Northern Ohio journal. [volume] (Painesville, Ohio) 1872-1896, 1873-09-27
Taxing Church Property.

Mr.. ED1roR :-ffl your issue of Sept.
9th, a writer fairly sets forth the views
entertained by, himoor herain regard to
subjecting the property of churches to
taxation. The article alluded to not
only contains the views of Its author but
was designated as response to former
article appearing in your paper. The
writer says, 'sThat church property is
composed of money given for the pur-
pose of advancing Christian morality."i
I do not infer that the author of the
statement referred 10 meant to be UNDER
stood as that there exists marked dis.
tinctions in morality or that It'll COM.
posed of a variety of degrees but rather
that as the money is bestowed by people
occupying the property; and as the gen.
erous giver abestows bis property for
that purpose which is exempt from the
burden of taxation ,he creates the imper-
ative necessity of enhancing the taxes
upon the discipline of his property, By
placing his property beyond the reach
of taxes he increases them ur ON the prop
erty of 4 his neighbor and imposes bur-
den upon one who, perhaps somewhat
parsimonious and not believing as the
generous giver does. is nevertheless thus
compelled to bear his proportion Of the
increased cost. -
If the taxes were paid by the people
that contributed to the brilding OF cost
ly church edifices no complaint could
reasonably exist, But on the contrary,
the exemption of church property from
the almost intolerable burden. of taxa
ton augments the taxes upon other pro-
perty. To illustrate: large tax is to be
raised in a township in which there are
three churches having houses of wor-
ship, built by one half of the citizens of
the township, equal in value to the
other half. The tax. it is true. is pro-
portionately Increased upon what bro
| / erty remains in possession of the one
| half that have contributed to the eree-
ton of the costly church buildings but
upon the other half of the citizens falls
| the burden of paving a greater nronor-
| tion Of the exhorbitant tax. Rnt am
| told that this tag Is indirectly paid upon
the property exempt by reason Of be-
ing Increased upon the property of those
| that belong to the church. reply bv
repudiating so glaring an ahsurditv n n
! on the grounds tbat tie pronerty exempt
| not being taxable directly. or indireetlv
/ a direct tax is charged upon ali other
| nrOperty. not as a CONSEQUENCES of the
/ exemption. but. as reGnirement of
! law for snecific purposes. Does II fol-
| low that because an individual gives
away property and bv the Gift it is
/ niaced In the attitude Of EXEMPTION and
The Remaining portion of his nronertv
snbiect to Increased taxarion. that ii Is
an indirect tax on his gift? ADOPT the
hypothesis that an indiy idual worth ten
thousand dollars, bestows the entire
amount nnon 4 church and thus has NO
proI srty ieft snbi.ct to assessment and
taxation. Where is the indirect tax
/ upon his gift? The law exempts it and
the tax is but upon others.
Again, Tor have this indirect tax in
view. Mr.. A. lives in the state of
Michigan. owns property there and also
owns property in Ohio. Being pener-
ous person he gives his properfv in Ohio
to ohurch. aud has no taxes to nav
I upon It, Where is YOUR Indirect tax !?
| You cannot step over into Michigan and
enhance the taxes upon his property