Page 27
History of Orange County
Town of Newburgh
Page 27
It is said, that the act of 1803 was unconstitutional, or passed under a mistake as to the rights of the plaintiffs. We contend that the act was constitutional, and as it granted the land to the trustees, under whom the defendant claims, it is conclusive in this cause. It has already been shown, that by the revolution, and constitution of this state, the trusts and uses of this charter, as it respected a minister of the church of England, became extinct. The only trust or use remaining, was in relation to a school and a fair, or market; and in regard to these objects, all the inhabitants, without regard to religious distinctions, were interested, and had a right to vote in the choice of trustees, and to petition the legislature. No rights have been infringed. The act makes no new law; it provides that if, at any time thereafter, a minister of the episcopal church should be inducted, as near as may be, according to the charter, that the trustees of the glebe should pay to him annually, a reasonable proportion of the monies arising from the lands, according to the true intent of the charter. This act was therefore wise and beneficial. It gave effect to the existing trust or use, as to a school, under the charter, and left the other use, as it regarded a minister untouched. There was no evidence of any surrender in the charter; and the judge at the trial declined giving any opinion as to the effect of any misrepresentation to the legislature. The legislature had a right to vest the estate without a surrender. An estate may be made to cease by statute,* and to pass and vest, in a manner different from what it could by the common law.** The power of the legislature is unlimited, except by the constitution. It may take the property of A. and grant it to B. though it is bound undoubtedly, in justice and honor, to make full compensation to A. but whether this be done or not, the grant to B. is, nevertheless, valid. In relation to the rights of property, the legislature is supreme and uncontrolable. Without wishing to extend the powers of the legislature, we must say, that when the legislature have enacted what is not forbidden by the constitution, courts of justice must bend and bow before the law. No court has power to pronounce such an act void. The doctrine that a law against natural justice is no law, may be true in theory, but in practice and experience, it is otherwise. But even in such cases the injustice must be gross and palpable. What shall we say of the bills of attainder, passed during the late war, by which the estates of persons were forfeited and taken away, without a trial, when the parties were absent or unheard? It is true, that since the constitution of the United States, no such bills can again be passed; but this court has never questioned the validity of those acts. So the charter of the corporation of the city of New York, has been altered by an act of the legislature.— Again, it is a maxim of law and of justice, that no man ought to be a judge in his own cause; yet, by an act of the legislature, the mayor’s court of this city, consisting of the mayor, recorder and aldermen, are empowered to take cognizance of causes, in which the corporation are parties, in relation to private property and the regulation of streets. Yet the validity of this act has never been called in question.— It has been said that when the act of 1803 was passed, there were no trustees; if so, then the rights of no person have been infringed.
____________________________
*Bac. Ab, Statute (E) 6 Rep. 40. Mildmay’s case, Cro. Elix. 379. **Let,. 75. T. Raym, 355. 2d Iaet. 4th par. 36.