THE FAILURE OF THE "TILDEN TRUST." 391; upon the same footing as private trusts, with the single exception that property may be given directly to corporations authorized to receive and hold permanently bequests for specified charitable purposes. This exceptional New York legislation seems to the writer an unmixed evil. Any one, who follows the reported cases, to say nothing of the unreported instances, for the last fifty years, will be startled at the number of testators whose reasonable wishes have been needlessly disappointed, and at the amount of property which has been diverted from the community at large for the bene- fit of unscrupulous relatives. 1 Nor has New York, whose legislation in general has been widely copied, made any recent converts to her doctrine of charities. On the contrary, Wisconsin, which at one time followed the New York rule, by the revision of 1878 adopted the English practice with the exception of the so-called cy-pres doctrine. Virginia, too, which at one time ignored the distinction between private and charitable trusts, has, by statute, sanctioned to a limited extent indefinite charitable trusts. But even under the New York statutes, Governor Tilden's chari- table purposes, it would seem, might have been accomplished within the rules applicable to private trusts. The objection of remoteness did not exist, for the will was carefully framed so as not to violate the rule of perpetuities ; and the objection that there was no definite cestui que trust who could compel its performance was obviated by the willingness of the trustees to exercise their option in favor of the " Tilden Trust." Unfortunately, however, the New York courts had adopted a chancery doctrine, which was first stated in Morice v. Bishop of Durham. 2 In that case property was bequeathed to the bishop upon trust to dispose of the same to such objects of benev- olence and liberality as he should most approve of. This was ob- viously not a charitable trust, and, there being no cestui que trust, there was no one who could compel its performance. The bishop, however, disclaimed any beneficial interest in himself and was ready, } Owens v. Missionary Society, 14 N. Y. 380; Downing v. Marshall, 23 N. Y. 366; Levy v. Levy, 33 N. Y. 97; Bascom v. Albertson, 34 N. Y., 584; Adams v. Perry, 43 N. Y. 487; White v. Howard, 46 N. Y. 144; Holmes v. Mead, 52 N. Y. 332; Prichard v. Thompson, 95 N. Y. 76; Cottmar v, Grace, 112 N. Y. 299; Read v. Williams, 125 N. Y. 560; Fosdick v. Hempstead, 125 N. Y. 581; Tilden v. Green, 28 N. E. R. 880. 2 9 Ves. 399, 10 Ves. 521. GEORGE R. wa: COUNSELOR AT 69 WALL STREET NEW YORK
