The Tiffin tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1868-1887, 1873-09-18
TIFFIN TRIBUNE.
Timn, Thursday I've. Sept. fSIh, 1873
Taxing Church Property.


Some weeks since we endeavored to
point out the propTiety of taxing
church property, conceding that per
haps reasonable exemption might
be proper. The subject has since been
discussed with much freedom through
the columns of secular and religious
Journals. The census of 1870 shows
that the aggregate value Of church
property in the United States at that
was S3T6, 81, ,IS4. The New York In
dependent, in commenting upon the
exemption of this vast amount Of
property from general and local tax
alton, says:
For it the tax-paying
property of the American people has
10 pay annually several millions of
dollars in an increased rate of taxa
ton. This we hold 70 be an indirect
union between church and State. IL
can be nothing else.
We have no spleen against churches
or ministers; vet for the life Of US we
cannot see why they should not bear
their equal proportion of tax burdens.
This is the one great point We mean
10 press upon the attention of our
J IcduETEs w nl Dc
Exempted any more than doctors,
lawyers, school teaehers, editors, or
any other class of property holders
Why should this enormous amount
of church property entirely escape
all taxation ? No reason can be given
for it that is not either false in the
/ fact it affirms or false in the inference
J it seeks to draw. AZ @ EI
The reference of the LRdepeadeat 10
I the special exemption of ministers, is
based upon the law Of New York
which allows each minister or priest
\ 81 800 free from. taxation. With re-
gard to the effect of church exemp-
tion from taxation in the Safe OF New
York, the Independent says:
) First, as TO date, we find in the cen.
sus of 1870 the following statistics rs
to churches in the State of New York:
| Church organizations-............ 56g7
Church 5l
Churcn slttlngs--- .-------------------- sS2Slt
Church property 73,ol
Add to this amount of church prop
erty the fifteen hundred dollar exemp-
ton from taxes made in favor OF
ministers of the Gospel and priests, u
and we have gross sum of about
seYenty-five millions of dollars in the
single State of New York, held by
ministers and churches, which yields
no tax revenue to the State, county,
city or town. Here is a huge amount
OF privileged property that enjoys all
the benefits of government, without
paying solitary penny for its sup
port. Roads are built for its con-
venienee; courts of justice sit to assert
and enforce its rights; public improve
ments are made to its advantage; in
deed, like all other property, it shares
in all the protection, immunities, and
remedies afforded by law; and yet con-
tributes nothing toward the necessary
expenses thereof. Were it taxed, as
in equity and justice it should be, the
State tax for the current year, to say
nothing about the county, municipal,
and other local taxes, would amount
to the round sum of over seven hun
dred thousand dollars. If local taxes
were added, the amount would not be
much short, If any, of two millions OF
dollars. The loss of this sum for state
and local purposes has to be made up
by increasing the rate of taxation on
all the property that pays taxes. And
this is practically equivalent to q
direct gift of the same amount to
churches and ministers. The people
would loudly protest if the Legisla-
ture were formally to pass bill to
this effect; they would denounce it as
| involving a union between church and
State; yet there is no difference be-
tween q direct donation of so much
money and an omission to collect il
by exempting the property from tax
alton. The result is the same in both
cases. That which the people would
sternly denounee in one form they
patiently bear when presented under
the thin disguise of an exemption.
The point made by the Independent
is q strong one. While we as a people
have had much to say in eondemna-
ton of the English tithing system, by
which one-tenth of all the products
of the lands of the people are con-
demned for the use of the church, and
have been disposed to bitterly de.
Dounee the principieof compelling the
people to pay taxes for the support oil
church to the doctrines of which
they cannot subscribe, have we not
been doing the same thing? Has not
our exemption of church property and
the property of ministers and priests
from taxation, compelled the people to
contribute, to the extent of the ex-
emption, to the support of churches
and ministers? If we have not been
compelled to give one-tenth of ouI
earnings, is not the principle the same,
the only difference being the amount.
1t is not in q spirit of oppositioa fo
churches that the taxation of church
property is advocated; but because we
would free the church from all SEM
blance of compulsory support, wheth'
er obtained through the English tith-
ing system or the American exemp.
tioD system. The principle of com.
pelliDg a man to pay towards the sup
port of any church, is inconsistent
with the spirit of ourinstitutions, and
fshould not be tolerated for a moment
1t is dangerous in its tendencies and
must eventually, if perpetuated, lead
to serious difficulties if not 10 the
overthrow OF religious liberty Gin
| cinpdi Gazette.
/. 81. rarE aa