other in- stances where they were more needed The aggregate, I think, has not been reduced. Q. Do you think Trinity Church has done its utmost to make the capital of the property of that corporation available for the founding or support, or promotion of religious, charitable or educational institutions, or purposes A. I think Trinity Church has made appropriations for religious objects as far, if not farther, than prudence would warrant in reference to her means. Q. Have its expenditures and donations exceeded or fallen short of its income? A. I think that for the last two or three years her expenditures have exceeded her income considerably over $100,000; I think for .ome years previous, for the past half dozen years, her expenditures have largely exceeded her income. Q. Will you state whether in your judgment these expendi- tures have been discreetly and wisely made? A. I certainly think so, except as to the undue extent. Q. What was the rule that governed the vestry, in regard to helping churches of feeble means ? A. I think that one favorite kind of appropriation was to parishes that had made great eiforts to help themselves, which had received help from others, and where additional aid from Trinity Church was highly essen- tial to ensure success. Q. Is it true that aid was given to churches reluctantly and offensively ? A. Reluctantly, only, when we thought our sym- pathies were running away with our better judgment. Never offensively, I should hope. Applications are very numerous and very many of a highly meritorious character, and which enlisted our strongest sympathies, we have felt compelled most reluctantly to refuse. When we had the means we took great pleasure in granting their application. Q. What proportion of the applications were you able to act upon favorably? A. I certainly think not over one-tenth. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHUBCH. 217 Q. Do YOU remember any meeting of the vestry -when you had not a large number of those applications pending before you ? A. I do not remember any meeting of the vestry Avheu there were not more or less of these applications pending before us, unless a meeting of the vestry had been held just atter the ■whole number before the vestry of these applications had been disposed of. There have been temporary periods when it was generally understood that Trinity's inability to resp ond favora- bly to applications would cause temporary cessation or postpone- ment of them. Q. Were any grants made by the vestry with a view to power or influence ? A. I should answer, in my opinion, most deci- dedly no. Q. What have you to say about the erection of Trinity chapel and the leases of pews in it 1 A. Trinity chapel j the chief ob- ject in building it was, first and principally, for the accommo- dation of the parishioners and their families who had been a long time in the parish, but who had removed too far from the parish church and chapel to continue to worship therein, and thus, by inducing their return, increase, as a consequence, the number of their constituency. When the chapel was finished, the vestry adopted such plans for disposing of the pews as they thought best calculated to attain those objects. But, inasmuch as some of th° features of those plans, such as the disposing of them by an auction, were of a somewhat novel character, they determined to act cautiously and prudently in the first lettings of those pews. The first day's biddings (as is known,) were con- fined to the then actual corporators of the parish, and to those who had been pew owners at any time within the preceding ten years. After which all such pews as were not then taken, were on a subsequent day disposed of at auction, the competition being general, to any one desirous of procuring a pew in the chapel. Particular attention has been called to the fact that the first leases given for pews in the new chapel were drawn so as to expire just one or two days before the annual election. If they had been made to expire on the day after the election, the lessees would not in either case have been entitled, by virtue of 218 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE. those leases alone, to vote, for the reason that they would not have been members of the congregation for the full term of one year before the election. If such feature, or any other feature, about those first leases be deemed, therefore, peculiar or un- usual, it must be attributed to over carefulness on the part of the vestry, and a strong desire not to admit improper persons as corporators. The result of the lettings of the pews was, how- ever, highly satisfactory and gratifying to the vestry, and they thereupon, in due season and before the next election, ordered the future leases of the pews to be made to terminate on 1st day of May in each successive year, as in other chapels. Chapel consecrated April 17, 1855, when first services were performed j election held March 25, 1856. Q. Is it true that the vestry was governed by the policy of *' accumulation," as is charged in the testimony of Mr. Bradish"? A. I answer by saying that I think the expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars per annum beyond her income does not show such a disposition. By the Senate Committee : Q. What is the lot at the corner of Murray-street and Broad- way, (No. 251 Broadway,) worth 1 A. Of all the real estate of Trinity Church, there is not one that I consider so valuable, as that on the corner of Murray-street and Broadway I should think it would sell for $75,000, or $100,000, if it was entirely free from lease, or any incumbrances. Q. Will you see what it is returned at, in this report of Tri- nity Church? (showing witness report.) A. It is stated here, at $36,750. Q. When you made the report, did you know of the sale to James H. Noe 1 A. 1 recollect the sale of a Greenwich-street lot for $20,000, but do not remember the purchaser's name, nor whether the sale was before, or after the Vestry's report. Q. Did you know of the sale at the time it was made 1 A. I did. If it was sold before the report, it was included through inadvertence. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 219 Q. Were you a vestryman at the time the report of Feb. 15, 1856 was made? A. Yes Sir. Q. Did you not, with others, negotiate for the disposition of property, on the corner of Chambers and Church-streets, and what valuations did you put upon it, for the Hudson River Rail- road Company, and at what time was the bargain made? A. $5,000 per annum, which is 5 per cent on $100,000. Q. How much do you make the lot worth, estimating it in that manner ? A. It would be worth $100,000, estimating it in that manner. The church put no valuation on it, but only talked about what it would rent for. Q. Does not Trinity Church rent her lots in all cases, at five per cent on what she estimates to be their value ? A. It is the usual custom, where the leases are renewable, but where a lease falls in, we do not feel ourselves bound by any such rule. Q. Will you look, and see what those lots are returned at ? (showing witness report.) A. They are returned at $29,500, based on the assessor's valuation. Adjourned to 4 P. M., on Friday. Friday, February 20, 1857. Present : — Senate committee and counsel as before. Examination of Mr. Samuel F. Skidmore, continued — Q. Ey Mr. Spencer. During the three years Trinity incurred a debt of over $100,000, was she not building Trinity Chapel ? A. She was. Those expenditures I allude to were independent of the building of the Chapel. - • Q. Is the Annunciation a feeble church ? A. As to its pre- sent circumstances and condition I am entirely ignorant. Q. What sum has Trinity given her within a year or two past ? A. The sum, as appears by the report, in the aggregate, is $26,800. It appears by the report to have been given within five years preceding the date of the report. We gave St. Luke's Church, for the year preceding the date of the report, $2,100 220 EEPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE whicli I think was larger than any preceding year. I suppose we shall not give them less the present year. The Annuncia- tion and St. Luke's Churches are reputed to be high churches. Q. Do you find any such sums given to any low churches during the same time. A. No sir. I see no such sums given to either high or low churches. Q. Did you ever know a corporator to look at the list of corporators. A. I don't know that I ever saw one examining the list. Q. Do you think you know of all the expenditures of Trinity Church, ecclesiastical or otherwise? A. I should think I did. Q. Do you know of any such disbursements that were not directly for charitable, religious or benevolent purposes ? A. I think very probable there might have been disbursements for other than those objects. Q. What other object would they spend money for ? A. I cannot call to mind the particulars of other disbursements. Q. Is the estate of Trinity Church increasing in value. A. I think it is worth more now than at any former period, and more than when assessor's valuation was made. Q. Does the vestry make an annual report of the financial condition of the corjjoration. A. It is the duty of the comp- troller, as well as the custom for him to make such report to the vestry. Q. Is there a report made by the vestry to the corporators ? A. There is not. o Q. Is the annual report of the comptroller printed or circu- lated 1 A It is not. Q. What appropriations within the three years preceding 13th April, 1855, has Trinity Church made to institutions of charity, benevolence and learning in the city of New York? A. I read from the report of the church : "Grants of burial plots in Trinity cemetery to the Orphan Asylum a plot of 621 square feet; to the Society of Aged and Indigent Females a plot com- ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 221 taining 300 square feet; to the Protestant Benefit Society a plot containing GOO square feet ; to Christ's church a plot to be se- lected ; tu the Orphans' Home a plot to be selected ;" and as this was the period during which we were building Trinity chapel, I presume there were no others. Question by Judge Parker : — How long were the vestry in making out iheir report 1 A. Several months. Q. If there was any omission to correct the report of the church, in regard to a lot sold after the report was made out and before its date, was it from design or inadvertence ? A. It was from inadvertence undoubtedly. Q. Does the report of the vestry of Trinity Church state the valuation of the real estate of the corporation, as founded upon the estimates of the vestry, or upon the valuations of the city assessor, made for the purposes of city taxation 1 A. Not as her own valuation, but as the valuation of the sworn city assessors^ I would further say, that the vestry had no desire to depreciate the value of their property by adopting the valuation of the city assessors as the basis of their report, for they supposed that to be near enough for all practical purposes, and if deemed below its real or actual value any two or three gentlemen, familiar with the value of city property, could easily have agreed upon some additional percentage necessary to bring it up to their own opinion of its fair, if not its exact and actual value; and they were equally anxious to avoid all exaggeration of the value of their real estate, which would thereby induce large and more numerous applications for aid, when they have so many beyond their ability to grant. Q. When the comptroller makes his annual report to the vestry, what is done with it 1 A. The comptroller makes out his annual report according to custom, which is examined and certified to by an auditing committee, appointed by the vestry for that pur- pose. It is then read to a meeting of the vestry, and laid upon the table, or ordered on file, subject to any further examination in detail, by any member of the vestry. 222 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Q. How long has it been the practice to make these annual reports 1 A. During the whole time of my being a member of tlie vestry, and, as I suppose, always. Q. What is the object in taking mortgages, where a grant is made"? A. These church mortgages are taken and held by Trinity Church, not for their own private benefit, but (and in good faith) for the benefit of other churches. They never have demanded, nor do they expect to demand, either the principal or interest of these loans, except in occasional isolated cases; such for instance, as the foreclosure of a prior mortgage, or to save the church properties from being disposed of improperly, or for other than church objects and purposes. The parties obtaining these loans, (which they look upon virtually as gifts,) do not object to giving such mortgages on their churches, but generally view the requirement of them as a wise and conservative mea- sure for perpetuating the original object and intention of the grant. The character of these mortgages is so well and so gene- rally understood, that an attempt to foreclose any one of them, on the part of Trinity Church, for the purpose of restoring the amount again to their own coifers, would be regarded as little short of absolute dishonesty. If the same objects aimed at in these loans, could be equally well secured in some other way, I confidently believe that no desire on the part of Trinity Church to keep alive a sense of obligation to her on the part of the re- cipients of her favors would, for one moment, stand in the way of the change. For the foregoing reasons, I think that the principal and interest of those mortgages, (amounting to $571,- 952,) ought not to be considered as part of the wealth of Trinity Church, nor be made to show a seeming intention, on her part, to withhold from the Honorable the Senate, essential and import- ant facts respecting her property. Q. Has the church ever foreclosed any of these mortgages? A. None to my knowledge. Q. Can you make any statement relative to the interest of Trinity Church in St. John's Park, and the reason it was omitted in their report? A. I will state that Trinity Church looked ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 223 upon that park as so permanently appropriated for the purposes of a park, that the sale of it, apparently, no more entered their minds, than the sale of one of Iheir burial grounds. The agita- tion of the subject of the sale was started by the other property owners, after the report of the church was made. The statement upon that subject in the supplemental report of the vestry is cor- rect; the whole number of lots interested in the park is sixty-four, of which Trinity Church owns seven, being one-ninth of the whole. I will further state, it was supposed on part of some of the property owners, that they would be able to get from the United States Government some six or seven hundred thousand dollars for the property. I do not know whether they actually had an offer for it or not, but even if sold at that price, the pro- rata share of Trinity Church would be about seventy thousand dollars. St. John's chapel and parsonage and Sunday school stand on these seven lots, the rest is vacant ground. Q. Have you been on the committee to examine the comptrol- ler's report, and had you free access to all the books, papers and accounts? A. I have been on the committee, and had free access to all the books, papers and accounts. Q. Have you ever heard of any member of the vestry being de- ' Died free access to the books ? A. Never knew or heard of any such thing, except in the' testimony annexed to the committee's report. Q. Have the standing committee power to sell a lot without the consent of the vestry 1 A. It is not their custom, and I understand they have not the power. Q. What means have the members of ever knowing the pro- ceedings of the standing committee 1 A. The standing commit- tee keep full minutes of all their proceedings, and which are read to the vestry at every vestry meeting. Q. Is each report and recommendation by the standing com- mittee then passed upon separately by the vestry 1 A. They are. Q. Have the vestry in any way endeavored to control the free opinions and acts of the vestry and ministers who had received or ■were seeking aid for their churches t A. Not to my knowledge. REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Q. State the proceedings ot the vestry for making the minis- tration of the church more efficient iu the lower part of the city, and the dates at which they took place 1 A. May 8th, 1854, at a vestry meeting, resolutions were offered for the appointment of Dr. Haight and Messrs. Hobart and Weston, as assistant minis- ters ; the resolutions were referred to a committee on the state of the parish. March 5, 1855, resolutions were adopted that on day, the assistant ministers shall be appointed by ballot, and that they be assigned to a particular congregation. March 26, 1855, the above named gentlemen were appointed assistant ministers, and on the 11th of June, 1855, they w^ere severally assigned to their respective congregations. The resolutions of the 8th of May, 1854, had reference to the appointment of assis- tant ministers, and their assignment to their different churches. The resolutions of 8th May had reference to the appointment of the different churches. Q. State what were the proceedings of the vestry and stand- ing committee on the subject of the application of the church of St. Timothy, and what influenced their action ? A. TJie Rev. Mr. Howland made an application to the vestry of Trinity Church of a noble and magnanimous character, which was referred as is usual to the standing committee, tho gh at a time when the committee considered the financial condition of the parish illy calculated to respond favorably to so large an application. They were still anxious if possible not to be obliged to reject it. The proposal on the part of Mr. How- land, involved liabilities to the amount of twenty thousand dol- lars. He proposed to appropriate dollar for dollar, or upwards, for the same object. The committee were so desirous of doing something, they invited Mr. Howland on one or to occasions to meet with them in committee. After long and anxious consid- eration on the subject, they felt compelled to report to the vestry unfavorably to the application. The vestry did not adopt the report, but sent it back for further consideration. Yet, after further consideration, and with the strong sympathies of every member of the vestry in behalf of the application, the standing committee again reported unanimously against it, for the reason that the increased magnitude of their debt in their judgment ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 225 forbade it. Notwithstanding this report, the vestry ordered it to lie on the table, where it is now. Were any applications made during the last year for the establishment of two free churches in destitute parts of the city, provided the applicants would furnish half the cost? A. None, except the application to Mr. Howland. Q. How long a lease is there on the lot No. 251 Broadway, and at what annual rent 1 A. An unexpired lease ol about six- teen years, and at an annual rent of twenty-six dollars and a quarter. Q. Was there any service in Trinity Chapel until its conse- cration, and on what date was its consecration, and what day was next election held ? A. There was no service previous to the consecration, which was on the 17th day of April, 1855, and the next election was on Easter Tuesday, the 25th March, 1856. Q. What statement have you to make in regard to the valua- tion of the property of the church, which would be correct upon Ely's and Dodd's valuations of the real estate ? A. There seems to be a mistake in the principle adopted for arriving at the nett total present value of the real estate, as stated on page twelve of the Senate report. The Vestry's estimate, taking the valuations of the assessors as a guide, irrespective of the leases and deduc- tions, was 12,668,710, Q. Then if the above valuation of $2,668,710, makes the present value of the interest of the lessees to be $1,222,338, what would the interest of the lessees be on Ely's and Dodd's valuation of $5,874,023 1 A $2,690,443, or very nearly that amount. The aggregate footing in Senate committee report is, $7,092,544 From which deduct on account of leases according to above corrected estimate, $2,690,443 And the church debt of, 648,913 3,339,356 Leaves, $3,753,188 15 226 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE The nett total present value even on Messrs. Ely and Dodd's valuation, should therefore be |3,753,188 Instead of (as stated in report of Senate committee) 5,221,293 Making in this one item an error evidently of about $1,468,105 From the nett total present value as above correct- ed of $3,753,188 Deduct the church mortgages and interest, $571,952 And tb^ '^wiount set down for St. John's park.i . 400,000 971,952 And a nett total present value would then remain of $2,781 ,236 As the nett amount resulting from the adoption of Messrs. Ely and Dodd's valuation. By adding thereto a prospective pecuniary interest in St. John's park, the sura of say $75,000 And it would make the aggregate amount, $2,856,236 This, be it remembered, is a valuation entirely irrespective of the existing encumbrances by leases, which would greatly reduce its present value to Trinity Church; and be it also remembered, that nearly one-half of the entire real estate brings Trinity Church an income of less than five hundred dollars per annum. By Senate Committee : Q. What valuation did the vestry put upon St. John's park? A. They did not profess to put a valuation on that property, but after showing the strongest disinclination to sell at all, and be- ing earnestly importuned and pressed to name some terms upon which they would give their consent to sell, they finally agreed to do so, when their share of the proceeds of the sale should be $400,000. Q. Have the standing committee power to lease lots without the consent of the vestry 1 A. They have to lease, but not to sell. The standing committee leases property without consult- ing the vestry. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CaiURCH. 227 Q. Have not the vestry been urged by some of its members to print the annual report ? A. There was one very respectable member of our vestry has been solicitous to have the report printed for the use of the vestry, but a majority have been dis- inclined to do so. Rev. Edward G. Highee, called by counsel for Trinity Church. Q. What explanation do you desire to make in relation to your former testimony before this committee ? A. On the 3d of Dec, 1856, I was called upon to give testimony before a com- mittee of the Senate of the State of New- York, in relation to parish of Trinity Church in the city of New- York. The inter- rogatories were few, and the answers necessarily short and general, and I fear that without further explanation my testi- mony will not be understood. I kept no memoranda of my in- terview with the committee, but as well as I can remember, one ■of the first proposed to me was as follows (substantially) : " During the time that you have been connected with the parish of Trinity Church, in your opinion has the design of the original foundation of the same been fully carried out?'' A. *' My belief is, that owing to temporary and accidental circum- stances, the influence of which has been increasing almost from the time that I became a minister of the parish, the original design of this charity has not been fully carried out." This, in substance, was my answer. I was not requested to state what the " temporary and accidental circumstance?" were to which I alluded. Such a statement, however, appears neces- sary, to show the true meaning of my testimony. I therefore beg permission to say, that I alluded to the general and yearly increasing removal of the residences of the citizens of New-York towards the more northern part of the island, and to the efFects of this upon the churches, of all denominations, in the lower parts of the city. The elFect upon Trinity Church, and its chapels, (more par- ticularly upon Trinity Church and St. Paul's chapel,) was, first, to deprive them, gradually and surely, of their regular congre- gations, and, of course of their congregational and parochial 228 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE spirit, responsibility and efficiency ; and secondly, to diminish and weaken, in a continually increasing ratio, the constituency of the corporation ; thus destroying the equilibrium of the parish, and undermining its foundations as an institution of public charity. For a long time there seemed to be no remedy for this evil. The vestry were restrained, (as I have always understood,) by the terms of their charter, from acquiring real estate, and there- fore, could not follow the members of their church to their new residences, and supply them with places of worship. At length, a means of removing the difficulty was aiforded, by a general act of the Legislature, passed I believe, in 1850." Under the provisions of this act, ground was purchased, upon which Trinity chapel now stands. This chapel was opened in 1855, in the spring, and it has been, and is now filled, with a large, stated, intelligent and charitable congregation ; and there can be no reasonable doubt, that the result of this decided movement in a right direction, is a most salutary one to the whole parish, and is full of promise for the future. I believe that the clergy of Trinity Church are united, and that the parishioners sympathise with them in the desire and the resolution to make, so far as in them lies, this ancient parish an instrument of good to the church, and to the community at large, to the utmost extent of its resources. Another question proposed by the committee, was in sub- stance as follows : " Have you ever seen a list of the constituents of Trinity Parish 1" A. (In substance,) " I have never seen such a list Dr. Wain- right and I made repeated eftorts to procure one, without suc- cess Dr. Wainright, however, as he informed me, did obtain it from the vestry after he was elected to the episcopate." This answer is too vague and general. Had there been oppor- tunity for more careful recollection when I was before the com- mittee, my answer would have been as follows : ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 229 "For a long time Drs. Wainwright, Parks, and myself, assis- tant ministers, had been filled with anxiety and apprehension on account of the steady diminution of the constituency of the parish. Wishing to keep ourselves informed of the real condi- tion of things we sought to procure a true list of the constituents. We were reluctant to ask formally for the official list of the parish, because suggestions had been made to us that we might thereby incur the imputation of intending to take some active part in the Easter elections. We therefore tried to make a list for ourselves from such sources ot information as were within our reach. Failing in this Dr. Wainwright and I, (Dr. Parks being absent on account of the illness of which afterwards he died,) resolved that we ought formally to request a copy of the list kept in the vestry office, or by the rector. Dr. Wainwright in his and my behalf, did accordingly make such an application. When he first made it I do not now remember, nor how often it was repeated; but I know that, as he informed me, such a list was furnished him some time after his election to the episcopate. The foregoing explanations are true. EDWARD Y. HIGBEE.. New-York, January 5, 1857. Rev. William H. De Lancy called and sworn; examination by Senate Committee. Q. Where is your residence and what is your office ? A. My residence is in Geneva, Ontario county, Western New- York; and my office is that of bishop of the diocese of Western New- York, to which office I was consecrated in 1839. Q. What part of the State of New- York does your diocese comprehend"? A The western part, including Broome, Che- nango, Madison, Oneida, Lewis, and Jefierson counties, with all the counties west of them. Has Trinity Church, New-York, aided any of the churches in your diocese 1 A. Yes, I learn from the publications of the rector of Trinity Church that she has aided altogether, since 1807, in Western New- York, about 77 churches, being 6 before 230 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE the year 1814, and 71 churches since that year. Some were aided twice. Of those 71 aided since 1814, about 20 have been aided since I became bishop. Q. In what way has the aid of Trinity Church been extended to those churches? A. In almost every case, except Trinity church, Utica, as far as I know, by grants of money, in small sums, for churches and parsonages, for which grants in some cases Trinity Church has taken a mortgage on the church, and in other cases she has not. Q. Has Trinity Church ever foreclosed any of the mortgages on churches, or ever required the annual interest on them to be paid to her? A. I have never heard or known of any such cases in Western New-York or elsewhere. I do not usually con- secrate a new church edifice, until the vestry certify tliat its debts are paid or reasonably provided for. A mortgage to Trinity Church, on which neither principal nor interest are demanded, I do not consider an obstacle to the consecration of a new church, but as additional security against its alienation from its holy objects. Q. Has any church in your diocese, to which Trinity has made a grant of money without taking a mortgage on church edifice, ever been lost to the congregation or diocese? A. Yes; a church on which Trinity Church took no mortgage for a grant of $500, was sold for debt, and the congregation dispersed. A mortgage to Trinity Church would have saved it, or at least saved the $500, for the use of the diocese elsewhere. Q When Trinity Church has thus taken mortgages from churches in your diocese for monies granted to them, what has been the effect of this upon the interest and condition of the churches thus aided ? A. Favorable. 1. By preventing church edifices from being alienated from the holy objects for which they were erected. 2. By encouraging the individual members to sustain the church thus secured to its object. 3. By attract- ing outside people to the church thus known to be secured to its object without their being called in to help to pay its debt. 4. By being an obstacle as a first mortgage against further mort- ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH, 231 gages of tlie church for debt. 5. I cannot say that I have seen any moral, spiritual, ecclesiastical, or pecuniary evils result from such mortgages in my diocese. Q. Has Trinity church ever, to your knowledge or belief, sought to. exercise any influence over the course or opinions either of the clergy or^the parishes in your diocese ? A. No. Q. Has Trinity church, to your knowledge or belief, ever been governed by party considerations in making her grants to churches in your diocese 2 A. No, Q. Has Trinity Church made any grants for educational pur- poses in your diocese 1 A, Yes, a most important and liberal one to the value of $50,000, to Geneva college in 1851. The grant was made when Geneva college was in a disastrous and critical condition, occasioned by the State withdrawing unsuspectedly, under the two year provision of the new Constitution of 1846, in regard to appropriations, her annual grant of $6,000 to the college, leaving nearly $3,000 unpaid, (and still unpaid) a debt upon the college trustees, who were without means to pay the professors, all of whom but the president sought other posts, and the students diminished in number from eighty (the highest number under the State grant) to thirty-seven. When the pros- pect of private endowment to maintain new professors was dim and gloomy, and the very continuance of the college dubious, in this emergency Trinity Church was asked to endow the college, which she did in 1851 by a grant of $50,000, the interest at six per cent., to be paid annually until the principal is paid on the termination of the Astor lease, as I understand, on the condition that the college be made in its literary department a free college forever, to all students that come to it, and that it take the name Hobart Free College, by act of the Legislature. Since which time the faculty have been sustained, and the students liave in- creased from thirty-seven to ninety-six, a larger number than it ever had under the State grant. And $22,000 additional endow- ment, viz : a professorship of $15,000, a fellowship of $5,000, and two scholarships of $1,000 each, and several benefactions have been received from private sources, not one of which endow- 232 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE meiits, I am convinced, would have been made, without this grant from Trinity church. Q. Do you think that the vestry of Trinity church has done its utmost to make the capital of the property of that corpora- tion available for the founding, or support, or promotion of religious, charitable, or educational institutions, or purposes'? A. As I cannot name the wealthy church corporation, or indi- vidual, in the city oi New-York, or elsewhere, who I think does, in these respects, act with the capital of the property up to full obligations to God, and does the utmost with it; as the question covers the proceedings of the vestry before I was born ; as I am not now, and never have been acquainted with the exact condi- tion, or external arrangement of the property of Trinity church, and therefore, am not qualified to give an opinion on such a point, I can only say, that if the present rector and vestry, who know about their property, declare that they have done, or are doing to their utmost in these respects, I would rely upon their statement, as that of honorable, high-minded, faithful and con- scientious men, in preference to my own views, which must be founded on most imperfect knowledge, and in opposition to the opinions and judgments (respecting the use of Trinity church property,) of disappointed applicants, eager expectants, enthusi- asts in experimental schemes of good, the heads of church par- ties and local enemies, or any other individuals, but partially acquainted with the facts of the case, however pious, worthy, zealous, and highly esteemed I may regard them. Q. What, in your judgment, would be the effect of the repeal of the law of 1814 A. Disastrous to the church, both in New- York city and in the country Disastrous to the church in New- York city : 1 . By engendering, at once, a long and bittei: litigation before the courts, between Trinity church corporation and the other churches in the city, as the to constitutionality and legality of the repeal of the law, requiring, at once, a repeal of the law of 1784, or a modification of it by another law like that of 1814. 2. By dividing the churches outside of Trinity church corporation into parties for and against Trinity church, on all these points. 3. By splitting up every congregation into ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 233 such parties. 4. By making the election of vestry for Trinity church an annual occasion of unholy excitement, collision and contest, most injurious to the character, piety, prosperity and usefulness of the church. 5. By throwing an unquencliable firebrand among the clergy and laity in New-York. 6. By raising, at once, such questions as these to distract the clergy and parishes: If the rector of Trinity church, be the "rector of New-York and all its inhabitants," is he not rector over all the churches under the charter 1 Are not all the other rectors in New- York, merely his assistants 1 Are not all the churclies in New-York merely chapels of Trinity Church 1 Is not the law, authorizing separate parishes in the • city, unconstitutional 1 Ought not the charters of other corpora- tions to be annulled, as incompatible with the charter of Trinity; which would then comprise all the inhabitants of the city? The law, as it stands, silences all such questions; repeal it, and in my judgment, with such a property at issue, and in a city containing 2,000 lawyers, many, of the highest eminence, and keenest penetration, such like questions would start up at once to produce clamor, confusion, and conflict, and to draw away thousands of dollars from charitable, religious, and educational institutions and purposes, to a most baneful litigation. The repeal of the law would be disastrous to the whole churcli of the State, outside of the city. 1 . By raising the question, as to the right of dispensing any of this property out of the city, which is denied by some, but which, the present corporation has admitted, and has temporarily acted on. 2. By leading, almost necessarily, to the division of all the property among the city churches. 3. By thus cutting off all the feeble country churches from the benefit of this favor. 4. By stopping what has been a stream of most salutary and fertilizing benevo- lence to religious, charitable, or educational institutions in the rural districts. 5. By presenting the church in the city of New- York, clergy and laity, in a most unattractive and deplorable atti- tude, as quarrelsome, abusive and repulsive, estranged from each other; pamphleteering and publishing in anger, and stirring the whole press in New- York, and in the country, secular and re- ligious, into sharp, bitter, and ceaseless controversy, fatal to the 234 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE reputation of the church for stability, q[uietness, and peace, and not promotive of the sanctification and salvation of men, but subversive of sound law and morals. Question by Mr. Spencer. Is the opinion expressed in the answer you have given, your opinion of churchmen generally? A. My opinion is founded upon my knowledge and observation of human nature generally, and of religious controversies and church contentions, generally. Q. Have you looked over the names of the persons who testi- fied before the committee in the city of New- York ? A. Yes sir. Q. Are not the laymen who testified, among the most liberal to country churches 1 A. I have never, that I recollect, made personal applications to any of them, but some of them bear a high reputation for liberality, with other churchmen in New- York, and I have myself, a high personal regard for them. I cannot answer as to their liberality to country churches. Saturday, February 21. Present : Senate Committee and Counsel as before . William Moore, called and sworn. Examination by counsel for Trinity Church : — Q. Where do yon reside ? A. I reside in Phillipstown, Putnam county, lately of the firm of De Rham and Moore, of the city of New-York. Q. Have you been a vestryman of Trinity Church, and for ■what time? A. I was elected a vestryman in 1839, and contin- •ued to be so until last autumn, when I resigned in consequence of my removal from the city. Q. Were you a member of the standing committee? A. I was for a great many years, but don't remember how long. I con- tinued in the standing committee up to the period of my resig- nation. Q. Will you tell me whether the list of corporators was open to the inspection oi any corporator? A. I believe it to be so; never heard of any diflBlculty on the subject, until an application ON AFFAIBS OF TRIXITT CHURCH. 235 was made by Dr. Wainwright for a copy of the list. The per- sons in the office, to whom the application was made, were doubt- ful of the propriety of giving copies of papers, and the request was referred to the vestry, which immediately granted the re- quest j I think unanimously. Q. Was there any rule or order of the vestry preventing access to the list of corporators ? A. Not to my knowledge or belief. Q. Were the grants made by the vestry made in a partizan spirit, or with reference to " high " church or " low " church opinions 1 A. I always endeavored to divest my mind as far as possible of every bias, in consulting on applications made to the vestry, and I believe my colleagues were equally conscientious. Q. Is there any foundation for the charge that there was par- tiality in making appropriations to other churches ? A. My answer to the last question will apply also in a great measure to this. In so large a body of men as twenty-three, the number of vestry of Trinity, It is impossible that personal predilections may not sometimes influence individuals in their votes on appli- cations. I believe it would not be in human nature to be other- wise. Q. Was each application discussed and decided upon its merits and the ability of the church, without reference to "high" church or " low church opinions ? A. Most certainly. Q. Is there any ground for the charge that the stipends have been reduced, or have they merely been transferred from the wealthier to the more feeble churches 1 A. My impression is that the aggregate amount of the stipends is as large now as at any time that I was in the vestry. The stipends have been re- duced and sometimes entirely taken away from richer congrega- tions and given to poorer. Q. Do you think Trinity Church has done its utmost to make the capital of the property of that corporation available for the founding, support or promotion of religious, charitable, or edu- cational institutions or purposes 1 A. We have always endea- 236 EKPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE vored so to do, and as far as the revenue of the church went, I think we succeeded. Q. Is it true that the aid extended to feeble churches was done i-eluctantly or olFensively, or with a view to acquire any power or influence over the congregations or ministers of the churches aided ? A. No. To the first clause I would say, on the contrary, that it always gave us great pleasure when we could, to respond favorably to any of the numerous applications before us. Q Have you considered the mortgages taken for grants to churches as available means ? A. No. Q. Were they taken with a view to the benefit of Trinity Church, or with a view to the protection of the church thus mortgaged! A. They were taken with a view to prevent that property being lost to the church at large. In case of a fore- closure of a previous mortgage, or some embarrassment to the church, that this money advanced by Trinity should return to that church to be distributed again, or returned to the same church. I never knew of any case of a foreclosure of a mortgage while I was in the vestry, nor do I believe there ever was one. Q. Have you been one of the committee to examine accounts 1 A. Yes, for several successive years I was chairman of said committee; and for many years it was the practice of the comp- troller to submit his bank, check-book and monthly statement of accounts to the standing committee. Q. Say whether there was or not free access to all the books, accounts, papers, &c., of the office ? A. I never had occasion to ask for any book, account or paper, which was not freely open to me, nor do I believe there was any book, or account or paper, the examination of which would have been refused. Q. Will you explain the case of St. Peter's Church, referred to in the testimony of Rev. Mr. Beach, in pp. 119 and 120 of report of committee 1 A. St. Peter's Church was aided by Trinity Church to the amount of $25,000. It was our bond for that amount. There was a mortgage given by St. Peter's to ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 237 Trinity Church on the church property, to secure the repayment of this, with the bond of three of the congregation as collateral security. Subsequently St. Peter's church borrowed from Mr. Lenox $22,000, for which they gave him the bond of the same parties, and a second mortgage on the church. Trinity Church released those who had signed as security to them either at that time or subsequently, and the mortgage to Trinity Church then became 3h ordinary church mortgage, on which payment was not expected. Mr. Lenox having only a second mortgage, he probably became uneasy as to his security, on account of the accumulation of interest on the prior church mortgage, and, upon an application of St. Peter's church to the vestry, they consented to give Mr. Lenox's mortgage of $22,000 a priority to the extent T)f the capital, and one year's interest on it over all the interest due or to grow due on our church mortgage. That arrangement was made in July, 1844. Subsequently, about 18 months after the vestry of St. Peter's applied to us to give Mr. Lenox's mortgage a priority over our mortgage, or to discharge our mortgage. This application was, after mature deliberation in the standing committee and vestry, declined, on the ground of the general policy of the church in taking these mortgages as security for the benefit of the church. By the committee : Q. When you took your mortgage on St. Peter's was it not on leased ground and not on ground in fee ? A. My impression is, and I think that I am right, that our mortgage was upon the church edifice and the lots upon which it stood, which were in fee. I think the leased lots to which Mr. Beach referred in his testimony, were not the lots included in our mortgage. Q. Was not your mortgage made to extend over seven other lots previously held under lease ? A. I don't recollect. Q. If it was so made, was not your security Increased by this arrangement ? A. Undoubtedly it was. Q. Do you know of any landed endowments made to other curches since 1 814, by Trinity Church ? A. I do not. ^8 REPORT OK SELECT COMMITTEE. Q. Are the churches of the Good Shephard and St. John the Baptist, feeble cliurches ? A. They are ; the annual allowance, I see by the report, is $200 each. The church of St. John the Baptist has been otherwise largely aided lately by Trinity Church. Q. Is Grace church, Brooklyn, a feeble church ? A. I should hardly say they were now. Q. Is St. Luke's church, New-York, a feeble churclf? A. It is, it could not be sustained but for the aid of Trinity. Q. What is the annual allowance to Grace church, Brooklyn ? A. The church report says it is $1,000. The explanation is, that when Grace church was built we granted them an aid to build the church of SI 5,000, payable annually in sums of $1,000; and this is not yet wholly paid. The $1,000 annually reported is in payment of it. Q. Is the church of the Good Shepherd or St. John the Bap- tist more feeble churches than St. Luke's 7 A. It is almost impossible for me to say as to the comparative feebleness with- out the statements of the churches, upon which we pass upon their applications. St. Luke's church is upon the property ot Trinity Church, and in the immediate neighborhood of our ten- ants. Trinity has set aside ground near there for the purpose of building a chapel, when we can afford it ; until we can do so we have telt ourselves obliged to sustain St. Luke's church as the church for that district. Q. Is the church of the Good Shepherd a more feeble church th,an St. Luke's, 1 A. I do not know. Q. What do you pay annually to St. Luke's, according to the report of Trinity church ? A. $2,200. I presume there is some explanation that might be given in this case also. Q. Do you understand there is any legal obstacle to the col- lection of church mortgages, if the church is so disposed ? A. I believe there is no legal obstacle; but, if we should attempt to foreclose one, it would create such a clamor that we would never hear the last of it. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. ^ 23d Q. Were you in the vestry with Mr. Wolf and Mr. Cyrus Curtiss'? A. Yes. Q. Do the vestry of Trinity Church consider themselves acting for the Episcopalians, generally, in New-York, or acting as such for Trinity church parish? A. For Trinity church parisli. Q. These grants that you refer to, were they made as dona- tions of the property of Trinity, or as property held in trust for the benefit of all the churches ? A. They were made as the property of Trinity Church. Q. Do you think the income of Trinity Church was greater in 1810 or 1812 than it is nowl A. We were much richer then in lands, but I don't know about our income. Q. While in the vestry, did you know of all expenditures, ecclesiastical or otherwise 1 A. There were no expenses except such as were authorized by the vestry, and I had the same op- portunity of knowing them as others. Q. Have there been any expenses, to your knowledge, for other than charitable, religious and benevolent purposes 1 A. None others than such as were necessary in the case of so large a property. Examination by counsel for Trinity Church. — Gulian C. Ver- planck, called and sworn : Q. Are you a member of the vestry of Trinity Church, and how long have you been 1 A. I am a member of the Vestry, and have been, since 1844, whether elected at the annual elec- tion of 1844, or to fill a vacancy, I do not recollect; about 12 years. Q. How long have you been a member of Trinity Church ? A. I was a corporator and pew-holder as early as 1811, but have not been, continuously, since that time. Q. Did members of other congregations vote at the vestry elctions of Trinity Church, prior to 1814? A. I think not, for the reasons which I will state. At the first election at which I 240. REPOKT OF SELECT COMMITTEE voted, which was in 1812, there was an excitement growing out of a parish question, the contest between two eminent clergy- men, Dr. Hobart and Mr. Jones, which brought out the full vote or nearly so, of the electors entitled to vote for wardens and vestrj', there being two tickets for the respective parties. I had strong feelings for one of these, and voted for one of the tickets. I confidently believe that no votes other than those of pew holders or communicants of Trinity Church and her chapel were received, and that two or three others only, who were pew-holders or communicants in other churches, were tendered and refused. This general recollection of my own, has been recalled and confirmed, so as to give me great confidence in it, by the inspection of nearly contemporary documents stating that fact. Q. Has any suit ever been brought, or proceeding instituted, to establish the right of a member of any other church, to vote at the vestry elections of Trinity church 1 A. I have never heard of any such suit or proceeding, and I think there can have been none, because from my after connection with tlie church, as a vestryman and an occasional inspector of annual elections, I think I must have heard of such suit or proceeding, if any such had taken place. Q. Has any member of any other church, not a pew-holder or communicant in Trinity church, voted at the vestry elections of Trinity Church, since 1814? A. I believe never, unless under some mistake. I have heard of a vote being offered, and rejected on that ground ; I know it from the papers of the day. Q. Has the act of 1814 been acquiesced in, by other churches in the city of New- York 1 A. I think so, practically, as it so rarely happened that a vote was ever tendered on any ground, but that of being a corporator of Trinity, or a communicant or pew-holder. I recollect but one instance; there may have been a second, allowing for some absence from the city and country. Q, Have you ever been a member of the standing committee? A. Never. Q. Have you had free access to the books, papers and accounts of the office? A. Perfectly so. Whenever I desired a book or AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 241 paper I was shown it, and I frequently had and used opportuni- ties of examining important books without asking the officers, from the publicity with which the minutes and other papers were kept in the office, * Q. What induced you in making such examinafions; A. Sometimes general curiosity and a wish to know and be quali- fied to act upon the questions which came before us. I have, at times, also examined more particularly, and even had state- ments made for the use of the vestry, on my resolution, for the purpose of knowing the true financial state of the corporation of which so many vague notions were entertained, Q. Were you chairman of the Trinity chapel building com- mitted A. I was chairman of a committee of inquiry into the matter of location, cost of construction ; and again chairman of building committee, one of which was for the plan most re- sembling the one adopted; it was a plan, the estimated cost of which was about $80,000. This did not include the price of land, and I do not recollect whether it included the organ. The actual cost of the chapel is more than $200,000, exclusive of land. I am not as precise as I should be, because there are cer- tain expenses of a recent building of a gallery, which I have not seen and cannot now give. Q. What was the cause of the excess of the cost of that chapel above the estimates'? A. The chapel was not built by contract, except for particular objects, such as the delivery of stone, but was built under the direction of an architect by day's work. One cause, forming a considerable portion of the extra expense, was delay in building from weather and non-delivery of material, kc, during which time there was a great and rapid rise in labor and material. Another and also large increase arose from causes familiar to all who have had experience in constructing public or private buildings, by which persons hav- ing the charge of buildings have been tempted to enlarge or vary their plans. Having had some personal experience on publi« works as a committee-man, from the capitol at Washington down, as well as on private works, I find it to be very common. A ihird cause is an error in estimate in two or three expensive 16 242 , REPORT OF SELECT CMMMITTti?, items ; the cost of foreign stone for the lining of the chapel, whieh much excieeded our estimate. I was very much vexed at the result, and regretted the excess. Q. What have you to say with regard to the appropriations made to St. Luke's church I A. St. Luke's church was consid- ered, by myself and other members of the vestry, in a double relation. First, as it stood to us, in the relation of a great land holder, to provide for our own tenants, and improve our own property, among which St. Luke's stood. Secondly, as a con- siderable, and poor congregation. I knew the character of the congregation chiefly from an intimate friend, who has often spoken of himself as the only, or almost the only person of means, who could, or did do anything for the pecuniary support of the church. We also looked to keeping the congregation together, with the view of transferring it, in some form or other, to the location on Hudson-street burial ground, reserved for that purpose. I have, on those grounds, voted cheerfully, and ex- pressed my approbation of all such temporary allowances as were thought necessary to keep up the church. The precise amount recommended I have had nothing to do with, leaving it to the judgment of the committee. Q. What do you say as to the alleged control of the standing committee 1 A On some subjects, it is necessarily great — as to the valuation of property, and the terms on which property should be sold — they being familiar, from long and daily experi- ence with the value of our property in detail. On other points, such as allowances or gifts to churches, the vestry form their own judgment, and frequently refer matters back to them for reconsideration; sometimes, and in important matters, rejecting their report, and making, or refusing grants, in opposition to theif recommendation. A case in point has just been referred to us for examination. It is that of the church known as St. John the Baptist, a donation to which, the standing committee had reported against, and which, after full consideration and debate, was granted, nearly to the amount asked. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. • Q. State whether, in your judgment, the funds of Trinity Church have been judiciously applied 1 A. I believe they have been always applied with an honest intention, 'With great res- pect for the memories of our predecessors in office, I think now, and have before very often expressed the opinion, that the early policy of Trinity Church was erroneous in making large endow- ments for churches which became filled with wealthy and fash- ionable people, and did not provide for the wants of the body of the Episcopalians of the city of New- York. I think the present policy, founded on experience, is far wiser ; by the present policy T mean aid to poorer congregations in New-York and elsewhere, in the form of stipends or money grants, and espe- cially in providing for the religious or other education of the poor in our own churches. I will also add the accommodation of many others, who cannot literally be called poor ; young clerks, for instance, who could not provide themselves with hired pews. Q. Is it true that the grants of Trinity Church have been made in a partial or parti zan spirit, as regards "high" church or *']ow" church views? A. I have never observed any evidence of it, and have never felt it myself in any vote, I can say with a clear conscience. Q What have you to say on the subject of free churches'? A. I have taken great interest in them ; was among the foun- ders of the City Mission, a donor and occasionally a solicitor of donations. I have been Vice President of the City Mission, and understand I now am. J have been disappointed in the results of purely free churches, which I fear can hardly get along with- out an endowment. I think the best and largest example of a practical without a nominal free church, is the parish church of Trinity. In this there are a limited number of pew-holders mixed with a much larger body, forming a large congregation, who need free accommodations. It is practically a free church, because with congregations of from five hundred to fifteen hun- dred, I perceived just before I left town, from an accidental inspection of the list of pews, that the actual receipts from the pews of Trinity, for the year ending in May, 1856, was $157. 244 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE. At St. Paul's the sum collected was $280, for the same period. I will add that my personal knowledge is of Trinity, where I attend with considerable regularity about half the year. The operation of St. Paul's resembles that of Trinity. Q. What have you to say as to the value of property of Trinity church, and the mode of valuation in its report ? A. I had no hand in making out the report made to the Senate of the value of their property, but I think that no other mode of estimation than that of the sworn assessors could have been made and agreed upon. This arises, in my judgment, from the church interest being a reversionary property, falling in at different pe- riods, with comparatively a small income. As to the most valu- able and saleable property in the lower part of the city, which has recently risen, even since the making of the report, the high prices chiefly for commercial purposes, my own experience and observation convince me that it is impossible to calculate with any reasonable ground of reliance as to its reversionary value for six, eight and ten years, and longer periods ahead. I speak both from observation and experience on this subject. I have been a member of monied institutions, which lend on mortgage, in the city of New-York ; such as the Life and Trust Company. I have observed the great fluctuations and fall of value in parts of the city, such as Pearl-street, Hanover Square. I have ex- amined many bonds and mortgages of this character while in- quiring into the value of property. I have myself had the management and control of property in Stone-street, Pine-street, &c., which in 1835-36, was of great value, but has now fallen one-half, or nearly one-half its value at that time, owing to the transition of certain branches of commercial business from that locality to Broadway, and the streets adjoining it. I could not, therefore, myself, as the same occurrence may take place, esti- mate a high reversionary value ten or fifteen years hence, from present prices. The Astor lease, forming a large portion of the property of the church, falling in in ten years, is a mere rever- sionary property, producing, at present, only |269 per anum. Such property, when offered in large amounts at a time, would not, probably, command the bids or offers of any but capitalists ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 245 expecting to purchase at a low rate, and except under very favo- rable circumstances, would hardly bring its reversionary value, calculated on the assessed value, and perhaps not so much. I form that judgment with the full knowledge that where the pro- perty is not encumbered with a lease, it might sell for more than the assessed value. For these reasons, I think the assessed value the only one that the church could properly give, or the vestry have properly agreed upon, 7 o'clock, P M. Gulian C. Verplanck's testimony continued. tance within my memory, was the restoring and repairing of the monument, covering the remains of Alexander Hamilton. A third instance is the monument now erecting, on the remains of revolutionary soldiers, buried in the western part of Trinity churchyard. The monument of Gen. Montgomery in front of St. Paul's, and in the church, has been repaired and improved. I presume that the erecting of a monument, creditable as a work of art, to the late Eishof) Hobart, can hardly be considered as coming within the term, charitable, or religious. There are others in the management of the real estate, which any other large landholder would pay. By the counsel for Trinity Church : Q. Do you know of any improper appropriation of the funds of the church? A. I know of none for improper purposes. Q. Have any churches offered to be set off from Trinity, since 1814? A. None. The committee, by request, put the following question : Q. Do you know or have you been informed, whether Trinity Church has recently had any person employed as counsel or otherwise, belonging or attached to the judicial, executive or legislative department of the State government? A I do not know of anv; and I add, that from my position on committees of a legal and executive character other than the financial and standing committee, I must have known if any such person had been employed now or for some years past; and I therefore say, REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ihat the church has employed no person now in the judicial, ex- ecutive or legislative department. I was recently asked, whether a certain person coming within that description had been re- tained, and I at once answered, " No." Except those who now appear before you professionally on this examination, there is no person employed in this matter except Mr. De Zeng, who openly appears as our agent. Adjourned to 10 A. M., Monday. Monday^ February 23, 1857. Present : Senate committee. Messrs. Spencer, Noxon and Ramsey; [t'ov Trinity Church, Judge Parker and 0. Meads, Esq., Counsel. Gen. John Jl. Dis, called and sworn. Examined by counsel for Trinity Church : — Q. Will you state generally the facts within your knowledge in regard to the charges made against the vestry <;1 Trinity Church ? A. About ten day ago I was subpoenaed to attend the committee as a witness ; being occu- pied with important business, and fearing I should be unable to attend before tlie labors of the committee were closed, I prepar- ed a communication addressed to the chairman of the committee, and >er.t it by Mr. Livingston, last week. The session of the committee having been extended beyond my expectations at that time, I thought it proper to appear before them in person. I have this communication with me, and if the committee will permit me to read it, I think it will save them a good deal of , time in preparing questions, and myself a good deal of incon- venience in writing out answers. The committee assented to the reading of the communication in answer to the foregoing question, which is as follows : I have just seen and read the report made to the Senate on the 29th ult., by the committee of which you are chairman, together ■with the testimony appended thereto ; and as there aie imputa- tions therein derogatory to the character of the vestry of Trinity Church, of whom I am one, both as regards their fairness and ON AFFAIRS OF TKINITY CHURCH, 251 their discreetness in the execution of their trust, I ask leave to submit to tlie committee the following statement : Business of a very urgent nature, affecting the interests of others, which I should be inexcusable for neglecting, prevents me from visiting- Albany. I should otherwise have appeared before the commit- tee, and asked them to take my teslimony orally, instead of soli- citing their indulgence so far as to allow me to present it in the form of a written communication. I was appointed a vestryman in the autumn of 1849, and have served in that capacity to the present time, with the exception often months in 1854- and 1855, during which I was absent from the country, and occasional temporary absences from the State at other times. I have attended with a good deal of regularity the meetings of the vestry, and have taken a somewhat active pai-t in its proceedings. I do not propose to trouble the committee with any discussion of the legal rights of the corporation under the original grants, by which it holds its property, or the legislative enactments by which its corporate powers have been confirmed or enlarged. Nor do I intend to offer to the committee any opinion with re- gard to the true interpretation of those enactments or grants. The sole object of this statement, which is made on my own responsibility, is to present such explanations as seem to me necessary to exonerate myself and my associates from charges which have been brought against us by some of the witnesses, and which do us, as I conceive, great injustice. I beg leave to say further, with perfect respect for the com- mittee, and the body by which it was appointed, that in pre- senting this statement I have not overlooked the vital relation which an inquiry instituted by one branch of the Legislature, through the action of a committee, into the administration of the internal affairs of a religious corporation, bears to the rights of every ecclesiastical body in the State. I do not admit the existence of such an authority as has been exercised in regard to the body with which I am connected, more especially when carried so far as to solicit ex parte opinions concerning the motives under which individuals may have been supposed to 253 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE. act. And I cannot bat think, when the question is deliberately considered, that it will be found to possess a most important bearing upon the rights of conscience, which it was one of the leading objects of the Constitution to secure; a question'well worthy, under this aspect, of the most serious public regard. If I have chosen to meet, with a reservation of rights, which I deem inviolable, the imputations cast upon me and my asso- ciates, instead of passing them by in silence, it is in order that the minds of the committee, the Legislature, and the community may not be misled by the testimony in which those imputations are contained. Soon after my connexion with the vestry commenced, my attention was attracted to the financial condition of the corpo- ration, which seemed to me very unsatisfactory Its debt amounted to nearly half a million of dollars, and by reason of the large donations it was in the habit of making to other- churches its revenue had become inadequate to its expenditures, and the annual deficits were made up by a sale of property. I regarded this practice, though foundtd upon a generous con- sideration for the wants of other parishes, and a desire to pro- mote the advancement of the interests of the Episcopal church in the city and the State, as opposed to all sound principles of finance. No fund or endowment can long withstand a regular consumption of its principal. Encumbered as the church pro- perty was by leases, it could rarely be sold in any considerable parcels, without serious sacrifice; and it was my opinion that the contributions of the church, instead of being enlarged, should be curtailed, that its debts should not be increased, that its ex- penditures should, if possible, be brought within its income, and tliat its property should, as a general rule, be preserved until the expiration of its leases, when it could be sold without loss; thus leaving the church in condition to carry out with vigor and success the great plan of ministration, which seemed to me to be clearly marked out by changes in progress in tlie distribution of » business and population throughout the city. In accordance with these views, when it was decided to build a chapel in the upper part of the city, in order to preserve to ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 253 the church its ancient parishioners, who had removed in large numbers from the neighborhood of Trinity church, and St. Paul's, and St. John's, I introduced a resolution providing that the corporate debt should never exceed the sum of two hundred and fifty-thousand dollars beyond the amount of its bonds and mortgages, exclusive of those given by churches. The latter were excepted for the reason that they have never been regarded as an available resource. No interest is collected on them, and they are, in fact, held by the corporation for the purpose of preventing, in case of emergency, the property to which they attach, from being devoted to secular uses. Tlie resolution re- ferred to, after being amended so as to increase the limit of the debt to three hundred thousand dollars, was adopted. It is due to entire frankness to say, that I was opposed to the construction of Trinity chapel, believing the private wealth of the district, for which its ministrations were designed, suffi- cient to furnish them without the aid of Trinity church. At the same time, there were arguments in favor of the measure, on the score of justice and practical usefulness, which it was not easy to answer, and solicitations from old and faithful friends of the church, who had removed to the upper part of the city, too earnest and persuasive to be resisted by the vestry, many of whom had been their associates from an early period in life, and who were naturally reluctant to dissolve the connection as they approached its close. The measure baring been resolved on, the vestry adopted a plan, which the architect estimated to cost forty thousand dol- lars. I urged its adoption, on the ground of its comparatively small cost, and I particularly pressed on the vestry the conside- ration that in the principal parish church enough had been done by them for the embellishment of the architecture of the city. At a subsequent meeting, a majority of the vestry, deeming the proposed edifice too small, or perhaps too plain for the position it was to occupy, adopted another plan, estimated by the archi- tect to cost seventy nine thousand dollars. It was never intended by the vestry to exceed that sum. But those who have had any REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE experience in building cliurclaes, know not only how little confi- dence is to be placed in such estimates, but how difficult it is to adhere to original designs; and they will be disposed to consider the vestry, who ultimately found themselves involved, greatly to their disappointment and annoyance, in an expenditure of two hundred and tiiirty thousand dollars, for the chapel and site, as objects of sympathy rather than censure. This unlooked for expenditure, and the continued annual contributions to other parishes, which the vestry were unwilling to abridge, have carried the corporate debt up to the enormous sum of six hundred and sixty-eight thousand dollars, exceeding, by the sum of $469,000, its available bonds and mortgages. It is well known that the greater part of the city below Cham- bers-street is devoted to purposes of business, and that private dwellings have given place to stores and warehouses. The wealthy portion of the population has gone to the upper dis- tricts, and most of the churches of all denominations have followed them. The North Dutch, which is still engaged in useful spiritual labors in the neighborhood of St. Paul's; the Methodist church in John-street, unhappily rent by internal strife; and St. Peter's, a Roman Catholic church on Barclay- street, still maintain their ground. With these exceptions, Trinity church, St. Paxil's, and the church in Beekman-street, formerly St. George's, purchased and now entirely supported by Trinity, stand alone in this great deserted field of labor. The same pro- cess is going on'' above Chambers-street; and in a few years there will, in all probability, be no churches below Canal-street but those of Trinity parish. Notwithstanding this exodus of wealth, a vast population, the inhabitants, in great part, of alleys, gar- rets and cellars, estimated to exceed one hundred and twenty thousand souls, occupy the field it has abandoned; and if Trinity church had followed the same instincts, which have drawn ofi" the other religious societies of the city to its more attractive districts, if she also had abandoned to their fate the poor and necessitous, whom wealth and fashion have bequeathed to her, the lower part of the city would have presented an example of religious destituion unparalleled in the history of Christian civilization. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 255 It was in view of this great change in the condition of the population of the city that I introduced into the vestry on the 10th April, 1851, the following resolutions : Resolved, That the standing committee be instructed to report a plan by which the expenditures of the corporation shall be limited to its income. Resolved, That the said committee be instructed to inquire into the expediency of making the seats in Trinity Church and in St. Paul's and St. John's chapels free. Resolved, That the said committee be instructed to inquire into the expediency of establishing free schools in connexion with Trinity Church and its chapels. Resolved, That the said committee be instructed to inquire into the expediency of devoting the funds of the corporation, as far as may be practicable, after making provision for the sup- port of the new chapel in 25th-street, to the education and reli- gious instruction of the poor of the city. The last resolution, as originally presented, was confined to the poor of the city below Canal-street, and, on the suggestion of a member of the vestry, it was, in view of future contingen- cies, amended so as to embrace the whole city. This is the plan which, nearly four years ago, I deemed it my duty to bring before the vestry. It was supported by a some- what labored argument, which was not committed to paper, and which I will not tax the patience of the committee by attempt- ing to recall to reraembraee. I trust, indeed, that no such ex- position is necessary, and that the resolutions sufficiently explain their purpose. Their design was to rescue the lower part of the city — that portion which has not only an im- mense body of resident poor, but which receives into its bosom the greater part of the destitute, who seek a refuge here from hardships in other countries — to rescue this combined mass of permanent and temporary indigence from the utter spiritual abandonment with which it was threatened by the removal of those to whose wealth and liberality it had been accustomed to 2^6 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE look for sympathy and pecuniary aid, to more congenial dis- tricts. The plan comprehended not only the spiritual instruc- tion of the adult inhabitants of this deserted district — once the seat of nearly all the wealth ot the city — but the education of their children, and, to the extent of the means of the corpora- tion, a ministration to their temp )ral wants. Trinity Church, with its endowments, fortunately growing more valuable with the progress of the city, was to stand in the place of the indi- vidual opulence, which has fled from a district where its tastes cculd no longer find suitable fields for indulgence, and estab- lished itself in others, where it has rivaled Genoa in its streets ol palaces, and where in all its appointments and manifestations of indoor and outdoor life, there is a concentration of refine- ment, luxury and splendor unequalled, excepting by a few of the great capitals of Europe. It is possible that I may have looked upon this plan with that undue partiality which individuals are apt to feel for suggestions originating with themselves. But it has seemed to me to have been among the designs of Providence that Trinity Church should have been planted in this great district, ready with her ample endowments, to make provision, when the emergency should arrive, for those whom individual wealth has left upon her hands. I hold this to be the great mission of Trinity Church, and I have pressed on the vestry, on all proper occasions, the duty of preparing for it, and of commencing the work with the utmost diligence. Though the plan has not been formally adopted, it has been practically acted on; and it is due to my associates in the vestry to say, that they have responded to all appeals in behalf of the destitute districts below Canal-st., by as liberal an expenditure as the income of the corporation, crippled by a heavy debt, and burdened by large annual contributions to other churches, has admitted. The clerical force of the parish has been nearly doubled 1 the Sunday schools have greatly en- larged ; parish schools for the gratuitous education of children have been established ; by far the greater part of the pews in Trin- ity Church, one hundred and four out of one hundred and forty- four in St, Paul's and a large number in St. John's have been made ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 257 free; efforts have been put forth to bring into the church those, who have not been accustomed to attend any religious worship; Trinity church is opened twice every day throughout the year, for divine service ; a mission office, has been established to re- ceive applications for aid; lay visitors are employed to seek out want and relieve it; missionary agencies have been instituted in connection with the Commissioners of Emigration; the whole lower part of the city has been virtually made a field of mis- sionary labor, and a degree of energy has been infused into the ministrations of the church, temporal and spiritual, which compensates, in a great degree, for the lost support of the religious societies removed to other districts. In the midst of all this earnest effort, with five of her clergy residing within this neglected field of labor, conversant with little else than its destitution, and devoting themselves to the Jreliet ofj its wants, Trinity Church finds herself assailed, as faithless to her trust, by those, for the most part, whose lives are past amid the social amenities of the upper districts, and in an atmosphere redolent of indulgence and luxurious ease. It was not supposed by me, when this plan was brought for- ward, that it could be fully carried out, until a considerable portion of the leased property of the church should become available for the purpose. It was only expected that a begin- ning should be made, and that the plan, in its great outlines, should have a practical adoption. However earnest the desire to put it in operation at an earlier period, the unexpected aug- mentation of her debt, not only renders such a desire hopeless, but manifests that it may be even further postponed, or possibly defeated, without a prudent husbandry of her resources. For the better illustration of this point, I annex a statement of the revenue and ordinary expenditures of the corporation, for the year ending the 30th April, 1856. Revenue. 1. From ground rents of real estate, $67,359 53 2. " pew rents, 6,fl98 50 3. " interest on bonds and mortgages, 13,259 40 4. " Trinity Church cemetery, 4,155 92 17 $91,773 36 958 BEPOaT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Expenditures. 1. Parish expenditures, including, (besides those obviously such) charges upon, and expenses of management and care of the property of the church, necessary diocesan expenses, and annuities to families of deceased clergymen, or to oflBcers^of the parish, $71,344 22 2. Interest on debt, 36,522 15 3. Allowances, donations, and loans to other churches, 32,052 42 $139,918 79 Peduct revenue, 91,773 36 And there is a deficit of, $48,145 43 for the year ending 30th April, 1856. The deficiency for the year ending 30th April, 1857, was esti- mated on 1st May last, at $40,638.66. The grants actually made by the corporation, to clergymen and churches, to be paid during the year, in addition to the regular allowances, amount to $11, 640, and the appropriations for building school-houses and renovating and enlarging St. John's chapel, to $28,000, making together $39,640 00 Deduct cash on hand 1st May, 1856, 10,016 38 $29,623 62 Add estimated deficiency, 40,638 66 And there will be a deficit of $70,262 28 for the year ending the 30th April,^ 1857. This deficit can only be made by selling real estate. The deficits for the last ten years, exceed two hundred and seventy thousand dollars, and the corporation has provided for them by selling lots and applying the proceeds to the augmentation of her insufficient income. While she is assailed as niggardly in her donations, and as engaged in a systematic accumulation of her capital, she has in fact, for years, been selling her real estate, and meeting with the proceeds, the pressing demands on her, a large portion of which, have grown out of her contribu- tions for the support of other churches. ON AFFAIRS OF TKIMTY CHURCH. 259 The estimated expenditure of the present year, continued till 1862, would consume so much of the Lispenard lease, which be- comes disencumbered in that year and embraces a large and valuable part of her real estate, as to leave her a balance insuf- ficient to pay her debt, which is now $668,813 00 This debt may be reduced by mortgages, 199,469 00 To the sum of, 469,344 00 Add deficits of $70,278.66 for five years, 351,311 40 And there will be the sum of $820,655 40 to be provided for by sales of real estate ; a sum exceeding the highest estimate in the report of the committee of the value of the Lispenard lease; and unless the prices of real estate become greatly enhanced during the next five years, nothing will remain of the lease referred to, after discharging the pecuniary obliga- tions above specified, a portion of which must be provided for by sale of other property. The expenditures of the parish cannot be materially abridged without prejudice to its interests; and the vestry are unwilling to reduce the annual allowances to other churches, believing that such a reduction would cause great inconvenience to the reci- pients, and, in some cases, impair to a serious extent the effi- ciency of the parishes thus assisted. In regard to the necessity of allowing the capital of her en- dowment to be consumed by the current expenses of the church, I have differed in opinion with a majority of the vestry. While they have deplored it and yielded to it as a necessity, I have been in favor of meeting it by retrenchment, and bringing down the expenditure, as nearly as may be, to the standard of the in- come. I have urged this duty on the vestry as one demanded by every maxim of financial prudence, and with the less reluc- tance as the inconvenience to result from it would be of short duration; for if the real estate disposable in 1862, or the great mass of it, can be kept undiminished until that time, the church will be in a condition to prosecute the great plan of ministra- tion she has entered on, with an efficiency which cannot fail to 260 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE produce results of the highest importance to the city and the State. If I have thought the vestry in error in this respect, it is not because I have considered them lacking in liberality, but because they have yielded under Impulses highly honorable to their feelings,to an outside pressure for contributions, which, in view of the deep and lasting interests involved in the question, I would have resisted. This is, in truth, the only ground of apprehension in regard to the success of the plan of religious instruction for the poor in the lower part of the city. It must utterly fail if Trinity Church, for the purpose of meeting a regular series of annual deficits in her revenue, caused to a great extent by her contri- butions to other churches, shall consume her real estate; and for this reason I would incur a temporary inconvenience for the purpose of carrying out a great system, the benefits of which would be incalculable in value and endless in duration. To hold her real estate until it is unencumbered and can be sold without sacrifice, is in no jast sense, an accumulation of capital. To accumulate, is to augment by a reinvestment of income, or in other words, to convert revenue into principal. If her income exceeded her necessary expenditures, if, instead of contributing it to the wants of others she were to withhold it, and use it for the augmentation of her capital, she would be fairly obnoxious to the imputation cast upon her. Instead of erring in this di- rection she has, as has been shown, been for a series of years expending large portions of the principal, and mainly for the purpose of making donations to other parishes. In proof of this position, I submit the following statement of the receipts and expenditures of the corporation for the last ten years, with the annual deficits of income, and the allowances, donations and loans to other churches. I have prepared it from the books of the corporation, and it has been examined and com- pared by Mr. Dunscombe, the comptroller, and myself, with a general statement of the financial affairs of the church for the same period, made by Mr Roach, an experienced accountant, and I believe it to be in all respects correct. OK AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 261 Year ending Zdth jSpril^ 1847. Revenue, $68,498 47 Expenditure, 94,791 93 Deficit, $26,293 46 Allowances to other parishes, $10,825 00 Donations, 5,134 00 Loans, 500 00 Total allowances, &c., $16,559 00 Year ending 30th Jipril, 1848. Revenue, $74,258 54 Expenditure, 95,984 28 Deficit, $21,725 74 Allowances to other parishes, $10,175 00 Donations, 7,800 50 Loans, 3,900 00 Total allowances, &c., $21,875 50 Year ending Wth ^pril, 1849. Revenue, $78,869 85 Expenditure, 88,096 79 Deficit, $9,226 94 Allowances to other parishes, $12,600 00 Donations, 4,889 14 Loans, 3,800 00 Total allowances, &c., $21,289 14 Year ending 30th ^pril, 1850. Revenue, $77,799_63 Expenditure, 95,741 11 Deficit,... $17,941 48 I 262 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Allowances to other parishes, $13,000 00 Donations, 4,705 18 Loans, 12,198 00 Total allowances, &c., $29,903 18 Year ending 30th Jpril, 1851. Revenue, $75,871 31 Expenditure, 100,233 44 Deficit, $24, 362 13 Allowances to other parishes, $13,683 00 Donations, 4,488 13 Loans, f-,377 00 Total allowances, &c., $27,548 13 Year ending 30th ^pril, 1852. Revenue, $77,979 77 Expenditure, 108,317 39 Deficit, $30,337 62 Allowances to other parishes, $14,715 00 Donations, 12.806 72 Loans, 7,650 00 Total allowances, &c., $35,171 72 Year ending 30th Jlpril^ 1853. Revenue, $86,073 97 Expenditure, 110,592 66 Deficit, $24,518 69 Allowances to other parishes, $16,785 00 Donations, 9,186 21 Loans, 7,700 00 Total allowances, &c., $33,671 SI ON AFKAIBS OF TRINITY CHUBCH. 263 Year ending 30th ^pril, 1854. Revenue, $85,710 53 Expenditure, 137,078 99 ■ Deficit, $51 ,368 46 Allowances to other parishes, $21,706 00 Donations, 6,916 26 Loans, 17,100 00 Total allowances, &c., $45,722 26 Year ending SOtk April^ 1855. Revenue, $95,195 72 Expenditure, 114,677 30 Deficit, $19,677 30 Allowances to other parishes, $15,058 33 Donations, 7,290 16 Loans, 2,000 00 Total allowances, &c., $24,348 49 Year ending -^Xith Jipril^l^^Q. Revenue, $91,773 36 Expenditure, 139,918 79 Deficit, $48,145 43 Allowances to other parishes, $15,500 00 Donations, 10,552 42 Loans, 6,000 00 Total allowances, &c., $32,052 42 264 REPORT OF SKLECT COMMITTEE Recapitulation . Deficits. Allowances, ia. 1847, $26,293 46 $16,559 00 1848, 21,725 74 21,875 50 1849, 9,226 94 21,289 14 1850, 17,941 48 29,903 18 1851, 24,362 13 27,548 13 1852, 30,337 62 35,171 72 1853, 24,518 «9 33,671 21 1854, , 51,368 46 45,722 26 1855, 19,677 30 24,348 49 1856, 48,145 43 32,052 42 $273,597 25 $288,141 05 Jlnalysis of Allowances^ Sfc. , Allowances. Donations. Loans. 1847, $10,825 00 $5,134 00 $600 1848, 10,175 00 7,800 50 3,900 1849,. 12,600 00 4,889 14 3,800 1850, 13,000 00 4,705 18 12,198 1851,.. 13,683 00 4,488 13 9,377 1852, 14,715 00 12,806 72 7,650 1853, 16,785 00 9,186 21 7,700 1854-, 21,706 00 6,916 26 17,100 1855, 15,058 33 7,290 16 2,000 1856, 15,500 00 10,552 42 6,000 $144,047 33 $73,768 72 $70,325 $73,768 72 144,047 33 $217,816 05 70,325 00 $288,141 05 By this statement, it appears that the deficits of revenue in the last ten years amount to $273,597.35, and the amount given away and contributed to the support of other parishes is $288,141.05, exceeding the aggregate deficit by the sum of ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 265 $15,573.80; and, as I have already said, the whole deficit of the ten years, incurred for the benefit of others, has been made up by a sale of real estate, and is to tliat extent, a consumption of principal. Sevex'al of the witnesses have testified that, in granting aid to other churches, the vestry have acted under the influence of party-feeling, refusing assistance to those who differ with them in opinion, and granting it freely to those whose views are in accordance with their own. I feel it to be my solemn duty to repel this'imputation, by stating my own experience. I have been more than seven years a member of the vestry, and have been on terms of the most unreserved and confidential communication with ray associates. I have discussed with them the propriety of granting and declin- ing applications for aid, not only at nearly all the meetings of the vestry, but in many cases in private interviews; and no reference has ever been made by me or by any one of them, at any meeting, official or private, to the party views of any of the rectors, or religious societies presenting such applications. The party divisions, which have existed for several years in the Epis- copal church, and which have not only impaired'its capacity for doing good, but dishonored those on both sides who have been active in keeping them alive, have never been a subject of dis- cussion at any meeting of the vestry which I have attended; nor have they been alluded to in connexion with applications for aid. I have taken a deep interest in several applications myself, and have, perhaps, had some influence in securing grants of money to the applicants, and in no instance, have I inquired what were the particular views of the rector of the parish to which they belonged. I do not even know to this day whether they are high church or low church. The only inquiries ever made were in regard to their pecuniary and social condition and their need of assistance; and these considerations, together with the ability of Trinity Church at the time to make the grants asked for, and the probability that the grants would be effective for the objects in view, have been the only ones which have guided me in my votes. I believe the other members of the 266 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE vestry have been equally free from the influence of party motives. My belief is founded upon my knowledge of them as enlightened, conscientious and liberal men, and upon aU they have said and done in my presence through a familiar associa- tion of seven years. I cannot be supposed to have been deceived in regard to their principles of action, but upon the hypothesis of a depth of dissimulation on their part and an obtuseness of perception on my own, too gross for the largest credulity. I can say with the same confidence, that I do not believe those who have the management of the affairs of Trinity Church, have sought, during the period of my connection with them, a period of a good deal of excitement, to influence rectors or parishes on any question in the diocese through the imstrumentality of her donations. It is due to others to add, that I have for several years attended the conventions of the diocese and become ac- quainted with a large number of the clergy, I have rarely met a more intelligent or independent body of men ; and I regard the intimation that they would be governed in the doc- trines they teach or in the official acts Ihey have to perform, by considerations arising out of the pecuniary aid their parishes may have received from Trinity Church, as alike ungenerous and unjust. In a word, I consider all these imputations of influence on the one hand and of subserviency on the other, as the offspring of mere groundless suspicion ; and they are in some instance so loosely hazarded, as to make it the part of charity to refer them to tlie same narrow and distempered views of duty, which are falsely imputed to the vestry of Trinity. I have thus laid before the committee, with entire frankness, a statement of my connection with Trinity Church, and the part I have borne in the management of her financial afiairs, and the great scheme of religious and temporal ministration, which I desire to see carried out under her auspices and through the aid of her endowments, in the lower districts of the city. I do not believe the importance of giving effect to this plan can be over- stated. The funds of Trinity Church are the only resource for accomplishing it ; she must execute it or it will fall to the ground, and the district in which three of her church edifices ON AFFAIBS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 267 stand, become nearly desolate for all spiritual purposes. TLe prosperity of the city is deeply involved in it; destitution, tem- poral and spiritual, goes hand in hand with crime; and when even now the spirit of acquisitiveness which is characteristic of the age, and has become its greatest scourge, is dishonoring it by forgeries the most bare-faced and staining it by murders the most foul, what shall be our social condition, if, in a large portion of the city, destitution and spiritual neglect shall combine with cupidity to arm the hand of violence and stimulate it to still grosser outrage. What higher office can Trinity Church fulfill, what higher benefit can she confer on the classes which have the deepest stake in ths security of property and life, than by devoting herself, as she is now doing, to make the lessons of religious and social duty familiar to those who, under the pres- sure of their physical wants, have the strongest temptation to forget them? In the upper districts, the possessors of nearly the whole pri- vate wealth of the city have become domesticated. There is more than one congregation, the individual possessions of which are believed to exceed in value, with the largest estimate ever put on it, the entire property Trinity Church holds, for the sup- port of her four congregations. Those whom fortune has thus overburdened with her gifts, should be willing to leave un- impaired, the endowments of Trinity Church, that she may make suitable provision foj' the poor, whom they have left to her care; and, whatever may be the narrowness of spirit which presides over particular circles, no doubt is entertained of the generous and catholic feeling whicli pervades the great body of the opulent classes. No city has more cause to be thank- ful for the munificence with which some of her richest men have contributed to the great objects of social improvement within her limits; and it is most gratifying to add, that in more than one instance, the wealth which exists in the largest masses, has been poured out with the noblest profusion, to build up lite- rary and charitable institutions for the common benefit. To such a spirit of munificence, no appeal to relieve the destitution which hangs upon the outskirts of the upper districts, need be addressed REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE in vain. If among those, to whom providence has committed the spiritual guidance of these favored classes, there are any who seek to compel Trinity Church to scatter her endowments broad- cast over the city, and thus disqualiy herself for the great work of charity devolved on her, in the district in which her lot has been cast; if there are any who are engaged in inculcating an autiphonal beneficence, the utterances of which are to be given only in response to those of Trinity, it is suggested, with the profoundest deference, whether a nobler field for the exercise of their influence, does nut lie directly before them. Whether the great ends of their calling will not be better subserved by la- boring to infuse into surrounding atmospheres, over cast with penury and want, some of the golden light which irradiates their own. The State, nay, the whole country, has a deep interest in this question. Ths city of New-York, embodying as she does, to a great extent, the commercial and financial power of the Union, must exert a sensible influence upon the moral and intellectual character of all with whom she is brought into association. The slightest agitations on her surface undulate in all directions to the great circumlerence, of which she is the centre. On Tri- nity Church are devolved, in the order of events, the spiritual instruction and guidance of the district, by which she is brought most directly into contact with all that lies beyond her limits. If this duty is not faithfully performed, no voice should be raised in palliation of the delinquency. On the other hand, if any of those who have withdrawn from this part of the city, the wealth which * providence has, in such disproportion, bestowed on them, shall seek to deprive the destitute, whom they have left behind, of their sole resource for spiritual in- struction and the alleviation of their temporal wants; if they shall succeed by mis stating the condition, and unjustly im- peaching the motives of Trinity Church, in defeating her efforts to carry out the great system of labor with which she is occu- pied, they will incur the gravest and the most odious of all re- sponsibilities, that of consigning one of the most important dis- tricts in the emporium of the Union to an intellectual and spiri- tual death. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 269 By the Senate committee : Q. Were not Mr. Curtiss and Mr. Wolf in the vestry of Trinity Church ? A. I think that Mr. Wolf ceased to be a member of the vestry before I became a member of it. Mr. Curtiss is now a member of the vestry. Q. Would not they be as likely to understand the affairs of the vestry as other members of it? A. I think they have the same opportunities that other members of the vestry have Q. Do you or do you not know that the church reported in 1854, the church mortgages as part of her capital? A. I do not know; as I have stated in my communication, I was out of the country during part of the years 1854-55. Q. Are there not free schools provided in New-York for all classes 1 A.I understand there are, by the State. Q. If the vestry of Trinity had adopted the first plan proposed for building Trinity chapel, at a cost of $40,0U0, would not their debt have been now less by nearly $200,000 1 A. If the plan had been adhered to, and had cost no more than the architect estimated, a much less sum than $230,000 would have been ex- pended on the chapel and site. In the cost of $230,000 is the expense of site. Whether the debt of the corporation would have been less now, of course, I cannot say. Q. Do you not consider that the estate of Trinity Church is now of much greater value than at any previous period 1 A. That question I cannot answer. I am not a member of the finance committee, and therefore am not acquainted with the details of the value of property. Q. Do you or do you not know that there have been applica- tions to the Legislature for the repeal of the law of 1814? A. I am not aware of any such application. Q. Were you acquainted with the proceedings of the vestry in respect to the valuation of the St. John's Park property ? A. I was not present at the first meeting when that subject was brought before the vestry. I was present, I think, at the meet- 270 REPOHT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ing at which that subject was discussed. My impression is, that the vestry at first refused to entertain the proposition at all ; but at the earnest solicitation of nearly all the owners around the park, they finally agreed to release their interest if they could receive the sum of $400^000. I never understood this to be con- sidered as the value of the property, but rather as the measure of the damage that would be done to Trinity Church by destroy- ing the park. This was my own view of the subject, and I con- sidered the interest of Trinity Church so remote and contingent that I would not have imdertaken to put a valuation upon it in money. Q. Were you acquainted with the making of the report of Trinity Church, in February, 1856 1 A. No, sir. I was out of the State. Q. Have you stated in your written testimony what amount Trinity Church pays to Bishop Potter as his salary 1 A. The amount is embraced in the aggregate expenditure, but is not specified. Q Will you please to state itl A. I think it is $1,600. Mr. Minturn and Mr. Bradish, who were members of the committee with myself, appointed by the convention of the diocese, for the purpose of apportioning the Bishop's salary among the churches of the diocese, thought Trinity Church should pay a larger sum, and I think on the ground of her endowment. Q. From what you know of the value of real estate in the city of New- York, would you not think that the property of Trinity Church is increasing in value ? A. I have no doubt it is. Q. I perceive by the report of Trinity Church, that the leases of a large number of lots have expired, or are about expiring. I would ask whether it is your opinion the vestry should sell those lots, and pay their debts, or lease them 1 A. It is my opinion they should sell the lots and the debts of the corporation be paid. Q. Do you think the majority of the vestry agree with you in that opinion 1 A. That I cannot say. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 271 Q. Is there not, in certain parts of the city of New-York, a great scarcity or want of churches — I mean in the eastern part of the town, and in the 4th, 6th, 13th and 14th wards? A. I am not acquainted with the limits of the wards; though I have no special knowledge, I have no doubt churches might be estab- lished with advantage in many parts of the city. Q. After selling sufficient property to pay the present indebt- edness rf Trinity Church, in your opinion, should her policy be to retain the balance of her real estate and appropriate only the income of if? A.I cannot say that I have had any definite plan with regard to the future. My idea has been that her debt should first be paid; that her property should, as lar as practi- cable, be preserved until it could be sold without loss; and that when she has set apart the funds necessary to take care of the lower part of the city, I would be very liberal in donations to other churches, not only of income, but of principal, where it could be done without impairing her own means of usefulness in her particular sphere of duties. ' Q. When the leases expire, could not the property of Trinity Church be made more productive by a sale than by re-letting; and would not the sale be more beneficial to the interests of the church and city"? A. It is a very large question, and one that I am not prepared to answer at this time. I will add, that I have been in favor of selling her property whenever it could be done advantageously. Q. Cannot the property be now sold to advantage, subject to the leases referred to 1 A. As a general rule I should think not; though I have no doubt that some particular pieces of pro- perty or lots may be. Q. What do you think of the policy of making some of the large grants to the up town churches, the Annunciation and St. Luke's? A. I was not at the meetings of the vestry, I think, at which those two grants were made; and I cannot, therefore, speak of the special inducements for making them. Q. When acting as a vestryman of Trinity, do you consider yourself acting as a vestryman of Trinity parish only, or as a 272 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE trustee for Episcopalians in the city of New-York generally'? A. I consider myself as acting as a trustee for Trinity parish only. By counsel for Trinity Church : Q. What can you state with regard to the mortgage held by Trinity Church upon Zion church, in Mott-street ? A. My re- collection is that Trinity Church loaned to Zion church, in Mott- street, in 1830, the sum of $7,000. In 1850, on the removal of the church to Murray Hill, Trinity Church transferred the loan of the mortgage to the new church, which was to be built, and remitted the interest of the old mortgage for the twenty years, which amounted to $9,800. Q. Can you tell me whether this (presenting the following paper) is a copy of a resolution from the minutes of the vestry of Trinity church 1 A. It is. I compared it with the original minutes. The following is a copy : Extract from the Minutes of the Corporation of Trinity Church, held on the 28th day of March, 1812. RESOLUTION. Report of committee on the state of the church: It having been represented to this board, that certain persons belonging to Protestant Episcopal congregations in this city, which have been incorporated as separate and distinct from the corporation of Trinity church, and who are not pew holders in Trinity church, or any of its chapels, claim a right to vote at the annual elections for church wardens and vestrymen of Trinity church, therefore — Resolved, As the unanimous sense of this board, that no other persons except inhabitants of the city of New- York, who profess themselves members of the Protestant Episcopal church, and hold, occupy or enjoy a pew or seat in Trinity church, or one of its chapels, and regularly pay to the support of the said church, or regularly worshipping therein, shall partake of the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper, in the said church, or one of its chapels, at least once in every year, are entitled to vote at the said elections. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 273 Examination by counsel for Trinity Church. — Tokn R. Living- ston called aud sworn : Q. How long have you been a vestryman of Trinity Church 1 A. I was elected, I think, in January, 1847, and have continued to this time. Q. What Episcopal churches were there in the city of New- York, independent of Trinity Church, prior to 1814, and which of such -churches were built by Trinity Church ? A.. There were nine Episcopal churches, independent of Trinity and her chap- els ; three of which were built by Trinity Church. Tliey were St. George's chapel, Grace church and St. Mark's church. Q. How has the increase of 'parishes in the city of New- York, since 1813, compared with the increase of the population of the city 1 A. In 1814, there were twelve congregations, including those of Trinity parish. In 1847, there were thirty-five congre- gations. In 1857, there are, as appears in evidence, fifty con- gregations. The increase from 1814 to 1847j a term of thirty- three years, was twenty-three congregations. The increase from 1847 to 1857, a term of ten years, is fifteen congregations. In 1814, the population was 105,000, according to the testimony of Mr. Winston. In 1857, the population is said to be about 650,- 000. Some of the recently built churches, are very large. I will instance St. George's church, Calvary, Trinity chapel and the church of the Transfiguration. Q. Has Trinity Church ever foreclosed any of the mortgages received for loans to churches 1 A. I am quite sure she never has. Q. Will you explain the transactions with regard to the premises of the Protestant Episcopal City Mission Society 1 A. In the early days of the city Mission Society, the corporation of Trinity Church determined to make annual appropriations towards the support of the missionaries, in preference to giving land or building churches. They accordingly, in 1832, appro- priated $1,200, and afterwards $1,800 per annum. In the year 1837, the [society was embarrassed, and obtained from Trinity 18 274 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Church a loan of $10,000, secured by a mortgage on the two mission churches of the Holy Evangelists in Vandewater-street, and the church of Epiphany in Stanton-street. This was a business transaction and in no sense a gift to the society. In 1844, the Howard Insurance company foreclosed prior mortgages held by them on the two City Mission churches, and the premises, by an arrangement made by the vestry of Trinity Cliurch, were transferred to the two congregations that had become indepen- dent corporations. The coi'poration of Trinity Church assumed the payment of $13,000 of the consideration money, the balance I believe was raised by the respective church corporations. In this arrangement, it Avas necessary to credit the City Mission Society with the residue of the consideration or purchase money, after satisfying prior existing incumbrances on the px-emises. The amount thus audited is |10.140.5l, which amount increased to $13,000, was advanced, by the corporation of Trinity Church, to the two churches in equal amounts, and mortgages given by ■« each of them to the corporation of Trinity Church for the sum of $6,500. It will thus be seen that in this instance the mort- gage to Trinity Church "did tend to secure the permanent use to the Protestant Episcopal church, the building and property thus mortgaged." Q. What have you to say with regard to the mortgage on the Vandtwater -street Church? A. When the corporation of Ti'inity Church had made arrangements for the purchase of St. George's church in Beekman street, they received a communication from the vestry of the Church of the Holy Evangelists in Vandewater- street, in the 4th ward of the city, stating that two churches so closely together as the Holy Evangelists and St. George's in Beekman-street, having special reference to the benefit of the same class of persons — the poor who attended — would injudi- ciously affect each other, and so weaken both as to be a cause of lasting sorrow. They also stated that their church was in a dilapidated condition, and would require a large expenditure to repair it; and besides this, that the location for a church had become the worst in the city. This communication was referred to a special committee on St. George's church, and on their re- commendation, the vestry removed the congregation of the church ON AFFAIRS OF TRIMTV CHURCH. 275 of the Holy Evangelists to St. George's church in Beekman-st., and had the j^ropertj transferred to that corporation. The church in Vandewater-street was then sold by its own vestry, and after paying off all prior incumbrances, the balance of $1,200 was paid over to Trinity corporation, who expended this amount, together with a much larger sum, in preparing St. George's church for their accommodation. Q. Do you know how much money the church of St. John the Baptist has received from Trinity Church since its report was made'? A. The corporation of St. John the Baptist have recently erected a fine church building in the upper part of the city. Before the church was completed, they became very much embarrassed and applied to Trinity to assume the interest on the sum of $15,0t)0. This matter was referred to the standing committee, who reported adversely to the application. It was considered in the vestry, their report was overruled and the application granted. I will here add that on the same evening, a similar report was made on the application of the Rev. Mr. Howlandj it having become absolutely necessary to protect the church building of St. John the Baptist, the vestry could not respond at that time to Mr. Rowland's application, and referred it back to the same committee for further action. Q. What explanation can you give in regard to the grant to St. Jude's church? A. In 1843, the standing committee made a report on an application of St. Jude's Church for aid, setting forth that the church had no permanent edifice or fixed location, that its present place of worship was in a part of the city sur- rounded by other churches affording ample accommodations for all persons in that vicinity, and recommending on these grounds, and also on the ground of the condition of the finances of the corporation, that the appl'cation be not complied with, which was adopted by the vestry. Q. Has the amount of annual stipends been reduced ? A. I think not. My impression is that the aggregate amount has been gradually increased each year during the last ten years. There are three instances to my knowledge, where they have 276 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE been entirely dispensed with. St. Thomas' Church, the salary of whose rector is said to be $5000 per annum, St. Bartholo- mew's and the Church of the Ascension, whose congregations have been equally liberal towards their pastor. These amounts have been transferred to other congregations who were in need of them. Q. What effect has the disposing of large masses ol property by lease, had upon the value of real estate contiguous 1 A- Some of the finest and most costly private dwellings in the city of New- York are built on the property of the Trustees of the Sailor's Snug Harbor, a charitable institution. It is situated in the finest and most fashionable part of the city, and the real estate in the vicinity is materially enhanced in value by the condition of this leasehold property. In another portion of the city, a large leasehold estate on Fourteenth street, extending from University Place to the Sixth Avenue, known as the Spingler lease, is covered with similar fine dwellings, and the property in the neighborhood is of the most valuable in the city. The same is also true of the leased property of Columbia Col- lege, which was derived from Trinity Church; and the church's leased property in the lower part of the city has always been well improved and fine buildings erected upon it. Q. Is it true, as stated in the report of the committee, foot of page 18, that Col. Troop's pamphlet was an inducement to the Legislature to pass the act of 1814? A. It cannot be true, from the fact that the act was passed on the 2d of April, 1813, and the pamphlet bears date the 6th of September following. Q. What have you to say as to the result of the policy of the vestry in granting money instead of lots? A. I desire to con- trast the result of the policy adopted prior and since the year 1814. Since the year 1814, the policy of Trinity Church has been to grant to churches, institutions of charity, and learning^ money instead of lots. Besides having built St. George's, Grace and St. Mary's churches, and St. John's and St. Paul's chapels, this corporation have aided in this State about 201 churches — 71 in western New- York, 41 in the city of New-York and 89 in other parts of this diocese. Hobart College, at Geneva, has been made OF AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 277 free by her means; the General Theological Seminary and the Education and Missionary Fund aided ; appropriations have been made to foreign, home and city missions of our church; an Epis- copal residence has been purchased, and the Episcopal fund largely increased ; annuities have been made to the families of deceased clergymen ; the aged and infirm of the clergy have been assisted, and monuments have been erected to worth, valor and patriotism. These are some of the advantages obtained, and benefits derived from the proceeds of the sale of 1059 lots. It is respectfully submitted that they will compare favorably, in value and usefulness, with the former policy of the vestry, of granting a large number of lots to a few favored churches and institutions. Q. State whether grants have been made in a spirit of partia- lity or partizanship 1 A. I answer unqualifiedly no, on behalf of myself and asso- ciates. Q. Has Trinity Church, in your opinion, done her utmost to make the capital of her property available for religious pur- poses, SccI A. My answer is, that she has endeavored to do her best in the exercise of an honest judgment. Q. Is there any obstacle to the collection of church mortgages if the vestry are so disposed 1 A. I think there is, the great obstacle of good faith. Q. Are there other standing business committees in the vestry besides the standing committee ? A. There are three standing committees in all ; the standing committee proper, which is the finance committee, the committee on supplies and repairs, and the committee on the cemetery; special committees are frequently appointed as occasion may require. By the Senate committee : Q. Will you look at the poll list of 1854, and see how many of them are not connected with Trinity Church as vestrymen, clergymen or ofl&cers A. All are corporators of Trinity Church, twelve of the twenty-six are in no manner connected with Trinity Church as vestrymen, clergymen or ofl&cers. 278 REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE Q. Does not Col. Troup's pamphlet bear date before the law of 1814 was passed ] A. Col. Troup's pamphlet bears date the 6th of September, 1813. The bill had passed both houses on the 2d of April, 1813, and became a law on the 25tli of January, 1814. I beg leave to add. Col. Troup states in his pamphlet that two members of the council of revision, were pleased to express a desire that he would furnish them his reasons in support of the bill, and in compliance with this desire, his argument was made. Q. Do you know that the churchmen in New-York have ap- plied to have the law of 1814 repealed, in 1846, or at other times'? A. I have reason to believe that from 1814 to 1846, no such application was made, a period of thirty-two years. In 1846 and 1847, the Rev. Thomas H. Taylor, Rev. Dr. Anthon, Rev. Jesse Pound, the Hon. Luther Bradish, Robert B. Minturn,Esq., Frederick S. Winston, Esq., Stewart Brown, Esq., John De Wolf, Esq., Stephen Cambreling, Esq., did unite with others, in an ap- plication to the Legislature to repeal the act of 1814. Q. Were the church mortgages, as they are called, reported as capital in your report of 1854? A. They were reported as church mortgages on which no interest was collected. If they had not been reported as property, it might have been difficult to protect the churches for whose benefit they were taken. Q. Why then should they not have been reported in 1856 1 A. They having been reported once, it would answer that pur- pose, and they were not asked for. Q. You say in your report, on page 10, that you have endea- vored to show the condition of the capital of Trinity Church, and have omitted to mention these mortgages. What is your explanation of this? A. I do not consider these mortgages any portion of the available capital of Trinity Church. Q. I ask you, if they are not capital? A. I answer that that is a matter of opinion; I think not. Q Was not one of the reasons for refusing aid to St. Matthew's church alleged to be, that her language was not respectful ? A. No sir, not that I have Jieard of. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 279 Q. Was not the language of the application, considered by the vestry, imperative, and spoken of as being so ? A. I think it was. Q. Is not the real estate of Trinity church worth more now than at any former period 1 A. I think it is. Q. What is the character of the improvements on most of the leased property of Trinity church? A The property in the lower part of the city is very well improved j some of the local- ities in the upper part are well improved, and others indiffer- ently so. This depends very much upon the situation. Q. Ai*e not most of the buildings in the upper part of the city very poor and inferior? A. Many of the buildings were erected a long time ago, and do not compare favorably with such as are now built. Q. You spoke of three churches from which stipends were taken away altogether; are not all three such as are called " low" churches ? A. Stipends were given by the corporation of Tri- nity church, with the intention of providing for, or contributing towards the salary of the minister; and in all cases where the congregations are sufficiently wealthy to provide liberally for their rectors, the vestry of Trinity church has considered it a duty to withdraw the stipends, without reference to the party character of the congregations, or rector. The three churches named in the question, are supposed to belong to what is called the " low" church party. Adjourned to 10 A. M., to-morrow. Tuesday, Feh. 24, 1857. Present — The Senate committee, Messrs. Spencer Noxon, and Ramsey. Counsel as before. This meeting of the committee was mainly devoted to making such verbal alterations in the testimony as had been deemed necessary by the counsel for Trinity Church to fully present the 280 REPORT or SELECT COMMITTEE meaning of the several witnesses testifying. The several altera- tions were assented to by the committee. Wednesday, February 25. Richard H. Ogden called and sworn : Q. Are you the clerk of the vestry of Trinity Church ? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you made search for the poll list of voters at the vestry elections held prior to 1814 ? A. I have made search and cannot find any. I have no means of ascertaining whether they were preserved at as early a date as that. By the committee : Q. Have you made search since 1814 ? A. I have. Q. Do you find any lists on file 1 A. None prior to 1846. William S. De Zeng, called and sworn : Q. As agent of Trinity Church, did you apply to the commit- tee, in the city of New- York, for a copy of the testimony taken by them, after the testimony was closed? A. I was requested by Mr. Dunscomb, the Comptroller, to apply for a copy about the time the committee were done taking testimony ny. After the request was made, I saw both Mr. Noxon and Mr. Ramsey, and asked them for a copy of the testimony. They said there was no objection to our having a copy. I then went to the clerk of the committee and asked him if he would furnish a copy, we paying for it. He declined; said he could not do it without the authority of Mr. Spencer. I then saw Mr. Spencer, and Mr. Spencer said he could not authorise it,, and thought it would be improper until the committee should make a report. I told Mr. Spencer if a copy could be made we would pay lor it. The counsel for Trinity Church here produced an affidavit of service of a subpoena to appear and testify, upon the Rev. Thos. H. Taylor, D. D., Rev. Henry Anthon, D. D., Luther Bradish, and Stewart Brown, on the 9th day of February, instant, and that they failed to appear. ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 281 Counsel for Church here closed. The chairman of the committee presented the following let- ters from persons who had been subpoenaed, but had failed to attend : New- York, Feb. 10, 1857. To the Hon. Mark Spencer, James Noxon and J. H. Ramsey, Committee^ Sfc, Albany. Sirs — At 5 o'clock this evening I received your summons in the matter of Trinity Church, requiring me to attend before you on the 121h day of February instant, at 9 o'clock a.m., at the rooms of the committee in the capitol in the city of Albany, to testify and give evidence before you in relation to the matters referred to you. While I entertain the highest respect for your committee, and for the authority by which you act, yet in the present condition of the communications between this city and Albany, the inclemency of the season, my advanced age, and the state of my health, which is not good, a •ompliance witli the requirements of your summons would be extremely difficult, if not quite imprac- ticable. I trust, therefore, that it may not be deemed, under the circumstances, an unreasonable indulgence, when I respect- fully ask to be excused from a personal attendance before your committee; and in lieu thereof to be permitted to answer on paper any cross or explanatory interrogatories which any party interested may desire to put to me. This I shall cheerfully do, even although it may involve a greater labor than a personal examination under the circumstances would do. Under present circumstances were I, at every inconvenience and risk, to attempt a compliance with the requirement of your summons, it would be impossible for me to attend before you in person at the time indicated by you. 1 venture, therefore, respectfully but confidently to hope that the indulgence I ask in this case maybe accorded by the committee. In which hope I remain, sirs, with the highest respect. Tour obedient servant, L. BRADISH. 282 KEPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE New-York, Feb. lUh, 1857. Hon. Mark Spencer : Dear Sir — I received j'esterday afternoon a summons to attend before the committee, of which you are the chairman, on the 12th inst., to give evidence in relation to the matter of Trinity Church. Having but just been relieved from a severe cold, I feel a great reluctance, especially at this season, and in the present state of tlie roads, to encounter the fatigue and exposure of a journey to Albany. I beg leave, therefore, respectfully to place my case before your committee, in the hope that they will excuse me from attending; and I do so with the less hestitation, as my evidence was given in full when the committee were in session in this city. Most respectfully yours, H. ANTHON. 80-1 Broadway, New-York, ? February 16, 1857. S Hon. Mark Spencer, Chairman, Sfc: My Dear Sir — Absence from home, and a pressure of unavoid- able engagements, have prevented me from making an earlier acknowledgment of the receipt of a summons from the special committee of the Senate, in the matter of Trinity Church, requir- ing me to attend and give evidence before the committee on the 12th inst. With the most perfect respect for the committee, and with an earnest desire to meet all their requirements, it was yet entirely out of my power to attend at Albany as a witness at the time specified. While I thus freely and sincerely express my respect for your committee, and my regret at not being permitted to aid them as I best could in their important labors, yet you must permit me to say, Mr. Chairman, that none of this respect, and nothing of this regret is intended by me, to extend to any liired agents of Trinity, at whose instance, as I take it, the summons now be- fore me was issued. During the meetings of your committee in this city every opportunity was afforded to the corporation of Trinity Church, either to summon witnesses or to propose cross-interrogatories to ON AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. 283 every witness before your committee; and if in their supercili- ousness or reckless negligence they did not avail themselves of their' privilege, the consequences must rest upon themselves. The vexatious course they are now pursuing, of attempting to drag gentlemen from their business and tlieir homes at this in- clement season of the year, from whom tliey well know that they cannot obtain one word of evidence in any way useful to Trinity Cliurch, has no other earthly object than to gain time, and thus to defeat by postponing one of the most salutary mea- sures of reform that has ever claimed the attention of the Legis- lature of the State. With my renewed assurance of the most perfect respect for your committee, permit me to subscribe myself, Mr, Chairman, Your friend and obedient servant. Very truly, THOMAS HOUSE TAYLOR, Rector of Grace Church in the city of JYew- York. The following letter w^as presented by the counsel for Trinity corporation, and ordered filed with those previously received. " New- York, February 24, 1857. Wm. E. Dunscomb, Esq. Dear Sir. — I have received your note of yesterday, asking me again to go up to Albany. For myself I cannot see its impor- tance ; and with reference to my answer that I ' have been on a committee to examine the annual report, and examination of the accounts of the comptroller ; they have access to all tlie books referred to in the annual report, and such only.' Our committee at this examination called on Mr. Rogers, the clerk, for the books and vouchers, who furnished tlie same and no others, because no others were called for by the committee ; and that is what I mean by ' and such only.' And by going to Albany I could give no other explanation, and to my mind no other one is required. Did I suppose that I could be of any use to the committee by going up to Albany, I would try to go up, yet, as I wrote Mr. Ogdeu, it would be at not a little personal incon- venience ; and, therefore, hope that you will excuse me, and oblige Very truly yours, CYRUS CURTISS." Adjourned to 10 A. M., Saturday morning. ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL OF TRINITY CHURCH, BEFORE THE C. VAN BENTHUYSEN, PRINTER, ALBANY, No. 407 Broadway. 1857. After tlie testimony was closed, Mr. Gouverneue M. Ogdbn, one of the vestry, addressed tlie committee of the Senate, on the affairs of Trinity Church, as follows: Mr. Chairman : I appear before the committee as one of the vestry of Trinity Chui-ch, to speak to the questions o>f fact that are involved in this controversy as touching the character and good faith of myself and my associates. But before commertcing this argument, I beg leave to protest, most respectfully, in the name of the corporation which I repre- sent, against the authority of the Senate or of this committee to entertain the investigation of which these proceedings form a part, on the ground that no information expected to be derived from it can be necessary to guide the discretion of the Legislature in any matter within its powers; for the act of 1814, to which these proceedings are supposed to have reference, forms a part of the charter of Trinity Church and cannot be altered, modified or repealed without its consent • and these proceedings are not instituted at the instance of any party who has an interest in the questions involved ; and on the ground also that investigations of this kind are productive of great injury to ecclesiastical cor- porations by involving them in great expense and engaging them in litigations that properly belong to the courts, and which are here conducted without the restraints and without the protection afforded by the rules of legal investigation. I say this, gentlemen, without intending disrespect to the committee and merely lest perchance the corporation should be involved in any admission through my silence. There are important questions involved, and if I speak freely and warmly I shall at all events endeavor to say nothing not called for by the performance of my duty, and' nothing offensive to any which shall not be necessary to exhibit tlie motives which have actuated, and the credit which is due to the parties whose names are involved in this controvei-sy as witnesses or actors. 4 This is not a new thing, and it is necessary in order to explain its present position to refer to a few liistorical facts. The original charter of this corporation was granted in the year 1697, creating a single church corporation with one rector, one body of church wardens and vestrymen, and one congregation. The church has always contended, from the time at which any question could arise, that under this charter no persons were corporators except members of the congregations of Trinity Church. Then follows the law of 17''4, now repealed, which, although it made some alteration in the powers of the corporation, did not add to or diminish the qualifications of corporators. Next the law of 1784, as the church has always contended, did not change the rights of corporators so as to include any others than members of the congregations of Trinity Church. These are principles, stated very briefly upon which th-e vestry of Trinity Church have always acted. In 1813, Trinity Church made an application to the Lesjislature upon which the act entitled "an act to alter the name of the cor- poration of Trmity Church in New-York, and for other pur- poses" was passed, on the 24th of Januery 1814, by which it was declared that only members of the congregation of Trinity Church, with certain other qualifications in the second section of that act specified, should be entitled to vote at the annual elec- tions for church w^ardens and vestrymen of the said corporation. Now, certainly, there were persons who thought that the con- struction which I have stated, the vestry put upon the original charter and act of 1784,^was not sound. A class of persons who were interested in maintaining a different construction came into existence when the first church corporation in the city of New-York, independent of Trinity, was created. St. Mark's Church, as would appear from the testimony of Mr. Bradish, page 98 of the first report of this committee, existed as early as 1798; and there were nine such churches in 1814 as appears from the testimony of Dr. Berrian. Yet the practical construction was such, that down to 1814 no persons who did not belong to the congregations of Trinity Church were ever permitted to vote at the vestry elections. This is amply proved by the testimony. The statements on the other side on this point are very loose. The only reference to it that occurs, is in the testimony of Mr. Bradish, who says on page 95, that the great body of episcopalians 5 in the city of New-York were not only deprived by tlie act of 1814 of valuable franchises previously granted to and enjoyed by them, but virtually divested of their right of property. On the other hand Mr. Verplanck and Dr. Berrian, who were members of this corporation in 1811, testify that at an election held in 1812, the first attempt was made by members of other corpo- rations to vote at the Easter elections of Trinity Church, on the occasion of some great excitement then prevailing, and they also say that they were intimate with other gentlemen, members of the corporation at that time, older than themselves, who are now deceased, and that they never heard of such parties ever having been admitted to vote. We have, moreover, produced in evidence the resolution of the vestry, passed at about the time of this occurrence, in which after reciting that the vestry had been informed that a claim to vote at the elections of Trinity Church had been set up by persons who were members of other church corporations, it was declared in substance, that no one should be admitted to vote unless they were members of the congregations of Trinity Church. Other cotemporaneous documents establish the same position. In the application of the vestry to the Legislature for the pas- sage of the law of 1814, it is stated that no members of other church corporations have a right to vote at their elections, or regulate the affairs of Trinity Church; that " nevertheless a few individuals belonging to such separate corporations, have recently pretended, to claim that right, and at he last annual election of church wardens and vestrymen of Trinity Cliurch, held in the month of March, 1812, two or three persons, being members of incorporated churches, separate and distinct from your petitioners, presented themselves as voters, but their votes, under an ordi- nance previously passed by your petitioners, were rejected; and no measures have been yet taken to enforce or establish the right so claimed.'' In Col. Troup's pamphlet, which has been quoted by Mr. Bra- dish, it is stated that no members of other congregations claimed, prior to 1812, and that in March of that year, several persons offered themselves as voters, being members of other corporations, one of whom instituted a suit, and the same person again offered to vote in the succeeding April. (See page 12 of that pamphlet.) There is no evidence as to what became of this suit. It was probably dropped, or a decision upon it would be found. 6 These cotemporaneous documents have been frequently referred to in controversies before the Legislature, respecting applications for the repeal of the act of 1814, made in 184(j-47, to which as it appears in the testimony, the principal witnesses against Trinity Church in this matter were parties. This statement is confident- ly submitted as conclusive proof that down to the year 1814 no pei'sons were ever admitted to vote at the elections of Trinity Church except they were members of the congregations of its churches ; and there can be no controversy about the truth of the position, that since 1814 no such persons have ever been admit- ted or allowed to exercise that right. This appears abundantly from the testimony, both of Dr. Ber- rian and Mr. Verplanck. In 1813, Trinity Church made the application to the Legislature which i-esulted in the passage of the act of the following year. They asked that the Legislature would obviate and settle the ques- tions that might arise in consequence of incorporating other Episco- pal congregations in the city, and they asked it that strife and liti- gation might be prevented In 1814 the law was passed, declaring that none but members of the congregations of Trinity Church were corporators. This state of things remained undisturbed until 1846. Then and in 1847, applications were made for the repeal of the last mentioned law; in 1846 in the Senate and in 1847 in the Assembly. In both cases the applications were unsuccessful. In the last of these, the matter was argued by counsel of high standing on both sides, before the judiciary committee of the House, who unanimously decided against the repeal, and in a re- port of singular ability, recommended that the prayer of the petitioners ought not to be granted. This recommendation was unanimously adopted by the Assembly. Thirty-three years had then elapsed since the passage of the law. Now ten years more have passed. The object of the act was accomplished, and during all that time peace and quietness prevailed in the episcopal church in New- York, except when the agitation of this question of repeal stirred the waters of controversy. Now the contest is renewed, but not as before. Then the par- ties seeking the passage of the measure now sought, came for- w^ard openly, with an avowed object. Now no one appears as in- terested in any stage of these proceedings. There is no memorial. There is no proof of notice of an application for a repeal as the statute requires. Every step is tlie act of the Senate. 7 Let me trace these proceedings. It is necessary to exhibit the actors, their motives and objects, and necessary to show the credit that is due to tlie testimony. The commencement of this pro- ceeding was tlie original resolutions of the Senate, passed, on the 15th of April, 1855. There was no application or representation as the foundation of these resolutions. They were passed in the hurry of business, at the close of the session. I will notice shortly some of the matters asked for by them. Who in Albany could have known that Trinity Church had never built a free church ? Who could have known that a return of the churches built with- in the five years next before the passage of the resolutions would show that Trinity chapel was built within that time at great cost ? Who in Albany could have known that to disclose what leeble churches had been aided in the same five years would, probably, exhibit a comparatively small amount expended for the benefit of such churches while Trinity chapel was building? Or who in that city could have told that the appropriations to institutions of ^ charity, benevolenee and learning, made within the three years next preceding the passage of the resolutions, would just escape the important and meritorious gift in favor of Hobart Free Col- lege at Geneva, with the condition that it should be called by that name and be forever free 1 These features show a knowledge and design of interested par- ties to select for the prejudice of Trinity Church the time within which and the objects to which, the return would show the least, and they are the obvious result of a laborious collection in New- York of rumors, and suspicions, and the complaints of disappointed applicants. Again, all the gifts required to be returned are those made to churches in the city of New- York. Why ? Because the persons who are interested in and have been applicants for the repeal of the act of 1814 have always contended, and must always contend, that the property of Trinity Church is held in trust, for the inhabitants of the city of New-York in communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church. This points out the source of the resolutions. There- port of the Chui-ch stated its gifts made at other times and to Churches and to institutions situated in the country in various parts of the State. jYoiy, the witnesses examined in New- York, state that they have no objections to gifts to the country; yet hitherto they have always declared such objections, and if there be such a trust as they contend for, it necessarily follows that the 6 These cotemporaneous documents have been frequently referred to in controversies before the Legislature, respecting applications for the repeal of the act of 1814, made in 184G-47, to which as it appears in the testimony, the principal witnesses against Trinity Church in this matter were parties. This statement is confident- ly submitted as conclusive proof that down to the year 1814 no persons were ever admitted to vote at the elections of Trinity Church except they were members of the congregations of its churches; and there can be no controversy about the truth of the position, that since 1814 no such persons have ever been admit- ted or allowed to exercise that right. This appears abundantly from the testimony, both of Dr. Ber- rian and Mr. Verplanck. In 1813, Trinity Church made the application to the Legislature which resulted in the passage of the act of the following year. They asked that the Legislature would obviate and settle the ques- tions that might arise in consequence of incorporating other Episco- pal congregations in the city, and they asked it that strife and liti- gation might be prevented In 1814 the law was passed, declaring that none but members of the congregations of Trinity Church were corporators. This state of things remained undisturbed until 1846. Then and in 1847, applications were made for the repeal of the last mentioned law; in 1846 in the Senate and in 1847 in the Assembly. In both cases the applications were unsuccessful. In the last of these, the matter was argued by counsel of high standing on both sides, before the judiciary committee of the House, who unanimously decided against the repeal, and in a re- port of singular ability, recommended that the prayer of the petitioners ought not to be granted. Tliis recommendation was unanimously adopted by the Assembly. Thirty-three years had then elapsed since the passage of the law. Now ten years more have passed. The object of the act was accomplished, and during all that time peace and quietness prevailed in the episcopal church in New- York, except when the agitation of this question of repeal stirred the waters of controversy. Now the contest is renewed, but not as before. Then the 25ar- ties seeking the passage of the measure now sought, came for- W^ard openly, with an avowed object. Now no one appears as in- terested in any stage of these proceedings. There is no memorial. There is no proof of notice of an application for a repeal as tlie statute requires. Every step is the act of the Senate. 7 Let me trace these proceedings. It is necessary to exhibit the actors, tlieir motives and objects, and necessary to show the credit that is due to tlie testimony. The commencement of this pro- ceeding was the original resolutions of the Senate, passed on the 15th of April, 1855. There was no application or representation as the foundation of these resolutions. They were passed in the hurry of business, at the close of the session. I will notice shortly some of the matters asked for by them. Who in Albany could have known that Trinity Church had never built a fi'ee church 7 Who could have known that a return of the churches built with- in the live years next before the passage of the resolutions would show that Trinity chapel was built within that time at great cost ? Who in Albany could have known that to disclose what feeble churches had been aided in the same five years would, probably, exhibit a comparatively small amount expended for the benefit of such churches while Trinity chapel was building 1 Or who in that city could have told that the appropriations to institutions of ^ charity, benevolence and learning, made within the three years next preceding the passage of the resolutions, would just escape the important and meritorious gift in favor of Hobart Free Col- lege at Geneva, witli the condition that it should be called by that name and be forever free 1 These features show a knowledge and design of interested par- ties to select for the prejudice of Trinity Church the time within which and the objects to which, the return would show the least, and they are the obvious result of a laborious collection in New- York of rumors, and suspicions, and the complaints of disappointed applicants. Again, all the gifts required to be returned are those made to churches in the city of New- York. Why 1 Because the persons who are interested in and have been applicants for the repeal of the act of 1814 have always contended, and must always contend, that the property of Trinity Church is held in trust, for the inhabitants of the city of New-York in communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church. This points out the source of the resolutions. There- port of the Chiu-ch stated its gifts made at other times and to Churches and to institutions situated in the country in various parts of the State. JYow, the witnesses examined in New- York, state that they have no objections to gifts to the country; yet hitherto they have always declared such objections, and if there be such a trust as they contend for, it necessarily follows that the 8 gifts hitherto made to the country were all illegal, and if they could be admitted as corporators, under the construction which they advocate, such gifts to the country could never hereafter be made, and the much complained of mortgages, wherever they cover churches out of the city of New-York, must be foreclosed. From these considerations it is apparent that the resolutions of the Senate — the first step in these proceedings — emanated from interested parties in New- York. After the rej^ort of the Church was made to the Senate, it was, within a few minutes of the close of the session of 1856, without a complaint or memorial from any one, referred to this committee, with authority " to examine into the matters connected therewith during the recess." The committee came to New-York. It must be acknowledged that there were circumstances which misled the committee. The witnesses who presented themselves before them were gentle- men of great respectability in position ; and our own course may have tended further to mislead them. We thought they had no legal power, and being aware of this, they had the impression, doubtless, that we would not appear before them under any circumstances. In this, however, they were in error. For had the vestry understood the nature of the charges which it was intended to bring against them, they would have adopted the course they have now pursued. They relied upon a supposed state of things which it now appears did not exist. They supposed, and were authorized to suppose, that the investi- gation in contemplation was undertaken at the instance of the Senate alone, and they judged that the most respectful and proper course was for them to leave the committee to their own judg- ment, without interference or suggestion from the vestry, and to hold themselves in readiness, as they did, to furnish any informa- tion that might be desired by the committee. They supposed, also, that the committee would confine themselves to the matters of the report of the church, and they were confident that the statements in that report could not be materially controverted. There was, in truth, no contradiction of that report in any material point, ex- cepting as to the amount stated in the report to have been given for the benefit of St. George's Church in Beekman-street; and the re- port in this respect has been vindicated by the testimony of Dr. Berrian. They relied, also, upon the committee that they would take none but legal testimony. But in all these respects, as the 9 sequel shows, the vestry acted in error. The investigation was not at the instance of tlie Senate alone. The evidence was not regular, but was made up of hear-say testimony of the grossest kind, of rumors and suspicions, and of opinions of witnesses upon matters as to which their opinions were entirely inadmissible ; and the committee went out of the report, and under the general authority comprehended in the words, " to examine into the matters connected therewith" — words calculated to comprehend everything and give notice of nothing — charges of partiality, of the exercise of a control over the oj^inions of clergy and laity, through grants, of mismanagement and concealment in the con- duct of the internal affairs of the corporation, and a want of vitality and interest in the ministrations of the Church, were entertained. It is manifest the Church had no notice of sucli charges and could not anticipate them. Now, for the first time, appear the real actors in all this. They are the Rev. Thomas House Taylor, Rev. Henry Anthon, Rev. Jesse Pound, Luther Bradish, Robert B. Minturn, Tred- erick S. Winston, Stewart Brown, John D. Wolf, and Stephen Carahreling. These are now the most important witnesses. In 1846-47 they were open applicants for the repeal of the law, the repeal of which is now sought. Then they had counsel. Now counsel was equally necessary, for it was essential that the legal positions contended for should be presented to the committee. There could be no avowed counsel, because tliere was no avowed party. So an expedient must be fallen upon to remedy this defect. I can well imagine the conference at which the method of pro- ceeding was resolved upon, at which it became apparent that the legal positions must be presented in some form, and if not by one appearing as counsel then by a witness ; and I can imagine Mr. Cambreling as objecting to taking the part, both because he is too good a lawyer and because he was unwilling to appear in that position; and that Mr. Bradish volunteeied to act in that capacity the rather because it was the post of pre-eminence. The result is that controverted positions, disproved over and over again, passed upon after careful arguments by counsel far abler than Mr. Bradish, before the committee of the house of Assembly in 1847, and overruled by their decision then, are expected to derive new efl&cacy supported by an oath, when pre- sented at this day as the ground for the decision of the Senate. By these witnesses, injurious charges were brought out, and some rumors reaching us that led us to suppose that it might be 10 important tliat we should see the testimony thus elicited. We applied to the chairman of this committee ( I am speaking from the evidence) for a copy of the testimony, offering to pay the expense. It was refused, and we were told that it could not be allowed until after the testimony had been reported to the Senate. Then came the report to the Senate, and until after that had been presented, the vestry knew nothing of the testimony, nor of the grave charges that were supported by it. I have gone through this statement, Mr. Chairman, in order to show the concealment used by the parties instigating this move- ment, which I might almost call fraudulent, which has charac- terized these wliole proceedings. In fairness, they ought to have been commenced by a memorial stating the charges made and the action sought; instead of that, the purpose of the first applica- tion to the Senate was concealed ; the after reference was so made as entirely to cover its real object, and the investigation was so conducted and its results were so kept from us as to give, without any power on our part to prevent it, the advantage to the real but unavowed parties, of possessing the public mind completely with an opinion most prejudicial to the character and management of the vestry of the church ; by means of which it cannot be doubted it was hoped to procure the immediate pas- sage of an act repealing the law of 1814. The honorable Senator, [Mr. Noxon,] a member of this commit- tee, arrested this by procuring us an opportunity to be heard although after the report of this committee had been made. We thank him. We have availed ourselves of this opportunity for the justification of our reputations, and because we would not see the institution of which we are trustees deprived of its rights througli unfounded accusations against its management. But I ask the committee to enter upon the consideration of the testi- mony, bearing in mind that the principal witnesses are the real actors, are the getters-up of the testimony, and of the whole case by means of which they hope to accomplish the object they have in view. That they have testified directly for themselves, and have attempted by their own oaths to substantiate allegations through which they desire to succeed. Tlae first point of the evidence to which I would call your attention, is as to the assessed value of the real estate of Trinity Church. I understood tlie committee to intimate that tliey were satisfied that the reasons given by the vestry for the return of the 11 assessed valuations, as stated in their supplemental report, were sufficient. I will only then say that as the resolutions of the Senate required the vestry to report the " estimated value of each lot," and as they have reported the estimated value, according to the official estimate of sworn officers, and as, moreover, a new esti- mate of their own could not be made without differences of opi- nion of members of the vestry, of such a character as to make such estimate entirely unreliable ; and as further, the vestry expressly stated that the estimate they returned was that made by oworn assessors of the city, for the purposes of taxation, they are not justly chargeable either with a misrepresentation of the value of their property, or with a non-compliance, in this respect, with the requisitions of the Senate. If, however, it is deemed by this committee material to state the real value of the land of Trinity Church, whilst the vestry do not object to its true valuation being shown, they desire to see no exaggeration of the value. I must therefore call the attention of the committee to the testimony of Mr. Skidmore in connection with this subject. He points out clearly an error into which the committee have fallen. I may thus state it : The committee have set down the fee as really worth more than five times that amount, which would appear to be its value according to the assessor's estimates. Now as the in- terest of the tenants is the present interest, and they have until the termination of their leases the possession and enjoyment of the land, if you make the fee worth more, you should make the interest of those tenants worth more in the same proportion. Mr. Skidmore has stated such a proportion, and has shown the error of the committee to amount to the sum of §1,468,105. It is true that to get at the true value of the interest of the tenants based upon the new valuations presented by the committee, a more complicated and accurate process must be gone through with, but the result would not greatly vary, and my object is rather to point out that the committee have made an error to a very large amount, than accurately to state that amount. But we are charged with a designed omission of large items of our property. These are Church mortgages and the interest of the corpoi-ation in St. John's Park. First Church mortgages. I call the attention of the committee to the important fact which they seem to have overlooked, that mortgages of any kind were not called for by the resolutions of the Senate. The vestry, however, in their report at page 7, made a statement of their productive property, intending to give, and 12 expressly stating they gave the whole productive estate of Trinity Church. This was done, only — volunteered as it was — as an introduction to the subsequent passages in their report, which were intended to exhibit the revenue of the Church, as derived from the productive estate before mentioned, in order that the expenditui-es which must annually occur, might be contrasted with that revenue, showang a necessary deficiency of upwards of $27,000. Now, the Church mortgages were not included in that statement, because they were not productivci The ol)ject and purpose of such mortgages, is distinctly stated in the supple- mental report of tlie Church, in which it is said " they are in reality only held to secure to the permanent use of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, the Church buildings and property, upon the security of which this body have loaned money to other Church corporations for their aid and support." The report proceeds with a statement which it has been sup- posed is in conflict with the facts. It says, " The vestry believe that no measures have been taken to foreclose any of such mort- gages or to collect interest upon them, although the interest has been remitted upon one or more of such mortgages, when the lien was about expiring by lapse of time, upon the agreement being made to revive such lien." It has been supposed that other statements contained in the re- port of the vestry are in conflict with the last above quoted para- graph, and that the mortgages executed respectively by the Protestant Episcopal City Mission Society and the Yandevvater- street Church, have in fact been foreclosed by Trinty Church. Now the testimony of Mr. Livingston proves that the report by the Church is in this respect entirely correct. He sliows the following to, be the facts. Two churches belonging to the last mentioned society were each subject to a first mortgage in favor of tlie Howard Insurance Company, and to a second mortgage in favor of Trinity Church. The Howard Insurance Company fore- closed their mortgage, not Trinity Church, those held by her. This the vestry had nothing to do with, and could not prevent. But they did prevent the sacrifice of the Church property, by coming in at the sale and purcliasing the property for tlie Churches inter- ested. To effect this purpose it was necessary to bid $10,140.51 more than the amount necessary to pay the first mortgages to the Howard Insurance Company, and the expenses. This belonged to Trinity Church, and to enable the Churclies interested to take the title, it was necessary, the money not being paid, that Trinity 13 Churcli should give a receipt for it, as if it had been paid. She did so, and aided them further by paying towards the purchase money in cash $2,859.49 ; and then took mortgages, $6,500 on each Church, for $13,000, composed of the sum of $10,140.51, credited on the mortgages of the Mission Society, and $2,859.49 now paid in cash. Here then the Church mortgages were used for and served the purpose of protecting the Cliurch property covered by them. If these mortgages had not existed, more than $10,000 would have been lost to the Churches, Avhich through these in- struments was saved. In reference to the Vandewater-street church, Mr. Livingston also states that after Trinity Church had purchased St. George's Chm-ch in Beekman-street, the church of the Holy Evangelists sold, of their own accord, their church building in Vandewater- street, and after paying out of the purchase money the prior en- cumbrances, paid over the balance of $1200 to Trinity Church in part payment of her subsequent mortgage ; and this and a muth larger sum besides was expended by Trinity Church for the bene- fit of the Church of the Holy Evangelist after it had removed to St. George's in Beekman-street. Thus, in both instances, (of the Protestant Episcopal Mission Society and the Vandewater-street church.) the church mortgages were not foreclosed by Trinity Church, but yet served their pur- pose of saving in part at least the sums given by Trinity Church, which were immediately devoted by her again to the benefit of the mortgaged churches. Eeference has been made to the case of St. Peter's Churcli as connected with the subject of church mortgages, and an inference unfavorable to Trinity Church has been drawn from the statement of Mr. Beach. This transaction has been explained by Mr. Moore, a witness. Here, as he says. Trinity Church held a first mortgage, and refused on the application of certain creditors of St. Peter's to waive the priority of lien in favor of such creditors, except so far as she had already done by waiving her lien for interest as against the whole principal and interest, (not exceed- ing one year's interest,) due or to grow due on a subsequent mortgage; stating as a reason that the first mortgage held by Trinity Church was really held for the benefit of St. Peter's, and that her congregation ought, by their individual exertions, to re- lieve the church from debt. There was no such cold refusal here 14 as would seem to be implied by tlie latter clause of Mr. Beach's testimony. The object of the church was only to encourage and excite individual elfort for the relief of St. Peter's from her debt, and to take care that tlie original purpose of this church mort- gage should be answered by securing to the use of the Protestant Episcopal Church, the church buildings of St. Peter's, so far at least, as to the extent of the principal of the church mortgage. It is shown by the testimony that the interest on church mortg- ages has been remitted when the lien of the mortgages had ex- pired, or was about expiring by lapse of time, in two cases, that of St. Thomas' and Zion Church. In this respect, therefore, the report is proved to be true. It has also been proved by the testimony of several witnesses that the vestry do not regard these mortgages as productive prop- erty, and no interest is ever collected upon them; again conclu- sively establishing the statement made in the report of the Chui'ch. The same witnesses — and I do not wish to consume the time of the committee by referring to the testimony with which they are familiar — show tliat these mortgages are really held by Trinity Church for the benefit of the churches upon which they are a lien and for no other purpose; and every case of such mortgages which has been mentioned confirms their statement by exhibiting that they really did operate in those cases to the advantage of the churches. The purpose of requiring these mortgages is therefore suf- ficiently shown, and as to their effect upon the interest of the churches concerned, and indeed upon their independence, about which so much has been said, I may refer to the testimony of Bishop Potter, who says in regard to them : "These loans were absolute in reality. Nobody ever supposed that the interest or the principal would be called for by Trinity Church. They never have been in a single instance, although the cases have been very numerous, in which such mortgages have been given. When I consecrate a church, I always wish to know whether there be any debt. I never regard a mortgage given to Trinity Church in the light of a debt. I have never perceived, and do not be- lieve that such mortgages in any way affect the independence of ministers and laymen. It is very common indeed, to see the ministers and laymen of a Churcli subject to a mortgage, voting against measures favored by Trinity Church. In conventions I 15 doubt whether any one remembers or reflects whether mortgages exist in particular quarters or not. The effect of these mortgages has, I doubt not, been important in preventing the property of Churches from being sold and alienated from their sacred use; and this I have always understood was the object of Trinity Church in requiring them.'' And Bishop De Lancey states that the effect of taking such mortgages upon the interest and condition of Churches mortgaged, has been "favorable, by preventing Church edifices from being alienated from the holy objects for which they were erected, by encouraging individual members to sustain the Church thus secured to its object, and by being an obstacle, as a first mortgage against further mortgages of the Church for debt. I cannot say that I have seen any moral, spiritual, ecclesiastical or pecuniary evils result from such mortgages in my diocese." It must, therefore, be manifest that these mortgages have been required to serve a good object, and that such object has been attained. Now, I submit, that there is no other legal method possible to to be devised by which this object could be attained. Expe- rience shows that the power is in safe hands, and if it bo said that there is no legal obligation to confine these mortgages to their original purpose, there is yet a great public responsibility that must always be sufficient. The next liead of omission for which Trinity Church has been blamed, is of her interest in St. John's Park.* The deed under which this interest was derived is dated on the 22d of May, 1827. The main object of this deed was to make St. John's Park an open square for the use of the owners of adjoining lots. The provision looking to its being appropriated to any other pur- pose, had relation to a very remote contingency, — so remote and improbable, as that it coidd only have been suggested by the skill of an experienced conveyancer. When, therefore, the report says, and witnesses testify, that after nearly thirty years "it was not remembered" that the contingent interest of Trinity Church existed, they are to be believed. Neither can it be justly said that the value of this interest is $400,000. Mr. Skid- more, after verifying the statements of the supplemental report on this subject, testifes that the "whole number of lots interested •This matter is stated in the snpplemental report of the Church, page 65 of the testimony, 80 clearly as to be incapable of misapprehension. 16 in this park is I think sixty-four, of which Trinity Church owns seven, being about one-ninth of the whole. It was supposed on the part of some of the property owners, that they would be able to get from the United States some $GUO,000 or ^700,U00 for the property, but I do not know whether they actually had an offer for it or not; but even if sold at that price the pro-rata of Trinity Church would have been about $70,000. St. John's chapel, Parsonage and Sunday School stand on these seven lots." It is, therefore, evident that the value of the interest of Trinity Church, if stated at all cannot be more than between $70,000 and $80,000; tli*- utmost price talked of being $700,000, and the share of the Church being but one-ninth. The object of naming $400,000 is clearly stated, both in the supplemental report and in the testimony of General Dix, to have been to fix a sum as damages which would be sustained, through the injury to St. John's Chapel, and not as a valuation of the interest of Trinity Church, or with any expectation that any such sum could ever be realized. It is therefore submitted that the truth of the supplemental report on this subject has been perfectly verified by the testimony. The statement in the report of the Vestry relative to the amount expended for St. George's Church, in Beekman-strect, has been questioned by Dr. Tyng, examined in New- York. He says, " that to the best of his knowledge and belief Trinity Church never paid but $25,000 for St. George's Ckurch." Dr. Berrian, however, vindicates the report in his clear testimony on this sub- ject, in which he tells you that Trinity Church not only paid $25,000 in money, but released conditions, the releasing which was of great pecuniary value to St. George's Church, and also relieved the last named Church from obligations to pew and vault owners, which release and relief w'ere expressly valued between the parties at $25,000, and Trinity Church was then allowed credit to that amount on account of the price, $50,000, asked by St. George's Church for its church building in Beekman-street. Leaving now this matter of statement of property, I call the attention of the Committee to the frame work of the charges against Trinity Church, as contained in the testimony of Mr. Bradish. Promises and representations are stated to have been made by the Vestry of Trinity Church, as inducements for the passage hy the Legislature, of the law of 1814. This statement is made the foundation for every otlier charge. It is alleged that the Vestry have not kept their promises and representations, and 17 that certain consequences, first affecting lier internal condition, and second affecting other Churches, liave followed from this breacli. These consequences constitute the charges against the corparation ; and it is argued that as the promises are broken on the part of the Church, the act of 1814, the promise of the State, is no longer binding and ought to be repealed. Now, as to these alleged promises or representations, Dr. Au- tlion says that to calm the fears of the Legislature, the Vestry " promised that their funds should be applied to the building of Churches, from time to time, as the increase of population de- manded; the control of such chui'ches to be relinquished to inde- pendent vestries, etc., suitable endowTiients to be made;" and Mr. Bradish says, quoting from the pamphlet of Col. Troup, "judging from the past, it is morally certain that the future increase of the population of the city will strongly recommend to the cor- poration of Trinity Church the policy of dividing its corporators and setting them off in separate Churches, with suitable endow- ments; and to enable the Vestry to do this in a mode free from all legal duubts, and with the assent of a majority of the corpora- tors to be set off", is a fifth object of the bill." " Again," quoting from the same pamphlet, " the bill when passed into a law would have the happy consequence of enabling the Vestry of Trinity Church from time to time as society shall advance, to separate Churches with the consent of their congregations, and to endow them with competent estates. No power can be more congenial than this to the spirit of our republican systems." It is to be observed in relation to this pretence, first, that there was no promise here of Trinity Chui-ch by which she bound herself to any particular course of action; that in the pamphlet quoted. Col. Troop gave only his individual opinion, without having, or pretending to have any authority from the Church, or to speak in its name. He wrote this pamphlet, as he expressly states, at the X'equest of the council of revision, made to him per- sonally in order to elicit his individual opinion. Second : It is not pretended that there was any misrepresenta- tion of fact or fraud, and the language of Col. Troup clearly sliows that at most, he stated a policy which he thought would probably be carried out. Now, if any reliance had been placed upon ex- pectations which are now supposed to have been excited by what Col. Troup wrote, why was not a proviso inserted in the act to cover the easel And even supposing that Col. Troup, acting as 2 18 agent or counsel for the corporation, had stated previous to the passage of the act what was the course of the management of their aifars, which Trinity Church intended to pursue after the pas- sage of the act, it is a new doctrine, I submit, to contend that this can be grafted, with all the force of a proviso, upon a law passed after such representations were made. Third — But there is not a word of truth in the position that any promises were made. One object of the law of 1814 was to enable Trinity Church to separate any of its chapels, and to endow them with competent estates. I read now from the fifth section of that law : " And be it further enacted, that when and as often as it shall seem expe- dient to the said Rector, Church wardens and vestrymen of Trinity Church in the city of New-York, to divide the congrega- tion or corporators belonging to the said corporation, it shall he lawful for them so to do, by setting apart as a separate Church, any of the Churches or chapels that may belong to, and form a part of the said corporation; provided the same be done with the assent of a majority of the persons entitled to vote as aforesaid, who shall belong to such Church or chapel intended to be set apart," etc. Now, this section manifestly gives a jpower to the vestry to do what the section authorizes, and leaves it entirely to their discre- tion to exercise it or not. Look then, at the passages quoted from Col. Troup's pamphlet in connection with the provisions of the section just quoted. He says, " it is morally certain that the future increase of the popu- lation of the city will strongly recommend to the corporation of Trinity Church, the policy of dividing its corporation," etc.; and " to enable the vestry to do this in a mode free from all legal doubts, etc., is a fifth object of the bill." That is to say, the power ought to be given, and it is his opinion that it will be exer- cised. And in the same way, in the other paragraph quoted by Mr Bradish, Col. Troup says that " the bill when passed into a law would have the happy consequence of enabling the vestry of Trinity Church, from time to time, as society shall advance, to separate Churches with the consent of their congregations, and to ^'endow them with competent estates. No power can be more con- genial than this to the spirit of our republican system." 19 It is manifest, therefore, that Col. Troup was only urging that the power ought to be given in order that the Church might, if it saw fit, exercise it, and he made no promise in any form, that they would exercise it. Nor does it appear that any congregation of Trinity Church has applied to be set olf. The paragraphs which I have quoted contain all the represen- tations or promises, which are alleged to have been or were made by Trinity Church or any one for it. Is there any thing here, even holding out the expectation in any form, that Trinity Church would endow with land, Churches not forming part of her own corporation 1 There is not a word that can bear any such con- struction, and yet Dr. Anthon tells us, in the paragraph before quoted from his testimony, " That the vestry promised that their funds should be applied to the building of Churches from time to time, as the increase of population demanded ; the control of such Churches to be relinquished to independent vestries, etc., suitable endowments to be made" ; and Mr. Bradish says : " that a return to the policy and practice of endowments in landed estates, as contemplated in the act of 1814, and was promised as an inducement to the passage of that act, can alone give a real and healthy development of Church growth and parochial inde- pendence.'' These statements are in direct conflict with the fact, for Col. Troup expressed no opinion, and much less made any promise, as to the probable or intended course of the vestry in relation to the endowment of churches not her own ; and this is an instance of the recklessness with which these witnesses have given their testimony. And it is the more important to point out their inaccuracies in this respect, as the propositions which they have thus sworn to, make the whole flimsey basis upon which the case (theirs if any body's) rests. Again, to point out another instance showing the entire unre- liability of the testimony of Mr. Bradish, I call the attention of the committee to the fact that the act of 1814 had passed both houses on the 2d of April 1813, [see p. 95 of Mr. Bradish's testimony in the first report of the committee] and the pamphlet of Col. Troup is dated on the 6th of September, 1813, more than six months after the act had passed both houses. Yet Mr. Bradish says [p. 101 of first report of this committee,] that as an inducement to the passage of the act of 1814 it was urged "as morally certain that the future increase of the population of the 20 city would strongly recommend to the corporation of Trinity Church the policy of dividing its corporators, and setting them off' in separate churches with suitable endowments, and to enable the vestry to do this in a mode, free from all legal doubts, was an object of the bill. The hill was drawn and passed accord- ingly.^^ Yet the truth is that the bill was drawn and j^assedboth houses six months before Col. Troup said any thing respecting it in the paragraph alluded to, and from which Mr. Bradish derives his authority. Mr. Bradish says "that the action of. the vestry previous and subsequent to the passage of the act of 1814 gives peculiar signi- ficance to those paragraphs in Col. Troup's pamphlet." Under this beginning it is sought to be made out that the church has not given her lands to other churches, and from the policy of giving money certain consequences have flowed. These consequences constitute the charges against the vestry ; and these divide themselves into such as affect the church at large, and such as affect the internal concerns of Trinity Church. Of those that relate to the church at large I know propose to speak. As to gifts by money grants, secured by mortgage or otherwise, or by stipends, Mr. Bradish says that, " it is believed that they interfere with" — Dr. Anthon, "that they seriously impair" — and Dr. Taylor that " they are fatal to the independence of the parishes thus aided." Dr. Taylor, moreover, speaks of the " overwhelming influence" exerted by these means ; and to sup- port his assertion he retails a hear say story of what a clergyman told him, that a churchwarden had told him, that the comptroller of Trinity Church had told the churchwarden, without name or date ! This is the testimony against us. Does the Church really exercise any such influence, or control the opinions of clergymen or laymen of Churches which she aids, or has aided in any form 1 I refer to the testimony for a complete answer to this question. Mr. Skidmore, who has been a member of the vestry for ten years, and of the standing commitee for six to eight years, when asked if the vestry had in any way endeavored to control the free opinions or acts of vestries or ministers, who had received or were seeking aid for their Churches, answered "not to his knowledge." Dr. Haight when asked as to the effect of gifts of money in any of the forms mentioned, upon the pecuniary independence or free- 21 dom of sppeoh or action of the clergymen and vestries of Churches aided, answered as follows : " I do not think that the aid bestowed in any of the forms mentioned has had the slightest etfect upon the independence of speech, or freedom of action of the clergymen and laity of the parishes aided. I have had some opportunity of noticing the course pursued by clergy and laity in our diocesan conventions, having been for twenty years assistant secretary and secretary of the same, during tlie greater part of which time there prevailed great diversities of opinion. In looking over the list of parishes whose Churches have been mortgaged to Trinity Church, I find eight, the clergy and lay delegates of which, for a series of years, in all leading questions, spoke and voted differently from the Rector and the lay delegates of Trinity. Two of these are mortgaged for $25,000 each, two for $20,000, one for $5,000. The other three for smaller sums. So also in regard to the Churches which have received grants of land and money, or annual sti- pends, I find nearly thirty which have taken the same inde- pendent course in convention, without regard to the course of Trinity. My opinion of the clergy and laity of the diocese of New- York is such that I do not think it would be practicable for any corporation to buy their opinions or their votes. Of the Churches last referred to, six received gifts of land and money, twelve gifts of money alone, and two received gifts of land and a stipend; three received gifts of land alone, six received stipends alone. My knowledge of the votes of these clergy and lay delegates of the several Parishes, was derived from the fact, that for a long series of years it became my duty at every convention to call the ayes and noes on very many questions.'' Bishop Potter also speaks to the same point, when asked a similar question, and says : " I do not see why the assistance spoken of in the question, should be injurious to the parishes in the respect mentioned in the question, nor do I believe that it has been ; but on the con- trary beneficial. It has encouraged parishes to exertion, in many instances, when otherwise they would have been unable to maintain themselves. The feeling often has been, I think, that the parishes receiving such aid have laid themselves under a spe- cial obligation to exert themselves. If it was an absolute grant with a mortgage, it did not differ essentially from any other gift, 22 except the obligation just spoken of was incurred ; if it was an annual stipend it was like the stipends granted by the Missionary committee of the diocese, and those annual stipends have been provided for by the collective wisdom of the Church in the dio- cese, as a part of her organized system, which must imply an opinion of the whole Church in the diocese that that mode of rendering assistance is a useful mode. I have known many cases where a Church being able to establish itself in a given commu- nity, or being able to maintain itself, seemed to depend upon the assistance it received from Trinity Church.'' I can refer also, in connection with this point to the strong and satisfactory statement of Gen. Dix. It seems, therefore, that Trinity Church neither makes its gifts with the view of exercising any influence over the churches aided, nor does, nor can exercise any control by such means. We are next told that Trinity Church is influenced by parti- zan considerations in making her gifts to other churches. The witnesses who were called to prove this were the Rev. Jesse Pound, the Rev. Dr. Anthon and Mr. Wolf. The testimony on this subject, produced on the part of the church can leave no doubt of the entire falsity of this charge, commencing with the solemn denial of the venerable Dr. Ber- rian, the rector, " as a christian man and a christian minister, I declare that I have never heard one [charge] which appears to be more unfounded and unjust. I have for twenty-eight years, as assistant rector and rector, presided at the meetings of the vestry, and I have never heard a syllable from any member of that body, in any application before them, which would warrant the charge, that it would be determined on partizan grounds. What influence the difference of opinions may exert on individual minds, it is impossible to tell, but I know very well that the question never comes up, nor is ever alluded to in the vestry itself." Mr. Skidmore, of the standing committee, gives a similar an- swer, and adds; "if I thought that any application, in all other respects meritorious should be rejected on the grounds of its being low chiu-ch, I should resign my place as a member of the stand- ing committee. 33 Mr. Moore, who was on the standing committee, and was a member of the vestry for eighteen years, confirms this, and adds that every case is discussed and decided upon its merits. Gen- eral John A. Dix, the Hon. Gulian C. Verplanck and Mr. John R. Livingston, none of whom are members of the standing com- mittee, make the same statement. But though these witnesses have proved, under the solemnity of an oath, that all grants are made by the vestry upon the mer- its of each case, without any regard to the party character of the church applying for assistance; particular cases of chm-ch applications have been relied upon to show that the action of the vestry indicates that they are in reality influenced by party con- siderations. I will, therefore, refer to the cases mentioned. St. Jude's. It is established by the testimony, and I need not refer to it more particularly, that there were Churches in the immediate neighborhood, one especially, long and well estab- lished, so near as to show that this Church was unnecessary. The Rev. Mr. Pound speaks of this and also states that after the ap- plication of St. Jude's to Trinity was made, the Rector became a Presbyterian. These facts taken in connection with the state of the finances of Trinity Church, which rendered it impossible for it to grant more than a few of the church applications pending before it, are sufficient to show that no inference can be drawn that Trinity Church fefused this application on party grounds. St. Matthew's. This Church, at the time ofits application was in a low condition, which the Rector of Trinity then knew, as he tells you. Its minister testified before this Committee that it had then " died out." The Vestry of Trinity Church were perempto- rily required, to pay its debt, stated to amount to .$4,800, $1,200 a year for the support of the Church, and whatever might be ne- cessary for repairs. This was an expenditure, which, under the circumstances of the case, it was neither practicable nor useful for the Vestry to undertake; and independently of financial con- siderations, and the doubt whether aid if rendered would revive this sinking Church, the Committee may perceive from the guarded answers of Bishop Potter and Dr. Berrian, that there were circumstances of a different kind which showed that it would not have been wise to yield to. the application. Ot those 24 circumstances it would not become me, any more than it would them, to speak. Moreover, the church property was not sacri ficed, but reverted, as Mr. Pound tells you, to the donor, Bishop Eastburn. St. Luke's. Much has been said of the large expenditures and donations made for this Church. Mr. Verplanck has detailed the peculiar circumstances attending this case. The church is situ- ated in the midst of the leased lots of Trinity Church, with her tenants surrounding it. Its congregation is poor, and utterly una- ble to support it. The Vestry have always regarded it their duty to maintain this Church, in so far as its own people might be una- ble to do so. Their ability has grown less year by year, owing to the removal of the wealthier classes to more desirable parts of the city; and the necessary dependence of St. Luke's upon Trinity for aid has, therefore, yearly increased, and probably will still further increase. St. Timothy's : The application on behalf of this Church re- quired a large expenditure, or the incurring obligations to a large amount. It was in reality, and was felt to be, a noble pro- position on the part of the Rev. Mr. Howland. It was a subject of repeated discussions both in the Vestry and in the Standing Committee. It was twice reported upon and twice referred, and finally the report of the Standing Committee o» this subject was laid upon the table, and has not yet been acted upon. If in any case the Vestry could be inlluenced by partiality it would have been in this. Mr. Howland is a high churchman ; and not on that account, but on account of the generous, self-sacrificing cha- rity which marked his proposal, and of great personal regard for its author, every Vestryman was moved, and none more strongly than myself, to co-operate with him in his plans. But the condition of the affairs of Trinity Church, an insuperable obstacle, has hitherto prevented compliance. The action of the Vestry upon this application, brought here as an accusation against us, ought to be viewed as strong evidence of the impar- tiality of the Vestry. In answer to all that I have put forward to justify the vestry against this charge of partiality, it may be said that the acts of 25 that body prove the accusation because the amount of gifts to low Churches does not bear a due proportion to the amount given to high Churches. But this is a question of motive. By what motive were the vestry actuated? And it is impossible with jus- tice to discredit the solemn declarations of the gentlemen con- cerned when they say that they were influenced only by a consideration of the merits of each case. If there were any dis- proportion, it must be regarded as only accidental, because it cannot with certainty be reasoned that it was designed. For instance, a case might be supposed, when at the same time there wer3 ten applications before the vestry, five of one class of Chui'ch opinions, and five of another. Five, all of one class might be granted on their merits solely, and the other five rejected solely on the same ground. The conclusion therefore is not sound that the vestry must have been influenced by partizan feelings, because (as Dr. Anthon says,) from 1835 to 1847 they granted more in proportion to high churchmen than to low churchmen. Indeed, if a long instead of a short period of time be taken for a comparison of the gifts made to Churches, of the class called high Chureli, with those made to Churches of low Church opinions, no such disparity as has been relied npon would ap- pear, for Dr. Berriau says : "It would be exceedingly difficult to make a comparison from actual facts, but I think I may ven- ture to say very safely, that if the aggregate amount of the favors and benefits received from Trinity by those Churches Avhose rectors and vestries are supposed not to sympathize with her in her views, were set against the amount received by those whose rectors and vestries cordially do, that the groundless charge of undue partiality would be still more apparent. In this compara- tive estimate, however, must be included what the coporation has done for St. Mark's Church, Grace Church and St. Georges, whose rectors, if we may judge from their evidence in the pre- sent inquiry, appear to have had no great good will towards Trinity Church; though with more reason for kind feelings and grateful recollections than all others." The next charge is that stipends have been reduced. Dr. Tyng says that he has heard of no instances where they have not been reduced, and he has heard of several where they have. This is mere hearsay ; but it is disproved. 26 Mr. Skidmore, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Livingston, have all testi- fied on this point, and they say tliat the aggregate amount of stipends has, as they believe, not been reduced ; that the stipends have indeed been reduced and sometimes wholly taken away from those churches that could afford to do without them or with a less amount : the rule being to give these allowances, for the sup- port of the clergymen, to the poor churches and take them away from the rich, and to give according to the needs of each church. The comparative statement contained in the testimony of Gen. Dix confirms these statements, and shows that for only two of the ten years last past, were these sti|3ends larger than they are now in their aggregate amount. Complaint is made of the frequency and facility of refusal, and of ungracious and wearisome reluctance in granting, to increase the sense of obligation. This is entirely untrue and arises only from an exaggerated notion of the means of the corporation, Mr. Skidmore tells you that there are numerous and continued applications, so that never can more than one in ten be granted. His testimony has been misrepresented in the public prints, and therefore I read his answer on this subject. He was asked, is it true that aid was given to churches reluctantly and offensively? and replied, " Reluctantly only when our sympathies were running away with our better judgment ; never offensively, I should hope. I would like to say in addition that applications were very numerous and many of a highly meritorious character, and which we were obliged most reluctantly to refuse, and which enlisted our strongest spmpathies. When we had the means at our disposal, we took great pleasure in granting the applications." Mr. Moore makes substantially the same statement. I submit that the truth is apparent from the whole testimony that in making grants to other churches, the vestry have per- formed its duty with a sincere desire and effort to do the most good in its power, and in the right quarters ; and that tliis charge results from suspicion merely, and from the discontent that might be expected to be exerted by the necessary refusal of a large number of applications, and by unavoidable delays in granting others. I have now finished my remarks upon the charges against the vestry of mismanagement affecting the Church af large. 27 We are next told that the altered policy, (altered since 1814,) of giving money rather than land, has produced disastrous results on the parish itself. Some of the charges under this head related to the administration of its estate and the management of its internal affairs by the vestry. And first, as to the alleged unsuccessful attempt to see a list of the corporators. There was, indeed, one such instance, and one only — that of Bishop Wainright. Dr. Higbee testifies that there was but one application, and that made by Bishop Wain- right, both on behalf of himself and Dr. Higbee, and it certainly appears that Dr. Berrian, owing to his desire not to interfere with the duties of the officer having the custody of the list did not show it when requested so to do ; and that its inspection was also refused, not by the Comptroller, but by a subordinate clerk in the Comptroller's office. It is, however, sufficient to prevent any imputation against the vestry, growing out of this occurrence, to refer to the testimony of j)r. Berrian, Mr. Skidmore and Mr. Moore, by which it is clearly proved that there was never any rule or order of the vestry, at any time, justifying such a refusal; that it was done entirely without authority; and that as sbon as it was brought to the attention of the vestry they rebuked the action unanimously, by declaring that opportunity to make the inspection should be afforded to Bishop Wainright, and that he should be allowed to take such copies or extracts as he might think proper. A copy of the list was afterwards sent to him. It is also proved by the same witnesses, or some of them, that the books containing the names of the corporators are always open to inspection, and at every election are taken to the place where the election is held. It appears, moreover, from the testimony, both of Dr. Berrian and Dr. Haight, that every care is taken to add the names of new corporators. The vestry have also been censured because it appears from the testimony of Mr. Wolf, (the only witness on this subject against the vestry,) that some of the corporators being pew- holders are dead, and some have removed from the city. The supplemental report of the Church states, that the lists of corpo- rators therein given were believed to be accurate. Dr. Haight 28 has explained that it is difficult even fur the officiating clergy- man to ascertain whether pew-holders have died or have left the city, and as Mr. Wolf merely says that there are some names of deceased persons and of persons residing out of the city, it is very likely that the error is small in amount, and it is certain that no want of good faith can be justly charged upon the vestry in this matter. The mistake might readily occur, notwithstand- ing that reasonable care was exercised. The next complaint is of the letting of pews in Trinity Chapel, that these were so let that the lessees of the pews could not be corporators by virtue of their being pew owners. Such an ar- rangement was certainly made by agreement between the lessees of the pews and Trinity Church. The circumstances which in- duced this arrangement have been very clearly explained by Mr. Skidraore. They were as follows : No person can become a cor- porator of Trinity Church as a pew holder without the consent of the vestry, because no person can hire a pew without their consent. And ordinarily these hirings take place by private ar- rangement between the vestry or their agent and each individual applying for a pew; thus affording an opportunity to ascertain the character of each applicant. But in the case of Trinity Chapel the pews were leased at auction, and as any person might bid, it was impossible to make any discrimination as to persons who should be allowed to take pews. And considering the impor- tance of the interests involved, and the facility afforded by an auction sale for combinations, and for the introduction of improp- er persons who might be even of a ditferent religious denomina- tion, it seems to have been both natural and proper that some measures should have been adopted to guard against the evils which might otherwise have resulted. For these reasons the ar- rangement which is censured was entered into. It was but tem- porary, by the letter of the agreement to extend for not more than two years. No one was injured by it, nor deprived of any right tliat he could have possessed as a pew holder had his lease contained no such provisions; for, as testified by Mr. Skidmore, none of the pew holders in Trinity Chapel would have been en- titled to vote at the next Easter election after their hiring, for the reason that they had not then been members of the congre- gation for one year. And when it had been ascertained that the apprehended danger had passed, before the first term of letting the pews had expired, the arrangement complained of was vaca- 29 ted, and the lettings of the pews were made in such form that the pew holders had a right to vote. Mr. Clayton is mistaken when he supposes that he is not a corporator as a pew holder of Trinity Chapel. On the very day on which he testified he was a corporator, being then a pew holder and having been a member of the congregation for one year. Another charge, to the prejudice of the Church, was, that the vestry had required that all persons desiring to vote should give written notice of such desire to the Rector. Mr. Wolf tells us this, but he must have been under a misapprehension, which is not improbable, as he speaks of what occurred in the vestry while he was a member of it, which he ceased to be ten years before he testified. On the other hand, Dr. Berrian, who as Rector of the church, must have known of such a regulation, if any had existed, testifies that he does not know of any such requisition. The next complaint is that " there is so little interest in the vestry elections that, in eight out of the past ten years, an ave- rage of hardly one in ten of the corporators cared to appear 3 and on one occasion only twenty-three persons voted for twenty-two wardens and vestrymen." Any one who knows anything about the elections of chiu-ch corporators must be perfectly aware that this is a very common state of things and exists in all parishes. Bishop Potter and Dr. Haight have proved this very clearly. The latter says : " That at the elections for churchwardens and vestrymen of anotiier church in New-York, (of which he was the rector for ten years,) of which there were from 100 to 150 cor- porators, although he presided at all, he never saw more than four or five voters at any election, except on one occasion of great excitement when there were thirty." And Bishop Potter speaks of the practice at St. Peter's church, Albany, of which he was rector for 22 years, where with 100 or 125 corporators, there were at the Easter elections on an average only from six to ten persons present. And both these witnesses say that this is the ordinary condition of things throughout the diocese, and is generally a favorable indication as showing that the corpo- rators are satisfied with the administration of the affairs of the parish. 30 We are next told tliat the " apathy " which is supposed to be indicated by the fact that few voters attend the elections, ex- tends to the vestry itself, and it is said that every thing is left to the standing committee of the vestry, and no one else knows anything about the affairs of the Church. There can be no doubt left in the minds of the committee on this subject. The Rector, Mr. Skidmore, and other members of the vestry, have shown the course of business. The standing committee have power only to lease lots; all other matters which they take into consideration are first brought up in the vestry and referred to the committee. At every meeting of the vestry, as part of the order of business, full minutes of the standing committee, containing in detail all their actions, are read; their recommendations are then passed upon in that body after being freely discussed, and in many cases are overruled. This committee have had the most satisfactory evidence that members of the vestry, not on tlie standing committee, do know something of the affairs of the Church. Three gentlemen, not of that committee — John A. Dix, Gulian C. Verplanck, and John R. Livingston — have been examined. It must have struck this committee that these witnesses exhibited not only great and ac- curate knowledge of the business of the corporation, but a warm and active interest in the performance of their duties. And if any memberof the vestry lacked a suflQ.cient knowledge of its concerns, it must have been through his own fault; he had the same oppor- tunities for information as others. It has been proved that access to books and other means of knowledge, is open to all vestrymen, that an account, showing the receipts and expenditures and condition of the corporation, is made by the Comptroller annually and carefully audited by a committee appointed for that purpose, who have every facility afforded to them for testing the accounts, which are afterwards subject to the inspection and examination of all the members of the body. When I observed the testimony of Mr. Curtiss, a member of the Vestry, who is represented to have said in his testimony that the auditing committee have access to all the books referred to in the annual report, and such only, I knew that he could never have meant to be understood that ac- 31 cess to any books was refused him ; and the idea that it could have been refused, is in conflict with all the other testimony. An inefiectual attempt to procure the attendance of Mr. Cm-tiss before the committee was made, but he excused himself on the ground of business engagements ; and in the absence of any power in this committee to compel his attendance, we were un- able to offer an explanation until the receipt of his note, excusing his non-attendance. This has been presented to and filed by the committee. It will be found appended to the testimony. From this it appears that he did not mean to be understood that he was refused anything, but that the Auditing Committee had ac- cess to all sources of information to which they wished to resort. But Mr. Bradish compares the old policy with the new, and tells us we should make independent Parishes, like St. George's, Grace and St. Mark's, (all built and endowed with land by Trinity), give them land enough to make them independent, and all the dreadful evils he thinks he sees would not exist. Let me make a contrast between the policy of amply endowing Churches with land, prevailing before the year 1814, and the policy of making gifts in money, prevailing since that time. Prior to 1814, there were grants of 318 lots, by means of which were endowed three charitable and educational institutions — Col- umbia College, Trinity School, and the Society for promoting religion and learning ; three amply endowed Churches — St. Mark's, Grace, and St. George's ; and twelve other Churches to which were given lots of land in much smaller proportion than to the three Churches last named, — thus making eighteen Churches and institutions benefited by the gift of 318 lots. One thousand and fifty-nine lots have been sold by Trinity Church, and out of the proceeds derived from the sale, she has given away for the benefit of other churches and institutions $1,287,392.75. Suppose these lots had been given for endow- ments — if these were as liberal as those made before 1814, the 1059 lots would have served to endow, at the most, forty-four churches and institutions, and indeed it may be doubted whether they would have sufficed for that purpose; for the three churches above mentioned to have been amply endowed, were not only given land, but were built by Trinity Chui-ch, and the twelve other 32 churches were only assisted, by the lots granted, to a very limited extent. If, on the other hand, lots to the value of $50,000, a small allowance for an endowment, had been given to so many churches as the last mentioned sura would have sufficed for the endowment of, on Mr. Bradish's principle, not more than twenty- five churches could have been made independent through these 1059 lots. But what has Trinity Church accomplished by the sale of these lots, and by granting to other churches and institutions the moneys received from the sale? By this policy deemed so un- wise, St. George's, Grace and St. Mark's Churches have been built; more than two hundred other churches have been aided, upwards of one hundred and fifty of them in the country; Hobart Free College, at Geneva, has received an endowment of $3,000 a year, on the condition that it shall be free to all; the Theological Seminary and Missionary Boards have been assisted; an Episcopal residence has been purchased; infirm clergymen and families of deceased clergymen have received annuities and other assistance : and these are only some of the results of the change of policy which has been complained of. The object of this change of policy is manifest. It was to distribute the fund to be derived from the gradual disposition of the real estate amongst many churches and institutions, doing for each only what it could not do for itself, and lodging to the probable beneficial results in each case, rather than to make a few favorites rich and independent; to encourage individual effort by timely and judicious aid in every quarter, in city and country. If the other policy had been followed, the property would have been distributed long ago without provision for the future, and chui-ches coming into existence afterwards could have had no help. Take then these facts : Sales of the X'eal estate have been made from time to time, so that now only one-third of the original estate remains — large annual deficiencies during the last ten years have been occasioned solely by the gifts of the Church — there is pressing need for larger expenditures in her own parish, and the question is answered, " do you think that Trinity Church has done her utmost to make the capital of that corpo- ration available for the founding, or support, or promotion of religious, charitable, or educational institutions, or purposes 1 33 This question is extracted from the report ot the Church. How did it there occur? It occurred in this way. The report showed how Trinity Church had been in the habit of spending her capital year by year for the purpose of assisting by gifts of lots or by proceeds of sale, as opportunity offered, other Churches in the city of New-York and in various parts of the State, and to found and aid by the same means, institutions of learning or charity, or to contribute to the maintenance and sup- port of the organization of the Church in this State — thus reducing her estate to one-third its original extent ; and that she had, moreover, incurred a large debt, mainly in order to meet the pressing needs of other Churches and institutions, which must be provided for out of the proceeds of sales. Then she claimed that this statement would show that her vestry had done their utmost to make the capital of the property of this corporation available for the purposes mentioned in the above quoted ques- tion. And yet this question was asked over and over again, of the witnesses examined in New-York. What knowledge of facts had they to enable them to answer it understandingly 1 It does not appear that they had any. They were not even examined as to the facts that might have been within their knowledge. Of what value is such testimony 1 And even if they were acquainted with the facts necessary to form a judgment, the testimony would not have been admissible becauss they were not called as experts, and it was for the committee, and the committee alone to come to the conclusion on the facts presented to them. None of the opinions of the witnesses, therefore, on this subject deserve the least consideration. The truth is, that there is a class of persons in the city of New- York who think and claim that all the property of Trinity Church belongs not to that corporation, but to all persons tliere residing in communion with the Protestant Episcopal Church, and who entertain grossly exaggerated notions of the value of that property; we may tell these gentlemen over and over again, in an- swer to their applications that her debt is enormous, and that it is impossible to meet the demands that are made upon her; but it is of no avail. And if you were to propose to all of them the question to which I have objected, you would get from all the 3 34 same answer which was elicited from so many witnesses in New- York. They would speak from their prejudices ; and this is the key to the correct appreciation of the whole evidence against the Church. And let me in this connection call the attention of the com- mittee to the witnesses that are supposed to substantiate the charges against the vestry. Three of them are assistant ministei-s of Trinity Church who have come to Albany to explain their testimony and have vindicated the Church; two are vestrymen who spoke of matters since explained ; eleven others testified, merely, as to the values of lots; Clayton as to the lettings of pews in Trinity chapel; Wiley and Webb as to immaterial mat- ters and Dr. Muhlenburg, whose m-otives no man would impeach, testified as he himself says, on information merely, so far as con- cerns any facts in dispute, and certainly under an entire misap- prehension of the ability of Trinity Church. Leaving out those I have just named, all the other witnesses are of two classes and of two classes only. Tliey are clergymen who have applied on behalf of their Churches to Trinity Church for aid and have been unsuccessful in their applications; or they are parties to this con- troversy, whom it suits now to remain concealed, but who were engaged in the same contest in 184C-47, as appears in evidence; and who it may be seen by the public prints are at this moment the most active in the same attempt which was made in those years, with the exception of Dr. Tyng, who, not then in New-York, was not on the foi-mer occasions a party, but is now among the most vio- lent. They sought, under cover of the clamor they intended to raise, and the popular prejudice they hoped to excite, to procure on the instant the repeal of the act of 1814. Actuated, then, by the strongest interest, and, if there is any force in my comments upon the course of these proceedings, attached with all the blame and odium that ought to fall upon the authoi-s of the present at- tack, they came before the committee to testify to suspicions, ru- mors and hear-say, attributing unworthy motives to gentlemen, if not so high in position, at least as respectable as themselves. That they are gentlemen of respectability and character, I admit, but their positions cannot justify disreputable conduct, though prompted by party prejudice and narrow, distorted views. Several of the gentlemen whose names I have here written and have read to the committee as really the actors, are men of large estates, and I undertake to say that three of them are worth 35 together half the value of the property of Trinity Church ; and when they come and tell us — as Mr. Minturn has done — (himself noted for his liberal charities) that because Trinity will not give, others refuse, it is no justification of the charges they make. They complain that we decline to do what we have not the power to accomplish, and because we cannot respond to their demands they withhold their own charities. And who amongst the clergy complain at our want of care for the spread of the Church ? It is remarkable that they are the Rectors of those churches for whom Trinity Church has done the most — of St. Marks, St. George's, and Grace ! Churches made independent and rich by her gifts. Next it is said — most monstrous slander of all — that Trinity Church has totally neglected the wards of the city inhabited by the working classes, and it is intimated that the " general torpor'' extends to the ministrations of the parish. Gentlemen, if there is any thing proved during this examina- tion of a satisfactory character, the evidence on this point is most conclusive. Every other Episcopal Church formerly situated in the lower part of the city is gone. St. George's left Beekman- street, and to preserve her church edifice to the service of God, Trinity was obliged to pay her $50,000. Grace went also, and they both abandoned, to the care of Trinity Church, the districts which they left. These churches were in a part of the city which is now occupied by the poor or by individuals of very moderate means, and the places they left we now occupy alone ; and having thus themselves abandoned them they now come and complain of us that we are doing nothing for the poor ! But the Churches of Trinity remain. She has not sold them. Trinity Church, the cost of which has been made so prominent, by its architectural merit and beauty, invites and attracts the poor to the worship of their Creator. St. Paul's and St. John's are maintained. Every arrangement is made to encourage the facile approach of the poor. Substantially these churches are free to them, there are so few paying pews in Trinity and St. PauFs, that the pew rents in the former do not much exceed $150, and in the latter $260. In each of her churches Trinity maintains two clergymen, who, with lay assistants, are continually visiting the poor, to ascertain their wants, spiritual and temporal — baptising them, marrying them, burying them, serving them from the cradle to the grave ; offering them advice and comfort and consolation in their distress, and giving them food and clothing. And all this is done under 36 a well organized system. Nor is this all. The emigrant when he lands at Castle Garden is visited by a clergyman of the church, and when sick at the hospital at Ward's Island, is there also under the care of a clerical agent of Trinity Church. We are amongst the poor, the friends of the poor. Gentlemen, this is no idle tale. It is written here in this volume of testimony under oath. They presume to taunt us tliat the parishioners of Trinity Church do not give in charity ; they, wealthy members of wealthy congregations, living with the rich, tell us that our poor congregations do not give as much as they. I venture to say that our congregations have given as much according to their ability. But, why gentlemen are we here ] We have no interest in this matter, — we stand here not in our individual capacities; we have nothing to gain, nothing to lose, by the repeal of the act of 1814. But we represent the corporators of this Church, between whom and the State there is a solemn contract of charter. Who are these corporators 1 The poor men I have already alluded to in the lower part of the city; they are corpo- rators by receiving from the hand of the clergy of the Church the holy communion. They are to be injured, not we. You are asked to establish a state of things that will bring strangers into the fold of Trinity, — a state of things that would bring strangers from other parts of the city to divide this property amongst them, and then Trinity Church — if such a thing were possible, but it is not — and all her establishment in the lower part of the city would cease, and her worthy but independent people would be left in utter destitution, so far as regards their spiritual instruction. We are told, among other things thrown into the case, that leasehold propeity in the city of New-York produces inferiftr improvements and injures property in its neighborhood, suggest- ing, it must be presumed, this as a reason for taking away lease- hold property from its rightful owners and giving it to others, that they may as fast as possible change its character. I know that this committee and the Legislature have too much respect for the rights of property to listen for a moment to such a sug- gestion, or to regard it, except with the contempt it deserves; 37 it shows, however, the nature of this contest. But this state- ment, worthless as it is, is remarkable, coming from any gentle- man living in the city of New-York and conversant with the facts. The testimony refutes it; we have instanced the Sailors' Snug Harbor, Columbia College, and Spingler estates, all lease- hold, all well improved and all favorably affecting property in their vicinity, and this from the time they were first built upon. The character of the improvements depends not at all, in New- York, upon the land being leasehold or in fee, it de- pends upon its situation; and this pretence is as false as it is wicked. Now, gentlemen, all the principal witnesses in this case, who appeared before you in the city of New- York, were players at this game in 1846 and 1847; except one who has since come upon the field, or they are disappointed applicants for aid the Church had not power to grant; we are told they are very respectable men. I trust the respectability of these men will not have any effect upon the deliberations of this committee. They are endeavoring to procure the repeal of the act of 1814, claimed to be a part of the charter of the Church, which has re- mained undisturbed from that time to this, a period of 43 years, and the property of this corporation is held by the present cor- porators under a title reaching far back of 1814. For, as I have contended, these corporators have been in possession of the rights they now exercise since 1798, the time of the first estab- lishment of another church, nearly 60 years. If any property in this country is secure, this should remain undisturbed. Hon. A. J. Parker then addressed the committee as follows : The part that has been assigned me in the argument of this case, relates mainly to a discussion of the questions of law. I shall cover no ground that has been occupied by the gentleman who has preceded me, and shall refer but little to the facts, ex- cept where it is necessary they should be fully understood to enable you to apply the law that governs the case, I address the Committee as a judicial body. The duty is im- posed on them of deciding grave and important questions of law 38 and fact. I shall assume that their minds are free from the in- tluence of all previously formed opinions. They cannot dispense justice in its purity, unless their minds be, as is required by the common law of a juror, in the expressive language of the books, " like apiece of blank paper," free from all previous impressions. It is never enough that the mind of a court or jury be pure or honest. Much more is required, or justice cannot be attained. It must be free from all bias and prejudice. It must struggle to discover their existence and to guard against them; and it too often happens that they exist, though their possessor is uncon- scious of their existence. I regard it as a great misfortune to us in this case, that some of our testimony was taken in the absence of Mr. Ramsey, and the greater part of it in the absence of Mr. Noxon. Their ex- perience in courts, in listening to testimony and judging best of it when uttered by the witness in their presence, and their dis- tant residence from the city of New-York, the scene where these differences exist, made their attendance more than usually de- sirable; especially as all the members of the Committee were present at New-York and heard all the ex parte evidence of the prosecution. I do not allude to this circumstance in the spirit of complaint, for I am fully aware of the great and pressing la- bors which these Senators are called on to perform; but I speak of it with deep regret, for no reading of our testimony by those Senators can make so deep an impression on their minds, as would the listening to the evidence as it fell from the lips of the witnesses. It is necessary to see the witnesses and to observe carefully their manner and appearance, to enable you to judge best of their intelligence and character, of the purity of their hearts and the truthfulness of their w©rds. Two members of this Committee, experienced in courts, will readily appreciate the advantages of hearing and seeing the witnesses. I am the more embarrassed by tliis circumstance, because I do not feel at liberty to detain you so long as to read over to you the evidence we have taken. I beg leave to say, however, that the witnesses we have called are men of the highest standing and character in the State ; such men as Bishops Potter and Delan cy 39 Gen. Dix, Mr. Verplanck and others of equal standing; men whose integrity has never been questioned, and whose opinions are entitled to the higliest consideration. All the charges against Trinity Church, on the part of the prosecution, were based on hearsay and suspicion. Every one has been fullj'' met and answered by competent evidence — overwhelmingly and conclusively answered. We ceased only to call witnesses, when members of the Committee assured us there could be no necessity for further cumulative evidence. We have called evidence to every charge and even to every in- sinuation made by the witnesses for the prosecution — evidence that will go out to the world and will be read — for a deep in- terest is now felt in this matter — it will be read carefully by every churchman and I hope by others — and by this evidence, the prosecutors, Trinity Church and even yourselves, in your con- clusions upon it, shall be judged. I concede that nearly all this evidence on both sides is entire- ly foreign to what I suppose is the main object of this prosecu- tion, viz., the repeal of the act of 1814. How the property has been managed and what is its amount, can certainly have no con- nection with the right to vote at the annual vestry elections. As a lawyer, I could not advise that any evidence upon these questions was necessary on our part, to enable us to resist all legislative interference with our legal rights. But the evidence has been given by us for the purpose of putting at rest, I trust for all time to come, the gross misrepresentations that have been made and circulated on those subjects; to vindicate, before the whole community, the management of the affairs of Trinity Church, against the assaults of her enemies. It was clearly not the design of the original charter that any person should be a voter at the vestry elections, unless he be- longed to Trinity parish. By the original charter of 1697, it was provided that the wardens and vestrymen should be elected "by the majority of the votes of the inhabitants of the said parish, in communion, as aforesaid;" that is to say, as previously ex- pressed, " in communion of our Protestant Cliurch of England, 40 within our city of New-York." None but the parishioners of Trinity Church had a right to vote. The act of 1704 did not change this. By section 6, the in- habitants were to meet annually at the said church, to choose two church wardens and twenty vestrymen, communicants of said church, " by the majority of the voice of said communicants so met, and not otherwise." By this act, also, none but commu- nicants of Trinity Church were allowed to vote. The third section of the act of 1784 changed materially the corporators, by allowing pew holders to vote^ in addition to com- municants. It was as follows : k, III. Be it further enacted, &c., that all persons professing them- selves members of the Episcopal church, who shall either hold^ occupy, or enjoy a pew or seat in the said chui-ch, and shall regu- larly pay to the support of 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, pri- vileges, 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 communion of the Church of England." It will not be denied but a new class, viz., pew holders, wag then admitted to vote. Communicants were to vote as before. It has been claimed that the words "in the said Church", mean in the Episcopal Church, in a general and denominational sense; and this breadth of construction has been attempted to be given to the section, so as to include all communicants and all pew holders in any and every Episcopal Church in the city of New- York. I deny the fairness of this construction. I claim that a careful examination of the act will conclusively show that the words "in the said Church," have an individual and local signification, and are not used in the broad sense imputed to them. The act is entitled " an act for making alterations in the charter of the corporation of Trinity Church,^'' kc. In the second section power is conferred upon the wardens and vestrymen to call and 41 induct a Rector to the said Church, so often as there shall be any vacancy therein. This could of course mean no other than Trinity Church ; and in the third section above quoted, I do not see how it could be doubted that the expressions " a pew or seat in the said Church," and paying " to the support of the said Church," and " partaking of the holy sacrament in the said Church," are intended to have a local and individual application and refer to Trinity Church alone. It could have reference to no other Episcopal Church in the city of New-York, for no other Church of that denomination vas erected in that city till nine years afterwards. The act of 1788, made no change in the charter of Trinity Church, except a slight modification of the corporate name. It was not until 1812, when there were nine Episcopal Churches in the city of New-York, and nineteen years after the first of such additional Chuf ches had been built, that a claim was made by two or three persons, being corporators of other Episcopal Churches, to vote at the Trinity vestry election. In consequence of that claim, of which I shall speak hereafter more particularly, the act of 1814 was passed. That act was entitled " an act to alter the name of the corporation of Trinity Church in New-York, and for other purposes," and the second section was as follows : " And be it further enacted, 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 of any of the chapels belonging to the same, and forming part of the same religious corporation, and who shall hold, occupy, or engage a pew or seat in Trinity Church, or in any of the said chapels, or have partaken of the holy communion 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." It is this section, so clear and explicit in its provisions, that the movers of this investigation seek to repeal, under the erro- neous supposition that if it were repealed, members of the 42 Episcopal Churches in the city of New- York, not being either pewholders or communicants of Trinity Church or its chapels, would have the right to vote at the annual vestry elections of Trinity Church. The object of this movement is, by controling the elections of wardens and vestrymen of Trinity Church, to select those who will] appropriate the property of Trinity to the benefit of other Episcopal Churches in the city of New- York. It is only thus incidentally, and as a consequence of enlarging the number of corporators who may vote at the vestry elections, that any question of property is involved in the controversy. It is a question of the right to elect those who control property, and not a question of ownership itself. Some have been misled by the erroneous impression, that the property of Trinity Church is held in trust for the benefit of others. There is no foundation whatever for such an opinion. A careful examination of the charter and grants will show that the property was given to the corporation alone as its own absolute property. It is only sub- ject to that great trust, that high religious obligation, by which all possessors of wealth, yourself, Mr. Chairman, and all others, are responsible to the Most High for a proper application and: use of the gifts of Providence. In that sense it is a trust estate and in no other. The impression I have referred to may have been derived in part from the original name given to the corporation. By the charter of 1697, the corporation of Trinity Church was declared a body corporate, by the name of " The Rector and Inhabitants of our said city of New-York, in communion of our Protestant Church of England," and this name underwent but little change until the act of 1814. Now it seems to be supposed that because the inhabitants of the city of New- York are mentioned in the name of the corporation, they are all to be deemed incorporated and included. But every lawyer must know that powers can neither be enlarged nor restricted by the mere name given to a corporation. Indeed it is not at all material, as a matter of law, that a name should indicate either the object of a corporation or the number and character of its corporators, though it is certainly advisable as a matter of taste, that the name should be appropri- 43 ately chosen. The Legislature may incorporate a company called the The Merchants of Albany," but such a name would not make all the merchants of Albany corporators, any more than the name of " Mechanics and Farmers' bank," would legally indicate that it belonged to mechanics and farmers alone, and exclude all others from an ownership in its stock. We have near by a bank called the " National Bank," but it is sim- ply a State institution. A grknt made to " The Rector and Inhabitants of the city of New-York in communion of our Protestant church, &,c.," is simply a grant to the corporation. It conveys no interest to the individual inhabitants of the city. The grant of Queen Anne, made in 1705, after reciting the incorporation by the name I have quoted, proceeds to give, grant, ratify and confirm unto the said " Rector and inhabitants, &;c.," certain property, to have and to hold to the said Rector and inhabitants, &c., and their succes- sors forever. Thus using words of perpetuity applicable to a corporation alone. The property is thus given to the corpora- tion as such in its own right, in perpetuity, and no individual right vests under the grant, in any inhabitant of the city of New- York. No lawyer can fail to understand that " successors " is a word of perpetuity, applicable only to a corporation, not to indi- viduals. The selection of the corporate name of Trinity Church was made in accordance with a custom prevailing at that early day. St. Peter's Church, in this city, was chartered in 1769, by the cor- porate name of " The Rector and Inhabitants of the city of Albany, in the county of Albany, in communion of the Church of England, &c. That name was changed in 1789 to " the Rec- tor and Inhabitants of the city of Albany in communion with the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the State of New-York,'? and it still bears that name, though there are four other Episco- pal Churches in the same city A grant now made to " the rector and inhabitants of the city of Albany," &c., would be simply a grant to the corporation of St. Peter's Church. Bishop Potter tells us in his evidence, that when St, Paul's Church was set 44 off and organized in this city, no one thought of its making a claim on St. Peter's for a portion of its corporate property. Mr. Verplanck also informs us that the Episcopal Church at Fishkill was chartered under a like corporate name; and by reference to 3 R. S., 1st ed., 544, it will be seen that the Episco- pal Church at Poughkeepsie was called " the rector and inhabi- tants of Poughkeepsie in communion," &c. Grace Church, in the town of Jamaica, Queens county, was called " the rector and inhabitants of the town of Jamaica, in communion," &c.; and similar corporate names were given to other churches. At the time Trinity Church was chartered, and for many years afterwards, it was undoubtedly supposed that this church would be sufficient for the accommodation of all the inhabitants of the city of New-York, who were in communion with the Episcopal Church. The original charter, and the subsequent legislative acts, were evidently framed upon the idea that provision was to be made for but a single parish. With that view the church building and churchyard, in the charter of 1697, are declared to be " the parish church and churchyard of the parish of Trinity Church," and were dedicated " to the service of God for that use and purpose, and no other." And it was also declared that " the rector shall have the care of the souls of the inhabitants within the said parish, in communion," kc. The power of" regulating the affairs of the said corporation and parish of Trinity Church" was given to the vestry, and the church wardens were expressly prohibited from disposing of any of the pews to any person not an inhabitant. Indeed, the charter went so far as to declare that the church and churchyard should be " the sole and only parish church and churchyard in the city of New-York." Even at that time, when there was no other Episcopal Church in the city of New- York, it did not follow that a member of the Episcopal Church, happening to come to the city of New- York to reside, had a right to vote at the vestry elections until he be- came a member of the parish; for, by the charter, full power was given to the church officers " to choose, nominate and ap- point, so many others of our liege people as they should think fit, and shall be willing to accept the same, to be members of the 45 said church and corporation." This power to admit, which im- plies the power to reject, if the applicant be not qualified or be unworthy, is of course only applicable to inhabitants of the city of New-York, for all others are expressly excluded by the char- ter. It shows a discretion in admitting parishoners, vested in the officers of the church, to be exercised within the prescribed limits — a discretion necessary to preserve the discipline and order of the church. In other words, it shows that the relation of rector and parishioner was first to be established in the usual mode to constitue a person a corporator. In this respect it was placed upon the same footing of all other churches. It seems to me plain that the charter excludes all as corporators who are not parishioners of Trinity Church. The word " parish " by no means includes all who reside within a given district. The meaning, when used as in this act, is declared by the court in 16 Mass. Rep. 488, to be, " a compe- tent number of persons, dwelling near together and having one bishop, pastor, &c., set over them." It is an established rule of the English Church, that a person can be a parishioner in but one parish. Ey the 28th canon of that Church, unless he be a wayfarer or traveler, he is not entitled to partake of the communion except in the parish to which he be- longs, though it is in the discretion of the pastor of another parish to admit him. This same rule governs every Episcopal Church in this country, as will be seen by reference to the 13th Canon of the American Church ; and it must be conceded that such a rule is indispensable to Church discipline, and must be maintained inviolate. Surely the English Government will not be supposed to have been willing to violate, by any charter, so well settled and salutary a principle of its own established Church ; and no strained construction should be put on a charter, to give it a meaning so repugnant to the probable intent of the government granting it. So too in this country, where every form of religion is fully and equally protected, the government will not be supposed to have intended to make an exception to its beneficent rules of toleration, in singling out this particular Church as an object of 46 unjust discrimination, and despotically to say, it shall not be governed according to the established forms and usages of its faith, by a vestry chosen by its own pewholders and communi- cants, but may be governed by a vestry chosen by the votes of those who do not worship within its walls, or kneel at its altar ; by those who are members of other religious corporations, and aliens to this. Will the law deprive the parishioners of Trinity Church of the rights enjoyed by every other Church in the State of every denomination, that of choosing its own officers ? It would be a deprivation of the right of self government. A vestry chosen by the votes ol those who are members of other religious corporations would select a rector for the congregation, who would not be the choice of the parishioners, and would manage all the affairs of the corporation with reference rather to the in- terests of the Churches to which the voters belonged, than to those of Trinity Church. It would be an unheard of despotism, thus to permit one set of men to govern another — to control its spiritual as well as temporal affairs. It would be utterly at war with all our ideas of civil and religious liberty. The principle that makes a person a member of but one parish, and responsible to but one religious society, pervades the whole christian world, and is indispensable to the maintaining of discipline, and preservation of purity. If, when the pastor •withholds the sacred elements from one of his flock because of his unworthiness, he can go to another parish, aud there enjoy the right to receive the holy sacrament, the Church would fail utterly in its influence and in its power to do good. I understand that it is the practice in all well regulated churches of different denominations, when a person removes from the parish of which he is a member, to take with him a letter dimissory, accrediting him to the pastor in charge of the parish to which he removes, certifying to his good standing in the Church, on which he is formally transferred from one society to the other, and admitted as a member of the latter. So universal is the sentiment in favor of the necessity for this discipline, that all our general laws for the forming and regulat- 47 ing of religious societies are framed upon it. The general act of April 6th 1784, as to all religious denominations, anthorizes the male persons of full age belonging to any Church, congregation or religious society not already established^ to assemble and meet together, and by a plurality of voices, elect trustees and organize as a corporate society. (1 Jones and Varick 104). So too the act of 1801, re-enacted in 1813, called "an act to provide for the incorporation of religious societies," provides in the first section for the incorporation of societies of the Protestant Episcopal Church, but extends its benefits only to those not already incorpo- rated. (1 Kent and Radclifl", 336.) By thus allowing a person to be a corporator in but one Church, the statute protects fully the Episcopal and other churches in their long established and indispensable usages. There is certainly nothing in the charter of 1697, or in the sub- sequent statutes, that sanctions in the least degree, the idea that persons in communion with the Protestant Episcopal Church' who were parishioners of other parishes, could vote at the vestry elections of Trinity Church. Even if it were the fair interpretation of the act of 1784, that Episcopalians generally who were inhabitants of the city of New-York, had a right to vote, which I deny, yet it is certain that even then, on well settled principles of law, that right would cease on uniting with another congregation. The moment a member of Trinity Parish became a corporator in another Church, he ceased to be a corpo- rator of Trinity Church. (The inhabitants of the Parish of Sutton V. Cole, 8 Mass. R. 96. The Methodist Episcopal Church of Cincinnati, v. Wood, 8 Hammond, R. 283.) No one has ever yet voted at the vestry elections of Trinity Church who was not a member of Trinity parish ; and the fact that no one out of the parish so voted or claimed the right to vote from 1784 to 1812, a period of 28 years, shows a cotempo- raneous practical consti-uction of the act of 1784, which, in a case of doubt, should be conclusive. The fact that no person has ever voted at the vestry elections of Trinity Church, except a pew holder or a communicant of that Church, has never been controverted. It was not denied in 1814, 48 nor in 1846 or 1847, when applications were made to the Legis- lature to repeal the act of 1814. Eut we have, nevertheless, not neglected to prove it. I know it is difl&cult to give proof in regard to transactions which occurred sixty or seventy years ago, but fortunately we were able to produce before the committee two aged men of the highest respectability, whose truth and in- tegrity will never be questioned, who were connected with this Church, and active and zealous in its interests prior to 1812. I allude to the venerable rector of the parish, Doct. Berrian, and the Hon. GulianC. Verplanck. The latter witness was examined fully on this subject in the absence of a member of the committee, Mr. Noxon. The rector tells us that he never heard of any claim of this kind being made until 1812. Mr. Verplanck was asked if any persons other than pew holders and communicants in Trinity Church, ever voted there? He answered, "never as I believe;" he said that he himself was a corporator there in 1811, that in 1812 there was a great struggle in the parish, arising out of some question between Doct. Hobart, (afterwards Bishop Ho- bart,) and Mr. Jones; that the excitement was so great that it brought out two or three hundred voters at the vestry election of that year, and that he, Mr. Verplanck, voted at that election. He informs us, that on that occasion, for the first time, two other persons belonging to other Episcopal Churches — corporators of other Churclies — came forward and offered their votes and their votes were rejected. It was the great excitement then prevailing that led to this act. At that time there were nine other Episco- pal Churches in New-York, the first established in 1793, and the others subsequent to that period ; yet no one ever heard of such a claim having been made prior to 1812. It was regarded as an extraordinai-y circumstance and attracted the attention of the corporators and vestry of Trinity Church, and led to subsequent action of which I shall presently speak. The following resolution was adopted by the vestry, on the 28th day of March, 1812. It seems to have been passed, as a precautionary measure, on learning that votes of members of other churches were to be offered : " It having been represented to this Board that certain per- sons belonging to Protestant Episcopal congregations in this city, which have been incorporated as separate and distinct from the corporation of Trinity Church, and who are not pew-holders in Trinity Church or any of its chapels, claim a right to vote at 49 the annual elections for churchwardens and vestrymen of Trinity Church, therefore resolved, as the unanimous sense of this Board, that no otlier persons, except inhabitants of the city of New-York, who profess themselves members of the Protestant Episcopal church, and hold, occupy or enjoy, a pew or seat in Trinity Church or one of its chapels, and regularly pay to the support of the said Church, or regularly worshipping therein, shall partake of the holy sacrament of the Lord's supper in the said Church or one of its chapels at least once in every year, are entitled to vote at the said elections." It was in consequence of this offer to vote, and very soon afterwards, and for the purpose of putting at rest the doubts on that subject, that Trinity Church applied for and obtained the passage of the act of 1814. It should not be forgotten that Dr. Berrian and Mr. Verplanck, in relating this circumstance of the votes being offered and rejected in 1812, add further, that they learu from documentary evidence, from history and tradition, that no such claim was ever before made. The petition of Trinity Church, on which {he act of 1814 was passed, contains very strong evidence on this subject. After reciting the original charter and the acts subsequently passed, it proceeded as follows : " That since the passing of the act above referred to, (the act of 1784,) the pewholders of Trinity Church and of the churches or chapels belonging to the said corporation and the regular communicants therein, have been the only persons ad- mitted to vote at elections for churchwardens and vestrymen of the said corporation, according to tlie just and fair construc- tion contemporaneously and ever since given to the said act." After proceeding to state further, in the petition, the unex- ampled increase of the city and the organization therein of other religious corporations of the Episcopal church, and that none of said corporations claimed any right to vote in the elections of Trinity Church, the petition proceeded as follows : " Nevertheless, a few individuals belonging to such separate corporations, have recently pretended to claim that right, and 4 50 at the last annual election of claurch wardens and vestrymen of Trinity Church, held in the month of March, 1812, two or three persons, being members of incorporated churches, separate and distinct from your petitioners, tendered themselves as voters; but their votes, under an ordinance previously passed by your petitioners, were rejected and no measures have been yet taken to enforce or establish the right so claimed." The allegations thus clearly made in the petitions were never denied, and ought, at this late day, to be regarded as very strong corroborative evidence of the facts alleged. On the whole evidence, not a doubt can remain in regard to the fact, that no one ever voted at the vestry elections of Trinity Church, except the parishioners of that church ; and the great length of time which elapsed after new churches were incor- porated previous to 1812, ought to be regarded as very conclu- sive evidence that the members of the churches gave to the act of 1784, the same construction which we claim for it. That con- struction, thus practically agreed upon by all parties, ought not now to be questioned. One of the witnesses was asked by a member of the committee, if the poll lists had been preserved; and, on that suggestion, we sent for the clerk of the vestry, and examined him as a witness. He states that he has made a full examination of the papers of the office, and that no poll list can be found of a date prior to 1846. Since that time, poll lists have been kept. But gentle- men, poll lists and lists of corporators are very different things. Poll lists are lists of persons actually voting at an election. Lists of corporators are lists of those entitled to vote. The latter have always been kept. They are part of the records of the vestry, they embrace not only the names of communicants received from time to time, but the lists of pew holders also. It seems it had never been the practice to keep lists of voters at the vestry meetings prior to 1816. It was enough that the pre- siding officer had before him the lists of corporators, that he might ascertain the right of a person to vote, if any such ques- tion should arise. 51 And here, I hope it may not he thought out of place, Mr. Chairman, to call the attention of the committee to the following expression in your report on the ex 'parte, evidence, occurring on page 4 of the legislative document. You there say, " it must therefore be an oversight, that among the names contained in these lists," believed to be accurate, " there are those of persons who have removed from the city, and also of others who have long been dead — some of th^m for years ."' This is based on the testimony of Mr. Wolfe, as it appears on pages 113 and 114 of the same document; but that evidence will by no means justify either the expression or the insinuation of the report. Mr. Wolfe said, " on the list of corporators who are communicants and not pew-holders, I do not know that any of them have deceased ; on the list of corporators as pew-holders, there are some names of deceased persons, and of persons residing out of the city." He does not say, as you state in the report, that they have " long been dead — ^some of them for years !" He said nothing that could imply a censure. His evidence was not inconsistent with the idea that their death or removal occurred immediately before his examination as a witness. Again, the report conveys the idea that the remark was applicable to all tlie lists, whereas the witness expressly stated, that in the list of communicants, he did not know of any of them having deceased. But I think a little reflection will satisfy the committee of the great injustice of imputing blame to the officers of Trinity Church, because some names were found in her lists of pew-holders, of persons who were dead or had removed from the city. Suppose a pew-holder to die; does not his family continue to occupy the pew — his widow, perhaps, and his children 1 Pray, in whose name should the pew be registered, before the son grows up to take the place of the father 1 The widow cannot, by law, be a corporator. And what injury could be done to any person, if the pew continued for a short time to stand in the name of the late owner,. even pending the settlement of the estate ? Surely, there can be no danger of an unlawful vote being received from the person whose name remains thus on the list of pew-holders 1 It may happen, also, that a parishioner may pass part of his time in the country, occasionally coming to the city and occupy- 52 ing his pew ; and are the officers of the Church blameable, in such case, for keeping his name on tlie list of corporators, wiien it may well be doubted whether he reside in the city or not 1 With regard to the list of communicants, there can be no diffi- culty in making it strictly accurate, and Dr. Haight testifies that he makes the I'eturns to the rector annually ; but with regard to the list of pew-holders there may well be much difficulty. But I will spend no more time on this topic. It seems to me the charge made is utterly unworthy of having been formally placed upon the files of the Senate. The act of 1814 was passed for the purpose of defining and ex- plaining more clearly who were the corporators of Trinity Church and of putting at rest the doubts which had arisen in conse- quence of the claim made by two or three members of other churches to vote at the election of 1812. This is apparent from the preamble of the act, which recites that Trinity Church asked that further legislative provisions may be made, "for the pur- pose of removing cU doubts respecting their Charter rights, occa- sioned by the formation of other religious societies in the said city of New-York." It is clear that the Legislature did not sup- pose it was taking away the right of any corporator. At that time, the office of Attorney General of this State was filled by that eminent jurist and good man, Abraham Van Vechten, and the matter was referred to him by the Assembly for his opinion. He reported as follows : " That he has examined a printed copy of the charter granted in the year 1697 to the rector and inhabi- tants of the city of New York, as then established by law, and the acts altering the said charter, together with the bill refered to in the resolution entitled, " an act to alter the name of the corporation of Trinity Church in the city of New-York, and for other purposes," and he is of opinion that the purpose of the said bill will not defeat or vary any existing vested rights under the said charter and acts." This, gentlemen, was high authority. It was that of the con- stitutional officer of the government, whose duty it was to give opinions in such cases. This opinion was given with ail the acts before him ; at a time when he had certainly a much better op- 53 portunity of judging than we have now, at least with reference to the co-teniporaneous construction practically given to those acts by the parties interested. This opinion was formed and ex- pressed with all the advantages which a period of time forty-three years earlier afforded, and was concurred in by the Legislature. Gentlemen — The Legislature of 1813 that passed that act, was one of the ablest that ever assembled within this capitol. Among its members were Daniel Cady, Elisha Williams, J. Rutsen Van Rensselaer, Josiah Ogden Hoffman, Nathan Sanford, Morgan Lewis, Erastus Root and Martin Van Buren, the most able and distinguished men of the day — men not likely to fall into the error of invading, by their legislation, the vested rights of any citizen; and there were several others in that Legislature whom I ought, perhaps, to have named in the same list. Six of these distinguished men, whose portraits now grace these walls, and who are looking down this day upon our doings, were concerned in the passage of the act of 1814, either as members of the Legis- lature or of the Council of Revision. The bill did not pass the Legislature in silence; it was discussed and examined. When it came before the Council of Revision, objections in writing were made by Chancellor Lansing, which, on further examina- tion, were abandoned and finally voted against by their author. Those were honest days, Mr. Chairman, when a public officer, who had been misled by an erroneous impression, might well be expected to acknowledge hvs error and correct it. I hope, sir, all that honesty has not yet, in the expressive language of the Rev. Jesse Pound, " died out." For this honest and. frank cor- rection of an opinion by Chancellor Lansing, his memory has been recently defamed by an editor of a newspaper in the city of New- York, who has disgraced himself before the public, by im- puting to the venerable Cliancellor that this change of opinion was obtained by corrupt means. Shame upon such licentiousness of the press; shame upon the man who will thus assail the memory of the honored dead — and the greater be the shame if the slanderer be the editor of a newspaper called ^' religious.' A cause must be desperate that requires a resort to such dis- reputable means. We suppose then that the act of 1814 changed no chartered rights. But if it did, the change was made with the consent of the 54 corporation and on its application. The Vestry, in its corporate capacity, is the authorized and legal representative of all the corporators. The Vestry have full power to manage and con- trol the affairs of the corporation. It was chosen for that pur- pose. The corporator as an individual has no power of man- agement. He has surrendered all power to the Vestry and given into its keeping his legal rights. The will of that Vestry, ex- pressed under its corporate seal, is conclusive of the will of all whom the Vestry represents. How else can the Legislature deal with the corporators, except through the corporation acting under its corporate seal ? As well might a stockholder in a monied corporation question the vote given on his own authorized proxy, as a corporator deny the validity of the act of the Vestry which he has chosen to represent him. All contracts must be made with the corporation, as such, not with the individual members of it. In the dealings of a corporation, corporators are not known individually. They are merged in the body corpor- ate. The very principle of their organization is that the majority control and regulate its affairs, and the ofiBcers chosen are its agents. In the Bank of Augusta vs. Earle, 13 Peters, 587, Ch. J. Taney says, " whenever a corporation makes a contract, it is the cou/- tract of the legal entity — of the artificial being created by its charter; and not the contract of the individual members." In the Lincoln and Ken. Bank vs. Richardson, 1 Greenleaf Rep., 79, it Avas held in Maine, that the stockholders of a bank are bound by every act which amounts to an acceptance of the terms of the charter on the part of the directors. See also Willcock on Corporations, 2()2. The assent of a corporation may be shewn by the acts of its oflS- cers or by long acquiescence. (Ang. and Ames on Corp. 4 ed., §83; U. S. vs. Dandridge, 12 Wheaton R., 70, 71.) Now, in this case, there is no question of the assent of the corporation. The act of 1814 was petitioned for under the corporate seal of the Church. There was the consent of the Legislature and the con- sent of the corporate body, making a complete contract between them. Having established this proposition, I pass to another point. 55 A charter is a contract between the Legislature and the cor- poration, made by the assent of both parties ; and when sucli charter is granted and accepted, the Legislature has no power to interfere with the vested rights of the corporation, because such interference would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States, art. 1, s. 10, which declares that no State shall make a law impairing the obligation of contracts. This rule was settled in the case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheaton R., 518, to which all subsequent decisions have conformed. The law has never since been questioned. The case I have last cited was that of a charter from the British Crown to the trustees of Dartmouth College, in New Hampshire, in 1769, and it was held to be a contract within the meaning of that clause of the Constitution to which 'I have referred, and that it could not be altered by the Legislature without its con- sent. It was held also that it was not dissolved by the revolu- tion. The charter of Trinity Church stands on precisely the same footing. It was granted by the British Government, was not dissolved by the revolution, but was in fact recognized and confirmed by this State, (Const, of 1777, § 36), and it is not in the power of this Legislature to alter it, in any material respect, except by the consent of the corporation. If then, a material amendment of a charter can only be made by the consent of the corporation, when such amendment is made as was done in this case by the act of 1814, by the consent of both the Legislature and the corporation, it is a new or modi- fied contract, and cannot be changed back without the consent of the corporation, (1 Kent's Com. 416,458; 3 Burr, 1656; Rex v. Passmore, 3 Term R. 240; 4 Wheaton, 707). "Nothing seems better settled, (says Mr. Justice Story,) at the common law, than the doctrine that the crown cannot force on a private cor- poration a new charter, or compel the members to give up their own franchises, or admit new members into the corporation." The only exception to these propositions is when a right to "re- peal, alter or modify" is reserved in the act of incorporation; and such a clause has been inserted in all special charters in this State since the decision on the Dartmouth College case, in 1819. (See 2 Kent Com., 7 ed., note b.) 56 The rule of law I have been discussing, as settled by the Dartmouth College case, is applicable to private not to public or municipal corporations, (4 Wheaton 518). It will not be denied but that Trinity Church is a private corporation. " Every cor- poi-ation is private, as distinguished from public, unless the whole interest belongs to the government, or it is vested with political or municipal power.'' This is the definition given in Rundle vs. Del. and R. canal, 1 Wallace C.C. R.,275; see also 2 Kent, 305, 7th ed., note 1. I concede, that in regard to public or muni- cipal corporations, such as cities, towns and village?, the Legis- lature has full power to repeal or amend, without having made any reservation of power in the charter, and without the consent of the corporation ; but that power does not extend to private cor- porations, such as colleges, churches, academies, &c. ; all these come within the law as adjudged in the Dartmouth College case. We claim then, that the act of 1814 was a contract between the Legislature and the corporation of Trinity Church, putting at rest a disputed question, and passed on the application of Trinity corporation ; and that there is no power in this Legislature to repeal it or to change any material part of it. Forty-three years have elapsed since the passing of the act of 1814. For thirty-two years there was an entire acquiescence on the part of all the members of the Episcopal churches in the city of New- York. This is clearly proved by the testimony of Mr. Verplanck and Doct. Berrian, who speak from actual know- ledge, having been present at the vestry elections. During all that long period of time, no such persons offered to vote at the vestry elections of Trinity Church. In 1846, after some such person had applied to vote at such an election, and been refused, certain persons, members of other Episcopal churches, applied to the Legislature to repeal the act of 1814, and the application was reported against by a committee of the Senate, and refused. Nothing daunted by that, they renewed their application iu 1847, and it was unanimously reported against by a very intel- ligent committee of the Assembly, consisting of seven members, and the report was unanimously concurred in by the Assembly. A very able and conclusive report was then made against the petition. And then it slept ten years longer, until this move- ment was initiated, not openly, as before, by memorial, and ap- 57 prising the whole world of their object, but secretly, slily getting some one to throw in a resolution just at the close ot the session, to take testimony in secret — hearsay evidence — evidence based on mere suspicion — much of it given by witnesses who have no personal knowledge of the facts j vague and very erroneous opinions of the law, sworn to by witnesses and made evidence; and a copy of the testimony refused to be given to the officers of Trinity, till it should first have been reported to the Senate and made public to the whole world. It is in such a proceeding, originated and carried on in this manner, that the attempt is again made, despairing of success by other means, to repeal the second section of the act of 1814. If refused hei-e, as I trust it will be, in common honesty, then ten years more may perhaps elapse before some new scheme shall be devised by these few per- severing clergymen and laymen to accomplish their purpose. All these applications have been made by the same persons, and the testimony of Mr, John R. Livingston fully identifies them as the same persons, also, who were the principal witnesses before this committee at its secret sessions in New-York. The lapse of forty-three years is conclusive against any sup- posed individual claim of a corporator. It is a lapse of time twice that which is required to bar a claim to real property; seven times tliat which would bar an action on contract; four times as long as would bar any equity action, and longer than is required even against a claim to real property by the State. Now, after a lapse of near half a century, contrary to all sound principles, an attempt is made to open and renew a controversy long since disposed of, and apparently abandoned. If the courts, even in mere temporal matters, regard the statutes of limitation as statutes of repose — as salutary means of terminat- ing strife and contention, how much more reason is there for the presumption aiforded by lapse of time, when their just application Avill secure peace to a large and respectable body of the christian church — will save funds consecrated to pious uses from being spent in litigation and strife, and will calm the troubled waters of church controversy^ 58 It was held in the " Winchelsea cases," (4 Burr. 1962,) that twenty years unimpeached possession of a corporate franchise should be regarded as conclusive evidence of right. Twenty years was thus adopted as the legal limitation, beyond which, even as to a private corporation, the right should be regarded as established. This rule of the common law, thus declared by Lord Mansfield, has not, I believe, been questioned. If, in the case of a private corporation , the right will be regarded as settled after a lapse of twenty years, can it be supposed that an indi- vidual corporator will be permitted to allege a right disposed of and acquiesced in forty-three years before ? In this respect the act of 1784, under which the right to vote is claimed, and the act of 1814, stand on the same footing. Both were amendments of a charter passed by the Legislature,— the former with the implied and the latter with the express assent of the corporation. Now, if individual corporators are at liberty to go back to the act of 1814, on the ground that that act cut off their rights, may not the individual communicants of Trinity parish go back with the same right to 1784 and complain that that act infringed upon their rights as corporators, by admitting as voters a new and much more numerous class, viz : the pew- holders ; who before that and under the original charter had no such right ? If an individual may go back forty- three years to assert such a right, it cannot change the question if twenty-eight more years be added. The true answer in both cases undoubtedly is, that in neither case can the individual corporator have any right. The consent given by the corporation — by the officers who re- present him — being conclusive against his claim. But if any persons were deprived of a right by the act of 1814, which we deny, who were they ? Certainly they were only the persons then in existence, and then members of other Episcopal Churches in New-York, and only that portion of those who did not assent to the action of the Legislature. Their number must have been very small at that time; the churches generally ap- proved of the application, and some of them joined in it. No such persons have ever appeared here and asked to regain a lost 59 right. I doubt if any of them are in existence. A person who ■was of age in 1812 must be an old man now; and in the changes by removal and otherwise, constantly taking place in the city of New-York, the chances of one such person still remaining there are very small. The movers of this prosecution are new men, they belong to a later class; some of them have been residents of the city of New-York but a short time; they are men also who never could have had any interest prior to the act of 1814; and there is no pretence, certainly no proof, that they were aflected by its pro- visions. It is plain, I think, that no one has a right to complain, unless it is a party himself aggrieved; and I think it is equally plain that as to all others, all having no rights when an act was passed, the act can never be questioned. Two or three of the clergymen who are agitating this matter most pertinaciously — who were witnesses before the committee at its ex parte and secret session in the city of New-York^ — most of whom are proved to have been heretofore applicants to the Legislature on this subject, and who I am told, were most zeal- ously conspicuous at the meeting held in the city of New-York a few evenings ago, are now in charge of churches which have been endowed most liberally from the means of Trinity Church; churches which released long ago all further claims upon its bounty, and one of which at least, and I think more, co-operated with Trinity church in the application upon which the act of 1814 was passed.* I have before me a letter addressed, on the 12tli April, 1812, by the rector, wardens and vestry of St. Mark's church, to the vestry of Trinity churchy from which I make the following extract : " We have learned with regret that some of our Episcopal brethren, assert the claim of a general right in all the Episcopal churches in this island to vote at your elections for church wardens and vestrymen. Whatever color may be given to this claim by any ambiguous words to be found in your charter, we sincerely take pleasure in declaring, that the congre- gation of St. Mark's, which we represent, have no desire to assert the claim, and that we will at any time hereafter cheerfully • St. George, St. Mark and Grace Church have all shared liberally in the bounty of Trinity Church. 60 unite with your respectable body ia an application to the Legis- lature, if the measure shall be thought expedient, to explain the charter and confine the right of voting to the congregations of the churches under your iiumediate government." Justly may we exclaim, " Heu pietas — heu prisca fides ! " I have shown that to authorize members of the Episcopal Church corporations, not members of tlie congregation of Trinity Church or its chapels to vote for the officers ot Trinity Church, would be subversive of the letter and spirit of the act "regulating Relig- ious societies," and would render members of other distinct cor- porations members of two distinct religious corporations at the same time, would deprive the congregation of Trinity Church of the power of choosing their own rector and officers, and of man- aging their own internal affairs, and would subject them to the government of an overpowering multitude, strangers to the con- gregation and interests of Trinity Church. Why, gentlemen of the committee, if it were practicable to change this law and do this great wrong, to break in upon the established usages of the Church and say all may come in and vote here, the multitude that would assemble, numbered by thousands, would rush to the Easter elections of Trinity Church, each in the eager hope of se- curing the choice of a vestry, who would give the larger por- tion to the particular Church to which he belonged— fifty diffe- rent and confli:ting interests, representing that number of Churches, would struggle for the mastery. It would be strange indeed if disgraceful scenes of discord and strife, and perhap? of violence, were not the fruits of such an organization. Such would, I think, be the inevitable and melancholy results of the mistaken efforts of those who ought to have been engaged in preaching "peace on earth and good will to man" instead of calling out and encouraging the worst passions of our nature. I trust, neither this committee nor the honorable body which it represents, will lend its sanction to a scheme so mischevious. But it will fall far short of its duty and subject itself to just crit- icism hereafter, if it fails to meet this question firmly, if it neg- lects to rebuke, in a conservative spirit, ana in strong terms, the agitators who, mistaking their duty, have urged on this nefarious scheme of wrong and plunder. 61 Do not understand me, gentlemen, as speaking disrespectfully of these men as individuals; many of them are gentlemen of the highest respectability, and of great moral worth, and I doubt not they are "all, all honorable men." I believe if they could look at this question with its train of consequences, from a diiferent and more disinterested point of view, they would be quite sur- piised at the ncAv aspect it would assume. Mr. Chairman, I have been aware of some of the extraordinary measures which have been resorted to for the purpose of pre- judicing the public mind in advance, on the questions involved in this investigation, but I had not been informed of the slan- ders which had been circulated out of doors for the same pur- pose, till I learned it during the examination. Mr. Verplanck was asked by a member of this committee, on request, (but by whom the request was made we were not informed,) whether Trinity Church has recently had any persons employed as counsel or otherwise, now belonging or attached to the judicial, executive, or legislative department of the State government He answered promptly and unqualifiedly, that no such person liad been employed, and that from his position on committees of a legal and executive character, he must have known it if any such person had been employed, now or for some years past. Sir, I was greatly obliged to the committee for putting such a question, and enabling us to put down conclusively and forever the slanders referred to. Such dishonorable means, when exposed, cannot fail to recoil upon those who employ them. I will not, sir, retaliate. But we are not to forget that those who are urging on this prosecution, are generally men of large wealth and great influence. They have the means of exerting undue influence even more ample than Trinity corporation itself. They have already succeeded in enlisting in their interests men of prominent political rank, newspapers of influence, and men whom I meet in almost every part of the capitol, watching the progress and caring for the result of this investigation. One of these prosecutors is at the head of a large business corporation, scattering its loans on mortgage in every part of the State. While we challenge for ourselves and all our acts the severest scrutiny, 63 ■we shall, if occasion calls for it, demand that others be subjected to the same test. Trinity Church will resort to none except the ordinary and legitimate means of defence, but she will rely implicitly upon her own integrity, upon the laws of the country, and the conservative spirit in which they should be admin- istered, to protect her from being wronged. The third section of the act of 1814, which authorizes Trinity Church to make grants of land to other religious corporations, has been made the subject of criticism. Under our general statute for the incorporation of religious societies, no religious corporation could sell in fee any real estate without an order of the Chancellor (2 Kent's Com., 7th ed.) The enactment of the section in question was certainly a great convenience, even if it was not indispensably necessary, under an ancient rule of the common law. The sixth section of the act of 1814 provides that when a church shall have exhibited the account and inventory as speci- fied in the ninth section of the act entitled " An act to provide for the Incorporation of Religious Societies," it shall not be necessary for such church again to exhibit an account and in- ventory, unless such church shall have acquired lands within this State subsequent to the exhibition of such account or in- ventory. Trinity Church had exhibited such account and inventory, and has since doing so, acquired no additional lands in this State. It is clear, therefore, that the Senate had no right to call for the returns which have led to this investigation. The Senate certainly could not, by resolution, overrule a valid and binding act of the Legislature, and Trinity Church had a per- fect right to decline to answer and could not justly be censured for doing so. But she has not declined to answer; entertaining a profound respect for the Senate and an abiding confidence in its justice, Trinity Church has answered fully. The attempt which has been made to criticise her report, as not having complied technically with every requirement of the resolutions of the Senate, is equally unworthy and unavailing. 63 Trinity Church was not called upon to state her opinion of the value of each lot; but she was asked what was "the estimated value of each lot," and she answered fully and fairly. The value of the lots had then been recently estimated by the sworn assessors of the city, and nothing could be fairer than to return that estimate, stating expressly, as she did, by whom it was made. The value was a matter about which persons might well differ in opinion; it was a matter about which two of the gentle- men employed by the prosecutors here to appraise the lots, did, in fact, differ among themselves over $670,000. Mr. Verplanck's testimony shows that no other return of the " estimated value " could have been made than that which was made. If the vestry had attempted to appraise it themselves, perhaps no two of the twenty-two members would have agreed in opinion. It is undoubtedly true, that a large portion of these lots are constant- ly rising in value, and are now more valuable than when appais- ed by the assessors. But all this is liable to change, and Mr. Verplanck informs us that in some parts of the city of New York, and particularly about and near Hanover square, real property has depreciated nearly one half within a few years. The same vicissitudes may occur to the property of Trinity Church, when the tide of business, always fluctuating, shall move in the direc- tion of some other part of the city. While on this subject, Mr. Chairman, let me call your attention to the error of calculation in your ex ■parte report, testified to by Mr. Skidmore, by which you erroneously add more than $1,400,- 000 to the value of the property of Trinity Church. While you have increased largely the estimate of valuation of the whole property, you have deducted for the leases upon the former valuation. It should not be forgotten, that the present value of eleven and a quarter years' interest in real estate, at 6 per cent., is equal to about two-thirds of the whole value of the property. But, I ask, what has all this evidence to do with the question of the repeal of the act of 1814? Can that question be at all affected by the wisdom of the policy of Trinity Church, or the amount of her grants, or the objects to which grants have been made ? May not Trinity Church do what she will with her own 1 64 Certainly, neither the State nor an individual has the power to question that right, or to despoil her of a dollar of her proj^erty, because the policy which has governed her may be deemed to have been unwise. But Trinity shrinks from no investigation. She has gone into it fully and openly — not in secret. Her defence does not rest iipon hearsay, like the charges, but upon positive proof. She calls the members of her vestry ; those who must know best ; who alone could know the representations made by each applicant for her bounty, and disproves, by tlie most conclusive evidence, every insinuation of partiality and partisanship. It is proved beyond controversy, that no grant was ever made or denied with reference to the " high Church '' or " low Church '' predilec- tions of the applicants. Trinity Church has shown the extent of her bounties, and the too liberal devotion of her means to purpo- ses of religion, education, and charity. While Trinity Church has aided all but two of the fifty Churches in the city of New- York, there are more than two hundred Churches scattered over this great State that have been relieved and fostered by her. She is indeed the alma mater of them all. Though the property belongs to Trinity alone, and she is a trustee in no legal sense, she has been able, under Providence, to accomplish more good than has ever been done by any other private corporation on this side the Atlantic, and probably in the world ; and if not despoiled of her means by the cupidity which corporate wealth is apt to incite, she will go on in her high mission with increased ability and useful- ness. With a present income of less than $100,000 per annum, Trinity Church expends the whole and more in doing good — not in extravagant salaries to her ministers — no sir; the proof shows that the clergy of Trinity do not receive but about one half of the salary that is paid by other churches to some of her reverend persecutors. And yet these faithful ministers of Trinity may safely challenge comparison with any others in the world in the extent and value of their labors. While the wealthy citizens have moved up town, the poor have been left, scattered through the lower part of the city. With these poor are Trinity and her chapels filled, and among them are the faithful ministers of Trinity laboring for good. They give them 65 instruction and advice ; they.pray with tliem ; they baptize their children and bury their dead. Where else on earth can you find a body of men whose duties are more faithfully or more successfully discharged 1 Mr. Chairman, if her wealth is to be divided it will of course aid the other churches in the city of New-York, your own among the rest — but she becomes at once powerless to do good beyond the limits of the city ; not another dollar could ever afterwards be given to the country churches. Divided among fifty churches in the city, there would be no more property for each than it would desire for its own purposes. The fable would then be realized of cutting down the tree to enjoy the fruit. Those who serve in the vestry of Trinity to dispense this charily are men of the highest standing in the community in which they live. For 160 years the affairs of Trinity Church have been administered by a long line of eminent men with integrity and liberality. The purity of their motives has never been questioned, it is conceded, even in your ex-parte report, founded on suspicion and hearsay evidence. I am told that Mr. Jay, an opponent of the views and policy of Trinity Church, admitted in a pamphlet published last year, that no great trust was ever administered for so long a time with such unsullied purity. Assailed though the Church has been at different times by rapacious claimants, it has manfully resisted them, and faith- fully protected the fund, till, by the increase of the city, it has become a large estate. Mr. Chairman, has not such a party when accused, a claim not only upon your justice and forbearance but on your respect] Does not the community owe it its thanks for all the good which it has accomplished ? Gentlemen, the case is now before you. The evidence is to be printed. Thank God, there is a spirit abroad that demands it, and that will secure for it an impartial corisideyation. W« 5 66 are ready to abide by the result. The verdict that the public shall render cannot fail to be a triumph to those men who, with no interested motives, and with no desire except to accomplish the greatest practicable amount of good, have given their time and their services gratuitously in the vestry of Trinity Church for the benefit of mankind. EEIONSTEANCE AND PROTEST OF THE RECTOii, CHURCH WARDENS AND VESTRYMEN OP TRINITY CHURCH, AGAINST THE mm. jiiiMiT, iiDniii in Memii OF THE A.CT OF 1814 EI RELATION TO THE SAID CORPORATION. ALBANY : PRINTED BY C. VAN EENTHUYSEN. 407 Broadway. 1857. j REMONSTRANCE To the Honorable, the Senate and House of Assembly of the State of J^ew-York: The memorial and remonstrance of the rector, churchwardens and vestr)'men of Trinity Church, in the city of New- York, Respectfully Sheweth, That your memorialists have to defend themselves against an application, understood to have been made to your honorable bodies, by certain persons describing themselves as inhabitants of the city of New-York, in communion of the Protestant Epis- copal Church, in the State of New- York, for the repeal or modi- fiation of a certain law passed January 25th, 1814, entitled " An act to alter the name of the corporation of Trinity Church, in Nevv-York, and for other purposes." Your memorialists have also learned with surprise and regret that a bill has been recently introduced into the Senate intended to impair, if not to destroy the rights and franchises which your memorialists have enjoyed without interruption for more than a century and a half. 4 Your memorialists respectfully represent that the same appli- cation was made to the Legislature in 1846, and that it was re- newed in 1847; that it was on each of these occasions pressed with great zeal and activity, that it was supported by counsel of eminence who were fully heard on behalf of the applicants, and that its merits were thoroughly discussed and investigated, that standing committees (of the Senate in 1816 and of the House of Assembly in 1847) reported against it, and that the Legislature in each instance refused to attempt any interference with the rights of your memorialists. Your remonstrants respectfully represent to your honorable bodies, that when the said act of 25th January, 1814, was applied for, the following petition for the same (prepared by a committee of the vestry of Trinity Church, consisting of Richard Harison, David M. Clarkson, Thomas Barrow, Robert Troup, Jacob Le Roy, Peter Augustus Jay and Thomas L. Ogden,) was presented to the Legislature of the State, viz. : " To the Honorable, the Legislature of the State of New- York : " The petition of the rector and inhabitants of the city of New- York, in communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the State of New-York, " Respectfully sheweth, " That so long ago as in the year one thousand six hundred and ninety-seven, your petitioners were incorporated by letters patent under the great seal of the colony of New-York, and have ever since continued to be a body politic and corporate, by virtue of their said charter. " That at the time of granting the same, it was contemplated that Trinity Church therein mentioned, should be the sole and only parish church of the Protestant Episcopal denomination in the said city, and that in fact it continued to be so until the revolution by which the independence of the United States was obtained, and for a number of yeai-s after that memorable epocii. " That soon after tlie revolution above mentioned, an act of the Legislature passed for making such alterations in the charter 5 of the corporation of Trinity'Cliurch as to render it more conform- able to the Constitution of the State; by one clause whereof all the rights, privileges, benefits and emoluments which in and by the said charter were designed to be secured to the inhabitants of the city of New- York in communion of the church of Eng- land, were conferred upon all persons professing themselves members of the Episcopal Church, who should hold, occupy, or enjoy a pew or seat in the said church and should regularly pay to the support of said church and such others as should in the said church partake of the holy sacrament of the Lord's sup- per at least once in every year, being inhabitants of the said city. "That since the passing of the act above referred to, the pew- holders of Trinity Church and of the churches or chapels be- longing to the said corporation, and the regular communicants therein, have been the only persons admitted to vote at elections for church wardens and vestrymen of the said corporation ac- cording to the just and fair construction contemporaneously and ever since given to the said act. "Your petitioners beg leave further to shew, that in conse- quence of the rapid and unexampled increase and prosperity of our country since the said revolution, and the corresponding growth and population of the city of New- York, Trinity Church aforesaid, with the churches and chapels belonging to its corpo- ration, became insufficient for the accommodation of all the in- habitants of said city who professed themselves members of the Protestant Episcopal Church or wished to become so, on which account and for a variety of other reasons not necessary to be sug- gested, numerous persons of this description have been induced from time to time, to form themselves into distinct cori^orations, each having its own peculiar endowments and places of worship, with rectors and other officers of their own choice, totally inde- pendent of any control or interference of your petitioners. "That a number of such religious corporations have accord- ingly been organized as the law directs, some with, and some without the concurrei:ce of your petitioners, to all wiiich your petitioners have made liberal donations, and with whose internal 6 concerns your petitioners or any of the member of the corpora- tion of Trinity Church, as such, do not claim any right to inter- meddle, nor do the said corporations possess or claim any right for themselves or their members to vote in the elections, or re- gulate the affairs of Trinity Church. "Nevertheless, a few individuals belonging to such separate corporations, have recently pretended to claim that right, and at the last annual election of church wardens and vestrymen of Trinity Church, held in the month of March, in the year 1812, two or three persons, being members of incorporated churches separate and distinct from your petitioners, tendered themselves as voters; but their votes under an ordinance previously passed by your petitioners were rejected, and no measures have been yet taken to enforce or establish the right so claimed. "It must be obvious, however, that attempts of this nature cannot fail to produce strife and litigation, and to foster and keep alive pretensions of the most unreasonable nature, .and of the most mischievous tendency. "Your petitioners are, moreover, sensible that since the forma- tion of such distinct corporations, the corporate name by which your petitioners are designated has become inapplicable, and ought to be changed; as they do not comprehend in their body all the inhabitants of the city of New-York who now pre- fess to be of the Protestant Episcopal Church; and your peti- tioners are further convinced that it has become essential to the peace and harmony of said church, that all doxibts respecting the persons entitled to vote for church wardens and vestrymen of Trinity Church, which may exist or arise in consequence of the said separate incorporations, should be finally obviated and settled. "Your petitioners beg leave further to represent that the law which requires religious corporations in New-York, Albany and Schenectady, to exhibit an inventory and account of their es- tates and revenue at certain periods, is attended with consider- able expense and trouble without producing any valuable eflfects, that after such inventory and account has once been exhibited 7 it cannot be useful to exhibit it again, unless the corporation shall acquire farther estates, and that as far as the corporation of Trinity Church is concerned they have hitherto complied with the law and hold no property, (their communion plate and chui-ch furniture excepted,) other than what they held and were possessed of long before the said revolution and are legally entitled to hold by the charters and grants of the ancient go- vernment, confirmed and established by the Legislature of the State ; though your petitioners have greatly diminished that pro- perty by grants and donations to Columbia College, to a free school which the Legislature has incorporated, to a society form- ed for the promotion of religion and learning ; and to many churches and religious societies, not only in the city of New- York, but elsewhere in different parts of the State. " Your petitioners, therefore, pray that your honorable body will pass an act for altering the name of their incorporation, and also to obviate and settle the questions that might arise in con- sequence of incorporating other Episcopal congregations in the city of New- York, and to do away the necessity of such inven- tory and account being exhibited more than once, unless upon the acquisition of additional property, by religious corporations. " And your petitioners will ever pray, &c. " By order of the corporation of Trinity Church, in the city of New-York. \l. s.] T. L. OGDEN, Clerk.'' Your remonstrants further respectfully represent that the said petition was true in every particular, that it received the favora- ble attention of the Legislature, that the bill brought in pursu- ant to its prayer was popular in both houses of the Legislature and passed by large majorities. That the application for said bill and the fact that it was pending in the Legislature were notorious, and were the subject of public discussion in the city. That said bill was fully debated and discussed at the several stages of its passage through the Legislature ; that the House of Assembly before acting on it called on the eminent Abraham 8 Van Vecliten, then Attorney General of the State, for his opinion on the questions of right alleged to have been affected by it, and that that officer returned it as his opinion, that the proposed bill, if passed, would not vary, affect or divest any existing riglit. That objections were made to it in the council of revision, on which that board was equally divided, so that the bill became a law in conformity with the then existing Constitution, the coun- cil of revision having taken no order upon the subject. Your remonstrants further represent, that if tlie law of 1814, had not been passed, the reasons urged in the above petition would apply to the present day with much greater force tlian they did then, and justice and public policy would now require the passage of a declaratory act to the same effect. Your remonstrants further represent, that the law in question, while pending before the Legislature, received the general ap- probation and support of the Episcopal inhabitants of the city of New-York. That it has now been constantly acted on and acquiesced in for forty-three years, with the single exception, that at the annual election in 1844, at a time of uncommon ex- citement in the Protestant Epis copal church, one person, (a gen- tleman of the legal profession,) claimed the right to vote ; admit- ting at the same time, that he had never communed in Trinity church or in either of its chapels ; that he did not own or hire a pew or seat in any or either of them, and had never contributed to the support of Trinity Church. That the vote thus tendered was rejected, and that its rejection was acquiesced in without any attempt to establish by judicial proceedings, the claim thus set up. Your remonsti'ants further represent that there are now fifty separate and distinct Protestant Episcopal church corporations or parishes in the city of New-York, (instead of the nine which existed in the year 1814,) besides the corporation and parish of Trinity Church. Your remonstrants further represent that all the said new church- es have been assisted by donations from the property and funds of 9 your remonstrants except two of them which never applied for such aid, that such donations or endowments have in several in- stances (as in those of Grace Church, St. Mark's and St. George's,) been of very large amount, and that your remonstrants have dur- ing the last forty years, also largely contributed to new churches in every part of the State, so that the income of the corporation has never been at all equal to its expenditures, the deficiency being supplied by sales of real estate and by loans. Your remonstrants further represent, that elections in Episco- pal churches are usually conducted without excitement and are almost always nearly or quite unanimous, accordingly it seldom happens that more than twenty votes (if so many) are polled, whatever may be the number of the constituency. The same remarJs; is believed to apply to elections held in incorporated charitable and literary societies generally. That in the corpo- rate elections of Trinity church, when there is no contest, the num- ber of votes is generally small. That no inference can fairly be drawn from the neglect of corporators to exercise their right of voting; except that they are entirely satisfied with the manage- ment of the corporate body to which they belong; that there is no obstacle in the way of persons being admitted corporators of that church, the sole conditions being, that they shall duly at- tend the services of the church, and hold a pew or partake of the holy communion in said church, or own a pew therein or hire it from the church ; and that all or any of the petitioners for the repeal of this act, could have become, and still can be- come members of the corporation, by complying with these con- ditions, which are not only reasonable in themselves, but con- sistent with the usage and practice of all religious societies of every denomination of Christians throughout the State. Your remonstrants further represent that the said act of 1814 was passed at a time when harmony had just been restored in the parish after a long and exciting personal controversy, and was intended to preserve order and harmony in a numerous re- ligious communion. This, it has happily effected and maintain- ed, for more than two generations. 2 10 Your remonstrants further submit, tliat the question of the propriety of the act of 1814, has been three times considered in the Legislature : first, at tlie time of its passage; second, in 1846, by tlie Senate; and third, in 1847, by the Assembly. Persons not members of the congregation of Trinity Church, but mem- bers of other church corporations, claiming to be corporators of your memorialists, have never sought to establish their claims by the decision of a court of justice. No obstacle prevented their doing so, either before or after the passage of the act of 1814. If that act was unconstitutional, as it is urged, it inter- posed no obstacle at any time. It v/as simply void. But it was impracticable for your memorialists to test the question in any such mode. All they could do was to reject the votes of such persons when offered. It rested with the claimants, and with them alone, to bring the matter to the attention of the courts. And should the Legislature pass an act in its terms purporting to repeal, alter or amend the law of 1814, above re- ferred to, then, your memorialists, insisting as they would, that the law of 1814 forms a part of their charter, and cannot be re- pealed, altered or amended, without their consent, the question of the constitutionality of that law, and the further question, whether it has not been substantially acquiesced in by all per- sons interested, must still remain to be determined by the courts. The same points of dispute which now exist would still continue, and the further one be added, as to the right of the Legislature to interpose in the mode suggested. Your remonstrants humbly submit, that after these repeated decisions by the Legislature, and the acknowledged neglect of the parties complaining to assert their alleged rights in a court of justice, the law of 1814 above referred to ought to be left undis- turbed until those who complain of it shall establish its uncon- stitutionality in th'' courts, the only proper tribunals for the decision of such questions. And that the undisturbed possession of your memorialists under that law for forty-three years, of the corporate rights, franchises and property it professed to give or to confirm, ought on the strongest grounds of public policy, to have the same operation in perfecting the title of your remon- 11 strants and securing them against hostile claims, which a like possession for less than half that peiiod, has on any other pri- vate right or property, however acquired. They submit that the public confidence in the stability and security of all property and piivate right will be seriously shaken, should the Legisla- ture repeal or interfere with a grant of corporate franchises, after a lapse of nearly half a century, for the express purpose of ena- bling parties to revive and re-open a question, which if it ever existed except in name, has been long since disposed of. Tour remontrants further state that the pewholders and com- municants in the churches of their communion in this city who would or might be qualified to vote for parochial oflficers of Trinity Church under the proposed act, are many thousands in number, and may become much larger in the ordinary state of things. But, moreover, whenever (as might frequently be. the case) motives or hopes of pecuniary profit were presented, this number would be swelled by a host of others, excited by the expectation of gain, who without any sympathy of opinion or of feeling with the Episcopal or any other religious body, could be constituted nominal Episcopalians and legal voters at an easy rate. Thus, considering the various doctrinal differences, tem- poral interests and selfish aims that may exist among so large a number, the facility with which that constituency may be in- creased for personal purposes in times of partizan excitement, the certainty that such excitement would be of frequent recur- rence, if not invariable; at every election where an endowment so greatly exaggerated and over-estimated by public opinion, would be the prize of the contest, this act if carried into opera- tion would inevitably fill not only the parish of your remon- strants, but every other parish in the city, with discord, confu- sion and personal animosities. Tour remonstrants, in referring to the fact, that while the ad- ministration of this corporation has been assailed on almost eve- ry other point, no imputation nor even insinuation has ever been made, that either the present or any former vestry, or any of their members, have ever been influenced in the discharge of 12 their duties, by any corrupt motive or by considerations of per- sonal interest, may perhaps, without indelicacy, be permitted to say, that while they regard the observance of strict personal in- tegrity in the administration of such a trust, as a matter of such obvious and imperative duty as to call for no commendation, yet the fact that in the long history of this corporation, no instance of the violation of this duty has ever occurred or even been sug- gested, is not without its weight as an attestation to the utility, efl&ciency and security attending the working of the system as it now exists. The proposed measure is founded on two reports made to the Senate, embodying broad and strong censure on youi- remon- strants' execution of their duties. Your remonstrants respect- fully represent that these charges are, in their judgment, un- suppoited by the evidence, and they respectfully refer the Leg- islature of the State for the protection of your remonstrants' rights, and their fellow-citizens for the vindication of their char- acter, to the testimony itself, whether produced for or against them. They con^dently believe, that while most of the adverse testimony will be found, on examination, to be vague, matters of opinion, or hearsay on second or third hand information, on the other hand the positive testimony of those actually acquainted with all the facts of the management and application of the pro- perty will show, that the charges brought against your remon- strants are without foundation ; and they appeal to such testi- mony with entire confidence, even though that produced against them was taken privately and exparte, your remonstrants not having been present to demand from those who gave it, further explanations or specifications of names, dates and facts. They feel confident that the examination and comparison of the whole body of testimony will prove to the Legislature, that your re- monstrants have had steadily in view in the management and application of their funds, the support of the Gospel audits min- istration, and the promotion of religion, morals and education, Avherever their aid could be most effectual in this city and throughout the whole State. That testimony shows, that if in any instance, sucla application of their funds was ill-judged, 13 it arose not from personal or partizan motives, but from an error of judgment, incident to all human counsels, whilst in general their endeavors have been largely blessed in promoting the best interests of society. In conclusion, your remonstrants respectfully claim that the law in relation to your remonstrants passed in 1814 and above referred to, forms a part of the charter of this corporation, grant- ed by the State and accepted by your remonstrants, and that the same cannot be repealed, amended, modified or altered without their consent. Such consent your remonstrants are compelled by a sense of duty to withhold, and against any repeal, amend- ment, modification or alteration of the act in question, they pray leave hereby firmly, but most respectfully to protest. And your remonstrants will ever pray, &c. By order of the corporation of Trinity Church in the city of New- York. [L. S.J WILLIAM BERRIAN, D.D., Rector. WM. E. DUNSCOMB, Comptroller. RICH'D H. OGDEN, Clerk. Wta. E. Dunscomb, Robert Hyslop, Church Wardens. Rich'd H. Ogden, Cyrus Curtiss, George P. Cammann. Abel T. Anderson, F. Pentz, James I. Jones, Jos: Delafield, Abraham B. Sands, John A. Dix, Vestrymen. Henry Youngs, Alex'r Z. McDonald, G. C. Verplanck, Anthony J. Bleecker, John R. Livingston, Geo. T. Strong, Sam'l T. Skidmore, W. H. Falls, Gouv: M. Ogden, DEBATES ON THE TRINITY CHURCH BILL, m THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF NEW FORK. REPORTED BY DOUGLAS A. LEVIEN. J. ALBANY: MUNSELL, 78 STATE STREET. 1 8 5 7. LEGISLATIVE DEBATES ON THE AFFAIRS OF TRINITY CHURCH. IN SENATE .... March 25, 1837 . Immediately after Executive Session, the President announced the Special Order, being the bill to amend the act of 1814, rslating to Trinity Churcli. Mr. Brooks said : — Mr. President : Before the Senate go into Com- mittee of the Whole, I shall beg leave to offer a substitute for the Bill reported by the Select Committee. It does not emanate from myself, but from one for whom I entertain the highest respect; from one of the most emiaent rectors in the city of New York, who officiates himself over six hundred communicants. The substi- tute proposes, if possible in the form of statute, a reconcilement of the differences of opinion un- ( fortunately existing between the Episcopalians I belonging to the different Churches in the city. 1 If any good should come from such a recom- j mendatiou, and it should result in a peaceful solution of long existing and growing difficulties, it will be a subject of general congratulation among a large portion of the Christian commu- nity. In presenting this bill, I desire to say that I do not commit myself for or against its p'ovis- ions. If it should become the basis of recon- ciliation, I shall be most happy in having in any manner contributed to so desirable a result. Thj character of the author, and the great im- portance of the subject under consideration prompt me to offer it at this time, and to ask that it may be printed. Mr. Noxon ; — Mr. President : — I call for the reading of the bill at this time. The bill was then read. It provides as fol- lows : — § 1 In addition to the persons entitled to vote at the elections of Church Wardens and Vestry- men of Trinity Church in New York, under the second section of the act entitled " an act to al- ter the name of the corporation of Trinity Church in New York, and for other purposes," passed January 25, 1814, the inhabitants of the city of New York, in communion with any other of the P. E. Churches in the said city, now or hereafter in union with the Convention of the Diocese of New York, shall hereafter be entitled to partici- pate in such election to the extent and in the manner following: — The Vestry of every such Church shall yearly on or before the 1st of March, select live mem- bers from their body by the written act of a ma- jority of their number ; which act shall be duly certified by the Rector or Clerk of said Vestry. The five persons so to be selected, shall each be entitled to vote at the annual election then next ensuing, for Church Wardens and Vestry- men of Trinity Church aforesaid ; but no one shall be elieible except a pew holder or commu- nicant of full age iu said Trinity Church or one of its chapels. ^ 2 The corporation of Trinity Church afore- said, shall apply all its annual income and the proceeds of the sale of any of its property, to the payment, first, of the interest on its debt; and next, to the extinguishment of such portion of the principal as its vestry may deem expedient ; and after duly providing for the proper support of its parish, the Vestry shall apply the remain- ing income and proceeds of the sale of its prop- erty to the support and extension of religion in the P. E. Church in the city and State of Now York. § 3. The said corporation shall yearly, on or before the 1st of February, furnish to each of the P. E. Churches iu said city, in union with the Diocese of New Yort, a list of the pew holders and communicants eligible as Church Wardens, and Vestrymen as aforesaid ; and also a full ac- count of its receipts and expenditures during the year next preceding. Mr. Brooks : — Mr. President, I merely wish to remark again that this bill emanates from a source highly conservative in its character, and seeks to reconcile the differences at present so unhappily existing. If ihe measure, during the progress of the discussion, should meet the views of the Senate, and form the basis of conciliation, I shall be glad that I have introduced it. If it be a source for fuither differences of opinion, I shall deem it my duty to withdraw it. If it should not meet the views of the Senate, and we should be called upon to consider the Commit- tee's bill, irrespective of this substitute, I shall then deem it my duty to offer some amendments. 2 The first will be to protect Trinity Church, and her three Chapels, St. Charles, St. Pauls and St. Johns, on the face of the bill, in all their possessions of Church edifices, burial grounds, adjacent lands and Church prop'^rty of all kinds and conditions. Tlie second will be, to see that such ample provisions are made as will secure the propcT acknowledgment of all debts and ob- ligations incurred by Trinity Corporation, and to secure their eventual payment. It is probable that I shall also propose a third amendment designed to meet the objection which has sprung up from several sources, that it will be morally and physically impossible to vote upon the aHairs of Trinity in the manner pro- vided in the bill, by making provisions that the TTotes shall be vested in a certain number of Vestrymen or Wardens, in some manner to be hereafter determined upon. Mr. Upham : Is it the desire of the Senator that his substitute shall be printed before any action is taken on the bill now before the Sen- ate ? Mr. Brooks: No. I ilo not wish that it should occasion any delay in the action of the Senate, hope oth<^r bussiness may be set aside until this matter is disposed of, and if it meets the views of all parties, I, for one, am ready to discuss it at one .'. The Senate then went into committee of the whole on the bill reported by the special com- mittee, and the same was read through. Mr. Noxon moved to strike out the enacting clause for the j)urpose of opening the debate. He said : It is well known, Mr Chairman, that at the last session of the legislature, a committee was appointed on the part of the Senate, lo take cer- tain testimony in matters relaliug to Triiiity Church, by way of filling up a gap which had been left by that Church, unanswered, in cer- tain resolutions which were proposed by the Senate of 1855, calling upon the corporation of Trinity to make answers to certain questions then propounded. The resolution to which I al- lude will be found iu the report of the Commit- tee of January 29, 1857. The Committee proceeded to the City of New York some months prior to tlie meeting of the Legislature. It notified the proper parties con- nected wite the Clmrch, that the Committee was in session. The notice was served on the otlicera of the Corporation. As one of the Committee having that matter in charge, I had liojied tli:it the Corporation of Triuity Church would see fit to come before the Committee aud to make such statements of facts :is would enable us to properly discharge our duty. i!ut vs-e were dis- appointed, not only in hearing from Triaity Church in person, but also in finding that some member of the Vestry refused to testify before the Committee on the grounds, as stated by 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 ques- tions put to him by the latt.T. Your Commit- « tee, having no power in the matter, could not compel this man to testify; but Ix)nght 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 here to state, Mr. Chairman, that 1 look upon all matters regarding the law now proposed to be repealed, as not affected by the grest 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 paarticular, as bearing on the real question now before this committee. It has regard only to the manner of executing certain powers confer- red on the corporations by grants, and by laws of the State of Nhw York ; but I cannot think that it has much to do with the principles in- volved in the |iresent discussion. I ought at least to state how the committee viewed it ; and what the law — the original law — as we have looked upon it, had in contemplation when it vested certain property in Trinity Church ; and I shall refer to the report by way of givinga his- tory of a matter which is now one of the most exciting questions that has for some time agita- ted the city of New York, or, indeed, the coun- try at large. In the original charter of 1697, all the right Trinity church had to the chapsl 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 erect- ed 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 Broadway, within our said city of New York, and the ground thereunto adjoining, inclosed and used for a cemetery or church-yard, shall be the parish church and church-yard of the parish of Trinity church, within our said city of Now York ; and the same is hereby declared to be forever separated and dedicated to the service of (rod, 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 (he 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 t.stablished by our laws, and to* no other use use or ])urpose whatsoever." And it is further declared in the same charter that the royal will and pleasure is to make and cri-ate, aud th« Rectcr of said parish, " together with all the inliabitauts from time to time inhab- iting aud to inhabit in our said city of New York, and in commuuinn of our aforesaid Protestant Church of England, as now established liy our laws, are created a body corporate, &c," and then followed the name of the eorp >ration created which is in these words: 'We have ordained, con stituted, aud declared by these presents, for us our heirs and successors, do ordain, constitute and declare, tliat he (Lord Bishop of London and his successors, and all such ofoarlovin aubjects as now are or hereafter shall be admitt ed into the communion of the aforesaid Protestan Churjh of England, as now estiblished by ou 3 laws, sliall be from time to time, and forever hereafter, a body corporate and politique, in fa ;t and nam», by tlie name of tbe Rector and iniiabitants of our said city of New York, in communiou of oar Protestant Church, of Eng- land, as now established by our laws." So it will be perceived, wheu we start off with the original charter,that it grunts the chapel and grounds for the use and behalf of the inhabitants of the city in communion of the Protestant churh ot England, as th'm established by law. It is farther declared in the same charter, that to manage the affairs and corporation there shall be annually elected two Church Wardens and twenty Vestrymen, "by the mnjorily of votes of the inhabitants of the saul parish in communion as aforesaid," — that is with the Protestant Church of England as then established by law. These are all the provisions to which it is ne- cessary to call the att-:ntion of the Committee, in order to show the nature of the original grant, and the parsons who were entitled to vote under it. When we come to the next legislation in regard to the corporation, we find tliat in 1704 the colonial legislature confirmed the grant of 1097, by an act granting sundry privileges and powers to the Re.jtor and inhabitants of th« city of New York, of the communion of the Church of England, as by law established. In the first section of the act, it is declared that "the Rae- tor, &o.," "and their saccessors," be able to sue, &c., (here enun^erating the powers of the corpo- ration), and by section 6 of said act, it is enact- ed "that it shall and may be lawful for the in- Uabitauts aforesaid to assemble and meet togeth- er on Tuesday, in Exster week, annually, at the said church, to choose two church wardens and twenty vestrymen, communicants of the said - church, to serve and officiate for the next ensu- .j ing year, by the majority of the voice of the said f communicants .so met, and not otherwise." In I7O3, the grant of Queen Ann is given to , Ihis corparation, thus consisting of the Rector ind inhabitants of the church of England, by which the former grant is ratified and perpetu- ■, ited. After the original grant, the act s»ys — "i Mr. Wadsworth — From what is the Senator ., -eading ? Mr. Noxon — From Queen Anne's grant, by ,. which the original grant is confirmed. It says : -; 'Know ye by our special grace," &c. "We I, iiave given, granted, ratified and confirmed, in -J ind by these presents, for ourselve;i, heirs and •. successors, we do giye, grant, ratify aud confirm, anto the said rector and inhabitants of the city u if New York, in communion of the church of ,, England, as by law established, and their suc- jessors, all and singular, the said farm," &o. , ■'to have and to hold said farm, the several Leases, &c., unto the said Rector and inhabitants )t the city of New York, in communion with •he church of England, as by law established, ind their successors forever." No furttier legislation was had in regard to ■he corporation until after the revnlntion. In 1784 an act was passed making such alterations a the charter of the corporation of- Trinity Church as to render it more conformable to the constitution of the state. In the third section of that act tt is enacted a? follows : III. Bs it further enaeted by the authority afore- said, That all parsons professing themselves members of the Episcopal Church, 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 chur;h, 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 ail 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 ttiis third section is a preamble in the following language : And whereas doubts have arisen on these parts of the said charter and law first meutionei, which speaks of inhabi- tants in communion of the said church of Eng- land ; for removal, &c. These doubts here alluded to, are as to that part of the charter which speaks of the people "in communion of tlie church of England," to whom were granted the rights aud pri^'ileges of the original charter. It will be perceived that now, for the first time, we hear the Protestant Epi.^copal church mentioned instead of the church of England ; a change made necessary by the revolution. So that under this act, tbe only change made, is Van it gives the same powers to persons in communion of the Protestant Episcopal church, which were formerly confer- red 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 sup- port. lu 1788 — four years afterwards — an act was pissed which authorized the Corporation to take and use the name of "The Rector and In- h vbitants ol the City of New York, in communion of tlie Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New York," and confirmed all grants, deeds, and conveyances made to them uuder their for- mer name. No other alteration was made in the act of 178S at all material to this matter. We have no further legislation in respect to the Corporation, from 1788 until the act of 1814 ; aud I beg to call the particular attention of the Senate to the words of certain sections of that act. By the first section, the title of the corporation is altered ; and it is provided that "from and after the pa'^sage of this aot, the said corporation of Trinity Church, instead of their present name, shall take and use the name of 'The Rector, Church Wardens, and Ve.strymen 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 Trin- ity church aforesaid, or any of the chapels be- longing to the same, and forming part of the same religious corporation, and who shall hold, 4 occupy, or enjoy a pew or seat in Trinity church, or in any of the said chapRls, or have partaken of the holy communion therein within the said year, and no other persons, shall be entitled to vote at the annual elections for the church- war- dens and vestrymen of the said corporation." Now, it will bo perceived by the Committee, that if under the original grant of 1697, and un- der 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 Episco- pal 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 communicants in other P. E. 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 P. E. Church, the object and effect of section 2 of the act of 1814 was to strike down their privileges, given under the Colonial acts and the acts of the legis- lature of the State. The special committee, believing that the ori- ginal intent of all the acts up to 1814 was to vest in the Protestant Episcopal people of N. Y. 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 th^m those rights while we take away not one privilege ever grant- ed to the church. We are but asking those members who now control the atfairs of the corporation, to allow those who were corpora- tors with them up to 1814, to share those privi- leges they both then enjoyed in common. It may be urged that prior to the act of 1814, the parlies for whose rights we now contend, did not discharge those duties or avail themselves of those privileges. But this is not a matter 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 from grasping and improper motives. She may have had the purest intentions for aught I 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 legislature has experienced in iavestigating this matter. The first thing we did, when the abuses of the corporation were brought to our notice, was to simply press her with 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 interfere. She had vested rights which was out of our power to touch. No legis- lature, she said, could call li^^r to account for the maunnr in which she discharged the duties con- ferred upon her in her grants and laws. Sir, I believe that these corporations are only the cre- ations of law, and that they are all bound to re- port to us their acts and to abide by our deci- sions. But Trinity Church does not stop here. Not only does she deny the right of the Legislature to inlerfere in any manner with her affiiirs ; 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 Trin- ity 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 intelligence to the Senate than to sup- pose they adopted resolutions 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 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 remonstran- ces and petitions 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 denom- ination. And yet this is called a Religious Corporation. God save the word ! A religious corporation ? why it has not the least scintilla of spiritual feeling. It grovels among the things of this earth — among matters with which a purely re- ligious corporation could have no connection or sympathy. Its affairs are managed and its du- ties performed by standing committees, responsi- ble to no one. There has been a good deal of feeling mani- fested in this matter 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 at- tacked, and thf-n the Special Committee. What are the charges made against the Committee ? We are accused of having spread false tilings be- fore the public. Well, it is for the Senate to saj whether the facts we set forth are not fully jus tified by the evidence. Mr. Spencer — Will the Senator give way ? I is now past the usual hour for adjournment and I desire to move that the committee rise an report progress. Mr. Noxon yielded the floor for the motioi and the committee rose and Senate adjourned. 5 IN SENATE niaraday, 1 P. M. The Senate resimed the consideration of the Trinity Church Bill, Mr. Darling in the Chair. Mr. NiiX'^n said: — Mr. Chairman : In addressing the Committee npon this bill, I desire to briefly recapitalate the points 1 have tak*n iu support of the Bill, in order that the Committee may bear in view and have iu 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 1607, was, "The Rector and Inhabitants of our said City of New York, in Communion of oar Protestant Choroh of Eag'aad, as now established by oar laTS.' 2i— That under that graat,th9 Church and Church yard were "forever separated and d^jdi- cated 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 oar said City of New York, in commu- nion of our said Protestant Church of England, as now established by onr laws, and to no other use or purpose whatsover." Third — That for managing the business of the corporation, there were annually elected two Church Wardens and twenty Vestrymen, "by the majority of votes of the inhabitants of the said Parish, in commu- nion as aforesaid." Fourth — That in 1704 this grant was confirmed by the Colonial Act which conferred "sundry privileges and powers on the Rector and Inhabitants of the city of New Yor'^, 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 successors all and Bingnlar." Sixth — That in 1734 an act was passed to make the charter of the corporation of Trinity more conformable to the Constitu- tion of the Stite ; 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 communion of the Church of England, declared that members of the Episco- pal Church, who were communicants or held pews in the Church and paid regularly towards its support, should have the right to vote. Sev- enth — That in 173S the title of the Corporation was changed to -'The Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New York, in communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New York." Eighth— That in 1814, all the cor- porators 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 treat* 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 ; perhaps I ongiit to say something with rejard to the manner in ^hich the passage of the act of 1814 \\ as pro- cured, and what led to its adoption. There can be no ques'ion that so fara-i the Protestant Epis- copal people of the city of New York were con- cerned, there were a great number who had rights secured to them under the original char- ter, 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 Revision. The Council at that time consisted of D. D. Thompkins, Gov., Chancellors Lansing and Kent, William W. Van Ness, Am- brose Spencer ard Robert Yates. Perhaps not from that time to the pres 'nt, has there been a more distingui-hed and abler set of jurists as- sembled tog-ether, 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. Chaneellor Lin- sin" himself long entertained obje'-tions to the bilf; and unless he had passed over and voted on the other sid^, it never would have become a law. Kent, Lansing, Spencer, Yates— tvery one of those distinguished men, then the brightest luminaries of the State— every one of them orig- inally opposed the act of 1S14. I may add that from the testimony it appears that one of those men— Chancellor Kent— known and distinguish- ed not here alone, but throughout the world, after voting for the bill, pronounced it as his opinion that the law was unoonstitationaL 1 speak of Chancellor James Kent. Now it is clear that as the matter yfood, the act of 1814 is not, as if contended, conceded on all hands to be ri^ht. There were rights to be affected by that act ; but the fact is, those in- terested in the original grants, placed great reli- ance, not only in the Judge of the Council of Rsvision, but in Judge Troup, the leading Ves- tryman of the chnrch, 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 iu with his views, and allowed the law to pass. I do not believe there can be any question but that the mind of Chancellor Lansing was influencod by Judge Troup, as to the rights affected by the bill ol 1814, and the management proposed after it should become a law. I have now said as much as is necessary re- specting the questions of law. I will now pro- ceed to examine the evidence given before your Committee. 'It will be recoUect-^d that bythe resolution which passed the Senate in 1853, Trinity church was called on to set forth the value of her real estate. Well, it is well know how Trinity church re- po ted. Whether the corporation in their answer to the resolution of the Senate were actuated by hi-'h and noble principles it is not for me to say; but I must levert to it in order that the Senate may understand what the value is. 6 The reply of the Church was grounded upon the valuation of the assessors and not upon tho 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, nroceeded dilforently. They called witnesses who knew the property, to prove the value of the real estate owned by the cor- poration, and the proof thus elicited is submit- ted to the Senate. I would refer Senators to the report to show them that the actual value of the property upon which this valuation of a mil- lion and a half was put, exclusive of buildings, amounts to nearly six millions of dollars. Mr. Wads worth —Will the Senator tell us what incumbrances there are upon that proper- ty? Mr. Noxou — It has no incumbrances that are worth speaking of. The mortgages and se- curities the church possesses outside this real estate, leaves her in the juflgment of your com- mittee with property in her hands worth at least $10,000,000 I ought, injustice to the apprais- ers to say, that one of them, a responsible person stated he would take every dollar of the proper ty at its valuation — si.x or seven millions — and pay cash for it. I now desire to call the attention of the com- mittee 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 com- mittee may understand whether or not there was a design on the part of the corporation of Trin- ity church to make any concealment in the mat- ter of their property, without myself charging such design directly upon them. And first,! refer Senators to p • ge 8 of the report of the select ooin- mittee made in 18.5.5 ; in whicli they will find that the corporation estimates the value of No. 25 1 Broadway, at $12,081.56. It is estimated by one appraiser at $100,000, and by another atll5,000. I also lefer you to the valuation by the corpora- tion, on page 9 of the lirst report, of the lots Nos. 136, 138, 140, and 142 Chambers street— which I believe is the depot of the Hudson River railroad— which valuation is $28,827.40. And what is the proof on this point? Why, the proof is, that when the committee come to value this property, thpy find the fact to be that Trinity church leases the same lots at a ground rent of $5,OiiO. This she herself fixes to be at the rate of 5 per cent, on the valuii ; thus making the valuation of the property by her own estimate, one hundred thousand do'lars. I ought to say here that this negotiation, by ■which Trinity church fixed the valuation of the Chambeis street property at $100,000, was made about two months before tho report which they submitted to the St'nate. I call the attention also to the report where this cnrporatiou values the lot 275 Hreen^rieh St. at $6,840.60, a lot which by actual sale a few days previous to the report, was i-old for tho sum of S20,000. Again, no mention whatever is made by Trin- ity Church of the St. John's square property. — It was a matter of too little consequence to re- port the valu.ation which the church put upon the squarfe ; and yet it is estimated by Trinity herst'lf, in a ni^gotiation for its sale, at tho mod- est sum of four hundred tkomand dollars! But these discrepancies in the valuation! 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 atiention of the com- mittee to another branch of the case — that relat- ing to the corporators. We have now some in- formation 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 thrnugh the reports sent to them on behalf of Trinity Church, find what were the names of communicants in the church, and of the pew holders, and the total number entitled to vote as corporators. And I may hare sav that we have had placed upon tho files of the Senate, since our last report, memorials impugning in a measure the action of the committee in r«gard to the report she made relative to the list of cor- porators. These memorials set forth the charge that the committee have drawn conclusions not warranted by the testimony. A protest was then placed upon our files against tlie commit- tee, a'^serting that they have made charges against the corporation not borne out by the evidence. Now, what was the statement of the committue on this point? Simply that it had been a most difficult matter for several years, even to get 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 looking at the testimony, to say whether we were right in that assertion ; or whe'her 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 minis- tered at her ovvn 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 cor- porators of Trinity Church. Dr. Wainwright and myself have made several efforts to obtain such a list unsuccessfnlly. Dr. Wainwright after being made bishop, told me he did receive such a list." In examining the Comptroller of the Church, in New York city, some questions came up, .^luggested by the replies of the Comp- troller, as to tho list of corporators. The ques- tion was put to him, " Have you a list of the vo- ters in your possession ?" To which he answer- ed, " One of the lists was lost and afterwards found, and the number but not the names was added to our report. 1 presume their names are in the office; if the committee of the vestry au- thorize mo to furnish such list I will do so." Why, is it not strange that the Comptroller of such a corporation as this, testifying before a 7 committee of the Senate, sTionld affect so little knowledge of the affairs of his own chnrch ? Is it not strange that when questioned as to the list of corporators, he should fall back tipon the " Committee of the Vestry," and say— "if the Committee of the Vestry authorize me to furnish anch a list, I «all do so." At page 64, in assigning a reason why the names of the corporators were not given in the report, the Comptroller in a communication ad- dressed to the committee states it to be — " be- cause the Vestry were not aware that the liberty to inspect a list of such names had ever been re- fused to any corporator." The Senators will pay particular attention to these words. I now desire to call the attentton of the committee to the te.stimony of the Rector on page 5.j, 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 cor- porators. Was he not aware that Bishop Wain- wright had tried for years to get a list of the cor- porators, in vain 1 Was he not aware that the ■venerable Rector himself had refused to show Bishop Wainwright such list? I will now pro- ceed to read the testimony of Dr. Berriau, 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 Wain- right 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 requesting the list from me. I replied that I had no power myself to lend the book, though he had the ri£;htto 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 sue e.ss ? A. I imderistood that he applied to a clerk in the vestry office, who declined as I did hetause he had not the power to do it. So then we find the Bi-shop asking not only the Rector, but a clerk in the Vestry office — try- ing in some manner or other to get a list of the corporators. Bat 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 atten- tion to the language here used by the Reverend Doctor, and to see whether he is not attempttng to be a little scholastic over this mitter, and en- deavoring to select his words somewhat careful- ly. But we come to the next question : Q. Who had it? A. At that particulartime 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 lauguagj 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 ? Th^ Rec- tor 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 evi- dence continues : Q. What are your powers, if any, over the books of the corporation ? 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 examin- ation. Q. Do you know of anything in the act of in- corporation, or rules of the vestry, to prevent your showing the book to any person who ap- plies to see it ? A. I do not. Q. Then, I again ask, why you did not show it to him ? A. Because I thought it was the proper business of the comptroller to let him see it Now, then, they come here with their memo- rials crowding the files of the Senate, and say that your Committee have eggregiously erred in saying that there was ever any difficulty in ob- taining a list of the corporators of Trinity Chnrch! 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 Vestryman. And yet they say that the reason they do not produce the names of their corporators is because the^ supposed that any person applying, could at any time have obtained the list I But this is nat all. Perhaps the richest thing of the whole, is the statement they make as to the ninety-tico corporators that are communicants of Trinity church, and all her parishes, and the two hundred pew holders ; making in all about three hundred to administer the vast funds of the corporation. May I not stop here and ask, if Trinity church has in one hundred and sixty years arlded to her communicants ninety-two pei- sons ; 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 I But when she makes this report to the Senate and spreads out before us her ninety-two corpo- rators, and her two hundred psw holders, even then she does not tell the truth ; because we have evidence to show that not over 150 of the 300 returned here, are now at the present time. Communicants or pew holders in tlie Church. I desire to present to the Committee a bftter evi- dence bearing on this question, and shall refer 8 them to tlie report for lb.it purpose. The lis containing tlie names 'will be foand on page 68, in a sohefiale annexed to a communication from the Comptroller to your Committs, hy which he makes an exhibit of tlie corporators who are not pew holders. The number is 92. On the next page, 69, the wliole number of corporators as pew holders, is made 221. So there are in all, as stated in these schedules, 313 corporators of Trinitj Church. Now I have before me evidence to show that from the 92 names sent into the Senate of the State of New Yorls as being corpo- rators, communicants of that Church, the fol- lowing should be deducted: Two are dead — Mr. Brooks — Will the Senator state whether they were d.^ad at the time tlie report was made ? Mr. Noxon — Well, one has died since the re- port — the other was dead at the time. Twenty-two liave no directory address. Seven have removed from the city. Four have gone over to other churches. Nine are Rectors, Clergymen, &o., and ten are Vestrymen. This makes a total of 54. But from these we should perhaps deduct the Vestrymen, Rt^ctor, Clergymen, &c., nnmbering 19. Tliis would leave of the corporators of Trin- ity Church who are communicants, 57. This is all. The corporation of Trinity Church presents here through its officers a li.st of the cor( orators, and the facts show that its 92 dwin- dled down to 57. But lot us go a little further. We will not stop at the corporators who are communicants, we go on to the corporators who are pew hold- ers. The Senators will recollect that at page 69, the number of these is put down at 221. Of these, 18 are supposed to be dead — at least they cannot be found, nor are their names in the Di- rectory. Forty-two have removed from the city of New York. It may, indeed, be said, that although dead or removed, these pew-hol- ders had the right to transmit tlieir vote as cor- porators. Forty-five 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 congregations ; 15 were Vestrymen, Sexton, Clerk &c., and 2 are not Episcopalians. Now there may hi some power or other transmitted by the dead and the absent by which to enable tlie corporation to swell up the number to 221. But the t'>tal number not to be found among tliese pew holders— including one duplicate name — is 1()8. If we deduct from this the 15 Vestrymen of the churoli. Sexton, &c., it will leave 68 as the actual numbsrof pew holders. So that i M. The Senate iu Committee of the Whole, re- sumed the consideration of the Trinity Church bill. Mr. Midden said — Mr. Cliairmin : I do not see why the Senate should tike up all the tim9 she h is at this stage of the session in de- bating this bill ; and for the sake of taking up the third reading of bills, I move that the Com.- mittee now rise and report progress. The motion was lost — ayes 7 — nays 12. Mr. Noxon then concluded his remarks. Ha said : Mr. Chairman ; while addressing the Senate yesterday, and at the time the Commit- tee 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 communion- ists, was set down at 92, and the number as pew holders .it 200, making 300 in all who were represented on the part of the corporators as en- titled to vote in the election of Wardens and Vestrymen in that church. I also said the rep- resentations made by that corporation to the Legislature of the State of N. York were untrue; for that instead of there being that number of corporators, there was 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 per- sons who have been deprived of the rights secur- ed to them under the original charter and the laws of the State of New York, that the trust en- trusted to this corporation under the charter and laws, is administered to 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 rendered in such a manner as to create a dependence on the corporation of Trini- ty Church, on the part of tliose 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 com- mittee to that part of the evidence be;.ring on this branch of the case ; and I ask thum to say, from the proof, whether this corporation, in ad- ministering the fund given for tlie benefit of all, does so impartially and fairly, or partially and for the benefit of those only who side with Trin- ity. And first I call the attention of the com- mittee to page 83 of the first report ; in whicli tlie evidence of a clergymp.n of the Episcopal , Church, who liad been for 18 years a minister j in the city of New York, is given. He swears before the committee that he has been acquaint- ed with Trinity Church, and the management of her fnnd in a coiisiderable degree, and says, " I do not consider the trust has been administered in such a way as best to promote the object for which it was given. Their course, in certain in- 9 stances, to my knowledge, has been partial. I speak of their partiality as a fact, to my certain toowledge. It is a notorious fact, that while some churches have had aid to an excessive amount, others have been entirely tut ofif or pro- scribed." I also call the attention of the committee to page 104 of the first report, on which page will also 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 opin- ion Trinity church is doing her utmost to make the capital of the corporation available for the founding, support, or promotion of religious, charitable, or educational institutions or pur- poses 1 The answer is. " from outward observa- tion of their acts, I should say not." The question is then propounded, " In what respect V He replies, — " Because they have not multiplied churches throughout 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 payments to the support of the minister ; in either way increasing their power over the corporations and minister 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 exer- cise an overwhelming influence throughout the diocese." I beg also to call the attention of the commit- tee to the testimony of Dr. Anthon, at page 109 of the first report. Dr. Anthon was an assistant minister in Trin- ity 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 free- dom of action on the part of parishes and cler- gymen. A. In my opinion the effect is seriously to impair their independence. Q. In applications for aid, has Trinity church, in your opinion, favored those whose party Tiews and actions were similar to her own ? A. Unquestionably. For instance, while the application of St. .lude's church was pending, which was ultimately refused, it is said grants were made St. Luke's, the Holy Apostles, Dr. Seabury's, and others. I beg also to refer the committee to page 10 of the new report, 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 moitgaged to Trinity Church, I find eight, the clergy and lay delegates of which, for a series of years, on all leading ques- tions spoke and voted differently from the Rec- tor and lay delegates of Trinity. Two of these are mortgaged for S25,000, two for $20,000, one for $5,000, 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 allud- ed to by Dr. Haight, which have been mort- gaged to Trinity ; so that out of 130 churches, we have ei^ht 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 bauds of almost every member of the Senate, headed "Trinity Church. — Answer to the charg- es." I refer to that part of the state- ment which professes to give the amounts that have iieen appropriated by Trinity Church to the " High Churches " and " Low Ciiurohes," taking the twenty largest appropriations to the city Churches and the country Churches. In this connection, St. George's, St. Mark.3', Grace Chuicb, Christ Church, St. Michael's, St. James, St. Andrew's, St. Thomas', Ascension, S*.. Peter's, and St. Bartholomew's are mentioned as the " Low Churches " in the city ; and St. Stephens" Zion, St. Clement's, St. Luke's, All Saint's, St. Phillip'.s, Annunciation, Nativity, and the Church of the Redeemer, as the " High Churches." — The gifts to " Low Churches," the piper 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 com- mittee to this most significant fact ; a fact that stands out boldly and forcibly, and that if we were not well ac iuainted 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 1814, 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, (S32,000) in 1827; to Ascension (815,000) 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 'Low churches' since 1814, $71,000 and 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 10 city of New York, I cannot refrain from men- tioning one case, that of the Church of St. Mat- thew, in the city of New York, a little church, with a debt of only $1,300, who came begg- ing and beseeching Trinity Church to grant her aid. At that very time Trinity was pouring into the treasuries of the High Churhes 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 oflFered 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 sub- ject 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 bfeoause i the pastor of the Church was not exactly the man to preside over a congregation. I I should like to know whether this can be considered a sufficient reaso i why the congre- gation of St. Matthews 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 sufficient 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 iell us that in the distribution of the 1 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 j who runs may read, that the power of Trinity is I wielded over the entire Church, and that those I 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 Epis- copal Churches outside of New York can know of this proceeding ; what can they know of the j proceedings here at the Capitol ? What alarm I has been sent abroad to say to them " remon- : strate against this law ;" a law the proposition of which not one out of a hundred of them can be acquainted with. I beg to direct the atten- tion of the committee to these remonstrances. — It will be seen that they all come from one press — that they are stereotyped, and sent out by Trinity Church unto all the Churches of this State who have received aid from her, and who are required to remonstrate, blindfold, against the passage of this law. Here is the memor- ial : — To the Honorable t he Senate .ind House of Assembly of the State of Now York. The Remonstrance of the undersigned Mem- bers of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, Inhabitonts of Whitestown in the State of New York, not belonging to the Parish of Trinity Church, New York, respectfully rep- resents: That your Memorialists are opposed to any re- peal, alteration, or modification by the Legisla- ture, of an Act entitled "An Act to alter the name of the Corporation of Trinity Church, and for other purposes," passed on the 2.5th of Jan- uary 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 en- joyed and exercised, without disturbance, un- der that Act for forty-three years, would destroy confidence in the security of property. Your Remonstrants foresee, moreover, that the direct effect of such repeal, modification, or alteration i would be very injurious to the interests of coun- try Parishes, — and would encourage litigations dangerous to the peace of the religious commu- nity, of which your Remonstrants are members; and that if the parties promoting such litigations should succeed, the elections of Trinity Church would become scenes of disorder and unseem- ly contest between rival parties seeking the control and management of her estate. And j your Remonstrants will ever pray, &c. I should like to know who told Trinity Church that the Senate in its action sought to throw doubts on the rig^hts of her corporators, I should like to know where Trinity and her corporation can find any provision in the proposed law that can cast doubts on the right of her corporators 1 i Why, this bill seeks to make plain those rights. No person here a.'iks 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 fur- ther 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, i if they knew the eggregions wrong suflered by those to whom it seeks to do justice. They next say that injustice is intended to country parishes How so ? What injustice t — 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 put my hand on four of the names among the signatures on the memorial for the bill, and point you to men who have ; givenand are annually giving more to the country ' churches, than Trinity herself has ever given And yet you would tell me that we are injuring the country churches I They say, too, that the law would encourage litigatian : 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. |l There is a common error abroad in the land, il that this property and Queen's farm, are the property of Trinity church. It is the most eg- gregions error that ever crept into the brain of the most credulous man. Trinity church never 11 had any right to the property . She has not to this day any right, except what she gets under the law of 1S14. To whom then does the prop- erty belong ? To the corporators. And who are the corporators ? Why the Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen — of what church ? Not of Trin- ity church, but the Rector, Wardens and Vestry- men of the Church of England as by law estab- lished. Trinity has simply the name of the building ; but the corporation that took the land OS a corporation, had nothing whatever to do with Trinity church, as a church. I now call attention to page 42 of the ne^r re- port, which relates to another branch of this •ubject, as to what Trinity has done. She was called on in the original resolution of the Senate, to report what she had done by the way of en- dowing institutions of charity or benevolence, for her own poor. Well, it is a remarkable fact that Trinity church — the most immense reUgious corporation in esistener) within the bounds of the Stale — has done nothing for institutions of char- ity or l«nevolence, 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, liber- ally and amply endowed Trinity Charity School, which has been doing immeasurable good to her own poor, and others, from generation to gener- ation, 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 Trinity corporation, have been so uumindful of their own poor, as the report of the committe would seem to im- ply." 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, can- not 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 haying given it lots when they were hardly worth a song ; and now by the natural rise and growth of the city, these lots, original- ly worth nothing, have made the Charity com- paratively wealthy. But the Rev. Rector, in speaking of this very subject, as to the Institu- tions Trinity has endowed, says "she has got her DorciS Societies, her Industrial Schools, her Parish Schools." I should again like to know where her endo vments of these schools have oome from. Her schools are most decidedly the richest speculations Trinity Church has made in her "endowments" to Institutions, to charity or benevolence. "She make annual and occasional coll -"tions," he further says, "in her parishes." W rill, I would like to know what church does tut 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, ia making endow- ments. But Trinity employs " lay agents" it is said, "whose business it is to give needful as- sistance and council to the emigrant, on his ar- rival at this port ; to visit the suffering poor, and ascertain their fitness for the bounty of the ehorch, and to search out the ignorant for re- ligious instruction." Well, I do not know but that it is meant to claim this as an "endowment," because it pays the men it thus employs a salary of $1,600 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 prop- erty large enough to endow every other church in New York, that does not raise her hands in support of her poor sister churehes. 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 ought to say, and I do say here, in justice to some of the vestrymen of the church, that while some have favored the erection of those magni- ficent 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 5260,000 or $270,000. Sir, Trinity can, when it is to gratify those upon whom she can rely for support and in- creased strength, put her hand into her pocket, and with a princely liberality help to raise up magnificent and costly temples, carved and sculptured as by an Angel's hand ; but when a cry of help comes from those from whom she 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 ? How is the management of the fund carried on to-day ? Why, the corporation of Trinity Church, if not shielded beneath the garb of a religious society, would every one be sent to a Mad House. Why, with a debt of 5600,000, and with their whole vast property yielding them less than $100,000 a year I They say it is out on long leases This is not trae, as a matter of fact. Half of it has reverted back. 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 com- mittee who represent Trinity Church in the Green Rooms of the councils, and who use the funds, not for the purpose for which they were originally designed, but to keep them fast, in- «reaaing and swelling up in their hands. Her 12 policy now is not the same as it was prior to 1814. She holds her lands now, and builds magaiSuent Churches, and lays out immense sums upon thnm, and when the poor Churches come to beg of her, she has not a dollar for them. And yet you tell me, with this immense amount of property on your hands, that this is good management! I wonder if the 125 corpo- rator's of the church, understands what the man- agement 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 vet they never account for the management of the fund, to those for whose benefit it has orig- inally given. Mr. Chairman, these remarks that I make about this corporation, do not affect Trinity Church nor her parishes and her clergy. It is any thing when I say Trinity Church and her parishes, and another when I say "this corpora- tion.-' When I come to speak of Trinity Church and her clergy, lean speak of the good they be doing in the city ot New York ; for there can are 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 know nothing about its affairs. There is not one assistant minister who has any knowledge of the affairs of the corporation. Sir : This corporation deserves great credit for Bome things, and I am willing to give her all that of riglit belongs to her. She has erected Trinity Church at the head of Wall street, look- ing down upon the great money depot of that wealthy city, Vith her lofty spire piercing the sky, and her merry bells ringing out their music in the ears of all, and giving as pief.sant an invitation to the rich, to those who love to sit beneath her sanctuary. For all this— for the other magnificent edifices she has built up in the city of New York— for founding her Saving Societies and her industrial schools, she doubt- less deserves great 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 magnificance, almost forbidding to the humble christian wanderer who seeks to enter her doors. Her velvet cushions, her crim- son draperies, and all her gorgeous embellish- ments may well attract the rich and luxurious ; but the poor rarely seek 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 these Senate Halls, the voice of warning as to the power which the Papist church exercises over the minds of men. We have been continually reminded of the dan- gerous power which that church wields over the will and action of its communicants. We are reminded, too, from time to time, that there are powerful corporations in the State of Nev York, which-exerclse aa undue control over the pow- ers that be, in the State Government. The note Hi 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 pow^r that starting first in the city of New York, and that when the Senate pass resolutions affecting it, defies the Legislature i of the State, and proudly says, " you have no right to call upon me for information." A pow- er that, when the committee appointed under the authority of the Senate seek to discharge B their duty, and to take testimony as to the af- ie fairs of Trinity, would crush out that committee, id and hold it up to the scorn of of the people of tb the State of New York. A power that is not Si content with the attempt to extend its influeno- jni over the committee, but creeps slowly and steal- thily into the Legislature, defies the State herself tl and declares that it holds grants from the Brit- ja ish crown, which are over and above all laws of ei the State of New York. Ed But I ask the Senate to remember that this j li power is, after all, but a grasping corporation. — ii Although she has behind her the proud spire of pt Trinity churcli, yet I know not why she should ji have any more rights or authority here than a bank corporation, an insurance corporation, or a ti railroad corporation. ei Sir, this power rules also the Conventions. — p She does not stop at ruling in the city and at g the Capital of the State, but she rules and con- ; trol by her own will the members of the f Convention of the Diocese. And what is proba- 1 bly more to be regretted than aught else, she li controls her Bishop. The Head of the church V is called to her aid, and puts forth his power in el order to defeat all but the right sort of men. — i c 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. — i 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 curio.«ity than from anyother feeling I took up the list of remonstrances, to see who it was from the country that was pressing these memo- o rials regarding the amendment of the law of ■ 1814. I find that of the churches memorializing ] the Senate, there are in all 41. Of these, 5 are ] Low and 3G 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 Episcopal Cliurch of the city of New York may suffer from lier policy, I would invoke here no feeling ( against her. I desire the cool, calm, deliberate i judgment of the Senate on the matters before it. i I ask for no excitement of feeling. Let us lay I aside all prejudices on either side, and meet this I question as we meet all otlier questions, unbias- i sed and uncontrolled by any influences that may ij seek to reach us under the garb of religion. — '\ Let us meet it with judgments clear, and with l| 13 minds accurately fixed on tho 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 introduc- ed here, may be support? d 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 th^y have any vested rights nnder that original grant and the susequentlaws, 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 1814. Sir, I speak not for the living only, but for those who are yet to come, for they also are in- jured by the law. It was not for the inhabitants of New York, in commanion of the church of England in 1697 ; 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 a trustee — nothing more. Now as to the question whether or not she has administered the funds wisely. If sh'^ had giv- en to the ;:oor 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 have been some ground for Baying there should be no amendment to the law of 1814. But if it is clear that prior to 1814 there was such trust, and thatthe property thus held for the benefit of the inhabitants of the city of New York is now improperly managed and unfairly appropriated, then is it not a duty 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 carporation, the rights of these parties 80 long diveHed from them. Why, the asser;ion is made thatthe original corporators have enjoyed these wrongs so long, that they begin to ripen into rights ! That the wrongs to these bonefloiaries having been suflfer- ed to quietly exist for forty long years, they ought not now to ask for their removal. I an- swer, that if there is a right existing — 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 away those rights. They re- main 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 nece.^sary after examining the testimony, to briefly call the attention of Sena- tors to matters which came up before the Com- mittee, because I know it is impossible — volu- minous 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 investiga- tion of this matter without passion or feeling; to exercise their best judgment in deliberating upon it ; and if in their opinion the law of 1814 did deprive these men of any of their rights, then I ask them to place the original corpora- tors in the same position they occupied prior to the law of 1814. There is to be no overturning of Trinity Church, as has been represented in the country, and at this Capitol. The same men who are Corporators now, will remain Cor- porators 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 1814. SPEECH OF Mr. WADSWORTH, IN BEHALF OF TRINITY. IN SENATE .... March 27. At the close of Mr. Noxon's remarks, Mr. Wadsworth said : — Mr. Chairman : — I feel oppressed — deeply op- pressed — by the fearful responsibility which in my judgment now weighs upon this Senate. — The State is being tempted — the power of the State, by the bill before us, and still more by the substitute for that bill, is being invoked to perpetrate a crime, which, if perpetrated, will ring through the ears of Christendom. I feel, in view of the importance of the action we are called upon to take, that it is my duty to warn the Senate, and to say, in the eloquent lan- guage of Burke — " Better it is to be aroused from our slumber by the alarm of the fire-bell, than to sleep on undisturbed and perish by the flame in our beds." There is a magnitude attached to this question which, in my judgment, attaches to no other question on which we have been called upon to act ; and it must be my apology for submit- ting, however imperfectly, to the Senate, my deep and earnest convictions of the momentous moral considerations involved in this subject. The ancient and venerable Corporation of Tri- nity Church, now stands arraigned before the Legislature, for several grave offences. What are those crimes, and what the head and front of her offending ? The first is, that she possesses enormous wealth. What is that wealth, and how acquired? In 1695, when New York was but a hamlet ; when her high wall kept the sav- age out of the petty village, a little church was established — the foundation of Trinity was laid just within the walls, that the devotions of her connregation might be carried on in peace. Where Trinity .stands is her cemetery, also, where slumbers Alexander Hamilton ; where rest the ashes of Lawrence, forever to be re- membered for those memorable words — " Don't give up the ship !" Moving a little into the outskirts, we find the church in 1704 possessed of a farm — al- most or quite out of the village — called th« King's farm, then yielding a yearly rent of 30 colonial pounds a year. On ths south end of I 14 thif oxm, she erected the ohapel of St. Paul's, laying out the remainder of the block as a cemetery. In due course of time, she erected on another portion of the farm her chapel of St. John's, attaching to it two other blocks as an open orna- mental Park, for the benefit of the Church and the neighborhood. These, gentlemen, together with the remain- ing portions of the farm, which blessed Queen Anne bestowed upon her, constitute the whole of Trinity's possessions ; and of these then modest possessions, while not one rod of land has been added thereto, more than two-thirds have already been sold by this persecuted corpora- tion, for the benefit of the christian world. The iecond crime urged against Trinity is that she will not fell nor divide her consecrated grounds, so sacred in the memory of the cburch It is perhaps the m'sfortune of the Episcopal church, that something of the old Catholic faith attaches to her, and that she believes that ground once consecrated should remain consecrated for- ever. Now I claim that there are two parties who appear on the record against Trinity church. — The one, the speculative philosophers of Wall street, who regard Trinity spire as it stands se- renely looking down upon that scene of selfish and worldly strife, simply as an obstruction which prevents Wall street from being run through to the Hudson River. In the cool philosophy of these gentlemen, the twenty corporations who have abandoned their sacred edifices.with all their hallowed traditions, in the older part of the city, have set a lauda- ble example. Under their bidding, church after church, grave yard after grave yard, have fallen before the inexorable greed of gain, until the last relic of the Episcopal faith. Trinity, with its ve- nerable chapels and cemeteries, is now called on to give way to the all devouring demands of trade. These commercial philosophers have found a ready and most unscrupulous auxiliary, in a knot of enterprising gentlemen glorying in the name of " Low Churchmen," who not of Trinity, but contemning her doctrines and practices, is yet ambitions to become pos- sessor and ministrant of her oifices, wealth and power. These two combined, would pervert the properties of the church to purposes far other than the evangelizing or christianizing of the world. Trinity resists them. She does not need money so much as to sell her dead ancestry. She will not part with the dust of Alexander Hamil- ton, though each separate particle might yield its ruby. He who sleeps there, over whose grave the Father of his Country might well have wept, and above whose ashes the trampling of ever busy generations is heard, though he shall hear them not any more for ever — should he not sleep — aye in the very heart of the commercial capital of the Union — as sacredly and undistur- bedly as the Duke of Wellington sleeps in St. Paul's Churchyard— in the busy street in the very heart of the world's metropolis — in the ap- propriate spot selected responsively to the great public voice, wliich asked — "Where shal 1 we lay the man whom wo deplore 7 "Where the Bounds of those he wrought lor, "And 'he feet of those he fought for, "Shall echo round his bones for evermore !" No, Sir! Trinity will not sell this precious ground. This sordid corporation — this grasp- ing vestry, obstinately refuse to take the hun- dreds of thousands they might realise by selling the consecrated dust. But let us pass on to St. Paul's Churchyard. What treasures has Trinity, there ? About two acres of ground constitute the cemetery of this Church. There, too, slumber others of her honored dead — not so distinguished, perhaps, as our Hamilton and Lawrence — among them a couple of Irishmen, not quite unknown to fame, only a couple of Irishmen, Thomas Addis Em- mett, the glory of the New York bar, and gal- lant Montgomery, the hero of Quebec. Now it is a shortsighted, unthrifty policy on the part of this stupid vestry, not to sell the dust of these two Irishmen for a million and a half of dollars. Yet Trinity does obstinately refuse to part with the sacred spot "Where the forefathers of the hamlet Bleep," where, besides the two Irishmen I have nam- ed, the dust of some ten thousand Americans is laid. And this constitutes Trinity's second crime, while the speculative philosophers of Wall street aided by their ecclesiastical allies would fain destroy this old-fashioned guardian- ship, which protecting the ashes of our ances- tors, preserves and perpetuates their principles and virtues. Again, we trace the work of these enlighten- ed reformers, in the attempt to purchase St. John's church yard — or I should say, St. John's Park. In the great mart of commerce there is one leafy spot where the ringing laughter and noisy gambols of childhood go on through the live-long day ; where, through sequestered walks, the sober matron and the joyous maiden can in summer see, in the wide spread foliage above, the kindly beneficence of an overruling provi- dence ; and in winter, through the long, bare arms of the leafless tree, can gaze without ob- struction upward to the dwelling place of God. A few speculators thought this a good spot for a Post Office. They applied to the Church to know on what terms it could be purchased. Trinity met them — not to drive a bargain, but to drive them away from the speculation — and with that view asked for the property the four hundred thousand dollars of which we have heard so much. It was but a courteous method of discountenancing a selfish proposition. I now come, Mr. Chairman, to the third crime charged against this corporation. It is that she has rebuilt Trinity in a style which comports with her dignity and possessions, and preserves her other magnificent constructions, in a locality where, by the demolition of some thirty ehuroh- es in the last half century, there would, without them, be one widespread moral waste. Sir, it 15 seemed fitting that Trinity, upon tliis exact spot, shoaldrear aloft her spire, in sucli singular con- trast with the scene below; where,while it rebukes Mammon in his temple, it also catches the eye of the emigrant as he crosses the Atlantic, and tells him that England's great and sainted Church, whose memories were with him when in tears he bade his native shores good night, exists and flourishes in the land which stands ready to receive him to its bosom and to offer him a happy and a prosperous home. Nor should we forget, here, that that Church, through her appointed ministers, meets the wanderer as he leaves the ship, to throw around him her fostering care, and guide his footsteps through those perils and temptations which too surely beset the stranger in a foreign land. Is it, then, a crime, that Trinity has re-built her church ? Sir, if there be in that great restless, struggling, busy city, one object of sense more typical than any other of the sleep- less eye of God looking down on man, it is the solemn spire of Trinity serenely standing in the fullness and beauty of her religious strength, re- garding with fixed and unalterable mien the writhing, wrestling world of Wall street at her feet. The moral malady of that great metropo- lis rages in greatest intensity on that very spot — copied in its counterpart, the Fifth Avenue — the base cupidity of the one feeding the empty os- tentation of the other. Sir, it is well, it is very well, that Trinity stands where she does, a per- petual warning and rebuke to both. Aye, sir, until public faith and public virtue be quite extinct, there she will firmly stand, despite the efforts of those who, as between two thieves, now seek to crucify her. We are told, too, Mr. Chairman, that this adornment of her sanctuaries is, on the part of Trinity, a wasteful expenditure of money. Is this a time for the great Protestant Episcopal church to count the cost of her constructions, when the Papal Hierarchy, after covering one continent with her venerable cathedrals, through which, more perhaps than through any other cause, she has been enabled to control the faith of men and of nations, is at this hour, within the very sight of Trinity, laying the foundations at an outlay exceeding a million of dollars of a majestic cathedral whosy grandeur, shall be withont compare on the continent of America ; whose architectural proportions shall embrace all the beauty and grandeur of ancient and of modem art; whose two stone towers shall each in their sublimity rise to a point one hnndred feet exceeding the highest pinnacle of Trinity ? Is this a time, I say, to reproach a Pro- testant Episcopal church, for the greatness of her possessions, to begrudge the expenditure in the comparatively modest edifices against which these railing accusations are brought ? Is this a time, when the Church of Rome is thus concentrating snd consolidating her power and influence, to say ttiat the Protestant Episcopal church shall not be permitted to lift up even on" spire like Trinity ? In my opinion, if there ever was a time when the Protestant heart should rejoice over her one undivided Church, it is now ; when Baptists and Presbyterians and Methodists are being rent asunder by the fanaticism of the day. It is now that she should patriotically, as well as religious- ly rejoice that the Episcopal Church, the one un- divided, indivisible church of this great Union — should stand firmly and grandly erect with her array of thirty-one Bishops representing the unity of the Church as co-extensive with the nation. I who am no churchman, nor the son of a churchman ; I, who have no interest in this matter beyond the moral advancement of the age ; I rejoice to see the bulwarks of this mighty Church so strong ; and I believe that it would be a parricidal act, if by the illegal and unconstitutional provisions of this substitute and bill we should disintegrate and dissipate the vast properties of this Church ; the only Church that in the hour of trial could, from her extent, safely or successfully wrestle with the concentrated power of the Papal Hier- archy. I deem it my duty to resist this bill further, because, if its principles should be carried out and sustained by the judgment of the courts, they would remove the last muniment of con- stitutional protection upon which alone the rights of individual property can safely repose. Sir, I am no conservative. I have ever walked in the path of the radical democracy. I believe that man, and society, and government pro- gresses and ought steadily to advance through progress in their laws. But progress is not Jacob- inism. Sir, the alarming manifestations in urging forward the present most pernicious and de- structive measure, compel me to conservatism. Mr. Wadsworth here gave way to a motion for adjournment. IN SENATE March 28, 11^ A. M. The Senate in Committee of the Whole re- sumed the discuision of the Trinity Church bUl. Mr. Wadsworth, having the floor, resumed his remarks. He said : Mr. Chairman : — My health is hardly equal to the task of entering upon the discussion of this question to-day ; but in order that no time may be lost to the Senate, I have resolved to do so. When the Committee rose at its last session I was endeavoring to defend the church from any reproach sought to be cast on her, because of the costliness of her architecture, and because In the opinion of the Honorable Senator from the 22d, her velvet cushions are too rich and luxurious to be used as sittings for the humble poor. I was expressing my amazement that any churchman, in view of the facts then presented, that the Catholic Hierarchy is at this hour seek- ing by its mighty public edifices, to overshadow the city, the State and the nation; — and when I speak of the Catholic clergy I speak of them, as I always do and always shall, with the deep- est respect — I was expressing my amazement, I say. that any one of the Protestant faith should not concede the fact that a church possessing wealth, has a right, and that it is her bounden duty to magnify herself, and make herself hon- orable among men. 16 Sir, I am delighted that my eye has at this moment fallen upon the evidence of Bishop Horatio Potter, one of the best and purest and brightest lights of the church, whose words so completely vindicate the position of Trinity, and the line of argument which I had assumed in her defence. In speaking of the great sanctuary of the Eng- lish Church, and in reply to the pressing ques- tions of the Committee of the Senate In relation to Trinity's constructions, he says : " I consider that Trinity Church only did her duty in making them models ot ecclesiastical architecture. Her wealth had been created main- ly by the growth of the city. She therefore owed to the city some contribution in the way of beautiful and magnificent edifices. And with her wealth, she owed it equally to the character of her own communion. Had Trinity, with its means, limited itself to the erection ot buildings at a moderate cost, I have no doubt the parish would have been severely censured, both by the church and by the community generally. As a general thing, I believe a few costly churches are of great utility to the interests of religion. I have no doubt that Westminister Abbey has, in the course of ages, been worth to the influence of Divine Truth in the world, vastly more than all that it ever co.st." Impressive wor'ls, that should be, and will be forever embalmed in the History of the Church. Mr. Chairman, before I should expect a Churchman to reprove the Church for the ex- pensive character of her edifices, I should ex- pect the modern disciple of art to reprove Ra- phael or Michael Angelo for the labor which gave to the world their immortal works. I should expect the Frenchman, as he paces the long passages of the Louvre, to reprove the French nation for the rich productions of gen- ius which everywhere adorn her walls. Sir, if there be one thing which above all others entitles this glorious Church to consideration in this hour, it is that she seeks by her splendid edifices to attract through physical forms that attention from the poor which is yielded to naught else. If there be one fundamental reform for which she especially deserves praise, it is that by which she seeks to revive the practical piety and charity of the medioeval ages; when through costly structures, and beneath the influence of grand and solemn ceremonies, the mind of the poor and the uncultivated was by the very attrac- tion of these material forms, led in.sunsibly up- ward to nature's God. If this be reprehensible, I would to God that the church with which I am connected, should she ever po.ssess the abil- / ity, might be guilty of the same error. No, Sir; I do not believe tiiat the maguilici^nce of the structure is at all in conflict with the sim))licity or the sanctity of religious service ; but I hold ' that it ratlier spreads a subdued and holy awe over religious worship. Will it be pretended that the poor do not enter Trinity? That those who minister at her altars do not assiduously attend to their duties, year after year, and evsry day in the year ? That the Church is not ever open, that the minister of the church is not ever ready, alike at the Bap- tism, the Marriage and the Funeral; at each stage of moral want, where religious warning or religious consolation is needed by an ever erring humanity ; with the sick, the dying, and the dead? Would the Senator invite us to a comparison, or I should rather say a contrast, with her up- town sister churches, or with Grace Church, that stands so conspicuously foremost in the present contest as the assailant of Trinity? Behold her, then, standing in her pride; the rich cariiages with their velvet cushions, arrayed in glittering lines before her doors ; the coachman with his gloved hands reining in the prancing steeds; the footman in his gaudy livery swinging back the door upon its silver hinges; the fair communicant exquisite even in her devotions, gliding to the altar, bearing the 'wealth of Or- miis and the father Ind' upoi. her lovely form, sweeping along the carpelted aisle, the rustlina; silk mingling with the operatic strains that burst upon the ear. Gorgeous in her riches, and more gorgeous still in her splendid and polished worshippers, Grace looks down with ill-concealed contempt on the humble congregation of Trinity. Clos- ing her portals in the sultry summer months, pastor and flock go gladly out to recruit the strength exhausted in their spiritual labors, while the faithful servants of Trinity stand amid summer heats and wintry blasts ever faitnful at their posts, comforting and supporting the sor- rowing, the desolate and the down-trodden. Sir! The doors of calumniated Trinity, stigma- tised on this floor as destitute "of a single scin- tilla of spiritual feeling," have never been closed even for a day, but from that solemn moment eleven years since, when her Vestry piously offered up their edifice to God, a daily stream of gratitude and prayer has unceasinly ascended to the Gracious Giver of all Good. Mr. Chairman, while I am sensible that these comparisons in matters of religion are or might otherwise be reprehensible , I desire it to be under- stood that we have not invited them. Has not Trinity been attacked upon this floor? Has she rot been brought here by an inquisition instiuted first by the Senate, and followed only by petitions to save this investigation on its very threshold, from assuming its real character of a Star cham- ber inquisition ? Trinity is not the assailant in this case ; but as the guardian of this sacred trust, she cannot permit herself to be disgraced and degraded as she would be should she sub- mit in silence to the wrongs which are sought by this controversy, to be imposed upon her. — She was loi g silent — she will be silent no long- 1 er. She was dragged, a reluctant and unoftendj iug pf rty, to the bar of the Senate ; but whei it is sought to place her in the position of felon, it becomes her duty to resiiit. Let us proceed, then, with our task. An first, since the pay of her clergy has been mad the basis of complaint, let us look at the evi dence and see if her accusers gain anything b; 17 23 ] I 27 yio 20 J 35 Confirma- the comparison. It appears from the testimony of Dr. Berrian, that her rector receives S3, 500 ; that her five assistant ministers get S3,000 ; that her three other a.--sistant ministers receive but $1,500 per annum ; making in all for her nine officiating clergymen, the sum of $23,000 ; while the rectors of ^ue of the up-town churches that appear as parties in this controversy against TWnitv, receive an average of §4,000 each, or J20,000 in the aggregate. Next, as to the baptisms and confirmations. — A comparison with the four Churches of St. Mark's, St. George's, Ascension and Grace Ch., fpr the year 1856, shows the following results: — Trinity Baptisms 433 Confirmations 176 St. Mark's Baptisms 21 ^ Confirmations | St. George's Baptisms 36 ^9 Confirmations j Ascension Baptisms 42 J Confirmations Grace Church — not reported Confirmations Excess of Trinity — Baptisms 334. tions 71. The funerals at three of these churches com- pare as follows, for the year 1S56 : At Trinity 129 At St. George's 6 At St. Mark's 20 At Ascension 12 — 38 Excess of Trinity 91 These, Mr. Chairman, are the figures ; and if it was worth while to institute a comparison at all in matters of this kind, it was worth while to arrive at the facts now presented to the Sen- ate. This, indeed, has become doubly nectssa- ly, since the Senator from the 22Qd has seen fit, in order to sustain his argument, to quote only such evideuce as would seem to substantiate the positions he has taken, entirely ignoring all the proof by which those positions were successfully refuted. Again, on the question whether Trinity is in reality the church of the Poor, I desire "to call the attention of the Senate to some facts set forth in the evidence. On page 43 of the report, the Rev. Dr. Berrian testifies as to the general provisions for the poor in the Parish, including free burials in Trinity cem- etery : " In addition to this. Trinity church corpora- tion makes an annual contribution of $2,000 to- wards the Communion fund, to supply the defi- ciencies in the otferings of the people, on account of the altered condition of things in the parish. It appropriates nearly §1,600 a year to lay agents, whose business it is to give needful assistance to the emigrant, on his arrival at '.his port ; to visit the suffering poor, and ascertain their fitness for bounty of the Church, and to search out the iffiorant, for religious instruction. It expends aiout $1,000 a year, on the Parish school of St. Paul's chapel, and it likewise empowers the Rector, with unlimited disci etion, to give orders for the free burial of the poor, of our own con- gregations, as well as of others, a privilege which is very frequently sought, and in almost all ca.«es, cheertully granted alike to all." Again, in relation to the pews and sittings provided for the poor in Trinity, on page 5 uf the Report Dr. Haight, says: "it is comijuted there are from 1200 to 1300 free sittings in the Parish." Mr. Verplanck states page 93, that the actual receipts from the pews of Trinity, for the year ending in May 1856, was only $157. "At St. Paul's the sum collected was §280, for the same period. I will add that my personal knowledge is of Trinity, where I attend with considerable regularity about half the year. The operation of St. Paul's re.senibles that of Trinity." Further, in a reply published in a New York paper to an enquiry, the Sexton of Trinity Church states, that out of 139 pews in Trinity only 11 are occupied by those who lease or own them. So that there are 128 pews besides the sittings in the aisles, to which he and the As- sistant Sextons feel at perfect liberty to show strangers poor cr rich, and many of these are constantly occupied by the poor. In regard to the Congregation at Trinity, Dr. Haight says : " The congregation at Trinity church is large, and composed in great part of strangers, transient residents, young men, clerks, etc., and the poor, upon none of whom is any tax, in the form of pew rent or otherwise, laid, for the support of the ministrations of the church. Of the charac- ter and number of the congregations in the three chapels — St. Paul's, St. John's, and Trini- ty chapel, I cannot speak with as much cer- tainty. The congregation at St. Paul's appears to me to be very similar to that of Trinity, and constantly becoming more so. In St. John's chapel, an arrangement has been made, I be- lieve, by which a certain number of free sittings have been provided, with special reference to the poor ; and in Trinity chapel there are Irom one hundred and fifty to two hundred free sittings, in the best parts of the church, which are gene- rally well filled. If the statement referred to, be true, it is not to be wondered at, inasmuch as two of the con- gregations of Trinity Parish are now mainly composed of strangers, transient persons, the working classes and the poor ; while even in regard to the other two congregations it may be affirmed, that neither of them, not even that of Trinity Chapel, compares in point of individual wealth with several other independent congre- gations. There has been a very great change, of late years, in the down town cong-reaations, in consequence of the removal of persons of sub- stance, to the upper parts of the city. I can see no connection whatever, between the alleged smallness of the contributions of the members of Trinity Parish and the administration of the af- fairs of the Corporation. If there be a fault in the matter, it cannot justly, be laid to the charge 18 of the Vestry ; it must rest witli the clergy and the people." Dr. Vinton thus testifies as to the character of the consre^ations of St. Paul's. His testi- mony will be found on page CO. "At St. Paul's chapel, the only one I speak of, the congreg;ation is composed of three classes: first, the old families retaining their seats; se- cond, strangers from the hotels, clerks and sojourners of the city, engaged, for the most part, in mercantile business; third, mechanics, artisans, porters, washer-women, huckster.', and miscellaneous poor, who obtain their living by daily labor."' As to arrangements for Parochial Work, p. 60, 61, he says: " There is a parish school employing two teachers with voluntary assistance from the women of the parish, to teach poor children the principles of religion, as professed by the Episcopal church; ihe elements of common learning; sewing to the e.xtent of each making their own clothing, and laboring to get their own living, and al>o instructions in church music. The number of children is 80 or tOO; also a Sunday school including other children of the parish, taught by between twenty and thirty teachers of both se.xes; two classes for advanced scholars; also a weekly Bible class for clerks and young men. The public services in the chapel are every Sunday morning and afternoon, five months in the year, and a night service additional for seven months. I ojficiate statedly only in morning service, the other parts of the day being employed in other parts of the ) arish. at the church or chapel, and therefore, can speak only of the congregation in the morning. Then it is large, as it is at all the chapels ; the communion's offerings liberal, as shown from the fact that on Easter day they amounted to the sum of $270, and on Christinas day to S180, or thereabouts. At other times the contributions are generous. There is established in connection with St. Paul's chapel, a mission house, open from 9 A. M. to 2 P. M., where one of the assistant ministers is present every day. There are two laymen em- ployed to inquire into and exatnine every ap- plication for aid, and report the same to the office. The case is recorded in a book kept for that purpose, and a record made of all that was done in each case. The applicants are from vestrymen wanting clergymen, clergymen want- ing parishes, poor wanting help, the sick medi- cine, the emigrant advice, i§-c. The office is in communication with most ol the extant institu- tions of charity in the city of New York. Cards are placed in hotels and eating houtes, inviting guests, in my own name, to attend St. Paul's chapel, where free sittings are provided. We have received letters from persons we have aided, expressing their thanks to Trinity Church." I cannot leave this branch of the sutijec-t with- out alluding to the fact that the Hon. Senator from the 22nd, even while making the remarka- bly declaration that " Trinilij church has not one icintilla of spiritual feeling I" was com- pelled most unwillingly as it seemed to me, and probably only from the conviction that it waa necessary to break the force o*' what must be admitted to have been a most intemperate and unjustifiable expression, at a subsequent stage of the discussion, to admit that those who minister at Trinity's altars are without blame. But it is this vestry — this corporation, he says, which he would brand and stigmatize as criminal. And who constitute this vestry? Twenty-two gentlemen as far above reproach as any twenty- tsvo that could be selected within the great metropolis. And why are they denounced ? Because they are an old fashioned set like our Hamiltons, Jays and Kings. Because they will not sell or di.sturb the cemeteries of Trinity im- piovidently, or prematurely sell the property of the church. One of these vestrymen is Gulian C. Verplanck. Is he to be impeached upon this floor ? Who that knows Mr. Verplanck does not know him as a man of most unostentatious manner and liberal life ; as one vrho has devott d twenty years of his life to the emigrant, for whose good, as a Commissioner of Emigration, he has constantly labored ? And is he one whom the Senator from the 22od would impeach ? There is Gen. Dix, too ; a name not unknown in the State of New York ; he also is a member of this Ve:try. A man of letters, distinguished among his compeers, and who has already achie- ved an exalted place in Stateamanship, — is it he, that the Senator from the 22d would impeach t Aye,but will the Senator say, 'these are not the men — I do not impeach these.' Then I reply that they demand, and their fellow Vestrymen demand, that those who he does intend to impeach be .shall impeach bv name, and not attempt thu3 covertly to cast a stigma upon any who in tem- poral or spiritual affuirs administer to the church. The Hon. Senator would not disturb the clergy ; the clergy who he admits have been so constant in their ministrations at the altar, and in their attendance at the homes of the poor, al- though by the provisions of his bill he would let loose upon these pious and devotea men an un- bridled power which would drive them out to starve. But he only desires to disturb the Ves- try — the corporation — and liis charges are only levelled at that corporation, who, in the ex- uberance of what is itself au insane frenzy, the Hon. Senator declares, are "not fit for a mad- house." Let me tell that Senator, that in this attempted sarcasm he utters but the truth in say- ing, that a Vestry who tlxrough nearly ItiO years have administered tlie vast properties of this church without the occurrence of a single mal- versation in office, and without the loss of a single dollar to tlie revenues of the church, and under whose prudential management this property has grown from an inconsiderable farm, to its pre< sent value of four to six millions of dollars — an not fit for a madhouse. And at this point of the debate, Mr. Chair man, I desire to introdme to the Senate eigl gentlemen, inhabitants of the city of New Yorl who seem to have taken upon themselves tl 19 exclusive office of asserting the claims of their fiftj thousand fellow Episoopali.ins. As members of a revolutiouary committee, or commissioners : of confiscation, tUey seem already to have as- sumed the office of distributing the spoils. For what have we on our tables, but a proclamation signed by Mt^ssrs. Bradish, Miuturn, Brown, Wolf, Cambreleng, Cooley, Jay, and Winston, proclaimiug to the rural districts that they are to be admitted to share in tlie spoliation? To be sure the property is claimed on the legal pre- tence of its belonging to the Episcopalian iiihdb- itants of the city, and not to the congregation of the chuich, but nevertheless t'uis self elected Vestry assure the country churches that without a particle of legal right they shall nevertheless have a part — assuring them that so rich is the prize that it will yield "ENOUGH FOR ALL." Under the same assurance the pious fear? of those who love the ancient and time-honored walls of Trinity, and its chapels, are also lulled to sleep. There being ^'enough for all," there will be no necessity, at hast for the present, of pulling down the sacred edillces, or of cutting up its cemeteries into lots for stores. Nay fur- ther, the new regime may graciously permit, at least for the present, the pious and devoted ser- vants of G^d, to continue in the parish their blessed miuistratious to the poor and wretched. No— no — they will not yet disturb the parochial officers. They will not yet carry off the ancient and massive sacramental vessels, r.or remove the communion plates from the altar, nor silence the peal of the organ, nor even interfere to check the too zealous churchmanship of its ministers. No sir, as long as thern shall continue to be "enough for all," the parish governed by a for- eign vestry, strangers to its wants, and feelings, and necessities, will be allowed to drag out a de- pendent and subordinate existence, without le- C'll independence or spiritual equality, but sunk 'ow the level of the humblest congregation in the rudest log cabin in our western wilds. Yes, We shall be permitted to live, subject to the will of these eight Christian gentlemen, who ask no- thing for tus present, but to relieve us of all our productive property. They might even consent to admit us in some new form, as a partner, to share our former possessions with their new proprietors. Sir, the serene complacency with which these gentlemen utter the terrific and ominous words, "enough for all," tills me with alarm and horror. It is the languags^ of Jack Cade and Ledru Roliin, and has been the very watch- word and rallying cry of Agrarianism and Jaco binism throughout the whole dark history of human cupidity and injustice. The attacks on the nobles of France, scattering countless mil- lions as the prey of lawless rapacity, had for their justification "enough for all." If such be the morals of this Senats, why not wait at once on Mr. Astor, and after assuring him that we do not desire to dispossess him, should modest- ly request to be taken in as partners in his vast property on the ground that there is "enough for . all t " Bat this self-elected Vestry and their con- federates in one thing at least, have given evidence of their sagacity. They have chosen a profitable time to enter upon possession; a time wheu two long- leases are about to expire — one in 18C)4 and one in 1S6C — when at least two millions of property would fall at once into their liandsfor distribution. Sir ! Let iue ask where all this is to end ? Can we not see and ftel that these human passions, if now unbridled, will inevitably in obedience to moral, no less than physical laws, gravitate on-on- on, to tl e bottom ? To-day the lirst two millions are difidtd up. Then comes the next division, and the next ; and alas lor the Church — alas for the country when the spoliation of this ancient and honored corporation shall form but the first in that dark catalogue of legislative aggressions, which are to overthrow law, religion and social order. Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Senator does not speak for the dead but for the future generations of mankind. If this be so, why not Itt this vast church property remain for Wif benefit of the future generations of mankind, and not disperse it to the four winds of Heaven. Why does he seek by his bill to deprive this ancient and loyal corporation of its independence ? Why does he seek thus shamefully to degrade it ? It will be governed no longer by its own honor- ably elected vestry ; but by the revolutiona.'y Committee thrown upon it by this wave of Jacobinism that now threatens the destruction of the American Church. Sirl the whole Chris- tian world will be shaken and shocked bj her down tall. And again, I ask, Mr. Chairman, why should this wrong be done ? Trinity is rich, bat her riches are of legitimate growth. She has but shared in the gt>neral prosp-rity which the statesmanship^and genius of Clinton secured to the metropolis of the Empire State, by connect- ing the river with the Lake, and throwi.-'g open to us the we.-tern wilds. You might as well complain of the quiet Dutchmen whose cabbage gardens are now covered with palaces, as to blame Trinity because, beneath a wise guardian- ship, her once humble possessions have swelled into great and coveted wealth. But the corporation of Trinity Church are fur- ther reproached for untruly returning the value of tl eir real estate. It will be recollected that their vestry consists of twenty-two individuals, widely dilfering in views and pursuits and means of knowledge. It is a moral vmpossihility that all could unite in the same valuation. There was no common standard of value to which they could possibly refer, except the official valuation of the city assessors who are sworn to value truly all the lands in the city. If it be said that the assessors never do in fact value lands at their full market value, it may also be said that the fact is perfectly notorious to every one — and that every one is equally competent to add such pro- portionate rates to the assessed value, as expe- rience may suggest. The only statement really 20 important for tlie Churcli to return, and solely within their knowledge, was a true exhibit of the locatiim and size of their lota — that being given, every one is furnished at once with the means of valuing each separate lot. The Church have practised no deception in the matter. On the contrary they explicitly state in their retui'n to the Legislature of 1856, (Senate Doc. No 45, page 6, line 10,) that they return the value " as as- " sessed in 1855 by the officers of the city for " the purpose of taxation." If this return does not correspond with the assessor's books, then and then only will the Church deserve censure. The only object of the legitimate inquiry was to ascertain, not the speculative or estimated value of the land held by the church, but what is its actual income — in a word, what are the existing pecuniary means of the Vestry, to sustain the sacred cause committed to their charge. The rent of a lot is a thing certain to be known ; the value of a lot cannot be certain. The only car- dinal fact necessary to be known and truly re- turned is the actual pecuniary income of the land ; and that they state precisely, in dollars and cents, as being 671,301.97. If that fact be untruly stated, then and then only are the church deserving of censure. They also return the amount of their debt as being $648,913, and that the interest is 641,895. And next as to the re- turn of the number of corporators. The church return that there are 213 pew holders. It now turns out by close scrutiny, that a few of them are dead, and that some have removed from the parish. But of what practical importance is it, whether the corporators are 213, or 113, or 50 ? ]f the corporators legally own the property, it matters not whether their number be great or small. The rights of 50 are just as sacred as the rights of 500. And so of the communicants ; it matters not whether the number be 92 or 52. The question is have they the legal right ? If it be said that the number is too small to control so large a fund, let it be remembered that every man of full age who chooses, can be- come a communicant and a corporator. He needs only to take the communion and then to hand his name and residence to the minister. — Ko man has ever yet been refused or debarred the privilege ; it is now open, wide open to every Episcopalian in the city. The secret is, that the communicants are satis- fied with the church and its management and although they are now eleven hundred in number, only 92 (or as is asserted only 52) have thought fit to take the trouble to qualify themselves as corporators. Is either the church or the vestry to blame for this ? The Senator from the 22d, says that this cor- poration, though amenable to the Legislature like any railroad, insurance or other corporation, set themselves above the law, defy the Senate, and stalking into the Legislature, shelter them- selves behind a grant from the British Crown. I would ask by what other right he would come down, like the Goths and Vandals, to take po3- sessioa of this Rome of the Episcopal Church ? Would it not be under the grant of the same King and Queen by whom this royal bounty was originally dispensed to Trinity ? For what else but to assert a pretended right of the claimants under that very grant, is the present law de- signed 1 Sir, it is not the office of a wise or paternal legislature, to pass a law like the present which must inevitably keep open lor years a bitter fountain, not only of litigation in the courts of justice, but of discord in the heart of society, permanently dividing, as it has already begun to divide, church from church, family from family, and triend from friend. Already the newspapers teem with angry re- criminations, kindling the basest passions of our nature. Both clergy and laity are rapidly rushing into the heated conflict. Is it wise to foster this state of public fetling ? To add fuel to the flame ? May not a a prudent Senate safely decide to banish this exciting topic from the Houses of the Legislature, and send the parties to the Courts of Justice, where only, their contio- versy properly belongs ? This controversy is purely judicial in Its na- ture. The Senator from Onondaga admitted this, when he said that the great mass of the evidence before us bearing upon the manage- ment of the corporation had nothing to do with the question ; that it was not a question of fact, but of law. Why then should the Senate usurp the judicial ermine ? Do not their proper legis- lative functions sufficiently engross their atten- tion, that they must spend precious days and i weeks in listening to arguments proper oniy for the calm and sober atmosphere of a Court of Justice ? The principles involved in this discussion call for profound and deliberate investigation, which only can be secured in the tribunals constitution- ally provided for the purpose. But if it be proper to convert the Hall of Le- gislation into a judicial forum, then let me say that the argument of the legal principles involved in this matter, has not even commenc- ed. After three days debate, the legal discussion has not even approached its threshold. For does the gentleman from the 22d really delude himself, still more, does he seek to delude MS with the idea that he has arg iifd,still more that he has established the fundamental legal proposi- tion, that the Kpiscopal inhabitants of New York, are all alike, entitled to the property of Trinity Church ? Has he stirred a single step in the way of removing, the plain palpable legal obsta- cles which prevent such a conclusion ? Has he uttered a word to gainsay the arguments, clear as noonday, coming fiom the ablest legal intellects that the State has ever possessed, conclusively limiting the said "inhabitants" to those who legally congregate within the walla of Trinity, and are duly admitted into its "congregation " bj its legitimate authorities? I intend not to discuss this nor any of the lega . questions involved, intending and agreeing t< leave them to friends in this body abler,aud mon fully prepared than myself. I merely mean t( 21 .Ter that the genfleman from the 22d has shrnnk rom their discussion, or rather that he has hold- y cut the knot, by unscrupulosly assuming the rery point at issue, and thus cleaning all legal )b5taele8 at a bound. I deny wholly and utterly hat the Inhabitants of the city not members of he congregation have any rights whatever in his matter, and before tlie gentleman stirs an- ther step in this debate he is bound affirmative- i- to prove that they have. For my own part, ?ir, I believe that law — that right — that conse- orated justice is on the side of the church. The Senator from the 22J, has funher found fault with Trinity for her gifts. He complains that they are bestowed upon the High Church rather than upon the Low. lie has taken the trouble to examine the remonstrances that lie upon our table, and he finds that 35 are from High Churches and 6 from Low. Now what care I, who am neither High nor Low Church- man, about these dogmas ; and what right has the Hon. Senator to introduce them into this body to influence my opinions ? I can only say in my judgment that it is evidence of sound churcbmanship in the country, and when the city shall have become as sound, these quarrels will perhaps have ceased. I have received and presented petitions from every Episcopal Church in Buffalo, and if they are all High Churches, then must I regard the High Church as a noble church ; for well I know that they are noble churches — that their church Wardens and Ves- trymen are noble men, and that their clergymen, to my feeble judgment, seem to be worthy minis- ters in the service of their God. The Senator complains, too, that Trinity has done but little or nothing for the cause of educa- tion. On the other hand I contend that sound learning has found in her a constant benefactor. Did she not at an early period give to Columbia College, ninety valuable lots, worth at the pre- sent hour full three millions of dollars, and making that College the most richly endowed of any on this continent ? And whence proceed those shadows that at evening sunset rest upon the bosom of Seneca Lake? Are they not from the turrets of Hobart Free College, as I believe the only Free Col'ege in the State, and was not she, too, endowed by Trinity? Has she not her parish charities for the purpose of education ; her Industrial schools with their thousand scholars ? And yet she, forsooth, has done little or nothing for the cause of edu- cation ! But, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to detain the Senate any longer by discussing facts, which the Senator admits have very little to do with the bill before us. Nor, as I have said, is it my desire or intention to touch upon the legal points involved in this question. I will but pause to say that in any controversy involving real estate, ancient possession must amount to some- thing. In the present instance, we find the church in the quiet, undisturbed possession of her property for more than 150 years ; and this possessory title we hold to he quite as good, as the simple assertion of the Senator that it is owned by others. It is not the business of the State to disturb old titles. It is not the right of tbe individual to do so. "Cursed be he that re- moveth his neighbor's land mark." But if any supposed corporator of Trinity thinks himself deprived of his legitimate suffrage, let him go and offer his vote, and if denied, let him, thro' a mamdamus, make his appeal to the law. The act of 1814 does not debar him from any legal right. No, Sir ; and no person knows this fact better than the assailants of Trinity. They do not need the law they seek, but their real and only object in the present inquisitorial proceed- ing is to throw obloquy upon the corporation, poison public sentiment, and excite popular pre- judice which is always easily turned against wealth in its aggregate form, in order in this way to set in motion a current which they think will be of service to them in the courts of justice. I say Sir, that it is a most unworthy degrada- tion for this Senate to become a, partktps criminit to such a scheme ; and I also affirm that there is nothing in any hasty or testy word or chance expression happening to drop trom a single Ves- tryman, which any Committee of the body should condescend to embalm, thereby becoming the tale-bearer of human or christian infirmities, or which should justly expose tbe body at large to the merciless and indiscriminate severity now sought at the hands of the State. Nor ought the State to lend any aid in dis- gracing the church, by opening the door for scenes of turbulence at her elections. For is it not evident that if this bill passes, several thousand voters, all stimulated by religious strife, will be yearly callei to congregate within the ancient walls of Trinity, re-enacting the tumult and violence and riot of a 6th Ward elec- tion ? At a game in which six milllions of dol- lars is at stake, think you there will he wanting desperate players ? that decency or decorum will rule the hour? And what wiil be the pre- liminary spectacle within the walls of the fifty other churches of the city, throughout the sol- emn ecc'esiastical season ot Lent, next preced- ing the Easter election ? Will not the commu- nion tables of those churches, each zealously preparing its band for the coming conflict, be thronged by crowds assuming for the occasion the mask of piety and faith, atd by that im- pious mockery qualifying themselves to vote? And in a commonalty where Mammon is the God, will voters such as these possess no money value, command no market price ? And when cupidity has won the prize and wrested it from the bosom of the church, think you not that the jeer of Wall street, mingling with the scoff of the infldel world, will rise as a stench in the nostrils ? Mr Chairman, these sickening and disgraceful scenes will never cease until every inch of the ancient domain of Trinity outside of its churches shall have been squandered. And how long after that event, think you, will Trinity church- yard and St. Paul's churchyard survive ? Will they too, not fall victims to this rabid rage t Shall we not see fresh swarms of yet more raven- 22 ous reformers smelling out with keen, unerring scent, the money value l^ing dormant in the grave ? Better by far for the honour of the Christian world and the glory of God, that church and chapel aud munumental tomb aud storied urn were all wrappad at once ia one common con- flagration ! But in my present health, Mr. Chairman, I must speak no longer. I well may pause — for an oratoi " mute but potent," aud more impressive far than the granite shaft of Bunker Hill, now stands silently before you, pleading not for itself but for the slate, btseechiog the Senate not to in- flict this stigma on its hitherto uutarnishied fame. History too, is standing here, — looking ear- nestly on to tell the tale of Law and Right struggling with Passion and Power, — to record our decree, — wliether this venerable church is to stand an enduring monument of public faith aud constitutional loyalty, or shall now be upioot- ed and scattered to the winds, to satisfy a wild, unscrupulous, unreasoning fanaticism. But destroy the sacred temple as you may, the act will live forever inburniug unextinguiiha- ble shame. Ruthless power m^y hurl down buttress and pinnacle and spire, but a dark fijul blot will remain, lasting as time, that all the wa- ters of the multitudinous ocean cannot wash out. IN SENATE March 28. At the conclusion of Mr. Wadsworth's re- marks, Mr. Brooks said: Mr. Chairman : 1 do not propose at this time to go into the discussion of the bill now under consideration, but shall content myself with now offering a substitute, reserving to myself the right at some future day, to occupy as brief time as possible in examining the merits of this bill otferei by the Special Committee. The substitute was read. It is as follows: Section 1. The (Church Wardens and Vestry- men of Trinity Church in the city of New York shall hereafter be chosen as follows: One of said church wardens and ten of said vestrymen shall be chosen by the pew holders and communioanfs of said Trinity Church, and its chapels entitled to vT 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 dedicateil ; but goes on to describe who shall vote for Wardens and Vestrymen. If 1 understand the charter, at pige 9 it says there shall be annually elected two Wardens and twenty Vestrymen, and that those who vote for them shall be inhabitants of— what? — not of the parishes of Trinity or her chapels, but of any parish iu New York, who shall be communi- cants of the Church of England. The subse- quent act of 1784 s vys "in communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church." Now 1 ask the Hou. Senator in view of the grant, which is too plain to que.^tion, how he cau say that I have only touched the thre.shold of the legal question ? Mr. Wadsworth : Will the Senator allow me one moment? I desire to direct his attention to the fact th.at this was a charter to build the first church and the first steeple iu the city of New York. It Qrst makes reference to the minister. Sec- ondly it alludes to the building of the church, and laying the foundation of the steeple Third- ly follows the royal grant ot 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." Low- er still, of the Rector of the aforesaid church ; making it clear that when it speaks of the in- habitants of New Y''ork iu communion of our aforesaid church of England, it alludes to that Biogle 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 Sen- ator not to jemp 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 aforesaid church," alludes to Trinity church alone, as it alludes to one Rector and to one parish. Mr. Noxon : I 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 Hou. Senator had taken the same pains to un- derstand it that I have, he would find that the first pnges of the charter have no reference to the grant. The church was already built. The preau.bie re'-ites what has been done. A min- ister had been sent into the counfy " for the cure of souls." After a time this church was erected, and after that, the then Governor of New York, who had interested himself muoii in the church, petitioned for the grant. Then comes the preannb'e in the charter, providing for a Pro- testant niinister. There was in 1G93 no minister in New York; but in 1C97 there was. A little further on it recites the petition and then goes on to state the inducements tor the charter. The grant itself is entirely di tinct from this pream- ble. I tell the Hon. Senator that 1 have com- menced at the commencement, and perfectly well understand what that grant is. JVIr. Wadsworth: If the Senator looks at page 11 he will (ind what that grant is. Mr. Noxon: My attent'on is called to page II. I must any that the Hon. Senator is wrong again. The allusion at that page is to the finishing, not to the erecting of the church. Mr. Wadsworth: I was not wrong before.— The church was in process of erection. Mr. No.xon: 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 vestry- men. The Hon. Senator says I do not go into the legal argument. Sir, I present facts — f pre- sent the grant, which says that the inhabitants of the city of New Yoik of that faith shall vote. The Hon. Senator in his opening remarks, has said that it is sousjht 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 foimdation. — The id<>a that they whose rights have been taken away by the law of 1814, and who desire that they shall be restored, would tear away the graves of Trinity, is simply ridiculous. There is no evidence on the poitit. But the Hon. Senator says that it is charged as a great crime against Trinity that she should preserve those graves — He also says that it is charged as acrin]e 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 1 think there is any necessity to have it at the top of the money depot of the 24 city; for they are not the men who attend Trinity church, who hover about their money boxes in Wall street. Who are they then, lhat attend the church? The poor, in the lower part of the city. The rich inhabitants of Wall street at- tend the cl urch edifices in the upper part of the city. But the Hon. Senator says the objection to the rebuilding of the church 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 governed, that was to benefit all the original corporators? By one hundred and fifty men. They are all that con- trol the fund that was designed for the benefit of all in communion of the Protestant Episco- pal Church, residing in the city of New York. And in what manner are their elections man- aged? [ call attention to the files, where the fact is shown that for years, less than thirty men have elected the Vestry. Mr. Wadsworth: I have made the statement, and I repeat it, that any person who is a com- municant of that church is entitled to be a cor- porator. Any Episcopalian may join the Parish and become a communicant if he please, and there is not an instance on record of a single commu- nicant being refused his vote. Mr. Noxon: I think there will be no diffi- culty in harmonizing the views of the Hon. Senator and myself. The pew holders of the church are protected. The act of 1814 protects them. I only make the statement that this fund is controlled by ISO men, instead of by the thou- sands 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. 1 might stop here and ask one single question — why is it lhat there is sui'h avidity, such greediness on the part of the Vestry to hold on to the power lodged in their hands by the law of 1814? The Hon. Senator from the 31st asks if Mr. Dix and Mr. Verplanck are to be impeached on this floor? No impeachment is brought against them I The charge is not that the fund is controlled by them Indeed, they have resisted from time to time in the Vestry the acts of the Corporation. But the charge is that others hold on to, and administer the funds; and why is it that they so pertinaciously hold on to the church ptopertj' and lease it out from year to year? Probably on account of some considerations not yet brought before the Senate. I surmise that in those same leases there is something that does not meet the eye. I fancy it may be found that some friend stands behind, in the back ground; some son, or fath- er, or brother occupying this property and ma- king a jirofitable thing out of these leases. I ask, what is it that should induce them to hold on to this property, unless something that the public can not see? Mr. Wadsworth: Will the gentleman state thoii names of the Vestrymen he thus publicly im«' peaches? Mr. Noxon: I impeach no man. I surmise these things — that is all. But can the gentle- man inform us why it is that they thus hold oa to this power to lease this property? Mr. Wadsworth; We can read lhat in the evi- dence. Mr. Noxon: The gentleman asks, if these ori- ginal corporators are allowed to come in, would the ministers now at Trinity's altars be permit- ted 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 alia mob beyond her parishes? Does the Senator tell me that the Protestant Church has fallen so low that her elections must be like the elections of the Gth Ward, and that her voters njust be dragged to the polls with bloody noses, by the force of cud- gels? I do not believe that the Senator will make any such impeachment of the honorable gentlemen who are here petitioning for this law. Again, Ibe Hon. Senator has said that I charge upon Trinity that she has done nothing for the cause of education. 1 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 gentlemen mentions her gifts 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 county; but while I admit she does much, I do complain that she does not do half enough. While she is enrich- ing herself by holding on to her properly, she does not give away half enough. It can not be that the men who come here and desire to have their rights secured, are against the country : for they desire to increase the gil ts, and consequent- ly the usefulness of Trinity. My honorable 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 charac- ter 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 depart- ment 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 one quarter, when she might have taken one half. But the question is not what Trinity gives or witholds. The question lies at the 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 power in the legislature of the state can deprive them thereof. I think that the question I start ed with must be met, and met fairly. To whom does this property belong ? Does it belong to Trinity as a close corporation, sealed from the eyes of the corporators ; or does it belong to the corporators themselves t If it does belong I 25 to them, then again I say no power in this legis- lature can take it from them. Though the country should pour in her petitions by the basket full, are we to suffer such considerations to control us ? Have we not the right to say that these heneflciaries in the original grant shall not be deposed, even if the restoration of their rights diould tend to dethrone the present vestry of the church ? My honorable friend, in the course of his re- marks, has declared that consecrated justice is on the side of Trinity. Where can it be found ? In her one hundred and twenty-five corporators, who have wrested from the other corporators their just rights ? Tell me not of consecrated justice from those who are steeped in iniquity I — Trinity church never had any right in the pro- perty she unjustly holds. Where is the grant giving her such right ? Mr. Wadsworth — It is in the charter. The charter gives her that right 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 con- secrated justice. Consecrated justice ! Why, I wonder that the embellishments that surround her churches do not cry OTit in judgment against her. Consecrated justice, in usurpation ! Con- secrated justice, in iniquity ! Consecrated jus- tice, in robbing men of their rights ! Mr. Wadsworth — Why did not these men ex- ercise their rights, it tbey ever possessed them ? Mr. Noxon ; — The Hon. Senator asks why they dirs not exercise their rights. Suppose any spe- cial 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 suffrage, for instance. Does not that right remain with a man, let him exer- cise 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 expr- cise his right to vote, for 40 years, to challenge his ballot, when at last he came to offer it at the polls? And so of every other right, the exer- cise of which is voluntary and not compulsory. My Hon. friend has seen fit to liken these origi- nal corporators who came here asking for this bill to the Senate, should it go into the Astor House, and insist upon entering into a partner- ship 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 dispossessed except by an unconstitutional law. Mr. Wadsworth : If the Hon. Senator wiU al- low me, I will ask him why, if this great wrong is really done to any corporator, he does not offer his vote at the annual election ; and when his ballot is refused, apply at once for a manda- mus and seek his remedy in the courts ? Why have these men been thus wronged for one hun- dred and fifty years, when the courts are ever open, and Judges sit ever ready to protect the constitutional rights of the people ? Mr. Noxon : 1 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 pro- tracted law suits till the suitors all went down in- the to 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 involv- ing 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 litigation." The Senator from the 31st says that he trem- bles for the Church and for the country if this hill should be enacted. Sir, I tr emble for both, if this power thus consecrated to injustice is to rule the State of New York and her Councils. If this Corporation, 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 possess, 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 Memo- rials of these subsidized Country Churches, thought fit to say with emphasis that it was from a hw Church. 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 prob- ably she is an applicant for that bounty. These churches do not come Iiere on behalf of Trinity, unless some secret spring moves and controls their action. Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Senator from the 31st was a little flighty in imagination, when depict- ing the serious consequences that would follow the passage of this bill. It does not appear to me that the matter should excite much feeling. 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 sever- ing of friend from friend ? The bill before us simply mentions the persons who, as communi- cants of the Protestant Episcopal Church in New York, are to be entitled to vote for Vestrymen of the church. And then what ? Can the gen- tleman 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 Ves- trymen such men as are fit only to be elected at the 6th Ward polls ? Sir, I have more confi- dence in the Episcopalians in and out of the city of New York, as not to believe that they are men, as upright and honorable as any of those who appear here as the special advocates of 26 Trinity. Can it be possible, I ask, that the Hon. Senator believes the Episcopalians of New York would elect men wuo 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 considera- tion does not, as I have said, alter the Vestry, but only says who shall elect them. Now, Sir, I think that if the citizens of New York, out- side of Trinity, could have only a single mem- ber elected in that corporation, it would do much good. Just one — to act as a check upon the 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 cor- poration shall know anything of its acts. It con- trols 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 it controls the country church, I have said that the power of Trinity is unques- tionably greater than that of any Railroad or Bank, or Insurance corporation in existence. — What other corporation is there, I ask, that can io as this one has done? She has poured in memorials upon us, as if wires, attached to ov- ary clergyman in the State, lead into the green room of her Vestry, and she had only to pull them in order to work her will. Not live 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 re- monstrances against the Senate's touching Trin- ity, 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 1 And who are these children who are coming here and displaying so much fondness and allection for their old mother church ? Who, but those who are receiving 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 churcli is to be confiscated — the church to be toru down — ! it ; of every ligament that binds it; of every tie that tends to make it perpetual and glorious. Yes, I find him — the representative and leader of this great conservative constituency and party — ready to aim a blow at one of the strongest sinews that bind the American Union. The Protestant Episcopal Church is an institution, embracing the whole land ; knowing no North, no South , no East, no West. It is a religious in- stitution that has not subordinated its organiza- tion, its dicipline, or its administration to the political accidents or contingencies of the day ; but rather believing that it is to exist for all time, confines itself to the legitimate sphere of 50 its holy mission, and never has polluted its pul- pit with the stain of politics. Sir, I should think that the honorable Senator, (Mr. Brooks) above all others, — conservative, national, patri- otic as I know him to be, — would be the last to lift his hand against .such an ally. The Protestant Episcopal church in this coun- try, is as a religious organization, in its House of Bishops and in its organic law, a type of the Union. It has always been the guardian of or- der — the defender of the constitution and the Union. Sir, this consideration is conspicuous among those which impel me to feel a warm so- licitude for the result of this contest, and prompt me to enter into it with zeal and ardor. Mr. Chairman, let ug see how this question ha? come to the Senate. My colleague from the 5th (Mr. Spencer) has adverted to it; and I will allow myself to be diverted, in view of his statement, from the order in which I had pro- posed to present the origin and present .state of the question. We have two bills on our table , one reported by my colleague from the 5th (Mr. Spencer) from the Select Committee by whom the subject was brought before us, and anothtr introduced by another colleague, the Senator from the 6th (Mr. Brooks). I propose in my ar- gument to confine myself, in the first instance, at all events, to the proposition of the Senator from the 6th (Mr. Brooks). But on referring to the history and present condition of the ques- tion, I shall embrace in my remarks both propo- sitions before the Senate. Sir, this Committee, clothed with certain very limited powers of investigation, and from which has emanated the bill which forms the basis of this movement, was raised the very last night of the Session of 1856. In the last excited, heated, angry, tumultuous hours of that session, the proposition was introduced into this Chamber, and was carried through without dis- cussion — without debate — without considera- tion, which initiated this onslaught upon the Church. And, Sir, if it had been discussed ; if time for reflection and deliberation had been allowed, no such resolution would have passed that body. As it was, I should have availed myself of the opportunity to discuss it ; I should have done more than record my silent vote against it, had I not been assured by the honor- able Senator on my right, (Mr. Spencer) that it was a resolution to which there was no objection on the part of the Church or Irom any quarter ; that it was not soch a resolution as I had before opposed, and which as the Journal shows, had been rejected on the 19th of March, 1856, by an emphatic vote. Under that assurance I al- lowed it to pass ; not by my vote, for under any circumstances, whether the church had acqui- esced in it or not, I should not have given it my vote, and I did not, because it was an enquiry beyond the jurisdiction of the Senate. Now, Sir, on page 386 of the Senate journal of '56, under date the 19lh of March 1856, we can find what was the deliberate judgment of the Senate at its last session upon this question when fairly presented and considered. I will read from the journal : — Mr. Richardson offered, for the consideration of the Senate a resolution in the words following, to wit: — Resolved, That the select committee, composed of Senators Spencer, Noxon and Ramsey, to whom is referred the report of the Vestry of Trinity Church, in the city of New York, in re- ply to resolutions of the Senate passed April 13, 1855, are hereby authorized and required to as- certain the facts, information, matters and things contained iu said resolution, and the reasons for the insufficiencies and evasiveness of such re- port ; also the value, condition, tenure and title of the property and real estate mentioned in said report, and such other real estate as said Trin- ity Church may claim to own or be in possession of, and report the result of their investigation to the Senate at the next session of the Legislature ; and that the said committee, for such purpose, are hereby authorized to hold meetings and con- duct the necessary examinations after the ad- journment of this Legislature, and have power to send for and examine persons and papers, and to administer all necessary oaths or affirma- tions, necessary in the proper discharge of their duties. Pending discussion on the above resolution, the hour of 12 o'clock having arrived, the Sen- ate went into Executive Session, and after some time spent therein, the doors were opened and legislative business resumed. The President put the question whether the Senate would agree to the said resolution of Mr. Richardson, and it was decided in tha negative, as follows : For tlie affirmative— Messrs. Bellinger, Ferdon, Leo Riohardeon — 4. For the negative— Brudford, Brlggo, Brooks, Clark, Riilc, Ilalnteaii, Haroourt, HotohkisB, "untlngton,Kellv, Madden, Nichols, Fiitterson, Rider, ./V. M. Smi'h. CP. Smith, J. A. Smith, Sickles, Upham, Wadeworth, White —21. This resolution. Sir, which is in substance, similar to the one hurried through in the last hour of the session, though not so disingenuous and difguised in form, was debated, considered and deliberately acted upon ; and with what re- sult, the record I have read will show. There were four afiivmative and twenty-one negative votes. This was the real judgment of the Sen- ate ; repudiating, rejecting, scouting the whole scheme at its very initiation. But, Sir, those who are artful iu legislation understand veiy well how easy it is to get a measure through iu the last hurried hours of the session, which at any other time would be certain of rejection. It is then, in the excitement and confusion which prevail, you hurry through, without d - tection those monstrous schemes which yea have even already rejected in your calmer juil'<- ment. It has become proverbial that the mid- night hour, at tlie close of the session, i.s lli i moment when all those corrupt schemes whirli cannot bear exposure to the lig^>t, are smuguli d through the forms of legislation. Then il 51 amidst a confusion of subjects and an exhaus- tion of frame, which renders it impossible for the human intellect to grasp half the topics that are hurried before it, that schemes, of spoliation and mischief whether in Federal or State Leg- islatures, are matured and executed. And such Sir, was the hour, and such the manner, in which this monster was born. But although this was no new scheme in its object, yet in the manner and mode of its execu- tion — I say it for the honor of the State, and for the credit of those who have heretofore taken part in the movement carried on against Trinity Church, — it was unprecedented. In 1847 a like attempt was made to give the control of Trinity Church to those not of her parish, nor belong- ing to her congregation. The attempt was made in both Houses of the Legislature ; but it was a respectable attempt ; eminently so in the mode and manner in which it was brought before the Legislature ; open, manly, straightforward ; in- troduced here on the authority of reputable names : advocated by lawyers of ability ; and pressed on the judgment of tlie legislature on respectable grounds, and by reputable means. Mr. CnYLEB : Will the Senator give way ? I see it is the hour of our usual adjournment. Mr. Sickles : Certainly. I will give way to a motion for a recess. The committee of the whole then rose and re- ported progress on the bill, which was made the special order for 7 o'clock in the evening, and the Senate adjourned. m SEN \TF. April 3, 7 P. SI. Mr. Sickles resumed his argument. He said: Mr. Chairman: When I gave way for a recess this morning, I was about calling; the attention of the committee to the aspect which this 'ques- tion presented when brought before the Assembly in the Legislature of 1847. Before I proceed, Jiowever, with what I have to say on that point, St will supply an omission which I deem of some importance as to the position of the question jl'here at this time. I read to the Senate this ' morning the resolution of inquiry of the 19th of March, introduod by the Hon. Senator from the 19th (Mr. Richardson); a resolution which, the Senate will remember, stated with much dis- tinctness the several points to be embraced in the inquiry sought to be instituted ; a resolution which called up all the merits of the question, and which was emphatically voted down. I omitted to read, however, the resolution ■which passed the Senate on the last day of the session, and to direct attention to the difference between the two. The second resolution was offered by the Honorable Senator from the 22d, and is in these words: " Mr. NoxoN offered for the consideration of the Senate the following resolution, to wit: ^'■Resolvnd, That the select committee to which was referred the report of Trinity church, be authorized to examine into the matters con- nected therewith; during the recess, and to report to the next Legislature." A resolution, Sir, not calling the attention of the Senate to any feature proposed to be embrac- ed in the inquiry which it authorized; a resolu- tion not justifying, in any sense, the inquisition that was afterwards in fact established, or the unprecedent-ed range of inquiry which it was made to embrace. An inquisition, I say, be- cause substantially it was so; for the inquiry was stringent, severe, secret and unlawful. That it was strmgent to the utmost limit of severity, any one who reads the evidence can see for him- self. That it was secret, is proved by the fact that a copy of the testimony was refused to the corporation, and to the highly respectable per- sons attempted to be impeached in the inquiry, although they offered to pay the expense incur- red in making such copy; unlawful, because the A\hoIe subject matter was without the constitu- tional jurisdiction of the Senate. Now, Sir, I want to emphasize for the atten- tion of the Senate, first, the contrast between the full and explicit resolution rejected after dis- cussion by an overwhlming vote on the 19th of March, and the resoluion passed without exami- nation on the last night and in the last hours of the Senate; and secondly, the contrast between the sphere and scope of the enquiry apparently contemplated by the last resolution, and the infi- nitely wider range taken, assumed, usurped by the committee formed under that resolution, when they got to iVew York, after the final ad- tournment, and were beyond the control of the Senate. This leads me to contrast once more the state of the question as brought before us now, and the manner in which it was presented to the Legislature of 1847. That, Sir. was a manly, open, straight-forward presentation of the issue. The parties to that enquiry then brought before the Legislature the legal question — pure and sim- ple — involved in the matter; whether or no, by the charter of the corporation, those persons who now claim the right to participate in its govern- ment, have any legal title to do so. That was the naked question presented to the Legislature of 1847, and decided, as we saw this morning, by an overwhelming expression of the Legisla- ture against the applicants. And here I may say that the Legislature of 1847 was chosen by the people of the state, to mature the laws necessary to put into operation the new constitution of 1846; a Legislature of distinguised ability, and numbering among its members some of the soundest lawyers and ablest men in the state. In the Assembly, the judici- ary committee were unanimous in their decision against the application, and their report was sus- tained in the House without a dissenting vote. — In this branch of the Legislature, the majority of the committee were adverse to the applicants, and were sustained by the Senate. Now, Sir, let us go back again for a period of thirty or more years, when the question was be- fore the Legislature of the State, in the applica- tion made on behalf of Trinity corporation, for the passage of the act of 1814. The matter was then brought to the attention of the Legislature 52 by the corporation itself, in a memorial under its own seal, one or two extracts from which I pro- pose to read. And I go into this elaborate state- ment of the question as then presented and as presented now to us, in order to show that these gentlemen ot the committee, in the bill which they have presented here, have brought no new matter to the attention of the Senate; have raised no new question; have discovered no new griev- once; but have merely dug out of oblivion an aid thread-bare, worn out controversy, which has been settled over and over again in the most for- mal, deliberate, satisfactory manner, and acqui- esced in by ninety-nine out of every hundred of those who had ever taken a different view of the subject. Sir, you would suppose from the manner in •which Trinity Church has been put upon trial here at this time, and from the bitterness with which she has been assailed in this discussion, that she had shrunk from this issue; and as if conscious of being in the wrong, had evaded enquiry as to the tenure by which she holds her possessions. Why, Sir, the first two occasions on which the attention of the legislaure was called to the point now in dispute, were occa- sions when the subject was brought up upon the memorial of the church itself under its corporate seal. Let me refer Senators to the pe- tition bearing date the 25th January, 1S14. — This petition, presented to the Legislature by Trinity church, called attention directly to the subject now before us ; predicated upon which and upon the enquiry and investigation connect- ed therewith, the law of 1S14 was passed, which. It is now proposed to repeal, and which it is al- leged the corporation obtained through some ex- traordinary influence; by deception, by mis- statements of the truth. We shall see how en- tirely without foundation are these accusations. After a brief introduction of the subject matter the petition goes on to say that after the revolu- iion, "an act of the Legislature passed for mak- ng such alterations in the charter of the rorpor-, ation of Trinity Church as to render it more conformable to the constitution of the Slate; by one clause whereof all the rights, privileges, benefits and emoluments which in and by the said charter were designed to be secured to the inhabitants of the city of New-York in commun- ion of the church of England, were conferred upon all persons professing themselves members of the Episcopal church, who should hold, occu- py, or enjoy a pew or seat in the said church, and should regularly pay to the support of the said church, and such others as should in the said church partake of the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper, at least once in every year, being inhabitants of the said city. "That since the passing of the act above referred to, the pew holders of Trinity church and of the shurches or chapels belonging to the said corpo- ration, and the regular commnicants therein, have been the only persons admitted to vote at elections for church wardens and vestrymen of the said corporation according to the just and fair construction contemporaneously and ever since given to the said act. " Your Petitioners beg leave further to show, that in consequence of the rapid and unexampled increase and prosperity of our country since the said revolution, and the corresponding growth and population ot the city of New York, Trini- ty church, aforesaid, with the churches and chapels belonging to its corporation, became in- sufficient for the accommodation of all the inhab- itants of the said city who professed themselves members of the Protestant Episcopal church, or wished to become so, on which account, and for a variety of other reasons not necessary to be suggested, numerous persons of this description have been induced from time to time, to forna themselves into distinct corporations, each hav- ing its own peculiar endowments and places of worship, with rectors and other officers of their own choice, totally independent of any control or interference of your Petitioners," Now, Sir, this I sets forth precisely the state of facts existing in 1 S14, and shown to exist now, to wit : in consequence of the growth of the city and the increase of the population, persons form- erly members of Trinity church, and entitled to participate in the control of its affairs, had gone out of the parish; had formed themseves into new congregations; had erected new churches, which had themselves become incorporated, and were now entirely distinct from and independent of Trinity. And then the petition goes on to show, " That a number of such religious corpoi-ations have accordingly been organized as the law di- rects, some with and some without the concur- rance of your petitioners; to all which your pe- tition ?rs have made liberal donations, and with whose internal concerns your petitioners or any of the members of the corporation of Trinity Church, as such, do not claim any right to in- termeddle; nor do the said cor /torations possessor claim any right for themselves or their members to vote in the elections, or regulate the affSirs of Trinity Church. " Nevertheless, a few individuals belonging to such separate corporations, have recently pre- tended to claim tha' right, and at the last annual election of church wardens and vestrymen of Trinity church, held in the month of March, in the year 1812, two or three persons being mem- bers of incorporated churches, separate and dis- tinct from your petitioners, tendered themselves as voters; but their votes under an ordinance previously passed by your petitioners, were re- jected, and no measures have been yet taken to enforce or establish the right so claimed. " It must be ohvious, however, that attempts of this nature can not fail to produce strife and litigation, and to foster and keep alive preten- sions of the most unreasonable nature and of the most mischievous tendency. " Your petitioners are, moreover, sensible that since the formation of such distinct corporations, the corporate name by which your petitioners are designated has become inapplicable, and 53 ought to be changed ; as they do not comprehend in their body all the inhabitants of the city of New York, who now profess 'o be of the Pro- testant Episcopal church; and your petitioners are further convinced that it has become essential to the peace and harmony of said church, that ALL DOUBTS respecting the persons enlilled to vote for church-wardens and vestrymen of Trini- ty church, which may exist or arise in consequence of the said tepnrate incorporations, SHOULD BE FINALLY OBVIATED AND SETTLED!" Mark " ell the fact, that a number of these new churches, these new congregations, had been established; had become incorporated ; that the great body of these new corporators, and the corporations themselves,disclaimed any intention to interfere in any manner with the government of Trinity; but that '"u /eic jjcrsons" belonging to such separate corporations, and being mem- bers of churches distinct from Trinity, asserted this novel and extraordinary right to vote at her elections. And this, let me remark here, is the first record any where, of the assertion in a for- mal manner, of this right by persons not mem- bers of Trinity corporation. Now, what does Trinity church say when this pretence is for the first time set up? Does she evade the issue? Does she flee from the contest? No; she waits a reasonable time to enable these persons, or some one of them, to enforce their pretended claim in the courts of the State, which they had a perfect right to do, and w"hich would have been the proper and legitimate course to pursue; and finding that they did not choose — for good and sufficient reasons, no doubt — to take the case into the courts of justice; and anxious that no disturbing element should be allowed to distract the harmony of the parish, or disturb the repose of the church at '.arge, she c^mes here represented by her officers, and over the seal of her incorporation, frankly and fully puts all the facts before the representatives of the people; and asks the legislature of 1814 to pass Buch a law in the premises as in their wisdom may seem just and proper. Well, Sir, on this petition, after full consider- ation of the subject, the law of 1814 was passed; and although, Senators, in reading these extracts from the petitions and the laws, I am wearying your patience with matters to which you have already listened, yet they are so important, so vital to a full understanding of the merits of the case, that even at the risk of wearying your in- dulgence I shall continue to read somewhat fully from the statutes, Charters and grants bearmg upon the line of argument I intend to pursue. Let me now draw the attention of the Senate to the second section of the act of 1814, which it is proposed to repeal: " II. ^nd be it further enacted, That all male persons of full age, who, for the space of one year preceding any election, shall have been piembers of the congregation of Trinity church aforesaid, or of 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 th e said chapels, or have partaken of the holy com- munion therein within the said year, AND NO OTHER PERSONS, shall be entitled to vote at the annual elections for the church-wardens and vestrymen of the said corporation." I will now read an extract from the fourth section of the same act, in reference to Sf George's church, which is declared a separate church from Trinity. It is one of the new churches described in the petition: " Be it further enacted. That the separation of St. George's chapel, in the city of New York, from the corporation of Trinity church, shall be, and hereby is confirmed : and that the said church now called St. George's church, shall not at any time hereafter be held or taken to be a church or chapel belonging to Trinity church, so as to qualify any of the congregation thereof to vote at the elections of church-wardens and ves- trymen of Trinity church, above mentioned." And now a further fact from the fifth sec- tion : " ^nd be it further enacted. That when, and as often as it shall seem expedient to the siid rector, church-wardens, and vestrymen of Trinity church, in the city of New York, to divide the congrega- tion or corporators belonging to the said corpora- tion, it shall be lawful for them so to do, by setting apart, as a separate church, any of the churches or chapels that may belong to and form part of the said corporation, provided the same be done with the assent of a majority of the persons en- titled to vote as aforsaid, who shall belong to such church or chapel intended to be set apart, and who shall attend a meeting to consider of such separation after at least ten days' notice previously given for that purpose in the said church or chapel, during or immediately after divine service; and such separation so assented to, shall take effect according to the terms agreed upon between tie parties; and the members of the congregation of such church or chapel so separated, stiall imii ediately thereafter cease to be members of the corporation of Trinity church above mentioned, and may proceed to incorpo- rate themselves according to law as a separate congregation of the said Protestant Episcopal church." Thus, Senators will perceive that in the ac- of 1814, the whole controversy was met and tet tied; first, the question was disposed of, as to who should and who should not be entitled to vote at the elections for Wardens and Vestrymen; secondly, ample and explicit provision was made for the contingency then foreshadowed and now realized — the increase in the number of churches, owing to the then orobable and now real growth of the city. By the law passed in 1801, ant confirmed in 1819, all persons in communion with the Protestant Episcopal church, not mem- bers of any other congregation were authorized to form themselves into new congregations and become incorporated. The law of 1814 wasjmade even more emphatic and distinct upon this point than the law of 1801. This law of 1814, passed 54 on the memorial of the corporation, was in all its provisions accepted by the corporation and become a contract between it and the State. There was one other period, antecedent to the act of 1814, when the same question arose; I re- fer to the act of 1784, and the proceedings which led to it; it was then dimly foreseen that a question could possibly arise between those members of the corporation of Trinity church, who remained within its congregation, and those outside the congregation who might under the original charter, as some construed it, claim the right to participate in the government of the church. Let me read to tha Senate, that por- tion of the act of 17S4. descriptive of the persons who shall be entitled to the rights and privileges of the corporators to vote for its Rector, Church Warden and Vestrymen. "An Act for making such alterations in the Charter of the In- corporation OF TRiNitY Church, as to ren- der it more conformable to the constitution of this State." ^'■Atid whereas doubts have arisen on those parts of the said charter and law first above mentioned, which speak of inhabitants in communion of the said church of England; for removal whereof; "III. Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all persons professing themselves members of the Episcopal church, 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, benefit and emolument, which in and by the said charter and law first above mentioned, are designed to be secured to the in- habitants of the city of New York in communion of the church of England." I said, in reading the petition that led to the act of 1814, that the statement therein that a few persons had asserted in a formal manner the right to participate in the control of Trinity church, was the first instance on record of such a pretence being set up. It ought to be stated that the act of 1784, while it furnishes no evidence that any such demand was then expressly assert- ed, yet adverts in the preamble to doubts that have arisen about those parts of the original char- ter, which describe the persons who shall be en- titled to the rights and privileges secured thereby; rendering it just possible that such demand may have been made or menaced prior to 1784; but as far as I know there is no record of that fact. This act of 1784 was also passed with the con- sent of the corporation, was accepted by it, be- came part and parcel of its fundamental law, and guaranteed to the church all the rights, privi- leges and immunities which it conferred or con- firmed. The passage of the law of 1784 was rendered imperatively necessary, no doubt, in order to adapt the organization of the church to th<' new state of things in this country. The revolution had occurred. Previous to the revolution, Trin- ity church had organic relations to the church of England — owing allegiance to the mother coun- try, and it became necessary in viev/ of the equality which had been established between re- ligious communities and the separation between church and state which had been made the funda- mental law of this country, that an act should be passed making the organization of Trinity church conformable to the Republican constitution of the state. This reorganization, then, was accepted by the corporation, acquiesced in by the corpora- tors, and became a contract, as did the act of 1814; a valid and binding contract between the corporation of Trinity and the state — the sove- reign power. Now, sir, this history presents to us in a vivid light, the aspect of the question as it now ap- pears before us. Here are certain persons pre- senting themselves before the Legislature, claim- ing the right to participate in the control of the affairs of Trinity, in derogation of a series of statutes, and a series of contracts entered into between the state an I a private religious corpo- ration. They ask the state, without the consent and against the remonstrance of the other con- tracting party, to annul the contracts thus en- tered into with so much solemnity, and acquies- ced in by all the parties in interest for nearly a century. Does it not strike every one at the very thres- hold of the argumf-nt, that if these parties have, as they claim to have, a legal right to partici- pate in the government and control of Trinity corporation, the courts have abundant power to give them that right; to put them in possession of it; to secure to them the full benefit and en- joyment of it? And yet they have never asserted this right in a court of justice; although it has been suggested over and over again to the persons themselves, who claim the right, that the corporation invited an adjudication of the question by a competent legal tribunal. Any one of them has only to offer his vote at one of the elections of the church, and if it is rejected to apply to the courts for a mandamus compelling the officers holding the election to receive it; or any one of the claim- ants may commence a suit for damages against the partif's refusing his vote, and in that manner test the legal right. The English and American reports furnish numerous illustrations of this remedy; and there are familiar cases in the En- glish reports, where the right was enforced with damages against the election authorities, who re- fused the votes. But the honorable Senator from the 2nd (Mr. Koxon) disposed of this suggestion, when made by the Senator from the 3Ist (Mr. Wadsworth) in a very summary way; in a way which must have been startling to those who took him literally. He said — "why, what an absurdity! To bring five or six thousand lawr suits against Trinity! Do these corporators de- sire to be involved in a long law suit with Trin- ity church, with all her wealth and influence?" And he exclaims with well affected surprise— 55 pratnlations upon the insennity he displays in disco/erins what all the world will recognize as a no/el, if not an improved, mode of church government. The Protestant Episcopal churches in Xjiv York— and there are over fifty of them — are each to send one delegate to a congress which in hi turn is to send its representatives to parti- cipate with the vestry in the control and govern- ment of Trinity church. The Christian world his supposed heretofore, and all church govern- menc and discipline have heretofore recognized the fact that a church was a unit; that it was cJupDsed of the Rector, Wardens, Vestrymen aai cj.igregation. There is not, and there can not ba found, I venture to say, in the history of any church, anything like the plan and mode of governatteat devised by the Senator from the Sixth. Mr. Brooks: This is an extraordinary case. Mr. Sickles: A more extraordinary case was never brought before a legislative body, and I am phJ -ny honorable friend can admit that it is. Yes si.^, it is not only an extraordinary case, but aa extraordinary remedy; and his remedy is the mo-e e'ctraordinary of the two, as I will endea- vor to show. The first observation I wish to make on the proposition of the Senator from the Sixth, is that while all those who have, since 1814, assert- ed the right to share in the control of Trinity corporation, have based their claim upon the ground that the act of that year was unconstitu- tional and void, the substitute of the Senator from the Sixth recognizes the validity and con- stitutionality of that act. And, sir, bear in Blind that the moment you do recognize the va- lidity and constitutionality of the act of 1S14, you give up your whole case; because, if the law of 1814 is constitutional and valid, then is the contract it embodies, binding on the state and the corporation and all parties concerned; secur- iing to Trinity, against all the world, the rights and privileges it confers, and depriving you of any ground on which you can let in the six thousand members of other congregations now so eager to control her affairs. The next most remarkable feature of this proposition is that the Senator from the Sixth makes churches vote, and not persons. He forms an electoral college of the representatives of fifty churches, and this college is to choose half a Vestry for another church. It is certainly some- thiner novel, in church government, to turn a Vestry into a congress. It is somewhat strange for corporations, and not the constituent members of corporations, to vote. I ask the Senator where he finds, in the char- ter of Trinity church, anything about churches voting? And if you do not respect the law of 1S14 or of 1784, will you not respect thecharter, ■when you remember that in every constitution we have framed, we have confirmed and declared inviolable all these charters of private incorpo- rations, together with their franchises and pos- sessions, deserved from the crown. I call on the Senator, to point out to the Senate that clause or word in the charter of this corporation which can be so construed as to permit separate and distinct corporations to vote in the government of Trinity church. Why, sir, this point alone, I venture to predict, with entire confidence, will prove to be, in the judgment of the Legislature, fatal to the measure proposed by the Sena- tor from the Sixth (Mr. Brooks); for if he sur- renders that feature of his hill, he abandons all. No where in the charter can you find any color or pretext for this proposition, and all will admit tha! thecharter is conclusive; allwill admit that the charter of a private religious corporation can not be altered in any way without the consent of the corporation. Although the Senate, by resolution, recently overruled the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon the Dred Scott case, we shall scarcely, I presume, have the temerity to repeat the experiment so soon afterwards, by overruling the decision of the same Court in the memorable Dartmouth college case; and until we are prepared to do so, we must be content to live under that decision, and allow private elee- mosynary corporations to remain sacred from the hand of the legislator or the touch of the spoiler. No Sir. there is no warrant, no color in the law of the land, for any such attempt as is proposed by the Senator's bill, to invade the vested rights of this corporation. Although the Senator's proposition is strangely in conflict with the claims heretofore set up by the pretended corporators, and equally in con- sistent with the bill reported by the committee, yet we find the committee, the claimants and the whole opposition eagerly accepting it ; abandon- ing their own bantling and adopting that of my honorable friend, (Mr. Brooks). Why is this, Sir? We shall see presently. It is because it accom- plishes at least the one grand object contemplated by those who are engaged in this movement. It enables them to grasp the estates of Trinity. It accomplishes that in the most effectual manner; and I presume this end being attained, the form in which it is to be done is to them a matter of the mosi complete indifference. This section does another thing that is some- what new. It makes one person at the same time a member of two church corporations, a member of two congregations, and an inhabitant of two parishes; an idea wholly incongruous with every notion of church organiaztion ; and directly in conflict with the whole spirit and his- tory of the church of England, out of which, and in accordance with the law and spirit of which, this charter emanated. Now let us look at the second section of this bill. " The rectors and two church wardens and twenty vestrymen to be chosen as provided in the preceding section, shall first apply annually from the income of said corporation the sum of," (and here is a very significant blank) " for the proper maintenance and support cf said Trinity church and its chjpels, and such further sums as may be needed from time to time, for the repair 56 "Why, the idea is preposterous!" He says, too, that Trinity would like nothing better than to go into the courts with these claimants. Well, Sir, all I can say is, that Trinity must be made of different material than most of us, if she would like nothing better than seven or eight thousand law suits heaped upon her head. She ■would find herself in even greater danger with seven or eight thousand lawyers after her, than she is now, however great may be her present peril. But all this amounts to nothing. Every body knows that any one of these pretended cor- porators — acting, if you please upon consulta- tion, and in connection with the others — can con- duct such a suit from its commencement to its termination. And not only would this be en- tirely practicable and proper, but it would also be greatly to the relief of the Legislature of the state; for it would prevent the necessity of these claimants coming here, invoking our interference in matters beyond our jurisdiction and of no sort of concern to us. For, Sir, allow me to say, that this is by no means the forum for the issues on which this question must turn. High as is the reputation for wisdom and fairness of those around this circle, and in the coordinate branch of the Legislature, I will tak*" the liberty to say that it is most fortunate that these high and sol- emn judicial questions are withdrawn from this tribunal and confided solely to the judicary. A question like this, involving the law of contracts, requiring a knowledge of ecclesiastical law, of colonial law, of constitutional law, of English and American laws, is one of the most imposing that can be submitted to any legal tribunal, no matter how exalted it may be. Look at these masses of bills piled up be- fore us and not acted upon in these last days of the session, embracing every object of legislation, and rendering it impossible that we should per- fect the necessary measures even for the govern- ment of the State: and then say whether we should be called upon now to act on a question like this, the discussion and proper consideration of which should justly occupy all the remainder of the session. Why is it then, Sir, in a matter like this, — from its nature and according to the law of the land, a subject (or the consideration of the courts, — that from 1784 to 1 8.07, the men who have asserted this pretended claim have al- ways avoided the legal tribunals? Why do they come here asking us to usurp the functions of the legal tribunals, and to grant them the relief they have never had the hardihood to seek at the hands of any court of justice? Do^^s it not show an utter want of confidence in the right and just- ice of their pretended claim? Has it been the practice of the Legislature of New York to de- vote day after day, and week after week, to the consideration of controversies about private rights, where the parties have a complete rem- edy in the courts? What has been the practice of the Honorable Senator from the 22d (Mr. No > cii). fii (i his piedtcf fscrat the head of the Judiciary committee on such questions? Has he considered it his duty — had his predecessors, considered it their duty, to mature and present bills to the consideration of the Legislature ad- justing controverted questions about private pro- perty belonging either to individuals or corpora- tions, when the parties have an ample remedy in the courts of law? Never, Sir. They have beeo turned over to the courts where they properly belong. And what is there in this question to induce this extraordinary exception to a uniform rule, based upon eminently proper considerations of public policy? Now, Sir, let us look somewhat in detail at the terms of the Bill before the Senate. In what I have to say I shall confine my attention, cer- tainly at present, more especially to the proposi- tion of the Senator from the 6th (Mr. Brooks) — I believe he calls it — or it is called for him — a compromise; something between the extreme ngor of the measure urged by these claimants and presented by my colleague from the 5th (Mr. Spencer), and the opposite view taken by the corporation of Trinity. We shall be able to see, very soon, how much claim it has to be cal- led a " compromise." I think if any thing can be worse, it is infintely worse than the original proposition presented by the Senator from the 5th (Mr. Spencer); more in derogation of all those principles on which the private rights of persons and corporations rest, and more subver- sive of good government in religious corporations. Let me read the first section of his bill: "M- The church wardens and vestrymen of Trinity church in the city of New York, shall hereafter be chosen as follows: "One church warden and ten vestrymen shall b3 chosen by the pewholders and communicants of 5aid Trinity c iurch and its chapels entitled to to vote under the second section of the act enti- tled ' An act to alter the name of the corpora- tion of Trinity church, in New York, and for other purposes,' passed January 25, 1814. The other church warden and the remaining ten ves- trymen shall be chosen by delegates elected by the vestries of the several protestant episcopal churches in said city, other than Trinity church and its chapels, in union with the convention of the d ocese of the state of New York, in the man- ner hereinafter mentioned, that is [o say: on the first Monday of March, in each year hereafter, the vestry of each of such last aforesaid churches, shall by a majority of votes elect a delegate to a convention to be holden for the choice of the said church warden and ten vestrymen of the corpor- ation of Trinity church last mentioned, of the election of which delegate a certificate shall be made and signed by a majority of the vestry of such church, and attested by the clerk of the ves- try. The persons so elected as delegates shall assemble in Trinity church in the city of New York, on Tuesday in Easter week, in each year, at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, and proceed to the election, by ballot, of the said one church- wardsn and ten vestrymen of the said corporation of Trinity church." Now I trust my colleague from the sixth (Mr. Brooks), will permit me to offer him my con- 57 or renovation of such church edifices and their furniture : all which shall be disbursed under the sole direction and discretion of the rector and the church warden and ten vestrymen so to be chosen by the pew holders and communicants of said church." It cannot be concealed that the congregation of Trinity church, ought to be very thankful for the liberality indicated here; for the disposition so graciously shown, which allows them, out their own estates, a donation for the support of their own church. How nnuch that donation will be — iiow often it will be reduced, and how small it will eventually become, when fifty churches are brought in to overcome the votes which slie and her chapels may possess in this congress of churches; how much it will be when the estate, now magnificent and capable of accomplishing infinite good in the city and state for the cause of religion, shall have been squandered and con- sumed by fifty churches, among whom it is to be divided — all this it is not difficult to foresee. But observe, sir, they are kind enough to leave to Trinity all the religious cares and res- ponsibilities of th'! parish; the support of the poor, the relief of the sick, providing the means of religious worship in the lower portion of the city; — these fitly churches would leave to Trinity all these pious duties, and graciously relieve her of a portion of her temporal cares, especially the care of her property. They say to Trinity, " you may attend to your pious mission down town; we have all gone up town to adorn the wealthy and fashionable portions of the city; we would like to quit your church and take your property wiih us; our congregations have ac- quired so much of their own, that we have learned well how to manage property — particu- larly how to keep it in our own pockets. You vhave a magnificent heritage; and while you, in your eminent piety, are engrossed with the care of the poor, the sick and the emigrants in the vulgar portions of the city, we can bestow our attention upon your charming estates." Yes, sir, a stipend is to be appropriated annu- ally for the support of the church, and — another kindness — they will allow Trinity herself to spend the generous gift, all by herself — free from the supervision and control of legislative or ecclesiastical critics. Let us now see what is to be done with the rest of the estate. I will read the third section of the Senator's bill: "The rector and the said vestry of Trinity church, to be elected as aforesaid, shall apply the income of said corporation, and all proceeds of the sales of the property thereof, to the payment, first, of the interest upon its debt and to extin- guishment of so much of the principal thereof, as they shall deem expedient, until the debt shall be wholly paid; and the residue of said income and proceeds to the support and extension of RELIGION and RELIGIOUS EDUCATION in the city and STATE of New York." Will my colleague (Mr. Brooks), after he has found that portion of the original charter of Trinity church which lets in churches, and not persons, to vote, show me that other portion of the charter which bestows this property on the State of New York, as contradistinguished from the city of New York? Mr. Brooks: Trinity gives to the State now Mr. Sickles: Trinity g-ms. Sir, when she pleases — what she pleases — and to whom she pleases. But the Legislature can not give away her property. There is a great deal of difference between giving away your own property and suffering it to be taken from you by force and given away by others. Suppose the Senator should own — as I hope he does — four fine houses in the city; and suppose he should think proper, for good and sufficient reasons, in his judgment, to give one or two to his friends; would that justify the Legislature in appropriating the remainder of his property to a similar use? giving as our reason — " why, you gave away a couple of your houses your- self, and therefore what right have you to object to the Legislature giving away a couple more for you!" No, Sir, we have here a vast estate con- secrated to religion and religious education to be expended by the persons and in the manner set forth in the charter and subsequent grants. — The wildest and widest construction ever put up- on the charter is, that the grant was to the inhab- itants of the city of New York, in communion with the Protestant Episcopal church. This limitation, at least, has always been recognized even by those who have disregarded all others. The estate is to be distributed broad- cast over this State, and this, we are told, is "no invasion of the charter;" is no encroach- ment upon vested rights! Why, Sir, what no- tion can Senators have of vested rights, if this is the construction put upon the phrase? If this is the "conservatism" of my colleague, Mr. Brooks, and of his party, save me from it! Tammany Hall never ventured upon anything so recklftss and so unjust, and she never will. Mr. Brooks: Would you have dissuaded her from it, if she had? Mr. Sickles: Tammany Hall was never so low in political morality as to require any inter- vention to prevent her from entering upon a de- liberate scheme of spoliation, such as this is de- monstrated to be. No, Sir, if I understand this proposition — and I think I do — it is an illustration of a very pro- gressive age, and of a very progressive people. The Senator. (Mr. Brooks) who represents the great American party, finds it necessary to be moving, and he has become impetuous. He can no longer stand by principles recognized and es- tablished so long ago, and adhered to with such monotonous fidelity; he must have something new. Those who propose to divide the pro- perty of Trinity among the city chuiches only, are now behind the age — " old fogies." Two or three individuals as long ago as 1814, set up the claim on behalf of the members of the other Episcopal churches in the city, that they had 8 58 a right to participate in the control of the property and in the direction of the church and chapels of the parish of Trinity. But we find the Senator from the 6th making a great stride beyond this. Until he came into the field with his lively notions of progress, no pretence was ever set up, under color of law, that a division of the property outside the city was ever possible under the charter. But the Senator from the 6th (Mr, Brooks) — the progres- sive, the radical, the agrarian Senator — says that the property shall be distributed throughout the Sta'e of New York; and not for ecclesiastical purposes only; not for the erection and support of Protestant Episcopal churches; but for the " support and extension of religion and religious education " generally, in the city as well as the State of New York. At this point, Mr. Sickles was interrujited by Mr. Richardson, who announced that he had just received intelligence of the death of a member of the other House, Mr. Babcock, of Oneida, and in view of that melancholy occurrence, he desired to move an adjournment of the Senate. Where- upon Mr. Sickles gave way, and the bill was made a special order for Saturday, at 12 M. IN SENATE April 4th-llX A. M. Mr. Sickles not appearing in his seat, the president did not announce the special order (the New York Charter Bill), at 11 1-2 o'clock. Mr. Brooks said: Mr. President — The New York Charter Bill has been made the special or- der for 1 1 1-2 o'clock, and that hour has already passed. The Trinity Church Bill is the special order for 12, and I shall therefore move to post- pone the consideration of the Charter Bill. Mr. TJPHAM: 1 understand that the Senator from the 3d, who is entitled to the Hoor on the Trinity Church Bill, is detained Irom his seat unavoidably, in consequence of the serious illness of hi? wife. He does not propose, however, to delay the final vote on the bill. I therefore sug- gest that the special order be postponed until Monday. Mr. Brooks: I desire to be heard, Mr. Presi- dent, about one hour on this question, particu- larly after the attacks which have been made on the substitute offerred by me for the bill reported by the committee. As I also understand that the final action on the bill is not to be delayed, I move that it be made a special order for Monday, at 11 o'clock. The motion prevailed. IN SENATE April 6tll— 11 A. M. The president announced the special order, and Mr. Darling took the chair. Mr. Wadsworth said: Mr. Chairman — The floor, as I understand it, was occupied by the senator from the 3d (Mr. Sickles), the last time this bill was under consideration, and when the committee rose. [ wish to state that in conse- quence of severe illness in his family, and the fatigue he has undergone in consequence, he will be unable to proceed with the argument this morning. He would be obliged to any other nnember who would now addre.ss the committee, and I therefore move that if any senator desires to present his views, he be permitted to do so at this time. Mr. Richardson: When will the honorable senator from the 3d be ready to resume his argu- ment? Mr. Sickles: Mr. Chairman — I beg to say that I throw myself on the indulgence of the Senate. I am willing to proceed now if the Senate shall ihink proper to require that I should do so; but it would be an exceedingly painful task. I shall, however, endeavor to continue my remarks as soon as possible. Mr. Richardson: Will it be to-day? Mr. Sickles: I hope so. Mr. Pattkrson: Then I suggest we put the matter off until 4 1-2 o'clock. Mr. Wadsworth: I think the senator had better say 12 1-2 o'clock. The senator from the 6th (Mr. Brooks), desires to address the com- mittee, and he will be here in the train at 11 1-2 o'clock. He may be willing then to address the Senate. Mr. Patterson : We had better say 4 o'clock, and then go through with the matter, and pro- ceed with other business now. We have spent too much time over it already. Mr. Ramsey: I should prefer postponing it one hour, and thus we can give the senator from the 6th an opportunity to speak. Mr. NoxoN: If I understood the senator from the 6th, the other day, he expressed a desire to make his rei>ly, after Mr. Sickles had finally closed. Mr. Richardson: Yes, that is so. Will the Senate allow me to consult a few minutes with Senator Spencer? After a tew minutes spent in consultation, Mr. Ferdon moved that the committee rise and report progress on the bill. This was carried, and the committee of the whole rose. In the Senate, Mr. Patterson moved that the bill be made a special order for Monday at 4 P. M., and the mjtion prevailed. Mr. Darling took the chair. Mr. Sickles: Mr. Chairman — I ought to apologize to the Senate for any delay which has occurred in the progress of this discussian, for reasons personal to myself; and the earnest so- licitude I have felt in the question before ns, while it has justified me in claiming the indul- gence of the Senate, increases the sense of obli- gation imposed upon me by the courtesy of sena- tors in postponing the consideration of the sub- ject until it was convenient for me to be pres- ent. When the bill was last before the Senate, I was commenting upon that section of the substi- tute offered by the senator from the Gth (Mr. Brcoks), which proposes to apply the residue of the income and proceeds of the estate belonging to Trinity church to the support and extension of religious education "in the city and state of New York." I called on my honorable colleague « 59 for some information as to the legality and pro- priety of this provision, derived from the char- ter of Trinity church, or from the grant by which Queen Anne conveyed the lands to the church, which are now the chief source of its income. Every argument heretofore made on this sub- ject by those who have sought to depose the cor- poration of Trinity from the control of her es- tates, has proceeded on the ground that at far- thest, the churches, or the Episcopalians in ths city of New York, are the beneficiaries of thu fund. iVever until now, when the proposition is made by the senator from the 6th (Mr. Brooks), has it been pretended that the state had any righ' at all to participate in the fund; or that the leg- islature of the state had any authority to divert by statute, any portion of that fund for the be.ae- fit of anybody outside the city. True it is that Trinity church, in the voluntary distribution of the fund, regarding it as confided to her in trust for the advancement of the great cause of relig- ion, and religious education, has never allowed herself to be restrained by the limits of the pariah or of the city; but what is commendable in her, as an act of generosity in appropriating her owb, ■when untaken by the state through force, would become an outrage. Sir, it is true that here and elsewhere, the motives which have actuated Trinity church in her liberal gifts to the country churches, h"ve been impunged. In this debate she has been charged with an effort to " subsidize the country churches." A more cruel construction could not be put upon the liberality with which she has distributed her gifts all over the commonwealth. She has been charged with attempting by her gifts to gain co-operation and support here, in he."- struggle in the legislature. Sir, I think such a charge, from this time forth, will come with a very bad grace from those who support kthis bill. Here t» an attempt to enlist the [country churches against the very hand that has Ifed them; against those whom they have hereto- I fore regarded, in the bes) and truest sense, as [brethren. You seek, by inserting this clause in your bill, to win them to your support against the corporation which, for a long series of years, has been their steadfast friend. After this, then, let us hear no more of endeavors "to influence," •>f attempts "to subsidize" the country churches, or of "bids" made for their support. But, Sir, perhaps from the pressure of the ar- gument based on the charter, the grants, and the subsequent laws. Senators will find them- selves compelled to strikeout the word " State," and to limit the application of the residue of the proceeds, to the city churches. Well then let us see what becomes of the aid expected to be appropriated to the country parishes. Let us see who stands as the sincere friend of those parishes. Pass either the bill reported by the committee, or that introduced by the Senator from the 6lh (Mr. Brooks,) and you give the control of the fund to fifty-four city churches, and entitle them to elect a vestry that will dis- pose of the money as those fifty-four churches see fit. After they have helped themselves, as they very obviously mean to do, for they can have no other object in seeking to get this law, how much, I ask, will be left for the churches in the interior of the State? Not one farthing. The only possible mode by which the surplus in- come of Trinity church can ever be applied to the relief of those really needing it, is to leave the control of the fund in the vestry, where it lawfully belonKs; the vestry, free from the con- trol of other city congregations, will exercise a just discrimination between the wealthy church- es in New York, and the feeble establishments in the interior of the State. There is no doubt that a large share of the pressure brought to bear upon the legislature from the city churches in favor of this measure, has been induced by their failure to obtain money from the vestry of Trinity, the vestry preferring to give their sur- plus means to the poor churches in the interior of the State. If the demands of these opulent beggars of the city congregations, — representing masses of wealth beyond the value of the estates of Trinity herself, if their demands for money had been submitted to, we should not find them here, clamorous for plunder. But if Trinity had yielded to their enormous exactions how would it have been possible for her to aid the interior parishes, that so much needed her assist- ance? The fourth section of this bill is as follows: " ^ 4. The church warden and ten ves- trymen so to be chosen by the pew holders and communicants of Trinity church and its cha- pels, shall exclusively possess and confol the church edifices with their furniture and the church yards and cemeteries belonging to said church, and shall protect the sami from trespass or AGGRESSION. The said warden and vestry- men in this section mentioned shall also ex- clusively choose the assistant ministers and o'her parish officers, and with the concur- rence of the rector, shall direct its religious services, and the diibursement of its charitable collections .''^ This, too, is a very liberal section. It is con- ceived in the very spirit of tenderness and charity to Trinity church. In this respect it is consistent with other parts of the bill. By the second sec- tion of your bill, you give her a donation out of her own estate, to take care of her church, to keep it in repair, to pay her priests and to sup- ply her communion table; by the third seciion you distribute the balance generally over the city and state; but by this fourth section you reserve to her for the present, — until an occasion shall arise for a fre?h law and a new division, — her chapels, her church yards, cemeteries, and her communion plate; and you go on and tell her that she must protect the same from ^'■trespass and AoGREssios." You command her to protect the little that is to be graciously left to her, from " trespass or aggression." Sir, I think there is a bitter irony in those words. After taking away from her, in defiance of the law of the land, four-fifths of her estates by an aggressive act not 60 paralleled in this country for injustice, you coolly tell her she must protect the rest from " trespass or aggression!" If, either of these bills should pass, vain will be ihe effort — foolish the attempt of Trinity or any other church to save itself from encroachment or spoliation. You give by your own act, a fatal sanction to such schemes. You encourage all who desire to imitate them, and disarm all who would oppose them. You degrade yourselves to the level of those vampires, who — to improve a street — would invade her church yards and disturb the sacred remains which have so long honored the earth with which they mingle. Among the proofs which this bill discloses of the extreme liberality of its framers, there is yet another to be mentioned. You allow Trinity to dis- burse the charitable collections made in her own church and chapels. That certainly ought to re- ceive an emphatic acknowledgment. This is a concession to her in the purest tone of Christian brotherhood, and it is conspicuously and industri- ously spread out in the statute which despoils her, as if in mitigation of the wrong. Trinity church has out lived all the tumult, and fluctuations, and changes of a democratic government, passing through all the stages of its progress from the first incipient experiment, down to its apparently successful consummation, she has survived years of armed occupation of the city by a foreign foe; for two centuries she has escapfd the hand of the aggressor. But as if in contradiction of the laws of human nature-, as if to confound all reason ; at a moment like this, when it seemed as if the day of her security and repose had come, she is menaced by a danger more formidable than any she has ever before encountered. Her possessions, which the En- glish enemy would not confiscate or disturb, which the mob has always spared, the State, her natural protector, is now about to seize and control. And what has she done to justify all this ? What is the ofTence of her Rector, Wardens i.nd Vestrymen? are they not good men? Have they not faithfully fulfilled their trust? Have they ever been impeached anywhere, until we have heard something like it in this debate, and to which I will refer presently? What has she done, or what have those connected with her done to excuse and palliate this assault upon her vested rights? Sir, this business of partitioning the estates of those over whom we have no legislative control, has never been successful — is always dangerous, and is associated in the minds of men with trans- actions like the partition of Poland, the appro- priation of the property of the Orleans family by Louis Napoleon, and the exploits of those Mexican Statesmen who alternately rob the treasury and fleece the church. This is an as- sociation which I should think, my conservative friend, the Senator from the 6th, would like to avoid. There is a difference, between the proposition of my colleague from the 6th, (Mr. Brooks), and the one reported from the select committee by another colleague, the Senator from the 0th, (Mr. Spencer), which in justice to one or the other, ought to be mentioned. The proposition of the special committee, disorganizes the church and seizes the estate. The substitute of the Senator from the 6th, spares the church for the present, but takes the property. That is the whole difference, stated in a few words. The bill reported by the special committee assails the church because it proposes to give to the congregations of fif-y outside churches, the ab- solute control of Trinity church, of which they are not members. It allows the members of other congregations to appoint her Rector and the Ministers for her chapels; anditgivestoaboardof Wardens and Ves- trymen, which her congregation does not elect, the absolute control of her church edifices, her churchyards, cemeteries and land, with power to sell, appropriate and use any and all of this property as they see fit. The proposition of the Senator from the G'h (Mr. Brooks), gives the church the technical and apparent control, for the time being, of her buildings, graveyards, communiontable and charitable collections; but divides with those outside the church the control of all the remainder of her estate, and as- sumes to direct by legislative enactment the objects to be benefited by, and the mode of ap- propriation of the private property of a religious corporation. I have invited my friends on the other side already to answer several questions. I have another one now that I propose to submit to them, to which it will be well for them to give attention; and I think they are bound to answer it, before they press either of their bills upon the Senate. I desire to be informed how it is that this legislature can pass either of the two bills now before it, if, as it said, the legislature had no constitutional authority to pass the act of 1814. If, as all the lawyers and laymen against Trin- ity have contended, the act of 1814 was uncon- stitutional as an act of "judicial legislation;" if the legislature had no right to pass it because it was an interference with the concerns of a pri- vate corporation; if it disfranchised four thou- sand corporators; if, in violation of the charter and their vested rights, these persons were by it denied the right to vote at the annual elections for Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity church; and if the act of 1814, which did all this, as you contend, be unconstitutional, because it was an act of " judicial legislation," and an interference with the government and property of a pri- vate religious corporation; how is it th finally settled both in the State and the Federal courts. Is there any room for controversy as to the fact that it was an act of judicial legislation? It purported upon its face to be not a confirmation of pre-existing rights, but an act to remove doubts as to what those rights were, as you will perceive by reference to the recital in the law itself. »#«*** "/n every aspect, then, the law of 1814 was un- constitutional, as impairing the obligation of lontracts, as divesting vested rights, as an act of confiscation and disfranchisement, as an act of judicial legislation." Now then, what are these two bills before the Senate? They are both of them propositions to adjust and settle the rights of contending parties under this act of incorporation. Mr. Porter contends in his argument as we have seen, that the act of 1814 was unconstitutional, because it disfranchised corporators who were beneficiaries of the trust, and as such were lawful voters at the elections for Vestrymen of Trinity. Now, I ask the Senator from the 6th (Mr. Brooks), what becomes of his bill under that ar- gument? Does he not also disfranchise " the inhabitants of New York, in connection with the Episcopal church?" How will these inhabi- tants enjoy their right to vote, which Mr. Porter claims they have, in the election of wardens and vestrymen, under his (Mr. Brooks') bill, any more than they have under the act of 1814? — They will have no more right at all. His bill excludes them from voting at the elections for wardens and vestrymen of Trinity, provided to be held by the charter, as much as the act of 1814 itself. In 1847 you asserted and now assert the right of each and every adult Episcopalian in the city of New York, in communion of the Protestant Episcopal church, to attend the elections held under the charter of Trinity, and to vote for the wardens and vestrymen of that congregation - You have argued that inasmuch as the act of 1814 denied them that right, it is therefore un- constitutional, " It divested them," as Mr. Porter says, " of their franchises, by a mere act of legislative will, without their consent, and without cause." I ask the Senator from the 6th, and all who contemplate voting for his bill, whether there is any evidence before them, or before this Senate, that these corporators have now relinquished that right, or are willing to relinquish it to the churches to which they be- I'elong' The act of 1814 confined the right of snfTrage to the congregation of Trinity church and its chapels. This bill excludes the mem- bers of other congregations, wholly, from any voice in the election of half the vestry, and jives to the other churches an indirect and limit- ed voice in the election of the other half. Both are equally acts of disfranchisement — both ex- 62 ciude from the elections held under the charter, those persons who now claim the ri»ht to vote. The measure my colleague has introilucei, pro- vides that each one of these churches shall elect a delegate to a;*onvention, or con2;re3s, and that congress shall choose a warden and ten vestry- naen for Trinity church. Those who it is con- tended are corporators of Trinity, are thus de- barred from taking any part in the elections in that corporation; they are permitted in their own respective churches to vote for a vestry, which vestry elects a delegate to a sort of con- gress, and chooses this congress one half of the vestry of Trinity church. Now, what is to prevent anyone, or any num- ber of these persons — these disfranchised saints who were so persecuted by the act of 1814 — from coming here, and taking exactly the same ground with reference to your bill, as they now take with regard to the act of 1814, to wit: that the act was passed without their consent, and that they, as corporators, are divested thereby of ^heir franchises as conferred by the charter ? Now, sir, this view of the case, in my judg- ment, is entirely fatal to the scheme of church government proposed by the honorable Senator from the 6th, unless he or his friends can pro- duce at their leisure, some answer to this argu- ment which does not seem to occur to them now, as I am not favored with it. I have shown that Mr. Porter's argument is fatal to the proposition of the Senator from the 6th, and I will now show that it is equally fatal to the proposition of the Select Committee. In order to make this the more apparent, let us re- fer to the question and see precisely what it is. Here is a controversy between parties in New- York claimins conflicting rights under a charter. One side insists that under that charter, fairly construed according to law, they have a right to take part in the control of the affairs of a religious corporation. The other party claims that this allegeil right does not exist. Now that is the question slated in an abstract form. That was exactly the question in 1814, and Mr. Porter's argument proves clearly, as far as the abstract proposition goes, that the legislature had no right to decide a controverted question of private right between the parties ; that the act was an act of judicial legislation, and was therefore uncon- stitutional and void. The only fallacy in his ar- gument, so far as it respects the law of 1814, and it is a fatal one — is this: he neglects to state that the act of 1814 was founded on the memorial of the corporation itself, and, when passed, was accepted by it, and thtreupon brcame a contract between the state and the corporation, and binding on both. That is the fallacy of his argument as far as the act of 1814 is concerned; but it is no fallacy as regards these two propositions now before the Senate, because they are not asked for by either of the parties — neither the corporation, nor the persons who claim to have been disfranchised. There is no proof before us that the corporation of Trinity, or those who claim the right to be corporators, have applied by memorial, or other- wise, for the passage of either of these bills, or that either of them will be accepted or acquiesced in by either party to the controversy. So, then, Mr. Porter's argument so far as relates to these propositions, holds good, — indeed it is entirely conclusive — although it is unsound when applied to the act of 1814. You are then called upon. Senators, to settle a law suit, or what ought to be a law suit, between these parties. You are called upon to usurp the functions of the judiciary, and to decide between private persons, a litigated issue about private rights. You are called upon to repeat an act of legislation for parties whose distinguished coun- sel (Mr. Porter), tells you " no American states- man, lawyer or jurist, in view of the facts" — namely, that this was in 1814, and has been ever since, a question of controverted private right between two parties, arising under a charter which is in the nature of a contract and a trust, — " could entertain a doubt was unconstitutional as an act of judicial legislation." It is possible that if those who now act as cor- porators, and those who claim the right to he corporators, bad united in a request to the legis- lature, properly authenticated, tor the passage of a law settling and defining, and confirming their several rights, and had waived our want of ju- risdiction, that then we should have acquired the authority, as between us and them, to pass a law upon the subject. But is this the case? No sir; the reverse of this. Remonstrances are be- fore us. Yes, remonstiances by the hundred, not only from the corporation of Trinity, but from the whole Episcopal body of the state, including large numbers of the very persons, mem- bers of the other city churches, whom it is pro- posed to enfraiichise— deny the competency of our jurisdiction ; they deny our right to impair the contract entered into in 18 14; a contract which up to 1857 has been acquiesced in by all the par- ties interested, and which has never been assailed or questioned in court or out of court, in any legal manner. You have yourselves, in the new legislation you propose, recognized the validity of the act of 1814. The bill reported from the special committee is entitled an act to amend the act of IS 14. The whole conception of the bill is in conflict with the argument upon which you pro- pose to justify and sustain it. You recognize throughout the bill the validity o( the act of 1814, while your whole argument is based on its un- constitutionality. You go on and say, "section 2d of saiil act is hereby amended so as to read as follows: '•^ 2. Every male inhabitant of the city of New York, of full age, in communion of the Protes- tant Episcopal church, in the state of New York, who shall hold occupy or enjoy a pew or seat in any Protestant Episcopal church in said city, in union with the convention ofthediocese of New York, or shall have partaken of the holy com- munion therein, within the year next preceding any election for church wardens and vestrymen, 63 to be certified by the rector, senior warden, or clerk of the vestry of such church, shall be enti- tled to vote, at all elections for church wardens and vestrymen of this corporation." Now Sir, what does this section do? It pro- poses to decide a disputed question about private rights between two parties, which has arisen up- on the charter of a church corporation, and the acts founded thereon. Is it more or less than this? If it seeks not that, it seeks nothing. If it does not accomplish that end, then the time spent upon it is wasted. And yet we have it on the authority of your own advocate, that you have no right or power to do any such thing. And Mr. Portei's view of the law, as might be expected of any view of the law emanciating from hinn, can be abundantly sustained by reference to leading cases on the subject, to some of which I propose in a few minutes to call the attention of the Senate. I ought not, however, to pass over without comment, what Mr. Porter has to say as to the manner in which the act of 1814 was passed. He says: " Beyond all doubt, the Legislature would in this instance, if they had been frankly informed by Trinity of the facts as they actually existed, have confirmed the rights secured to the corporators at large by the original charter, and re-affirmed by the act of 1784. But Trinity stated only what suited the purposes she had in view. She referred to the antecedent grants, but in suoh terms as could not fail to mislead, and to divert the Legislature, the Attorney-General and the Council of Revision from the true character of the questions at issue." Senators will remember the extract I read the other day from the memorial of Trinity church, asking for the passage of the act of 1814. Could anything be more frank and explicit than that statement of facts? The memorial set forth that doubts had arisen as to who were and who were not corporators of Trinity corporation ; that two or three persons, although not residents of the parish or members of the congregation of Trinity or either of its chapels, had asserted a right to vote at the elections; that up to that time, no such right had ever before been asserted; that it seemed proper that the attention of the legisla- ture should be called to the fact, because it was likely to lead to difficulties in the parish, and therefore the church asked the Legislature in their wisdom to pass such a law as they should deem proper under the circumstances. It is hardly fair then, to say that the case to be pre- sented to the legislature was not disclosed; and I must be allowed to observe that it seems to me a very strange charge, to say that anybody could have "diverted the attention of the legis- lature, the attorney-general and the council of revision of 1814, from the true character of the questions at issue." Why, Sir, on what did those issues rest? Up- on the charter of 1697, upon the grant of Queen Anne and the acts of 17S4 and 1788, accessible to every one, and to which any person could have referred. I say it seems strange, when we look over the list of those who held seats in the Legislature and in the Council of Revision of that year, to talk abou t concealing from them such palpable facts spread out Ojx the record be- fore them, or of diverting their minds from the true character of an important issue. The men who then occupied our seats in these halls, have since become distinguished in the public trans- actions of the state and the nation. The Coun- cil of Revision was imposed upon also, where sat a Kent and a Lansing! The memorial beguiled the Attorney General too! — Abra- ham Van Vechten — one of the most eminent lawyers of his times. The government of New York in that day — the Legislature, the Council of Revision, were then in the hands of a race of giants — Tompkins, Van Buren, Root, Van Vech- ten, Kent and Lansing, and men of equal in- tellectual stature — whom you must not compare with the dwarfs who now-a-days, unhappily lor the state, are their successors. Such men were not easy to " mislead " or to " divert " from the merits of an important public question, upon which they were called upon to *ct. If I were required to look over the annals of the state, and select one Legislature upon whose acts, more than upon any other, I could repose with satis- faction and confidence, I should choose the Legis- lature and government of 1814. Now, let us pass from this mere legal view of the bill, introduced by the Senator from the 6th (Mr. Brooks), and look for a few moments at its practical operation. Let us suppose it passed, and that we are witnessing the performances under it. In the first place, we have the election of fifty-four vestries in as many Episcopal churches in the city of New York. Now, it is easy to see what will be the issue in each of these elections. The issue will be, the control of the estates of Trinity church. This is the gauntlet thrown down at the sanc- tury of each of the fifty-four churches, and they are challenged to take it up. Well, these fifty- four vestries are elected, and they are to control the management and enjoy the property of Trinity. What next? What is to be the next canvass; for we are to have three under the law. After the fifty-four vestries have been chosen, we have in each vestry an election for a delegate to what I have called, and shall continue to call till I am furnished with a better name, a convention, or congress of churches. In the vestries the issue will be low church against high church — for Trinity or against Trinity — one party will go for dividing up the money among all the city churches, another will prefer to leave it to the control of the corporation itself, and yet another (but a very small and feeble party I lear it will be) will go for a distribution through the State generally. We then come to the third election. We get the convention or congress together, and they are to elect a warden and ten vestrymen for Trinity church. Again the issue will there be, whether the vestrymen they elect shall agree with the ten elected by the congregation of Trin- ity church, or fight thena upon the appropriation 64 of the income and proceeds of her estates. So the bill thus provides for three heated, excited, angry elections, which will extend their ramifi- cations throughout the whole of the fifty-four churches; andThese elections are to take place every year, constantly keeping alive dissension and acrimony among the congregations. Senators, does this sort of legislation com- mend itself to your wisdom?' If you resolve yourselves, as you propose to do, into a body fit and competent to frame and set in operation a system of church government, do you think such a scheme as this will reconcile the people to your first experiment? Do you fancy that this triple series of annual elections would tend to the edification of these fifty-four peaceful, happy congregations? If such is your opinion, then I am bound, in courtesy, to presume that it is because you know more about church discipline than I do. I am not an expert in church government; you probably are. If this grotesque parody upon all that I have been accustomed to believe to be a judicious form of church government, is the embodiment of your more abundant experience, then I suppose it is proper for one so ignorant as I confess myself to be about such matters, to submit, without a murmur. Sir, I can not but think that my colleague (Mr. Brooks) will very likely see introduced into these ecclesiastical elections, some of those hor- rors which he has sometimes so graphically depict- ed on this floor as taking place in our ordinary elections in the city. I am afraid he will have to devise some new registry law, to create some new boards of canvassers and inspectors, and to complete his bill by adding to it some carefully prepared machinery by which these ecclesiastical elections can carried on without fraud or vio- lence. We know that human nature is the same everywhere; and I don't care whether an elec- tion be held for a Senator or a vestryman, if exciting issues spring up and angry controver- sies exist, the effect will be the same. The causes which produce excitement and disorder and deceit in a political election, to wit : the ea- ger purpose to triumph, the desire to crush an opponent, the hope of gain, the love of power, the gratification of ambition, will, if they exist as they may exist in a church election, produce the same result. When elections in churches are confined to their own local matters, as in these city churches they have heretofore been, it is easy to get along peaceably, calmly, and with decorum. The elections in Trinity church are so con- ducted now, because none take part in them but those whose interests are indentified with the congregation which the vestry is to represent. The vestry possess the entire confidence of their constituency; and well they may; for more able, high-toned and accomplished gentlemen, never held a trust, private or public, in the city of New York. So unreserved is the confidence felt by the corporators in the conduct of those to whom they have entrusted the affairs of the cor- poration, that, as we have seen from the record, J it is quite unusual for a large vote to be polled. j. It is seldom that half of those entitled to vote, j, attend the elections. But the moment you un- g dertake by a complex and extensive scheme of t popular elections, to settle the controversy be- j tween those who have the control of Trinity, ; and those who wish to get the control, you throw , into the whole Episcopalian community an ele- j ment of discord, that if it does not bring disgrace j upon a religious body now conspicuous for the j gravity, dignity, and decorum which characteri- ze its conduct, will certainly tend to endanger its successful devotion to some of the objects for ,( which a congregation is formed — the promotion of "peace and good will among men." You ,| array churches that should be the sisters of ), Trinity, against her. The friends of Trinity in the j other churches, will be eager that Trinity shall be i ;„ sustained in the elections. A majority of some j ^ congregations will be for Trinity, and a majority of others will be hostile to her. Thus you will i array church against church, congregation against j .; congregation. St. George will be against the Holy Innocents; St. Matthew's will be against I j St. John's; Grace against St Paul; St. Bartholo- I mew against St. Clement; St. Luke against all j ^ Saints; St. Peter against the Church of the In- j tercession; St. John the Baptist against the ^| Epiphany; St. Mary against the Annunciation/ j and the Holy Evangelists, perhaps, against them , Well, Sir, here we have fifty-four angry ecclesiastical elections going on in one day in New York; an exciting issue, a heated con- troversy, a bitter conflict. It is not too much to "t, fancy that we see the omnibusses rattling through ' the streets, crowded with eager voters, and vocal with strange election cries : " Three cheers for I I Grace church! " — " Hurry up more votes to As- , cension!" Trinity is ahead ! " "Hoi for the Evangelists!" See the inflammatory handbills "Up with Trinity! "—"Down with St. Georgel" i Ah! it will be no longer the St. George we have ' been accustomed to regard; but St. George and the Dragon — eager to enter the field of strife burning for the foray! But let us hasten to the Jj' churches. Hear the crowd around the doors, the police vainly endeavoring to preserve order, give ^ three cheers for the Low church, three groans for the High church, and a tiger for the Bishop. Now approach the door, and see the eager ticket- ^ pedlars pay their respects to each new comer: — "Are you against Trinity?" — " Can't you give us a vote for Grace church? " Mark how they follow that opposition voter along the aisle; how closely they watch him to see that he is a duly qualified voter; how spitefully they challenge . and wrangle with him about his vote. Sir, pass this bill, and after you have seen a few elections ; under it, this will be no fancy sketch. And what a time have you chosen for these extraordinary iproceedings in the church? The ,| season ol Lent. Mr. BiiooKS : We choose the season of Easter, i ' 65 Mr. Sickles: Oh! you had better say Good Friday — the day of the crucifixion! But Lent is to be the time; a season vvhen the church should be all calmness, and at peace with herself; when every passion should be allayed and every ex- citement put to rest; a season ot fasting and prayer. I shall advise the honorable senator from the Gth, if he passes his bill, to change the time of the elections, and to hold them after Lent. We can then have a carnival in New York; for these elections would rival the scenes of the carnival at Rome. But let us pass from this spectacle. I now desire to call the attention of the Senate to some of the allegations and arituments employed by the Senator from the 22d (iMr. Noxon). In his speech delivered March 28th, he says that there has been an attempt on the part of the vestry of Trinity church, " to break down the committee in order to overrule and override the Senate of the state of New York." He charges the ves- try with a corrupt use of their power lo grant leases — with having used that povver to favor relatives and friends. Here are his words: " But the charge is that others hold on to, and administer the funds; and why is it that they so pertinaciously hold on to the church property and lease it out from year to year? Probably on account of some considerations not yet brought before the Senate. I surmise that in those same leases there is something that does not meet the eye. I fancy it m\y be found that some friend stands behind, in the background; 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 some- thing that the public can not seel" Again he says: "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 half enough. While she is enriching herself by hold- ing on to her property, she does not give away half enough." And he exclaims with a greet deal of empha- sis, " Trinity never had any right to the pro- perty she now holds." Now, Sir, I can not allow charges of this grave character, to be made here in this debate, against gentlemen who stand so high in the community, which I have the honor, in part, to represent; who have gone through life with re- putations cherished and unchallenged up to the hour when they were thus rudely impugned; and I call on the Senator from the 22d (Mr. Nox- on), as a manly and generous gentleman, either to make good his accusations, or to withdraw them before another sun goes down ! This much is due to these estimable citizens — it is due to himself — it is due to this Senate. I am certain these accusations ran not be maintained. Kvery one who knows these gentlemen, must know this; and I am sure these imputations must have been uttered in the excitement and ardor of debate, and not after such deliberation as charges so grave ought to have received. A corrupt use of the power to grant leases, to favor rela- tives and friends ! Sir, a more serious accusa- tion could not be broughc against any one hold- ing a trust. Where is the evidence on which the accusation is made? Dues it not look like an effort to traduce the corporation, to assail it by all sorts of accusations, and under the noise and smoke of the attack, to justify the act of usurpation and spoliation you are about to com- mit. When I read these remarks of the Honor- able Senator (Mr. Noxon), I could not help contrasting them with the report of the gentle- man and his associates, upon the select commit- tee, where I find the?e words: " It will be seen that there is no question raised in regard to the persou il inlearity. AND NO IMPE.VCHMENT OF THE PURITY OF PER- SONAL MOTIVES of any member ol that cor- poration." Immediately after the Senator from the 22d (Mr. Noxon), had signed his name to that eulo- gium, he rises in his place in the Senate, and charges these very men with a corrupt use of their power, as custodians of this property, for the benefit of relatives and the gratification of favorites. Sir, that is impeaching the purity of their motives; that is questioning their personal integrity. We have a right to enquire of the Senator why he did not spread out on the record here before us, the evidence of the corrupt use of this power, which he charges upon the vestry; we have a right to know why it was not investi- gated by his select committee when they visited New York? They investigated pretty much everything. They have collected here in this volume, every rumor, or suggestion, or whisper that has found utterance against the church for years past. Yet there is not one particle of evi- dence to sustain this most serious charge — not one single fact throughout the entire testimony to justify it. Now, Sir, I am authorized by a number of the gentlemen belonging to the vest- ry, to proclaim here in the Senate, for them- selves and their associates in the most formal manner, in reference to this and the other as- persions to which I have alluded, that they wholly deny and indignantly repel these charges, each and all of them — as not only untrue, but without the slightest shadow of truth; and on ttieir behalf, I will now read to the Senate the following statement: " We wholly deny and repel these charges or insinuations as not only untrue but without any color of truth, as to any member of our body, and as unjust and injurious alike to our colleagues and ourselves. We have been members of the vestry for several years, and have had full oppor- tunity to become acquainted with the manage- ment of its property and affairs. We now dis- tinctly assert of our own knowledge that they have been administered not only without any corrupt motive or regard to the pecuniary ad- vantage or personal interest ol aiiyof its members, or of their friends or connc^cions, but with con- stant and scrupulous care to do no act what- 9 66 ever that would in any way bear that construc- tion. "We have no object in defending the rights of Trinity church, now menaced, as we think, with unlawful aggression, but lo do our duty as g:ood citizens and guardians of an important re- ligious trust." Sir, I am authorized to make this state- ment on behalf of the gentlemen belonging to Trinity Vestry, and in the name of my city and my constituents, as a Senator, I here endorse every word and line of it as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; and now I call up- on the Senator from the 22d, (Mr. Noxon,) either to make good his accusations, in the face of this challenge — or to do what I can not doubt that his impulses as a gentleman and his duty as a Sena- tor will impel him to do; — abandon them ! The Senator from the 22d, also charges Trinity with being niggardly in her donations for the aid of other churches. He says she has not giv- en away half enough. Why, sir, can he have forgotten the testimony of Gen. Dix ? I ask all who heard the statement of the Senator, to read the testimony given before the committee by Gen. Dix, and then to judge for themselves. Why, they will find spread out all over the re- cord here, so plainly that it can not be evaded or questionsd, the fact that Trinity has not only given away all her income not actually employed, but has added, largely to her debt, in her bounti- ful gifts to other churches. That debt now reaches six hundred thousand dollars, and has been steadily increased by the corporation, to enable them to meet the more pressing wants of the congregations of other churches. At the same time, the Vestry rescue themselves from the im- putation of bad financial management, because they call attention to the tact that within a very few years a vast number of leases will fall in, when the income of the church will be largely increased, and when by that means, or by the sale of a portion of her property she can release herself from the embarrassment which has tem- porarily resulted from the liberality of her dona- tions. Let me observe here, that the notion that seems to prevail in many quarters, that the Vestry of Trinity, hold the income of that cor- poration as a trust for the benefit of all other Episcopalian churches in the state, has arisen Irom the uniform and munificent liberality with which she has supplied, out of the abundance of her means, the wants of other churches ; because nothing can certainly be found in the grant of Queen Anne, or in the original charter, to give color to the pretence that Trinity holds her es- tates in trust for any church but her own. — Any one who had never read the charter and the graut from Queen Anne, might we'l suppose from the liberality of her gifts, that Trinity was under some obligation lo make these appropriations. But when they do read them, they find that it is out of good will, from a sense of religious duty, and to advance the holy cause in which she is engaged, that she thus applies her means, and not from any legal obligation to do so. I desire, Sir, to read one or two extracts from the testimony of Gen. Dix, to show what haa been the financial and the ecclesiastical policy of the church, and what she proposes to do in the future; and then I desire that Senators, if they intend to erect themselves into an ecclesiastical council to direct the government and dispose of the funds of Trinity church, should contrast the exposition given by that distinguished gen- tleman of the past, present, and future policy of the Vestry, with what they may fairly pre- sume would be the policy pursued after the fifty- four city churches get control of the funds of the corporation. Gen. Dix says: " Soon after my connection with the vestry commenced, my attention was attracted to the financial condition of the corporation, which seemed to me very unsatisfactory. Its debt amounted to nearly half a million of dollars, and by reason of the large donations it was in the habit of making to other churches its revenue had become inadequate to its expenditures, and the annual deficits were made up by a sale of property. I regarded this practice, though founded upon a generous consideration for the wants of other parishes, and a desire to promote the advancement of the interests of the Episco- pal church in the city and the state, as opposed to all sound principles of finance. No fund or endowment can long withstand a regular con- sumption of its principal. Encumbered as the church property was by leases, it could rarely be sold in any considerable parcels, without serious sacrifice ; an. I it was my opinion that the con- tributions of the church, instead of being enlarged should be curtailensates, in a great degree, for the lost support of the religious societies removed to other districts. In the midst of all this earnest effort, with five of her clergy residing within this neglected field of labor, conversant with little else than its des- titution, and devoting themselves to the relief of its wants. Trinity church finds herself assailed, as faithless to her trust, by those, for the most part, whose lives are passed amid the social amenities of the upper districts, and in an at- mosphere redolent of indulgence and luxurious ease. " It was not supposed by me, when this plan was brought forward, that it could be fully car- ried out, until a considerable portion of the leased 68 property of the church should become available for the purpose. It was only expected that a beginning should be made, and that the plan, in its great outlires, should have a piactical adop- tion. However earnest the desire to put it in operation at an earlier period, the unexpected augmentation of her debt, not only renders such a desire hopeless, but manifests that it may be even further postponed, or possibly deleated, without a prudent husbandry of her resources. " For the better illustration of this point, I annex a statement of the revenue and ordinary expenditures of the corporation, for the year end- ing the 30th April, 1856. Revenue. 1 . From ground rents of real estate, $67,359 53 2. " pew rents, 6,998 50 3. " interest on bonds and mort- gages 13,259 40 4. " Trinity Church Cemetery, 4,155 93 $91,773 36 Expenditures. 1. Parish expenditures, including, (besides those obviously such) charges upon, and expenses of management and care of the property of the church, necessary diocesan expenses, and an- nuities to families of deceased clergymen, or to officers of the parish, $71,344 22 2. Interest on debt, 36,552 15 3. Allowances, donations, and loans to other churches, 32,052 42 $139,948 79 Deduct revenue, 91,773 36 And there is a deficit of $48, 145 43 for the year ending 30th April, 1S56. " The receipts and expenditures for the year ending 30th, April, 1S57, were estimated on 1st May last, at $40,638 66. The grants actually made by the corporaticn, to clergymen and churches to be paid during the year, in addition to the regular allowances, amount to $11,640, and the appropriations for building school-houses, and renovating and enlarging St. John's chapel to $28,000, making together $39,640 00 Deduct cash on hand 1st May, 1856, 10,016 38 $29,623 62 Add estimated deficiency, 40,638 66 And there will be a deficit of 70,262,28 for the year ending the 3Uth April, 1857. " This deficit can only be met by selling real estate. The deficits for the last ten years, ex- ceed two hundred and seventy thousand dollars, and the corporation has provided for them, by selling lots, and applying the proceeds to the augmentation of her insufficient income. While she is assailed as niggardly in her donations, and as engaged in a systematic accumulation of her capital, she has in fact, for years, been selling her real ^state, and meeting with the proceeds, the pressing demands on her, a large portion of which have grown out of her contributions for the support of other churches. "The estimated expenditure of the present year continued till 1862, would consume so much of the Lispenard lease, which becomes disencumbered in that year and embrafes a large and valuable part of her real estate, as to leave her a balance insufficient to pay her debt which is now $668,813 00 This debt may be reduced by mort- gages.! 199,469-00 To the sum of 469,344 00 Add deficits of $70,578-66 for five years, 351,311-40 And there will be the sum of $820,055 40 to be provided for by sales of real estate ; a sum exceeding the highest estimate in the report of the committee of the value of the Lispenard lease ; and unless the price of real estate become greatly enhanced during the next five years, no- thing will remain of the lease referred to, after discharging the pecuniary obligations above specified, a portion of which must be provided for by sale of other property. "The expenditures of the parish can not be materially abridged without prejudice to its in- terests ; and the vestry are unwilling to reduce the annual allowances to other churches, believ- ing that such a reduction would cause great in- convenience to the recipients, and, in some cases, impair to a serious extent the efficiency of the parishes thus assisted. " In regard to the necessity of allowing the capital of her endowment to be consumed by the current expenses of the church, I have differed in opinion with the majority of the vestry. While they have deplored it and yielded to it as a ne- cessity, I have been in favor of meeting it by re- trenchment, and bringing down the expenditure, as nearly as may be, to the standard of the in- come. I have urged this duty on the vsstry as one demanded by every maxim of financial pru- dence, and with the less reluctance as the incon- venience to result from it would be of short du- ration; for if the real estate disposable in 1862, or the great mass of it, can be kept undiminished until that time, the church will be in a position to prosecute the great plan of ministration she has entered on, wiih an efficiency which can not fail to produce results of the highest importance to the city and the state. If I have thought the vestry in error in this respect, it is not because I have considered them lacking in liberality, but because they have yielded under impulses highly honorable to their feelings, to an outside pressure for contributions, which, in view of the deep and lasting interests involved in the question, I would have resisted." Now, Sir, here we see unfolded the purposes and objects which the corporation have in view; and it is for you to say whether you find any- thing in them to condemn; conceding for the moment, and for the sake of the argument, that 69 it belongs to you a3 a legislative body, to pass an official judgment on the conduct of the vestry. But althoush that right is denied, as Trinity has been arraigned here, she appeals to this record for her complete vindication. Sir, if this estate be taken from the corpora- tion and vestry, then will be defeated the only adequate scheme ever projected to provide for the spiritual and temporal care of this large and in- teresting portion of the population of the city, — A few years ago, those who now form the up- town Episcopalian congregations were down town people, and members of the congregation of Trinity Church. But time has changed all this. The wealthy have moved up town into the more fashionable neighborhoods. Here and there a family clings to the old Homestead; but now the lower part of the city is crowded with a popula- tion, that without Trinity and the Catholic church, would be without any means of religious ■worship and destitute of any spiritual care. — Hence it is that Trinity has made her church — that magnificent edifice — and the chapels free — almost literally free. IN SENATE Monday, 4 P. M. There never would have been any difficulty as to the right to participate in the control of the affairs of this church, if the persons who claim that they are now excluded, had remained in the lower parts of the city, where they and their ancestors resided from the first settlement of New York, till a comparatively recent period. While they remained withinthe parish, — within the congregation of Trinity, or of her chapels. — they were admitted to all the rights, franchises and privileges which the corporators now enjoy; and if they had remained within her congrnga- tion and under her Rector, they would never have forfeited those rights. But when they saw fit, in order better to enjoy the abundant wealth I they had acquired, to move up town into more attractive neighborhoods; to form new congre- gations; then by their own voluntary act they seceded from the corporation of Trinity; they severed the temporal and spiritual relations they held to the Rector, wardens, vestrymen and con- gregation of their parish church, and surrendered by their own act of expatriation, the rights they previously enjoyed. It was not through the charter; it was not through the act of 1814; it was not by any action of the corporation of Trin- ity church, the Rector or the vestry, that they were deprived of the right of corporators. They chose themselves to leave the congregation; to sever their connection with it: and thus to deprive themselves of the rights which attach to that re- lation. What does the act of 1814 say? That all persons belonging to Trinity church shall take part in its government. Then what have these gentlemen to do, in order to acquire the right they seek? Is it necessary for them to go to the courts and commence law suits? 'Is it necessary for them to come to the legislature year after year, to obtain a law to secure to them those rights? No; the act of 1814 furnishes them abundant means by which to enjoy equal rights with the other corporators of Trinity. They have nothing more nor less to do, than to become members of Trinity congregation — com- municants of her church — to occupy a seat with- in it — and to return to that relation to the Rec- tor, wardens and vestry of the church which alone enables any one to become a corporator, and to vote at her elections. All the difliculty arises from a desire to do an impossible thing, an unheard-of thing in church government: to leave the church, to sever the ecclesiastical rela- tion with its Rector and congregation; to cease to be pew holders; to form another congregation and establisVi another church, and yet to hold a share in the control and government of the church from which they have seceded. To choose a Rector for a church to which they have ceased to belong; aind to disburse the revenue of a church they have abandoned. I therefore say that it is not the law of 1814 or any other law, still less any act of the vestry, which has deprived these claimants of the rights of corporators of Trinity: but that they have ceased to possess those rights by their own vol- untary act. Nor does the act of 1814 debar them from the future enjoyment of these privileges; for nothing is requisite to enable them to resume and enjoy them, but their own voluntary act. They have only to order their coachmen to roll on down Broadway; they have only to drive down to Trinity with their equip- ages, and kneel at her altar beside the poor and worthy worshippers, my constituents, who now frequent her aisles, and all these coveted rights and privileges of which they claim to have been deprived, will be restored to them. I find in the speech of the Senator from the 22d (Mr. Noxon), such passages as these: "Tell me not of consecrated justice from those who are steeped in iniquity! — Trinity church never had any right in the property she unjustly holds — The church usurps it, and yet the Senator talks about consecrated justice. Consecrated justice! Why, I wonder that the embellishments that surround her churches do not cry out against her. Consecrated justice in usurpation! Con- secrated justice, in iniquity! Consecrated just- ice in robbing men of their rights!" Well, Sir, I have read carefully the two re- ports which have been made by the Senate Com- mittee, and the testimony taken by them; and if these prove "iniquity" on the part of the cor- poration, then I confess I have failed in some way to comprehend the bearing and effect of the testimony; for I undertake to say, with Mr. Jay, who was never friendlv to this corporation, that the history of no state can show a more faithful and stainless performance of an import- ant trust, than is shown by the record of the transactions of this vestry. In the first place it was attempted to be proved that they had used the power of the church to favor a particular class of doctrinal opinions ; that they had used their gifts to make converts to High church notions, discriminating against those who entertained Low church views. Sir, 70 look at the testimony; see how completely this charge was refuted; so triumphantly, that all who had made it cried " enough! " The charge was abandoned in the committee room and never should have been revived here. It was shown that so far from there being any ground for such a charge, the reverse was the fact. Trinity has made no discrimination in her gifts, except to discriminate between those who needed them most and those who needed them least. She has endowed Columbia college with a liberality be- yond any gifts ever made by any city, state or church to a similar institution in this country. She has established a free college in the interior of this state. She has aided tr.ore than two hundred and fifty churches in the state, High church and Low church. She has given liberal- ly — munificently — to those very churches whose representatives are now here assailing her. And is this a church to be characterized on the floor of the Senate of the state of New York, as a thing " steeped in iniquity? " I will not suffer such a slander to be uttered here against a sacred and good institution, without rebuke. The next charge is that Trinity usurps this property. Is there not a simple remedy to ap- ply to those who wronsfully hold that which does not belong to them? Have not the courts been open to the claimants for forty years; and has any one of them been found willing to pre- sent the question to a legal tribunal? And yet in the face of this uninterrupted acquiescence — this silent but imposing proof — that there is no justice in the claim, its advocates rise here, and charge the church with " usurpation ! " We are next told that the country churches have been "SUBSIDIZED" by Trinity. The Senator from the 22d (Mr. Noxon) says, "I see that the Honorable Senator from the 27th in pre- senting one of the Memorials of these subsidized country churches, thought fit to say with empha- sis that it was from a low church;" and he adds "«/ie»e churches do not come hereon behalf of Trinity, unless some secret spring moves and con- trols their action Sir, the Senator and his friends are arnazed, overwhelmed by the expression coming in from every county in the State, protesting against this law, and denouncing the att>^mpted aggression. — That expression can not be ignored. It must be met in some way or other, and here is a con- venient mode! Every church aided by Trinity has been "subsidized;" it has been bribed to send memorials here, asking that the vested rights of the corporation may be maintained! These churches do not Ciime here, says the Senator, un. less some secret spring moves them. Sir, I can tell the Senator what that secrft spring is. It is the love of Truth and Justice. They come here to save Trinity because they love Trinity; and I hope that Senators who have imputed to these congregations in their own midst, these corrupt and infamous motives, will one day be able to comprehend how much easier it is to in- duce our village churches to send remonstrances here from their convictions of what is just and right, than from the sordid and unworthy con- siderations attributed to them by the enemies of Trinity church. We find, Sir, among the offences laid at Trini- ty's door, the charge that she controls the con- ventions of the diocese, and so puts in power those only who are favorable to her views. There is no fact to justify that accusation; not one has been teferred to in the reports ; not one can be produced in evidence. In all the conventions callpj to elect a Bishop, for years past, the can- diilate supposed to be the favorite of Trinity has never received the votes of one fourth of the churches receiving aid from her ; the candidate supported by Trinity has been in a minority. — These facts show that no such result as Is claimed, has followed the distribution of her bounty. Sir, the theatre has been resorted to, to fur- nish a standard of CO nparison with this church. We have been told of wires leading from the "Green Room" of her vestry, connecting with the churches in the interior, which she has only to pull, to awaken a response. The honorable Senator (Mr. Noxon), has said, "She has poured in memorials upon us, as if wires, attached to every clergyman in the state, lead into the green mom of her vestry, and she has only to pull them in ordT to work her will." It is by such assaults, by such depreciation of what has been hitherto thought respectable and venerable, that the opponents of Trinity seek to sustain a languishing cause. And n^t only bad, but forlorn indeed must be the cause that is driv- en to sustain itself by such means. Sir, when this subject was presented to the legislature of 1847, it was presented on its real merits, as a question of law, arising out of the construction of the charter, and subsequent grants and statutes. The minds of those who were to be the judges, were kept free from mis- representation and prejudice, so that the issues were met in a spirit of candor and truthfulness. The result was the signal defeat of the move« menl; for the application to the Legislature of 1S47, did not receive a solitary vote in the House of Assembly, of which I was then a member. The report of the judiciary committee was unanimous against it, and it was approved with equal unanimity in the aggregate body. But those who assail Trinity saw that in any future at- tempt they must ge; new strength some%vhere, and some how. The charter remains the same now as it was in 1847. Queen Anne's grant is the same — the law of 1814 is the same. Every lawyer on the side of the assailants — and there are many eminent legal gentlemen among them — had long been striving to place that act in such a light before the legislature, as would seem to warrant or justify an attack upon it, and had failed. Something else, then, must be resorted to, or the attempt would be hopeless, and might as well be abandoned. After ten years' deliberation they decide that before they can induce the legislature to impair the rights of the church, they must blacken and 71 traduce hv, and all connected with her. They must arouse the heat and tumult of a battle. They must poison by slander, all the sources from which correct iiilormalion is to be obtained. They must divert and distract the altt'niion of the legislature from the real points of the case, and fix it on what rumor and detraction have called the errors and offences of the chufch. They must summon to the capitol all the disap- pointed applicants for the bounty of the church. They must charge the vestry, who have hereto- fore lived an unsullied life, with a corrupt use of their power, because some man had a law suit with the church and failed, and his lease was given to another. Thi-y must bring up ihe ru- mor here, predicated on some such incident 83 that, that the vestry have been in the habit of granting leases corruptly to relatives and friends. This is the new process by which, through cla- mor, prejudice and slander, they hope to induce this legislature to enter seriously on a project of spoilaf ion, from which, looking at the real merits of the issue, our predecessors recoiled. But, sir, the enemy is not content with assail- ing the vestry and the church. The name and the fame of the bishop have been dragged into this unhappy controversy. It has been insinuated that he is induced to advocate the cause of Trin- ity by the consideration that a portion of his sal- ary is paid by that corporation. In considering this case, and in looking at the motives of those who have written letters and remonstrances on the subject, the gentlemen on the other side seem to think that ihere can be no other influence at work save that of the ''almighly dollar." They believe that the bishop, who has led a life of se- rene purity and piety; whose name is synony- mous all over the state with whatever is exalted in conduct and blameless in motive; can not write a pastoral letter — a letter of advice to his people — unless some " secret springs," some sor- [ did motives govern and control him ! Bishop Potter was not the first choice of Trin- ity church; he was not her candidate for Bish- op; and I happen to know that it is no new thin^ for Bishop Potter to stand where he now stands in regard to this Trinity church controversy. When he was rector of St. Peter's, here at the capitol, in 1847, no man was more earnest and zealous, whithin his appropriate sphere, to en- lighten the mmds of legislators as to the true merit of the question. Trinity church did not then pay any portion of his salary as rector of St. Peter's in Albany, and yet he was among the foremost of those clergymen of the interior, who then as now remonstrated against this act of ag- gression. Sir. I remember him well in those days; for it was at a time of life when events leave traces on the mind, not easily effaced. It was my good fortune to be the occupant of a chamber near his own, in a dwelling not far from this capitol, while the rectory was being re-built. I was then here, young, without friends among the great, and powerful, and influential; and I can never forget the kindness, the words of cheering counsel, the friendship of that pure and good man; and I cannot. Sir, hear his conduct questioned, or hear dishonorable motives imputed tc him, without indignation, without suffering a sense of personal wrong which I can not re- press or conceal. Yes, Sir, he was my friend in those days when first I sought To rise Out of tho prison of my m^an estate, And with f uch jowele a^i tho exploring mind BriDgs from the caves of knowledge, buv my ranBom From those twin jailers ot tho daring heart, Low Birth, and Iron Fortune! He is the same man now, as then ; pure in pur- pose, virtuous in life, noble in thought, devoted, as few men even in his holy calling have been devoted, to the good of mankind. And, Sir, wicked and desperate indeed inust be that enter- prise, and dark and dismal its prospects, that can find no other means by which to sustain itself, than an assault on the character of such a man as Bishop Potter. I desire, now, Mr. Chairman, to call the at- tention of the Senate to some of the legal aspects of this case. It is conceded that Trinity church is a private corporation; a private eleemosynary corpoiation, created by a charter from the British crown, and confirmed after the revolution by the authority of the state; that she holds herflarge estate under that charter and subsequent royal grants; and the general question is, what power, if any, this Legislature possesses over private property, or over the mode and manner in which it is used and controlled. I make this statement of the exact character of the issue, in order to show the Senate that the same issue precisely in legal effect, was presented to the Supreme Couit of the United States in the Dartmouth college case. In that case the highest judicial authority in the Union, held that no state Legislature had any such power, and that any statute which interfered with such property, or with its control and man- agement, was null and void. I am quite aware that the lawyers around this circle are familiar with this case; and that in citing it and reading from the arguments and opinions, I am wearying their patience by a repetition of what they have often read; yet I will draw the attention of the Senate somewhat fully to the case, in order that those Senators who are not lawyers may see what the Supreme Court of the United States would say of such a law as we are now impor- tuned to pass. Dartmouth college was established in New Hampshire by a grant of the British crown in the year 1769, for the purpose of spreading Christian knowledge, and providing the means of education in the then province. The legisla- ture of New Hampshire, fancying that they could govern the college, or appoint people to go- vern it, better than those whom the charter de- signed, passed a law changing the name of the corporation from the " Trustees of Dartmouth College," to I he Trustees of Dartmouth Uni- versity," and transferring the control of the pro- perty of the old corporation to the new organiza- tion. The legislature of New Hampshire found 72 within the limits of the state a private eleemosy- nary corporation, created for the purposes of education, existing under a charter, and holding property by 2;rants from the British crown; just as we find here a private religious corporation possessing estates derived by grant from the Eng- lish crown; and which corporation was, as is the one now in question, under the control of persons deriving their authority from the original char- ter. The two cases are precisely identical, with the single immaterial difference that the one is a religious and the other an educational institu- tion; although Dartmouth College, I ought to say to be strictly accurate, was founded to promote religion as well as education. The persons appointed by the legislature of New Hampshire under the statute, got posses- sion of the books of the college, and the original corporators sought to regain the custody of the book of records, the corporate seal and other cor- porate property. Chief Justice Marshall de- livered the opinion of the court; and although we have seen a recent instance at least in which that high court has been overruled without much ceremony by this body (I allude to our censure of the judges who rendered the decision of the court in the Drcd Scott case, and whose opinion we have not yet read;) yet I hope that the an- tiquity of this decision, and its exemption from all those questions which excite partisan feeling in these days, will secure for it a greater degree of respect. In order that the Senate may fully understand the nature of the case, and the points decided by the court, I will read a few extracts from the memorable argument of Daniel Webster, who appeared for the college, and the opinion of the court delivered by Chief Justice Marshall, which affirmed Mr. Webster's positions : " It is not too much to assert, that the legisla- ture of New Hampshire would not have been competent to pass the acts in question, and to make them binding on the plaintiffs without their assent, even if there had been, in the con- stitution of New Hampshire, or of the United States, no special restriction on their power; because these acts are not the exercise of a power properly legislative, — Calder et ux v. BuU^ 3 Ball. 386. Their object and effect is to take away from one, rights, property and franchises, and to grant them to another. This is not the exercise of a legislative power. To justify the taking away of vested rights, there must be a forfeiture; to adjudge upon and declare which, is the proper province of the judiciary. Attain- der and confiscation are acts of sovereign power, not acts of legislation. The British parliament, among other unlimited powers, claims that of altering and vacating charters; not as an act of ordinary legislation, but of uncontrolled authority. It is theoretically omnipotent. Yet in modern times, it has attempted the exercise of this power very rarely. In a celebrated instance, those who asserted this power in parliament, vindicated its exercise only in a case, in which it could be shown, 1st. That the charter in question was a charter of political power; 2d. That there was a great and overruling state necessity, justifying the violation of the charter; 3d. That the char- ter had been abused and justly forfeited. — Annual Reg. 1784, ;), 160. Parlia. R(g. 1783. Mr. Barkers Speech on Mr. Fix''s E. I. Bill. Burke's Woiks, Vol. III. p. 414, 417, 467, 468, 486. The bill affecting this charter did not pass. Its his- tory is well known. The act which afterwards did pass, passed with the assent of the corpora' tion. Even in the worst times, this power of parliament to repeal and rescind charters has not otten been exercised. The illegal proceedings in the reign of Charles II, were under color of law. Judgments of forfeiture were obtained ia the Courts. Such was the ease of the quo war- ranto against the city of London, and the pro- ceedings by which the charter of Massachusetts was vacated. The legislature of New Hamp- shire has no more power over the rights of the plaintiffs than existed, some where, in some de- partment of government, before the revolution. The British parliament could not have annulled or revoked this grant as an act of ordinary legis- lation. If it had done it at all, it could only have been in virtue of that sovereign power call- ed omnipotent, which does not belong to any legislation in the United States." ******* "I hope enough has been said to show, that the trustees possessed vested liberties, privileges, and immunities, under this charter; and that such liberties, privileges, and immunities, being once lawfully obtained and vested, are as invio- lable as any vested rights of property whatever. Rights to do certain acts, such, for instance, as tbe visitation and superintendence of a college, and the appointment of its officers, may surely be vested rights, to all legal intents, as complete- ly as the right to possess property. A late learned Judge of this Court has said, ' when I say, that a right is vested in a citizen, I mean, that he has the power to io certain actions, or to possess certain things, according to the law of land.'— 3 Dal. 394." ******* " The American people have said, in the consti- tution of the United States, that "no state shall pass any bill of attainder, cx post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contract.s." In the same instr\iment they have also said, " that the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution." On the judges ot this court, then, is imposed the high and solemn duty of protecting, from even legislative violation, those contracts which ths constitution of our country has placed beyond legislative control; and, however irksome the task may be, this is a duty from which we dare not shrink." — Marshall, C. J. ******* "It can require no argument to prove, that the circumstances of this constitute a contract. An application is made to the crown for a charter to incorporate a religious and literary institution. In the application, it is stated that large contri- 73 butions have been made for the object, which will be conferred on the corporation, as soon as it shall be created. The charter is granted, and on its faith the property is conveyed. Surely in this transactions every ingredient of a complete and legitimate contract is to be found." — Mar- shall, C. J. " This is plainly a contract to which the do- nors, the trustees, and the crown (to whose rights and oblisations New Hampshire succeeds), were the original parties It is a contract made on a valuable consideration. Jt is a contract for the security and disposition of property. It is a contract on the faith of which, real and personal estate has been cmveyed to the corporation. It is then a contract within the letter of the consti- tution, and within its spirit also, unless the fact, that the property is invested by the donors in trustees for the promotion of religion and educa- tion, for the benetit of persons who are perpe- tually changing, though the objects remain the same, shall create a particular exception taking this case out of the prohibition contained in-the constitution." — M'lrshall, C. J. #♦*«*♦* "Almost all eleemosynary corporations, those vrfaich are created for the promotion of reli- gion, of charity, oi of education, are of the same character. The law of this case IS THE LAW OF ALL. In every literary or charitable institution, unless the objects of the bounty be themselves incorporated, the whole legal interest is in trustees, and can be asserted only by them." — Marshall. ***** " The opinion of the court, after mature deli- beration is, thit this is a contract, the obligation of which can not be impaired, without violating the constitution of the Uuited States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by leason, and by the former decisions of this court." ■— Marshall, C. J. ***** " It has been shown, that the charter is a con- tract on the part of the government, that the property with which the charity is endowed, shall be forever vested in a certain Humber of persons, and their successors, to subserve the particular purposes designated by the founder, and to be managed in a particular way. If a law increases or diminishes the number of the trustees, they are not the persons which the grantor agreed should be the managers of the fund. If it iippropriale the fund intended for tht support of a particular charity to that of name other charity, or to an entirely different charity, the grant it in effect set aside, and a neie contract substituted in its place; thus changing the objects of his bounty. And can it be seriously contended, that a law, which changes so materially the terms of a contract, does not impair it? In short, does not every alteration of acontract, however unimportant, even though it be manifestly for the interest of the party ob- jecting to it, impair its obligation? If the assent of all the parties to be bound by a contract be of its essence, how is it possible that a new con- tract, substituted for, or engrafted on another, vtithou such assent, should not violate the old charter?" — Mr. Justice Washington. ***** "Upon the whole, I am of opinion, that the above acts of New Ha-npshire, not havinsf re- ceived the assent of the corporate body of Dirt- mouth College, are not binding on them, and consequently, that the judgment of the State Court ought to be reversed." — Mr. Justice Wash- ington. » * # # * " When a private eleemosynary corporation is thus created by the charter of the crown, it is subject to no other control on the part of the crown than what is expressly or implicitly re- served for this purpose, the crown can r.ot, m virtue of its preroaative, without the consent of the corporation, alter or amend the charter, or divest the corporation of any of its franchises, or add to them, or add to, or diminish, the number of its trustees, or remove any of the members, or change, or control the administration of the charity, or compel the corporation to receive a new charter. This is the uniform language of the authorities, and forms one of the most stub- born, and well-settled doctrines of the common law.— S'ory. See Rex. v. Passmore. 3 T. R. 199, and the cases there cited." ***** " In my judgment it is perfectly clear, that any act of a legislature which takes away any powers or franchises vested by its charter in a private corporation or its corporate officers, or which restrains or controls the legitimate ex- ercise of them, or transfers them to other persons ■uithout its assent, is a violation of the obliga- tions of that charter. If the legislature mean to claim such an authority, it must be reserved in the grant. The charter of Dartmouth College contains no such reservation; and I am there- fore, bound to declare, that the acts of the legis- lature of New Hampshire, now in question, do impair the obligations of that charter, and are, consequently, unconstitutional and void." — Story. * * » * * Now the idea has been not a little pressed upon those around this circle who are not lawyers, that this church is within the control of the Leg- islature, because it is a corporation; and we have been asked, " do you not constantly repeal or alter the charters of incorporated com.panies— of banks and railroads, insurances, and rrianufac- turing corporations; and why should you not possess the same right to de.il with this corpora- tion as with any other?" The answer is two- fold. In the first place you acquire the right to alter, repeal or modify the act of incorporation of a bank, a railroad, or an insurance company, be- cause you reset ve that right in the act forming the corporation. One of the sections in every act you have passed for the last twenty-five years, creating a corporation, contains an express provision which kee^s that power within your hands. And now let me tell you why such a 10 74 section is put into these acts. It it on the au- thority of this very decision which I hold in my hand. It is because the supreme court of the United States held, in the Dartmouth College case, that without this reservation in the act of incorporation, the Legislature of the state has no power to alter, amend or repeal the charter, without the consent of the corporation, and that the only power over such charters, rests in the courts. In the charter of Trinity church, this ri^ht is not reserved; and if this country had continued under the rule of the British crown, no power on earth would have been able to alter or repeal that charter, except the British Parliament; and or ly the Parliament because according to the theory of the British constitution, the power of the Parliament is absolute. It is far otherwise with Legislatures in this country. Ours is a limited, not an absolute power. Both make laws; the one in the exercise of absolute legisla- tive power, the other under limited powers de- rived from a written constitution. Here, the absolute power rests not with the Legislature, but with the people; and is exercised only by them when they perform the sovereign act of framing a constitution. When they do that, they delegate certain powers and duties to the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches of the government. This Legislature does not possess — because it is in no way delegated to us — any power over the private property of individuals or corporations in this state; except in one soli- tary instance, when, by what is called the right of "eminent domain," we take private property when the public good demands it, for public use, upon making to its owner full and adequate com- pensation. And this is a power expressly grant- ed by the constitution. Now, we have seen that this corporation of Trinity church is a private corporation, possess- ing private property, dedicated to certain uses. No authority can be found in the constitution of the state or in the adju lications of the courts, for any such assumption of power by the legisla- ture as we are now called upon to sanction. Hear what Chief Justice IVIarshall says on this point: "Whence, then, can be derived the idea, that Dartmouth College has become a public institu- tion, and its trustees public officers, exercising powers conferred by the public for public objects? Not from the source whence its funds were drawn; for its foundation is purely private and eleemosynary — not from the application of those funds; for money may be given for education, and the persons receiving it do not, by being em- ployed in the education of youth, become mem- bers of the civil government. Is it from the act of incorporation? Let this subject be considered. A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it pos- sesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among th? most important are immortality, and, if the ex- pression may be allowed, individuality; proper- ties, by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered as the same, and may act as a single individual. They enable a corpora- tion to manase its own affairs, and to hold pro- perty without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity, of perpetual conveyances for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of men, in succession, with these qualities and capacities, that corporations were invented, and are in use. By these means, a perpetual succession of individuals are capable of acting for the promotion of the particular ob ject, like one immortal being. But this being does not share in the civil government of the country, unless that be the purpose for which it was created. Its immortality no more confers on it political power, or a political character, than immortality would confer such power or character on a natural person. It is no more a state instrument, that a natural person exerciS' ing the same powers would be. If, then, a nat ural person, employed by individuals in the edu cation of youth, or for the government of a sem- inary in which youth is educated, would not become a public officer, or be considered as ai member of the civil government, how is it, that this artificial being, created by law, for the pur pose of being employed by the same individuals, for the same purposes, should become a part of the civil government of the country? Is is be- cause its existence, its capacities, its powers, arefci, given by law? Because the government has £ given it the power to take and to hold property uj in a particular form, and for particular purposes has the government a consequent right substan-i tially to change that form, or to vary the pur- poses to which the property is to be applied '( This principle has never been asserted or recog-j nized, and is supported by no authority." So in that way, the Supreme Court disposes i„ the idea that we acquire a right to interfere iij the control and government of a corporation^ ,,| simply because it is a corporation. It makes nc difference in law if the possession of property ii; in an individual or corporation. Each has equa, immunities with the other. You may proceei against a corporation in the courts. If it deniei rights to private individuals, you can cornpel by a mandamus to do them justice. If its offi, cers misappropriate funds or abuse their trust, you can obtain an injunction against them ami restrain them from acting. If they have goni^ beyond their charier, and usurped powers tha do not belong to them, you can proceed by in formation in the nature of a quo warranto, am if sufficient cause be shown, the courts will dis solve the corporation. And these are the onl; legal modes by which you can bring a priviit corporation within the authority of the govi i n ment, and subject it to the operation of the hiv of the land. And this is no injustice. It cover 75 * every conceivable case of wrong, while it saves " from disturbance and violation those objects created for all time, and intended only to be sub- jected to the salutary restraints of the courts of '! justice. This judicial control is entirely ade- ^ quate to meet all the grievances complained of * here, not exoludino^ those said to result from the act of IS 14, because if that statute was passed in ^ '• derogation of vested rights, it would be declared ^ j null and void by the courts. I This same question was presented in a mem- ^ I orable instance in English history. Indeed, these contests with private eleemosynary cor- porations, whether colleges or churches, seem -1 ever to have been favorite occupations with am- ' bitious {legislators and reckless monarchs. All will remember the controversy which King 4 James had with Magdelen college. It was one of a series of oppressive acts which subjected ' him to the indignation of the English people. '■^ The King undertook to furnish Magdelen college, Oxford, with a President — one Parker. The ^ Fellows of the college, who by the charter of the crown had been invested wilh the control of its affairs, declined to induct Parker in the Presidency. The King was obstinate. The *■ Fellows still refused. Then his Majesty sent down a commission, empowered by the royal au- thority and backed by the troops to install Parker. ■ Of course the Fellows were forced to yield to this demonstration of physical power ; but an ' ippeal was afterwards made to the courts. "My Lords," said Dr. Hough, the president elect- " sd by the college, to the King's commission- " ;rs, ''you have this day deprived me of my reehold; I hereby protest against all your pro- ■eedings as illegal, unjust and null; and I appeal lom you to our sovereign lord the King in his ourts of justice." And although it was a pe- riod when the crown had exercised remarkable power over the decisions of the court of King's ' Bench, there was not found one solitary judge -■ to justify the attempt of the English Kiiig to Interfere with, and control the government of a - private corporation, which by its charter was - mnfided to its own board of trustees; and no ;ourt lawyer could be found so unfaithful to the ^' eachings of his profession, so disloyal to that ' /eneration for vested rights which his profession, ibove all others, teaches, as to maintain that the ^ Sing had not transcended his power and his jerogative, in this attempt to violate the vested ' chartered rights of a private corporation. The '-■ :ourts restored to the office of President, Dr. -■ Sough, the man whom the King had turned out. - This act. Sir, has always been characterized in . : listory, and is condemned by Burnet and Hume i ind Macauly, as one of the worst acts of tyranny "J .vbich maiked that revolutionary period. - " ' The nation, as well as the university,' - lays Bishop Burnet, {Hist, of his oxon times, vol. n i, p. 139.) • looked on all these proceedings ■ri ^ith just indignation. It was thought an open !." tittt of robbery and burglary, when wjen, author- ■ ) zed by no legal commission, came and forcibly coi! Mrned men out of their possession and freehold,' Mr. Hume, although a man of different temper, and of other sentiments, in some respects, than Dr. Burnet, speaks of tliis arbitrary attempt of prerogative, in terms not less decisive. ' The president, and all the fellows,' says he, ' except two, who complitd were expelled the college; and Parker was put in possession of the office. This act of violence, of all those which were committed during the reign of James, is perhaps the most illegal and arbitrary. When the dis- pensing power was the most strenuously insisted on by court lawyers, it had still been allowed, that the statutes which regard private property could not legally be infringed by that preroga- tive. And Senators, this is one of the stains on Bri- tish history which you are called upon to imi- tate. You are urged to do much the same thing, though not precisely similar in the form which James followed. You do not name the vestry in the bill — as you have lately been so much in the habit of doing with respect to commissioners in the city of New York; you do not authorize the Governor and Senate to appoint a vestry for Trinity church — a mode of appointment, which has become the fashionable substitute now-a-days for legislative appointment; but you do devise a scheme by which you deprive those who worship in the church, of the right to choose their own rector and vestry, and give it to outside congregations. You do not appoint the rector and vestry of Trinity directly; but you rfo appoint them indi- rectly by directing how they shall be chosen. — You do not assail the corporation, as King James did, with the audacity of a tyrant, but with the meanness of a sneak! Nume them in the bill. Sir! Do it like men, and stand up to what you do. Take hold of this charter — resolve that it is putty, and that you can mo ild and shape it as you will. Assume the power and the respon- sibility together. But do not, in this cowardly way attempt to break down the bulwarks, which through long centuries, and through many scenes of turmoil and danger have preserved this cor- poration sacred from violation. There are numerous cases bearing upon this subject, all of which maintain the same doctrine as that established in the Dartmouth college case, that these are private rights, sacred from any interference, and that charters granted by the legislature are in the nature of contracts and can not be changed without consent of the corporation unless the right is specially re- served. In the case of the University versus Foy — 2nd Heywood — the Supreme Court of North Caroli- na pronounced unconstitutional and void a law repealing a grant to the University of North Carolina, an institution created and endowed by the State. In Terrell versus Taylor — 9 Cranch, p. 43 — the Supreme Court of the U. S. decided that a grant or confirmation of lands for the pur- pose of moral or religious instruction could not be rescinded. Then there is the case of the So ciety for the propagation of the Gospel in foreign 76 parts, versus the town of New Haven and Wil- liam Wheeler. The whole subject was fully considered in that case, and the power of the legislature over this class of private corporations ■was denied on constitutional grounds. That Society was created by royal charter from William III, and the grant of one sixty-eighth share of the town of New Haven was made to it for the advancement of religion and education. In 1794 the legislature of Connecticut passed an act declaring that the rights to the land thus granted to ih3 society should revert to the re- spective towns in which such lands lay, in trust for the same objects. Under this act, the select- men of the town of New Haven executed a lease to William Wheeler who entered into possession of a portion of this estate. The action was brought by the Society to eject him. Judg- ment was given to the plaintiffs and the court said: "the proper courts in this country will in- terfere to prevent an abuse of the trusts con- fided to British corporations holding lands here to charitable uses, and will aid in enforcing the due execution of the trusts ; but neither thoie court! nor the local legislatures where the lands lie can at] judge a forfeiture of the franchises of the foreign corporation, or of its properly " There are one or two passages from the case Terret versus Taylor, which I should like to read, more especially as that case involves the rights of a church possessing a charter very mu'rh like that of Trinity. Mr, Justice Story de- livered the opinion of the Court. He says : " Be however, the general authority of the legislature as to the subject of religion, as it may, it will require other arguments to establish the position that, at the revolution, all the public property acquired by the Episcopal churches, under the sanction of the laws, became the property of the state. Had the property thus acquired been originally granted by the state or the king, there might have been some color (and it would have been but a color) for such an ex- traordinary pretension. But the property was, in fact and in law, generally purchased by the parishioners, or acquired by the benefactions of pious donors. The title thereto was indefeasibly vested in the churches, or rather in their legal agents. It was not in the power of the crown to seize or assume it; nor of the parliament itself to destroy the grants, unless by the exercise of a power the most arbitrary, oppressive and un- just, and endured only because it could not be resisted." These statutes were passed with the consent of the corporation and were accepted by it, and an attempt was aftTwards made by the state of Virginia, to encroach on the vested rights thus conferred. This attempt was made under cir- cumstances very similar to those which called for the lawof 1S14 by the legislators of this state. Virginia found within her borders a church ac- ting as an "established church," and inconsistent with the new state of things, consequent upon the revolution. They did not conform the charter to our new form of government, but they thought they could go further, and divest the church of its corporate rights. Out of this the controversy arose, and the court goes on to say : "If the legislature po.saessed thu authority to make such a grant and confirmation, it is very clear to our minds that it ves'ed an indefeasible and irrevocable title. We have no knowleilge of any authority or principle which could support the doctrine that a legislative grant is revocable in Its own nature, and held only durjint bene pla- cite. Such a doctrine would uproot the very foundations of almost all the land titles in Vir- ginia, and is utterly inconsistent with a great and fundamental principle of a republican gov- ernment, the right of the citizens to the free en- joyment of their property legally acquired." Now, that is what the state of New York did in the case of Trinity church, in the act of i 1784 ; with the consent of the corporation, we ; so modified the charter as to bring the church into relation with the Protestant Episco- pal church of the state of New York, and separ- ate it from the established church of England ; and we changed the mode of the election and in- duction of the rector, by depriving the authori- i ties of the English church of their power in the i premises and vesting it in the corporation. Such a statute, with the assent of the corporation, we I had authority to pass; so we had like authority, I with the assent of the corporation, to pass the I law of 1814, changing the name of the corpora- i tion, and declaring the qualifications of corpora- i tors. But see what the supreme court says as to the power of the legislature in such cases when its interposition is not asked for by a private i corporation; and against its consent. j i "How far the statute of 17S6, c/t. 12, repeal- i ing the stature of 1784 ch. 88. incorporating the ' i Episcopal churches, and the subsequent statutes i in furtherance thereof of 1788, ch. 47, and ch. 53, were consistent with the principles of civil right or the constitution of Virginia, is a subject of much delicacy, and perhaps not without diffi- culty. It is observable, however, that they re- serve to the churches all their corporate proper- ty, and authorize the appointment of trustees to manage the same. A private corporation creat- ed by the legislature may loose its franchises by « a misuser or a nonuser of them ; and they may be resumed by the government under a judicial judgment upon a quo warranto to asce'tain and enforce the forfeiture. This is the common law of the land, and is a tacit condition annexed to i the creation of every such corporation. Upon a i change of government, too, it may be admitted that such exclusive privileges attached to a private corporation as are inconsistent with the new government maybe abolished. In respect, also, to public corporations which exist only for pub- lic purposes, such as counties, towns, cities, SfC, the legislature may, under proper limitations, i have a right to change, modify, enlarge or re- strain them, securing however, the property fo i the uses of those for whom and at whose expen* i it was originally purchased. But that the legis | | lature can repeal statutes creating private corpol; i 77 rations, or confirming to them property already acquired under the faith of previous laws, and by such repeal can vest the property of such corpo- rations exclusively in the state, or dispose of the same to such purposes as they may please, with- out the consent or default of the corporators, we are not prepared to admit, and we think our- selves standing upon the principles of natural justice, upon the fundamental laws of every free government, upon the spirit and the letter of the constitution of the United States, and upon the decisions of most respectable judicial tribunals, in resisting such a doctrine. The statutes of 1798 ch 9, and of 1801, ch. 5, are not, therefore in our judgment, operative so tar as to divest the Episcopal church of the property acquired, pre- vious to the revolution, by purchase or by dona- tion." Thus you see, Sir, the Supreme Court pre- dicates the whole question as' to what may be done with this description of corporation upon the consent of the corporators ; upon the ac- quietcnice of the corporation ; and if you pass a statute without obtaining that consent, you do nothing more nor less than invite the church to a law suit. There has been a great deal said here about the name of the Corporation, and inferences have been drawn, favorable to the claimants from the fact that the name of the Corporation was originally the "Rector and Inhabitants of our said City of New York, in communion of our Protestant Church of England as now established by otir laws." Now it has already been said that no importance can beattached to this title, because it is the mere designation of the corporation, and is not intended as a description of those designed to be embrace^ within it, as Corporators. It is very obvious that those who, in the early his- tory of the State dealt with this question, never supposed that this name could be made to im- port what is now claimed for it ; for if we look at the act of 1784 we shall see that its framers understood this corporation to be essentially the corporation of Trinity church ; that that church, with its rector, wardens, vestrymen and congre- gation, and no other church, was embraced within the provisions of the charter and the act of 1784. What is the title of the act' It is "an act, for making such alteration? in the charter of the corporation of TRINITY Church, as to render it more conformable to the constitution of the State." Here the framers of the act of 1784 expressed what they considered to be the real character of the corporation, with- out reference to its technical name. When they undertake to describe it they speak of it as the corporation of Trinity church; and not as the corporation of the Inhabitants of New York in communion with the Protestant Episcopal Church. And yet this very question of the qualifications of corporators seems to have been suggested in 1784, for the act goes on to declare who shall be corporators and entitled as such to n»e right to vote, namely, "all persons professing themselves members of the Episcopal church, 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 a« shall in the said church partake of the holy sacra- ment o/ the Lord's Supper, at least once in every year, being inhabitants of the city and county of New York." These are the persons, and these only, who were designated by the act of 1784, as possessing the right to vote at the elections of Trinity Church. If we look at the act of 1788, we will find another ancient exposition of what in early times was deemed to be the scope and objects of this charter. It is entitled "an act to en.ible the cor- poration of Trinity church in the city of New York to assume the name therein mentioned." The fallacy of the argument on the other side re- sults from looking at the mere name, given in the charter instead of the substance of the thing meant. Senators shut their eyes to all the pass- ages of the charter which show so clearly that it embraced only this particular church, and its Rector, vestry and congregation. But you say the charter embraces all the Pro- testant Episcopal inhabitants of the city then and forever after — all the congregations of all the Episcopal churches, because the name of the corporation is comprehensive. Well, if it is so, these people must be all under one rector which is not pretended ; because certainly the charter contemplates only one rector. Then what is to be- come of those who have severed their relations with the rector of Trinity church, and why have they severed those relations? You see, Sir, that in 1781 and 1788, the legis- latures of those years entertained the very same views which I have maintained upon this point. They regarded this corporation as the corpora- tion of Trinity church ; and confined to that church and its chapels; confined to its rector, and wardens, and vestrymen ; and embracing only its congregation. Now, Sir, a great deal of fuss has been made — for I do not think it deserves a more respectful term ; — a deal of gratuitous criticism has been directed against the vestry of Trinity church, be- cause they got the name of the corporation chang- ed in the first section of the act of 1814, which provides as follows: ^ "Be it enacted by the People of the State of New York represented in the Senate and Assem- bly, That from and after the passing of this act, the sale corporation of Trinity church, instead oftheir present name, shall take and use the name of 'The Rector, Church- Wardens and ■Vestrymen of Trinity church, in the city of New York." The suggestion is often made, in and out of the legislature, that by means of this new name, Trinity was enabled to assume a new character. There could not well be found a weaker argu- ment. I have shown by the acts of 1784 and 1788 that the corporation was in common parlance called "the corporation of Trinity church ;" and as Judge Parker says in his very clear and cogent 78 argument before the committee, if it is to be as- sumed that the charter embraces all the inhabi- tants of the city of New York of the Protestant Episcopal faiih, simply on account of its name, then by the same reasonina;, the "Mechanics' Bank in the city of New York" may be presum- ed to belong to all the mechanics, and the "Shoe and Leather Bank" to all the shoe and leather dealers in the city. When the legislature of 1814 undertook to give the corporation of Trinity church a name, it adopted that name which in the common under- standing of people, properly designated the thing meant j and the name thus given, I have proved to be precisely the one which on all ordinary oc- casions had always been used to describe the char- ter and corporation. I might perhaps illustrate the last branch of the argument yet more plainly, by going back to the grant of Queen Anne, and seeing what she calls this corporation, and to whom^ to what (hurch — she granted and confirmed " theQueens''s farm," now the great bulk of the estate. I read irom the Queen's letter of recognition and in- structions of April 14, 1714: " Whereas, our trusty and well beloved, the Rector^ Church Wardens^ and Vestrymen of Trinity Church in our city of New York, have by their humble address, represented unto us, that our right trusty ami our right well beloved cousin and councillor Edward, Earl of Claren- don, our late governor of our province of New York, did grant a lease of our farm to them for seven years, under the rent of sixty bushels of wheat yearly payable unto us, (the like having been before granted to Colonel Benjamin Fletch- er, Governor under our late royal brother. King William, with the like reservation,) but as these rents were esteemed a perquisite of the several governors, for the time being, the said Colonel Fletcher, who was a great benefactor and promo- ter of thi first settling of THAT CHURCH, did remit the rent during his time FOR THAT PIOUS USE, also did the Earl of Clarendon, so much as accrued under the lease granted in his time. # * * * u We X3k\ng the the premises into our royal consideration have thought fit to signify our will and pleasure unto you, and accordingly our will and pleasure is, that immediately upon receipt hereof, you do stop the prosecution now carrying on in our court of chancery there against the SAID COR- PORATION, &c." Thus, Sir, you find in the very act confirming to the church the property which is now the source af its revenues, the corporation is des- cribed precisely as it vas tubsequently described inlhe act of 1814. Trinity has been denounced and deceit has been attributed 1o her for having the corporate name changed in that act. It has been charged that it was a new title invented by the vestry of that day, in order to exclude as corporators, the congregations of the other city churches; in other words, that the first section of the act of 1814, was but the pretext for enact- ing the second. And yet we find that in 1814, she only look the tame name given to her a hun- dred years before in Quetn Anne''s grant, when the largest portion '•f her estate was bestowed up- on her. I think. Sir, that is a respectable au- thority for a name. I think that when we go back to Queen Anne's time and find that her grant is to the rector, church wardens and ves- trymen of Trinity church — we go back about far enough. Could you desire any evidence more conclusive as to who was included within the scope of the charter, than the passages I have read to you? It does not seem possible that a mind, not biased against all reason, can rise from the perusal of that instrument without con- ceiling that we are right. Trinity planting herself upon that magna charta, stands upon a rock that will endure for- ever. Whatever we may think of it here, the Supreme Court of the United States, will regard it as a bulwark which no legislature will be suf- fered to destroy. Nothing is said in that instru- ment about dividing up the estate of Trinity, as the Senator from the 6th {Mr. Brooks,) has it in his bill, among the churches in the state of New York— or of the colony of New York, as it was then called; there is no provision for a partition and distribution of her funds between the city and country churches. Now Sir, when a legislature undertake to override and disregard a muniment of title like that, I think it becomes an occasion for display- ing a little "feeling," although the Senator from the 22nd (Mr. Noxon,) told us the other day of his "surprise," that the question should excite "any feeling." I think any American citizen having a reasonable pride in his country, and a reasonable respect for vested rights, and who believes that in a proper regard for private rights, rests every hope of the success of our ex- periment of free government, might well be ex- cused for displaying a little feeling at witnessing this grave and deliberate attempt to violate them. For if this grant is not sufficiently explicit and does not mean what is claimed for it, what can be deemed sure? What man is safe under his own roof and by his own fireside? Where, un- der our laws is there to be found security in any possession? The amazement that has been expressed at the exhibition of "feeling" on the part of Trinity and her friends, remind me of an incident which occurred a few years ago in New York. We had a few philosophers among us at that time, who had a notion of limiting the extent of the possessions of every citizen; they proposed to fix bounds beyond which a man's acquisitions should not go: they undertook also to provide for the equal distribution of the excess; this programme was seriously proposed to a member of the gen- eral committee of the Democratic party, with a request that it might be introduced at Tammany Hall. My friend, after hearing the parties, said, "Well, you propose a fair division; but a thing like this may be expected to occasion a good de« of dissatisfaction. Now, if you will add to your 79 platform that there shall be no grumbling on the part of those who under its operation may lose their property, then, I think, it will go!" The second section of the act of 1814 goes on to define those who shall have the right to vote in the corporation. You would suppose, while listening to the denunciations that have been heaped on Trinity by her assailants; and while hearing the honorable senator from the 22d (Mr. Noxon) hold Trinity upas a "close corporation," ■whose most conspicuous desire was to keep all the world out; you would suppose this vestry were a group of avaricious, grasping, greedy men, eager to usurp power not belonging to them, and desirous of excluding every one they could from their church. But, sir, look at the accusa- tion, and then look at the truth, as seen in the act of 1814. What is necessary under that law in order to obtain the right to vote? Is the door of the church guarded by a roaring lion, or by threatening artillery? Is the man who would approach the ballot box. menaced by any fearful danger? Let us judge from the words of the second section of the act: "And be it further enacted, That all male persons of full age, who, for the space of one year preceding any election, shall have been membert of the congregation of Trinity church aforesaid, or of any of the chapels belonging to the same, and forming part of the same religious corporations, u-ho shall hold, occupy, or enjoy a piw or seat in Trinity church, or in any of the said chapels, or have partaken of the holy commu- nion /herein within the taid year, and no other persons, shall be entitled to vote at the an- nual elections for the church-wardens and vestry- men of the said corporation." Well, what less would you have? Can the human mind conceive of any established reli- gious corporation, guarded by any restrictions at all, where the qualifications are milder, fairer, more reasonable, and more in consonance with the spirit that should animate such institutions, than those imposed by this section? Let us now see how you would have it read: Be it enacted, 4rc., &c., That '"all persons who for one year shall have been members of Trinity church or any of her chapels, or of any other church or chapel, and forming part of the same, or of any other, religious corporation, and who shall hold, occupy or enjoy a seat or pew in Trinity church or any of her chapels, or in any other church or chapel, and who shall have partaken of the holy communion therein or anywhere else within the year shall be entitled to vote at the annual elec- tions for the vestry of Trinity church." And thus you would confer upon strangers the right to choose the rector of a church as against its congregation. A congregation shall not say who shall administer the holy communion at its "altar I Nor who shall have charge of its grave-yards and control and manage its estate. And would this be justice? No, sir; no more than it would be justice to invade the family circle and deny the natural right of the father to be the chief of his own household. And let me assure you it is as dangerous to impair the right of self-government in a church, as it would be to disturb the govern- ment of the Family. The two combined — the Church and the Family — are the basis of social order; liberty can not long exist where power is rudely employed against either. The majority in this legislature, in their ea- gerness to grasp patronage and power, may usurp the government of cities; they may de- pose high municipal officers who have been elect- ed by the people; but they will learn that a State whose government is based upon the prin- ciple of entire freedom of religious worship among all her citizens, will not permit a set of political adventurers to invade a church, and dictate the form and method of its internal gov- ernment, and say who shall take part in its elec- tions, and who shall minister at its altar. There is a provision in the charter, Sir, which I think gentlemen on the other side will find it difficult to explain or to reconcile v.'ith their po- sition; I allude to that provision which author- izes those to whom the charter is given, and their successors, to admit others ''of our liege subjects," Episcopal inhabitants of the city of New York, into the corporation as corporators. Now, if all the Protestant Episcopalians in the city, were, as is contended, corporators under the charter, how would it be possible to let in any more? If all possessed the right of corpora- tors under the original instrument, it was cer- tainly unnecessary to provide for any extension of that right. This clause, among others, proves that a limited corporation was created; a corpor- ation limited to the rector and congregation of Trinity church; to those who should hold an ecclesiastical relation to that rector, in his church or in the chapels under his control and minis- tration. In England, a parish, besides an ecclesias- tical, has a geographical, as well as a po- litical sense. But in the state of New York, there is no sense in which you can apply the Word "parish," except to the Rector, church wardens and vestry of some particular church and its chapels; there is no proper sense in which we can interpret the meaning of '■ the parish of Trinity," except as a designation of the congregation of Trinity and its chapels — the religious body which recognize and acknowl- edge the Rev. Dr. Berrian as their Rector. This is the American idea of a " parish." We have no such political division of our territory as parishes." We have towns, and counties, and cities and villages; the word " parish" with us does not convey the notion of space. It simply means the congregation of a church, and the Rector and parish officers who preside over them. Now, what is it that you propose to do? To force into this religious association two or three thousand people who do not belong to it; who never hear its Rector preach; who never receive the communion at its altar. Sir, this is to de- stroy the independence of the congregation, and to erase every vestige that remains of the or- 80 gariization called a " parish " as it exists in this country. One of the fundamental errors lying at the root of this controversy is the idea that any part of the property possessed by Trinity church is held in trust. What she possesses, she pos- sesses as her own. Those Senators who main- tain that her estate is held in trust, will be puz- zled to reconcile the contradictions in their different theories as to the bounds of that trust. Those members of the other city churches who have heretofore asserted rights as corporators of Trinity have argued that the property was given in trust for the inhabitants of the city of New York, in communion with the Protest- ant Episcopal church. The two or three persons who claimed the right to vote in IS 12, and those who applied to the legislature in 1846, claimed this, and no more. But whence do you derive the new doctrine that the trust is not limited to the city, but comprehends the churches through- out the stale? And unless that is the nature of the trust, what power have you to direct the dis- tribution of the funds for the advancement " of religion and religious education in the state of New York?" Again, if any part of the estate is held in trust, then all is held in trust because all is held by the same title; why then give to Trinity the church and chapels she now occupies, the cemeteries she possesses, the lands which are reserved to her in the bill of the Senator from the 6th? If the estate is held in trust for the city and state, these parcels are so held; and so, upon your own reasoning, you have no right to con- cede to her the absolute ownership and control of any portion of the estate? By what power do you draw the line and say, '• thus much you have in trust, and thus much you own absolutely?" Upon what basis do you draw this distinction'' Those who now claim to participate in the whole, may well deny the right of the legislature to deprive them of any part. The church holds all her property by the same tenure. She either is entitled to all or none. Then Sir, either take the whole or none. Make no partition of her estate. It either belongs to her, or it does not belong to her. If it does not, the vestry do not desire to keep it. But if it does, then they do desire to keep it, and they mean to keep it while there are courts in the land, to maintain the law of the land! It is a mistake to suppose that the corporation of Trinity church, is distinct from the congrega- tion. The congregation is the soul of a religious corporation in this country. It is the basis of an ecclesiastical corporation, as it is of a parish; a church corporation consists of a congregation and its ecclesiastical representatives, be they rector, church wardens and vestrymen, or such other oificers as the rule and discipline of the church may prescribe. That is the whole of a religious corporation, as it is of a parish, and so, when you invade a religious corporation and interfere with its landed possessions, you attack the con- gregation of that church; you cross its threshold, you enter its doors — you intrude into its aisles — you put your profane hand upon its altar! You commit an act of sacrilege as much as if you rob- bed that altar of its gold and silver. The magni- tuile of the plunder does not serve to dignify the act. You have no more right to take half of the Queen's Farm, than you have to pillage the baptismal font. The church holds both by the same title, and you have no better right to the one, than to the other. Now Sir, if there is any one essential element in the organization of every church, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Catholic or Congrega- tional; if there is any fundamental characteristic common to all churches, it is this — that only those who go to a church, who worship in it, who hold and enjoy a pew in it, have the right to direct and control its temporal menasement. That is a universal truth. It is true of every church, no matter what its denomination or where its location. And it is just this universal fact which you ignore, when you say to the con- gregations of Grace church, of Ascension, and of the other churches independent of Trinity, "we will make an exception in your favor against the rules which have guided and governed all church government in all time, and allow you an equal share in the control of a church to which you do not belong: whose rector you never hear preach, and at whose altar you never kneel." How is it possible. Sir, if a congregation has any material relation to the corporation, for a man to be of the corporation, unless he is of the congregation'? The one follows of necessity from the other, and is based on the best of all possible reasons. Every congregation must have an ad- equate, proper, salutary check upon the admis- sion of new members into the main body; just as the constitution wisely gives to this Senate the power to judge of the eligibility of those who sit around this circle But this essential principle you break down when you admit the members of other congregations to interfere in the control and management of a church to which they do not belong. I must say that my colleagues from the 6th (Mr. Brooks), and from the 5th (Mr. Spencer), deserve credit at least for their rare ingenuity, in discovering a plan by which a person can belong to two — yes, to fifty churches at the same time. But why not be as liberal to I'rinity as you are to the other churches of New York' You have allowed these fifty and more churches a share in the government of '.Trinity; then why not allow Trinity also to participate in the control of the others? Why not? You certainly would be con- sistent with yourselves, at least, in so doing. A man could then belong to Trinity and Grace church, and forty or fifty other churches, in the same way that one can join all the clubs of London. If you divest the church of the unity that belongs to it; if your notion of a church is like the Englishrnan's notion of a club, where you can do as you like — read the Bible or the newspaper — takediimeror play a rubber at whist, 81 then I can see that there is ^n ohject in being a member of forty or fifty churches al the same time. But on any other hypothesis — unless a church is like a debating society or a scientific association, I must confess I see an inconi;ruity in a communicant voting in more than one church, or belonging to more than one congregation. According to my old fashioned notions, it seems just as repugnant to Christianity for a man to beloiii; to two cliurches, as to have two wives. I have no doubt that in the Mormon church, a "saint" may belong to as many churches as he may have wives, according to that modern dis- pensation ! Now, sir, if Trinity possessed separate and detached estates, yielding incomes which were susceptible of subdivision; if you could say this property was acquired at such a time, for such purposes, to be administered in such a way; and that was acquired at some other time, for some other purpose, then the partition you propose might possibly be reconciled with justice. But the estate, the church, and the corporation form a unit. There is Unity throughout — indivisible, inseparable Unity — embracingf the rector, the vestry, the congregation and the estate; and you can no more separate this estate from the corpo- ration than you can take away from it the rector, the wardens or the congregation. It is all one. Each is a constituent part of the unit, but it is a unit always. This view of the impossibility of belonging to more than one church at one time is not new. It is as old as church government But it is also the law of New York. Let us read the law of 1801, as confirmed in 1S19, and see what it pro- vides : "Be it enacted by the People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, That it shall be lawful for the male persons, of full age. belonging to any church, congregation or religious society, in which divine worship shall be celebrated according to the rites of the Protestant Episcopal church in this state, and not already incorporated at any time to meet for the purpose of incorporating themselves, and of electing church wardens and vestrymen, and to proceed to make such election, and to effect such incorporation in like manner as by the first sec- tion of the act hereby amended, is authorized to be done by persons possessing the qualifications therein specified : Provided, That no person not posiessing those quahficalio ns shall be permitted to vote at any subsequent election of church war- dens and vestrymen." That is the written law of New York, and has been for forty years past. It was the un- written law always and everywhere, and the act I have read is only the Common Sense of Man- kind, embodied into a statute, and made opera- tive as a law. The state of New York has said, j in the acts of 1801 and 1819, that a man can not enter a new congregation or corporation until he secedes from that to which %e already belongs ; and so when you pass a law allowing one con- gregation to acquire control in another, you pass a law inconsistent with existing statates, and you must repeal the one before the other can become operative. When Dives moves up town; when he looks back and sees none but the poor remaining in the lower parts of the city; when nothing but stalwart laborers and suffering emigrants meet his eye, and visions of ship fever float before him; when he beholds only Lazarus and his companions hanging about the doors of Trinity, it is under the law of 1801 and 1819 that he ceases to be a corporator of Trinity; builds a new church, becomes a member of a new con- gregation, puts himself in charge of a new Rec- tor, new wardens and new vestrymen, and severs himself entirely from Trinity parish. And, sir, he must remain satisfied with his com- fortal>le change of position until he survives his repugnance to driving down Broadway to Trin- ity, to worship beneath her majestic arches, be- side some of my poor constituents, where he would be admonished of that equality of all men before God to which no good Christian can ob- ject. Until he does this, sir, he can not exercise the rights of a corporator of Trinity church. But whenever he will condescend to return to that unfashionable temple then will he become once more invested with all the privileges and powers of a corporator, without legislative interference, without law suits, simply by participating in the ministrations of Trinity church. But, sir, the strange idea of allowing mem- bers of a congregation to vote in a church to which they do not belong, does not approach the absurd proposition of allowing other corpora- tions — other churches, to vote down a rival con- gregation and thereby get possession of its pro- perty. The hill reported from the select com- mittee by my colleague from the 5th (Mr. Spencer), allows all the individu il members ol the oiher Episcopal churches — three or four thousand strong — to come to the elections in Trinity church, and outvote its comparatively feeble congregation, — appoint its Rector, minis- ters and vestry and take its money. But the hill offered by my colleague from the 6lh (Mr. Brooks), attains its end in a yet more extraordi- nary style. He would give the right of suffrage to the corporations, in lieu of the individual mem- bers of them. He gives to half a hundred or more religious corporations, each a vote in controlling the affairs of another corporation. Each one of these churches, entirely independent of each other with respect to its own affairs, is to be al- lowed a share in the government of the corpora- tion of Trinity church. What would your practical business men say to a bill brought in here to give to forty rail road corporations in the state, a voice as corpor- ations, in the control of the Central Rail Road? That is a large corporation, and so is Trinity church. That possesses a vast amount of money, and so does Trinity church. A great many peo- ple who are not in that corporation, grumble about it, as do a great many who are outside ot Trinity. A number of persons are anxious to 11 82 have a hand in the managennent in this colossal rail road company, and quite a number are am- bitious of taking part in the control of Trinity church. Now, you have just as much power to give tlie control uf the Central Rail Road to these "outsiders," as you have to give to the congre- gations of other churches the management of the affairs of Trinity. You have, indeed, more right; for in the one case you have reserved certain au- thority over the corporation to alter, amend or repeal its charter, which povi'er in the other case has not been reserved. What would be thought of your sanity if your rail road committee should report a bill authoriz- ing these other rail roads to send delegates to a rail road congress at Albany to choose one-half of the directors of the Central Rail Road board? This is in reality what you now propose, applied to a church. And the same holds good with respect to a bank. You might with just as much propriety select some great city bank, with too much mor.ey in its vaults, and bleed it by admitting forty or fifly other banks to an equal share in selecting its board of directors. Is there a Senator here who does not know that 4s the claim to vote has a tendency to create uneasiness in the minds of the members of Tri- nity Church in particular, and to excite dissen- tions among Episcopalians in general, one of the objects of the bill is to obtain such an interpretation of the charter as iciU effectually extinguish the claim." We shall see, as we progress with this discus- sion, how this claim was extinguished. I wish now to call your attention to the fact that there was a claim, and that the power of the Legis- lature, not of the courts, was invoked to remove it, and that upon promises of arr.endment which have never been realized. Accordingly on the I2th page of this same pamphlet we read agaiu as follows: 88 4 " Judging irom the past, it is morally certain that the future increase of the population of the city will stron'^ly recommend to the corporation of Trinity Church the policy of dioiding its corporators, and setting them off, in separate churches, with suit- able endowments ; and, to enable the Vestry to do this, in a mode free from all legal doubts, and with the assent of a majority of the corporators to be set off, is a fifth object of the bill." Here we advance from personal " claims," which were to be extinguished ty the act of 1814, to the removal of '• legal doubts," to be secured by the same act. But the strong and effectiv? appeal addressed to Chancellor Lansing, and one which changed his negative opinion to an affirmative vote, was embodied in words which I will now read, and which are more emphatic than any before ut- tered. They were intended to produce, and did produce a most marked effect upon all who be- lieved what was said. Col. Troup, pages 36, 37 of his pamphlet, says: " Besides settling the important question, re- lative to the elective franchise, and thereby pre- venting litigation, and establishing peace on a firm loundalion, the bill, when passed into a law, would have the happy consequence of enabling the Vestry of Trinity Church from time to time, as so- ciety shall advance, to separate the churches ivith the consent of their congregations, and to endow them with competent estates. No power can be more congenial than this to the spirit of our republican systems. Tlie frequent execution of the power like- wise BY BREAKING DOWN THE ESTATK OF TbINITY CuURCU, would allay the fears of those honest re- jyuhlicans who look upon large estates as nurseries of sentiments hostile to liberty : and it would calm the minds of tlwse enthusiastic devotees who believe that religious societies, when possessing wealth, seldom employ enough of it in the heavenly work of propa- gating the gospel." It is said that those who left Trinity Church have disfranchised themselves. I do not admit this. They have certainly not done so by con- sent, by admission or by acknowledgment of any sort. The reverse of this, upon the contrary, is true ; for they are here, petitioners for a res- toration of a right, of which they say they have been deprived by your act. The denial of this right on the part of Trinity Church proves noth- ing so long as those who are deprived of their rights resist the exclusive use of a power which they allege belongs in part to them. The case would be closed, perhaps, if the claims of Trinity Church were acquiesced in upon the other side — but so long as there is an Episcopalian in the city of New York, in comtriunion with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the slate of New York, claiming a franchise 'which is his by the chartered rights of those who made him a cor- porator, so long is the resistance of the rights of this one man an act of aggression. Before 1814, Trinity Corporation acted in the light of a trustee lor the common good of all Episcopalians. She gave lands and money with an unstinted hand. She acted as if the separate congregations of Episcopalians were her heirs, 'f' She gave a princely estate to St. Mark's Church I"' and to St. George's Church, now two of the f wealthiest congregations in the city of New " York, and whose presence here as claimants for i more of this estate, I should regard as evidence ' of great ingratitude towards Trinity, and which ' I can only excuse upon the ground that they are i pleading for the rights of others, and not their own cause, for they need nothing, and I am well assured desire nothing for themselves. So of Grace Church, which has been presented here as playing those fantastic tricks before high Heaven which make the angels weep. To recur again to the views of Col. Troup; — I am ready to acltnowledge, with him and with other advocates of Trinity church, that the right to act in this case djpeuds not so muci upon any use or misuse of power, not so much upon what Trinity church his done or left undone, as upon the rij;hts of the parties in interist. A Le- I" gislature can not change the grants made by do- " nors to a religious or lay corporati )n. It can ' not impair the oblig itioa impojed in the form of a co.itract, for, if common right did not forbid " the exercise of s'jch a power, the Constitution of th J United States forbid it. In the case before us, we acknowled|e both the force of the royal prerogative, in making the grants un ler king William and queen Anne, and the perpetuation of those grants in all their original force and ' meaning by the acts of the Legislature of this 1 state. All that my colleague sai 1 upon the Dart- mouth Colk-ge case, during the hour and more which he took to consider that case, I regard as entirely inappli Me to the bill under considers- tion. We are claiming the observance of a char- i ter, the fuUillinent ol a contract, the recognition of parties in that contract who have beeide- priifed, by non-user or otherwise, of privileges w which are theirs, in cammon with those who have \ "i had, for a long series of years, the sole use of , l« these privileges. i " The pamphlet of Col. Troup, the adverse re- \ ii ports of 1814, the argument of counsel, the de- i if bates here, all d>vell upon what is represented as a quiet acquiescence in this sole use of power f by Trinuy church. There is neither law nor m justice in such a position. Therjij no justice » in it, because peaceful acquiescence in a wrong fi committed and persisted in by others should not n be taken as evidence of approval or satisfaction, i Many have declined to act fir the sake of peace, i many from indifference, and very many others a because they hoped from yea - to year, and from i time ti time, that a more satifactory adminis- ' tration of the affairs of Trinity church would se- cure mutual peace and mulal good will. But I need no: say to an American citizen that Epis- copalians in the city of .Vew York who have not claimed their right anil exercised the I ranchise, j have become necessarily deprived Qf such rights li by any omission of this sort. The citizen who li does not vote for twenty or forty years is none H the less a citizen, an 1 none the less entitled to his vote. I have the highest legal authority, also i 89 for saying that no length of time alone ever estab- lishes a right gained by usurpation or under a void grant in favor of one set of corporators against their co-corporators — unless there has been a claim of right by the latter, a denial of such ri^ht, and an acquiescence of such denial for at least a period of twenty years. This is settled law. — Accordin'ly where a second charter was granted to a municipal corpor ition, limiiing the number of electors, and excluding a portion who by the first charter was entitled to vote (as in the pr sent case), although electij is had been holden under the se- cond charte: for the period of thirty-five years, the second charter was adjudged void. See Rex V. Wynne, 2 Barnardiston, 391. So in another case the right of a corporation under a charter was enforced, although there had been a «sa?e to the contrary for upwards of o; e hundred and fifty years. The King v. Jones, of Modern Reports, 201. See also 7 Modem, 1901, where effects was given to a charter, after a usage to the contrary of sixty years. In what relation, then, has Trinity church stood tJ this fund, which has been used so dif- ferently at different times, and reeulated and dis- posed of upon one set of lules prior to 1814, and upon an entiiely different set since that period. Before 1814, Trinity church gave away two hundred and ninety-nine lots of ground. in the next twenty-two years, only nineteen lots, and in the last twen'y she has parted with none as gifts ex- cept some plats in one of her cemeteries. To this unequal mode of distribution, no doubt, may be traced much of the dissatisfaction of which we have heard, and which has finally ended in the presentation of petitions, some of them, be it remembered, from Corporators of Trinity church, begging tor a change of the law of 1S14. Clergy and laymen, petitioners at home and in public meetings, join in the prayer that this relation may be changed, and that the law of 1814 may be modified or repealed. Is it strange that those complaints have been heard? Who here or bey- ond the chamber has had the courage to say that true wisdom or sound policy has distinguished the administration of the fund in question? If we pause to compare the prosperity which has dis- tinguished Trinity church and her chapels with some of the independent congregations, self-sup- porting or aided by their mother church, we shall be inclined to write conspicuously in letters of gold printed upon tablets of marble, in front , of every altar, as a golden rule not only for every corporation, but for every intelligent and liberal minded citizen, those words of noble import, fit to be inscribed upon the tomb of every philanthro- pist, patriot and philosopher: "What I gave I have, what I kept I lost." In this sense, Mr. Chairman, the trust of Trin- ity has not been wisely administered. I am told that it is no trust. I appeal to the testimony ol the Rector of Trinity church to prove that it is a trust, and tffe highest of trusts. The excellent Dr Berrian, in his address at the opening ol Trinity chap-1, on the 22d of April, said to his hearers in vindicatioa of the expenditure upon this Costly edifice, the expense of which was nearly a quarter of a million of dollars, that it was " a great trust, which had been administered with an uprightness, liberality and wisdom, which, even in this country, has never been surpassed." — Upon this point gentlemen may very honestly differ. I have had occasion to refer to the testi- mony of a very distinguished lavman, one of the Corpotaturs and Vesirymen of Trinity church, to prove the very opposite of all this. In a moral sense, my colleague admits that this vast pro- perty, controlled by a standing committee, elected sometimes bv less then fifty persons, is a trust. — I think it is a trust both in a moral and legal sense, but for my present purpose, remembering that it is property set apart for religious purpo- ses, let it be considered in the latter light — for what is moral and not illegal, or what is just and equitable, I should suppose to fall within that golden rule which makes up a cardinal principle of practical Christianity. On this account it is thai some of the voters by law ask of Trinity church justice for their Christian brethren of other Episcopal congregations. They do not de- sire to see those who are the "Ambassadors of the Cross, the Legatees of the skies," those "by whom the violated law speaks out its thunders," and "by uhom, in strains as sweet as angels use, the Gospel whispers peace," engaged in a warfare so strange and unnatural. I speak to-night for this class of persons, not less than for those more prominent in urging action and justice at your hands. I speak tor thousands of others in the city of New York and elsewhere, whose voices have not been heard in your halls or at public meetings, but who pray for peace on earth and good will among men — who plead with us as Paul plead with the men of Rome and Corinth, to be instrumental in avoiding those dissensions and strifes among those of the same household and faith, which often brings such deep and last- ing disgrace upon ihe cause of relision Those who have read the books which have been printed upon this subject, who have seen and heard the accusations made by letter and by word of mouth, who have been cognizant of the bad feeling en- gendered upon one side and the other, must not only feel pained at what has occurred, but heart- ily wish this controversy at an end. Of course we must act, if we act at all, within the provisions of the charter, the Constitution and the laws; and this, Mr. Chairman, brings me to the consideration of the subject in its legal aspect. I find that in 1697, under the reign of King William the Third, a monarch of beloved memory to those who cherish many of the prominent in- cidents of his life and reign, that for the purposes of '• settling a ministry and raising a maintenance for them, in the city of New Vork, counties of Richmond, Westchester and Queens," one hun- dred pounds once in every year was to be assessed, levied, collected and paid to support a Protestant minister " to officiate and have the care of souls within " our Protestant church of England, estab- lished in our said cityof New York." He was to be by our laws." Besides the one hundred pounds of 12 90 thus to be assessed and levied for this purpose, there was a royal grant and confirmation of a cer- tain church and steeple built within the city, and a certain piece or parcel of ground thereunto ad- joinuii;." " Scituate lyeing and beeing in or neere to a streete without the north gale of our said city coninoonly called and knowne by the nanne of the Broadway, conteining in breadth on the East .end as the said streete of the Broadway rangeth Northward three hundred and tenn foot unlill you come unto the land lately in the tenure and occupation of Thomas Lloyd Deed : and from thence towards the west in length by the saiH land untill you come unio Hudson's River and thence southward along Hudson's river three hundred and ninety-five foot all of English measure, and from thence by the line of our garden Eastward un- to the place of the said street in the Broadway where lirst begunn, and that the said church to- gether with the cemetry or churchyard thereunto adjoyning may forever hereafter be dedicated and consecrated to the public worship and service of God according to the Rites and ceremonies of the prot'Stant church of England as now established by our laws. ' This is the preamble, which further recites that it shall be for the Rector and inhabitants in communion of the Protestant church of England as now established by our laws. Coming to the body of this, the first charier, we read what I regard to be the uses of the property according to the true intent and meaning of the donor. After again declaring the purposes of the gift to be "to promote, propagate and encourage all our loving subjects within our said province, in that reverend and Godly duty in worshipping and revering God according to the commendable rites and ceremonies of our Protestant church of England," it is added (in regard to the property above set forth) : "The same is hereby declared to be separated and dedicated to the service of God, and to be applyed therein to the use and bchal/c of the inhabitants f>om time to time inhabiting, and to inhabit, 7vithin our said City of Neio Yorke, in commuaion of our said Protestant Church of England as now cslablis)icd by our laws, and to no otiicr use or purpose u-hatsoevcr, any statute law, custome, or usage to the contrary in any ways notwithstanding. * * * * * And we have further thought fitt and, at the humble request of our said loving subjects, are graciously pleased to create and make him our said Right trusty and well beloved and Right Reverend Father in God Henry Lord Bishop of London and his successors. Rector of the said Parish, together with all the inhabitants from lime to time inhabiting, and to inhabit in our said city of Neva Yorke, and in communion of our aforesaid Protestant Church of England, as now established by our laws, a body corporate and Politiq, with the powers and privileges hereinafter mentioned. And accordingly our Royall will and pleasure is, and of our speciall Grace certaine knowledge and meere motion We have ordained, constituted, and declared, and by these presents for us, our heirs and successors, do ordaine, constitute, anjlj declare that he. the said Right trusty and well | beloved Right Reverend Father in God, Henry, | Lord Bishop of London, and his successors, and | all such of our loving subjects aa now are or | hereafter shall be, admitted into the communion i of aforesaid Protestant Church of England as now established by our laws, shall be from time i to time and forever hereafter a body corporate j and politique, in fact and name, by ilie name of' tlie Rector and Inhabitants of our said City of Ncie York, in communion of our Protestant Church of England as now established by our lawsy Now sir, we have here three classes of per- sons — the Donor — being the King, afterwards by the enlargement of the gift, Queene Anne — the donees, being the persons holding the property, and the Beneficiaries. The uses are most clear- ly set forth, and the parties to be benefited are " all the inhabitants from time to time inhabiting and to inhabit our saiil city of Neio York in com- munion of our Church of England." And this property is to be "separated and dedecated to the service of God forever," and "to no other use or purpose whatsoeifer," and all statute law, usage, customs to the contrary notwithstanding. Now sir, what does this charter mean, if it is not capable of the simple, liberal and just con- struction put upon it in the words I have empha- sized. I desire to consider all these laws as a unit, and to iollow them up from 1097, through the acts of 1704, 170.5, 1714, 1777, 1784 and 17S8, down to the objectionable net of 1814, which I have spoken of at so much length. I desire to go back to the original charter, and .step by step to follow up each royal grant and law to the separation of the colonies by the ac- knovi'ledged Independence of the United States, and from 177,5 to the present hour. I am will- ing to start with the legislative act of 1784, and just as willing to hinge that act upon every pre- vious grant and law. Through each and every act, the inhabitants in communion with the Pro- testant Episcopal church in the city or state of New York are recognized. Thus the title of the act of 1784 reads: " An act for granting sundry Privileges and Powers to the Rector and Inhabitants of the city of New York, of the Communion of the church of England, as by Law established. Passed the 27th of June, 1704." The preamble says: " Whereas, the Inhabitants of the. city of New York, of the Communion of the Church of Eng- land, as by Law established, for some years past, by voluntary contribution of themselves and others, fai'oring the Churche's Interest, have erected a Church icithin said City, for the service and wor- ship of jUlmighty God called by the name of Trinity Church," ^c. The first section also says: "That from HENCEFORWAHf , FOREVER HEREAFTER, the Rector and Inhabitants of the said City of New York, in Communion of the Church of England, as by law established and their successors, be, and shall be able and capable in the 91 law, for the maintenance and recovery of their estates, rights and privileges," &c. The seco.id section provides: " That the said R-clor and Inhabitants and their Successors by the same name from hence- forward, forever, have, and shall have full power, good right, and lawful authority, to have, take, receive, acquire and purchase, and use, and en- joy Lands, Tenements, and Hereditaments, Goods and Chattels,'" &c. The third section is imperative and says: '"That the said Church and Premises, be from henceforward forever set apart and separated for the Religious Uses aforesaid ; and tliat the Pat- ronage and Advowson of the said Church, and Right of Presentation (after the Death of the Present Rector, or upon next avoidance, and for- ever thereafter) shall belong and appertain to the Church Wardens, and Vestrymen of the said Church, annually elected or to be elected by the In- habitants aforesaid, in Communion as aforesaid, in Manner hereafter mentioned, and expressed." The grant of Queen Anne is brief in words, but most bountiful in its bestowments, if we consider the value of what is left of the grant then made. In the preamble we read once again of the rector and inhabitants of the city of New York, in comniunion of the Church of England, as by law established, and to them, on the peti- tion of the Captain General and Governor-in- Chief, Edward Viscount Cornbury, is made over for the same noble uses before described. "All those our severall closes; peeces and par- cells of land, meadows and pastures formerlly called the Duke's Farme, and the King s Farme, and now known by the name of the Queen's Farme, with all and singular ye fences, inclos- nres, improvements and appurtenances whatso- ever thereunto belonging as the same are now in the occupation of and enjoyed by George Ryerse of the City of New York, yeoman, or by any former tenant, scituate, lying and being on the Island Manhattans in the City of New York aforesaid, and bounded on the East, partly by the Broadway, partly by the Common, and part- ly by the Swamp, and on the West by Hudson's River, and also all that our piece or parcell of ground, scituate and being on the south side of the churchyard of Trinity Church aforesaid, commonly called and known hy the natie of the Queen's Garden, fronting to the said Broadway on the East, and extending to low water marke upon Hudson River on the West, all which said premises are now lett at the yearly rent ot thirty pounds, which reasonable request wee being willing to grant: "Know ye that of our especial grace, certaine knowledge, and meer motion, we have given, granted, ratified and confirmed in and by these presents, for ourself, our heirs, and successors, we do give, grant, rattify and confirm unto the taid Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New York in communion of the Church of Em^land as bylaw established and their successors all and sing ■ular the said farme lands, tenements and heredita- ments." Here is the foundation of that splendid prop- erty, the remnant of which is now worth more than a htmdred times the value of the original grant. The act of 1714 is immaterial to the two charters already referred to. It bears, however, the distinguished name of "Bolingbroke," acting as the minister of the Queen, and it confirmed the rector and inhabitants before mentioned in all the possessions before conveyed, some of which, in the name of the Crown, had become involved in the webs of the law through the Court of Chancery. By royal favor they were set free. We next come to the law of 17S4, which refers to the Charter of 1697, and the Colonial act of 1704, carefully preserving the closest relation- ship of the inhabitants of the city of New York, of the Protestant Church of England, some por- tions of which are too important to be omitted. One of these provisions saves the parties in in- terest all loss of right on account of non-user or mis-user on account of a change of civil govern- ment, as between the Cro .vn and the Republic. The third and chief recital in this act reads as follows: jIII persons professing themselves Members of the Episcopal Church, who shall either hold, occupy or enjoy a Pew or Seat in the said Church, AND SUCH OTHERS AS SHALL in the SAID Chunh par- take of the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, at least oyice in every year, being Inhabitants of tlie City and County of New York, shall be entitled to ALL the Rights, Privileges, Benefits and Emolu- ments, 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," All Episcopalians occupying or enjoying a pew or seat in the Episcopal churches, and regu- larly paying to the support of said churches, and those partaking of the Holy Sacrament in said churches, and herein mentioned, with all the force and directness of which language is ca- pable. Trinity Church singly is here nowhere named or implied, except as a part of the great whole of which she was the head and front. The fourth section of the act strengthens the first, and speaks of "immunities, emoluments, and privileges," not to Trinity Church, but to "the Episcopal Church, or that mode of re- ligious worship, commonly called the Church of England." Coming, finally, to the act of 1788, " The Rector and inhabitants of the city of New York, in communion of the Church of England" are preserved, to the letter, in the preamble, and the name is changed, in answer to the petition pre- sented, so as to read, "the Rector and inhabit- ants of the city of New York, in communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church, in the State of New York," and this was the style and title until the memorable act of 1814. It will he seen that the Legislature has passed four acts in reference to this subject, and we are now asked to pass a fifth. In the judgment of many the law of 1814 was an unconstitutional act. It became a law, not by the concurrence of 92 the Council of Revision, but by a tie vote in that revision Had the Council been full, I am au- thorized to say, that the vote would have been, OP the 20th of January, when the subject was under consideration, iour against the act, and three in ils favor. Smith Thompson, one of the Executive Council, afterwards one of the judges of the Supreme Court, was against the act, and complained that the question had been taken in his absence. Later in life, Chancellor Kent, who voted for the law, spoke of it as one of his youthful follies, and as an act which he most deeply regretted. The mature judgment of five of the seven gentlemen composing the Council of Revision was against the coustitutionalily and expediency and justice of the act of 1814; and of the remaining two, one had written a very able opinion against it. There was also a strong protest against the act at the time it passed, and if there has been a silent acquiescence in it from year to year, there has never been any con- current sentiment in favor of the law. The changes proposed in my bill may be amendable to the charge of novelty, but other changes have been made by law in this very charter now un ler debate. Many provisions of the charter of 1697 have become absolete. Trinity Church no longer has the sole and only Episcopal churchyard in the city of New York. There is no longer a limitation of property to X5,000, with .£10 to be paid (or the clerk. We hear no more of the election of persons into the corporation. The assistant minister no longer holds his place for life. The resolution of a ves- try ipso facto, deposes every rector and assist- ant who may be elected to the Episcopate, while the old charter read that the Rector shall and may nominate assistant ministers, but now Rec- tors and uninisters are not only nominated by the vestry, but even the Rector's n'>mination is sometimes defeated. The law of 1704 spoke of communicants also as possessing certain powers; and, Mr. Chairman, with the example of all these changes, I shall be pardoned I hope for at- tempting one, which though it may have the touch of novelty in it, is nevertheless founded injustice and upon a hope of future peace. My colleague has dwelt at murh length upon vhat was meant by a pari«h." What it meant in the charier of 1697, as I can prove by admission and citation of facts, was the whole island of Manhattan. It meant more than a spire, the four walls of a church, and one congregation. If it did not, how comes it that Trinity has four churches, lour congregations, and church pro- perty scattered all over the city — a churchyard in the lower part of the city and one of some acres in the middle of the island ? How is it that there is a distance of more than three miles be- twein Trinity church and Trinity chapel? Do those congregations make distinct parishes in the eyes of the law or in the spirit of the charter? No, Sir; every man knows that the charter of 1697 was meant to cover every Episcopalian in good standing on the whole island of Manhattan. My colleague says that " a parish is a unit all over the world." It is no more so than a church, the original meaning of which was a house of God, but the enlarged meaning of which is a collective body of Christians. We speak of the Presbyterian, the Baptist, the E|)iscopal, the Methodi't or other churches. We read of the Catholic or universal church. The church of Ephesus or Antioch meant the followers of Christ in a particular city. In a broader and nobler sense the collective body of saints in hea- ven is called the Invisible church. Parish, too, has many interpretations. It has a political, or local meaning in Louisiana. In New England it has a religious signification. We speak of the the parish priest and the parish poor. In different stales and countries it has a civil and religious sig- nification, hut in 1693, and in 1703, and later, it had a geographical or political meaning,* and covered all who, "of one faith and one substance bred," were of the church of England; and, Mr. Chairman, there seems to be a dignity, a justice and a chsrity in this interpretation, that ought to make it acceptable to all true Christian men. How is it possible for those who worship at the same altars, read the same prayers, make confes- sion in the same words for the same sins, who plead for paidon, hope for mercy, and who mean to be governed by the same catholic spirit, thus to make war upon each other upon a question of franchise over atoms of dust less perishable than their own frail bodies! Mr. Chairman; The subject is before the Sen- ate. It has been here through long weeks and weary days. It has trespassed upon hours which should have been devoted to rest. All sides have been heard and fully heard; my colleague, for seven hours and a half consecutively this even- ing, and for three hours previously, it has attracted universal attention at ihe capitol, in the city of New York and in all parts of the state. History, if impartial, while it will recite much that is mentioned by my colleague, will also give a hearing to those who are held up to odium. Truth is not blind nor deaf. With eyes to see and ears to hear, what is omitted by my colleague or by myself will be revealed, and in that reve- lation which is divested of all prejudice and all passion. In introducing my substitute, I have been governed by a sincere desire to har- monize existing difficulties. I have no motive for action but the private and public good. The substitute is one of compromise; and if it can be received in the spirit in which it is offered, it will lead to that restoration of peace and good will which all true men must heartily desire I invoke Senators, and I invoke all who^e feelings have been enlisted in this controversy, for the inculcation of that spirit of Christian charity in disposing of this subject which covereth a multi* tude of sins — which hopeth all things, whiclf endureth all things, which believeth all things! and which suffereth all things, and is kind. | invoke also for>the hearts and judgments of men something of that inward good fellowship, whichj like the quality of mercy, is not strai ;ed, whichj " falleth as the gentle rain from heaven upoal * Seo Appendix D. ] i 93 the place beneath," and which " blesseth him that gives and him that takes." I have been governed by a single motive in the part I have most unwillingly taken in the debate, and I leave the subject to the Senate, in the single hope that whatever is done may be well done, working neither injury to persons, nor resulting in evil to the cause of religion. Property, like riches, takes wings and flies away. A modern French philosopher calls it "robbery." Let me hope, sir, that while we are pictured as robbers by our enemips, because we seek to give to others that which is their own, the result of this night's de- liberation may prove that some of us know both how to bear reproach against ourselves, while we are ready to maintain the rights of our fellow men. Let history but record impartially what we are now doing, and for one, as a Senator and a citizen, I am content to abide its verdict. Shielding myself behind the honored names of Gov. Tompkins, Spencer, Yates and Chief Jus- tice Kent; and fallinfr back upon the written opinion of Chancellor Lansing; looking to the language of 'he charters and the spirit of the laws, I shall hope that no act of mine, in con- nection with this bill, can inflict wrong upon any body of Christians or class of persons in the state. To differ with esteemed friends, whose counsels I have shared and whose friendships I have enjoy- ed, is, I confess, most painful; but in the path of duty, guidid by a sense of what is right, or what seems to be right, there is no middle course. I have been charged among other worse things, with pro- posing that half of the vestry of Trinity church should be elected by the Episcopalians of the city at large. I impute the misstatement to the ig- norance of the accuser. But not to add more, Mr. Chairman, I w^oul 1 forget and forgive all the groundless assaults which have fallen upon the much abused and little read proposition I have submitted. That cause is poor indeed, which originating in honorable purposes, sus- tained by truth, upheld by justice, and looking to peace and reconciliation among Chrtstian men, has not strength enough to stand upon its own feet, and to meet and overcome bitterness of speech and error of judgment. Mr. Kelly: Mr. Chairman! Before the ques- tion is taken I desire to say a few words upon this subject. It was my intention to have made some remarks upon the propositions before the Senate had time permitted me to do so; and even at this late hour I feel it my duty not to remain entirely silent. I regret exceedingly. Sir, that during the course and in the heat of this debate, unworthy motives should have been attributed either to the Committee of the Senate, or to the Vestry and the friends of Trinity Church. The investigations made by the Committee have, in my view, been justified by the facts which they have elicited. They have discharged the duties entrusted to the well and faithfully, and deserve the thanks of the Senate for the labor they have bestowed upon the subject. It is c ear by the evidence betore us, that the funds of Trinity Church have been administered by men of the strictest integrity. But it can be plainly seen that throughout their management, the great fault has been a desire to suffer the property to accumulate in their hands, in order that at a future time they might do great good in the cause of religion. In accordance with this policy we find that when Trinity built her mag- nificent edifice — for which I praise and honor her — fhe thought she could pay for her building out of her income, without parting with any portion of her property. She has also continued from year to year her princely gifts to other churches, and has sought to meet this demand upon her also, by her income alone. Now, al- though by the tailing in of leases, in time, her income will reach an enormous sum, — probably $300,000 — yet it has been inadequate at the pre- sent time to meet these charges upon it, and she has therefore fastened upon herself a large debt. The gentlemen who are here seeking this legis- lation in regard to Trinity have not approved of this policy. They have believed Trinity might do more good with her large estates under wiser management. They are all true sons of the Church, and good Christians; and they have sought to bring Trinity to what they believe to be a sense of her duty. Perhaps if Trinity had pursued a different financial policy, they would never have been heard of here. They can have no personal motives to gratify, and can only be influenced by what they sincerely believe to be the good of the Church. There is one idea. Sir, that I think has not been sufficiently enforced on the minds of Senat- ors. Much has been said about the difference between a territorial parish and a spiritual parish ; but it should be remembered that when this char- ter was issued and when these grants were maile, a territorial parish was meant whenever in those instruments a parish was mentioned. At that time, the parish of Trinity included the whole of New York City. And let me ask here, if no revolution had taken place, and if there had been no severance from the mother-country, how would the property granted to Trinity have been used ? Can there be a doubt thai every Episcopal church would have participated in the fund? Trinity Church would still have remained the parish church. She would have had her fifty or more chapels, it is true; but they would all have been attached to Trinity as are her present chapels. Immediately after the revolutionary war, no one foresaw at once the difliculties that must en- sue on account of the separatioii between church and state. In the course of time parishes ap- parently independent of and disconnected from Trinity were formed; and when, prior to 1814, the difficulties between these parishes became so apparent as to require some attention at the hands of the state, the Legislature was applied to, and the act now complained of was passed. It is im- possible for any emergency to arise in the body politic, but some power can be found sufficient to remedy it. The parties came to the Legis- lature of the state for relief; and I believe that the act ot 1814 would have been constitutional 94 and just, if it had not divested these corporators of their rights. If it did divest thorn of rights to which they were entitled under the original charter and subsequent grants, it was uncon- stitulional and unjust. Novi' the law of the Senator from the 6th (Mr. Brooks) seeks to give these rights, under certain restrictions, to all who were invested to them by the original charter. It is a compromise, and in my judgment a fair one. between the contesting parties. As such I shall support it, and as such I regard it as entitled to the favorable considera- tion of the Senate. Mr. Madden: Mr. Chairman: This matter has been so fully discussed, that even were it not so late an hour, I should only occupy very briefly the time of the Senate. It is a subject of mag- nitude and importance upon which we are called to act, and it should not be passed on hurriedly, and without calm, full and motive consideration. I think that with the immense amount of busi- ness we have here upon our hands, it is not proper to decide this question at the present ses- sion of the Legis'ature. It has not been properly discussed by the Episcopalians in New York City, and throughout the state; as it certair.ly ought to be before being passed upon by us, even providing, that we have any right to legislate at all in the matter. It is true that we find here a spontaneous expression from the length and breadth of the state against the laying of any sacrilegious hand upon this church; but this ex- pression, universal as it seems, gives but a faint conception of the oppofiition which would really spring up all over the state, were proper op- portunity afforded for its disphy. The question now before us, the bill of the Senator from the 6th (Mr. Brooks) has been so fully and so ably argued here, that but little is left for any person to add. Vet there is one point in relation to that substitute for the proposition of the special committee, which occurs to me, and which I desire to bring to the attention of the Senate. It is this. Every statement that has been made here and before the committee; every argument that has been adduced; every grant and law that has been quoted, shows con- clusively that the whole of this property belongs either to the Episcopalians of Trinity parish, or to all the Episcopalians of New York City. Now both these parties claim to be the rightful owners of the property. These rival claimants may, if they please, compromise between them- selves; but from whence do we derive the power to force a compromise upon them? If the estates belong to Trinity Corporation, they are hers en- tirely; hers to control and to use as she sees (it. It seems monstrous that we should assume to take hold of the property of the church by force, and say how it shall be dislributed. It is the first stepping stone to that anti-republican doctrine, the interference of the state in the affairs of the church. Holding these views, I regard the substitute of the Senator from the Cth (Mr. Brooks) as more objectionable, more monstrous, J may say, than even the original bill proposed by the special committee. If the estates of Trinity belong to the Episcopalians of the city of New York, they should have them all, and enjoy thetn without reserve. There can be no half-way measure of justice in the afl^airs. It is either one thing or the other. No court would decide the controversy as we are called upon to decide it. There is not a judicial tribunal in existence that would say one half of this property shall go to one claimant, and the other half shall be enjoyed by the other claimants. The law would decide, if called upon, simply to whom the property belongs; and would give it to the rightful owner whether that owner was the congresration of Trinity Church, or the entire Episcopal inhabitants of the city. Mr. Chairman, I can find no good reason in any of the arguments which have been used by the opponents of Trinity Church, why an appeal should not be made to the courts of law, to test the constitutionality of the law of 1814. Among those opponents are men of ample means and marked ability; and whether they cover the wealth of Trinity, or seek in gnod faith the re- stitution of what they believe to be their violated rights, I can see no good reason why they should not make their application to the court.s rather than to the Legislature. Certainly if they have suffered wrong, the law has power to right them, and it can require no new act of legislation to restore to them all those privileges of which they claim to have been illegally deprived. Sir. I feel it incumbent upon me to state, be- fore closing my remarks, that I was much pained to listen to the opening ."-emarks of the Senator from the 3d (Mr. Sickles). That honorable gentleman thought fit, after his eloquent and ef- fective introduction, to charge the political party to which I am proud to belong, with the desire to lay sacrilegious hands upon this property of Trinity Church. For the honor and credit of the Republican party, Sir, I am bound to re- pudiate that assertion. Mr. Sickles: I said that the leaders of the party were the active men in the attack upon Trinity church. Mr. Madden: I deny, Mr. Chairman, that even the leaders of the party are the foes of Trinity. Some self constituted leaders may strive to lead the party off into a crusade against this church, from personal or other motives; but I entirely deny their power to do so. I do not desire to charge the honorable Senator (Mr. Sickles) with having so shaped his remarks as to give them political effect in the future elec- tions in the parish of Trinity, situated as it is, within his district; but I must say that I do not think the charge he has made againsv the repub- lican party, comes with a good grace from a leaning member of that organization that would have wrested the brightest jewel from the crown of the Queen of Spain, by force, provided she was unwilling to part with it for an equiva- lent. I ask him. Sir, if it becomes him, now opposed to spoliation in this instance, but so re- cently the active advocate of spoliation, to make 95 this sweeping charge against a large and honora- ble organization? Mr. SiCLKEs; I hope that the vote to he ta- ken on this bill in this place, will show that I have done great injustice to the party to which the honorable gentleman belongs. Mr. Madden-. I hope .so too; but lean not conceal from myself the fact that there is danger and men against whom so groundless a charge is made uiay suffer their personal feelings to sway them so far as to induce them to be unwilling that the honorable Senator (Mr. Sickles) should win what he seems to regard a political victory by the defeat of this bill. It is on these grounds that I make these remarks; but I sincerely hope that no Senator will be influenced in the vote he casts by any stinging remarks or innuendoes cast out by political opponents in the course of this debate. I ain simply rebuking what I consider to be an unjust aspersion upon the republicans of this State. I think that party is not an aggra- grian party. I believe that it respects the rights of property; that it respects the laws of the country; and that is favor of man owning himself. Can the gentleman (Mr. Sickles) say as much for the party to which he belongs? I have already denied, Mr. Chairman, that the leaders of the republican party are the foes of Trinity. I need only to point to facts to show the injustice of such a charge. If we look for a moment at those about this capitol as well as around this circle who are arrayed for or against this bill, we shall find on both sides, leaders of all the political organizations of the day. We shall see here an eminent American (Mr. Brooks) favoring the spoliation of the church, and there another distinguished gentle- man of the same political faith (Mr. Hale) op- posed to the partition of her estates. In like manner we find leading D^'mocrats and leading Republicans cn opposite sides in this controver- sy. It is no secret. Sir, that the Governor of the State, who all are proud to recognize as a leader of the Republican army, is one of the most uncompromising opponents of this scheme for the spoliation of Trinity church. I repeat, Sir, that I make these comments up- on the remarks of the honorable Senator (Mr. Sickles) only in justice to my own political friends and the members of the American organ- ization ; but I can not and do not believe that any Senator, on the votes he casts upon this most im- portant bill, will be influenced in any degree by personal or political considerations. For myself, Sir, I am ready at once to close this debate, and vote upon the merits of the question. Mk. BriggS: Mr. Chairman— I move to amend the bill now before the Senate, by allow- ing one church warden and twelve vestrymen to be elected by Trinity parish, and one church warden and eight vestrymen by the parishes in the city of New York outside of Trinity. I propose this amendment because I deem it but just to give the controlling influence in the vestry to Trinity herself. The amendment was lost by a vote of 8 to 14. The chairman then declared the question to be on the substitute offered by the Senator from the 6th (Mr. Brooks), for the bill presented by the special committee. Mr. Sickles: Do I not understand that the Senator is going to modify his bill in some res- pects, before the vote upon its adoption is taken? Mr. Brooks: The modification has been made already. Mr. Sickles: Pray what is the modifica- tion? Mr. Brooks: The amendment of section 3 of the bill, by the provision that the residue of the income and proceeds of the estates of Trini- ty shall be applied " to the purpose of the original grant," instead of " to the support and extension of religion and religious education in the city and state of New York," as the bill, as introduced, provided. Mr. Sickles: Why this appears to me no modification, but an entire alteration in the main principle of the bill. Pardon me, but it cer- tainly seems like a pious fraud. Here we have been for days discussing one bill, and arguing on its merits, and when the vote is to be taken, we find another bill suddenly thrust before us. Mr. Brooks: It is the same bill. The Sena- tor is mistaken. Mr. Sickles: It looks to me very diflTerent. It is certainly not the bill we have been discuss- ing, for the main feature of that bill has been abandoned. Mr. Upham: I thought the Senator did not understand what he had been talking about. Mr. Sickles: The Senator from the 28th (Mr. Upham), can scarcely be admitted as a fair judge on that point, for the reason that he did not hear my argument. He has been absent from the Senate during the debate, his business being the mere mechanical one of walking in and recording his vote when required to do so. The question upon the adoption of the substi- tute offered by Mr. Brooks, the same was adopt- ed by ayes 18, nays 8. On motion of Mr. Spencer, the committee of the whole then, at 1 1-2 o'clock in the morning, rose and reported the bill to the Senate, and recommended its passage. In the Senate, the president put the question on agreeing with the committee's report, and ordering the bill to a third reading. Mr. Sickles: Mr, President— This question is now out of the committee of the whole, and is not therefore in a | osition to interfere with or obstruct any other business before the Senate, or further to consume our time. But it is very desirable that the vote should be taken at a time when the Senate is in a condition to form a cor- rect judgment upon its merits, and not at the close of a long and wearying session, and at such an hour as this. It is also very desirable that there should be a full expression of the sentiments of the Senate, and it is well known that one Senator entertaining the same views of this question as I entertain, is unavoidably ab- sent from his seat. I hope therefore that the 96 Senate will see the propriety of a postponement of further proceedings at this time, and I move, Bir, to lay the motion to agree with the commit- tee's report upon the table. Mr. Brooks: Oh, I hope that will not be agreed to. Mr. Madden: Mr. President, I move the indefinite postponement of the subject. Mr. Sickles: The motion to lay the motion agreeing with the report takes precedent of that. Mr. Upham: Mr. President I can see no good reason for any further postponement of this question. There are thirty Senators here now, and I should think that was quite enough. It's enough to satisfy me, at least. There is no knowing when Mr. Hale will be here. At all events he will not be here tomorrow, and then we shall have the same excuse over again. I think we have spent enough time over it already, and I am anxious to get it out of the way. Mr. Sickles: I would inform the Senator from the 28th (Mr. Upham), that Mr. Hale will be here tomorrow. He has telegraphed me to that effect. Indecent haste under such circum- stances is inexcusable. Mr. Spknoer: There is no haste about it. — I hope the motion to lay on the table will be vot- ed down. The motion to lay on the table was then lost by ayes 12, nays 18, as follows: Ayk3 — Meaers Belliiiger, Briggp, Huntington, Mad- den, Nichols, CP. Smilh, .J. A. Smiili, Sickles, _Sweet, Towne, Untier, Wadswortli — 12. Noj:b— Mesnrs. Bradford, Brooks, Cuyler, Darling, Ferdon, Halated, Harcourt, Hotohiviss- Kelly, Lee, Nox- on, Patereon, Petty, Ramsey, Rider, A. M. Smitn, Spen- cer, Upliam — 18. The vote was then taken on Mr. Madden's motion to postpone indefinitely, and the same was lost, by ayes 14, nays 17, as follows: AiPF,3 — Messrs. Biilinger, Bradford, Brigga, Cnyler Huntington, Madden, Nichols, C. P. Sinllh, J. A. Smilb, SicKl 8, Sweet, Towue, Uahor, Wadswortli — 14. NoKu— Messrs. Brooks, Darling, Ferdon, Halated, Har. court, Hotchkias, Kelly, h'io, Noxon, Pateraon, Petty, Ramsey, Riotiardson, 'Kider, A. M. Smith, Speacer, Up- ham — 17. Absent— Mr. Hale (in favor of indefinite pospon- m'^Tit) — 1. Mr. Madden moved that the Senate do now adjourn. The motion was lost by ayes 11, nays 19, as follows: Ayks— Messrs. Bradford, Brigga. Huntington, Mad- den, Nich )ls, Petty, J. A. Smith, Sickles, Towno, Usher and VVadsworth — 11 Noes — Messrs. Bellinger, Brooks, Cuyler, Darling, Ferdon, Halsted, H iroourt, Hotcnkias, Kelly, I-ise, Nox- on, Patterson, Ramsey, Ricliardson, Rider, Smith, Spen- cer, Sweet and Upham — 19. Mr. Briggs mo\ed his amendment proposed in' committee of the whole, to give Trinity 12 ves- trymen instead of 10. Lost, The President then put the question upon agreeing to the report of the committee, and the same was agreed to, and the bill ordered to a third reading, by ayes 20, nays 11, as follows: Ayks — Messrs. Brooks, Cuyler, Darling, Ferdon, llal- Bted, Harcourt, Hotchkiss, Kelly, I< feature in the bill he did not ap- irove. By the second and third sections the Le- ;islature assumes to give directions to a religious ori^oration as to the management of its tempo- alities. Yet being so fully convinced of the njuitice of the act of 1814, and believing that the confiscating and disfranchising policy con ceived by Trinity in 1812 and consummated iu ISn, to be manifestly wrong and unjust, he felt comp-^lled by a sense of duty to vote as he had and sh 11, that in some manner the Legislature of the state might redeem itself from the disgraceful act of that year. Although this bill did not meet his views as well as that reported by the committee, yet it dii in some measure make atonement for the act of 1814. He voted aye. Mr. C. P. S-^iith's mme having been called, he said he had been absent all day, having been delayed by a detention of the cars. The suliject had been one of considerible anxiety to him. He had hoped that the bill, after being reported to the Senate, would have been laid aside until to-morrow, but inasmuch as h's vote would ap- parently make nomaleriil difference in the re- uU he asked to be excused from voting. The Senate refused to excuse .Mr. €mith, and he voted in the affirmative. The result was announced in favor of the pas sage of the bill by ayes 19, nays 12, as follows: ArES— Messrs. Brooks, Cnyler, Darling, Ferdon, Hal- eted. Harcour , Hoicbkisi-, KelK , Lee, Noxon, P tterson, Petty. Knms ly, Richardson, Rider, A. il. .Smith, C-i*. Smitcp, Spencer, Upbam — 19. Noes — Messrs. Bellinger, Bradford, Brisrcfs Hunting, ton. Madden, Ni' hols,J. A. Smith, Sickles, Swe»,To»De, Usher, Wadswotlh— 12. The Senate then, at 3 o'clock, A. M., ad- journed. In the Assembly, the Senate hill was referred to the standing committee on Charitable anil Re- ligious Societies, consisting of Messrs. Bell, Somerville, Rhodes, Maheci and Kimmey. The committee held several meetings, and ar- guments were maile against the bill by the Hon. S. B Ruggles. of New York, and Ju.lge Parker of Albany ; and in favor of the bill by Mr. Porter, of Albany. After devoting considerable time to the examination of the merits of the question, the committee were unable to come to a conclu- sion favorable to the bill, standing two for re- porting it favorably to the House, and three against it. Those in favor of the bill were: Messrs. Bell and Somerville; those opposed to it were, Messrs. Rhodes, Mahen and Ki nmey. In the mean time, the opponents of Trinity church were not idle. With a strong and efli- cient lobby force they constantly plied the mem- bers of the House, and endeavored to persuade them into action upon the bill, notwithstanding the impracticability of bestowing any time upon the discussion of its merits, in corwequence of the near approach of the close of the session, and the pressure of seveial important public measures yet unacted upon in the House. A number of leailing political lobby men, who were supposed to un lerstand the sentiments of members, were employed in making out tally lists of the votes, as they imagined ihey would be cast; and the friends of the Senate bill used every exertion in their power to complete the success of their ef- fort to obtain possession of Trinity's estate. 98 There is no doubt that they were misled in a great measure by the unwillingness of members to say ONtfht against taking up ihe bill, in con- sequence of Iheir (lisiiiclinatioM to offend the lead- ing; polilicians who had taken it under their fostering care ; allhough a large nurnber of the reprcsentiitives had resolved upon opposing it. — Be ih.it as it may, it is certain that the enemies of Trinity were for some time confident of final success. At length, on April 14th, Mr. Bell reported the bill from the committee for the consideration of the House, the majority of the committee re- fusing to recomrnerrd i'.s passage. Mr. Sherman moved to make the bill a special order for ;he next day at 4 P. M. ; but the House, by an emphatic vote, refused, and the bill took its regular place on the general order. On April iGth Mr. Sherman made an attemit to take the bill from its pla-e on the general o(l, der and refer it to the first committee of thA whole. ' Mr. Cox moved to lay the motion on the table, and the sime was carried by a decisive vote. i On the 17th, the day prior io the final ad-| journment of the Legislature, Mr. B Owen, at' the evt-nirrg session, moveil to order the Trinity church bill to a third reading at once, ahhoujn it had never been discussed or considered in com- miitee of the whole. On motion of Mr. Cox, the house a^ain, by an emphatic vote, refused to take up the bill by lay- ing Mr Owens' resolution on the table. No further open attempt was made to force action upon the bill in the Assembly. TO THE SENATORS OF THE SEMTE OF THE STATE OF NEW TOM: BEING An Examination aud Exposure of the " Eeport of the Select Committee to whom was referred the Eeport of Trinity Church made in 1855," made "in Senate, January 29th, 1857," and re-committed for further inquiry. B7 A MEMBER OF THE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH. February 12, 1857. The Select Committee of the Senate of New York, to whom was referred the Report of the Vestry of Trinity Church, in reply to the Resolutions of the Senate, passed April 13th, 1855, have, through their Chairman, Hon. Mark Spencer, Presi- dent pro tern, of the Senate, presented their Keport, with volu- minous ex parte testimony. That Eeport, with the testimony, is just puhhshed in the Senate Document No. 46, dated Jan. 29th, 1857. The evident injustice evinced hy the fact, that the testi- mony was partial and consequently unfair, both to Trinity Church and to the Commonwealth, prompted the Honorable Members of the Senate of New York to recommit the Keport of the Select Committee by a decisive vote, implying, if not censure, disapprobation. No cause that is good needs the crutches of ex parte state- 2 ment and false premises for its support. ■ ' And the recoil produced by the explosion of the offended sense of decency and honor prevailing in the minds of Senators, must serve to counteract and subdue the prejudice which such unfairness is designed to inject into the public opinion. Notwithstanding the unfinished condition of the question, and before the " testimony " was printed, editors of the Church and Secular newspapers have thought proper to endorse the statements, arguments and conclusions of the Keport of the Select Committee, publishing through their columns, in edi- torials of less or greater length, animadverions the most severe against the Corporation of Trinity Church. And they threaten to manufacture adverse popular sentiment under color of com- ment on " the latter portion of the Beport of the Senate Com- mittee," " which," they say, " is much the more important," because - "it touches not only Trinity Corporation, but the rights of all the Churchmen in the City, and the interests of the Church throughout the whole State."* It might be good policy in Trinity Church to wait quietly until all has been said that can be said, before she shall attempt to reply, and this policy would be merely the prudence of the farmer who " hesitated to clear the paths about the house until it had stopped snowing." Nevertheless, since the " latter portion of the Report of the Senate Committee " is confessedly of interest to " all the Churchmen in the City," it is a sufficient apology for one of them to claim a hearing from Honorable Senators and the Public and the Church, while he too examines " the latter portion of the Report of the Senate's Committee," together with some of the " testimony " published in Senate Docu- ment No. 46, now lying before him. The foremost point is to examine the historical statements and quotations from the Royal Charter and the Acts of the Legislature, which the Select Committee report as being de- rived and " condensed from information embodied in the evidence." » Church Journal, Feb. 4, ISSY. See ib. Feb. 11, 1857. 3 1. The Committee begin by stating that " In 1697 the site of the Parish Church at the head of Wall-street was given by the English Crown for " the use and behalf of the inhabitants from time to time inhabiting, and to inhabit, within our said City of New York, in communion of our said Protestant Church of England, as now estab- lished by our laws." * But it is noticeable that the Committee do not state (what appears in the evidence " before them) that " the land which forms the present Churchyard or Burying Chround of the Church,"f formerly know as a part of " the Queen's garden,"! was also given in the Charter from the English Crown for a Cemetery or Churchyard of the Parish of Trinity Church," "to be for ever separated and dedicated to the service of God, and to be applied therein to the use and behalf of the inhabi- tants from time to time inhabiting and to inhabit within our said City of New York, in communion of our said Protestant Church of England, as now estabUshed by our laws, and to no other use or purpose whatsoever, any statute law, custom or usage to the contrary notwithstanding."§ This "condensing" of the "evidence " is quite significant when it is borne in mind that a portion of this very Grave- yard (now filled with the dust of " the inhabitants of the City of N-ew York ") is coveted and contended for by certain persons, whom Trinity Church, under a sense of her pious duty as custodian of the ashes of the dead, has resisted, with cost of money and against oflfers of money. The controversy concerning the Graveyard is not yet settled and is now pend- ing. It is even notorious, through current newspaper publications. The Select Committee could not be ignorant of the efforts to profane the " dedicated " ground, nor of the fidelity of Trinity Church in fulfilling her chartered obligations to maintain the sacredness of the Graveyard. And yet, notwithstanding the Charter recites that " the Pa- rish Church and Churchyard of the Parish of Trinity Church is declared to be for ever separated and dedicated to the ser- * Senate Document No. 46, page 14. f L. Bradish's TeatimoDy, Acs. Ist, page 91. % Sen. Doc. Xo. 46. § Charter, 1867— page 7. 4 vice of God, and to be applied thereunto to the use and be- half of the inhabitants, &c., and to no other use; the Select Committee think pro2)er to "condense" the testimony to that degree which allows them only to state that ^HTie Site of the Parish Church" at the head of Wall-street was so given, separated and dedicated to a sacred use for ever. And it is worthy of notice that the Select Committee's " Report " has been separately published in advance of the " evidence," so as to prejudice public opinion by dogmatic statement, without the accompaniment of the documents by which their Report might be verified. II. The second paragraph of the Report of the Select Committee professes to recite the history of the Incorporation of Trinity Church, in the following words and with the fol- ing punctuation :* " The act of incorporation in the same year made the " corporation to consist of the rector, ' together with all the " inhabitants from time to time inhabiting and to inhabit our " said city of New York, and in communion of our aforesaid " Protestant Church of England, as now established by our "laws and the legal title of the corporation was therefore " declared to be : ' The rector and inhabitants of our said " city of New York in communion of our Protestant Church of England, as now established by our laws.' " Such is the entire and exact Report of the Select Com- mittee, purporting to be condensed from "information embodied in the evidence," and professing to set forth a verbal quotation from the Charter of 1697. It professes, likewise, by impli- cation, to publish all that the said Charter contains essential to the question of the " Incorporation." That Charter of Trinity Church is not published in the Report and accompanying documents of the Select Committee. And it grieves the writer to denounce the Committee's Report : 1st, For omitting essential provisions of the Char- ter : 2nd, For reasoning from fragmentary quotations from tJie Charter : 3rd, For suppressing a word in that clause of the Charter which the Committee professes to quote verbally. * Senate Document Ko. 46, page 14. 5 Why that word was suppressed, and why the maimed clause, purporting to be the " Act of Incorporation," which partic- ularly describes the Corporators of Trinity Church, was thus deliberately published in its garbled condition by the high authority of the Select Committee of the Senate of New York, shall be exj^oscd before this examination shall be closed. The reader will see, by simple inspection of the paragraph now under review, that the idea sought to be conveyed in that Eeport, is this : that " all the inhabitants from time to time inhabiting and to inhabit the City of New York, and in communion with the Protestant Church of England," were invested, by the charter of King William III. in 1697, with indefeasible and with equal rights, as Corporators of Trinity Church. By virtue, simply, of being inhabitants of the City of New York and of being in communion with the Protestant Church of England (or as now, in communion with the Protestant Episcopal Church in New York), any person, thus qualified, may, under the said Charter, claim a right to vote and to be voted for, in all Corporative elections. This is the very iwint and pivot of the controversy with Trinity Church. The Select Committee affirm that "the Charter of 1697" secures the rights of a Corporator of Trinity Church to every inhabitant of the City of New York for all time to come, who is also in communion with the Church of England (or the Protestant Episcopal Church in New York); whether such per- son be or be not a member of the parish of Trinity Church : whether or not he be ecclesiastically subject to the Rector of Trinity Church : whether or not he belong to some other parish in the City of New Y^'ork, and have no parochial relation- ship to either the Eector of Trinity Church or the Kector of any other Church. The qualifications of being " an inhabi- tant of the City of New York, and in comynunion tvith the Church aforesaid," constitute the only qualifications, under the Charter of 1697, to make a man a Corporator of Trinity Church. This is the assertion of the Select Committee : this is the " evidence " of many of those whom the Committee sum- moned to testify ; this is the claim argued for, in the Report ; this is the right which (the Committee say) the Charter of 6 1697 confers ; and which right the act of the Legislature of New York, passed 25 of January, 1814, takes away from com- municants of the Protestant Episcopal Church, residing in the City of New York. The very plea for revoking the Act of 1814 is grounded on the notion that the said Act "excludes"* from the Corporation of Trinity Church " the great body of Episcopahans of the City of New York," "deprives "f them " of important franchises "; " divests % them of their rights in valuable estates granted and confirmed to them by legal and valid acts," and "therefore § that the said Act of 1814 is un- constitutional, unequal and unjust." Surely, then, every honest mind must expect that the Select Committee of the Senate would quote, correctly, that clause of the Charter of 1697, which, it is claimed, confers those "rights" and "franchises," from the use and enjoyment of which the great body of Episcopalians in the City of New York are said to be "excluded," and of which they are " deprived " and " divested ! " And moreover, every candid mind must demand that the Select Committee, fairly and truly, should recite any other clause or clauses in the Charter of 1697, which exiwessly limit the general and comjarehensive franchise of " all the inhabitants of the City of New York " (if such clause or clauses there be). And the ingenuous citizen would, furthermore, require of his representatives in the Hon- orable Senate of the State, to recite any. provisions in the Charter of 1697, which, by just inference, would limit, or in any way define and interpret the questionable claim to the estates of Trinity Church, so long administered by that Cor- poration under the sanction of the charter of the crown in England, confirmed to that Corporation by Acts of the Colonial Legislature, enforced by the laws of the State and settled by the decisions of Courts of Judicature. All this, one might anticipate, in view of the immense evil which a disturbance of a Christian and Eleemosynary foundation will cause to the peace of the community and the harmony of the Church. But the Select Committee content themselves with a * L. Bradish's E-iidcnce. Sec Doc. No. 40, p. 95. f lb. p. 96. \ lb. p. 90. § lb. p. 9o. 7 recital of a fragment of only one clause in the Charter of\&^l, thai recital being inaccurate, through the suppression of a word, more or less impoiiant to the controversy. The writer, therefore, proceeds to supply what is wanting, by quoting, in the first place, the clauses of the Charter, omitted in the Eeport of the Select Committee, which clauses bear upon the questions, " Who are the Corporators of Trinity Church ?" and " How are Corporators of Trinity Church constituted ?" under the Charter of 1697. 1 The Eector is the foremost and first named Corporator, under the Charter. " There shall be a Eector to have care of "the souls of the inhabitants of said parish, and a perpetual succession of Eectors there." "And we further declare that the said Eector of the " parish of Trinity Church in communion of our Protestant " Church of England within our City of New York, shall and " may for ever hereafter have a common seal." " And we are graciously pleased to constitute the Lord " Bishop of London the first Eector of said parish. And our " Eoyal will and pleasure is that he, the said Lord Bishop of " London and his successors, and all such of our loving subjects " as now are or hereafter shall be admitted into the commu- " nion of the aforesaid Protestant Church of England as now " established by our laws, shall be from time to time and for- " ever hereafter a body corporate and politique, in fact and "naiie, by the name of the Eector and inhabitants of our said " Ci".y of New York in communion of our Protestant Church " of England as now established by our laws. And that by " the same name, they and their successors shall and may "haAe perpetual succession, &c." "And that the said Eector shall have the care of the souls "of the inhabitants within the said parish and in the commu- " nicn of the said Protestant Church of England." " And our Eoyal will and pleasure is, further, that the " patronage, advowson, donation, or presentation of and to the " Slid Eector and parish, after the decease of the said first " Lector, or the next avoidance thereof, shall appertain and " belong to and be hereby vested in the Church Wardens and " Testrymen." 8 " And that all the succeeding Kectors of said Parish and " Parish Church (except the first Kector thereof hereby consti- " tuted) shall be presented, collated, instituted and inducted " as other Rectors, Persons and Vicars, respectively, are accus- " tomed to be." " And we do give, grant, ratify and confirm unto the said " Rector and inhabitants of our said City of New York, in "communion of our Protestant Church of England as now " established by our laws, that the said Church and Cemetery " or Church-yard, situate, lying and being within our said City " of New York as aforesaid, shall be the sole and only Parish " Church and Church-yard of our said City of New York" From these various citations from the Charter of 1697, it is plain that the Rector is the Chief Corporator, and so im- portant to the integrity of the Corporation that the Lord Bishop of London was constituted Rector of Trinity Church by the Charter, before any other persons and as the head of the Parish, without whom there could be no Parish." And yet the reader will notice in the paragraph of the Se- lect Committee's Report that the words, "the Rector," are printed in small type, without any marks of quotation, as if he were not an essential officer of the Corporation, but ow/y an appendage, annexed to "all the inhabitants from time to time inhabiting and to inhabit our said City of New Yoik." And the inference which the Select Committee would nave the reader to draw from their singular mode of stating aid of printing the question, is, that "the legal title of the Corpo- ration was therefore declared to be: " The rector and inhabi- tants of our said city of New York, in communion o;' our aforesaid Protestant Church of England," conveying thereby the idea that the Parish of Trinity Church was to be defined, as coextensive with "the inhabitants of Neio York and in com- munion of the Protestant Church of England; " without any necessary parochial connection with and acknowledgment of the Rector of Trinity Church. But the reverse of the Com- mittee's construction appears in the Charter. For, in the Charter, the Rector is constituted first and foremost, and ;hc other Corporators are described as " inhabitants of the Fa- rish;" or as those inhabitants of the City of New York in 9 communion with the Protestant Church of England lolio were under the parochial jurisdiction of the Hector of Trinity Church." By making the Parish of Trinity Church the sole and only Parish of the City of New York, the Charter of 1697 constitutes the Rector of Trinity Church the sole and only Rector of New York. And in such case, agreeably to the laws and usages in Great Britain (except in special cases, made and provided for specially) the geographical limits of the Parish of Trinity Church would embrace the geographical limits of the City and be coincident with them. But it is highly important to observe that the citizens of New York did not, by the Charter of 1697, derive their in- terest in the Corporation of Trinity Church by virtue of their "being inhabitants of the City and in communion with the Church of England," but by virtue of their being under the jurisdiction ecclesiastical of the Rector of Trinity Church, inhabitants of the Parish, and in communion loith the Church of England. This essential relationship with the Rector was established by the Charter of 1697, even when the Parish and the City were coextensive, and while Trinity was the only Parish Church in New York. Much more, is this personal relation- ship with the Rector, the mark and sign of a Corporator, when the City of New York is composed of many Parishes. For, if the Rectors and members of other Parishes may inter- fere in the parochial concerns of Trinity Church, while the Rector and members of Trinity Church may not intrude like- wise into the concerns of those other Parishes, there would he an inequality of prerogative injurious to the Rector and members of Trinity Church, while giving supremacy to the Rectors and members of all other Parishes, enabling them by their greater numbers to override and rule the Corporation of Trinity Church. Or if, on the other hand, the Rectors and members of Parishes may, mutually, invade the Parishes to manage the affairs of one another, then all order will cease and confusion will abound, while the distinction of separate Parishes would be at once ridiculous, then obliterated and brought to nought. Besides, the Act of the Legislature for "incor- 4 10 porating religious societies," which confines electors to their several Parishes, would thereby be evaded, frustrated, and made void. Nor, in either hypothesis, would the evil stop here. But Trinity Church would not only be prevented from choosing her own candidates to be the managers of her estate, but she would be deprived of sending her deputies to the Convention of the Diocese, and thus be utterly silenced ia the Councils of the Church, while other Parishes would possess the double vote of the Trinity deputation and their own besides. In short, to deny to Trinity Church the separate and in- dependent management of her Corporate concerns by admit- ting the community of new Corporations to a voice in her affairs, is simply to extinguish Trinity Parish, to blot out her existence by a matricide, as full of folly as of wickedness. The same rule, therefore, still holds true, now as formerly, that the inhabitants of New York, who, hij the Charter of 1697, are described as members of the Corporation, are those " inhab- itants over whom the Rector of Trinity Church has the care of souls, who are Ecclesiastically under the parochial j uris- diction of the Rector of Trinity Church, and who are com- municants ^'inhabiting the Parish" of Trinity Church. But this view of the relationship of the Corporators, inhab- itants of the city of New York, with the Rector and Parish of Trinity Church, is studiously, and it may be said, artfully, concealed in the printed Eeport of the Select Committee. (2.) The second point to be noticed is, the manner in which, and persons by whom. Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church are to be chosen, according to the provisions of the Charter of 1697. The Eeport of the Select Committee, as well as the " evi- dence" of some of the persons testifying before the Committee, would fain persuade the reader, that "all the inhabitants of the City of New York, in communion of the Church, may, as Cor- porators, vote for Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, and also, that such inhabitants are themselves eligible to be chosen as managers of the estate, and may serve, if chosen, in the Vestry of Trinity Church." And this result 11 is precisely what seems to be the object of the adversaries of Trinity Chiixch to procure. But the " Charter " declares and prescribes that " there " shall be annually and once in every year forever, on the " Thursday in Easter-week, two Church Wardens and twenty " Vestrymen, duly elected by the majority of votes of the in- " habitants of the Parish, in communion as aforesaid." And in case of a vacancy, the " Charter " requires that " the Vestry or any eleven or more of them, shall and may elect " a fit person, inhabitant and householder in the said Parish, " to supply the same." And the better to understand the meaning of the word " Parish," as employed at the date of the Charter, and as still in use and signification in the Ecclesiastical polity in England and in this country, the authorities define a "Parish" to be " the charge of a particular Bector or Priest." No Act of Parliament has ever defined the boundaries of Parishes, but they have " been established as the circumstances of times, places, or persons happened to make them greater or lesser."* And so careful is the " Charter " to maintain the inde- pendency of " the Parish," that, it furthermore ordains " that "the Church Wardens, for the time being, shall not, at any '•'time, dispose of any of the pews or places and pews in the "said Trinity Church, to any person, not an inhabitant of " the said Parish." The Charter is thus wisely solicitous to preserve the immu- nities of the parish from outside intrusion, and to protect the parishioners against any invasion upon their exclusive rights as Corporators. And the Select Committee would have had no grounds for their preposterous assertions, if they had not omitted whole clauses touching the questions "who are the Corporators of Trinity Church ? " and " how are Corporators constituted, under the Charter of 1697 ? " To this point, therefore, we now ask the reader's attention. (3.) The Select Committee afiirm — that the Charter of 1697 " made the Corporation to consist of the rector, together with * Burns' Ec. Law, 133; Jacob's Law Diet., Title Parish; Hooli's Church Dic- tionary' ; Stanton's, do. title Parish. 12 all the inliabitants from time to time inhabiting, and to in- habit our said city of New York, and in communion of our aforesaid Protestant Church of England." The Committee have presented this clause of the Charter as containing the whole answer to the question of incorporation. They convey the idea to the reader, that the Charter is silent, except in this one clause, touching " who are the Corporators and how are they constituted." And the Committee's Eeport corresponds with the arguments, or (as they style them) " the evidence " of some of the persons testifying. Accordingly, they would have us believe that " all the inhabitants of the city of New York, in communion," &c., possess, under the Charter, a vested right as Corporators ; that they need not have any title but this sni^j)Osedvested right ; that the right founded on election, or the submission^to the form of election, is wholly ignored by the Select Committee, as though the Charter contained no such antecedent election, as a condition precedent to a claim to be a Corporator of Trinity Church. The writer, therefore, sup- plies the omission, by quoting the Charter, as follows : " We " do of our like special grace, certain knowledge, and mere " motion, give and grant unto the said Kector and inhabitants, "&c., full power and authority to choose, nominate, and ap- point so many others of our liege people as they shall think "fit, and shall be willing to accept the same, to he members " of the said Church and Corporation and body Politic ; " and them into the same to admit." Did the Select Committee not observe this provision of the Charter of 1697, for the election and admission of members of the Corporation ? Did the witnesses, in their " evidence," not see these pregnant words ? Was the withholding of this clause an accident ? In the argument or " evidence " of the witnesses why was this clause ignored We answer boldly, because this part of the Charter utterly dissipates the claim of a vested right to be a Corporator. Because it confutes the argument that the Law of 1814 " divests " the inhabitants of New York of any right under the Charter of 1697. Because, the prerogative to "admit," implies the prerogative to refuse admission. Because none other but those persons inhabiting New York, and in commu- 13 nion, &c., at the date of the Charter, in 1697, were "vested" by the Charter with the rights of Corporators in Trinity Church. Because, finally, all fresh Corporators must (in addition to the qualifications of being 'parishioners and communicants) be " admitted" by a vote of the Corporation. What shall the candid, honest, and true-hearted citizen say in sufficient condemnation of this unworthy attempt to hoodwink the communitj', and to deceive the members of the Church with the fancy that the Charter of 1697 "invests" them with franchises, rights, privileges, &c., which the Law of 1814 " deprives them of," " divests them of," " excludes them from," denies them ; and which Trinity Church is monopo- lizing without law and against law ! (4.) But this is not all. The writer proceeds to show a fault in the Keport, worse than mere omission of important provi- sions in the Charter, bearing directly on the question in hand. The Select Committee have suppressed a word in their pro- fessed quotation from the Charter ! It is a little word. It is only a preposition. But small as it is, that word is in the Charter, and not recited in the Report which pretends to quote from the Charter. And it is a word quite useful, and even necessary for the just interpretation of the Charter itself, where it describes the qualifications of the Corporators of Trinity Church. The Charter says, " Rectors of the said Parish, to- " gether with all the inhabitants from time to time inhabiting, "and to inhabit." At this point the question arises, "what" inhabitants " are meant .?" or, in other words, "inhabitants of what domicil ? " And the answer is " the inhabitants of the Parish," just spoken of. The sense is quite clear in this connection, to wit, " Rectors of said Parish, together with aU the inhabitants from time to time inhabiting and to inhabit " said Parish. Then follow two further qualifications of the Lay Corpora- tors, to wit : They must be, 1st, " in our said city of New York," and 2nd, " in commxmion of our aforesaid Protestant Church of England." The threefold qualification of Lay Corporators, accordingly, is prescribed in the Charter to be, persons inhabiting the Pa- 14 rish ; in New York ; and in communion with the Church of England. But this interpretation of the Charter, so consonant with other provisions, and so definite in its description of the Cor- porators, is utterly repugnant to the pretended claims of per- sons outside of the Parish, It is subversive of the arguments or " evidence " of many of the witnesses whom the Select Com- mittee summoned before them. It is opposed to the whole drift and scope of the Committee's Keport. And how do the Committee meet the difficulty ? By boldly SUPPRESSING the preposition "m," before the words " our said City of New Yorlc ; " substituting thereby, as the governing word, the verb " to inhabit ; " and by reciting this clause, thus mutilated, and so changed in sense as, by a forced construction, to suit their foregone conclusions ; and then reporting this inaccurate clause as the true recital from the Charier, of the Qualifications of Corporators ! The quotation of the Select Committee reads, persons "inhabiting and to inhabit our said City of New York."* The writer feels pitiful, in following the Select Committee, to detect these inaccuracies. But as the task of detecting is a sorry employment, so the duty of exposing the Committee is a sad, but imperative obligation. All that the writer chooses to trust himself to say, by way of denouncing this false quotation, is, that the absence of that word is a remarkable accident, or a culpable neglect in those persons who have, in this Report, stigmatized the Comptroller of Trinity Church, and who have accused the Corporation of Trinity Church, from the year 1813 till 1857, with a " course " of conduct consistent only " with deliberate and premeditated fraud ! " Physician, heal thyself ! The writer has thus endeavored to show what has been omitted and what suppressed in the second paragraph of that portion of the Report of the Select Committee, which treats of the history of the Incorporation of Trinity Church. III. Let us pass on, next, to the third paragraph of the same narration. The report states as follows : » Sen. Doc. No. 46, p. 14. 15 "The act of the Colonial Legislature of 1704, confirms the essential powers of the Corporation by the same title, adding the words 'and their successors.' " The Eeport of the Select Committee, in reciting the above act of 1704, conveys the idea that such an act exists, " con- firming " and " adding " certain things ; and these things are, Kector and inhabitants of the city of New York, and their successors. But why did not the Committee state the fact that the act of 1704 is rejyealed ? Why attempt to uphold those Episcopalians who do not belong to the Corporation of Trinity Church, in their pretension to be Corporators, by naming the extinct act of 1704 ? The reason, on the face of the Keport, is too plain to be hidden. It is evidently because the act of 1704 " confirms the title " The Kector and inhabit- ants of the City of New York, "and because the said act" adds the words " and their successors." It is curious to detect the littleness of the artifice of all this. 1/ the Act of 1704 were in being, then the words in the Corporate title of Trinity Church in that act, to wit, " Rector " and inhabitants of the City of New York and their succes- " sors " would give color to the claim that the present genera- tion of " inhabitants of the City of New York, in communion with the Protestant Episcopal Church," are vested with the rights of Corporators of Trinity Church. A popular notion of "franchises," "rights," "privileges," " vested interests," &c., might thereby be fostered in the minds of " the great body of Episcopalians in the city of New York," who, under the delusive belief that they were "excluded,'' " deprived," " divested," and wronged by Trinity Church, would join in an assault upon Trinity Church, and would unite in procuring a repeal of the Act of the Legislature of 1814. Besides, it is an easy thing to persuade the cupidity of men that they have rights in property. And it is not diffi- cult to rouse them to anger, if yow can only inject the fancy that somebody is withholding from them their just rights. For no other reason, that the writer can imagine, do the Select Committee adduce " the Act of 1704," and recite its pecuHar title ; omitting, the while, to state the fact that 7io such act has any being and force. 16 It becomes necessary, therefore, to supply the neglect of the Select Committee, by citing the clause in the Act of the Legislature of the State of New York, " passed 17th April, 1784," wherein the Act of 1704 was annulled, as contrary to the new order of things brought about by the Revolution, and repugnant to the Constitution of the State. " In order to remove all doubts which may arise in the " minds of any persons, with respect to the continuance, force, " and effect of a certain Act of the Legislature of this State " while a Colony, . . . passed on the twenty-seventh day of June, " one thousand seven hundred and four, entitled, ' An Act for "granting sundry privileges and powers to the Rector and " inhabitants of the City of New York of the Communion of the Church of England, as by Law established ; Be it " therefore further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that "the said Act ' (with others enumerated by their respective " titles) is ' hereby declared to he fully and absolutely ahro- " gated, abolished, annulled, repealed, and made void, as in- " consistent with, and repugnant to, the Constitution of this "State.""' And notwithstanding the Select Committee adduce this very Act of 1784, in a following paragraph in their Report, yet they avoid noticing the above quoted words (so strong and so thorough that one would suppose they could not fail to at- tract attention), and the Select Committee venture to allege the abrogated Act of 1704, suggesting its peculiar title, as though that Act of 1704 were still potential ! To state tliis conduct of the Select Committee is sufficient for all honest readers to condemn it. IV. The Select Committee conclude their sketch of the history of the incorporation of Trinity Church, in these words : " The Legislature of New York, in 1784, confirmed all the original powers of the Corporation without altering the Cor- porate name, which, however, in 1788, was altered so as to substitute the ' Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New York ' for the ' Protestant Church of England.' And no further legislative action took effect until the year 1814." f * Act of 1784. t Sen. Doc. No. 46, p. 14. 17 The writer would further add, that this Act of 1784, with the consent of Trinity Church, enlarged the constituency of the Corporation by admitting pewholders, and all persons oc- cupying sittings, who regularly contributed to the support of the said Church : and such others as should, in said Church, partake of the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, stated- ly, being inhabitants of the City and County of New York, and professing themselves members of the Episcopal Church. The Act of 1814, declaratory of the former Acts touching the Charter of Trinity Church, so far regulates the constitu- ent members of the Corporation, as to conform with the " Gen- eral Statute " (under which all the Episcopal Churches in the State of New York are governed), by the provision " That all male persons of full age, who, for the space of one year preceding any election shall have been members of the congre- gation," &c., shall be entitled to vote at the annual elections, for the Church Wardens, and Vestrymen of the said Corpora- tion* The difference in the constituency of the parish by the Act of 1784 and the Act of 1814, consists in substituting " all male persons of full age " for " all persons ; " and in re- quiring voters to have been members of the congregation for the space of one year. These persons, with the regular and stated communicants in the parish, constitute the members of the Corporation of Trinity Church. V. Following the Select Committee's Report, it becomes proper, at this stage of our discussion, to inquire as briefly as possible into the history, and to state the recorded facts, re- specting the Act of the Legislature, entitled " An Act to al- ter the name of the^ Corporation of Trinity Church in New York, and for other purposes," " passed Januaiy 25, 1814." The above-named Act was passed on the petition of the Vestry of Trinity Church, in their corporate title of " the Rector and inhabitants of the City of New York, in commu- nion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New York." The petition of the Vestry shows, 1. That the Corpora- • Compare the Act of 1784 with Act of 1814. 2 18 tion liad been a body corporate by virtue of their Charter of 1697. 2. That the Charter contemplated Trinity Church as the sole and only Parish Church in the City of New York ; and that it continued so to be until the Eevolution, and for a number of years afterwards. 3. That the Act of the Legislature in 1784 enlarged the number of Corporators (as noticed already) in the provision for admitting persons holding pews and sittings, &c. 4. That since the passing of said Act of 1784, the pew- holders, and the regular communicants of Trinity Church, and the Chapel have been admitted to vote at elections. 5. That furthermore, since the year 1784, owing to the rapid growth of the City of New York, the churchmen in the city have formed themselves into distinct Corporations, each having its peculiar endowments and place of worship, with Rectors and other officers of their own choice, independent of Trinity Church, and free from all control and interference of Trinity Church. 6. That, to all those Churches, whether formed with or without the concurrence of Trinity Church, she had made liberal donations, at the same time disclaiming any right or disposition to intermeddle with their internal concerns, and denying them their right to vote in the elections, or to regu- late the affairs, of Trinity Church. 7. That, nevertheless, a few individuals belonging to such separate Corporations, tendered themselves at the Annual Election of the year 1812, and pretended to claim a right to vote for Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church ; that their votes were rejected, and no measures had been taken by the rejected persons to establish the right so claimed. 8. That such attempts cannot fail to produce strife, and to foster pretensions both unreasonable and mischievous. 9. That in view of all these facts, and being especially convinced that, since the formation~of many distinct Churches, the corporate name of Trinity Church, to wit : — " The Rector and inhabitants," &c., has become inapplicable, and ought to be changed ; that all doubts respecting the persons entitled 19 to vote for Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, ought to be finally obviated and settled. 10. That, furthermore, the law requiring certain religious corporations to exhibit an inventory of their estates, is at- tended with trouble and expense, and being once exhibited it would be useless to exhibit it again, unless the Corporation should have acquired further estates. 11. Therefore the petitioners pray that the honorable Leg- islature "will pass an Act for altering the name of their in- " corporation ; and also to obviate and settle the questions " that might arise in consequence of incorporating other Epis- " copal congregations in the City of New York; and to do "away the necessity of such inventory and account being ex- " hibited more than once, unless upon the acquisition of addi- " tional property by religious corporations." Such is a fair and true abstract of the petition of Trinity Church to the Legislature of the State of New York, setting forth the reasons for the same, and containing all the motives and 'persuasions loMcli Trinity Church thought Jit to urge upon the Legislature to secure the passage of the act q/" 1814. This document was before the Select Committee of the Senate in 1857. And yet that Committee, in their Keport, now before us, scarcely allude to this petition of Trinity Church ; which, the reader will observe, is dignified in its utterance, clear in its statements, and cogent in its conclu- sions. But the Select Committee, blind 'J^o this authentic document, sets forth an entirely different paper — a paper not addressed to the Legislature, not written until after the Le- gislature had passed the act of 1814 in both Houses, not emanating from the Corporation of Trinity Church, not even suggested by Trinity Church or its friends, but (as the paper states on its face) suggested by another party ; a paper, the responsibility for which is assumed by him who signed it — by him only ; and not capable, one would think, of being tor- tured into an authoritative " pledge," " promise," or " lepre- sentation," from either its writer or any other person or per- sons ; being entitled " Remarks, &c.," and consisting of argu- ments, and signed by " Eobt. Troup," under date of 6 Sept., 1813, in the city of New York. 20 This private paper, the Select Committee of the Senate have the hardihood to quote, as emanating from the Vestry of Trinity Church, and containing "representations," " prom- ises," and pledges, which Trinity Church has falsified and violated, and as setting forth the " inducements" to the Legis- lature to pass this act of 1814. And on the conclusions drawn from their own reasoning on these false premises, the Select Committee charge upon the Wardens and the Vestrymen of Trinity Church in 1813-14, and upon the members of the Corporation since that time, dishonesty and meanness, and (if they had dared) " fraud," in procuring the act of 1814 under false pretences. But let us recite the Select Committee's words ; and afterwards the writer will proceed to substantiate his accusations against the Committee's statements, arguments, and conclusions. " Your Committee do not charge that, in obtaining the " law of 1814 under the representations employed for that "purpose, the Corporation were guilty of deliberate and pre- " meditated fraud, in setting forth inducements which they " never intended to realize. But thus much your Committee " feel bound to say, that if there had been any such fraudulent " intention to obtain power under that law, in order to defeat " the very ends which it proposed to secure, your Committee " cannot see that it would have been necessary for the Cor- " poration, in that case, to alter in any respect that which has " been their actual course, in order to carry out such fraudulent " intention with entire success."f These insinuations are serious charges against honorable men. Emanating from the high station of Senators of New York, these imputations acquire a force to crush those upon whom they fell, unless those intended victims were sus- tained in the strength of compact integrity. But if the charges be false, no station is high enough to protect the authors of the slander from a rebounding stroke which shall hurl them amongst the ignoble herd of detractors and false accusers of their fellow-citizens. The gentlemen against whom the accusations of the Select * Sen. Doc. No. 46, p. 16, &c. t Sen. Doc. No. 46, Report of Sel. Com. p. 26. 21 Committee are aimed, are the Vestry of Trinity Church, and especially the Committee ',of the Vestry, in 1813, who were appointed to apply to the Legislature. That Committee was composed of Eichard Harrison, David M. Clarkson, Thomas Barrow, Eobert Troup, Jacob Le Roy, Peter Augustus Jay, and Thomas L. Ogden. These are names of gentlemen whom the breath of slander has never sullied in their lifetime ; and it shall be the writer's pious tribute to their honored memory, to protect those names from slander, now that they are dead. It has been shown to the reader that the reasons of the Vestry for applying to the Legislature for the act of 1814, were set forth in their " petition and that the Select Com- mittee do not ground their charges against the Vestry on that petition. And furthermore, the " petition " of Trinity Church is the only extant authoritative document from which the Select Committee might derive matter on which to base any charges against the Vestry in the premises. Accordingly, the Select Committee resort to the pamphlet of Eobert Troup, before mentioned ; where we follow on upon the traces of their specious reasoning. The Select Committee affirm that " as an inducement to the Legislature to pass this act of 1814, Col. Troup, who appears to have acted throughout as the authorized agent of Trinity Church in procuring its passage, declared before the Council of Eevision, ' Judging from the past, it is morally certain,' &c. Now, in the first place, it is in proof before the Select Committee, that Col. Troup's pamphlet, from which the Select Committee make the quotations, was not written until after the act of 1814 liad passed both Houses of the Legis- lature. We say that the evidence of this fact was before the Select Committee, in the testimony of one of the witnesses whom they had summoned. The Hon. L. Bradish, in his 8th answer, says, "From the journals of the Legislature and the Council of Eevision, which I have examined, it appears that the petition of Trinity Church, for the act of 1814, was presented in the Senate of the State on the 17th March, 1813, a bill brought in, which 22 was passed by that body on the 25th March, 1813, and by the Assembly on the 2d of April, 1813." In the " 11th Answer" of the Hon. L. Bradish, he alludes to and quotes from the same Pamphlet of " Kobert Troup," giving its date, of" 6th of September, 1813." Notwithstanding this evidence before the Select Committee they do not scruple to allege an argument, uttered in Septem- ber, as proof of an inducement to the Legislature" to pass an Act in the months of March and April preceding ! According to the logic of the Select Committee, the induce- ment for the Act of the two Houses did not exist until Jive or six months after the tioo Houses had passed the Act ! And, fur- thermore, the Pamphlet of Judge Troup is itself a confutation of the allegation of the Select Committee, both in the Title and in the first sentence. The title of the Pauiphlet is " Remarks on the Bill, entitled, An Act to alter the name of the Corporation of Trinity Church, and for other purposes." And the first sentence of the Pamphlet is this : " The Bill loas popidar in both Houses of the Legislature, and it p)assed by large majorities." If the Select Committee of the Senate did really examine the document from which they quote, sentence after sentence, in their Report, a more glaring and scandalous misstatement could not confound them. And yet the falsehood runs through- out this Report, wherein the Remarks of Judge Ti'oup, uttered after the passage of the Act of 1814, are alleged as " induce- ments" to said Act. In pity and in charity the writer has sought to find an ex- planation in behalf of the Select Committee. And the first hypothesis that occurs is this : that the Select Committee did not lorite their Report ; it was com- posed for them, perhaps, by many journeymen hands ; and hence the incompatibilities, inconsistencies, and sophistries manifest on its pages. But secondly, The Select Committee have signed the Report, and thereby have assumed the re- sponsibility for its stateiuents and its issues. Therefore, the plausible idea occurs, that the Select Committee did not mean to have the reader understand the term " the Legislature," to signify the " two Houses of Senate and Assembly," because •23 (as the State Constitution then stood) a " Council of Kevi- sion" existed to supervise the Acts which had passed both Houses with qualified power to veto such of said Acts as the majority of the Council disapproved. Therefore, inasmuch as Judge Troup's pamphlet was addressed to " the Council of Revi- sion," and " the Council of Revision" was a quasi part of the " Legislature," it may be affirmed that the " Legislature" were " induced" to pass the Act of 1814 through Judge Troup's persuasive reasoning before " the Council of Revision." But this plea for the Special Committee will hardly serve, because the Council of Revision happened (as Hon. L. Bradish testifies in his 8th Answer before the Select Committee) to be " equally dinded. No order was made thereon, and the bill became a law by lapse of time, without ever having received the express sanction of the executive department of the Government."* Accordingly, it appears that after all, only the tioo Houses of the Senate and Assembly are the " Legislature" who passed upon the Act of 1814, induced thereto by Judge Troup's pamphlet, ichich teas not then written .'" But, furthermore, this plea for the Select Committee is confuted out of their own mouths : for the Select Committee say in their Report, that " Under these inducements" (refer- ring to a passage by them quoted from Judge Troup's pam- phlet immediately preceding) "the bill passed both HousES."f To casuists more adroit than honest, the writer must leave the Statement of the Select Committee's Report to find a plea to justify or even to extenuate such absurdities and untruths. The writer calls the reader's notice next to the reasoning: of the Select Committee, by which, with a sort of feline stealthiness, they approach their conclusion of a " fraud." The Statement of the Select Committee now under review, furthermore affirms, that " Col. Troup appears to have acted throughout as the authorized agent of Trinity Church, in pro- curing the passage"! of the Law of 1814. This very guarded and qualified statement of Col. Troup's * Sen. Doc. 46, p. 95, and L. Bradish's Testimony, f Sen. Doc. No. 46, p. 7. X Sen. Doc. 46, p. 16, 17, 24 " authorized agency," is soon magnified into an unqestionable " authorized" agency, but so quietly and cunningly as almost to escape observation. In the next reference to Col. Troup's pamphlet, as quoted by the Select Committee, " Col. Troup" disappears, and his place is supplied by a neuter pronoun. " It was urged, as ' morally certain,' that the Corporators, " &c."* " The frequent execution of this power," it was (' represented'^ " would break down" the estate of Trinity Church."f These quotations are cited from Col. Troup's pamphlet. Then, further on, a page or two in the Select Committee's Report, the " neuter pronoun" is made to give place to the Vestry (while " Col. Troup" is introduced in a parenthesis, as a subordinate). " The increase of population in the City of New York, it was urged by the Vestry, through Col .Troup," made it " morally certain " that Trinity would,:]: &c. Again " The new policy of Trinity Corporation has therefore disap- pointed the authoritative representation of Colonel Troup."§ Then, in the very next paragraph, " Colonel Troup is dis- missed, to appear on the stage no more, and Trinity Church is put in the forefront, as making "pledges." " The Evi- dence," say the Select Committee, " shows that another evil " has arisen out of this failure on the part of Trinity Church " to fuljil the pledges under which she obtained the law of " 1814."|| The reader, who has followed the artful statements of the Eeport of the Select Committee, will now discern the method by which the Committee has contrived to insinuate the charge of " fraud" on Trinity Church, in procuring the enactment of the law of 1814. But the writer craves the reader's patience and asks him to restrain his expression of indignation until he further acquaints him with the utter contradiction of the statement that Judge Troup has spoken in his Pamphlet at the sugges- tion of the Corporation of Trinity Church. In the first paragraph of Judge Troup's Pamphlet, he says, " Two members of that Honorable Body (meaning the * Sen. Rep. 46, p. 18. \ lb. p. 18. % Sen. Doc. 46, p. 20. § Sen. Doc. 46, p. 21. \ lb. p. 22. 25 Council of Revision) were pleased to express a desire that the subscriber would furnish them with liis reasons in support of the Bill." But let us cite the whole paragraph, even at the cost of tautology. " The Bill was popular in both Houses of the Legislature, and it passed by large majorities. Certain objections were, notwithstanding, reported against it in the Council of Kevi- sion ; and these remain to be acted upon at the next meeting of the Council. Two members of that llonorable Body were pleased to express a desire that the subscriber would furnish them with his reasons in support of the bill ; and in compli- ance with this desire, the following remarks are most respect- fully submitted."* With this authoritative statement of Judge Troup himself before their eyes, the writer, or any other honest man, finds it impossible to pardon the Select Committee for their attempt to identify " Trinity Church" with " Judge Troup," and to make his private opinions and pious hopes, their " promises" and " pledges." And the writer, therefore, publishes it to the Church and to the world that the Select Committee of the Senate of the State of New York in 1S57, passing over the published Petition of the Vestry of Trinity Church, in luhich Petition and in that only, they authoritatively allege the reaso7isfor the Law of 1814, have, in their Keport, set forth the private reasons of an advocate in the character of pledges authorized by a Corporation : and thereby, without any cause, they have held up the Vestry of Trinity before the Senate as responsible for opinions which they never expressed, and for promises which they never made, and for inducements which they did not sug- gest, and pledges which they never offered. And this iniquity of the Special Committee is conceived and born in the design to represent the Corporation of Trinity Church as obtaining the Law of 1814 under false pretence.'', insinuating the odious imputation of "fraud" upon the memories of the dead, and * Remarks oq Trinity Church Bill before the Couacil of Revision, by Robert Troup, Esq.i one of the Veitryonen of Trinity Church, p. 1. 26 upon the chamcter of the living gentlemen, who have com- posed the Vestiy of Trinity Church since the year 1813. VI. The writer furthermore arraigns the Report of the Select Committee before the bar of public opinion in the mer- cantile world. The Report, before it attempts the positive charge of a "course" of fraudulent conduct on the Vestry of Trinity Church prepares the reader for said charge by a financial statement. Trinity Church, in her Report of 1855 to the Legislature, in answer to their demands, presented an estimate of her es- tate derived from the value of her lots as appraised by the Bworn Assessors of the city of New York, and from the value of the houses belonging to her tenants, as appraised by her own agents. These agents were carpenters and masons, not Episcopa- lians, except one of them, nor in any way under the influence of Trinity Church. Furthermore, the Vestry employed a public Consulting Actuary to calculate the value of the Rever- sions, in order to reach " the present value " of her Estate. The results of these appraisals and calculations, the Vestry reported to the Legislature in obedience to their requisition. The Special Committee to whom the Report of Trinity Church was referred, have chosen to dispute[the accu- racy of these Estimates of the i^roperty of Trinity Church. In doing so, the Special Committee include Bonds given to Trinity Church by the churches whom Trinity has endowed, notwithstanding these bonds are never enforced. They have also reckoned into the account the interest on these bonds, although the interest is never demanded, nor entered into her accounts. They have ignored the declaration of the Vestry, that " these bonds on the Churches are demanded in order to insure them, perpetually to be used for the sacred purposes to which the Churches are consecrated." But because, in the event of any attempt to alienate those Churches, Trinity may demand the repayment of the principal and interest of the bDnds, the Select Committee have chosen to reckon them as part of the assets of the Corporation of Trinity. The Select Committee have included, also, an interest of Trinity Church in St. John's Park ; which the Vestry has 27 refused to sell, except for an exorbitant price, set upon it in order to discourage the attempt to buy it. In this way the Select Committee has reported the estate of Trinity Church to be "j^ue times the amount," which the Keport of 1855 estimated the estate. The object of the Select Committee, in this exaggerated calculation, was, plainly, to convict the Vestry of Trinity Church of falsehood, in underrating their property. Now, the point to which the writer would ask the attention of the honorable mercantile community is this: The calculation of the Select Committee, on page 12 of their Report, in Sen. Doc, No. 46, produces an aggregate sum of — §7,092,544 76 Deduct on account of Leases yet to run as estimated in the Report itself, (say the Select Committee), $1,222,338 29 Debt (of the Cor- poration of Trinity Church), 648,913 00 $1,871,251 29 Net total present value, $5,221,293 47 The Committee exclaim : " More than five times the net total given in the Eeport." The merchant will notice, however, that the sum to de- duct on account of leases yet to run " (with seeming but most delusive candor), is " estimated" according to the estimate of Trinity Clmrcli in their '^report" of 1855. But this very estimate in the Beport of 1855 is accused of being only one-fifth of the true sum, in the opinion of the Se- lect Committee. Notwithstanding, the Select Committee, in spite of their condemnation, adopt this very diminished estimate of '"the value of the leases yet to run," on the low percentage which they themselves condemn. The purpose is patent. It is to increase, by this means, the sum total of the estate of Trinity 28 Church so as to deceive the Senate and the community with the flourish of "more than fiv- above by the calculations of Mr. Entz ) $1,468,116 36 Produces an over estimate of the Select ) Committee, bv ihetr own showing, of a total >• of. " ) $2,440,079 25 29 Surely, this is an unfortunate exposure of the Select Com- mittee of the Honorable Senate of the State of New York, •who are miserably striving to convict Trinity Church of finan- cial errors ! Again we apply to this Select Committee this sacred proverb, in all seriousness, " physician heal thyself! " There is but one more point to which the writer would call attention. It touches the witnesses " whom the Select Com- mittee relied on in framing their Keport to the question, 'How many /ree Churches are there in New York,' " not one of the witnesses mentioned Trinity Church, the noblest Free Church of all. In view of the examination which the writer has been at pains to undertake, he would conclude with a sigh at the evi- dence, which the Report of the Select Committee unfolds, of the infirmity of sinful men, in their attempts to deceive them- selves. But there is another feeling, also clamoring to be heard and expanded. It is the feeling of indignation against the Select Committee and their advisers; it is the sentiment of generous sympathy with Trinity Church ; it is the uprising of outraged humanity, aroused to the conviction that its credulity has been abused, and its confidence in Senators impaired, and its trust in brethren betrayed. While, therefore, the writer (with the Select Committee) condemns the former policy (now revoked) of the Vestry of Trinity Church (as evinced in the leases of pews in Trinity Chapel), in the attempt to prevent the enlargement of her constituent corporators — while he advises the widest admission of all who are duly qualified into the Corporation, and while he would cultivate and cherish intimate relationships of broth- erhood with all fellow-churchmen, he would, at the same time, repel the brethren of other corporations from intermeddling with the corporate elections of Trinity Church, earnestly advocating the stability of the law, and pleading with the Legislature of New York to listen to no such representations as are set forth in the Eeport of the Select Committee. Let it be by public justice ordained, that the Law of 1814 shall stand ; for the honor of the State ; for the peace of the Church ; for the good of posterity ; and to the confusion of misguided zealots and covetous men. 30 The writer would now draw together the threads of his examination and exposure of the Select Committee's Keport, by recapitulation. He indicts and denounces the Report of the Select Committee, as false and deluding, on these several counts : 1. It states only that " the site" of Trinity Church at the head of Wall street, is a vested and consecrated property, omitting to include the grave-yard and cemetery adjoining. 2. It omits to recite certain clauses of the Charter of 1697, necessary to the question touching the " admission " of Cor- porators into the Corporation of Trinity Church. 3. It suppresses an important word in the clause of the Charter of 1G97, which it professes to quote verbatim. 4. It reasons inconclusively from its falsified premises. 5. It has adduced an act of the Colonial Legislature, as being potential, which is abrogated and annulled as unconsti- tutional. 6. It has appealed to prejudices and to covetousness, hold- ing forth expectations to the inhabitants of New York, which have no good foundation. 7. It has neglected to state the true grounds on which Trinity Church applied for the Law of 1814. 8. It has substituted the arguments of an advocate, in the place of the reasons of the Cori)oration. 9. It has held up these arguments, so substituted, as in- ducements to the two Houses of the Legislature to pass the Law of 1814. 10. It has alleged those arguments as " inducements " to the said law, though the law was passed by the two Houses of the Legislature, months before the arguments were penned and published. 11. It has, on these fallacious representations, insinuated the odious charge of fraudulent conduct in the Vestries of Trinity Church, since 1813. 12. It has falsified figures in its own representation of the Estate of Trinity Church, by its method of estimating the " present value " of said estate. 31 13. It has committed all these wrongs on Trinity Church, on the Honorable Senate, on the Community, on Justice, Truth, and Honor — knowingly, and wilfully, and shamefully. I have the duty of subscribing myself, A Member of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 1 I A LETTER FROM THE HON. D. D. BAENARD, ADDRESSED TO THE HON. ERASTUS BROOKS, SENATOR, &C., ON THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST TRINITY CHURCH, NOW PENDING m THE SENATE OF THE STATE. ALBANY: VAN BENTHUTSEN, PRINTER, 407 BROADWAY. 1857. LETTER, &a Amany, March 23, 1857. The Hon. Erastus Brooks, Senator, §-c. Dear Sir — From the seclusion in which I am living, I have watched, with a good deal of interest and solicitude, the proceed- ings had within the last two. years in the Body of which you are an honored member, and the movements and labors of a select committee of your number, in reference to the aifairs and the property of Trinity Church, in the city of New- York. The final action of this committee has forced on my mind the conclusion, that there is 8ome danger that a monstrous wrong and mischief may be perpetrated in the hurried and closing hours of the present Legislative Session. I hope it may not be thought too presuming in me that I should seek an occasion to offer to the members of the Legislature some suggestions and views on the general subject to which the doings of the select committee of the Senate relate. I have thought I might do this, without im- propriety, in the form of a letter addressed to you^ and I add mj name, because if any responsibility attaches to such a com- 4 muuication, I do not desire that any doubt should arise as to whom it shpuld rest upon. I address my letter to you, because I know you, and entertain for you a very high respect, and a very strong personal regard. I do not know, nor have I under- stood, what your opinions may be, if, in the muliiplieity of your official labors, you have already formed any, in regard to what the committee has done, or the action it now proposes to the Senate. What I do know is, that on all questions, whether of private right or of public justice, your views are apt to be sound, enlightened, and conservative. I have thought it probable, as most in accordance with your known habits and character, if you have not yet found time to enter on a thorough examination of the matters connected with the labors of the committee re- ferred to, that you have kept your mind free and open to truth and to all just convictions on the subject. And the object I have in view in addressing you will be fully accomplished, if I shall be able to afford you or others any aid towards forming wise and just conclusions in the premises. I will add only in this connection, that I stand in no other relation to Trinity Church than that of au independent citizen, and Episcopalian, of the same State. I am not her counsel, or her adviser, and least of all, her partizan. I am not in her secrets, if she has any ;^ and if, as some seem to suppose, she forms a centre for extreme opinions on Church questions , I am not of her party. I am not of any party In the Church, and do not intend to be. I am a churchman, and nothing above and nothing below that mark. I see in Trinity Church a stewardship of means, as I think, both legally and pro- videntially provided, for the accomplishment of great good, in the future as in times past, to the cause of pure religion through the forms and ministrations of the Episcopal Church, and in pro- moting Christian education and Christian charities. I have not been accustomed to suppose that her affairs have always been managed with the utmost possible efficiency, or without some occasional errors. But I have a better opinion of her now, since I have read the testimony that has been elicited before the select committee, than ever before. Watched,as she always has been, 5 and always must be, with ten thousand jealous and longing eyes constantly upon her and her possessions, it would be difficult for her to go very far wrong, even if the high and blameless character,at all times, of those who havehad thereponsible agency of her affairs, were less a guaranty for her than it is. And while I do not see how it is possible to take the property in her posses- sion, or the management of it, out of her hands, without the grossest violation of all the securities which surround all private property and private rights, I do not find anything, even if this were possible, in the attitude towards this subject, of those (for many of whom personally I entertain the highest respect,) who propose to assume to themselves the property of Trinity Church and the responsibilities attached to it, calculated to impress me with the belief that the world, or any part of it, would be bene- fited by the change. The first thing to which I wish to call your attention, is, that the matter before the Senate for its action, on the report of its select committee, is one strictly affecting private rights. The case is shortly and simply this. The parish of Trinity Church, in New- York, is an incorporated religious and eleemosynary body. It is a legal person, known in law by a legal name. It possesses, and claims to own, certain property. It exercises, and claims the right to exercise, exclusive control over this pro- perty, through its own officers, elected by its own corporators, members of the parish, whom alone it admits to the franchise of voting for such officers. Now certain persons, inhabitants of the city, outside of the parish of Trinity, and not members of it, are understood to set up, each for himself, individually, a claim to be part owner, legally and beneficially, of the property in the possession of Trinity Church, and to be legally entitled to the franchise of voting for the officers of that parish. The bill introduced into the Senate by its committee, has for its object to put these persons in possession of what they are understood to claim as their rights of property and franchise, or to give them facilities and advantages, with strong Legislative encouragement, for practicing and enforcing those rights. You will see, there- fore, that the bill is one having relation strictly to private » 6 rights, and nothing else. They are not the less private because a corporation and corporators are concerned. The dispute, so far as there really is anything to dispute about, concerns the property of a private corporation and the franchise of its corpo- rators, to both which, certain individuals, not recognized by the corporation, set up a claim. If it was a case of disputed title to lands under deeds of conveyance, between natural persons, or of disputed inheritance among heirs under a will, that would not be more strictly a case of disputed private rights than this is. Now, I think it is by no means impertinent to enquire how the Senate has come to be possessed of this case. I believe I am correct in saying, that up to the time of the committee bringing in the bill referred to, no petition or memorial of any sort or description whatever, from any person or persons whatever, had been presented to the Senate in relation to the subject. The Senate had not been asked to move in this matter of private rights Tne movement appeared to originate within that body itself, and so far as that body had official notice, without any prompting from without. But it is now apparent that the origi- nal movement, in April, 1855 — calling on the vestry of Trinity Church for a Report, was an insidious one, and did not disclose the real design. It is quite manifest now that the real object was, to come, by slow and covert approaches, to the measure of private benefit now proposed by the committee. The same cpvert design was steadily pursued in the reference of the ves- try's Report to a select committee, and in the authority procured for the sitting of that committee during the recess of the Senate, with the vague and roving commission " to examine into the matters connected" with that Report. The whole protracted proceeding has resulted just as it was no doubt originally in- tended it should result, in a bill to give private parties relief ir» a matter of private rights. If any parallel case can be found in the history of the legislation of this State, I am not aware of it. The practice of legislation all over this country, is, that private bills, and bills afiecting private rights and interests, shall be introduced only on petition or memorial of the parties. Mem- 7 bers of a legislative body do not move in behalf of private claims and interests unless a case be made for them from without, any more than judges take the initiative of suits for private parties in their own courts. Such a practice is as unseemly and as danger- ous in the one case as it would be in the other. I do not know what you or others may think of it, but I think the ordinary forms of legislation have been grossly misemployed in this case, and the dignity of the Senate abused, by the manner in which it has been drawn into this proceeding. And I think that any member of the Senate who has voluntarily made himself the instrument of private persons to carry forward their enterprise, while they were carefully concealing themselves from the pub- lic view, and h-om the body of which he is a member — at least until concealment was no longer an object — has greatly over- stepped the bounds of duty and propriety belonging to his ofiice. The dignity, the safety and the purity of legislation are put at hazard by a proceeding of this sort, and it well becomes the Senate, as the least that is due to its own honor, to look with extreme and high distrust on a measure of private import like this, introduced in so irregular and so unbecoming a manner. I learn from the published proceedings of the Legislature, that the parties in interest in this measure, first presented them- selves to the Senate in a memorial, on the 14th instant, the day after the bill from the Committee had been introduced. This was the first time the Senate had heard their voice in the mat- ter in any way, except as the first Report of the committee showed that some of them had previously appeared as witnesses before the committee. A few days earlier these parties held a public meeting in New-York, and appointed a managing com- mittee of their number, and that committee made a publication, setting forth "the precise nature and extent of the object of their application to the Legislature of the State for the repeal or amendment of the act of 1814." That application, however was not presented to the Legislature until the 14th instant. Yet it is not to be doubted that somebody outside of the Senate, hooded and masked from the public view, and from the eye of 8 tlie Senate, has liad this case in hand, and has conducted and managed the whole proceedings from the first movement in the Senate in 1855. The call upon the vestry of Trinity Church for a Report; the referring of that Report to a committee; the com- position of that committee; the clothing of the committee with such curiously comprehensive powers; the plan of operations in New-York to make use of a committee of the Senate of the State to get up materials for a Report intended to be very damag- ing to the character of the opposite party in this question and contest about private rights ; the Report thus got up, and based on testimony supplied by outside agencies; the employment of certain newspapers to circulate in a condensed form the vil- lifying matter of that Report; and finally the second Report of the committee, and the bill accompanying it; all this has been part of one concerted scheme of operations, set on foot and steadily pursued and managed, directed and controled by some person or persons outside of the Senate. After the signal failure of the parties in interest in this mat- ter before the Legislature ten years ago, when they went straight to their object by memorial, and in an open, direct and manly way, claiming the same rights of property and the same franchise as are claimed for them now, and asking, as is asked now, for the repeal or modification of the act of 1814, and when the whole subject was investigated on both sides in the most thorough manner, with surpassing ability, and with the aid of the most eminent counsel in the State; after that failure, it does not appear very clear how these parties in interest should have been induced to move in the matter again in any way. My impression is, that other persons — not Episcopalians, and caring nothing for the Episcopal church, unless it be to sow discord and confusion among its people, and if possible get rid of its power and conservative influence altogether — that other persons, having interests and ends of their own to serve, must have been engaged in this movement from the beginning. These persons, knowing that it had failed before when the case stood simply on its own merits, must have suggested for 9 the undertaking the kind of tactics now employed, fitted perhaps for other fields of enterprise, but not for this, and which, they no doubt thought promised a better and indeed the only chance of success. The plan was, as we now see plainly enough, to keep back the matter of this private claim, and to begin with getting up a preliminary proceeding, a movement which should seem to indicate that some evil or mischief of a public nature, not known to everybody, but requiring the hand of legislative reform, was to be developed : such a measure as any Senator might move in, without any special prompting, on the general grounds of patriotism and public duty. It was to be made at first to stand before the people, and before the Senate, on the ground of a measure contemplating the redress of some great public grievance or abuse. The original Resolutions of April, 1855, being introduced by a Senator without petition or memo- rial from any quarter, of necessity implied, if it. was to be taken as a matter in any way fit for legislative initiation, that in the opinion of the mover there was some probable ground, in some- thing Trinity Chureh had done, or failed to do, or perhaps in some unlocked for event or occurrence, to require the Legisla- ture of the State as the guardian of the common weal, to interpose on its own motion with apropriate remedies. And these Resolu- tions were framed with such nice particularity, and they so hedged about and cornered up the answers required to be given, that the plain inference from them was, that the mover knew a great deal more than was safe yet to reveal, and that when the an- swers should come something quite astounding would be dis- closed. Now, however, that the object contemplated from the begin- ning has at last been reached, in a proposed measure of relief to private parties, resting, if resting any where, on a strict ground of personal and legal right, and nothing else, we see how much there was that was hollow and colorable merely, in the show and aspect of public consideration and public policy or duty, so adroitly thrown around the previous proceedings. It is now reduced to a positive demonstration that a harrassing 10 and inquisitorial proceeding towards Trinity Cliurch has been carried forward for nearly two years, in which the authority of the Senate of this State has been employed, at the secret insti- gation, and under the secret direction, of persons outside of the Senate, and who, if outside of the Episcopal church also, had no possible claim to invoke that power in any form whatever. The parties in interest themselves were not entitled to invoke that power, except in the customary way of petition, they hav- ing nothing in the end to present but a naked claim to certain private rights of property and privilege, now and for an almost indefinite period, in the exclusive possession and use of other parties, who deny that this pretension has a shadow of legal merit or justice to rest upon. But these parties are now before the Senate, though it must be all the while remembered, that they have only present- ed themselves there since the bill for their relief was brought in. I ought not to be surprised, perhaps, to find them in the attitude of petitioners for the measure thus intro- duced, but it is devoutly to be hoped that they have come into the case, giving no sanction whatever to' the prelimi- nary proceedings. You know, and almost everybody knows, that there exists in the Episcopal church throughout this country, some division of opinion. This diversity is well enough defined, by reference to what is popularly talked about as the High Church and the Low Church party. I am happy to say there is nothing in all this to break or disturb the general harmony and unity of the Church; and I am persuaded that, take the country together, not one Episcopalian in five hardly knows whether he is of the one party or the other. In the city of New-York, however, circumstances have given at times con- siderable sharpness to the lines of distinction. Trinity Church, willing or unwilling, has been set down as favoring and leading the High Church party, and being in possession of considerable estates, having several church edifices and several clergymen, her influence has necessarily been great. Where a notion prevails, with much or little foundation, that a party exists on one side 11 in any body of men, a party is sure to exist on the otter. At any rate a strong and pretty numerous Low Church party, of a pretty marked character, is found, and has long existed, in New-York, and naturally enough, Trinity Church is the one great object against which its jealousy has been directed. Some of the purest men, most accomplished gentlemen and best Christians of that city, or the world, have been and are of this party. And I recognize among those who have lately appeared by their petition, and who are supporting and prosecuting the claim against Trinity Church, now before the Senate, several names well known to me, which I never pronounce or think of without very high respect and regard. But I have learned a great while ago that the judgment and the virtues of all men, however elevated and noble, naturally undergo a most fearful, and too often, a most damaging ordeal, when the spirit of party takes possession of them, whether it be in religion or politics, in Church or in State, I think the gentlemen to whom I refer are acting, in the matter now in hand, in some important respects, under a very great delusion. I think there never was a clearer or more demonstra- ble error than that of supposing that they have any legal or just claim whatever on the property ot Trinity Church, or any right of control over it. But they think otherwise, and I have no right perhaps to be surprised, though I do most deeply regret, that their names are brought to stand connected, by relation backwards, with proceedings in this case with which it seems to me they could have had little to do, and which I must think every honorable and unbiassed judgment must condemn. It is, as I suppose, due to the fact that there is a party in the Episcopal Chuch in New-York, known in common parlance a» the Low Church party, taken in connection with the fact that Trinity Church is assumed, but untruly as I believe, to favor ex- treme High Church principles ; it is due to this, and this alone, that any claim like that now before the Senate, is, or ever has been, seriously advanced. But while this party forms a very large majority of those who support this claim whenever it is set up, it is, itself, very far from being a unit in this regard. I doubt if 12 one half, or anything like it, of all the Episcopalians in New- York who may be regarded as favoring the views of this party on religious questions, either support or approve of the recent attacks on Trinity Church, or the efforts now making to strip her of her property. Certainly very large numbers of them do not> Still the spirit of party prevails and lends to the cause, so to call it, much of its energy. Nor is it any the less the spirit of party which acts in the matter, because some few persons may be found favoring the object, who are regarded as occupying very elevated seats in the school of High Church prin- ciples. Men of eminent piety often have exalted imaginations, and when schemes for employing the property of Trinity Church, formed outside of the vestry, have not met with all the encour- agement within that body, no matter for what reason, that the projectors have believed they should have commanded, it is not to be wondered at if dissatisfactions have sprung up to some extent, as well among those who thought Trinity Church right in her church principles, as among those who thought her wrong; nor that some such persons should join hands with those who point them to a shorter road (not supposed to be a dishonest or wrong one) to the attaining of their pious objects, than that they had before trodden in vain. But the broad truth remains that the desire which has been felt in so many minds in New-York to strip Trinity Church of her power by stripping her of her pro- perty, has had its origin and perpetual foundation in party. This is bad enough, but so long as the matter rested with a party of the Episcopal Church, which was kept free from all out- side intermeddling and influence, no danger was seriously to be apprehended. Unhappily, it has not been preserved, as it should have been, from this outside influence; and it is only too apparent, that since the introduction of this foreign element into this business,, the whole character of the contest with Trinity Church has been changed. The present attack, only now assuming a shape in any way fit for legislative cogni- zance, was begun, as we have seen already, two years ago. It was deemed necessary to commence operations, by getting 13 up a popular prejudice and clamor against Trinity Church, whichj setting in fii'st strongly in New-York, should extend to the coun- try, and finally come back in the form of public sentiment to work upon the Legislature. And it seems to have been a special point in the policy of those who have had the management of this affair, that those honest and respectable gentlemen, who believe no doubt sincerely, that, though not Parishioners, they have a legal claim to act as Corporators of Trinity Church, should not be suffered to appear as petitioners to the Legislature, or to seem to manifest, in any public way, an interest in the matter, until the case had been brought to a certain stage of preparedness for final action. This stage was at last reached in the presentation of the second Eeport of the Select Committee of the Senate. I deeply regret to say, what truth and an imperative obliga- tion to speak it boldly in a case like this, compel me to say, that I think both the Reports of the committee in this case, when they shall come to be understood in their true character, as they must be before a great while, cannot fail to meet with universal repro- bation. They seriously compromit the character of the Senate. For the last one especially, I do not understand how any possible excuse or apology can be made. The testimony then before the committee, certainly had left not an inch of ground for the mis- conceptions, — if they were such — the exaggerations, injurious im- putations, and the stale, but carefully-gathered gossip of the first Report to rest upon. Nobody would object that these Reports should have insisted, no matter bow strongly, on what were deemed errors or mistakes in judgment on the part of the Vestry of Trinity Chui'ch. Nobody would feel surprised or offended that honest differences of opinion should have been found to exist about the best mode of administering the affairs of a great reli- gious foundation. But here, charges were preferred, gross and palpable as mountains, however sometimes poorly disguised in the shape of wily insinuations and sly implications. The first Report was filled with them, and they are not corrected in the second Report, but on the contrary are reproduced and insisted on, in the face of the clearest and fullest testimonyj and of all 14 fairness and all truth; charges against Trinity Church, her Ves- try, her ministry, and all connected or associated with her in her afifairs, of nothing short of falsehood, fraud, deceptive practice, oppression and corruption in the use of her accidental power and patronage, and of gross neglect of all sacred duty while hoarding her vast and ill-gotten wealth, and sitting down at her ease, a bloated and pampered proprietor of untold millions, of which she will not spare enough even to keep her own poor from starvation ] I speak of the substance of things in these two Re- ports. No man can sit down to the perusal of them, having no previous knowledge of the case, and not going beyond them to look into the testimony connected with either, without rising from the reading with a vague but undoubting feeling that Tri- nity Church, which he will take to be the wealthiest and most powerful religious corporation, perhaps, in all the world, is a very monster of corruption and deformity. That, I take it, is exactly the impression intended to be produced. The man- agers of the machinery of this case, knew very well that where 500 persons would read these Reports, or, what would be enough for their purpose, the abstracts of them, published and scattered broad-cast in the newspapers, not ten, or five even, •would ever see the testimony. And while such as I have de- scribed is the character of Trinity Church, as sketched to the conception of the casual reader in these Reports, I venture to say that no man of common understanding, before wholly un- informed on the subject, could go through the testimony in the case, taking the whole of it together, and passing by the Reports, without coming to the conclusion, after allowing for all errors of judgment, and feeling, perhaps, grave doubts about the wisdom in all instances of the measures and methods of administration, and of charitable distribution, which had been adopted, that it is doubtful if another religious foundation, as amply endowed as this, could be found in the world, where for a full cen- tury and a half together, and coming down to the present hour, there had been manifested so much of absolute purity, of entire disinterestedness, of unswerving integrity, of generous and hu- mane consideration, and of uniform action, performed under a IS high and noble sense of moral and religious obligation, as have characterised the Vestry of Trinity Church in the conduct of the affairs of that corporation. Such is the contrast between the testimony in this case, and the Reports of the Committee of the Senate, which profess to stand on the basis of that testimony. But I must ask you to consider now, how the labors of this committee, in taking testimony and making reports founded upon it, look, when they are compared with the measure of legislative relief, which they have proposed to the Senate ] I speak, of course, of their proposed repeal of the second section of the act of 1814. The action proposed is, to give legislative authority to all Episcopalians, members of other parishes in New-York, and entitled to vote in their own parishes, to vote for vestrymen of Trinity parish; and this is done on the ground that they are, and always have been, however for a time unjustly obstructed in the exercise of their right, legal corporators of Trinity Church, and on no other ground whatever. You cannot fail to see — no- body can fail to see who is willing to see the truth — that the question whether these persons are corporators or not, is purely a legal question. If corporators they should be allowed to vote; if not corporators they should not be allowed to vote. Now, will you, or will any sane man, tell me what the various mat- ters contained in the reports of the committee, and pui-porting to be based on the testimony they have taken, have to do with this question 2 Let me advert to some of these matters, not with minute par- ticularity, but substantially, that we may see how much connec- tion they have with the question which the Legislature is asked to decide. One matter, which figures largely in the Reports, relates to the question of the amount and value of the property of Trinity Church. It is a gross impeachment of th^ honesty of the body of which you are a member, to suppose, as the Reports seem to assume, that the vote of one member of the Senate, upon the simple question whether A. B. is or is not a legal corporator of Trinity, could be influenced one way or the other by the con- 16 sideration that the property of the corporation is or is not very large. Whether it is |10,G00,or $10,000,000, is a thing which no Senator ,who has any decent regard either for himself or for the laws of the landj would take into account in deciding such a question. Another point made in the reports relates to the comparatively small, and as the committee seem to think, gradually diminish- ing number and character of the corporators of Trinity Cliurch. This is specially referred to in the second Report, and urged as a reason for increasing the number of corporators, and of course, by inference, as a reason why the Senate should declare that the members of other parishes in New-York, legal corporators or not, shall be corporators of the parish of Trinity. I do not think in my life I ever heard a more daring proposition. When the cor- porators of Trinity Church fail, it will be time enough for the State, but not through the Legislature, to look after the estate of that corporation; and when the question, and the only question submitted by the committee itself, in the bill they have brought in, on the disputed point under consideration is, whether certain persons are or are not legal corporators of Trinity Church, to urge the Senate to declare them to be so — to bring in, in truth, an armv and mob of coiporators to seize upon Trinity Church and her possessions — not on the ground that such is their legal right, but upon the consideration that it w^ould be well, for economical and prudential reasons, to increase the number of corporators, surpasses anything I have yet heard of, in any of- ficial quarter in this country, in the spirit of bold agrarianism. As for other matters of complaint and charge against the vestry of Trinity Church ; that they have sought to conceal or falsify facts in relation to its property, or the value of it; that they have failed in the charitable and religious duties and obli- gations resting on them; that they have acted from corrupt, im- proper or unworthy ^motives in bestowing or withholding its bounties; that they have built and endowed no Tree Churches; that they have built costly churches of their own to the neglect of the necessitous, and the general poor all over the city, and even of their own poor; that they have aimed improperly to restrict 17 the number of its corporators; that their mortgages on churches, and their stipends to clergymen, have been devised, and are used, as a means of breaking down all integrity and independent opinion in the Episcopal Church ; as to all this, and whatever else of a kindred character is to be found iflilhe reports of the committee, villifying and scandalising the vestry of Trinity Church — men whose character and standing in New-York will compare favorably with the highest and purest of all that that city numbers among her people, and whose abundant vindication Is found in the universal respect which they command; as to all this sort ot loathsome matter, of which these reports are full to nauseousness; what in the name of wonder has all this to do with the simple question, whether certain persons claiming that right, are or are not, legal corporators of Trinity Church, and entitled to vote in her elections 1 Has the committee of the Senate really supposed that the members of that body could be brought to decide so grave a question of private right, and of property, on such considerations as these 1 Yet somebody has thought so, else why have they been gathered up with so much care and at so much cost, and why are they found so carefully embodied, and repeated, and insisted on in these Reports 1 If the committee, or if any others think that the affairs of Trinity Church and the property she holds, could be better ad- ministered, and disposed of, more advantageously for her good, and for the common good, by others, than by her own vestry ; if they think a Low Church administration would be sure to put every thing exactly right ; if they think that Trinity Church ought to endow and enrich a few churches with land, instead of lending a helping hand to a great many churches with money ; if they think she should build and maintain poor churches for the poor, while the rich sit apart in lordly edifices ; if they think instead of having the vestry of Trinity elected by the parishioners of Trinity, that it would be a just and proper measure, and a peaceful, orderly and edifying spectacle, to set a mob of 5,000 or 10,000 persons from fifty other parishes, to elect a vestry for her; if they hold such opinions, or any opinions like them, why 2 18 nobody that I know of has any desire to interrupt them in the free enjoyment or expression of them. Only do not let them imagine themselves, or attempt to make others believe, that these opinions can be employed to make weight in the balance of any man's judgment vfhiBTX he is brought to pronounce ofBcially on the question whether certain persons, so claiming, are, or are not, legal corporators of Trinity Church. I do not enter into any examination, in detail, of the matters set forth in the Reports of the committee as impeachments of Trinity Church. With what I have said already bearing on the general subject, I let all that pass. If it had been the object of the committee in the execution of their roving commission, to collect testimony to show that the corporation of Trinity Church had become extinct for want of corporators, or that she was em- ploying her property for other purposes than those intended by the donor, or contrary to the policy of the State, their labors in hearing witnesses on these subjects, and in commenting on the matter gathered up, might have been deemed an acceptable and not wholly improper service to the State ; though, in all cases, if the State is to assert a claim to lapsed or confiscated property, or if a corporation is to be deprived of control over its funds for diverting them, or is to be dissolved for abuse of its franchises, the Attorney General, and the Courts, are the agents and powers proper to be employed for these objects, and not the Legislature. But there could have been no purpose of the kind here suggested on the part of the committee, in taking such testimony as is de- tailed in their first Report. They propose to the Senate no action to justify such a conclusion. Indeed, any suggestion of that sort on the basis of any testimony taken by them, would have been simply absurd. We are thrown back then, upon the measure of relief they have proposed in behalf of private parties, on a private claim, as affording justification and excuse, if any can be offered, for this proceeding of the committee. I have referred already, in general terms, to the principal matters presented in their Reports, as based on the relations of the witnesses examined by them, to show that they are wholly irrelevant and im- 19 pertinent to the question or claim of private rights brought before the Senate. On this point I only desire to add the general and sweeping declaration, that in all the voluminous testimony taken by them in New-York, and in whatever else is presented as evidence in their leading Report, there is not one sentence, or fragment of a sentence, or word, or syllable, which, as evidence, ought to have, or which can properly have, or which will be allowed to have in any honest, enlightened and just mind, called to act in the case in an official and responsible capacity, any the remotest bearing or weight in determining the question brought before the Senate by the committee for its de- cision, whether persons outside of Trinity parish, who now set up such a claim, are, or are not, legal corporators of Trinity and entitled to vote in her elections. I go further and say that no man, be he a 'Senator or a Judge, or in whatever position of authority he may be, who is called upon to pass on that question, has any right to approach the subject, or is fit to approach it, unless he has first discarded from his mind every possible im- pression or consideration calculated to affect his judgment, arising out of the main parts of this testimony, or out of the free charges, inferences and injurious implications based upon it, in which the committee have indulged. And in this comprehensive declaration I make no exception of that part of the proofs pre- sented by the committee, the most extraordinary of all, where we find a most honorable and estimable gentleman, and a highly valued friend of my own, brought in to give his corporal oath to the history of Trinity Church, and the history of the Act of 1814, all existing in records and papers in possession of the committee, or just as accessible to them as to him, and to give his corporal oath also to the law and the rights of parties arising out of these records and papers. Of all the methods of determining grave questions of law, and settling disputed legal rights between con- tending parties, this one resorted to by the committee, of submit- ting them to the sworn declarations and opinions of a witness, is certainly the most comprehensive and summary ever yet heard of ; but I think the committee is not likely to be honored by 30 having it adopted or followed as a precedent. The testimony received by the committee to prove that " dissatisfaction" existed in reference to the act of 1814, 1 set down in the same category with the rest. Acquiescence or non-acquiescence in a given status of rights is more a question of law than of fact. If, there being no impediments to action, no attempt is made in more than thirty years, to give legal effect to a naked and dormant claim of right, this, in law, for that period of time, would be acqui- escence, and no amount of mere "dissatisfaction" would make it otherwise. As for the action that was taken in this case in 1846 and 1847, after a profound slumber and silence of thirty years, it is all of record ana speaks for itself. And this leads me now to say, that when in 1846 and 1847, the identical claim now brought forward by the committee, of a right on the part of other Episcopalians than those of the parish of Trinity, to participate in its elections, was presented to the Legislature, no testimony on the subject was taken or asked for. Nobody then deemed it necessary, or even proper, to encumber the case with such incongruous matter as has been introduced on the present occasion, or to attempt to win opinions for the claim upon any other grounds than those of its own essential and proper merits. Those presenting the claim at that time, were the parties in interest themselves, acting in their own name, and they held the claim in their own hands, and under their own control. They directed nothing to be done, and suf- fered nothing to be done, that was not characteristic of honor- able men, for such they were. They employed eminent and honorable counsel to conduct their case from the beginning, who were as incapable as themselves of using or countenancing a resort to any base means or appliances whatever. Without the testimony of a single witness, there was not a fact, or circum- stance, or inference, or principle, or argument, or consideration, which could then, or can now, be legitimately and rightfully em- ployed in behalf of this claim, or pressed in any way into its ser- vice, which was not employed and used by them on that occa- sion to the fullest extent and in the amplest manner. The claim 21 now stands in behalf of much the same parties as then presented and urged it on the attention of the Legislature. Many of the same names are now before the Senate, asking its favorable con- sideration to the claim, presented there, however, for the first time only, since the bill of the committee came in. Up to that time, they had not appeared before the Senate, nor until a very short time previous had they appeared in any manner, (except that some of them had testified before the committee, as I suppose they had been summoned to do,) to give public countenance and support to those, whoever they may have been, who under cover of this claim, and by the aid of a Committee of the Senate, have been so long carrying on harrassing and hostile operations against Trinity Church. But they were willing, in 1846-7, to let their legal claim to a share in the property and franchises of Trin- ity Church, rest upon its proper merits; I must be allowed to hope they are willing to let it rest on the same merits now. On that oc- casion the claim was examined, under every circumstance favor- able to the fullest and most deliberate consideration, by able Com- mittees, one of the Senate, and another of the House, one in 1846 , and the other in 1847. Both these Committees reported against the claim, the latter, a Committee on the judiciary, unanimously, and in both Houses the Reports were accepted and sanctioned. One member of the Committee of the Senate made a Minority Report in favor of the claim — an able paper, prepared, no doubt, by the eminent counsel of the claimants, and presenting the ar- guments In their favor in the strongest light in which the highest ingenuity and skill could place, them. And I refer to this Mi- nority Report the more particularly, because it was the imme- diate occasion of the most effectual and thorough silencing of this claim. It is ten years since it was laid to rest. The Report alluded to, gave occasion to a pamphlet published in review of it, written, as I understand, by a gentleman now no longer living, but who never had his superior as a lawyer in this State. This pamphlet is in existence, and you and others may recur to it. I do not hesitate to say, that its arguments are unanswerable. I cannot think that it leaves a loop to hang a doubt upon. The whole case in its legal aspects is presented. No disinterest- ed and unpredjudiced mind, and certainly no legal mind, can 22 read it, as it seems to me, without assenting to its conclusions It demonstrates, so that cavil itself, I should think, must be silenced, that the claim in the case is without legal foundation, and that the Legislature has no right or constitutional power to grant the relief asked for. Undoubtedly this review was the foundation of the unanimous rejection of the claim by the judi- ciary committee of the Assembly, in 1847, in a Report, itself a paper of great ability, and conclusive on the whole subject. After all this, I cannot well understand how the parties in interest in this cjsim, having literally nothing new in the way of legal merit or abstract justice to offer in svipport of it, and subject to no promptings from without, should ever have brought forward the claim again. It is not my purpose to enter upon any extended view of the legal questions involved in this case, but I desire to present for your consideration a general and comprehensive statement mere- ly, of the matter in its legal aspects. You will find, if your leisure shall allow you to look at them, the whole law of the case most clearly and ably presented in arguments already pub- lished, to some of which I have already adverted in this letter The most recent of these arguments, and a very admirable and conclusive one it is, is that of the counsel who appeared for Trinity Church before the committee of the Senate lately in this city. The Senate is called upon in this case to consider and decide very difficult and very important matters. The general question in the case is, whether the parishioners of Trinity Church hold, as they have held and exercised for a century and a half, the franchise of voting in those elections exclusively of all others or whether other Episcopalians of New-York, parishioners of other legally incorporated churches, and not parishioners Of Trinity Church, have also the legal right to vote in the elections of this parish. Trinity Church is a religious corporation. She possesses a large estate devoted to pious uses. She is a parish in which the work of the Christian ministry is carried on as in other parishes, only on a much larger scale than in any other parish in this 23 country. She has four church edifices instead of one, in which religious services are performed by nine ministers. The legal custody, care and management of all her property and all her af- fairs, both temporal and spiritual, rest with certain legally constitu- ted and elected officers; these are the rector, two wardens and twenty vestrymen. The wardens and vestrymen are elected annually ; they call and induct the rector, and choose the as- sistant ministers. Up to the present time, the parishioners of Trinity Church have elected the wardens and vestrymen, just as the wardens and vestrymen of every other Episcopal church in the State are elected by its own parishioners. The parishion- ers of Trinity Church entitled to vote, are a little over three hundred. There are fifty other legally constituted parishes in New- York, and the parishioners of all these entitled to vote for parish officers, talien together, are probably not less than eight thousand. If these, or any number at all like it, are to be brought in to vote for the parish officers of Trinity Church, the consequence is apparent. The control and government of the parish of Trinity will be taken out of the hands of the parish- ioners of Trinity ; the parishioners of other churches will elect her officers ; the government of Trinity Church, the pro- perty, the sacred edifices and the ministers of Trinity Church, will all be in the hands and under the control of officers whose constituency will be, not the parishioners of Trinity, but the parishioners of other churches. The , outside constituency thus proposed to be brought in, is a constituency antagonist to that of Trinity Church. It is so designed. The object is to take possession and control of the property of Trinity Church, and this is to be done by taking possession of the government of the corporation, involving of necessity the control, direction and management of all her affairs, internal and external, religious and charitable, spiritral and temporal. It will thus be seen that the matter now brought before the Senate, and which the Se- nate is asked to consider and decide, is one of the most important in all its relations and bearings ever presented before any public body, or tribunal, in this country for decision. Ou the face of it 24 it is a matter wholly unfit for any legislative body to touch or meddle with. None but the highest Judicial tribunals of the land, are in any manner qualified, or fit, to deliberate or adjudi- cate upon it. But I shall recur to this point again in the course of my remarks. The rights of the parties to this controversy are to be deter- mined by relerence to certain public acts, and the construction and legal effect of those acts. These are : 1st. The Charter of Trinity Church, of 1697. 2d. The Colonial Act of 1704. 3d. The Grant of Queen Anne, of 1705. 4th. The Legislative Act of 1784. 5th. The Act of 1788. 6th. The Act of 1814. The claim now set up is, that under the Charter and subse- quent Acts, and up to the passing of the Act of 1814, all Episco- palians of New-York, though parishioners of separate and inde- pendent churches legally constituted, and not parishioners of Trinity Church, having the same qualifications as voters in their own parishes as the parishioners of Trinity Church are required to have as voters in that parish, were legal corporators of Trinity Church, and legally entitled to vote in the elections for wardens and vestrymen of that parish. It is also claimed that the act of 1814, assumed to divest all such Episcopalians as are above described, of this franchise which was a vested right, and that the Act was for that reason unjust and unconstitutional. The repeal of that part of the Act of 1814 is therefore asked for, which purports to cut them off from this franchise. In reference to this Act, it is admitted by the committee in their Report, that if it was a legislative contract with the Corpora- tion of Trinity Church, and rights have become vested under it, the Legislature has no power to invalidate that contract, by re- pealing the Act. But, in proposing to repeal the second section of that act, they insist that nothing in that section " has any of the qualities of a contract." It is this second section alone of 25 the Act of 1814, which is now brought into this controversy. It is this section alone which cut off, if anything cut off, any vested franchise belonging to anybody. It is this section alone which is referred to when that Act is pronounced unconstitutional. And when, therefore, the committee propose to repeal this sec- tion of the Act, they propose to repeal all of that Act which they, or as far as I know, anybody else, have ever held to be unconstitu- tional. When, therefore, the committee mystify things by de- claring that " inasmuch as they have come to the conclusion to introduce a bill to amend the act, and not to provide for its re- peal, this question" [the question of the right and power of the State to invalidate its own contract,] " does notarise," it becomes us to take care that we and others are not misled by it. It hap- pens that the second section of the Act, which they propose to repeal, is the only one, and the only part of the whole Act upon which this very question of contract does arise. Now I propose to dispose of this part of the case first, and I shall do so in as few words as possible. And let it now be under- stood that when, for shortness, I speak of the Act of 1814, I mean the second section, and nothing else. The second section is the Act and the Act is the second section for all the purposes of this argument. If the Act of 1814 was and is valid and constitutional, it is un- disputed by any body, that, from that period at least, the Epis- copalians at large in New-York, and not parishioners of Trinity Church, have not been, and are not, corporators of that Church, or legally entitled to vote in the elections of that parish. That Act declaring that the right of voting in such elections belonged to the parishioners of Trinity Church, declared also in express terms that " no other persons" should be entitled to that fran- chise. But it is claimed that that Act was unconstitutional, as affect- ing the vested right to this franchise of the Episcopalians at large, held at that period. If such a right then existed, it ex- isted under the contract previously made or confirmed by the State with the corporation. No doubt the point as to who should 26 and who should not be corporators, and entitled to vote at cor- poration elections, was a part, and an important part, of the original contract with Trinity Church It was just so important that it could not be changed by the State without the assent of the corporation. But let it be observed that a Charter makes a contract between the State and the corporation — not between the State and individual corporators. The contract is with the legal person, or entity, to which a name is given that it may be capable of contracting. The two parties to the contract are the State and the corporation, by its corporate name. And just as these parties were capable of entering into the original contract so are they capable, together, of altering or modifying that con- tract. I do not admit that any essential change whatever was made by the Act of 1814, as to who should and who should not be voters in the elections of Trinity Church. I hold it to be clearly demonstrable that none was made. But if there was, it is equally clear and demonstrable that it was such a change in the contract as the State and the corporation had a right to make. The Act of 1814 was passed at the special and formal re- quest of the corporation, represented by its official organs and agents. They had a right to speak for the corporation. The State spoke for itself. The Act was the result; and if it pro- duced the change attributed to it, this was as much a contract as the original charter, and just as binding on the respective parties to it. In the making of this contract the corporators, whoever they were, few or many, parishioners of Trinity Church only, or Episcopalians of New-York at large, were legally repre- sented by the corporation, as the corporation was legally repre- sented by its officers. In making a contract with a corporation, individual corporators are not and cannot be known. They are merged in the body corporate. The committee say the Act of 1814, " subverted vested rights." If it did it subverted such rights with the assent of the corporation, and, through the cor- poration, with the assent of the corporators. If it did, then such was the bargain. If the Episcopalians at large were corporators before that act,and entitled to vote as such in the corporation elec- 27 tions, then the oflB.cers of the corporation, regularly elected, and re- presenting the corporation, represented them as members of the corporation, whether they voted in the elections or not. If they had a right to vote and did not vote, it was their own fault and neg- lect. If they had a right to vote, it did not depend on the will of the rector, wardens, and vestrymen, whether they should vote or not. The courts were open to them, and if the right to vote belonged to them, and they were hindered in its exercise, they should have enforced their right through the courts. Not hav- ing done this, and being corporators, if such they were, I repeat they were concluded by the acts of the corporation as much as if they had elected its officers by their own vote. The assent of all the corporators to the change in the charter or contract, if any change there was, is an inference of law from the act itself, and must so stand unless the contrary be made explicitly to ap- pear by some authentic act of dissent on their part, at or near the time of the transaction, of a character to assert and vindi- cate, in a legal way, any personal rights affected by it. I state all this as a clear principle of law, needing no authority for its support. Coming then to matters of fact; I suppose it is doubtful if there were twenty persons — perhaps not ten — in all New- York at the time of the passing of the act of 1814, who had any objection to make to it. There were extremely few at that time who had any notion whatever that Trinity Church had any cor- porators out of her own parish. This, as an idea having any prevalence, is comparatively a modern discovery. Two or three persons only had ever attempted to assert practically such a claim. The Act was passed with full deliberation, and with ample notice. It was acquiesced in at the time, and the idea that anybody was deceived into acquiescence, never broached by anybody for thirty years after the Act was passed, is too puerile for consideration. For thirty years, acquiescence, amounting to dumb silence, went on. For thirty years no act of dissent was manifested, nobody appeared in the courts, or before the Legis- lature, or anywhere else where such a claim could be made, to 28 assert that any rights had been lost under that Act. After thirty years, such a claim was set up, and at once most effectually silenced. Ten years more of acquiescence passed, and now again, after forty years and more, that Act is sought to be dis- turbed. And if, after that lapse of time, it could be disturbed on any of the pretences set up against it, it is impossible to see how anything in the way of property or rights amongst us, should ever be deemed to be settled, or in a condition of legal protection and repose. It is clear to demonstration, as it seems to me, that the Act of 1814 was and is a constitutional and valid law. It was compe- tent for the Legislature to pass it, as it did, at the official and formal request of the corporation of Trinity Church. The pur- pose for which it was asked was explicitly stated in their peti- tion. They stated that the other Episcopal church corporations in the city did not " possess, or claim, any right for themselves or their members, to vote in the elections, or to regulate the affairs of Trinity Church; but that, nevertheless, a few indi- viduals belonging to such separate corporations, have recently pretended to claim that right." They spoke of the attempt of " two or three " such persons to vote on a recent occasion ; they said that such attempts could not fail " to produce strife and litigation, and to foster and keep alive pretensions of the most unreasonable nature, and of the most mischievous tendency;" and they asked for this Act in order that "all doubts respecting the persons entitled to vote for church wardens and vestrymen of Trinity Church should be finally obviated and settled." The Act was passed precisely as asked for, and precisely for the ob- jects stated. It was passed in the precise form and manner to constitute a legislative contract, if ever there was one. As a contract, on the part of the corporation, it carried in law the assent of the corporators along with it; and nothing has ever appeared, or can be shown, to impeach that legal conclusion. Such being the Act and its character, standing as a contract between the State and this private corporation — a contract to 29 settle and determine any doubts, if any had arisen, or should arise, as to who should and who should not be entitled to vote at the corporation elections — it is hardly conceivable that any- body who pretends to know anything of the foundations on which property and private rights rest in this country, should maintain that the Legislature has a right, without the assent and against the will of the corporation, to put an end to that con- tract by repealing or modifying the Act. In general terms even the Committee of the Senate agree that " a Sovereign State has no power to pronounce its Acts so far in- valid as to affect a right of property or its enjoyment which has become vested." And yet as a commentary on this text, they have presented to the Senate, a Bill by which they propose to bring In, from without the Parish of Trinity Church, a new voting con- stituency, 8000 strong, to overwhelm the corporation, and its own voting constituency of some 300 parishioners, in whose hands the present law and contract of the State place the exclusive right and power; the undisguised purpose being to give to this outside, and, so far as those who are pressing this measure can make it so, this antagonistic force, the power to impose of&cers and a government of its own, upon the Corporation and Parish of Trinity, which shall take possession and control of all its property, and assume the management of its affairs. And the Committee seem to think — at least they would have others believe — that there is nothing in all this "to affect a right of property or its enjoyment which has become vested" ! They go so far as to assert that " by the proposed amendment the rights of the Corporation and its powers and franchises are not to be disturbed." Here is a corporation, a religious body, forming a Parish, which under a valid and existing law and contract of the State, of a very special character enjoys the right and franchise of providing itself with its own officers and government, through a voting constituency consist- ing exclusively of the people themselves who are to be the subjects of such government, members of the parish, and nobody else, and by this means of securing to itself the possession and 30 enjoyment, the control and management, of the estates with which it is endowed, and the orderly and peaceful direction and regu- lation of all its afifairs ; and when it is proposed to place all that this Corporation and Parish possesses and enjoys — all its rights of self-government, and all its rights of property, and the pro- perty itself — under the absolute power and control of other parties, foreign to the parish, this solemn business is introduced with the declaration that "the rights of the Corporation, and its powers and franchises are not to be disturbed " by it ! I cannot find that the committee in their Report any where claim in terms, that the Act of 1814 was void. I believe they no where apply this term to the Act. This is probably not acciden- tal. They call it "unjust," and, in one instance, "unconstitu- tional they say it " subverted vested rights." They say also, that what they propose to do is to " restore the corporators who were disfranchisedhj the Act of 1814, and the rights of those who were corporators under the charter." The committee talk about this subject in legal language, and must be supposed to under- stand the terms they use. If the Act of 1814 was void ab initio from want of constitutional power in the Legislature to pass it, then of course it is void now, and never for a moment has had any validity. It did not disfranchise any body ; it did not take away the rights of any corporators. Those who were corporators before it passed, were equally corporators after it passed; have been corporators all the while, and are corporators now. There never has been a moment when they could not have asserted and maintained their rights in the courts. They may do so now. Even the lapse of forty years is no bar or impediment to their right. A void act of the Legislature gains no validity or force by lapse of time. If this act was void, no rights were lost by it, and none were gained by it, to anybody. It did not exclude those whom it assumed to exclude, and it did not give exclusive rights to those to whom it assumed to give exclusive rights. Both parties stand to-day, in every legal respect, precisely as they stood before 1814. Nothing is to be taken by any body, and 31 nothing is to be lost by any body, from lapse of time under this void act. The case presents no point of" adverse possession " to embarrass any corporator. There is nothing in the mere fact of a corporator neglecting to vote for forty years to disqualify him from exercising his right. Adverse possession and adverse rights might arise from lapse of time under the Act considered as a valid enactment, subject only to a legal dissent, at or near the time of passing it, by corporators claiming to be injured by it ; but there can be no such thing under it considered as a void Act. It is manifest that the committee did not care to ask the Senate to repeal this Act, on the ground that in their opinion it was void, while it has not been so adjudged by any court, but on the con- trary is insisted on as valid by parties who hold and exercise under it the most valuable and important rights and privileges. This would be to ask the Senate to exercise, not legislative but judicial power — a judicial power too the most transcendant ever exercised by our highest tribunals ; to assume jurisdiction over parties, over private property, over private rights, over questions of fact and questions of law between litigant parties,over questions of the construction and validity of statutes, and finally to assume the right to summon a preceding Legislature of the State into its presence and pronounce its doings void for a violation of the con- stitution. The committee, it is presumed, did not suppose that any legislative body could be brought to exercise so unseemly and dan- gerous a power. They have contented themselves, therefore, with pronouncing the act of 1814 "unjust," and even "unconstitu- tional," but not void : for though " unconstitutional," they represent it as still having validity enough to disfranchise corpo- rators whom they propose to restore to the rights lost by them under the act. But the committee has had very awkward alternatives to deal with in this matter. They treat the Act of 1814 as if it had some sort of validity, and on that ground they ask for its repeal. The Legislature cannot be asked, and certainly could not undertake to pronounce it void, and on that ground to re- peal it. That would be a judicial act, and not. legislative; the 32 committee, therefore, stop just a breath short of pronouncing it void. But while they attribute a certain validity to the Act, they at the same time deny the only ground on which, upon the assumptions they make, its validity rests. They insist that the Act took from large numbers of corporators their vested rights. If it did so, then the only ground on which its validity can be maintained is, that it was in the nature of a contract, to which the corporation assented, and the corporators also, as a presump- tion of law. But the committee positively deny that it has " any of the qualities of a contract." And if it have not, then the Act was void in its inception, for its violation of vested rights. The committee hover between positions, not one of which is found safe to stand on. If the contract is admitted, the validity of the Act is admitted, and then it must needs be conceded that the Legislature has no constitutional power of repeal without the consent of the corporation; therefore the contract is denied. If the Act had no validity, then it did not divest any corporators of their rights, and no legislative interposition could be re- quired to restore what was never lost ; therefore, it is held to have some little, undefined validity. The act is not quite void, nor altogether valid. It is not so void as to leave the corpora- tors, whom it assumed to disfranchise, corporators still; and yet it is so near void as to be unconstitutional. On the other hand, it is not valid in such a sense (the sense of a Contract,) as to be beyond the legislative power of repeal, and yet is valid enough to subvert vested rights ! But the question which lies at the foundation of this whole case is whether Episcopalians of New-York, not being parishion- ers of Trinity Church were legal corporators of Trinity Church, and entitled, with the other qualifications required, to vote at the Easter elections, under the original charter of 1697, and so continued down to 1814. A full and thorough examination of the Charter and all the public Acts bearing on this question, and of the whole body of the law applicable to the subject, and to the various points and considerations arising necessarily out of it, would be a labor fit to be undertaken only before some high 33 Judicial tribunal, having the patience, and the requisite legal ability, and legal habits of investigation, and whose proper pro- vince it should be to hear the whole case with a view to a solemn adjudication upon it. I shall enter here on no such extended dis- cussion of it. I think a view of the question may be presented which, in comparatively few words, and avoiding legal techni- calities and subtelties, shall comprehend the case, and afford an easy solution of whatever difficulty has ever honestly arisen about it. It is evident, I think, that honest minds have been misled in this matter chiefly through the corporate name bestowed by the original Charter of Trinity Church upon the corporate body created by it, taken in connection with some of the recitals in that instrument. This name, and these recitals, have been dwelt upon, while other matters in the same instrument, quite as im- portant, have received little attention. At the time of granting the Charter, a church edifice had already been erected in New-York, though not yet completed, and those who had been engaged and interested in the erection had petitioned the Governor of the Province that this same church edifice " might be made Parochial.''' That edifice was designed for the accommodation of all the inhabitants of the city who were of the communion of the Church of England, then very few in number, and a charter of incorporation for the church, and such inhabitants, was asked for accordingly. The charter declared that this edifice, and certain grounds adjoining, should be " the Parish Church and Churchyard of the Parish of Trinity Church,''^ within the city of New-York, and should be forever dedicated to the service of God, and applied for all time to the use and behalf of the inhabitants of the city who were of the Church of England. It declared that there should be a Rector, and a per^ petual succession of Eectors, " to have the care of souls of the inhabitants of the said Parish;" and it proceeded to incorpo- rate the Rector and inhabitants 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." It declared, moreover, that this church edifice and ground ad- 3 34 joining should be " the sole and only Parish Church and Church Yard of the city of New-York." Notv it cannot be doubted that it was in the contemplation of this Charter, that all the inhabitants of the city of New- York, not only those then inhabiting, but all who, in all time might inhabit the city, answering to a certain description y and maintaining a cer- tain relation, then and now perfectly well understood in the Church of England, and in the Episcopal Church of this country, should be included in the benefits and privileges of this incor- poration. They must be of the Church of England. This was one condition : and another, equally important and indispen- sible, was that they should be Parishioners of " the Parish of Trinity Church." This is the consideration which is too apt to be left out of the case. It was positively stipulated that there should be no other Parish in the city. This was to be " the sole and only Parish." Whether it was then thought that one small Parish Church, and one small Parish Churchyard, would be suf- ficient for all the Episcopal inhabitants of the city, (I shall use the term Episcopal for shortness,) for all time, or not, it is clear that it was thought one Parish would be enough. No Parish could be incorporated under the English Government, without a special charter; and the Government could grant no charter for another Parish in New-York, without the consent of Trinity Parish. This was the contract. But with the consent of this corporation, nobody can doubt that another Parish might have been incorporated within the city, at any time when it should have l)ecome apparent to all, that the city had outgrown the ac- commodation and convenience of a single Parish. No such exi- gency arose during the period of the British rule. Had, how- ever, such an event happened, and another Parish been incor- porated, of course all Episcopalians thus incorporated, or volun- tarily joining themselves to the new Parish and Corporation, would cease to be members of the Parish and Corporation of Trinity Chiirch, supposing them to have previously belonged to it. Nobody can doubt or dispute this. Nor does it follow, by any means, that all Episcopalians residing in New-York, though no other incorporated Parish existed there, were, or must neces- sarily be. Parishioners and Corporators of Trinity Church. An 35 instance occurred at an early period to show this. There was a Chapel in the Fort of the city, sometimes used as such and some- times not, but which Gov. Hunter, in his time, caused to be put in good order, and where the Chaplain of the forces regularly performed divine service. Here it seems the Governor and some of the officers of his government were accustomed to attend ser- vice, and to receive the communion, instead of occupying their places in Trinity Church, as had been the common custom of the Governors and chief ofl&cers of the Government before. No doubt some dissatisfaction existed with the Rector, Mr. Yesey. Now, in 1714, ai an election for Wardens and Vestrymen in Trinity Church, some disturbance was created by some of these officers and friends of the Governor, who had deserted Trinity Cliurch as regular attendants and communicants, and gone to the Chapel in the Fort, presenting themselves as entitled to vote in the elec- tion. They ranged themselves with the opposition when a divi- sion of numbers was called for, and were promptly and very sharply rebuked by the Rector for their presumption. No special rejection of their vote was made or required, because the oppo- sition, in the act of dividing, was found to be feeble and ineffectual ; but there can be no doubt that the Rector, as the presiding officer, was prepared to reject their vote if that had become important.* There needs, in truth, only one thing to be taken into view and kept steadily in mind, to solve any possible difficulty arising upon the language of the charter of Trinity Church. It was a Parish that was incorporated, and nothing else. It was the Parishioners of that Parish, together with the Rector, who were made corporators, and nobody else. It was expressly named as "the Parish of Trinity Church," and a Rector was appointed to it, who, with his successors, should have "/Ae care of souls of the inhabitants of that Parish." The "inhabitantsof the Parish," and "the inhabitants of the city," of the Episcopal communion, were identical and reciprocal terms; and this, not only because the Parish and city had then, as it has now, the same territorial breadth and boundaries, but because the Episcopal inhabitants of the city were expected to be, and required to be, without exception. Parishioners of the Parish of Trinity Church, and •Address of the Triends of Gov. Hunter to the Bishop of London. Documentary Hist. New-York, vol. 3, p. 264. / 36 subject to the spiritual care of the Rector of that Parish. The explicit and authoritative provision and declaration, that the Rector of the Parish of Trinity Church should have the " care of souls of the inhabitants of the Parish," ox the inhabitants of the city, incorporated by the Charter, created of itself, by force of its own terms, an indispensable condition, restriction and limita- tion in regard to the persons who should be corporators of Trinity Church, or in any way entitled to the benefits of the Charter. To |be of the Church of England was not enough, though inhabitants of the city. To be communicants of that Church somewhere, was not enough. They must stand |by positive and recognised acts, acts well understood at the time in the Church, in that relation to the Rector, implied by that special and significant appointment made in the Charter, which, under the name of "the care of souls," made him their sole and only authoritative, spiritual supervisor, director and instructor; they must recognise him as the per- son appointed by the Charter to minister to them in sacred things; and they must do this by the ordinary acts of a parish- ioner; attending divine service in the Parish church, and not elsewhere, at least as an ordinary thing, looking to him, and not elsewhere, for the various services of the clerical office, and the sacraments of the church; and especially receiving at his hands, or at least in the Parish church, the Holy Communion, without which no one was entitled by the Charter to vote at the Easter elections for wardens and vestrymen of the church. All this I hold to be clear to demonstration; and we see by this precisely who were, and who were not, parishioners of Trinity Church. It was "the inhabitants of the Parish" over whom the rector had, by appointment of the charter, the care of souls — those with whom, by recognized and well established acts, he stood in the personal and spiritual relation of Rector, who were parishioners, and none others were parishioners. And it is simply because this has not been brought sufficiently into view, or sufficiently considered, that so many persons have been misled by the language used in the recitals and descriptions of the charter, and in the corporate name, in reference to " the inhabitants of the city of New- York in communion of the Church of England." A corporate name, 37 as a general rule, is one of the last, and least important, things to be looked to in a charter, when the point is to ascertain who are and who are not corporators. Anybody may be satisfied of this by looking over the lists of private corporations in this country and observing the names. In the present instance, if instead of " the Rector and inhabitants of the city of New-York, in com- munion of the Church of England," the name employed had been, " the Rector and parishioners of the Parish of Trinity Church, inhabitants of the city of New-York, and in communion of the Church of England," this would have signified just what the Charter intended and expresses, when its language is all taken together. And in looking for the true construction of the Charter, and of the subsequent Acts in relation to it, and of Queen Anne's Grant — the great endowment of the church — if any one, by way of facilitating and aiding his study of the sub- ject, will substitute, for the occasion, this name for the other, as meaning — as I insist it does clearly mean — the same thing, only more accurately expressed to indicate the corporators, he will soon find, I am sure, that the difficulties which have been some- times thrown around the case, have been altogether in words and not in things. Bearing this name along with him, as a proper designation of the legal person, or entity, created by the Charter of 1697, and as truly indicating the corporators, and not calculated to mislead, like that bestowed upon the corporation in the Charter, coming fii-st to the colonial Act of 1704, he will find it to be "An act for granting sundry privileges and powers" to the Rector and parish- ioners of Trinity Church. He will see that all its provisions were intended for the Rector and parishioners of that parish, and for nobody else. Coming next to Queen Anne's Grant of 1705, he will find there also a munificent bounty (so it has turned out to be) bestowed upon the Rector and parishioners of the parish of Trinity Church, and upon their successors forever. He will re- member that " the inhabitants of the city of New- York, in com- munion of the church of England," is the corporate name of the body politic created by the charter of 1697, and is a name, and nothing else; that "the inhabitants of the city of New-York," and " the inhabitants of the Parish of Trinity Church," are iden- 38 tical in that Cliarter; that "the inhabitants of the Parish" are the parishioners, standing in the spiritual relation to the Sector which I have described; that it was tlie Parish, and the parish- ioners of that church, that were incorporated, and nobody else; that the term parishioners must be taken restrictedly, as mean- ing those and those only with whom the Eector, appointed to " have the care of souls," is placed in a parochial and spiritual relation, by significant and well understood acts. Recollecting all this, he will understand, without one doubt or difficulty, that the property bestowed by the Grant ot Queen Anne has always belonged, and now belongs, to the Rector and parishioners of the Parish of Trinity Church, and to nobody else. Coming down then past the period of the Revolution; he will find the legis- lative Act of 1784, passed to secure the Charter, and property and rights of" the Corporation of Trinity Church." (so named in the title of the Act) and to give it a shape and form adapted to the new political government under which it had fallen. He will have no difiiculty in understanding that all the benefits of that Act were intended for the Parish and the parishioners of Trinity Church, and for nobody else. No other parish had yet been formed in that city; and a]l its Episcopal inhabitants then, as originally, who chose to do so, by placing themselves in paro- chial relations with the Rector, were parishioners of Trinity Church. There was still no other church edifice in New- York but that of Trinity. In that church edifice, if in any church edifice in the city, must the Episcopalians of New-York have their sittings, and receive the Holy Communion. This Act added to the number of corporators entitled to the general rights and privileges of the charter — no doubt with the assent of the corpo- ration — by giving such rights to holders of pews or seats. These rights had, by the charter, been limited to communicants only. The Act of 1788 followed, to change the corporate name of " the Corporation of Trinity Church," (so named again in the title) in order that it might stand by its name, as " in the communion of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the State of New-York," in- stead of " the Church of England." Now, of course, in all this period, and for some years later, while Trinity Parish remained the only one in the City of New- 39 York, no question could "well arise in regard to who were and who were not legally, Corporators and Parishioners of that Par- ish. All Episcopal inhabitants of the city, holding the requisite spiritual relation to the Rector, were Parishioners. It was, I think, in 1798, that the first independent Parish within the , city was incorporated. Between that period and 1814, eight others ivere incorporated. Now in each of these cases, a Rector and Parishioners, wholly separate from, and independent of Trinity Parish, were constituted. Such Parishioners were Episcopal inhabitants of New- York, who had entered into independent spiritual relations with an independent Rector, and had wholly abandoned such relations to the Rector of Trinity Church. No attempt was made in any instance to maintain that relation within the city, or in the same general locality, with two Rectors at once. And in all the period during which these independent Churches were being formed, and existed, down to the passing of the Act of 1814, no instance occui-red in which any Parishioner of any of these independent Parishes, claimed to be a Parishioner of Trinity Par- ish, or the right to vote at the elections of that Parish, except that in 1812, pending an unhappy excitement in a matter purely per- sonal arising within tlwe parish of Trinity, two or three individuals of another parish, partizans of one of the parties to the contro- versy, did offer to vote at the Easter election. The offer was of course refused, and met with no encouragement or countenance from any quarter. It was regarded almost universally, as far as known, as a flagrant impropriety; and it led to the passing of the act of 1814, with the approval, all but universal, of the Epis- copalians of New- York, as well those who were not, as those who were parishioners, of Trinity Church. That Act changed, with great propriety the corporate name of the Parish, to that of "The Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church," conforming in that respect to the style and title uniformly assumed by Epis- copal Churches in this State, incorporated since the Revolution; and in its second section, of which so much has been said, it made a provision, at the special request of the corporation, to meet in the future all such disturbing and disorganizing at- tempts as had been made in 1812, by declaring, in substance, that none others than the Parisioners of Trinity Church should 40 vote at the elections of that Parish. It is indeed surprising and alarming enough, that first after a period of repose of thirty- years, and now again after forty years have gone by, a serious attempt should be made by those who have chosen to separate themselves from the corporation and parish of Trinity Church, from her congregations, from her Rector and ministers, from her services, and from the communion at her altars, and to establish and maintain separate and independent Parishes and Rectors of their own ; that a serious attempt should be made by such per- sons to come into Trinity Church, not to resume there any rela- tions with her ministers or her people, not to worship in her temples, not for any purpose connected with the service of God, or with the practice or maintenance of the holy religion of which she is an appointed and faithful witness and dispenser, not for any of these purposes, but to come there just once a year, on Easter Tuesday, crowding and hustling at her sacred chancel, as men crowd and hustle and blaspheme at the political hust- ings on election days, with the spirit of all-uucharitableness in their hearts, and with an avowed design to seize upon her pro- perty and possessions, by wresting from her the control of them, and the management of her affairs; and all this upon some vague conceit and notion entertained by them, or somebody else in their behalf, that they are wiser and holier than others, and better fitted to be the stewards and dispensers of the estates and bounties of this great religious and charitable Foundation, than those to whom the trust was committed by the donors. Certainly I think, if Trinity Church can be disturbed in the quiet possession and enjoyment of her property and rights at this day, on any of the pretences, either of legal right, or of superior sagacity and sanctity, which are set up against her, or on any of the grounds of spite and scandal with which she has been assailed, I know of no property and no rights, in the ownership and possession of anybody in this State, that ought to be, or can be, deemed safe from the hand of rapacity and spoliation. It is quite clear, that the Legislature cannot approach this subject in any way, or for any purpose of relief, such as is asked for, without entertaining, and adjudicating upon rights of pro- perty and of franchise of the highest value and importance, 41 brought into dispute between adverse and litigant parties, and upon all the law arising in the case. This is the business and province of the Courts, and not of the Legislature. The demand is for the repeal or modification of the Act of 1814. The main ground on which that demand rests, is that the claimants were corporators of Trinity Church under the original Charter, and up to the passing of that Act. On the other side this is denied. This is the first great legal question to be de- cided. The repeal of the Act of 1814, or disturbing it in any way, so as to let in these claimants as corporators of Trinity Church, would be a foul wrong, and outrage, unless the Legisla- ture shall first pass solemnly upon this vital question, and be prepared to decide it judicially in favor of the claimants. There is not one conceivable pretence on which the Act of 1814 can be touched short of such an adjudication. If this point of law should be decided in favor of the claim- ants, the next great legal question in order will be, whether the Act of 1814 did or did not divest them of their rights as corpo- rators. But this question will require the consideration and determination of others of great importance and nicety. It the Act was not passed with constitutional authority — if it was void — it divested no rights; and on every principle which, under our government, separates the Legislative and Judicial powers, the parties setting up a claim against it, or in spite of it, must be left to their remedy in the Courts. It would be monstrous for the Legislature to entertain a proposition from private par- ties, to repeal a law in which a question of private rights was involved, on the suggestion that it is void for want of constitu- tional sanction. The claimants insist that this act was uncon- stitutional; if it was so, in the sense in which they manifestly use the word, it was void; and if the Legislature entertain this claim on the showing of the parties themselves, they must enter- tain, and in some manner adjudicate on this point. The Act was either valid or void. The Legislature must so far consider this point as to determine, in a judicial manner, that it was not void, but valid, before they can grant relief to the private parties 4 42 afifected by it, on the ground that it operated to take away from them their vested rights. And they must do this — pronounce the Act valid — while the very ground on which the relief is sought for, and would be granted — that it violated vested rights — would be conclusive to show that it was void. But then another question of law, also of a very important and delicate character, arises upon this Act, and nothing could be more monstrous than for the Legislature to repeal it, in the way of relief to the claimants in the case, without first having entertained and judicially determined this question. The cor- poration ot Trinity Church, the party in possession of the pro- perty and rights in this case, maintain that whatever may have been the rights of those not parishioners of Trinity Church be- fore the Act of 1814, in regard to the franchise of voting in her elections, that that Act efifectually and legally barred them of the franchise ; that the Act was a contract made with the assent of the corporation, and with the assent also of all the corpora- tors to be taken as an inference of lawj that as such it was valid and binding on the State, as on the corporation and corporators; and that the Legislature has no constitutional right or power to violate that contract, by a repeal or any modification of the Act ^ without the consent and against the will of the corporation. Here are points of law which must be considered, and judicially decided, against the view and position taken by the corporation, before the Legislature can, without the grossest injustice, under- take to grant the relief demanded by the claimants. I cannot suppose that the Legislature, or either branch of it, or any considerable number of its members, will be found will, ing to enter on any such service of judicial investigation and adjudication, as they have been asked to do in this case, when the subject is once understood by them. No man in the State has any right worth talking about, to anything he possesses or calls his own, if the Legislature may assume and exercise Judi- cial powers, such as are necessarily involved in the action which has been proposed to it in this case. For its own sake, for the sake of the indispensible order and division of public duties, constitutionally established in the government under which we live, for the sake of all private rights and all private pro- 43 perty, for the sake of the sense of common security, which would be fatally assailed by it, I earnestly hope and trust the Legis- lature will not assume any such powers. I am, dear Sir, with sincere respect and regard, your friend and servant, D. D. BARNARD. A WORD FOR TEimy CHURCH FROM "THE AMERICAN CHURCH MONTHLY" FOR APRIL, 1857. NEW YORK: EDWARD P. ALLEN, 9 SPRUCE STREET. 1857. A WORD FOB [From ''The American Church Monthly" for April, 1857.] We are in the midst of another ill-starred strife respecting the ancient and venerable Corporation of Trinity Church, New York. A good deal of bitterness and asperity has been shown on both sides. Divers pamphlets arguing the matter pro and con have made their appearance ; some of which, as usually happens in such cases, are weak in spots, and strong in spots, only both their weakness and their strength are where they ought not to be ; the weakness is in the argument, the strength in something else. All this is greatly to be deplored, — deplored, as tainting the honour of our common Christianity, and as inconsistent with the peace and good-will of brethren in the same household of faith. From these remarks we ought specially to except the Communication of the Hon. John A. Dix, which, to the best of our judgment, is marked by the candid and conciliatory style of a Christian gentleman. Into this strife we really have not the heart to enter. Moreover, by the plan of our periodical, we must have little to do with controversy of any sort ; with local controversy, nothing. But the subject involves some points of history and legislation, that cannot but be highly interesting to Church- men throughout the State, and more or less so to Churchmen throughout the country. It also involves certain questions of 4 public policy and public morality, that are, or ought to be of interest to all good citizens. In moving the subject, we shall hope and earnestly endeavour to avoid every thing like a fighty or criminating tone. Nor, as we view the matter, is this so very difficult. For, in what is debated between the parties, we really can see no sufficient cause for raising any deeper issues than mere matters of opinion ; meaning, thereby, things concei'ning which men may freely differ witliout imputa- tion either of bad motives or incompetency. Wc are resolved, therefore, not to impeach nor question any man's motives in this case, nor to suppose on either side any thing worse than honest errors of judgment. Of course we do not, for we cannot, expect that what we shall say will be satisfactory to all parties : per- haps we shall in turn dissatisfy all. The best we can hope for on this score is, so to govern our speech as not to incur any worse imputation than just such honest errors as fall within our rule in respect of others. All which will come the easier, no doubt, forasmuch as we propose, not so much to judge the case for the reader, or to argue him into our opinion, as to lay before him, with as much fairness and impartiality as we can bring into exercise, the means of judging for himself. And if the reader, after mak- ing due allowance for the inlirmities of an honest manhood, find us betraying any consciousness of difficulties which we dare not name, and cannot dispose of ; if he find us otherwise than thoroughly ingenuous and straightforward in argument ; then our advice is, that he do not " so sland' r any moment's leisure " as to read another sentence of this article. In the year 1697, certain inhabitants of the city of New York in communion with the Church of England, having con- tributed sums of money towards building a church, and liav- ing erected a building on the site where Trinity church now stands, petitioned for a royal charter of incorporation, and a royal grant of " a certain piece or parcel of ground thereunto adjoining." On the 6th of May, 1697, a charter was accord- ingly issued under the seal of the Province by the Governor in Council. That our readers may have tiic matter fully before them, we will extract such portions of the charter as bear upon the points now in question ; giving the very words 5 of the instrument, only, for economy of space, retrenching certain verbal superfluities. After reciting the substance of the petition, and describing tlie locality and boundaries of the grant, the charter ordains as follows : That the said church, erected and built as aforesaid, and the ground there- unto adjoinin ;■, inclosed and used for a cemetery or churchyard, shall be the parish church aud churchyard of the Parish of Trinity Church, within our said City of New York ; and the same is hereby declared to be forever sepa- rated and dedicated to the service of God, and to be applied therein to the use and behalf of the inhabitants frxn time to time inhabiting-, and to inhabit, within our said City, in communion of our said Protestant Church of Eng- land as now established by our laws ; and to no other use or purpose whatso- ever, any statute, law, custom, or usage to the contrary notwitlistanding. And that there shall be a Rector to have the care of the souls of said Parish, and a perpetual succession ol' Rectors there. And we do by these presents constitute the Rt. Rev. Henry Lord Bishop of London the first Rector thereof. Aud we create and make hira the .said Bishop of London and his successors, Rectors of the said Parish, together with all the inhabitants from time to time inhabiting, and to inhabit, in our said City, and in communion of our aforesaid Church of England, a body corporate aud politic, with the pow- ers aud privileges hereinafter mentioned. Aud we ordaiu and declare that he the said Henry Lord Bishop of London, and his successors, and all such of our loving subjects as now are or hereafter shall be admitted into the com- munion of the aforesaid Church ol England, shall be forever hereafter a body corporate and politic, in fact and name, by the name of the Rector and Inhabitants of our said City of New York. And that the said Rector shall have the care of the souls of the inhabitants within our said Parish. And we further declare that the said Rector of the Pai ish of Trinity Church shall and may forever hereafter have a common seal, to use for all causes and affairs whatsoever of them and their successors ; and the same seal to alter, break, aud make new from time to lime, as they shall think fit. Aud that, for the bt'tter ordering and managing of the affairs and business of the said Corporation, there shall be once in every year forever, on the Tuesday of Easter-week, two Churchwardens and twenty Vestrymen duly elected by the majority of the votes of the inhabitants of the said Parish in comnmnion as aforesaid. And moreover, of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, we do grant aud confirm unto the said Rector and inhabitants in communion of our Protestant Church of England as now established by our laws, that the said church and cemetery or churchyard, situate within our said City of New York as aforesaid, shall be the sole and only parish church aud church- yard of our said City. From these extracts it is clear enough that the charter con- templated and determined that the City of New York should form but one parish, and should have but one set of Church- wardens and Vestrymen, the whole to be under the spiritual charge and jurisdiction of one Rector. And it is further evi- dent that none but those who were in communion of the Church of England, tliat is, communicants, and who were also 6 inliabitauts of tlie Citj', were to be corporators of the parish, or to have the right of voting for corporate officers. In 1704, June 27th, an Act was passed by the Colonial Leg- islature, confirming without material change or variation the provisions of the forecited charter. This Act was repealed in 1784, so that nothing further need be said of it now. By letters-patent issued under the seal of the Province, November 20th, 1705, a further grant of lauds was made to the Corporation. This was called Queen Anne's grant ; and consisted of the lands known as the Duke's farm, the King's farm, and the Queen's garden. The Colony of New York became a State in 1777, and by a general clause of the Constitution adopted October 14th of that year, all these grants were secured to the Corporation. But the establishment of American independence necessitated certain alterations of the original charter. This was done April 17th, 1784, by " an Act for making such alterations in the charter of the Corporation of Trinity Church, as to ren- der it more conformable to the Constitution of the State." We subjoin so much of this act as is material to the purpose in hand : Whei'cas by letters-patent unrler tlie great seal of the then Colony, and now State of New York, bearing date the (ith of May, 1G97, many of the inhab- itants of the City of New York, members of the Church of England, were erected into a Corporation, by the name and style ol the Rector and Inhabit- ants of the City of New York, of the Protestant Church of England as by law established : And whereas those parts of the said charter which render necessary the induction of a Rector to tlie said church by the Governor, according' to such instructions as he shall receive from his Brittamiic Majesty, and such other parts as acknowledi^e that rights exist in the Bishop of Lon- don in and over the said churcli, are inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the Constitution of this Slate : And whereas certain other parts of the said charter are contra iictory to that equality of religious rights which is designed to be established by the Constitution of this State : I. Re it therefore enacted by the people of the State of New York, repre- sented in Senate and As<\ve might almost say a law established by universal precedent — ■ where Legislative bodies are called upon to act in disturbance of existing interests, which have long enjoyed the quiet protection of law. that the case should be presented in the shape of a mem- orial, bearing known and responsible signatures. This seems a needful 'safeguard against improper legislation. Thus only can a Senate be preserved from imposition, and the rights of others be protected from the expense and vexation of needless disturb- ance. The present proceedings against Trinity Church had not this fair, honest, and righteous beginning. They began on the motion of a single senator. Whether he was impelled by his own interests and prejudices, or some other hand held the concealed wire which gave him impulse, was not known to the Senate, or those most interested. For all the Senate, or the public knew, he might have been the representative of some hos- tile sect, of Brigham Young, or Fanny Lee Townsend ! It was not until after the Report of the Committee in January last, that the Senate, or the friends of Trinity, learned anything of the real mover.s in this matter. Then it was that they gathered from the witnesses — -for in this strange judicial proceeding of a legislative body, there is no distinction between witnesses and accusers, judges and jury — that the real movers in the present proceedings, were those who had been foiled in similar efforts before the Senate in 1846, and unanimously rejected by the As- sembly in 1847 ! It was wise to keep these parties in the back ground. More recent discoveries have shown, that among the most active movers in this matter, are those not of the Episco- pal Church; one of whom, their Goliath of Galh, though not quite so invincible, nor battling openly as this manly champion, owns that he has been engaged for two years past in this work. The sling and stones of simple truth may be too mighty even for the chain armor of party politics ! The first resolutions were passed in the hurry and crowded business of the close of the session of 1855. [a their intention 4 and in the points they touch, as well as in those they omit, and in their limitations of time and space so as to exclude some of the noblest deeds and gifts of Trinity, they show a designing and a skilful hand. These resolutions were answered by the Vestry, fully and fairly ; whereupon, again without any memorial from any body, the hidden impulse again acted, and just in the nick of time, and just in the most effective way. A few minutes before the close of the Session of 1656, the Report of the Church was referred to a Committee clothed with vague and plenary powers to act as they like. One long connected with the New-York Argonauts is made chairman, and so the ship Argo, commanded by the Honorable Mark Spencer, once more puts to sea with a roving commission. Well may Trinity tremble for her golden fleece ! After cruising around for some months in search of witnesses and other sources of infor- mation, they dropped anchor in New- York harbor, in the month of December. Here they remained and examined witnesses of iheir own selection for parts of five days. Of these witnesses and their evidence, we shall speak hereafter. Some think that the guar- dia"ns of the golden fleece were indulging in a short nap at this time, lulled into repose by their confidence in the hono- rable material of which this Committee was composed. On the whole it was, we are inclined to think, better that the Vestry let the Committee alone at this time. Their choice of the witnesses summoned by them ; their selection of the ques- tions asked ; the judicious brevity of some examinations ; the prolix disquisitions drawn out from others who were made to swear not only to their own opinions, but even to iheir own in- terpretations of law (which we deem rather hard swearing, especially on a Church question), make as plain as daylight the animus and intention exciting and governing this investi- gation. Its end was not truth, but the fleece ! The Committee having, in this judicious manner, obtained just the facts they wanted, on the testimony of chosen wit- nesses — a soft compound of opinions and judgments, and hear- say evidence, which they sought to harden into solidity by the compression of oaths — evidence which any court of law would 5 have driven from the judgment-seat — give to the Senate the result of their expedition, in what they call a Report; but which is in fact a mere ex parte argument for which they well deserved a fee from their clients, the opposers of Trinity ! As this Report of the Argonautic expedition has been completely thrown into the shade by a second more brilliant effort, still more deserving of a fee on the part of their clients, we shall let it lest in its merited obscurity ! One good effect, at least, it had. It thoroughly aroused the Corporation of Trinity Church to a sense of the extent and spirit of the hostile forces arrayed against them. Men of high honor, who have never thought of advancing a selfish in- terest by the power entrusted to them, who have ever sought honestly and truly to discharge their duty to the Church, they were slow to believe that such a confederacy could be arrayed in this free land, and under this just government, to despoil the trust of which they were the guardians. Men who acted always in the light of day, they were no matches for those who, without fear, but not all without reproach, were working against them in the dark. In the voice of this Report comes to them the assurance — "They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones : they have said. Come, and let us cut them off from being a na- tion, that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance. For they have consulted together with one consent — they are confederate against thee. The tabernacles of Edom and the Ishmaelites ; of Moab and the Hagarenes ; Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek ; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre ; Assur also is joined with them ; they have holpen the children of Lot." Astonished at the character of the testimony and report, as well they might be, which had thus been brought against her, the Vestry of Trinity Church now demand that her witnesses shall be heard — witnesses who shall swear to/ac/A-not to opinions ; witnesses who shall testify what they do know and what they have seen ; who shall not kiss the Word of everlasting truth to give weight to their speculations about the worth of property, in order to place a body of the most honorable men in the 6 community beside Ananias and Sapphira, in keeping back part of the price of their land! With presumption, we must use the true word, which the dignity of a Senator, not of Venice but of free America, will not excuse, this Committee imply that it was a gracious act of condescension on their part to hear this side of the evidence^ a wonderful exhibition of patience that they,* for several days, "quietly listened also to the very long arguments of the counsel from whom the objection pro- ceeded." Are they not the movers in this affair ; the disturbers of their own peace and quiet ? And they even venture to charge the Corporation with regretting " that so little had been made of the opportunity afforded them in the City of New- York, when the Committee made a written communication to the Vestry before they commenced talcing testimony.'" The Vestry replied to this in a " written communication." More than this they could not do with propriety, as all the other witnesses were called by a regular summons. More than this, we sup- pose, they never would have done, had it not been for the out- rageous ex parte character of the testimony and report. Well, this condescending and most patient Committee hear this evidence of faithful and true men — Bishops, Priests, and Laymen, of honorable renown in the Church of God. Nay, we are wrong in saying they all hear it ! Notwithstanding their professions of Job-like patience, in listening to the side they did not want to bear, there is the usual variance here be- tween the fact and the assertions of their Report. The Hon. A. J. i arker, the learned and able Counsel of Trinity Church, thus speaks to the Committee (Arguments, p. 38) : " I regard it as a great misfortune to us, in this case, that some of our testimony was taken in the absence of Mr. Ramsey, and the greater part of it in the absence of Mr. Noxon." These gentlemen, however, may feel happy in being thus relieved from part of the responsibility of this partizan Report. Well, we may suppose the Chairman, who heard it all, and perhaps some friend slightly interested in this case, holding solemn council over the matter. We can imagine the learned Chair- * Report, p 3. 7 man seeming, as Judge Parker said those ought to he who assume the judicial character, " like a piece of hlank paper" — when he beholds all this testimony of his chosen witnesses, and his beloved Report demolished by the collision of the new evidence ! What shall be done ? His Report, the locomo- tive, and the long train of evidence, are all a hopeless wreck, and the passengers, the witnesses, are so maimed and injured, that they can do him no more service! Fortunately there is at hand a veteran engineer who has driven, for many years, locomotives on the State roads, who has had many a collision, in which locomotive, cars, and passengers, have been smashed up, and who has always managed to take care of number one, and escape unhurt, and who, although he ran the train off the track on the last line, has lately been made first engineer on a new road, parts of which are very dangerous. The veteran answers the despairing gaze of the Senatorial engineer with a look of calm assurance. To the question, " What shall be done ?" He answers, " Clear first all this rubbish off the track, and fire up another engine." "But we've got to drag that fresh train of evidence after us, and I'm afraid if I put head enough of steam on, it will blow us up !" " Oh, never fear, ' go ahead,' and I'll uncouple the cars which give us any trouble, and leave them behind !" " Bat then the company will miss the cars, and I will be called to account." " Never fear, they are so much crowded with business just now that they will only look at the locomotive, and never mind the cars." That some such plan as this was hit upon by the Chairman and his advisers, a further examination will make evident. The last Report quietly drops all the evidence likely to give any trouble, or which is irreconcilable with the former Report and testimony. When troublesome, evidence must be referred to, it shapes and moulds this to fit, sometimes even by the alteration of language! It passes quietly by all the difficulties which would interfere with the desired conclusions; is silent about facts of which it dare not speak, and most loquacious in setting forth its favorite opinions and conclusions. All this we will prove by quotations from the two documents. With this understanding of its past history, we are now prepared to look at the question as it stands plain and clear before us. 8 Let us take two different views of this question. First, as a mailer of right, let us see in wliat shape this question should iustly have come up before a legislative body. This will prepare us for a second and more important consideration of the matter of fact, viz. : the strange form in which this question has actually been presented before the New- York Senate. I. As A MATTER OF RIGHT, let US see in what shape this ques- tion should justly have come up before a legislative body. We suppose that it would require no very deep or profound knowledge of Blackstone to settle it as an axiom ot common sense, that there should be no intermingling of the legislative and ^McZ/czaZ functions. Legislators should never attempt to clothe themselves in ermine. The question regarding the right- ful possessors of the property of Trinity Church, or any other property, is purely a legal one. We hold that it is a question belonging to the Courts, not to the Legislature. But even those who think that it may be forced upon the Legislature, cannot differ from us in the position that its merits are to be determined by the acts of the past, and not by the misdeeds of the present. In this view, we are happy to find that the learned Committee of the Senate fully and entirely agree with us. Among the many points of difference, and their name is legion, we are most happy to discover one of agreement ! We trust the following declaration was not lost upon the Honor- able Senate : " The objection which is raised to the proposition to allow ' all the inhabitants in communion,' &c., to vote for vestrymen, for the reason that it may create tumult or confusion, is one of little weight, compared with a right vested under ancient grants and acts. It may become an unwieldy corporation ; but in looking at the right of the beneficiaries, we can hardly be called upon to take into account the difficulties which may attend the annual elections." — {Seotid Report of Select Com- mittee, p. S.) We accept this from the Committee of the Senate, as a true view of the real question at issue. They here declare that consequences, however disastrous, are not to be considered, because they furnish an objection " of little weight, compared 9 with a right vested under ancient grants and acts." If, as they justly argue, mere consequences are not to be regarded, liow can any weight be given to antecedents which do not touch these " ancient grants and acts?" By their own showing, the only question which could be entertained by the Senate, was whether a repeal of the Law of 1814 was called for, because it un- justljj affected " a right vested wider ancient grants and acts." By the showing of their own Committee, then, it is no mere presumption of private judgment. The proper course of the Senate, when this matter was presented, should have been to appoint a Committee of the most learned lawryers of their own body to investigate this great question of law, and tiien to give the result in the shape of a report upon these legal points. If such a Committee, sufficiently learned in the law, could not be gathered from their own legislative ranks, the law officers and Judges of the >State were easy of access. We do not happen to know to what profession the members of the Select Com- mittee belong, but the manner and result of their labors have not impressed us with any profound veneration for the depth of their legal attainments. The Resolutions of Inquiry, adopted by the Senate, were the first steps from the direct course. This led to the second false step, the appointment of a Committee, with inquisitorial powers, to pry into matters not within the province of legisla- tion, and which did not, as the Committee itself shows, really affect the question at issue. This was, indeed, a long stride from the straight path of just legislation over freemen, audit has led the Committee and Senate into the maze of a labyrinth, in quest of the truth which was plain and straight before them. If such important interests were not involved — if truth and jus- tice and indefeasible right were not at stake, it would be al- most amusing to follow the strange windings and turnings of their erratic course. There is a sort of fascination to the hu- man mind in following the devious steps of error, as lights and shadows diversify its track, giving it the charm of variety ; while there is less delight in the straight and even path of truth on which the broad daylight only shines. We admire the jus- tice, and the high-souled magnanimity of this Select Committee 10 of our Senate, when we hear them nohly resolving to uphold the riglil, fearless of consequences, unterrified by calamities which may ensue, and which the Bishops of New- York and other witnesses have proved will be great. No " tumult or confusion" (p. 8 of Report) of Church or State— no "difficulties," however appalling, shall affright their souls in the stead- fast purpose of maintaining " a riijht vested under ancient grants and acts." Visions of old patriots and Senators arise before us, and we almost hear, in this triple voice of the Com- mittee, the tones of Solon, Lycurgus, and Brutus. But the vision fades, as mortal visions too often do, when we furtlier hear these same voices, in which the noble resolve had been expressed, not to shrink from "right," because of the evil which should ensue, resting the whole strength of their case on proofs, that because the present holders of this right, " vested under an- cient grants and acts" had not wisely used their powers, therefore, U should he conveyed to other hands. Thus the heroic souls, which were unterrified by future consequences, are overwhelmed by past consequences. Truly, " circumstances alter cases !" After themselves laying down this just principle, from which there is no escape, that this was a question of right, determined alone by ancient grants and acts, the Select Committee rest the great burden of their proof upon what ? Upon Law — upon the tenor, and words, and provisions of " ancient grants and acts ?" Let the evidence of their own selected witnesses, and their own Reports, answer. These documents are accessible to every reader, and they will settle the truth or falsity of this Review. We challenge any reader of these to disprove the correctness of the assertion, that, according to these documents, the merits of the question presented for the decision of the Senate, by their Committee, are made to rest wholly upon the manner in which this trust has been administered by those who have held it since 1814. The " right vested " in the pre- sent Corporation of Trinity Church, is to be disturbed by new legislation, not because of " ancient grants and acts," but be- cause of the errors and sins of the Vestry. They have not built free Churches ; they have not endowed charities; they have not given lots ; they have given too much to high church- 11 men, too liltle to the "low;" they have uiiderv;.lued the amount of their property, &c., &c., therefore they niay no longer be stewards ! Between two and three pages of tlie first Report out of the twenty-seven, are alone devoted to the discussion of the ques- tion as one of law and "right vested binder ancient grants and acts" and this consists mainly of the reiterations of the opinions and views presented by the single witness who testified on this point — the Hon. Luther Bradish. We suppose it was rather hard to get lawyers to give opinions, under oath, as to disputed points of law. Yet, prefixed to his extended views of this question, appear the words, " Luther Bradish, sworn .'" Another eminent lawyer among the witnesses, Mr. Cambre- leng, attempts no sucii solemn exposition. In the second Re- port of the Committee, parts of Jive pages out of the twenty-one are given to the discussion of the law points, and all the rest devoted to a discussion of the maladministration of the Ves- try, and a vindication of the assertions of the first Report on this subject ! This appears the more remarkable, as two learned lawyers, thoroughly acquainted with the subject, Mr. Gouver- neur M. Ogden, and Hon. A. J. Parker, argued the case be- fore the Committee, on " the questions of fact" and " the questions of law." Both these arguments are distinguished by signal ability, and by the clearness and force with which they place the questions before the Committee. They are brief, terse, and pointed, witliout one needless word. The Commit- tee hardly deign to notice these, except to say fp. 3) that they were "very long," and they "quietly listened" to them! Perhaps, as the learned counsel did not swear to their own arguments and opinions, they were so lightly regarded. They however show, in this treatment, their disregard of the evidence presented by the Vestry. Indeed, this Commit- tee-entertain quite an original view of the office of a Report of a Committee. It has been usually understood to be a digested account of the facts and arguments presented before them. This Select Committee appear to consider it as a statement of their own views and opinions, quite independent of the evi- dence, and the arguments addressed to them ! We can 12 only thus understand, not only their omissions and contradic- tions of important evidence, as we shall show hereafter, but also their entire silence as to the unanswerable, as we think, arguments on the "questions of law," addressed to them by the learned and distinguished Counsel of Trinity Church. We arc compelled to think, however, unwillingly, that this Committee were influenced by a partial desire to make out a case against Trinity ; that they lost sight of their duty as Senators of this great State, in looking after the interests of those for whom they appear as advocates, when their Report magnifies and dwells upon every point of adverse evidence, though not bearing upon the question at issue, and passes over, ''in solemn silence," the great points of the case, as pre- sented by Judge Parker, in his arguments on "the questions of law." A very brief summary of these unnoticed points will establish this conviction. We can discover no special reference to the following points of law, made by the Counsel of Trinity Church. 1. That nearly all this evidence, on both sides, is entirely foreign to the main object — the repeal of the law of 1814. 2. That the original charter of 1697 provided that the Wardens and Vestrymen should be elected ' by the majority of votes of the inhabitants of the said parish,'' in communion of our Protestant Church of England, within our City of New- York. 3. By the act of 1784, in addition to communicants, those now allowed to vote, 'who shall either hold, occupy, or enjoy a pew or seat m the said church, and shall regularly pay to the support of said cJiurch,^ &,c. The plea that the words, in said church, apply to all communicants and pew-holders in the Episcopal Church of New- York, is disproved by the title of the Act, which is called "An Act for making alterations in the charter of the Corporation of Trinitij Church,^' &c. And these words are further explained in the second section, where power is given to the Wardens and Vestrymen to call and in- duct a Rector to the said church, so often as there shall be any vacancy therein. 4. That from 1784 to 1812, a period of twenty-eight years, 13 though from 1793 there were other churches, no one out of the parish voted or claimed a right to vote. That this claim was made, but not allowed, by two or three persons of another parish, in a contested election. This claim led to the applica- tion, on the part of the Vestry, for the law of 1814, entitled, 'An Act to alter the name of the Corporation of Trinity Church in New- York, and for other purposes.' " In this connection, Judge Parker quotes from a letter ad- dressed, on the 12th April, 1812, by the Rector, Wardens and -Vestry of St. Marks : — AVe have learned, with regret, that some of our Episcopal brethren assert the claim of a general right, in all the Episcopal Churches in this island, to vote at your elections for Churchwardens and Vestrymen. Whatever color may be given to this claim by any ambiguous words to be found in your charter, we sincerely take pleasure in declaring, that the congregation of St. Mark's, which we represent, have no desire to assert the claim, and that we will, at any time hereafter, cheerfully unite with your respectable body, in an application to the Legislature, if the measure shall be thought expedient, to explain the charter, and confine the right of voting to the congregations of the churches under your immediate government. 5. It is an erroneous impression, that the property of Trinity Church is held in trust for the benefit of others. A careful examination of the charter will show that the property was given to the corporation alone, as its own absolute property. That this erroneous impression on this subject has grown out of the original name given to the corporation. That the grant made to "The Rector and Inhabitants of the City of New- York, in communion of our Protestant Church, &;c., is a grant to the Corporation, in conformity with old titles. That exactly similar titles exist in the cases of St. Peter's Church, Albany ; of the Church of Fishkill ; Grace Church, Jamaica, Long Island, and in the first Church at Poughkeepsie." 6. The original charter, giving power to the church officers "to choose, nominate, and appoint so many officers of our liege people, as they should think fit, and shall be willing to accept the same, to be members of the said Church and Cor- poration." 7. That a person can be a parishioner in but one parish. 8. That a change in chartered rights cannot be made by the Legislature alone, but requires also the consent of the Corpo- ration. This point is alluded to by the Committee. In'reply to it, they say that as they have come to a conclusion to intro- duce a bill to amend (he act, and not for its repeal— this question does not properly arise." A reference to the amendment reported, will show that the old bottles" will hardly hold this " new wine." 9. The lapse of forty-three years is conclusive against any supposed individual claim of a corporator. It is a lapse of time twice that required to bar a claim to real property ; seven times that which would bar an action on contract, &c. Surely these, and many others like them, were points which might well have claimed the special notice of this Committee. Their fair discussion would have suited better the dignity and object of this Report to the Senate than its present com- position, from the vague, one-sided, and hear-say evidence and gossip of uninformed and prejudiced witnesses. All such tes- timony is powerless against the convictions, and the evidence, and the arguments, which must have influenced the Legislature of 18)4. It is no disparagement to the wisdom of the present Senate and Assembly to say, that the action of such a body of men, of whom the Empire State may well be proud, carries with it a weight of authority deserving their highest venera- tion. No urgent calls of interested parties, no special plead- ings of partizan committees, should drive them to cast reproach upon the wisdom of the past, of noble patriots whose honored names have even been defamed in this unholy cause. Sooner far should they burst the chains of party bondage, than rudely break the golden links by which memory connects them with the honored dead — the illustrious legislators of 1814. We can- not better refer to them than in the eloquent language of Judge Parker, in his argument before the Select Committee : At that time, the office of Attorney-General of this State was filled by that eminent jurist and f^ootl man, Abraham Van Vechten, and the mat- ter was referred to him by the Assembly for his opinion. He reported as follows: '• That he has examined a printed copy of the charter granted in the year 1697 to the rector and inhabitants of the city of New- York, as then established by law, and the aots altering the said charter, together 15 with the bill referred to in the resolution entitled, ' An Act to alter the name of the Corporation of Trinity Church, in the Citj- of New- York, and for other purposes,' and he is of opinion that the purpose of the said bill will not defeat or vary any existing vested rights under the said charter and acts. " Gentlemen — The Legislature of 1813 that passed that act, yras one of the ablest that ever assembled within this capitol. Among its members ■were Daniel Cady, Elisha Williams, J. Rutsen Van Rens.selaer, Josiah Ogden Iloifman, Nathan Sanford, Morgan Lewis, Erastus Root, and Mar- tin Van Buren, the most able and distinguished men of the day — men not likely to fall into the error of invading, by their legislation, the vested rights of any citizen; and there were several others in that Legislature whom I ought, perhaps, to have named in that list. Six of those distin- guished men, whose portraits now grace these walls, and who are looking down this day upon our doings, were concerned in the passage of the act of 1814, either as members of the Legislature or of the Council of Re- vision. The bill did uot pass the Legislature in silence; it was discussed and examined. When it came before the Council of Revision, objections in writing were made by Chancellor Lansing, which, on further examina- tion, were abandoned, and finally voted against by their author. Those were honest days, Mr. Chairman, when a j)ublic officer, who had been misled by an erroneous impression, might well bo expected to acknowledge his error and correct it. I hope, sir, all that honesty has not yet, in the expressive language of the Rev. Jesse Pound, " died out." For this honest and frank correction of an opinion by Chancellor Lansing, his memory has been recently defamed by an editor of a newspaper in the City of New-York, who has disgraced himself before the public, by im- puting to the Chancellor that this change of opinion was obtained by corrupt means. Shame upon such licentiousness of the press; shame upon the man who will thus assail the memory of the honored dead — and the greater be the shame if the slanderer be the editor of a newspaper called "religious." A cause must be de.sperate that requires a resort to such disreputable means. Having thus shown, in accordance with the (ieclaration of their own Committee, how this great question of tight should have been presented before the Senate of New- York, and how it was not so presented by their Select Committee, it remains for us to show : II. As A MATTER OF FACT, in whal manner and form it was presented. We presume most of our readers are familiar with the judi- cious Hoolver's noble eulogy of Law, wherein he says, " her voice is the harmony of the world," and he represents " all with uniform consent, admiring her as the mother of their peace and joy." All who are familiar with the places where National and State Laws are born, must own that, like other infants, their first entrance into this terrestrial sphere does not add much to " the harmony of the world ;" and whatever they may be in 16 ^ their maternal state, in their nascent condition, they are not the promoters of our peace and joy. The halls of legislation, the cradles of law, are not the chosen abodes of harmony and peace. Disturbing elements within and without are ever ut work, in unsettling old laws, in originating new ones. Private interests, party ends, popular passions and prejudices, are buty in the work of legislation. Men of clearest minds, of strongest principles, of most honest aims, are not unaffected by these in- fluences. It is hard to escape the malaria of the atmosphere we breathe. We might well suppose that when an old law was to be changed, or a new one made, the advocates of the measure had only to produce their strong reasons, to allay doubts, to answer objections, and when conviction was brought home to the minds of the Legislators, the act would follow. Whatever it may be in other cases, this is not the manner in which the case of Trinity Church has been presented to the New-York Senate. It has not, we boldly assert, been pre- sented as a question of right, but as a question of prejudice, resting almost wholly, as the learned counsel for Trinity de- clares, on evidence entirely foreign to the main object of the in- quiry. What has been the design of this cloud of testimony, which has risen around the real question before the Legislature, unless it has been to hide the clear sunlight of ti uth ? The December fog, which gathered round the Committee in New- Vork, and whose density seemed to increase every day, it was expected would roll after them up the Hudson, and settle around the Capitol at Albany. In its vapory folds, the real question has been obscured, but the sunlight can penetrate the thickest mists of earth. We have shown that the Select Committee, either straving in this log which others had raised around them, or wilfully shutting their eyes, had lost sight of the real question before them. We must now show that from the witnesses summoned by them, from the character of the evidence, and from the Reports, the movers of this matter in ihe Senate, and the Committee, and those who have helped their investigations, have proved themselves only anxious to excite prejudices and uphold inter- ests hostile to Trinity Church. We only ask a fair hearing, 17 with the records accessible by which we may be condemned if our statements or conclusions are untrue. 1 . The witnesses summoned by the Commiitee. Among these we cheerfully admit, are men of the highest respectability and character, upon whose integrity we would he the last to throw the faintest shadow of suspicion. But no man, however honest, is above the influence of prejudice. As mists cloud the brightest scenes of nature, so prejudice may obscure the clearest minds. It may be the real conviction of these that the property of Trinity Church should be possessed by all the churches in New- York, especially the one to which they belong ; they may dislike the policy of the Vestry, or ab- hor the church principles which prevail among them ; they may think this property should be distributed to other objects and in a different method ; they may desire to build what they call free churches, or endow favorite charities ; they may be hostile to the Episcopal Chui'ch or to all churches, and have violent feelings against ail ecclesiastical endowments, and de- sire the secularization of this property, and thus have strong prejudices on this subject. They have full right to enjoy their feelings, and their prejudices, and their private convictions, but these do not specially qualify them to be fair witnesses in this important case. Yet this seems to be the rule by which the Committee of the Senate was guided in their choice of witnesses ! We might have thought they would have recog- nized the fact that every disputed question has two sides, but the great qualification of their chosen witnesses seemed to be that they should have something to say against Trinity ! Ac- cordingly, all those who were forward in the movements of 1846 and '47 appear in the list of witnesses. On this head nothing better can be said than the words of Mr. Ogden, in his clear and forcible presentment of the questions of fact be- fore the Committee, (p. 34.) And let me in this connection call the attention of the Committee to the witnesses that are supposed to substantiate the charges against the Vestry. Three of them are assistant ministers of Trinity Church, who have come to Albany to explain their testimony, and have vindicated the Church ; two are vestrymen, who spoke of matters since explained ; eleven others testi- fied, merely, as to the values of lots ; Clayton, as to the lettings of pews 2 18 in Trinity Chapol; Wiley and Webb, as to immaterial matters ; and Dr. Muhlciiburg, whose motives no man ■would impeacli, testified, as he him- self says, on information merely, so far as concerns any facts in dispute, and certainly under an entire misapprehension of the ability of Trinity Church. Leaving out those I have just named, all the other witnesses are of two classes, and of two classes only. They arc clergymen who have applied on behalf of their churches to Trinity Church for aid, and have been unsuccessful in their applications ; or they arc parties to this con- troversy, whom it suits now to remain concealed, but who were engaged in the same contest in 1846-47, as appears in evidence, and who, it may be seen by the public prints, are at this moment the most active in the same attempt which was made in those years, with the exception of Dr. Tyng, who, not then in New- York, was not on the former occasions a party, but is now among the most violent. They sought, under cover of the clamor they intended to raise, and the popular prejudice they hoped to excite, to procure on the instant the repeal of the Act of 1814. Actu- ated, then, by the strongest interest, and, if there is any force in my com- ments upon the course of these proceedings, attached with all the blame and odium that ought to fall upon the authors of the present attack, they came before the Committee to testify to suspicions, rumors, and hearsay, attributing unworthy motives to gentlemen, if not so high in position, at least as respectable as themselves. That they are gentlemen of respecta- bility and character, I admit, but their positions cannot justify disreputable conduct, though prompted by party prejudice, and narrow, distorted views. As a striking illustration of the animus and strong feelings governing these witnesses, we quote from the letter of the Rev. Dr. Taylor of Grace Church, excusing his non-appearance at Albany, at the sunnmons of the Committee. After expres- sing " vhe most perfect respect for the Committee," he adds : "While I thus freely and sincerely express my respect for your Com- mittee, and my regret at not being permitted to aid them as I best could, in their important labors, yet you must permit me to say, Mr. Chairman, that none of this respect, and nothing of this regret is intended by me to ex- tend to any hired agents of Trinity, at whose instance, as I take it, the summons now before me was issued. During the meetings of your Committee in this city, every opportunity -was afforded to the Corporation of Trinity Church, either to summon wit- nesses or to propose cross-interrogatories to every witness before your C om- mittee ; and if in their superciliousness or reckless negligence they did not avail themselves of their privilege, the consequences must rest upon themselves. The vexatious course tliey are now pursuing, of attempting to drag gentlemen from their business and their homes at this inclement season of the year, from whom they well know that they cannot ob- tain one word of evidence in any way useful to Trinity Church, has no other earthly object than to gain time, and thus to de-jeat, hy j)o.ifponing one of the most salutary measures of reform that has ever claimed the at- tention of the Legislature of the State." The Reverend writer, it will be seen, expresses his " regret at not being permitted to aid " the Committee " in their im- 19 portant labors." The direction of his testimony shows to what these " labors " tend. The " aid " of the witness, "the labors " of the Committee, harmonize in loving concord, only disturbed by thoughts of " the hired agents of Trinity," wickedly " at- tempting to drag gentlemen from their business and their homes," with the vain purpose of getting the whole truth out of them, which the Vestry, in their "reckless negligence," thought they would give of themselves. One who desired to " aid " the Com- mittee's pious "labors," feels justly indignant at the very thought that any of their chosen witnesses should be exposed, " at this inclement season of the year," to the rigors of a cross-examina- tion. We wonder it did not strike one of the Doctor's acute- ness, that if " gentlemen " had minded " their business," and not been " busy-bodies in other men's matters," there would have been no occasion to drag them from their homes. Grace Church and others may, in the estimation of some, monopolize all the "gentlemen" of the city, but among those who are stigmatized as " the hired agents of Trinity" — we hope their gentility is better than their pay— are some who stand in this community on as high a level even as the Rector of Grace Church. In the comparison some might be reminded of the familiar dialogue, " Are you the man wat's going to ride ?" " Well, I'm the gen'leman wot's going to drive you." So much for the chosen witnesses of this Select Committee. 2. We have now to speak of the character of the evidence sought by the Committee. Of course, from what has been said of the chosen witnesses, it was for the most part against Trinity. The sole witness who testified on the question of 7-ighl, which the Committee has declared to be the only question to be re- garded, was the Hon. Luther Bradish. His testimony is thus characterized by Mr. Ogden in his argument : " Controverted positions, disproved over and over again, passed upon after careful arguments by counsel far abler than Mr. Bradish, before the Committee of the House of Assembly in 1847, and overruled by their de- cision then, are expected to derive new efficacy supported by an oath, when presented at this day as the ground for the decision of the Senate. " Again, to point out another instance shovring the entire unreliability of the testimony of Mr. Bradish, I call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the act of 1814 had passed both houses on the 2d of April, 1813, [see p. 95 of Mr. Bradish's testimony in the first Report of the Com- 20 mittee,] and the pamphlet of Col. Troup is dated on the Cth of September, 1813, more than six months after the act had passed both houses. Yet Mr. Bradish says, [p. 101 of first Report of this Committee, J that as an inducement to the passage of the Act of 1814, it was urged "as morally certain, that the future increase of the population of the city would strongly recommend to the Corporation of Trinity Church, the policy of dividing its Corporators, and setting them oif in separate Churches, with suitable endowments, and to enable the Vestry to do this in a mode free from all legal doubts, was an object of the bill. The hill was drawn and passed accordingly." Yet the truth is, that the bill was drawn, and passed both houses six months before Col. Troup said anything respecting it in the par- agraph alluded to, and from which Mr. Bradish derives his authority. All the other evidence, almost without exception, may be characterized as having nothing to do with the question, sel- dom or never positive, claiming little direct acquaintance with the facts of which it testifies, speaking on the information of others who themselves heard others say so and so, setting forth opinions and private judgments, and then swearing to their cor- rectness. We unhesitatingly pronounce the greater portion of the evidence taken before the Committee in New- York as the most vague and unsatisfactory body of testimony ever pre- sented before a judicial tribunal. Much of it is the merest gossip and scandal, such as they say a certain sex at a certam age indulge in around the tea-table ! Not one of these witnesses was subjected to a cross-examination. There is nothing strong or positive about this testimony, except the oaths, which would have been listened to in a court of law. Yet upon this the Committee base their first Report, bringing the gravest charges against the Vestry, supported by the evidence of those who own that they know little or nothing of the subject ! We have only space for a few illustrations as proofs of the above assertions. The Rev. Jesse Pound swears that (p. 83) "he was considerably acquainted with the proceedings of Trinity Church in managing their fund. J do not consider the trust has been administered in such a way as best to promote the object for which it was given." Or, as we may expound his meaning, the Vestry did not advance the glory of God and the good of man, in the person of the Rev. witness, by paying off the debts and supporting him in a churcii which has proved itself to be in an unfavorable situation. Trinity was surely not answerable for the falling off of the congregation. 21 The Rev. Dr. Tyng swears (p. 86) concerning the statement in the report of Trinity Church relative to St. George's Church — " To the best of my knowledge and belief it is not correct," That the Doctor's " best knowledge" on this subject is none of the best, a poor foundation for "belief" to rest on, is shown by the Rev. Dr. Berrian's positive testimony upon cer- tain knowledge. (See testimony, p. 37.) The Rev. Dr. Taylor (p. 104) heard " a very worthy minis- ter" say that his warden had told him that he, the warden, had applied to the Comptroller of Trinity Church for aid in their pecuniary embarrassment. The reply was, "We can give you no help, for your minister voted against us at the last Conven- tion." This case would be very strong, and its tragic conse- quence very lamentable, if the power rested in the Comptroller to give such a reply. Such applications can only be decided by the voice of a majority in Vestry meeting. As a conclusive proof of the worth of such kind of evidence, we learn that W. H. Harison, Esq., the comptroller at that time, has denied pub- licly, over his signature, that such an occurrence ever took place. Mr. John D. Wolfe (p. 105), formerly a Vestryman, testi- fies — " Have never seen a list of the corporators ; the Vestry- men are not allowed to see it, that I know of." The Rector (p. 35) testifies positively, as a fact he knows of, that this list is accessible to the Vestrymen at any time, and open to the inspection of the corporators at the annual elections. Mr. Stephen Cambreleng, (p. Ill), with his usual candor, in reply to the question — " Are you intimately acquainted with the affairs of Trinity Church?" answers — "I cannot say that I am." The same degree of candor would have ensured a simi- lar answer from every adverse witness. The Rev. R. S. Rowland, and the Rev. J. G. Geer (p. 118), testify to the fact, that the generous offer of the former was not responded to by the Vestry of Trinity Church. But the evi- dence of these excellent and devoted clergymeil does not reach the point, as they had no knovvledge of, or, at least, do not de- clare, the reasons which influenced the Vestry in not acceding to the request alluded to Their evidence, moreover, so far as it goes, helps to disprove another charge — that of partiality 22 to those called " high churchmen." We have never heard the worthy clergymen classed among the so-called, " low." We might cite further instances, but we must conclude with this which suggests the great radical defect, impairing, if not destroying, the force of almost the whole of the testimony ad- verse to the Corporation. The Rev. Dr. Taylor clearly points out this defect (p. 104), when he declares his unfavorable opinion is formed " from ^y outward observation of their acts." The acts of the Corporation, in denying requests, and in the application of their means, may appear in a very un- favorable light to outward observation, when this may give no just view of their character. Reason, judgment, common sense, which should guide a body of rational men, whether they be a Vestry or a Senate, are subjects of inward observa- tion. The doors of the Senate are open, and their debates, showing the reason of their acts, are heard ; so the public can, and will form correct opinions of their doings. Not so with a Vestry. And we hold, that no evidence, from mere " outward observation," like most of that on which the first Report was based, can fulfil the solemn character of sworn testimony — the truth, the whole truth, and nothing hut the truth ! Evidence against the acts of a body of men, who sit with closed doors, framed from mere observation, can never convict them of wrong. It does not touch the reasons which induced the outward acts, and by which alone the right or wrong of these acts can be determined. Such, we think, from a careful examination, is the prevailing character of the evidence given by the chosen witnesses of the Select Committee. As a striking illustration of the end for which this evidence was taken, and the manner in which it was drawn out, we are indebted to Gil Bias. There are too many points of resemblance. Our readers may remember that the inventive Ambrose de Lamela, with a view to the fleecing of Samuel Simon, a wealthy Jew, but who had become a convert to the Church, assumed the character of an officer of the Holy Inqui- sition, Don Raphael that of his Secretary, and Gil Bias that of an Alguazil. The preliminary inquiry was first made of a land- lord in the neighborhood, who had some acquaintance with Simon. 23 "Mr. Secretary, with his paper already in his hand and pen behind his ear, took his seat, pompously, and made ready to take down the landlord's deposition, who promised solemnly, on his part, not to suppress one tittle of the real fact. '' So far so good," said the worshipful commissioner. " We have only to proceed in our examination. You will only just answer my questions, but do not interlard your replies with any comments of your own. Do you often see Samuel Simon at church?" "I never thought of looking for him,'' said the drawer of corks, "but I do not know that I ever saw him there in my life."' " Very good," cried the Inquisitor. " Write down that the defendant never goes to church." " I do not say so, your wor- ship," answered the landlord, "I only say that I never happened to see him there. We may have been at church together, and yet not have come across each other." " My good friend," replied Lamela " you forget that you are deposing to facts, and not arguing. Remember what I told you, contempt of court is a heinous offence ; you are to give a sound and discreet evi- dence, every iota of what makes against him, and not a word in his favor, if you knew volumes." " If that is your practice, O upright and impartial Judge," resumed our host, '' my testi- mony will scarcely be worth the trouble of taking. I know nothing about the tradesman you are inquiring after, and therefore can tell neither good nor harm of him, but if you wish to examine into his private life, 1 will run and call Gaspard, his apprentice, whom you may question as much as you please. The lad comes and takes his glass here sometimes with his friends. Bless us, what a tongue! He will rip up all the minutest actions of his master's life, and find employment for your Secretary till his wrist aches — take my word for it." "I like your open dealing," said Ambrose, with a nod of approba- tion. "To point out a man so capable of speaking to the bad morals of Simon, is an instance of Christian charity, as well as of religious zeal. I shall report you very favorablv to the Inquisition." So much for the character of the evidence before the Com- mittee of the Senate. , 3. The Reports. — We now come to the last, but not the least, demonstration of the prejudice and partisan feeling influ- encing the prominent actors, in this remarkable attempt to legislate property out of the hands of its rightful possessors — the two Reports of the Select Comfnittee. The first was, for the most part, in accordance with the evidence, a fitting super- / 24 structure for such a foundation, and on that it must stand or fall. Built, as we have shown, on the sand of prejudice or partial and imperfect knowledge, and not upon the strong foundation of truth, it could Eot withstand the force of the " Testimony introduced on the part of the Vestry." As this overthrew all its positions, and contradicted all its statements, by positive assertions of truth ; as its infirm Law could not stand up against the strong legal arguments of able counsel, and its false testimony was overwhelmed by the evidence of well-informed witnesses, a new effort was necessary. Then came the second Eeport, louder than the first, as if the Com- mittee had only used the new evidence for wadding, and ram- med it down hard to produce this stunning effect ! As much has been claimed for the evidence of the witnesses against Trinity, because of their high respectability and char- racter, a woi'd may surely be said in behalf of those who have given testimony in her behalf. The Clergy and Laymen who have appeared for her, will hardly suffer by a comparison with those arrayed against her. The greater knowledge, the more certain information which their position secured, will more than counterbalance any alleged partiality on the part of men, whose honor and integrity ai-e above the reach of sus- picion. The "testimony introduced on the part of the Vestry," to counteract the ex parte evidence gathered by the Committee, covers some hundred and thirty pages of printed matter. The arguments of the able counsel of Trinity, directed against the assumptions of the ex parte Report of the Committee, occupy sixty-six more. The second Report of the Committee, which we should rather call a Reply to the evidence of the Vestry and the arguments of their counsel, is contained in twenty-one pages. The witnesses and the learned counsel of Trinity were made to feel that they were meeting an adverse body, when they came before the Committee, as its Honorable Chairman often spoke of "our side," which meant not the side of truth, but the side opposite to Trinity. The tenor of the cross-exami- nations by the Committee made them appear in the light of opposing counsel! We may well ask whether this was a 25 proper appreciation of the responsible office of those who held the place of Judges ? The Hon. Mr. Parker begins his argu- ment with these words, which were not contradicted: "I address the Committee as a judicial body." Their Report to the Senate should therefore have had the impartial character of a judicial charge. It sinks, by an unworthy degradation, into the special plea of an attorney who has to contend against the evidence ! The positive testimony of the witnesses on the part of the Vestry, weighs down the light, vague, and negative evidence of the opposing witnesses ; so the Committee threw themselves along with their Report, into the scales, to " make the balance true !" If any one, with an unprejudiced mind, will carefully read the testimony and arguments of the witnesses and counsel, introduced by the Vestry, and then compare this with the Re. port, their convictions will be strong on this point. Our space will only permit us to give a few sajnples ; enough, however, to show the quality of the whole compound. The following sweeping statement, which almost makes one whistle, will fitly introduce our readers to this Report : — " It will appear, from a careful examination of the mass of evidence presented by Trinity Church, that every point of importance set forth in the previous Report of your Committee, is here abundantly corroborated." — Report, p. 12. We have tried hard to find some proper epithet, suited at once to the respect we owe to a Senatorial Committee and to the trvAh, to characterize this statement. We dare not use the mildest euphemism, so we conclude with the canny old Scot, that " it's mair discrest just to whistle I" If our readers will take the pains to compare this statement with the testimony of the Rector, Dr. Haight, General Dix, and others, they may find it hard to imitate our discretion. In immediate connection with the above, is the following repetition of a disproved charge :— "Additional evidence proves the difficulty in obtaining a copy of the list of corporators, only one copy appearing to have been ever given, and that not until after a formal vote of the Vestry. The list is stated to be inaccurate also, Mr. Verplanck believing that " many" names are omitted from the list of per- sons entitled to be entered." 26 In what manner this "additional evidence proves the diffi- culty," will appear by the following, from that of Rev. Dr. Berrian (p. 35) : ~ " Q. Is the list of the corporators of Trinity Church kept in the joint charge of the Comptroller and Rector? A. There seems to have been some misapprehension on this subject. The list is kept in the vestry office, and is under the sole cus- tody of the Comptroller. My only agency in regard to this list is, to make an annual statement on the meeting of the Ves- try, immediately preceding the election of wardens and vestry- men at Easter ; of the names of the new communicants, which have been added in the interval, and the decrease of the num- ber in the same period, by death, or removal, in order to ren- der the list more accurate and complete. This is done regu- larly every year, and how one vestryman, if accustomed to be in his place, and giving any proper attention to the business before iiim, could have been ignorant af the purpose for which it was done ; or another, having never seen this list, a privilege which he had a right to demand, but which he never appears to have claimed, is to me a matter of surprise. "Q. State whether the book containing this list is usually taken to the place where the election of wardens and vestry- men is held ? A. I know that it is frequently, if not uniformly, and I believe that it is open to the inspection of any persons present, who may have the curiosity to examine it." The following " additional" item is from the testimony of G. C. Verplanck, Esq. (p. 90). : " Q. State whether there is any order of the Vestry prohib- iting free access to the list of corporators ? A. There is no order to that effect ; the superior officers have never refused to my knowledge any one. 1 cannot say what the clerks may have done. The books lie in places open all day, at least, and the one containing the pew-holder corporators is in the outer office, where pew-rents are collected, and frequently examined by any one I think who has the curiosity The book contain- ing the list of communicant corporators is kept in an inner office on an open desk ; I never knew the examination of it refused." We find the following declaration of Senatorial reporting on this same page 12 : " No contradiction is offered to the statement in your Com- mittee's Report as to the singular pevv-leases first given at Trinity 27 Chapel. The explanation is, in substance, that it was a measure of over prudence, adopted in order to prevent the intrusion of pew-holders who "had no sympathy" with the A^estry. ^ he measure was condemned at the time by some of I he Vestry themselves, and is defended now by none." These are Mr. Verplanck's words, (p. 98) : — " The motive of those, however, who carried it through, was that of the precautionary prudence against the intrusion of a body of pew-holders who had no sympathies with us or any other church. It was recommended by a committee and approved by a majority of the Vestry. It was repealed before it could have any practical effect." No reference is here made to " sympathy with the Vestry," but to those whose sympathies were of a secular rather than an ecclesiastical tendency ! No notice is taken of the important fact that the effect of the erection of Trinity Chapel was to increase the Church accommodations for the poor, downtown. This fact is thus stated by Dr. Haight, p. 7 : — "The arrangements in regard to the pews at Trinity Chapel, to which I have referred, were these : The Vestr}"^ offered to each parly holding a pew in either of their three down-town churches, who might be desirous of obtaining a pew in Trinity Chapel, to credit him with the amount of the rent of his pew down town on condition that, while he occupies the pew in Trinity Chapel, the Vestry sliould be entitled to the use of the pew down town. The pews which thus come into the posses- sion of the Vestry have been thrown open by them for general use, without charge. As the number of pews of this class is quite large, as I have before said, Trinity and St. Paul's have become, in a large measure, free churches, and St. John's measui'ably so, and these churches are of such a character, architecturally and otherwise, as to secure the attendance of the poor to a much greater extent than has been found practi- cable in humbler edifices." We find the following remarkable statement on page 9 : — "In the Vestry itself, the supposed monopoly of knowledge and power by the Standing Committee is declared not to exist. The Rector testifies that the reports made by that Committee are overruled by the Vestry, 'scores of times ;' or as Mr. Ver- planck more quietly expresses it, tins reversal takes place sometimes and in unimportant matters.'" 28 The word ''unimportant," which appeared in the Report, as printed by the Committee, is said to be a clerical mistake, but even this correction does not alter the tenor or drift of the sentence, or make it in accordance with Mr. Verplanck's teriti- mony, viz. : " Q. What do you say as to the alleged control of the Stand- ing Committee ? A. On some subjects, it is necessarily great — as to the valuation of property, and the terms on which property should be sold — they being familiar from long and daily experience with the value of our property in detail. On other points, such as allowances or gilts to churches, the Ves- try form their own judgment, and frequently refer matters back to them for re-consideration ; sometimes, md in important matters, rejecting their Eeport, and making or refusing grants, in opposition to their recommendation. A case in point has just been referred to in this examination. It is that of the Church known as St. John the Baptist, a donation to which the Standing Committee had reported against, and which, after full consideration and debate, was granted, nearly to the amount asked." The Report, after alluding in a very disingenuous style (p. 10) to the vei-y strong declarations of Gen. Dix, the Rector, and various other witnesses, in relation to the influence of " party divisions" in affecting the appropriations of the Vestry, thus concludes in direct opposition to the evidence (p. 11): " Among all the stipends now and of late years granted, the only one that is stated in the evidence, to be given to a 'low' Church clergyman, amounts to f 300 a year." Now, Mr. Verplanck, against whose evidence this Commit- tee seem to have some special spite, had merely referred to- the following, as one among the appropriations to institutions of charity (p. 95) : " Another stipend is a charity rather than a church donation, to a minister, the Rev. Mr. Cook, the German missionary at Ward's Island and in the city among German emigrants ; I think the allowance is $.300. I suppose I may add, as there has been an allusion to it in a previous question, that he is a ' low' Churchman ; and I never have known of any objec- tion being made to the motion I make every year for the ap- propriation." 29 The Committee, in saying that this was the only " stipend" now and of late years given to a " low" Churchman, had forgot- ten the following testimony of Dr. Haight: " In looking over the list of parishes, whose churches have been mortgaged to Trinity Church, I find eight, the clergy and lay delegates of which, for a series of years, on all leading ques- tions, spoke and voted differently from the Rector and lay de- legates of Trinity. Two of these are mortgaged for $25,000, two for $20,000, one for $5,000, 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 Con- vention, without regard to the course of Trinity. My opinion of the clergy and laity r)f the Diocese of New- York is such, that I do not think it would' be practicable for any Corporation to buy their opinions or their votes. Of the churches last re- ferred to, six received gifts of money and land, and twelve re- ceived gifts of money alone, two received gifts of land and a stipend, three received gifts of land alone, six received gifts of stipend alone. My knowledge of the votes of the lay dele- gates and clergy of the several parishes, is derived from the fact that, for a series of years it became my duly at every Con- vention to call the ayes and noes on very many questions : And then in their remarks upon this proportion in the do- nations, they seem to regard the Diocese of New- York as equally divided between the "the high" and " the low," and that Trinity only doles out a small measure of her bounty among the lower half. Whereas the proportion of her gifts bears a very fair ratio to the number of this particular class in the Dio- cese. The Report states (p. 14,) that they do not understand the Church to deny the gross valuation of their property, at $6,487,050. The testimony leaves the first statement made by the Vestry unchanged ! The Report declares, (p. 17) " no direct attempt is made to dis- own or disclaim the representations urged by Col. Troup, in or- der to obtain the Law of 1814." We have already quoted the strong disclaimer of Mr. Ogden, and now add the following from Mr. J. R. Livingston's testimony, (p. 129.) 30 " Q. Is it true, as stated in the Eeport of the Committee, foot of page 16, that Colonel Troup's pamphlet was an inducement to the Legislature to pass the Act of 1814 ? A. It cannot be true, from the fact that the act was passed on the 2d of April, 1813, and the pamphlet bears date the 6th of September fol- lowing. The Report says (p. 18), "Nor does there appear to be any manner in which i-esponsibility can be secured ecclesiastically, any more than civilly." Here is Bishop Potter's testimony, (p. 23). " Q. Is not the administration of this fund entirely and absolutely separate from all the religious and ecclesiastical care of the Church, as a religious society ? A. I think not. " Q. Wherein does she exercise .any control ? A. The im- mediate disposal of this fund is ordered in the presence of and by the Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen, of the parish. They are both immediately responsible to me as the bishop of the diocese, and are amenable to the Church of this diocese assem- bled in Convention. I do not mean, however, to be understood that I supervise the details of appropriations, or that my assent is essential to the validity of any grants by the Vestry. The Report (p. 20), pretends to derive from the evidence the followmg arguments, to show the necessity of widening the sphere of tlie corporators, so as to include among them sufficient wealth and intelligence for the choice of Wardens and Vestrymen I " Dr. Haight describes the congregation at Trinity as made up of strangers, young men, transient residents, and the poor. Dr. Vinton testifies that the congregation at St. Paul's is com- posed mainly of strangers, clerks, mechanics, artizans, porters, washerwomen, hucksters, and miscellaneous poor, making their living as daily laborers. Dr. Higbee says that these removals have "gradually and surely deprived Trinity and St. Paul's of their regular congregations, and parochial spirit, responsibility, and efficiency ?" and that they " diminish and weaken, in a con- tinually increasing ratio, the constituency of the Corporation, thus destroying the equilibrium of the parish, and undermining its foundations as an institution of public charity." As an un- avoidable consequence of this sweeping change, both in the number and the character of the corporators, it has been found impossible to " keep up the standing of the constituency ; ' and Dr. Berrian excuses the present state of things on the ground that in former times there was " a wider range than now for 31 the choice of distinguished and intelligent vestrymen," quali- fied to administer so important a trust. Now let us turn to the testimony, and see what these Rev- erend gentlemen really say, for we have learned by sad ex- perience not to depend on the quotations of the Report ! Dr. Haight says (p. 4.): "The congregation at Trinity Church is large, and composed in great part of strangers, tran- sient residents, young men, clerks, &c., and the poor, upon none of whom is any tax, in the form of pew-rent or otherwise, laid for the support of the ministrations of the Church." There is a slight difference between the words of the Report "made up of," and the language of the evidence "composed in -great part of!"' There are a few more left of the old sort, permanent worshippers in Trinity yet! Dr. Vinton says (p. 60.) : " At St. Paul's Chapel, the only one I speak of, the congregation is composed of three classes ; first, the old families retaining their seats ; second, strangers from the hotels, clerks, and sojourners of the citj'-, engaged, for the most part, in mercantile business ; third, mechanics, arti- zans, porters, washer-women, hucksters, and miscellaneous poor, who obtain their living by daily labor." The Report omits as unimportant " the old families retaining their seats," some of whom are not quite beneath the notice even of State Senators. Dr. Berrian and Dr. Higbee were both speaking of the past, not the present state of things. But surely a Senatorial Com- mittee can change tenses as well as laws ! We might further show many errors of omission and com- mission, such as any reference to the fact that three of the Clergy, and one of the V^estry, had corrected the wrong im- pression given to their evidence ; the blank silence, or even more questionable utterances of the Report as to the gifis, endowments, charities, provisions, for free churches, for mission- aries, for "its own" and other poor, &c. But the whole Re- port and Testimony must be read, to show how strongly the main drift of the former runs against the current of the latter. The Committee, however, may find themselves mistaken in their estimate of the popular tide ! 32 But, really, we have followed these vestiges of Senatorial creation far enough, perhaps beyond our reader's patience, to show the beautiful concord between the Testimony and the Report ! The Committee have used their Senatorial powers to grant these a divorce, and as the parties can never agree, we had better allow them to remain separate. Perhaps, we should rather say, as a Select Committee, they have used their appropriate powers in selecting approved extracts from the testimony. Still this does not account for the omission of those parts which bear most strongly upon the great questions at issue. It may be that they believe in a Church without a Bishop ! Thus only can we account for their omission, among many other important points, of the solemn testimony of Bishop Potter and Bishop Delancey, as to the fraud which would be committed, and the evils which would arise from the repeal of a law, which by the limitation of time, has be- come " a statute of repose." We venture the supposition, we " Imovj nothing," that the members of tliis venerable Committee are citizens of some larger town, perhaps of our metropolis. There is a dryness and a hardness in their Report, which speak nothing of the verdure and the freshness of rural scenes. Thus only can we account for the fact, that our country friends are not warned of the dangers and the evils which this proposed measure will bring upon them. They must be as green and verdant as their own beautiful meadows, if they do not see this. The bounty which has flowed to them, in gentle rivulets and quiet streams, our rapacious and greedy citizens are seeking to dam up and bring into a general reservoir for city use. The country may only become awake to this fact, when they see their Croton distributed in the pipes and bath-tubs of New-York. Then, woe to the politicians, and the political party, by whose aid this result has been accomplished ! They will know the palsy which, by an eternal ordinance, will ever blight the hand dar- ing to touch that which has been consecrated to the Most High. Lest some may think that a fervid imagination is trying to ex- cite them by its own dreams, we add the sober testimony given 33 under the solemnity ol an oath, by Bishop Delancey of the Western Diocese of New-York. "The repeal of the law would be disastrous to the whole Church of the State, outside the city. 1. By raising the ques- tion, as to the right of dispersing any of this property out of the city, which is denied by some, but which, the present Cor- poration has admitted, and has temporarily acted on. 2. By leading, almost necessarily, to the division of all the property among the city churches. 3. By thus cutting off allthelceble country churches from the benefit of this favor. 4. By stop- ping what has been a stream of most salutary and fertilizing benevolence to religious, charitable, or educational institutions in the rural districts." We impeach no man's motives, but we speak our honest convictions, when we say that an attempt to slop, or to direct the present quiet and beneficent flow of the bounty from Trin- ity Church, is the act of no friend to the best interests of the Church or of the State. Who are they that are clamoring for this change ? Are they the poor, or the needy, whose calls have been despised or neglected ? The leaders in this move- ment are rich men and rich congregations, many of whom have already had their full share of property, which has ever been used, according to the best intentions, if not tlie wisest, for the glory of God and the good of man. Oar humble voice may never reach the ears of a single Le- gislator. If it does reach them, we say, pause, deliberate well, before you disturb that which has long reposed in the rest of the eternal shelter which Law should throw around Right. Enough already are the disturbing elements in the political atmosphere. Add not to the agitations of the State the ele- ments of deeper excitement. Let the Church and her pro- perty alone. The State has enough to do in taking care of it- self THE TITLE, PARISH RIGHTS AND OF TRINITY CHURCH, NEW YORK, FEOM THE APPEirorX TO 33isl)op JDc Cancel's 2[u)entktl) ^onocntional ^iibress, DELIVERED IN Oswego, August 1 9, 1 857. UTICA, N. Y. CURTISS & WHITE, PRDfEERS, 171 GENESEE STREET. 185V. ♦ I was summoned to Albany, on the 13th of February, on a requisition of a Committee of the Senate, in relation to the afifairs of Trinity Church, New York, arraigned before the Legislature and threatened with an invasion of her constitutional rights in the control of her property. As this venerable Corporation has been often assailed, and as she has applied her funds in this Diocese, as well as throughout the State, most advantageously to the interests of religion and education, and must depend upon the intelli- gence, integrity, knowledge and just appreciation of legal and constitutional rights of the whole State, for her preservation from the inroads of injustice, rapa- city and party, it may be well to put on record, in a note to this Address, for information, a condensed view of the groundless character of the assaults hith- erto made upon her Title, her Parish Character, and her use of her Property. [Bishop De Lancey's Conventional Address, Aug. 19, 1857.] TRINITY CHURCH, NEW YORK. This venerable Corporation has been assailed on three grounds : I. Her title ; II. The Act of 1814; m. The value and distribution of her funds. I. HER. TITLE. Her TmE has been assailed — 1. By the heirs of Anneke Jans ; 2. By the alleged claim of the State. ANNEKE JANS. 1. Against the heirs of Anneke Jans there have been decisions, by successive Courts, both before and since the Revolution of 17 76, and always in favor of Trinity Church. Anneke Jans was the alleged original Dutch Patentee, under the States of Holland, of part of this property. She married one Bogar- dus, a Dutch Clergyman, hence called Domine Bogardus. Under her, the claim was set up : and her heirs, inmmierable, have since prosecuted it. This Anneke Jans' claim to the property of Trinity Church was founded on these allegations : 1. That the title was not in the Queen when, in 1705, she gave the lands to Trinity Church, but in a private person. 2. That the lands had been granted in the time of the Dutch to Anneke Jans, the original Patentee. 3. That all titles granted by the Dutch were confirmed to the grantees by the Articles of Capitulation, when the Colony surrendered to the English. 4. That Cornelius Brouwer, a decendant of the original grantee, was one of the true heirs and owners of the property. 4 TRINITY OHTJKOH PROPERTY. FIRST SUIT. 1. This Cornelius Brouwer commenced an ejectment suit against Trin- ity Church in 1 750, after she had possessed the property about forty-five years ; and was non-suited for not bringing cause to trial. He subse- quently commenced another suit, which, in 1760, was tried before a special jury, struck for the purpose, in the presence of the parties and their cou^isel, before one of the Judges of the Supreme Court, David Jones, Esq., of Fort Neck, Queens county, who was commissioned for the trial of this very cause — all the other Judges being members of Trinity Church and interested in the result of the suit. The jury con- sisted of persons of credit, principally belonging to the Church of Holland. The attorney and counsel for Cornelius Brouwer against Trinity Church were the leading Presbyterian members of the bar, viz : William Smith, Sen., William Smith, Jr., William Livingston and John Morine Scott. The trial lasted two days and almost two nights. The titles on both sides were fully canvassed ; and the jury, after a charge by the Judge, and a recess of half an hour, returned with a verdict in favor of Trinity Church. Such was the result of the first trial. 2. Col. Malcolm commenced a suit by writ of right in the Supreme Court, to recover the property of Trinity Church, or some of it. The premises, the title to which was not immediately in question, were located in or near Chambers street. The grounds of his claim are not exactly known to me, but it is believed to have been in some way con- nected with the Bogardus pretensions, probably as an assign of one or more of the soi-disant heirs. The cause was tried in the year 1807, in the old City Hall, in New York, by grand assize,* (an ancient and solemn mode of jury trial now disused in this State,) and a verdict was found and judgment entered for Trinity Church. 3. Previous to 1830, one Bogardus, claiming to be an heir of Anneke Jans, commenced proceedings in the Court of Chancery against Trinity Church, to recover a part of the Queen's Farm. The case was elaborately argued, and decided in favor of Trinity Church, by the late Chancellor, R. H. Walworth. (See 4th Paige's Reports, 178.) It was carried, by appeal, to the Court for the Cor- rection of Errors, where the decision of the Chancellor was aiBrmed. * Black. Coim. Vol. 2, pp. 190, 341, and Appendix p. vi, Ed. by Christian. THE AiraEKE JANS' CLAIM. 5 4. Another suit was commenced in 1834, by one Jonas Hiunbert, also claiming as an heir of Anneke Jans. Tlie complainant's bill was de- murred to, and the demurrer was sustained by the Chancellor, and the bill was dismissed. (See 7th Paige's Reports, page 195.) This, also, was carried, by appeal, to the Court for the Correction of Errors, and the decision of the Chancellor was sustained by the unanimous vote of the members of the Court. (See 24th Wendell's Reports, p. 587.) An issue of fact was afterwards made, in the Bogardus suit above mentioned, which was decided against the complainant by the late Vice Chancellor Sanford, upon full and complete testimony on the part of Trinity Church, and no appeal was taken from the decision. (See 4th Sanford's Chancery Reports, p. 633 ; Id. p. 369.) 5. Nine other suits were brought in the Supreme Court by another Cornelius Brouwer, in 1847, claiming as an heir of Anneke Jans ; and, after the causes were at issue, the plaintiff submitted to a nonsuit. 6. In July, 1851, an action was commenced against Trinity Church by the same counsel in the name of one Kiersted, in the Court of Com- mon Pleas, in the city of New York. 7. And in April, 1852, another action was brought by the same coun- sel, in the name of the same Kiersted, in the Supreme Court, while the action in Common Pleas was pending. The plaintiff, Kiersted, was compelled to elect between his actions, and he abandoned that in the Court of Common Pleas. The case was heard in November, 1854, and decided on the 9th of April, 1855. The bill was dismissed with costs. All these suits, except those of Brouwer and Humbert, were com- menced and conducted by the same counsel, George Sullivan, Esq., who, for twenty-two years, had maintained the litigation against Trinity Church, in the name of Mr. Kiersted or others. Vice Chancellor Sandford, in deciding in favor of Trinity Church, thus expresses his views : " And now that I have been enabled to examine it (the ease) carefuUy and with due reflection, I feel bound to say, that a plainer case has never been pre- sented to me as Judge. Were it not for the uncommon magnitude of the claim, the apparent sincerity and zeal of the counsel who supported it, and the fact (of which I have been often admonished by personal application in their behalf,) that the descendants of Anneke Jans at this day are hundreds, if not thousands, in number, I should not have deemed it necessary to deliver a written judg- ment on deciding the cause."* ♦Opinion, p. 40. 6 TEINITY CHUECH PEOPEKTY. THE STATE CLAIM. 2. In 1854, Mr. Rutger B. Miller memoralized the Commissioners of the Land Office, alleging that he and his associates were in posses- sion of evidence, showing that the title to the property called the King's Farm, or Queen's Farm, in the city of New York, held by Trin- ity Church, having been Crown lands, and never legally alienated to Trinity Church, was vested in the people of the State of New York, and offering to carry on a suit of ejectment against Trinity Church at his own expense, and recover the property escheated to the State, pro- vided that one-quarter of the estate so recovered be given to him. An agreement was made with Mr. Miller, by the Commissioners of the Land Office, by resolutions, passed June 10, 1854, and August 31, 1854, directing the Attorney General to commence such a suit, on the conditions — 1. That the State should be indemnified against incurring any ex- pense by the suit, by a bond of indemnity of $5000, with surety to be approved by the Comptroller. 2. Provided that proper evidence, showing the title of the State to such farm, should be first shown, and lodged with the Attorney General of the State. On the 22d January, 1855, the Attorney General reports to the Senate, that Mr. Miller had not fulfilled the conditions, and that no suit had been commenced. Subsequently, it appears that Mr. Miller did comply with some or one of the conditions, gave the bond with securities, and submitted his evidence of the title of the State to this property to the Attorney General, and through him to the Commissioners of the Land Office, who adopted, March 2, 1855, the following preamble and resolution, viz : " Whereas, The Attorney General having submitted to this Board the testimo- ny in regard to the title of Trinity Church to the King's Farm, which was fur- nished to him by Rutger B. MUler, and the same being unsatisfactory, "Resolved, That the Resolution of June 10, 1854, directing the commencement of a suit, and that of August 31, 1854, in relation to the Board, be, and the same are hereby rescinded." Sometime afterwards, in 1855, the Commissioners of the Land Office, on the urgent application of Mr. Rutger B. Miller, renewed the authority and instructions to the Attorney General, to commence a suit to test the title of Trinity Church, on the terms proposed by Mr. Miller. In January, 1856, Trinity Church presented a memorial to THE STATE CLAIM. 1 the New Commissioners of the Land OfiSce, declaring that they do not, in any way, object to a suit against them to test their title, but praying that the bargain to give Mr. Miller a portion of the land, if recovered to the State, may be annulled, as being, amongst other things, contrary to the Constitution, which appropriates all escheated lands to the Common School Fund, and thus prohibits such payment to Mr. Miller. The bargain, being deemed unconstitutional, was abandoned. But the Attorney General was directed to bring a suit before the Supreme Court, to test the title of Trinity Church to her property. Accordingly an action has been brought in the name of the People, and is now at issue and will soon be decided. On the point of the claim of the State to the property of Trinity Church, the Commissioners of the Land Office, in 1836, consisting of Messrs. Samuel Beardsley, John A. Dix, A. C. Flagg, A. Keyser and William Campbell, put their names to the following opinion, and establish the following facts : OPINION. 1. That the Rector, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church in the city of Kew York, are a valid corporation, with full power to hold the real estate which has been referred to. 2. That it has a valid, subsisting, and absolute ^itle to the lands referred to. 3. That it is entitled to the rents and profits of said lands, without any regard to the amount of income which they may yield. FACTS. They establish the following facts : 1. That in 1705, Lord Combury, Governor of the Province of New York, in the name, and as the act and deed of Queen Anne, made a lease, by which the lands called the Queen's Farm and the Queen's Garden were granted and confirmed to the corporation of Trinity Church, and their successors forever, to be holden in free and common socage paying the yearly rent of three shillings. 2. That the power of the Provincial Governor to make leases of the Crown Lands, was unlimited in 1705, when the lease in question was made. 3. That the lease was valid and effectual in its inception, and was so re- garded during the continuance of the Provincial Government. 4. That the lease of 1705, had been regarded as a subsisting and valid grant, not only by the Provincial Government, to as late a period as 1750, when quit rent was paid upon it, but by the Government of this State in 1786, when tiie quit rent reserved was finally commuted and satisfied. 5. That the corporation of Trinity Church has held these lands, claiming an absolate and indefeasible title to them from the time of the commutation and 8 TEtNITY CHtTECH PEOPEETY. paymentof said quit rent in 1786, (then, in fifty years, and now, in 1857, seventy-one years.) 6. That if the people of the State had then, in 1786, a right to these lands, that right has been lost by lapse of time, the right of suing for the recovery of lands being limited to forty years in this State, and in England and Provinces to sixty years. 7. And that the Legislature of the State have repeatedly recognized the corporation of Trinity Church, as a legal, valid and subsisting coi-poration.* It is understood that the question of the title of the State to this property, will be settled at an early date, the cause in which it is involved having a preference over others. II. THE ACT Oin 1814. Another ground of assault upon Trinity Church is the Act of 1814. Certain persons, who are members of the various incorporated Epis- copal Churches in the city of New York, about fifty in number, claim also to be corporators of Trinity Church in that city, and to be entitled not only to choose officers and control the affairs of their own Churches, hut to manage the affairs of Trinity Church, by participating in the election of its Church Wardens and Vestrymen. And they complain that by an Act of the Legislature, passed in 1814, their rights, as cor- porators of Trinity Church, have been impaired, and they ask and urge a repeal of the Act of 1814, as being in violation of their rights, after haviruj submitted to it, vidthout ever ajjpealing to the courts of law to test its constitutionality, /or fm-ty-three years. The claim is that members of other incorporated Episcopal Churches in the city of New York are also corporators of Trinity Church, and as such are entitled to vote at its elections. The following facts and views present the subject : In 1790, Trinity Church, with her two Chapels of St. Paid's and St. George's was the only Protestant Episcopal Church in the city, and comprehended within her limits all the Episcopalians. There was but one Parish — the Parish of Trinity Church. In 1793, Christ Church was organized by persons who were formerly members of Trinity Church, but who separated voluntarily from it, erected a house of public worship, and applied to have their delegates admitted to a seat in the Convention of the Diocese in October of that * Chief Justice Bronson, who had just vacated the office of Attorney General, and as such had ofHcially and fully considered the subject, is known to have been of the same opinion as his successor, Mr. Beardsley. THE ACT OF 1814. 9 year. They were incorporated by a special act, They were admitted into the Convention in 1802. In 1801, St. Mark's Church was organized and incorporated by a special act. In 1804, the French Church, Du Su. Esprit, became connected with the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church. In 1806, St. Stephen's Church was organized and incorporated by a special act. In 1807, St. Michael's Church, Bloomingdale, was organized and in- corporated by a special act. In 1809, Grace Church was organized and incorporated under a special act. In 1810, Zion Church and St. James' Chm'ch were organized and incorporated under special acts. The above dates are derived from the Journals of Convention, and are thought to be correct. In 1813, St. George's Chapel was separated from Trinity Church, and became a separate, independent Parish. In this year, 1813, the General Law for the incorporation of Relig- ious Societies was passed by the Legislature, covering the case of Church organizations in the Protestant Episcopal Church. To this date, 1813, none of the corporators of these nine distinct, separate, independent, incorporated Parishes, extending through a period of twenty years, had ever exercised, or legally claimed the right of voting at the elections of Wardens and Vestry of Trinity Church. Nor had the corporators of Trinity Church, as such, claimed the right of voting for Wardens and Vestr}'men in these newly organized and in- dependent congregations. At the period when what is called the Jones and Hobart controversy prevailed, and divided the Churchmen in all the Churches in the city into parties, it was, that the pretension was urged that the corpo- rators of these several new Parishes were also still corporators of Trinity Church, and as such, had a right to vote for Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, of which both Hobart and Jones were Ministers. In this year, 1313, the corporation of Trinity Church applied to the B 10 TKINrrY CmiKCH peopeett. Legislature for the law which was passed by the Legislature in that year, and submitted to the Council of Revision, who were divided on the point, and after satisfaction given to Chancellor Lansing, who doubted on some of its provisions, there was no majority against it, the Council being equally divided, and it became a law in 1S14 ; and hence called the Act of 1814 ; rendered necessary by the organization of the new Parishes above named, the separation of St. George's from Trinity, and the pretension of some individuals of the new Churches to a right to vote at the Vestry elections in Trinity Parish. The Act was passed on the application of Trinity Church, with full notice and knowledge of all parties concerned, as appears from cotem- porary documents and pamphlets. The assent of both parties, the Legislature and Trinity Church, to the modification of the contract, or charter, having been given, there is no foundation for the allegation that that Act impaired the obligation of a contract or was unconstitu- tional. The then Attorney General* of the State gave a formal opinion at the time that the Act was not imconstitutional. The constitutionality of the Act of 1814 has been admitted, theoretically and practically, by such Lawyers as Richard Harison, Peter Augustus Jay, Thomas L. Ogden, William Johnson, John T. Irving, David B. Ogden, Alexander Macdonald, Gulian C. Verplanck and John A. Dix and others, who have, since that date, served in the Vestry of the Church. The Act has been vindicated as constitutional by the late John C. Spencer. No appeal to a legal tribunal, always easily accessible, has ever been made by any party, individual or congregation, supposed to be aggrieved, to test the constitutionality of the Act, which has been in operation forty-three years. The following propositions are believed to be sustained by all the facts in the case, and to embody the whole truth on this subject : 1. That the qualifications for voters for officers of Trinity Church, prior to the Act of 1814, were prescribed by, and are to be found in, the original Charter of 1697, and the Act of 1784. 2. That those qualifications are not varied by the Act of 1814, any further than they had already become modified by our Independence, and the adoption of our State Constitution, which abolished the legal * Abram Van Vechten. THE ACT OF 1814. 11 establishment of any religious denomination in connection with the State, and all laws, claims and qualifications growing out of such establishment. 3. That for the purpose of declaring the consequence of this change of circumstances, and for providing for carrying into effect the original intent of the Charter, the Legislature, acting with the consent of the corporation of Trinity Church, had unquestionable authority to pass the Act of 1814. 4. If that Act had never passed, the members of other incorporated Episcopal Churches in the city of New York, could not vote for oflScers of Trinity Church, because 1st. They do not possess the qualifications required by the Charter of 1697, and the Act of 1*784; and 2d. Be- cause if they ever had any rights as corporators of Trinity Church, they have renounced all claims to them, and have disfranchised them- selves. They could derive, therefore, no benefit from the modification or repeal of the second section of the Act of 1814. 5. The Act of 1814, having been acquiesced in for more than forty three years, by those, if there were any, whose rights were aff'ected, such fact affords a just presumption that they concurred in its provisions. 6. That it would be highly injurious to repeal or alter the third section of the Act of 1814, as it would open sources of dispute, which have been happily and properly closed, and would stimulate litigation by the appearance of a legislative decision upon the validity of the law in question. 7. That if the Act of 1814 was constitutionally passed, it is not competent to the Legislature to repeal or alter it, without the consent of the corporation of Trinity Church. 8. That if applicants for its repeal have any wrongs to redress, the same Courts are open to them to which all other citizens are re- quired to appeal, and there are no obstructions or difficulties in their access to those Courts. 9. And that the merits of the whole matter may be summed up in these few words : If the Act of 1814 is unconstitutional and void, the Courts will so declare, upon the question being presented to them, and there is, there- fore, no occasion for the Legislature to interfere in what are peculiarly matters of judicial cognizance. 12 TEnnry chttrch property. If the Act of 1814 is constitutional and valid, then there cannot be any legislative action upon it, unsolicited by Trinity Church and con- trary to her will, without an infraction of her Charter, and an obvious violation of the supreme law of the land. III. THE PROPERTY. The corporation of Trinity Church has been assailed in regard to the reported value and the use of her property. In reporting to the Senate, as directed by a resolution of that body, the Vestry declare, " Tliaf. tUey furnish the information requested by the Senate, not as acknowl- edging the power of the Senate to exact such information, but in ordei Uiat they may not be deemed to be wanting in respect for your honorable body, or unwilling to display to the public the state of this corporation, its financial condition, and the management, by this Vestry, of its property. They feel satisfied that the facts presented in this paper will i-emovo any unfavorable impressions detrimental to the interests of Trinity Church, which inav have been occasioned by representations which, it is conjectured, have induced your honorable body to pass the resolutions above contained. But being charged with the care and guardianship of a large property and important rights, they beg leave, respectfully, to represent that the requiring of such reports as that asked for, by the resolutions of the honorable Senate, is not justi.'ied by anv legal principle, and is oppressive of this corporation. If there should, at any time, be any just cause of complaint against this corporation, the courts are open and are adequate to afford a remedy ; and the entering, by the Legisla- ture, upon an investigation into the affairs of any single corporation, which investigation, if it has any materiality, properly belongs to such courts, is an assumption of their powers, and is burdensome upon the corporation affected, by calling upon it to jvistify itself, by laborious statements, or production of evidence to a tribuu.il whicli has no power to decide. This corporation has, within a few years past, made answer to two similar calls for information fi'om the houses of the Legislature, the one contained in the resolutions of your honori-.ble body, of the 9th day of March, 1846, and the other contained hi the resolutions of the honorable the House of Assembly, of March 4th, 1854. There is no provision in the charter of this corporation, and no general statute requiring it to report to the Legislature, and because this Vestry have found the answer to these repeated requirements expensive and onerous, and l.ielicve them to be an infringement of the chartered rights of Trinity Church, they humbly protest against the right of the Legislature, or either branch of it, to call for reports from this Vestry relative to the condition or affairs of this cor- poriition." In reporting, however, to the Senate the estimated value of her property, the corporation of Trinity Church presented its assessed value as assessed hy sworn assessors for taxation, and so declared in their report. The property thus assessed being under lease, Trinity Church has only a reversionary interest in it. " In reference to the inquiry as to the estimated value of each lot and parcel of land, owned by this corporation in the city of New York, the Vestry annex hereto a schedule, showing as to each lot its situation ; its value with the ITS VAiUE AOT) MODE OF VALTTAXION. 13 buildings thereon (the property of the tenants) as assessed in 1855, 6y the oncers of the city for the purpose of taxation, (except such as are exempt from taxa- tion, which" are pavtieularly noted ;) the estimated portion of such value for the buildings; the net value of the lot deducting the buildings, irrespective of the leases; the annual ground rent reserved to the Church; the expiration of the term, and the present value of the reversion and of the ground rents to the Church. From this schedule it v.-ill appear, that the total value of the property embraced therein, irrespective of the leases and of the buildings, is S2, 668,7 10." On the value of the property and the niode of valuation, in its report to the Senate, the following is the statement, under oath, of Gulian C. Verplaack, Esq., one of the Vestry : " I had no hand in making out the report made to the Senate of the value of their oroperty, but I think that no other mode of estimation than that of the sworn assessors could have been made and agreed upon. This arises, in my judgment, from the Chm-ch interest being a reversionary property, falling in at different periods, with comparatively a email income. As to the most valuable and saleable property in the lower part of the city, which ha." recently risen, even since the making of the report, the high prices chieflj' for commer- cial purposes, ray own experience and observation convince me, that it is im- possible to calculate, with any reasonable ground of reliance, as to its rever- sionary value for six, eight and ten years, and longer periods ahead. I speak both from observation and experience on this subject. I have been a member of moaied institutions, which lend on morts;age, in the city of iv'ew York; such as the Life and Trust Company. I have observed the great fluctuations and fall of value in parts of the city, such as Pearl street, Hanover Square. I have examined many bonds and mortgages of this character, while inquiring into the value of property. I have myself had the management and control of property in Stone street, Pine street, &a., which in 1835-36, was of great value, but has now fallen one-half, or nearly one-half its value at that time, owing to the tran.=ition of certain branches of commercial business from that locality to Broadway, and the streets adjoining it. I could not, therefore, myself, as the same occurrence may take place, estimate a high reversionary value ten or fifteen years hence, from present prices. The Astor lease, *''^rniing a large por- tion of "the property of the Church, falling in in ten years, is a mere reversion- ary property, producing, at present, only §269 per annuni. Such property, when oifered in large amounts at a time, would not, probably, command the bids or offers of any but capitalists expecting to purchase at a low rate, and except uadervery favorable circumstances, would hardly bring its reversionary value, calculated on the assessed value, and perhaps not so much. I form that judgment with the full Icnowledge, that where the property is not encumbered with a lease, it might sell for more than the assessed value. For these reasons, I think the assessed value, the only one that the Church could properly give, or the Vestry have probably agreed upon."* * The astounding revulsion in Banks, Stocks, Rail Road Securieties, City Lots, and Farms, now (in October, 1S57,) affecting the City and State of New York and the whole country, supplies striking and lamentable evidence of the uncer- tainty of the value of all city property, and should silence the tongue of exag- geration in regard to that of Trinity Church, while it must vindicate tlie dec- laration of Mr. Verplanck that the assessedvalue is the proper value for Trinity Church to report. Divine Providence, by a mere panic, has almost prostrated the value of city propertj', sunk wealth to want, rebuked pride, luxury and self-elation, and invoked us all, by a voice that is felt, to trust not in uncertain riches, but in the Living God. " It is the Lord's doings, and is marvelous in our eyes." 14 TRINITY CHtTRCH PEOPEKTY. The Vestry of Trinity Church have given and appropriated from the year 1750 to 1855 — LOTS. IN MOXEV. To Churches in the city of New York 122 $493,125 To Churches in fifty counties in the State, 24 228,294 To the advancement of religion, public purposes. Institutions of learning, support of the Episcopate, Church Societies, infirm clergymen, widows of families of deceased clergy- men, since 1748 172 286,111 "Thus has this corporation administered its estate, freely granting it for the spread of religion in all parts of the State for the support of ministers of the gospel, and the succor of their families, and for the aid and endowment of institutions of learning. It has, for these purposes, paid and appropriated in money §1,287, 392 75, and given a large number of lots of land; by these means diminishing iU property to one-third its original extent." The Hon. Daniel D. Baenard has thus declared his opinion under his name : "I venture to say that no man of common understanding, before wholly uninformed on the subject, could go through the testimony in the case, taking the whole of it together, and passing by the Reports, without coming to the conclusion, after allowing for all errors of judgment, and feeling, perhaps, grave doubts about the wisdom in all instances of the measures and methods of administration, and of charitable distiibution, which had been adopted, that it is doubtful if another religious foundation, as amply endowed as this, could be found in the world, where for a full century and a half together, and coming down to the present hour, there had been manifested so much of absolute purity, of entire disinterestedness, of unswerving integrity, of generous and humane consideration, and of uniform action, performed under a high and noble sense of moral and religious obligation, as have characterized the Vestry of Trinity Church in the conduct of the affairs of that corporation." Against the charge that the Vestry, in granting aid to Churches, have acted under the influence of party feeling, the Hon. John A. Dix, one of the Vestry, thus testifies : "I feel it to be my solemn duty to repel this imputation, by stating my own experience. I have been more than seven years a member of the Vestry, and have been on terms of the most unreserved and confidential communication with ray associates. I have discussed with them the propriety of granting and declining applications for aid, not only at nearly all the meetings of the Vestry, but in many cases in private interviews ; and no reference has ever been made by me or by any one of them, at any meeting, ofiicial or private, to the part}' views of any of the Rectors, or religious societies presenting such applications. The party divisions, which have existed for several years in the Episcopal Church, and which have not only impaired its capacity for doing good, hut dishonored those on both aides who have been active in keeping them alive, have never been a subject of discussion at any meeting of the Vestry which I have attended ; nor have they been alluded to in connection with applications for aid. I have taken a deep interest in several applications myself, and have, perhaps, had some influence in securing grants of money to the applicants, and in no instance have I inquired what were the particular views of tlie Rector of the Parish to which they belonged. I do not even know to this day whether they are High Church or Low Church. The only inquiries ever ma<5e were in regard to tlieir pecuniary and social condition and their need of assistance; and these considerations, together with the ability of Trinity Church at the MORTGAGES ON CHTIBCHES. 15 time to make the grants asked for, and the probability that the grants would be efifective for the objects in view, have been the only ones which have guided me in my votes. I believe the other members of the Vestry have been equally free from the influence of party motives. My belief is founded upon my knowledge of them as enlightened, conscientious and liberal men, and upon all they have said and done in my presence through a familiar association of seven years. I cannot be supposed to have been deceived in regard to their principles of action, but upon the hypothesis of a depth of dissimulation on their part, and an obtuseness of perception on my own, too gross for the largest credulity." The charge that Trinity Church takes mortgages on the Churches to which her aid is extended, was met by testimony — That she took such mortgages to prevent the property from being alienated from the Church. That she never foreclosed any mortgage thus taken. That she never required interest to be paid on them. That she never received any thing on their account, except when the property was sold by others, and she received back her advances to be applied to other feeble Churches. William Moore, Esq., one of the Vestry, testified thus to the mortgages : " They were taken with a view to prevent that property being lost to the Church at large. In case of a foreclosure of a previous mortgage, or some embarrassment to the Church, that this money advanced by Trinitv should return to that Church to be distributed again, or returned to the same" Church. I never knew of any case of a foreclosure of a mortgage while I was in the Vestry, nor do I befieve there ever was one." Mr. Samlt;l F. Skidmore, one of the Vestry, testified thus in answer to the question, what is the object in taking mortgages when a grant is made ? " These Church mortgages are taken and held by Trinity Church, not for their own private benefit, but (and in good faith) for the benefit of other Churches. They never have demanded, nor do they expect to demand, either the principal or interest of those loans, except in occasional isolated cases; such for instance as the foreclosure of a prior mortgage, or to save the Church properties from' being disposed of impropei-ly, or for other than Church objects and purposes. The parties obtaining these loans, (which they look upon virtu.illy as gifts,) do not object to giving such mortgages on their Churches, but generallv view the requirement of them as a wise and conservative measure for perpetuating the original object and intention of the grant. The character of these mort^awes is so well and so generally understood, that an attempt to foreclose any one^of them, on the part of Trinity Church, for the purpose of restoring tiie amount again to their own coffers, would be regarded as little short of absolute dis- honesty. If the same objects aimed at in these loans, could be equally well secured in some other way, I confidently believe that no desire on the part of Trinity Church to keep alive a sense of obligation to her on the part of the recipients of her favors wovild, for one moment, stand in the way of the change. For the foregoing reasons, I think that the principal and interest of 16 TRINITY CHURCH PKOPEETT. those mortgages, (amounting to $571,952,) ought not to be considered as part of the wealth of Trinity Church, nor be made to show a seeming intention, on her part, to withhold from the honorable the Senate, essential and important facts respecting her property. " Q. Has the Church ever foreclosed any of these mortgages ? A. None to my knowledge." In answer to the same question, Bishop De Lancey testified in regard to his Diocese, — " Q. Has Trinity Church ever foreclosed any of the mortgages on Churches, or ever required the annual interest on them to be paid to her ? A. I have never heard or known of any su3h case in Western New York or elsewhere. I do not usually consecrate a new church edifice, until the Vestry certify that its debts are paid or reasonably provided for. A mortgage to Trinity Church, on which neither principal nor interest are damanded, I do not consider an obstacle to the consecration of a new Church, but us additional secui'ity against its alienation from its holy objects. "Q. Has any Church in your diocese, to which Trinity has made a grant of money without taking a mortgage on Church edifice, ever been lost to the con- gregation or diocese ? A. Yes ; a Church on which Trinity Churcli took no mortgage for a grant of |500, was sold for debt, and the congregation dis- persed. A mortgage to Trinity Church would have saved it, or at least saved the $500 for the use of the diocese elsewhere." The views of Bishop H. Potter, of New York, on the subject of the mortgages taken by Trinity Church, for her appropriations to assist tlie Churches, were thus presented : " Q. Wliat is your opinion of the effect of the course of Trinity Church, in giving her aid to CLiiirches in the form of loans upon mortgages, rather than in the form of absolute grants ? A. Those loans were absolute grants in reality ; nobody ever supposed that the interest or the principal would be called for by Trinity Church. They never have Ijeen, in a single instance, although the cases have been very numerous, in which land mortgages have been given. When I consecrate a Church, I always wish to know whether there be any debt. I never regard a mortgage given to Ti-inity Church, in the light of a debt. I have ne\ er perceived, X do not believe, that such mortgages, in any way affect the independence of ministers or laymen. It is very common, in- deed, to see the minister and laymen of a Church, subject to a mortgage, voting against measures favored by Trinity Church. In convention, I doubt whether any one remembers or reflects whether mortgages e.xist in particular quarters, or not. The effect of these mortgages has, I have no doubt, been inipoi tant in preventing the property of Churches from being sold and alienated from their sacred use. And this, I have always understood, was the sole object of Trinity Church in requiring them." The Vestry of Trinity Church have always maintained, that they hokl the property grauted by Queen Aime, not as a trust estate, but by a full, independent, bona fide, luitrammelled ownership, and that they are not obliged by any trust to confine the application of it exclusively to her own Parish, or to the city of New York, but may extend it to the country Churches and objects. There are uo terms impljdng trusteeship in the lease of the Queen's NUMBER AND CHAUACTEE OF OOEPOEATOES. 17 Farm, made by Lord Combury, November 23, 1705, in the name and as the act and deed of Queen Anne, but the lands " were granted and confirmed to said corporation, to the use of the Rector and in- habitants of the said city of New York, in common with the Church of England, as by law established, and their successors forever, to be holden in free and common socage, and paying the yearly rent of three shillings." The power of the Provincial Governor to make loners of the Crown Lands was unlimited, in 1705, when the lease in q was made. This lease, therefore, seems to have been valid and o: in its inception, and to have been so regarded during the conlii. of the Provincial Government. And not only by the Provincial Gov- ernment, but by the Government of this State, in 1786, when the reut reserved was finally commuted and satisfied. If Trinity Church holds this property in trust, she must abide by the' terms and limitations of the trust. But if she holds it as her own, under the Charter, she may use it as her own, under the terms of her Charter, and in this view she has acted with the property from the. beginning, taking care of her own Parish, and aiding other Churches and objects, both in the city and country. On the subject of the number of the corporators of Trinity Church, the Hon. D. D. Barnard states his views in these terms : " Another point made in the reports relates to the comparatively small, and as the committee seem to think, gradually diminishing number and character of the corporators of Trinity Church. This is specially referred to in the second Report, and urged as a reason for increasing the number of corporators, and of course, by inference, as a reason why the Senate should declare that the mem- bers of other Parishes in New York, legal corporators or not, shall be corpora- tors of the Parish of Trinity. I do not think, in my life, I ever heard a more daring proposition. When the corporators of Trinity Church, fail, it will be time enough for the State, but not through the Legislature, to look after the estate of that corporation ; and when the question, and the only question sub- mitted by the committee itseK, in the bill they have brought in, on the disputed point under consideration is, whether certain persons are or are not legal cor porators of Trinity Church, to urge the Senate to declare them to be so — to bring in, in truth, an army and mob of corporators to seize upon Tiinity Church and her possessions — not on the ground that such is their legal right, but upon the consideration that it would be well, for economical and prudential reasons, to increase the number of corporators, sui-passes anything I have yet heard of, in any official quarter in this country, in the spirit of bold agrarianism. " Ti'inity Church is a religious corporation. She possesses a large estate devoted to pious uses. She is a Parish in whicli the work of the Christian ministry is carried on as in other Parishes, only on a much larger scale than in any other Parish in this country. She has four Church edifices instead of one, in which religious services are performed by nine ministers. The legal cus- tody, care and management of all her property, and all her affairs, both tem- poral and spiritual, rest with certain legally constituted and elected officers ; these are the Rector, two "Wardens and twenty Vestrymen. The Wardens and 18 TRINITY OHXIKOH PEOPEKTY. Vestrymen are elected annually ; tbey call and induct the Rector, and choose the assistant ministers. Up to the present time, the Parishioners of Ti-inity Church have elected the Wardens and Vestrymen, just as the Wardens and Vestrymen of every other Episcopal Church in the State are elected by its own Parishioners. The Parishioners of Trinity Church entitled to vote, are a little over three hundred. There are fifty other legally constituted Parishes in New York, and the Parishioners of all these entitled to vote for Parish Officers, taken together, are probably not less than eight thousand. If these, or any number at all like it, are to be brought in to vote for the Parish Oflicers of Trinity Church, the consequence is apparent. The control and government of the Parish of Trinity will be taken out of the hands of tlie Parishioners of Trinity ; the Parishioners of other Churches will elect her oflieers ; the govern- ment of Trinity Church, the property, the sacred edifices and the ministers of Trinity Church, will all be in the hands and under the control of officers wliose constituency will be, not the Parishioners of Ti'inity, but the Parishioners of other Churches. The outside constituency thiis proposed to be brought in, is a constituency antagonist to that of Ti'inity Church. It is so designed. Tlie object is to take possession and control of the property of Trinity Chui'ch, and this is to be done by taking possession of the government of the corporation, involving of necessity the control, direction and management of all lier affairs, internal and external, religious and charitable, spiritual and temporal." The policy of endowing Churches with land, as prevalent before 1814, is contrasted with the policy of making gifts in money, pursued since that time, by Mr. G. M. Ogden, one of the Vestry, in these terms : " Prior to 1814, there were grants of 318 lots, by means of which wei-e en- dowed three charitable and educational institutions — Columbia College, Trinity School, and the Society for promoting religion and learning ; three amply en- dowed Churches — St. Mark's, Grace, and St. George's ; and twelve other Churches to which were given lots of land in much smaller proportion than to the three Churches last named, — thus making eighteen Churches and institu- tions benefited by the gift of 318 lots. " One thousand and fifty-nine lots have been sold by Trinity Church, and out of the proceeds derived from the sale, she has given away, for the benefit of other Churches and institutions, 11,287,392.75. Suppose these lots had been given for endowments — if these were as liberal as those made before 1814, the 1059 lots would have served to endow, at the most, forty-four Churches and institutions, and indeed it may be doubted, whether they would have sufficed for that purpose ; for the three Churches above mentioned to have been amply endowed, were not only given land, but were built by Trinity Church, and the twelve other Churches were only assisted, by the lots granted, to a vei'y limited extent. If, on the other hand, lots to the value of §50,000, a small allowance for an endowment, had been given to so many Churches as the last mentioned sum would have sufficed for the endowment of, on Mr. Bradish's principle, not more than twenty-five Churches could have been made indepen- dent through these 1059 lots. " But what has Trinity Church accomplished by the sale of these lots, and by granting to other Churches and institutions the moneys received from the sale ? By this policy, deemed so unwise, St. George's, Grace and St. Mark's Churches have been built ; more than two hundred other Churches have been aided, upwards of one hundred and fifty of them in the country ; Hobart Free College, at Geneva, has received an endowment of $3,000 a year, on tlie con- dition that it shall be free to all ; the Theological Seminary and Missionary Boards have been assisted ; an Episcopal residence has been purcliased ; infirm clergymen and families of deceased clergymen have received annuities and other assistance : and these are only some of the results of the change of policy which has been complained of. GOOD WOEK m WHICH TRTNITY CHUECH IS ENGAGED. 19 " The object of this change of policy is manifest It was to distribute the fnnd, to be derived from the gradual disposition of the real estate, amongst many Churches and institutions, doing for each only what it could not do for itself, and looking to the probable beneficial results in each case, rather than to make a few favorites rich and independent ; to encourage individual effort by timely and judicious aid in every quarter, in city and country. If the other policy had been followed, the property would have been distributed long ago, without provision for the future, and Churches coming into existence afterwards could have had no help." The great and good work in wWch Trinity Church is now earnestly engaged, is thus developed by the Hon. John A. Dix, in whose sug- gestions to the Vestry, it is understood to have originated : " It is well known that the greater part of the city below Chambers street, is devoted to purposes of business, and that private dweUings have given place to stores and warehouses. The wealthy portion of the population has gone to the upper districts, and most of the Churches of all denominations have fol- lowed them The Xorth Dutch, which is stUl engaged in useful spiritual labors in the neighborhood of St. Paiil's, the Methodist Church in John street, unhap- pily rent by internal strife, and St Peter's, a Roman Catholic Church in Barclay street, stOl maintain their ground. With these exceptions. Trinity Church, St Paul's, and the Church in Beekman street, formerly St. George's, pui-chased and now entirely supported by Trinity, stand alone in this great deserted field of labor. The same process is going on above Chambers street, and in a few years, there wiU, in all probability, be no Churches below Canal street, but those of Trinity Parish. Notwithstanding this exodus of wealth, a vast popu- lation, the inhabitants, in great part, of nlleys, garrets, and cellars, estimated to exceed one hundred and twenty thousand souls, occupy the field it has abandoned ; and if Trinity Church had followed the same instincts, which have drawn off the other religious societies of the city to its more attractive districts — if she also had abandoned to their fate the poor and necessitous, whom wealth and fashion have bequeathed to her, the lower part of the city would have presented an example of religious destitution, unparalleled in the history of Christian civilization. " The design of the Vestry of Trinity Church in this movement was to rescue the lower pai-t of the city — that portion which has not only an immense body of resident poor, but which receives into its bosom the greater part of the des- titute who seek a refuge here from hardship in other countries — to rescue this combined mass of permanent and temporary indigence from the utter spiritual abandonment with which it was threatened by the removal of those, to whose wealth and liberality it had been accustomed to look for sympathy and pecun- iary aid, to more congenial districts. The plan comprehended not only the spiritual instruction of the adult inhabitants of this deserted district — once the seat of nearly all the wealth of the city — but the education of their children, and, to the extent of the means of the corporation, a ministration to their tem- poral wants. Trinity Chiirch, with its endowments, fortunately growing more valuable with the progress of the city, was to stand in the place of the indi- vidual opulence, which has fled from a district where its tastes could no longer find suitable fields for indulgence, and established itself in others, where it has rivalled Genoa in its streets of palaces, and where in all its appointments and manifestations of in-door and out-door Ufe, there is a concentration of refine- ment, luxury and splendor unequalled, excepting by a few of the great capitals of Europe. "It seemed to me to have been among the designs of Providence, that Trinity Church should have been planted in tliis great district, ready, with her ample endowments, to make provision, when the emergency should arrive, for those whom individual wealth has left upon her own hands. I hold this to be the «> 20 TEIHITY CHXTRCH PROPERTY. great mission of Trinity Church ; and I have pressed on the Vestry, on all proper occasions, the duty of preparing for it, and of commencing the work with the utmost diligence. Though the plan has not been formally adopted, it has been practically acted on ; and it is due to my associates in the Vestry to say, that they have responded to all appeals in behalf of the destitute districts below Canal street, by as liberal an expenditure as the income of the corpo- ration, crippled by a heavy debt and burdend by large annual contributions to other Cliurehes, has admitted. The Clerical force of the Parish has been nearly doubled ; the Sunday Schools have been greatly enlarged ; Parish Schools for the gratuitous education of children have been established; by far the greater part of the pews in Trinity Church, one hundred and four out of one hundred and forty-four in St. Paul's, and a large number in St. John's, are free ; efforts have been put forth to bring into the Church those who have not been accustomed to attend any religious worship ; Trinity Church is opened twice a day through- out the year for divine service ; a mission office has been established to receive applications for aid; lay visitors are employed to seek out want and relieve it; missionary agencies have been instituted in connection with the Commissioners of Emigration ; the whole lower part of the city has been virtually made a field of missionary labor; and a degree of energy has been infused into the minis- trations of the Church, temporal and spiritual, which compensates in a great degree for the lost support of the religious societies removed to other districts. In the midst of all this earnest effort, with five of her Clergy residing within this neglected field of labor, conversant with little else than its destitution, and devo- ting themselves to the relief of its wants, Trinity Church finds herself assailed as faithless to her trust by those, for the most jjart, whose lives are passed amid the social amenities of the upper districts and in an atmosphere redolent with indulgence and luxurious ease." Of the aid extended by Trinity Church to feeble Churches and Ed- ucational objects in Western New York, Bishop De Lancet testified as follows : " Q. Has Trinity Church, New- York, aided any of the chiu'ches in your diocese ? A. Yes, I learn from the publications of the rector of Trinity Church that she has aided altogether, since 1807, in Western New York, about 77 churches, being 6 before the year 1814, and 71 churches since that year. Some were aided twice. Of those 71 aided since 1814, about twenty have been aided since I became bishop." " Q. Has Trinity Church made any grants for educational purposes in your diocese ? A. Yes, a most important and liberal one to the value of $50,000, to Geneva college in 1851. The grant was made when Geneva college was in a disastrous and critical condition, occasioned by the State withdrawing unex pectedly, under the two year provision of the new constitution of 1846, in regard "to appropriations, her annual gi'ant of ^6,000 to the college, leaving nearly $3,000 unpaid, (and still unpaid)* a debt upon the college trustees, who were without means to pay the pi'ofessors, all of whom but the president sought other posts, and the students dinjinished in number from eighty (the highest n\imber under the State grant) to thirty-seven. When the prosjiect of pri- vate endowment to maintain new professors was dim and gloomy, and the very continuance of the college, dnbions, in this emergency Trinity Church was asked to endow the college, wliicli she did in 1S51, by a grant of §50,000, tlie it f i i^st at six per cent, to be paid annually until the pi-incipal is j)aid on the .'.ion of the Aitor lease, as I imderstand, on the condition tliat the col- made in its literary department a free college forever, to all students ue to it, and that it take the name of Hobart Free College, by act of the ^uo Legislature Las since voted this sum to the college. FIEST WAKDENS AND VESTETMEN. 21 Legislature. Since which time the faculty have been sustained, and the stu- dents have increased from thirty-seven to ninety-six, a larger number than it ever had under the State grant. And $22,000 additional endowment, viz : a professorship of §15,000, a fellowship of §5,000, and two scholarships of §1,000 each, and several benefactions have been received from private sources, not one of which endowments, I am convinced, would have been made without this grant from Trinity Church. The Charter of Trinity Church was granted in 1693, but owing to political and sectarian opposition, it was not carried into effect until 1697, when it went into operation, and the following persons constituted the first Wardens and Vestrynaen : Wardens. — William Wenham, Col. Robert Lurting. Vestrymen. — Col. Caleb Heathcote, William Merret, John Tudor, James Emott, William Morris, Thomas Clarke, Ebenezer Wilson, Samuel Burt, James Evets, Nathaniel Marston, Michael Howden, John Croote William Sharpas, Lawrence Read, Darid Jamison, William Huddleston, Gabriel Ludlow, Thomas Burroughs, William Janeway, John Merret. The list of names of those who have since served the Church in the office of Wardens and Vestrymen comprises sis Mayors, seven Record- ers, nine Aldermen of the city ; three Chief Justices of the State, five Judges of the Supreme Court, three Secretaries of State, three Attor- ney Generals, six Members of Congress, two Governors of the State, several distinguished officers of the Army, sundry eminent Lawyers, Physicians and Merchants, and many prominent men in other lines of life. The aflfairs of Trinity Church have been in the hands of such gen- tlemen as these for a period of one hundred and sixty years, amid every kind of fluctuation — political, civil and religious — and they, and their descendants, may safely challenge the City, the State, and the whole land, and the entire body of the Church in this country, to pre- sent to our view a wiser, safer, more judicious, more useful, and more unsullied management of a religious corporation of similar magnitude and relations. The Clergy of Trinity Church have not been pampered with extrav- agant salaries. The Wardens and Vestrymen have not enriched themselves by the management of her property. There has been no unrighteous speculations in the use of her means. 22 TEEJITY CHURCH PKOPEBTY. There has been no application of her property to objects alien to her Charter or her character. No political intrigues or scliemings, whether in the State or Nation, have ever been essayed by her means. No Court of law and no Legislature has ever sanctioned any of the alleged claims to her property or her franchises when they were brought to the calm, cold test of law, truth and fact. Whatever good others claim they would have done with her property, she can look upon the magnificent Churches, with which her wealth has adorned the city ; the large congregations sustained by pro- perty whose origin came from her hands ; the two Colleges endowed by her munificence ; the youth she has aided in their education for the Ministry ; the many Churches throughout the State that would not have existed without her timely gifts ; the fifty Churches in the city more or less aided by her, and the two Dioceses, adorned by two hundred Churches, who have, untrammelled, tasted of her munifi- cence ; and she may, in self-defense, and without boasting, proclaim : These are witnesses that, not for myself, but in the name of God, for his Church, and for the moral, spiritual and eternal good of man, I have endeavored, honestly, faithfully and usefully, to employ the means com- mitted to my charge. I am, myself, under no personal obligations to the Rector, Wardens and Vestrymen of Trinity Church, for honor, ofiice or emolument. I once served, when a Deacon, for three months, as a temporary assist- ant in the Parish. My own oflacial applications, as Bishop, for aid to feeble Parishes, in my Diocese, have not always met with success. My great-grandfather, Colonel Caleb Heathcote, heads the list of the first Vestry of Trinity Church, in lG9l. My grandfather. Lieute- nant Governor De Lancey, lies interred beneath her walls. My father, and other relatives, have been the friends and sup2)prters of the corpo- ration. I put on record the declaration, that I have seen and heard nothing to destroy my confidence in the purity, integrity, fidelity and wisdom of the management of her estate, enlarged not by the wit or contrivance of man, but by the Providence of God, pre-eminently blessing the Goverment, State, and city to which she belongs. I have made this compilation of facts and views, that the case of Trinity Church corporation, might be understood in Western New CLOSING EEMAEKS. 23 York and elsewhere. When this Church asks the shelter of law, jus- tice and truth against aggression, a fair statement of her means, and a just and righteous judgment on her proceedings, responsibilities, gifts and labors, I am constrained to say, in view of her past history, present means and opening opportunities of usefulness, that I adopt not the language of distrust, denunciation or assault, but the cordial prayer of the Psalmist, — " Peace be within thy walls, and plenteousness within thy palaces ; for my brethren and companions' sake I will wish thee pros- perity ; yea, because of the house of the Lord our God, I will seek to do thee good." WILLIAM H. DE LANCEY, Bishop of Western New York, E E< -A. T -A. . On page 6, seventh line fiom bottom, for " Board" read " Bond." On page 17, fourth line from top, for "Common" read "Communion.' •y G>ASSICS I i£x IGtbrts SEYMOUR DURST When you leave, please leave this book Because it has been said "Ever'thing comes t' him who waits Except a loaned book." Avery Architectural and Fine Arts Library Gift OF Seymour B. Durst Old York Library