National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-04-11
TAXING CHURCH PROPERTY
JOHN ID. CLARK VERSUS THE BoARD
OF PUBLIC WORKS.

AN INTERESTING SUIT-SHALL CITIZENS
PAY FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF CHURCH
PRoPERTYNMR. CLARK SAYS mo r.
Mr.. CAHILL SAYS "YES r'-THE july
FAIL TO AGREE.
On the 18th day Of March Mr.. John d. ClarK
commenced suit against the government OF inc
the District Of Columbia, and the case was set ior
the oath pltimo when Mr.. W. A. Oook, LOT the
District, appeared and filed plea tothe Jur1s-
diction Of the Justice, the ground that the bill
..hovtn0 an assessment Of tI6S.o7 On the premises
n cannot be cut up so as to allow the plaintiff to
.us Tor such a sum as will bring II within the
jurisdiction of the justice, (Oharles Walter.)
This pIea was overruled by the justice, and Mr..
CLARK requested . trial By jury.
yesterday afternoon Mr.. KimmetI summoned
the following jury: A. p. Pardon, VIM. Dickson,
J.W Mcknight, John Van Riswick, Walter D.
wyviII, A. Gleason, John Purdy, R. B. CLARK, A.
E NOer, W. oMeara, A. D. RockafelloW and
John Smith
The body Of the declaration Is as follows: "The
plaintiff sues the defendants for money had and
received by the defendants from the plaintiff, and
for money paid by the plaintiff to the defendants
over and above the sum Of money due to the de-
PENDANTS fer special improvements on lot No. II,
IN square 2Ss, and for money paid by the plaintiff
20 the defendants on their demand and against
law and the rights of the plaintiff as secured by
the Constitution and laws OF the United States,
and the plaintiff claims the sum Of 1890, accord
ing to the particulars of demand hereto annexed,
to wit: Money paid by plaintiff to the defendants
on tax bill, sl55O7 the defendants correct bill,
S6417; balance due, 5000, which tho plaintiff
claims, besides cost-John d. CLARK"
Tho trial was held in the Criminal Courtroom,
with Mr.. Charles Walter as judge.
Mr. CLARK opened the case by stating his griev-
ances, followed by Mr.. Cahill for the District.
MI Cahill said he did not believe there was any
Illegal transaction other than that inflicted on
Mr. Clark's neighbOrs, and he believed that Mr.
CLARK was not compelled to pay any more than
his neighbors. Whether these improvements
were carried properly is not for the jury to de-
eide He had no hesitancy in saying that Mr.
Clark would break down in his effort. The ques-
tion for the Jury to decide is whether Mr.. Clark
should pay the amount charged.
MIR. Clark had his remedy in o court Of chan
Gerry, where if his claim was inst, it would be REM
edied. He read the law regarding the power OF
the Legislature to pass special laws, and gave
history OF appointments Of justices Of the peace,
and claimed that Justice Walter was not sitting
as o court.
MI. Clark next spoke, said he went and paid
that money.
MI OahiII 81 object to Mr.. Clark saying any
thing to the Jury until he gets through with the
evidence. He wanted the trial conducted with
t regularity. 1t is Tor your HONOR 10 give the ID"
to the Jury, and no one else"
Mr.. George 7. Stewart was sworn, but mr. Ca
hill objected to the taking Of his testimony, as he
was not q regular surveyor, The being summoned
as q witness for MT Clark as such.)
Mr.. Clark said they had no right to charge him
for other property. They have excused and ex-
onerEted all the churches from paying taxes.
. Congress does not recognize religion. He could
noSsee where the law came from to take $50 from
his pocket to pay for the pavensnts Of churches.
He paid glowing tribute to General Chapman
e for his action on this subject.
Mr.. CahiIl objected to Mr.. Clark proceeding any
farther. He also objected to the testimony Of the
witness as he was not competent to testify in this
, case.
Justice Walter thought anyman could measure
square yard
Mr.. Cahill. The oficial measurement Is the
cnly correct measurement.
Mr.. Stewart pronounced the measurement CT
the Board Of Public Works wrong.
Mr.. CahIn was not present to make the TRIAL o
farce, and he hoped the justice would look on It
IN fhe same light and stop the witness
NfMr Stewart then explained to the justice his
measurement, as testifieI to before the Con-
gressiOnal committee. He pronounced the meas
urement OF the board incorrect.
Mr. Clark. Your measurement is not like mine.
: Lsughter.l
Mr.. Stewart said the prices he gave were cor
rect. One article the board charged for was two
hundred trees, and there had been but two trees
planted.
MI Cahill. Mr.. Clark's bill amounts to sl55oT,
and he is charged no more than any one else on
that square in proportion to the improvements.
Witness. No, sir.
Mr.. Cahill. What is yeur calculation?
Witness. do not remember.
Mr.. CahiIl. You witness.
Mr.. CLARK said he paid sl55oT; sI9 was taken
off, He contended that the board had no right TO
charge him for church property and that he had
been wrongly dealt with.
Dir. Cahill. Did you get any drawback on tho |
bill you paidT
Mr. Clark said be got sle. Il which he accepted |
Mr.. 7. D. Winter was sworn. Made out the as |
eessment on the H-street property. Had every |
reason to believe that the bill was correct and
that MI Clark had been charged the same as
others. He included church property the same as
other property. In regard to sewers o separate
assessment was made. There was nothing in this
bill different from any other. Mr.. Clark is
charged one sixth OF the actual work done on the
street
BY Mr.. Clark. The measurement was made out
by authority from the Board Of Public Works.
The church property was exempted by an act Of
Congress which eIempts church property from
taxation.
Mr.. NJ. Frank Kelly, sworn; Is assistant asses
e0r OF the OF fuDllc W Orks, the Dill MI.
CLARK was paid at the same rate as other proper
on that street.
Mr.. Cahill addressed the jury. and said Mr.. |
Clark was unfortunate in being property holder
in this city, and unfortunate In having the Board
Of Public Works in making improvements on his |
street. yet this was not matter OF the least con-
Germ to them. Mr.. Clark claims he Is charged |
with the Improvement of church property. This !
was done according to low. Mr. Clark may be !
I@-k-
are. The testimony shows that he has been
charged at the same rate as his neighbors He
had his remedy by injunction. He resorted to
this because he had no case, and he would have
been thrown out of the court at once.
Mr.. Clark said ConGress had uneonstitutinally
passed Q law exempting churches from taxation.
He gave as an example Methodist who had
little property on which improvements have been
made, and on looking at her bill she finds that |
she is charged for church property Of denomIns-
tion with which she has no connection. He asked |
If this was not very hard. The Board OF Public |
Works have No right to make such distinction. Is |
1t consistent with freedom? Religion, according |
to the American idea, Congress had no right to |
meddle with. He found no fault with the churches
but with those who execute the laws. There has |
not been evidence sufficient submitted to guaran-
tee such charges as were made against him. In |
his case liberty is involved and acts done that are
obnoxious to the American citisen.
He referred to the organic law, and claimed |
that no had been unJustly treated by the Board
of Public Works He did not desire one cent that
did not belong to him. but was the principle in
TolVed. He desired to be treated as an American
citizen should BE- He thought the speech Of Gen.
-Ohipman in Congress was the best he had heard
for the past twenty-five years. He looked upon
Mr.. Shepherd as q very wise man, and to him no |
blame could be attached for these abuses. The |
defence made q great failure, and the witnesses
summoned on the other side killed themselves by
their own testimony. /
The case WIS then given to the jury who, after !
giving the subject due consideration, we're unable |
to agree and were therefore discharged.
NONEXPLOSIHE.