The New York Herald Newspaper, March 26, 1854, Page 6

OPENING OF ALBANY STREET. The ment of Peter ¥. Cutler, Esq., in Be of Hon. F, ieee, Honey E Haq, and Others, before Street Com- mittee of the Board of Aldermen of the City of New ¥ delivered March 1, 1854, in the | Matter Albany a to Broad- | way, through Trinity Chure! le Mx. Cuarmwan AND GenTiemen ov THE Com: | uarrzs:—The question upon which you are delibe- Fating is of such magnitude that it re! lieves me from the apology I should otherwise feel to be your due, Ser taking up any more of your time, in an Grey oa to speak upon a topic already illustrated by the elo- quence of my learned associate. But ! do not pro- to repeat anything which has been so well said A must pardon me for directing your attention for a moment, at the outset of my remarks, to an ression of the learned counsel of Mr. Boorman. He tendered me a happy compliment, for which I should have felt all the more grateful if I were quite wure that it was designed to secure me a more fa- verable consideration from your committee. In ad- pition to the compliment, he was pleased to allude to my remark, that | appeared for those who had a | higher interest in opposing the opening of this | street than that represented by mere property; and then he said thathe did not know what that “higher | interest” was; but supposed it to be somewhat akin to the “ higher law.” Let us for a moment, then, examine the question, whether there be any higher interest than that of | property? Is the learned counsel furnishing us with | a sound principle of legislation, or an exalted rule of | patriotic action, when he thus ignores the existence of any “higher interest” than that of mere money beer property?’ 1 had always supposed that | “ rights of person” were of more appreciation in | the light of the law, of reason and of pat: ‘than the mere “right of property.” The “ rigl personal liberty”’—the right to the free enjoyment @f life while we live—and certainly no less the right | to the narrow house to which the hands of affection ‘eousign us when we die, involve a * higher interest” than that of property. If it be not so, then was our revolution a vain expenditure of blood and of trea- ware. Our forefathers fought for liberty—that re- ligious liberty which they were denied in the old world, and which they sought in the forests of the new ; liberty of conscience, liberty of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to enjoy their own domes- tic hearthstones free from molestation: and these liberties they fondly believed they had secured. They sought, in a word, that freedom from oppres- sion and those liberties which secured them the un- molested enjoyment of the inalienable rights of man —“ life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness;” these were the liberties which our forefathers sought, and for these liberties, and to preserve them as an in- waluable treasure for their posterity, the battles of the Revolution were fought. And shall it be said, tn these degenerate times, that “ there is no higher interest than that of property.” I confess, Mr. Chairman, that I believe that they who cherish the memory and desire to preserve the remains of the men who fought for the triumph of | eee over despotism, and who venerate whatever | may regarded asa memento of that triumph, have a ‘higher interest” than that of property in this question. If, however, the preservation of pro- ack be the highest interest which we acknow- » let it be publicly proclaimed, that in the test republic of modern times, personal liber- is discarded—that we have a Venetian oligar- 3; and that the idea of property is ‘diane Fegarded. And let it be proclaimed, too, that, to de- termine the precise value of our patriots and the tum of veneration due to their memory, we em- learned men to make such a chemical analysis ef their remains, as the argument here would necessa- rily suggest, and that we measure out our gratitude in @ precise mathematical ratio to the quantuin of bones ich are found; and, when the horror stricken aadience shall sicken at the recital, let some repub- Bean arise and attempt to prove that republics are grateful; or rather let the proud minion of mon- arehy proclaim the fact as a new instance of the in- oO alleged proverbial ingratitude of re- cs. Pimhere is one other observation which I desire to make. The course this discussion has taken forces it irresistibly upon my mind. There is, | Mr. Chairman, a wide, very wide, difference be- tween solemn argument, and ridicule, witticism, and sarcasm. Is ridicule argument? How much Jogic is there in a sneer? Brerything holy may be turned to ridicule. The infidels of France, in the | ighteenth century, ridiculed the doctrines of the ristian religion. Voltaire uttered the most biting satire on the truths of the Bible; and yet his sneers have not induced us to turn infidels, nor have we heen @isposed to believe that they proved our Bible false, or our religion unfounded. “Believe me, sir, that the holy sentiment of respect for the dead is too well to.nded and too earnestly entertained by this com- mi nity to aied by a flippant jest. Aud | aro glad to that if the leat counsel for Mr. indulged in any ex- pressions which could be construed by any one into disrespect for the memory of the depfirted, or for the feelings of their surv is, he must have been betrayed into them by hi for his client; for I can vouch for it that he himself entertains » pro- found reverence for the dead. Not to do so, would be to prove false to his lincage—false to the ous impulses of his heart—fulse to all those noble tentiments by which I know he means to bi | aad while I read his sent book, believe me, sir, that T the learned counsel hin would freely express i ial life, and which nothing bat his position as counsel could lead him even to seem to doubt. That brother said, in the case of Windt vs. The German Reformed Church, (4 Sand- ford’s Chancery Reports, 476):— “Tt is painful and deeply abhorrent to the sensi- bilities of our nature to have the remains of our be- loved friends and relatives disturbed in their last homes, and removed by rude and careless hands toa distant cemetery, not hallowed by any of the asso- siations which encircle the consecrated ground where we have deposited them, in sadness and in sorrow. Iconfess that I have not become so much of a phi- Josopher as to regard the bodies of deceased friends as nothing more nor better than the clods of the valley: and that my sympathies were strongly en- Ested in behalf of these complainants vindicating the repose of the bones of their kindred.” These are the noble sentiments to which every heart in this assembly responds, and none more cor- dially, I am sure, than that of my learned My a ut. Asan advocate, he may be earnest in the defence of his client; but, believe me, sir,as a man, for I know him well, you cannot find one impelled by more ge- merous sentiments. Perhaps nothing more need be said by me, by way of reply to what has dropped from the learned counsel. He has made a great many remarks foreign to the discuseion before your committee to which no reply is demanded; such, for instance, as that ne of the assistant rectors of Trinity Church, at the | commencement of the Revolutionary war, and only three months and twenty-seven days after the De- claration of Independence, was opposed to Washing- ton. The letter of this assistant rector, to which the counsel referred, was written one month and seven days after Trinity Church was burnt, and it was rebuilt until after the close of the war. ‘The church was burnt on the twenty-first of Sep- tember, 1776, and of course no services were per- | formed there after that time by the Rey. Mr. inglis, and it is difficult to perceive how he could in any manner have exerted an influence over its atthirs. The learned counsel might as well now attempt to rove that Washington himself, only a few months fore, was a kingsman and zealously supported the ‘crown—and from thence infer that he never com- manded the revolutionary forces. If the counsel, in the course of his researches, had looked into the fourth volnme of the Documentary History ) he would have discovered that, at the earliest prac- ticable moment, the church was placed in the hands of a whig vestry. But it is objected that this is a church. It isa grave argument, put forward all earnestness, that the street should be opened, because, saysthe counsel, the political sentiments of the church were adverse to those of Wash- ington. Although I am unable to perceive ‘the logical sequence of the argument, let us for a moment Reus to examine the fact. I cannot find ‘that Trinity Church was in any other sense a tory church than was every other church, in the city of New York, during the war of the Revolution, ‘The Presbyterian Church, Dutch Church, Methodist Church, Baptist Church, were each and every one of them just as much tory churches, for aught that Ican see in the page of history, as was Trinity. When the city bess ye by the British all the eburches were, very probably, under the control of ‘the royalists who remained in the city, and it is fair to premme that a large portion of the inhabitants, who remained in the city after it had been evacuated by the American troops, in 1776, and had fallen into the hauds of the Britich, were adherents to the nts, as expresse ‘ad the sentiments 0 sentiments which he It was a time of civil war. The contest raged fiercely. Families were divided; churches were di- wided; brother fought against brother, father against son; and the divisions on questions of politics de- in no respect, that | can perceive, upon the of sect. I find among the names of the vestry, from 1772 to 1777, that of the Honorable James Duane, and he was a warden from 1784 to 1794. Mr. Duane wus a member of our Continental Congress, and a con- sistent adherent to the cause of America, Robert RB. Livingston, an undoubted whig, was a vestrym: from 1764 to 1775, and a warden from 1784 to 17: Mr, James Desbrosses was a vestryman from 1774 to 1779, and « warden from 1779 to 1784. Peter Van Schaick, LL. D., an eminent lawyer and accom- plished scholar, was a vestryman from 1776 to 1779, and in 1780. William Laight was a vest: in from 1777 to 1784, and from 1788 to 1802. Robert Watts | from 1778 to 1783, anda warden in 3785, aid from | , | it is as good against the observances of reli; ee ee 1783. He was recorder of e city from 1801; was @ fine classical scholar, and was ap- | Bie eeeees See aoe “A pointed by Was! m to the office of District At- | torney of the United States. Richard Morris was ® vestryman from 1784 to 1785. He was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York | in 1779, and, of course, a staunch whig. Fran- cis Lewis was a vestryman from 1784 to 1786, and no one can forget that he was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. What then becomes of the objection that it was peculiarly a tory church. That there were tories in the church, I frankly admit; that there were tories in all the churches in the city of New York my learned friend | would be compelled to admit, if indeed he admitted anything. But where is the evidence that Trinity was peculiarly the tory church in the city of New York, or any more inclined to toryism than the Dutch Church for example, or any other church in the coy desing its occupation by the British ? Mr. rman, however, ee that it was “a formerly regal hierarchy.” it an argument in favor of opening the street! Isittrue? Yes; in the same sense in which it may be said that the | | Dutch Church was a formerly regal hierarchy. In | | Tating the lands at their ing influences which have been exerted by that this metropolis. church amount, to the best estimate which can now be made, present prices, to the enor- mous sum of two millions of dollars. (See Dr. Ber- rien’s History, p. 386.) is, then, is the use which the church makes of its wealth. And does it present a topic for Mr. Boor- man’s reproaches? Who is it that demands that this street should be Tgot attempt to depute the respecablity of not attempt to ute the respect o Mr. Boorman, iis wealth nor his charities, With these considerations neither 7 nor I have anything to do. He may _| rich as Croe- sus, munificent as a prince, benevolent as Howard, for ought I know: but I have a rule laid downfor me which I deem it always safe to pursue, and that is to consider the act proposed to be done, ard from that judge the qualities of the actor, so far ss they relate to that very transaction, and to none other; | for it would be doing violence to my duty as 1 man, | to my obligations a8 counsel, to turn aside from the particular act under consideration to consider the general tenor of any man’s life, either to bepraise or 1774 every church in New York was under the pro- tection of the Crown of Great Britain; and, if that be an argument against them, then tear down the | churches, and declare a general proscription of Christianity: i erally as it is for the purpose for which voked. But this is trifling with the great topic before you. | Whether whig or tory was in the church during the | | revolution is a matter which has no relevancy to the | We need have nothing now to do | present question. with the church; and an argument directed against it necessarily raises a collateral issue which has no- thing to do with the people’s burying ground, as this has emphatically aways been, and in which no power could prevent or ever did prevent the inter- ment of the people’s friends. It is the poor man’s final resting place which you are now besought to desecrate. They ask you to exhume the remains of the poor of two centuries. Arguments addressed against the custodians of the cemetery have, in fact, nothing to do with the question. The interference which the learned counsel hangs upon the fact that the assistant rector was opposed to the war when the revolution broke out, is an inference far-fetched and positively refuted by reliable testimony. If, in- deed the church had been in possession of this assistant rector, it would furnish strong confirmatory evi- dence that the British did inter the bodies of the deceased patriots there. They were the prisoners of the British, and they died in ‘the sugar houses near the gray rd. short, it was the very place of all others where they would be buried if either Bri- tish or Americans had charge of their interment, and the place where many concurring sources of evi- dence prove they were in fact interred. Of course the American prisoners were buried by their British captors, and it js most natural to suppose that they buried them in the City burying ground; especially when that ground was nearest the place of their captivity and death. J. Barnitz Bacon,* the sexton, and the Hon. F.&. Tillou, your recorder, aman whose name alone is a sufficient guaranty for the trath of any statement he may make; and the affidavit of General Height, the Commander-in-Chief of the Veterans of the second war of Independence, show that some, at least, of the faithful soldiers of the Revolution lie interred in the line of the proposed street.¢ The same thing is repeated in the report of a committee of your Board in March, 1847.¢ It is stated in the Life of General Lamb that he was buried in Trinity churchyard, and I am informed by Mr. Bleecker that he was buried on the north side of the church. See Leake’s admirable Life of General Lamb, page 356, where it is stated that— General Lamb had been Vice-President of the Cincinnati; once while Baron Steuben was President; and afterwards under George Clinton. He was borne to the grave in ‘Trinity churchyard, followed by the members of that so- ciety. He was buried with the military honors which he had so well deserved. And the long array of citizens, as they attended him to the tomb, attested the respect which his virtues, his bravery and worth had universally commanded. The following obituar’ time to the pen of Dr. from Denniston’s paper:— How sleep the brave who sink to rest, With all their country’s wishes blest. On Saturday morning departed for a better world our much respected fellow-citizen, General John Lamb; who, tothe unbending honor aud martial spirit of a soldier— to the unshaken integrity of a real patriot, added the humane and benevolent virtues of a philanthropist. He distinguished himself throughout our revolution- ary struggle. He lost an eye at Quebec, where the gal- lant but ill-fated Montgomery fell! He was otherwise severely wounded; was captured, and suffered the hard- hips of imprisonment in assisting the cause of freedom and his country. General Lamb has from early manhood trod the rug- hs of life in public v and though fortune has ed his descent into the vale of years, nor in his path, yet Le bas ever preserved a ich even the breath of detraction notice, ascribed at the eter Irving, is extracted 0 1 He is gone into the presence teing who Willreward his virtues. The biessings isfortune’s children waft his spirit onward, while quered by memory. “ Peace is ashes !” said the voice of his viving friend as the remains of General Lamb 1 committed to what that friend fondly supy their final re: But those who ¢ open Albar g-plac ot the par he military hon- A) ad so well de How strangely would y of citizens’ e who gathered round his proph voice had declared that military honors” should not avail to protect his bones from exhumation. T have referred to the biography of General Lamb merely to prove that officers of the Revolution have been buried in Trinity Chureh-yard : that many such were buried there during the war is proved by tradi- tion, as well as the other evidence before your com- mittee ; and a tradition so generally believed in_b; the people would of itself be sufficient to establisl any historical fact. But if it were admitted that no such officers or soldiers were interred there durin, the war, it is beyond all controversy that many suc! were buried there after the close of the struggle. This is not denied, and is undeniable. But the counsel suggests that there is no tomb- stone bearing an inscription showing that the re- mains of Revolutionary saldiers were interred there. Where is the tombstone of the poor soldier? Where is the marble slab that marks the last resting place of Sir John Moore? Who is there living that can point out the place where Leonidas and the Spartan band who fell at Thermopyle were sepul- tured? What living witness can state that he saw the battle of Pharsalia, and can designate the tombs of the Roman republican soldiers who fell there? By the same course of argument ‘which the counsel pursued, it might be proved that the great battles of antiquity were never fought. It would be difficult to prove by sucha standard of evidence that George Washington ever lived ; that the artillery of the re- volution itself ever flashed upon the midnight of despot and harbingered the dawn of liberty ; that Waterloo ever trembled beneath the tread of British legions, or resounded with the thunder of Napolcon’s cannon, Indeed, the argument would go much further, and prove the non-existence of every- thing but the present. All the records of the past are but traditions ; history itself is but written tra- dition—and shall we therefore deny its teaching: The unepitaphed heroes of the revolution, slaug tered by a ruthless enemy, buried in dishonor, will live forever in. the hearts of their cow trymen: and the fact’ that no marble, with its storied inscripti arks their final resting h sculpture, points 3’ deathless act gument against di turbing their remains—remains which consecrate | every inch of ground where they lie interred. No power onearth can divest that ground of the hal- lowe sociations with which it is embalmed in the heart the people. But it is objected that this is an avaricions corpor- ation. TL ¢ t, sir, The benefactions of this church have ‘been almost unbounded. They have contributed towards the spread of the Gospel not only, but towards almost every object embraced within the term city improvement. given to the cits ely given, lands for § jers, markets, ferries, colleges and churel (Vid Dr. Berrien’s History of Trinity Church, 367-8—3' to 386.) In 1771 they contributed towards buildin, market on Hudson river. In 1776 th two lots on the north side of fs and slip. Ia 1765 two lots were given to establish a ferry from Roosevelt st. to Panlus Hook, which lots are now, I am told, occupied by James Boorman under a claim of title; but I find that the original grant was “Jor the use of said ferry, but for no other use or purpose whatosever, upon condi- tion that the ferry is to be established and fixed there forever.” And as that condition has not been observed, it may well be doubted whether his titlh— the title upon ‘which he yaunts himself—and upon which he now makes his ungenerous attaek on Tri- ay Church—is altogether above question. n 1786 Trinity Church gave three lots of ground for the use of the senior pastors of the Presbyterian congregations of the city. These were lots Nos. 255, 256, 257, Park place. But time will not allow me to enumerate all the benefactions of this church. In 1800, they contri- buted towards a market. In 1810, two lots of ground le for a free school; and in 1815, a further grant was made toa free school. In 1742, this church granted the Jand between Murray and Borclay streets, extend- ing from Church street to the river, for the erection and endowment of a college, and old Columbia still | stands there asa proud memoriel of their beneficence not only, but of the early introduction of avience and learning into the colony of New York: and its records present a lively history of the huwaniz- * See petition 4 +See note Bat the ox } Bee note C at the end of at the ent of the argument { the argument. he argument ‘or if the argument means anything, j jon gen- | it is in- | censure it, Chaucer says :— “ Loke who is most vertuous alway Prive and aj and most entendeth ay To do the dedes that he can ‘And take bim for the greatest gentleman.” If Mr. Boorman comes up to this standard, as his | counsel asserts, and I do not deny, then he isa true | gentleman. But how does that demonstrate that this street should be opened. The stysnens peel seem to be, “ Mr. Boorman is a gentleman, there- sn the street should be opened through the ciurch- ‘ard. 4 Mr. Boorman is, I am told, an English gentieman, | who has been in this country many years, and during his stay bere, amassed wealth. so. He is the very man whom I should t to be foremost in such @ project as this. He no rela- tive, | presume, who distinguished himself in the battles of the revolution. No patriot ancestor ot his whore corse his tears of sorrow were shed—no bro- be expected that his bosom should swell with patri- otic emotions for the remains of the warrior dead. T have yet to learn, that in England, in her cottages upon the heroes of our Revolution. there, among high and low, they are“alike regarded and often spoken of as successful rebels. England can never forget that once we were England's colo- nies, and ‘woul but for the efforts of the very men some of whom restin yonder churchyard. Nurtured where such feelings are prevalent, and seeking our shores after the evolu ees had been successful, it would not be at all sui lowed feeling for the memory of the patriots whose lives were sacrificed in our struggle for liberty. What participation, Mr. Chairman, had Mr. Boor- to secure the ectful interment of deceased Amer- icans abroad? I ask because I am told that he at- tended the Lgades J of that society at the ‘'aber- nacle, and was particularly solicitous that our gov- ernment should take measures to procure a place of die abroad? Is he not now soliciting our govern- ment to take measures for the accomplishment of that object? What a picture of consistent, disin- terested benevolence is presented by this devotion of Mr. Boorman to the accomplishment of so desira- ble an object as the procurement of a place of sepul- ture in consecrated ground for our country- men who died in France, Austria, and Italy, while he is at the same time proposing a measure which involves the necessity of digging up the bones of our revolutionary patriots at home! this a fair specimen of Mr. Boorman’s benevolence ? Thope not. I trust there is some mistake in regard to the matter. Suppose Trinity Church had pro- posed to erect stores on the ground which is now desired by Mr. Boorman for this street; how clamo- rous would then have been the objections to the proposed desecration of the sacred remains of the dead. Isit not fair to presume that Mr. Boorman committee of your board, and protest in thunder tones against the threatened outrage. And then you would have heard the indignant denunciations of his eloquence, demanding that the act should be arrested as one which, if consumated, would out- rage all the better sentiments of humanity, and do people. And who are Mr.Boorman’s fellow-petitioners? know not. A long list was once presented to me as the names of those who were said to have petitioned for the opening of thisstreet; but, so many of those either in effect forged to the petition, or, if they had knowledge of its contents, and either false pretences or a suppression of the truth must have been used to procure their signatures, that I know not who are now his ‘iates. A fraud so base as that is worthy only of another genius than that of Mr. Booiman., “I can scarcely believe that the frank, ‘Jain spoken old Englishman would do such a thi e i is at war with the traditions by which an h gentleman is governed. Wrong he may be—ob- stinate hem Q than jd straight-forward in w by 2 supp "Who. es the opening of the street? First, ‘Trinity Church. And here be it remarked that Trinity Church has refused a large sum of money to allow the street to be opened. If she had been would she not have act low that to be taken which is of no possible pecuni- ary value to her, and which in effect belongs to the relatives and friends of those who are interred in her vaults. This onefact is a sufficient refutation of all the calumnies uttered against her. She opposes her own pecuniary interests. She refuses a large sum of money, and still proves faithful to her trust. For it is plain enough that if, in 1834, the property of Trinity Church was assessed at $62,000, it would now, ng te the immense appreciation of lots in that nei hood, be estimated at $200,000 at the least. And think you, Mr. Chairman, that Medd a erty-holders in that neighborhood would be ing y such a sum for opening this street? If they objected to the payment of $62,000 in 1834, as too onerous then, think you that they will deem $200,000 now any less burdensome? Sir, the property-holders will be among the most zealous opponents of the measure, and the expensive Fibs kt to open this street must ultimately be discontinued, and the costs incurred charged to the city, under the aus- pices of the reform administration. In the second place, the ae is opposed by such men as the Hon F. R. Tillou, your rder— the noble, public spirited, patriotic reformer, Tillou; ever in the van of whatever movement for the public good—and of such men as Capt. Tiliou, General Haight, Mr. Townsend, and many others who have friends and rela buried there. The Recorder has twenty-two relatives who are buried in the line of the proposed street. These men oppose it on the ground that it would be an unnecessary and ruthless 4 desecration of the dead. Again, it would cost, according to the estimates bodies buried there. This, too, whatever it be, must | be added to the assessment to be paid by the proper | holders or by the | ply to the argument of the learne | affirmative argument an additional burdei Having said thus much negatively by way of a re- counsel for the applicants, for the opening of the street, and of the persons who ask for, and those who oppose the mea- sure, permit me now to say a few words by way of ust that measure. And now, Mr. Ch nin, I propose, in my owa me way, to ofier some suggestions, to show— ir the proposed opening of Albany street would be an act in derogation of the grant made by the city of New York to Trinity Church in 1703, | and that it would be a repudiation of a solemn cone They have | treets, pact between the city as grantor and the church as demanded by public necessity. to show that it would be a of the law to open this street. Fourth, I sholl, in conclusion, urge that Christiani- ty is a partof the law of the land, and that it would be a violation of the precepts and spirit of Christiani- ty thus to scatter to the four winds of heaven the ashes of the dead. Nor shall I offer any apology for presenting such considerations to gentlemen selected, as you have so recently been, from the body of your fellow citizens, to occupy the high and honorable positions you now hold—selected because of your known probity and true moral worth in the community. Why are we not discussing the question before the Board of Aldermen of 18537 Is it not because the spirit of the honest masses was aroured during the recent clection in this city, and because that spirit demanded that honora- ble men should be selected to fill the places you new hold, in the stead of those in whom they could no longer place confidence. You are not at all embar- rassed by the action of the Board of Aldermen, whose places you now fill; any act of theirs, instead of furnishing evidence of the right in this communi- | ty, is the rather regarded as cogent evidence of the | the cou 1 that the ephemeral expressions of opinion embodied , contrary. To prove that any act of theirs was right, requires an argument; to show that it was | wrong, but the sng estion that they were its an- thors, | speak, of course, of the majority of the late Common Council. There were men, in both Boards, of great moral worth—men as highly esteemed ax any oilers in the city, aud. who have passed tivough that ordeal uwnseathed. But it ix needless to pronounce their praises, heir worth has been appreciated by the unerring insiiaects of their con- stituents, and they have already assume and infiuential positions in the newly o: vernment. As well might it be urged solutions of the late Common Council Broadway railroad, and their resolutions taunting |, Were binding upon their successors, as lies mouldering in that sacred ground—no wife over | ther, no sister, no mother buried there. Nor can it | or in her palaces, any praise was ever yet bestowed | ‘n al] places, | id have been England’s colonies stilt, | rising if Mr. Boorman entertains no hal- | man in the proceedings of the Protestant Society’ sepulture in consecrated ground for Americans who | would have employed counsel to appear before a | e vislence to the settled, fixed, unalterable will of the | gentlemen have declared that their names were | really signed such a document, it was without a | e; but he never can be otherwise ; selfish, unprincipled and vile, as she is represented, | as $62,000 in 1834, to al- made,nearly $100,000 to disinter and remove the | ty | Will they thank you for ouch in the resolutions before you possess any binding , your predecessors, in the full tide of pom derided all control, threw off all re- straint, seized upon sacred as well as thin: secular, and at last, as a fitting termination of their ever-memorable labors, like fhe proud prince of Babylon, they seized upon the appurtenances of God's house; and, while revelling in vain boasts of their er,an unseen hana was writing on the wall with a pen bathed in vivid lightning, in charac- ters of fire,” “Mene, sin,” —“Thou art weighed in the balances found wanting.” Do you wish to complete their fol- low’ their example? I will not add, to share their fate; for I know that juences to them- selves will not be regarded by m of this Com- mon Council, and that they will seek ont the good of their constituents, although they disregard alike the public admonitions and the private interests of busy members of dictatorial, self-constituted com- mittees of interference. Let us, then, approach the consideration of the question with no feeling of embarrassment, that we are called on to repeal a law—for no law has yet been passed. The matter now stands before you as anew proposition. It has no prestige of authority to commend it to your favorable consideration. What, then, is it which is sought on the one hand to be done, and which, on the other hand, we strenu- ously resist. You are called upon to lend your sanc- tion to a propoatien to exhume the bodies of some thirty or forty thousand persons, among whom there are many officers and soldiers of the Revolution, whoee ashes lie mouldering with their mother earth. A proposition to do an act, the mere mention of which is so startling, demands careful scrutiny into the rie ae i a it interferes, and the grounds on which it . I. The opening of this street would be a violation of a solemn t and compact. The ground pro- d to be taken was used as a common place of urial for all denominations, for nearly a century before Trinity Church was built. It was set by the Dutch, and by them consecrated as a pl sacred to the last rites which separate the dead from the living. Here, without the walls of the city, be- yond the sound of the active pursuits of life, where no voice of revelry was heard, our Dutch forefathers selected a sequestered spot, in a deep valley, as the last resting place for the honored dead. e affec- tionate mother, the honored father, were here placed side by side; the tender, loving wife, and the devoted husband, whose remains were interred, were deemed safe from Vandal hands, and their humble graves be- spoke at once the poverty of their origin and their de- voted regard for the sanctity of thetomb. Andhcre let us not forget, that these were not members of the Episcopal Church. No sir: their associations were with that glorious band of Hollanders who sought civil and religious liberty on the newly settled shores of New Amsterdam. For these, then, I plead—for the dead, who cannot speak. Not for Trinity Church—not for the vestry of that church—but for those who were alien to its services—nurtured in the faith of our venerated Reformed Dutch Church, and whose mortal remains were committed to their mother earth, consecrated by services performed in a language unknown to the church now called Trinity—and whose tombs were inscribed nearly a century before Trinity Church had an existence. Now, sir, let me remind your honorable committee that even if Trinity Church were obnoxious to all here, even if this abusive pamphlet were true as it is false, it would in no respect invalidate the con- buried nearly a century before Trinity Church was built, cannot, by any sophistry, be made re- sponsible for its acts or 01 ions. For the honored dead I speak, and in their name I protest against the threatened exhumation—in the name of the tens of thousands who, if you could call them from their dark charnel-house, would appear in their white robes and protest against this act. And how would such an objection appear in the face of such an audience? Would an argument that, a century after their interment, another class of men had arisen who had erected a aoe near the remains of the dead, and that tem- ple had since then not been in proper hands, be re- garded as an answer to their arent No, sir; no. But, less by implication it may be said that I admit the force of the objections urged against Trinit, Church, permit me to say, on the contrary, that think that church worthy of all honor; entitled to | unmeasured praise for the firm course it has unifor- merly taken, no matter at what pecuniary loss, to protect the remains of the dead; and I for one, as a member of the Dutch Church, thank them on behalf of the old Dutch families, whose remains they have guarded with such commendable fidelity. Nor do I erceive, in the long history of the various proceed- ings to open an avenue through the bones of our Manhbattanese ancestors, that Trinity Church has pursued any other course than that pointed out by he pole star of religion. To resume my history of the ground. After it had been oceupied by the Dutch and their successors asa city burying ground, for cert | a century, the ity of ‘New York, in 1703, granted it, under the broad seal of the corporation of New York, to the orporation of Trinity Church, to be held by the grantees as _a perpetual place of sepulture for the vle of the city of New York, of all denomina- ions, and irrespective of the condition or circum- stences, race or lineage of those whose bodies were obe committed to that consecrated ground. To nst the p ity of the rejection of the small sum was prescribed as a stated npen the payment of which the sexton wus bound to commit earth to earth and dust to dust, or the estate of the church in the grounds would have been forfeited. In consequence of the the facility for making interments there, and the low rates to paid for such inter- | ments, it became the common and most usual | oe of burial, and so continued down to 823, when the ordinance of this city was ‘d forbidding further burials. It is generally estimated | that from thirty to forty thousand persons have been interred there. I know that the estimate is dis- Vat the applicants for this measure; but, so long as I can vouch for my statement, the report of | the committee of the Board of Aldermen, made in | 1847, and the other evidence before your committee, | Imay well assume the accuracy of the statement, | without stopping to prove it. Now let us revert for | moment to the grant. The grant of the city to | | the church expresses substantially that the ground | | shall be held by the church in fee simple forever, as | | @ general bu ground. In derogation of that | | grant, the same city now secks to seize the property | which it once solemnly granted, and appropriate it | to the aid of a private speculation; or, if you | please, for the sake of the argument, for the | pu e of opening an unnecessary street. | in other words, it is ma to this city to repudi- | ate the grant so solem made, and to treat it as thongh its corporate faith were not irrevocably pledged to the literal fulfilment of all the terms of that grant. To illustrate: Suppose, Mr. Chairman, a gentleman were to convey to youa piece of ground, upon trust that you should hold it for the benefit of the living poor, and apply its proceeds to their au port, and afterwards the ntor should himself | Beek to evade the grant. ‘ould not all the world deem the act dishonorable, and execrate his memo- ty? But that is just what it is now proposed to the corporation of New York to do in this matter; the only difference being that the corporation created a trust for the benefit of their dead, the trust in the case pl geay being for the benefit of the living. Shall such an act of bad faith receive the sanction | of honest men? ‘To repudiate a bond was thought to imply peculiar dishonor in the State of Missis- | sippi, and fastened an indelible blot on her fair eacutcheon; and shall we be so illiberal as to pro- nounce Mississippi infamous for repudiating ber bonds, whilst we .at the same time repudiate our deeds? — Sir, Mb will not tolerate a distinc- tion between Mississippi and New York. The bonds of Mississippi were issued for contemplated public improvements, the repudiation was placed on grounds of public policy. Such was the shallow pre- tence ; and be assured that no arguments were wanting to show, in quite as specious language as any which can be used here, that when public policy demands repudiation, the people must tepndines. So here it is said that public policy demands that the city should repudiate its grant for the benefit of this pseudo improvement; but believe me, sir, that Veg pol cy which demands the sacrifice of the onor of a State or acity, must be more palpable, more urgent, more strikingly tiapérative than any resent by this application. Public policy, the law and the dictates of morality—I will not add, of common honesty—concur to condemn the proposed act. Sir, this is no ordinary repudiation. It is not merely repudiating a sg with the living, but a solemn compact with the dead. For the suin paid as a burial-fee, the city, through its custo- dian Trinity Church, entered into a solemn compact with eleven generations of men who have now long since ceased to mingle with the affairs of the living, that the remains resting in that ground, should lie there without molestation, and the burial-ground should be forever a sacred place of deposit for their ashes. These parties are the beneficiaries of the trast vested in Trinity Church, and to open this street would he to eee ag that solemn compact between the living and the devd. Shall such a com- ee be repudiated with impunity? But it is said, that the great interests of commerce demand it. Believe me, sir, “Tt is an impious greatness, And mixed with teo much horror to be be envied.” II. But, sir, I deny that the interesta of commerce demand it. The public does not demand it. You are called upon by « few private individaals only. What greet public interest demands it? Do the merchants demand it / No sir; they ask not for it. Do the carmen ask for it? The grade of Thames and Rector street—and the grade of Albany street would be the same—is so steop as to unfit them for thcir use, aud they ask it not. Our carmen are men who would scorn'to travel over the bones of the sacred dead ; and if this street were made, they would avoid itasa pease spe Dot r le demand it? No, sir. No. A thousand times no! oy cio not ask a new street within for- the objections which have been urged against it | siderations I press upon you. Those who were | | which he has; for dedication has res] | of And Albany street, if ed, would be within feet of Thames street, with a single house ae - Try this question of utility by another standard: Sup) the ground pro, be for this street belonged to an; ite citizen, Mr. Boorman for example, and it had no perara yy it. Would any one then think the ic tereste Could be subserved by of course, its 000 for building fots would be placed upon it. And would any one, in such a case, venture to suggest that the public would be so much benefitted as to warrant the payment of such asum of money? No, sir. It then be seen the street could not benefit the that the opening of id would be too tors Mr iblic, and the price to be forward the interest of the lot speculat Mr. Boorman would then object to the tal of the lots, upon the ground that it would be his private property for private uses, and the me would be frustrated. The plain truth of the matter is simply this: The reons who claim to open the street think, what ir counsel expresses, that ier can take this churchyard for nothing; that it not cost a cent by way of assessment, and the opening of the street will be a very handsome speculation. It will open an avenue to their lots; give the lots desirable fronts to make them saleable; and that this great object can be accomplished for just nothing. The lation is certain; the loss, they penny. Did they not know, when they purchased these lots, that the church stood there? Has the church deceived them by closing an avenue to their roperty? That is not pretended : all they ask is, Phat the church will aor away its lands; or, rather, they modestly ask, that you should forcibly confis- cate the grounds of this church—that lots, which have been purchased at low prices, may, in Mr. Boorman’s words, ‘‘be mate! enhanced in value.” Tn other words, you are asked of our ancestors to aid a city lot ion. It is a bold, bad project, for which no excuse, no apology can be offered. Believe me, sir, popular sentiment is op, the opening of this street. A more un eure could not be suggested. Submit to the peo tion hice vote against it. This, of itself, is suffi- cient to show that the public interests do not demand it. Iam one of those who believe that the instincts e question unbiassed expression of the press is in regard to it. And when I speak of the press, allow me to remind you that our newspapers gent a true mirror of popular sentiment. The history of the world, for a day, is contained in each issue. I speak not now of cards inserted in the a a terested in this measure, written in nena Se ee eato tn i —newspapers which the 8 e controvers cannot influence, much less control, and whose cde tors are men too pure to listen to susteng lee the dictates of duty. Such, for example, as the Com- mercial Advertiser, and the Lene Gets which have contained editorials on this q . An attempt has been made to impart a sectarian character this controversy, but it is signally out of place. It is not a war of eects. The uni ous measure — Catholics, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists, members of the Dutch an Episcopal churches alike protest against it. Hear what the editor of the Freeman’s Journal on the subject:—“But on the score of human cency we protest against a needless, and, as far as the public at large are concerned, @ profitless out- | rage upon the mortal remains of multitudes of the | honest and respectable dead of this city in its ear- lier times.” —(Freeman’s Journal, of 22d February, 1854.) And the Citizen, with the warmth and earnestness which ever glow in the honest hearts of Irjshmen—men illustrious for a self-sacrificing devo- tion, almost unknown to any other single race— thus utters the sentiment of its large circle of read- ers :—“This attempt to violate the resting place of the dead has excited general indignation.”—(Citi- zen, 26th February, 1854.) I have selected these two newspapers, because no man who has any knowledge of the gentlemen by whom they are con- ducted will venture to suggest that they could be influenced by any other motive in penning such ar- ticles than to express an honest indignation at the threatened perpetration of such an out: against the d conviction of all classes, of whatever lineage, race, or sect. Nor does this application come commended by a compliance with the rules of law in regard to de- voting property to the use of a street. It is not an application to take private property for public uses; to do which it is only necessary to show that dh convenience requires it: but it presents itself in a totally different aspect. Instead of being an applt- cation to take private property for public uses, it is an attempt to take property Mirchi dedicated to public uses for the purpose of subjecting that public property to forward the interests of a mere private speculation. In other words, to take property al- ready Sy appropriated, to the use of the public, and devote it to the ae of enhancing the value of city lots, and bri ce them into market; and this, too, not at the behest of the public, but upon the application of a few individuals. If, however, this cemetry is to be regarded as private property, then it is equally objectionable; for then it seeks to take private property for private uses, in violation of the constitution. “ The constitution, by authoriz- ing the appropriation of private property to public use, impledly declares that, for any other use, private property shall not be taken from one, and ap- nes to the private use of another. It is in viola- | ion of natural right. If it is not in violation of the letter of the constitution, it isof its spirit, and can- not be supported.” Opinion of the Supreme | od in the matter of Albany street, 11 Wend. 50. e right of eminent domain, whatever it may he— and I shall not stop to define it—has no application to such a case as this; for there is no great state or public necessit; requir it, no public convenience to be Popirtinch by it; and the existence of either the necessity or the convenience must be demon- strated to exist to justify its seizure in pursuance of | the right of eminent domain. (American Print oraeee Lawrence, Ch. J. Greene’s Opinion, p. said:— “Dedication, as the term is used in reference to this subject, isthe act of devoting or giving property for some proper object, and in such manner as to conclude the owner. The law which governs such casesis anomalous. Under it rights are parted with and acquired in modes and by means unusual and pe- | culiar. Ordinarily, some conveyance or written in- | strument is pean to transmit a right to real Be | perty, but the law applicable to dedication is ditfer- | ent. A dedication may be made without writing, | by act in“hais as well as by deed. It is not at necessary that the owner should part with the title ct to the pos- ite. Its effect session, and not to the permanent is not to deprive a pany of title to his lands, but to estop him, while the dedication continues in force, from asserting that right of exclusive possession and enjoyment which the owner of property ordi- | narily has. (Cincinnati against Lessee of White, 6 | Pet. he . 431, 438.) The principle upon which the | estoppel rests is that it would be dishonest, immoral or indecent, and, in some instance even sacrili- gious, to reclaim at pleasure property which has been solemnly devoted to the use of the public, or in fur- therance of some charitable or pious object. The | law, therefore, willnot permit any one thus to break | his own plighted faith to disappoint honest expecta- tions thus excited, and upon which reliance has been placed. The principle is one of sound mor- als and of most obvious equity, and is, in the strict- cet sense, a part of the law of the land. It is known nall courts, aud may as well be enforced at law as “n equity. “the land in question was dedicated as a grave- yard, and the ashes of the dead shall be allowed to iepose in undisturbed solitude and quiet. The rave is hallowed. This sentiment is deeply seated in the human heart, and is all bug universal. It ex- sts with scarcely less ng age strength in the breast of the savege than in that of the civilized man, repelling any rude a liege to the resting place of the dead, and forbidding, as sacriligious, its life., A just deference to this sentiment, and a pro- er respect for the feelings of those whose friends fave been buried in the ind now in contest, are wholly incompatible with the right to exclusive pos- session ret up by the plaintiff.” This is the languoge of one of the ablest jurists of this State. Nothing that ] could say would add toits force. Why, does it not emphatically apply to this ground? “Has tt not been solemnly edi- cated and devoted “ to the use of the public?” plighted faith of the city, and disappoint the honest expectations excited by this pledge of that faith, upon which it has been “usedtor this pious object” —and should not “the ashes of the dead be allowed to repose in undisturbed solitude and quiet?” Turn for a moment from this language of the courts to the expressions of the Legislature. {Vhat does our stat- ute say in regard to the removal of a their graves? (2 R.S. 683, sec. 13:) “Every persth who shall remove the dead body of any human being | from the grave or other place of interment, for the | purpoee of selling the enine, or for the purpose of dis- section, or from mere wantonness, shall, upon con- vietfon, Le punished by imprisonment in a State prison not exceeding five *years, or ina county jall not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding | five hundred dollars, or by both such fine and im prisopment.” “Let us mark the language of this rection, and we may gather thence legislative intention and policy of the law. It denounces ex- bumation asa crime, whether the motive be mere fn by selling, or when the person is even y adesire to promote medical science, or when “mere wantouness” actoates him. Inveacht case act is alike pronounced unlawful, and a penalty de- | think, cannot a| dig up the bones | sed to | mea- le, and nine-tenths of the whole la- | of the people are sure to be right. Hear what the | rs by the parties in- | of editorial articles, pers above the taint of suspicion _ hook expression of whatever sect is against the | use for any of the secular and common purposes of | Will | the law, therefore, permit any one to break the | bodies from | the | th stan — Trinity Church, in | dollars for the ken, to which the church a merely custodian for the sacred dead interred in! Now, if the church were so wicked, one would oe flee that the most natural thi in the world we been for her to have accepted the offer of sixty- | two thousand dollars, prove recreant to her trast,. and consent to the opening of the street, which, in no pecuniary sense, could injure her a penny. On the contrary, the church refused the tem ting bribe, and preferred, and still prefers, to , in liew | thereof, the bones of the who have been buried in her sromm And, notwithstanding all this, the | pamphleteer representing and advocat Mr. Boor- | man’s interest, whoever he may be, this church with avarice, pride, and all the ly sins. To my mind, the self-denying constancy of the church, in refusing that large sum of money, and | continuing faithful to her trust, is above praise. IV. There is another source of law to which I must beg to call your attention. It is found in a of ount anthority—the Bible. But some may say that the Bible is not the law of the land. Hear what Lord Chief Justice Best says on the sub- read from the case of Bird vs. Holbrook, (4 ing. 638.) “ It has been argued,” says that emi- nent judge, “it has been argued that law does not compel every line of conduct which humanity or religion may uire; but there is no act which ity forbids that the law will not reach. If it were otherwise, Christianity would not be, as it , has always been held to be, pa of the law of Eng- | land.” And I would remind you, sir, that, by our constitution of 1777, the common law of land ‘was adopted and made part of the law of the State of New York, and hasever continued to be, and now is, the law of this State, constantly acted upon in our courts. That Christianity forbids the desecration of the | dead requires no argument. Ever since the intro- duction of Christianity the remains of the dead have been held sacred. The advent of religion marked ay snus revolution in the mode of of the lead. The Romans kindled the funeral pyre under the remains of deceased friends, but when Boal preached to them, in thrilling tones, the resurection of the body and the life everlasting, the converts to the new faith were carefully placed in the Tufa, in sub- terraneous caverns, where the solemn rites of sepul- ture were performed by the primitive over their martyred brethren in days of persecution and of danger. These caverns remain, as the catacombs near Rome bear witness. The elaboratel; wrought sarcophigi, the prved mausoleums, whi meet the eye of the beholder on every hand in the | Old World,all bear silent evidence of the universality of this sentiment. In a word, he who can exclaim, “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: and though, after my skin, worms destroy this Beare in my flesh shall I see God,”—he who believes this momen- tous truth must respect the remains of the dead. But this branch of the subject more Sppropriately belongs to the pulpit than the forum. Permit me, therefore, to di ‘3 it with the remark, that the eloquent sermon of the learned divine, Mr. Weston, has developed all that is necessary to be said on that. subject, in its true light. His very text is suffici- ent without a sermon, and is peculiarly apposite to | the present occasion. Abraham, the venerable atriarch, purchased land from the children of Heth for a perpetual burying place. It received the mor- tal remains of his wife not only, but of Abraham, , Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. The children of Heth were true to their grant, observed it faithfully, and to this day the burial place is kept sacred. Our fore- fathers have also purchased a perpetual burying place n Trinity churchyard, and it is now sought to be aken from us, not by one of ourselves, but bya stranger. One, to whom all the, glorious. associa- tions of our land are unknown, bids us yield up the ones of our fathers to aid him as a legitimate source of profit. Shall we yicld? No sir, never. .I appeal to you, then, not to allow this street to be opened. By all the glorious memories of the past—by all your brilliant hopes for the futurg of our country, do’ not destroy the graves of our Revolutio1 itriots, by every consideration of public utility, 1 that one green spot remain. Let old Trinity stand intact, and teach the sublime truths of our holy religion to the two hundred thousand inhabitants within its recincta; and may the daily sermons preached there e continued, and may her dead repose in peace be- neath the shadows of her lofty spire, till the might: archangel shall come down from heaven, and a! open the books, and shall set his right foot upon the .) | sea, and his left foot upon the land, and swear, bj poet ron a ee cane Beat La eth Him that liveth forever and ever, that time shall’ be Peters’ Rep. 566, 7 Term Rep. 723. the case of } 7? /oneer- fetid Hunter agt. the Trustees of Sandy Hill, reported in | (Nore A.) the 6th vol. Hill’s Reports, p. 407, Judge Beardsley | gissory or TRINITY CHURCH, IN A PETITION FROM A DESCENDANT OF A REVOLUTIONARY OFFICER. To the Honorable the Common Council of the City of The undersigned fully joi ; e undersigned respectfully joins in the prayer: of many of his, fellow-citizens to your pads tnd body, axking for the repeal of the ordinance of the late Common Council, relative to the extension of Albany street through Trinity Rae In support of his petition, the undersigned be; leave to present the following facts connected wit our Revolutionary history. Among the earliest of the patriotic spirits who marched from their homes to defend the city of New York against the armies of Great Britain in 1776, were the regiments contributed by the coun- ties of York and caster, in Pennsylvania. They were composed almost entirely of young men, the man of them of German descent, and animated by the hatred of oppression, and enthusiasm in the cause of freedom, which distinguishes their race at the present day. Five regiments marched from the county of York to New Jersey in July, 1776, and of these two were detached to form part of the “ flying camp”—a corps of 10,000 men, voted by Congress on June 3, 1776. These two regiments were stationed in the vicinity of the city of New York. A portion of | them were killed or taken prisoners at the battle of Brooklyn Heights, and the balance either fell on the field of battle at the taking of Fort Washington on the 16th of November, 1776, or were captured on that disastrous occasion, and marched down to the city. Here they, in common with thousands of their fellow patriots, suffered unheard of cruelty in the ger and sugar houses of New York. The regiment of Col. Michael Swope, consisting of cight companies, suffered severely at Fort Wash- ington. Death on the ficld, or by wounds, or from the horrors of the prisons, left but few to return to the green hills of the Codorns, Ensign and Adjutant Barnitz, of this regiment, then but eighteen years old, fell at Fort Washing- fon with a musket ballin each leg. Being carried to the city prisons with the survivors of his regi- ment, he was soon afterwards removed to more com- fortable quarters in the old house formerly standii at No.9 agin i in consequence of the severity his wounds, and at the intercession of an old famil friend, Major-General William Alexander—Lord Stirling, who was then also a prisoner, hay been shortly before captured on Long Island. Adjutant Barniiz here lay with unhealed wounds nm Pris Sp Fe during Lado 9 A ag not i ie still greater sufferin, arms, and, with the help ofthe noble-hearted officer just mentioned, he was enabled to alleviate their enerally of the Luthern faith, the grave- yard of that denomination, adjoining Trinity Church, (subsequently the site of Grace cl ao of burial, but the | church had been destroyed in the c ‘ion city by the British anny, and the burial ground was unprotected. bi and to care for their remains when dead.. ing Chureh,) would have been their appropriate which occurred shortly after the occupation of the successful effort was thorefore made to obtain a Jace of sepulture in Trinity Churchyard. Adju- fant Barnitz was attached to Cap' Christian Btake’s company, of Swope's regiment, composed of young men of the best families of the town of York. To these more particularly, as being his more immediate comrade, such care as he could af- ford wa en. Of this company, the following were buried in the northwestern ion of the grounds, at that time bordering on the water viz.:—Sergeant Peter Haak, mice es Rinks, Laplbesy Hugh Dobbins, Hen- y Dav Tr, AM ppbebiy poe or two ers. Capishi Betavicr ot Col. Richard McMas- ter's regiment, from the same county) died of wounds v LP