New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1873-12-04

doubled in ten years. From this point IL
advanced to 1854, Asa, 5Sl, in 1870, which is
a little more than double the amount in lSt0.
Let anything like this ratio of increase be
continued through series Of decades, and
the doctrine Of exemption also be continued,
and It Is easy to see that at no distant period
IN the future the amount Of such exempted
property VII become absolutely enormous.
No harm can result tu the country from the
growth of churches the more Of them the
better. Yet il is grave question for the
people I" consider whether they can afford,
especially in these davs of high taxation, to
adopt principle which allows such an i'm
m"nse amount Of property to be wholly IN
lro.'Htttve to the State as the means of
r'''hue. The principle is essentially the
s'me in kind, whatever be the amount ex-
einlted, while the effect in degree keeps
pace with the accumulation Of property in
this form. If it be small evil with a small
accumulation, it becomes large one with
large accumulation. The increase of church
property, with its release from bearing any
of the burdens of the State, must finally
bring us to the point ut which this release,
By reason Of its amount, will be intolerable.
Action upon the question may be delayed,
but it will at last come. The people cannot
go on forever in allowing this species Of
property to be withdrawn from the necessity
OF contributing to the expenses of the State.
The system Of exemption, moreover, does
not operate with equality, as between the
different religious sccts, owing to their nu-
mciical difference and their different methods
Of church propasandism. Take, for example,
the Roman Catholics and the MethOdsts,
standing at the head of the list in the amount
OF church property held by them. The
statistics for the former in 1870 were rs
follows: Organizations, 4, ~ editices $500;
sittings, ,99O,jl4; property, SEQ, 9Sj, SOC.
The statistics for the latter at the same
period were as follows Organizations,
p, 27S ediiccs, 81 ,337 sittings, 6, 528 200
property, SGD, s54, l2l. The property in the
haEds of the Catholics for the use of 1, l27
organizations was sec, 9Sj, 500, while that in
the hands of the Methodsts for the use of
D. organizations was 800, Sj4,l2 1t is
evident upon the face of this statement that
the Catholics receive much the arges st ex-
emption in proportion to the number of their
organizations, their cdiiices, and their
sittings. While all the people, under the
theory OF exemption, are required to make
up for the revenue deficiency arising from
both, whether they believe in or reject one
or both systems or not, the exemption is not
equal as between these two sects. The
Catholics, whose theory Of church propaganda
ism has always tended toward large accumu-
lations of church property, enjoy larger
| prOportionatc exemption than the Methodists,
whose method of church growth demands
the possession and use of less property. In
| plain words, the Catholics set the best of the
bargain, as compared with the Methodists.
| They stand proportionately at the head Of the
| list as recipients Of the tax exemption bounty
/ from the State, and are not likely to look
with favor upon any change of the law.
| We might easily show the same kind Of in
equality by comparing the figures which re-
/ fer to the other religious sccts. The simple
truth is, tax exemption is practically sys-
| TEN of sectaranism through the agency Of
the State. The State under its operation be-
slows larger bounty upon the Catholics
than it does upon the Baptists or the Con-
gregatiOnalists, and a much larger one upon
the latter than upon the smaller sccts. The
larger the sect and the more property it
holds the greater will be its favor from the
State. Taxpayers have the privilege Of
paying the whole bill of exemption: and
then the State distributes the proceeds
among the sccts in the ratio of their proper
/ tv, giving the largest b0unties to those sects
that accumulate the most property. The
richer the sect the greater the bonus, at the
expense of the general public.
Suppose that it had been the general prac-
ticc of the country to tax church property in
common with all other private property,
and that it were now proposed to remit the
tax 10y cXempting this property, and add the
RENTED tax to the burden borne by other
property, how, then, would the figures read
and what would the American people think
Of the proposed change? The share of the
Methodists would be remission Of taxes on
! tG9 ,S5l, l2l; that Of the Catholics another
remission on $50, 9S5 500; that of the Bap-
fists (reSular) another on s39, 229 ,22l that
Of the Prcsbyterians (rcgular) another on
/ 81 ,S2S,732 that OF the Unitarians another
on sG,2S5 G115 and so on through all the
sects. Were the matter presented to the
/ people in this light it would not take them
/ long to come to two conclusion: First, that
/ the great body of taxpayers would have to
bear the burden thus taken of from religious
corporations. Secondly, that the remission
Of taxes would be very unequal in amount,
as between the sects, owing to their differ.
cnce in the amount of church property. The
/ Universalists, who would gain a remission
only on s., COZ, 32j, would have to unite with
all other taxpayers in footing the extra bills
accrung from the remission Of all the other
sects
| The remedy for this general injustice to
| the people, for the increasing absorption Of a
large amount Of property that pays no taxes,
and for ills inequality in the distribution of
/ iavnrs among the sects, is very simple one.
Tax all private property upon fair valuation
and under uniform rate Of percentage, and
/ the whole evil is cure. We do not see how