Northern Ohio journal. [volume] (Painesville, Ohio) 1872-1896, 1873-08-23
Taxing Church Property.

BY urging, what deem the necessity of,
,axing the property of churches. In
many instances it might seem to work
injustice, but, being repugnant to the
principles of equality that makes no
distinction in privileges Or ex- |
it ought to be subject to the I
same burden that is imposed on other
property. But we are told that ethics |
should make distinction upon moral |
grounds; that it is the part of wisdom |
that property should be sequestrated for |
the exalted and holy purpose of public |
worship. No rational person should de- |
preciate the efforts made to ameliorate |
the condition of man or fail to conte- |
nance the discrimination of the gospel as |
far as its tendency to moral improve
ment is concerned. 1t is the fragrant
perversion of the wise intention of the |
law that furnishes a just topic of COM
plant; the concession of privileges ex-
tended to subserve individual advantag-
es. All must concede, that taxation is
burdensome. and is increasing to an al
most intolerable extent. No one thinks
of making a test by ascertaining the pre-
else amount of morals that an individu-
al possesses for imposing taxes upon
him. Standing alone in the position /
of individual rights, taxes fall alike upon
the moral and immoral. irrespective of
any discrimination. But the preroga-
tive of exemption once granted, there
is no limit to its extension. A right
conceded to one church, cannot consist
ently be denied to another. 1t is stated
that over sixty millions of dollars of
church property are exempt from taxa
ton in the city of Boston, and that one
church holds over ten millions of dollars
i'm the city of Cincinnati, all shielded
from taxation by the perverted justice of
the law. But person. however poor
and INDECENT. erects a hovel, hardly fit
to shelter himself in, contiguous to
superb and costly. church; directly
comes along an assessor; chosen in
strument of merciful law, surfeited
| with legal requisitions, burdened with
the imperative demands of an extraor-
dinary duty, and obsequiously passing
the church, not with an air of servi1e
compliance, discovers the hut of the de-
pauperated son of toll and assesses a val
ue to it,; makes searching enquiries. and
| learns that the humble votary of COM
pulsory labor is the owner of a cow,
and by cultivating self-lenial, has a
few cents out at interest Worthy OBJ
jects of taxation, L will not complain of
| its injustice, but does it not exhaust all
degrees OF wrong, ranging from the
| trivial objection to the apex of earthly
| atrocity? The church, not content with
| its magnificent house of worship, adds
too the land occupied by its building,
claims it as church property, and the
| tender, fastidiOuS conscience of the law
making power, eXempts it from taxa
zion. A wise commentary e:cprofess0
| upon the indulgence of the Sovereign
power. But l am told that church prop
erty is the fruit Of benefcent gifts for Il
| wise end; laudable purpose; yielding
no profit to the generous giver, no in
territorial Investment for gain, no hope
of secular reward? 1 rejoin, by way of
answer, that the owner of property has
purpose that he sees fit; neither do
think that his antipathy to taxes prompts
him to place his property beyond the
reach of taxation, But suppose that the
remarkable giver in view was the pro-
prietor of one hundred acres of land,
and so strongly actuated by the tender
feelings of human kindness, that he Sc
lected ten of the poorest individuals
within the limits of his acquaintance to
bestow his generosity upon. The cruel
rigors of the law follow the gift, and the
pOOI ItClpICIilS bhCl COl dlC COHlpCl W
i pay taxes upon the received gifts of their
benefactor. Again, suppose the gift to
have been to church: a costly building
erected upon the same; the semi-legal
plea of 'schurch property" protects il
from the complaining burden of taxa
ton. If this liberal devotee of kindness
should cover his one hundred acres with
asylums for the poor infirm and disabled
unfortunates of earth, doubt whether
the plea 'spublic charity would exempt
it from taxation. The burden of taxa
ton will yet compel the owners of prop
erty, if they could obtain the remotest
aid from the Sovereign power, to resort
to the subterfuge once recognized by the
statutes of Common Recovery in Eng.
; land. A certain amount of taxes must
be raised to defray the expenses of State
and local governments. Upon what
should it be paid, and who should pay
it?
1t is commensurate with the funda.
mental principles of government to i'm
pose no additional burdens upon one
class Of citizens to the exclusion of an.
other, Notwithstanding their proficiency
in ethics.
Iknow that certain duties and obliga.
tions to government are due from eacf
and every person, in exchange for rights
I
citizen, and uniformity in taxation
should be borne alike by all classes
No DETERMINATIONS should be made, fol
by favoring one class we impose addi
tiOnal burdens upon another; a course
? manffestly repugnant to that principle
of unifol nifty tolerated and fostered by
the genius of our false Institutions. Ant
when there is a deviation from that cher
/ 'ished uniformity it detracts from govern
. ment that confidence Indispensable tt
its perpetuity and successful operation.
The objection to the present method o.
taxation, on my part, does not grow OH
, of any antipathy against the churches
As far as they have been co-workers
with renowned philanthropists in al
vancing the enlightened progress o
civilization, they are entitled to the re-
spect and commendation of all, and they
are to be especially commended for theil
well directed efforts in eXtricatfng mel
from that debasing depravity that finds
Justification in criminal affinities and i'm
moral practices. But when they, will
their opulence, are placed in jjilXtaposi
tion with the meager possessions Of The
poor, justice requires that no distinction
should be made. To alleviate the burd
ell of the intligent, is an importan
mandate of true religion, and a praise
: worthy preccpt of Christianity. Bu
why accord superiority of right to one
portion of people, and deny it to others
Why exempt property from taxation be-
cause it is environed with halo of sane.
titude? Why impose onerous duties
on one class of citizens and refrain from
doing it on others?
Distinctions in society always have
and always will, exist. 1t should be
the aim, yea, the duty, of Constitution.
makers to protect all citizens and socie.
ties alike. No veneration for one should
induce them to extend prerogative t(
one society, and release it from burdens
which create additional burdens fol
others. Place them all on basis ol
equality, freed from the exemptions toe
leniently extended under mistaken
sense of right.
The apprehensions of popular reproacl
has alone deferred many from manifest
ing their opposition to the (now uneall
ed fOr) distinction made in behalf OF
churches to the increasing detriment o
other citizens. ALPHA.