The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1874-01-22

To.al.......... ...............-.- 1854. 4ss. ISL
These figures are interesting and instruc-
tive In variety Of aspects; yet the use We
now propose to make of them refers to their
bearing upon the question OF tax emPtion IN
favor of church properly. 1t is manifest at
q glance that, if this huge aggregate Of prop
erty in the several States and Territories be
exempted from paying any taxes, then, as a
source of revenue, it il virtually annihilated.
BY becoming church property, it passes from
the taxable to the non-taxabie form, and by
Just 30 much lessons the property basis on
which the government levies taxes for Its
support. This necessarily involves q heavier
taxation of all other property, in order to
make up the deficiency which would other
wise accrue; and this result, as We have re-
peatedly said, with equal necessity, none the
iess real because indirect, involves compu!-
which is contrary to the fundamental princi-
plea of our political organization. We de-
nounce the tithing system of Great Britain,
by which one-tenth Of all the proceeds Of the
lands of the people is forced from their pos
session to sustain the Church of England ;
and yet, 30 far as We adopt the theory Of ex.
emption, we are, practically, though in a
different form. following this English prece-
dent. We compel the people, by the defects
and inequality of our tax law, to he the sup
porters Of our religious institutions, whether
ihey believe them or not. This is so far
an abandonment of the voluntary theory in
maintaining these institutions, and a resort
to legal coercion.
The rapid increase of church property in
the course OF the last two decades, while,
considered religiously, indicating progress
which We by no means regret, nevertheless,
when looked at in reference 10 the tax ques-
ton, shows q large accumulation OF property
in this shape, and, if exempted from taxes,
its total absorption in an unproductive form
for revenue purposes. From 1887 sol 4,
in 1850, it a-cended to Sill ,397, 952 in 1860,
or nearly doubled in ten years. From this
point it advanced to 1854 Asa. ISL, in 1870,
which j. little more than double the
amount in 1850. Let anything like this IA
ito of increase be continued through q 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 will become alb
solutely enormous. No harm can result
to the country from the growth OF churches;
The more OF them the better. Yet II
is a grave question for the people to con-
slider whether they can afford, especially in
these days OF high taxation, to adopt prin-
cipie which allows such IN immense amount
of property 10 be wholly unproduciive to the
State AZ the means of revenue. The prin-
cip,e is essentially the same in kind, what
ever be the amount exempted, while the ef.
feet in degree keeps pace with the accumu
la,ion OF property in this form. If it be a
small evil with a small accumulation, it be-
comes a large one with a large accumulation.
The increase of church property, with Tia
release from bearing any Of the burdens OF
the State, must finally bring us TO the point
at which the release, by reason ofits amount.
will be in.Olerable. Action upOn the ques-
ton may Re delayed, but it will at last Come.
The people cannot go on forever in allowing
this species of property to he 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 diff
ferent religious secta, owing to their numeri-
cal difference, and to their different methods
of church propagandism. Take, for exam
ple, the Roman Catholic and also the Meth
odists, standing at the head of the list in the
amount of church property held by them.
The statistics ofthe former in 1870 were as
follows: Organizations, 4, III; edi6ces. g.
SO6; sittings, l, 900, 5l4; property, $50, $50.
566. The status Of the latter at the same
period was as follows: Organizations, %. =
27S; edifices, q ,S37; sittings, 6,52S. 200;
property, S69, 854, lei. The property in the
hands OF the Catholics for the use Of 4,127
organizations was S6O,9S5, SEC, while
that in the hands of the
Methodis,s for the use of % ,27S organiza-
tious was 500, S54, l2l, 1t is evident upon
the face of this statement that the Catholics
receive much the largest exemption in pro-
portion to the number Of their organizations.
their edifices and their si;tings. While all
the people, under the theory of exemption,
are required to make up for the revenue def
cheney arising from both, whether they be-.
lieve in or reject one or both systems or not,
the exemption il not equal a between these
two sects. The Catholics, whose theory Of
church propagandism has always tended to-
wards large accunulations of church properly
enjoy q larger proportionate exemption than
the Methodists, whose method of church
growth demands the possession and use Of
less property. In plain words, the Catholics
get 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
ineqali,y bv comparing the figures which re-
fer to the other religious sects. The simple
truth ia, tax exemption is practically sys-
tenn of sec. srianism through the agency ofthe
State. TIE State under its operation be-
slows larger bounty upon the Catholics
than it does upon the Bap,ists or the Con-
gregationalists, and much larger one upon
the latter than upon the smaller sects. The
larger the eect and the more property it
holds the greater will be its favor from the
State. Tax payers have the privilege Of
paving the whole bill OF exemption; and
then the State distributes the proceeds among
the sec,s in the ratio of their poverty, giving
the Iary.s, bounties to those accumulating
the most property. The richer the sect the
greater the bonus, at the expense Of the gen.
eral public.
Suppose that it had been the general prac-
tice of the country to tax church property
in common with all other private property,
and that it we're now proposed to remit the
tax by exempiing this property, and add the
RENTED tax to the burden borne by 9TH
er property, how, then, would the figures
read, and what wonld the American people
think of the proposed changer The share
of the Methodists would be remission Of
taxes on 500, S54, 12l; that Of the Catholics
another remission on $50, 9S5, 566; that Of
the Baptists (regular) another on $50. 229,-
22l; that of the Presbyterians (reeularj
another on S47 ,SSS, 1872; tbat of the Unita-
rian. another on 50, 2S5, SIS; and 40 on
through all the eects.
Were the matter presented to tbs people in
this light, it would not take them long to
come to two conclusions: Firt, that the
great body Of taxpayers would have to bear
the burden thus taken of from religious cor
porations. Secondly, that the remission Of
taxes would be very unequal in amount, ~
between the secis, owing to their difference
in the amount Of church property. The Uni.
versalists, Who would gain remission only
ON S. co., 325, would have to unite with all
other taxpayers in footing the extra bills &C
cruins from the remission Of all the other
secfs.
The remedy for this general injustice to
the people, for the increasing absorption of .
large amount of properly that pays no taxes,
and for this inequality in The distribution Of
favors, among the secta, Is very simple one.
Tax all private property upoo fair valua-
ton and under . uniform rte OF percentage,