Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1859-07-08


We court no controversy with Bishop
Purcell, or with any other Church dirnitary,
but inasmuch as tho head Of the Catholic
Church 10 Ohio has seen f. in the most
public manner 70 attack the auditor Of State,
aod the party that elected lgm. and % Issue
his command 70 all the followers Of that
Church to use their influence, and deposit
their votes against US, and in favor OF the
slave democracy, 10 becomes our duty to set
this matterin lis true light before The pub
lie. ..'..s...
The new Constitution il is known vas
made by body Of men in which the Dem
ocratic party bad decided majority. To
use hackneyed. but expressive term, Hit
was put in the hands Of its friends, and for
four years after its adoption IN 1851,
that party had the control Of both
branches of tho General Assembly. In 1852
general law for the assessment and taxation
Of all property in this State was passed
In sect. 3, (page 1877 Of the laws Of that
year) are tho following exemptions:
All public school houses, aud houses used
exclusively for public worship, the books
and furniture therein, and the grounds at
tached TO such building necessary for the
proper occupancy, use, and snjoymcnt Of
the same, and not leased OF otherwise used
with view TO profit. All colleges, aeade-
mics, all endowments made for their sup
port; all buildings connected with the same,
and all lands connected with Institutions Of
learning, not used with view to profit, DC.
This clause covers all property 10 ccntrc-
fha .oo.s1 - .
legislature, on Friday, November 20, 1852,
Mr.. Banta, a Democratic member from
Darke county, introduced bill III. b. Ne.
l72) to amend this third section. (Sec
House Journal, p. 9o.l February 9, 1883,
Mr.. Patterson, from the Finance Commit
tee, reported back said bill, and it was soon
after passed by both Houses. II re-eDacl-
cd the third section, in the part above quo
ted, WithOm change, the only essential
modification being reduction OF exemp-
tions from 5000 10 $50.
Tho law thus amended has been retained
on the statute book, and has regulated the
subject of exemptions till tho past winter,
whom the entire subject Of taxation was con-
sidered, with a view to incorporate all Of
its provisions into one general law. Il Is
well known that the democratic party had
majority in the last Legislature. Senators
Phelps and Hatch are the fathers Of the bill,
and the system as it now exists, was passed
on the 5th Of April, 1882 The third SEQ
ton (page III, of the laws Of 1887 is
more stringent than the law Of 1858, but
is similar in its general features The only
changes iu the act of $50 above quoted, are
in prefixing the word "public," before tho
words colleges and academies, and in stri-
king out the term, call endowmeuts made
for their support With these exceptions
the law Of 1852 was substantially re-enact-
cd last winter Such is now the language
of the law, and such have been its provis-
ions since 1852. If it is wrong, the demo
cratic party alone is responsible for its sxis-
tence.
But, it may bo claimed that Auditor
Wright has given new and different con-
struction to this law, and that this is the
ground Of complaint. We desire 20 state
most emphatically, that any and all such
charges and institutions are false. We as
sert what the records Of the public offices
abundantly confirm, That there has been no
} new ruling on these subjects. The practice
under the law Of 1852, and its amendments,
has been uniform and the property, the tax
alton of which is now complained Of, was
taxed under the ADMINISTRATION Of Mr.. Mer-
gan precisely the same as it is now taxed
under that of Mr.. Wright. We also assert
that applications were made TO Mr. Morgan
to exempt certain Catholic property from
taxation, the property now in dispute in
J cluded and that letters are on file giving
his replies Of the same character as those
Of Mr. Wright. Mr.. Morgan told these
men that the property belonging to the
} Sisters Of Mercy came within the rule Of
taxation. 1t was not public institution.
) Its position was similar TO that of property
held by Masons, Odd Fellows, DC, which
has uniformly been taxed. Parsonages Of
J all denominations have uniformly been
taxed. Such is our system. Such it has
been. Such it was made by the Democra-
cy Of the State, and as the law such has
5 been its enforcement by Auditor Morgan,
! the special pet and champion of the friends
: of the new constitution. In view of these
facts which arc Of record, how will sensible,
honest men regard the issue that Bish-
: op Purcell proposes to make with Auditor
Wright and his political friendsi
! Another point may as well be known to
the public. During the past winter when
: the entire revision Of the tax system was
under consideration, by such leading demo-
erats as Senator Phelps, Hatch, &c, Audi
tor Wright brought this subject specially
} to their notice.
} He told them that for years Bishop Pur-
| cell and his friends had been urging the
Auditor to exempt their Church property,
such as the Bishops palaces, the homes Of
, the Sisters of Mercy, de-, from taxation.---
He insisted that if il was the design to re-
t lease such property, it should be so plainly
e set forth in the law as TO be clearly under
stood. The result of all this was. the re-
enactment Of the old law with still greater
restrictions. Such was the response Of ths
Democracy to this request.
We trust this plain statement Of facts
; will put this question at rest. We leave
Bishop Purcell and his apologisss to recon
, cile as best they can their attack upon q
most worthy public officer for doing simply
\ =