National Republican., 1873-06-26
CHURCH RXkMPrION.

The long communication from q Catholic
Clergyman published In our columns on Tues
day, and intended by Its author rs q reply 10
all editorial dnd to certain cdfnmuhications
on the subject named In the above caption,
which appeared In our Issue Of the 10Th In
slant, requires o few words Of comment.
Our correspondent denies that the separation
Of Church and State is an American principle,
and claims that In this country there has al
ways been an established church In the sense
that the Government recognizes religion to
certain extent. This" he says, sis manifest
from Its past legislation exempting Church
property from assessment, and II
Is also deducible from the fact that the peo-
pie are taxed for carrying on the machinery
of the Government, which Is based 'pon
principles Of the moral law"
Now, as to past legislation exempting
Church property from assessment We be-
llevo, so far as the National Government Is
concerned, this legislation has been substan-
TALLY confined to the one act, whose passage
Is believed to have been largely due 10 the
cxertions Of few Of the clergy Of this city,
viz! the act Of June IL, 1870. There had
previously been q few special cases OF the
remission Of dutios on certain specified ar
ticles imported by individual elergymen or
Church congregations; but there had been no
general law Of Congress exemptlng churches
from taxation In this District or elsewhere.
We cannot too strongly impress IL upon our
readers that the passage Of the law Of June
II, 1870, was really 4 departure from the
traditional policy Of the National Govern
ment; that by exempting Church property
tnAlra.NlxF
aud In many individual cases q very onerous
tax, for the support Of religion; and that In
sodolng Il does, as we have heretofore claimed,
practically contrayenc the spirit OF that proyl-
sion OF the Constitution which forbids Congress
to pass any law respecting an establishment
of religion. That this was neither desired
nor intended by great majority of those
who voted for the bill we know perfectly
well. The measure bears the marks Of haste
and reconsideration, aud we doubt not that
Congress will be very willing to repeal Il, aud
return to that path from which II has strayed
through lnadyertence rather than intent
OF course, the friends Of State supported
church will strain every nerve TO retain the
advantage which they have gained, and
whose pecuniary value Is, doubtless, fully ap-
preciated by the denomination Of which "a
Subscriber" Is mlnlster-a denomination
which owns about one fourth Of ali the
church property In the District Of Columbia;
nor should the fact be lost sight Of In this
connection that the property OF this denomi-
nation consists largely Of land which is rap
idly rising in yalue and within another do
cade will probably make II richer than all
the other denominations combined.
Our correspondents claim that the obscr-
vance Of tho principles Of morality by the
State constitutes Il recognition Of religion is
entirely outside OF the question at Issue. The
recognition Of rcllgion-that Is, Of the scntl-
ment or the principles Of relIgion-ls one
thing; the direct or Indirect endowment
Of religious corporations Is quite another.
Religious corporations are composed Of
men characterized by the common faults Of
human nature, and any extensive endowment
Of such corporations has usually attracted to
them men Of no very exalted morality, whose
aim has oftener been 10 advance their own
selfish interests than TO amellorate the
condition Of their fellOw-men. Hence Il is
that State patronage has so generally been a
source Of corruption TO the churches that
onjoyedit. And let II be observed that our cor
hteHShuNhh hShbhiJ NOhNthdo Aoi
tiOu OF Church property, but broadly asserts
tho legitimate right Of the Church to the
fullest support which the State can give. To
our mind there could be no stronger argu-
ment against this claim than his own position
and that Of his Church on the subject Of our
free school system. II the exemption Of
Church property from taxation involves the |
slightest Indirect support to Church which |
the education Of the children of |
the poor, II Is u disgrace 10 our Government
and libel on the enlightenment OF the age |
that Il should be continued for single day.
OF the danger involved In such cornerstone
o Church influence We have q significant
Tarnlng In the pretcnslons set up by our cor
himself, who boldly claims that
ur Government "adInlts the superiority Of
ellElon over the State" and declares, a. the
cry basiS Of hls argument, 'ithat religion
as primAryimportance over elVll liberty"
IoT does he here refer merely 70 tho abstract