144, entitled an Act to incorporate the Board of Beneficence
of St. John's Independent Methodist Protestant Church in
the City of Baltimore,

And the report was adopted.

Mr. Spates, from the same Committee, submitted the
following

REPORT.

The Committee on Corporations to whom were referred the
bill to amend the Act of 1864, chapter 144, and to authorize
the Board of Beneficence of St. John's Independent Metho-
dist Protestant Church to hold property amounting to the
clear yearly value of fifty thousand dollars, and the memorial
of Henry Kellogg and Martha Kellogg, praying for a repeal of
the said Act of incorporation, respectfully report that they
have given both subjects their careful consideration after
hearing the full and elaborate arguments of counsel repre-
senting the different parties interested.

Your Committee consider the objects for which the said
corporation are authorized to hold property, to be vague, in-
definite and uncertain, and under the discretion which they
have to apply the funds, their powers to appropriate the
property to various objects may be said to be almost un-
limited.

Such powers conferred on corporations under the name of
charity, should not, as a general rule, be granted, and are in
opposition to our views of public policy; while we entertain
these views of the powers conferred by the original Act, we
are unable to favor an extension of the right of this corpo-
ration to take and hold any larger amount of property.
Indeed, it seems to have been contrary to the intentions of
Mr. John Clarke, who procured the passage of the law, and
who is the only individual who has bestowed his bounty upon
it, that it should hold more than this limited amount of
property. Your Committee therefore report unfavorably upon
the bill proposing to extend the powers of the said corporation
to hold property to an amount yielding a clear yearly value of
fifty thousand dollars.

In reference to the memorial praying for the repeal of the
charter of the said corporation: Your Committee are of the
opinion that while as an original question, they would not
favor such an Act of incorporation, yet a prior Legislature
having granted the charter, the repeal of the charter is a
more delicate matter, and involves questions of property and
rights which appertain to the Judicial rather than the Leg-
islative department; for these reasons, your Committee re-