The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-12-23
Taxation OF Church Property.

IGit0rS Of the Dispatch; The dispatch
OF the 10Th instant contains reply from % A
Bap.is,," TO my article on the taxation OF
church property. | thank "a Baptist
for the courteous consideration he gave my
reasons. | am sure that both he and l de.
sire that truth and right shall prevail IN this
matter. He mistakes, however, at less. in
part, my views, and the reasons which gave
Why church property should not be taxed.
My first and main argument, and the one
upon which my whole article was based,
is.summed up in this language: "To tax
church property, in which the holders have
no personal ownership, which does not in
crease their estate or credit, which is not 6
source of wealth to them, from which they
derive no revenue with which to pay the
taxes thereon, would be an Injustice land
oppression in the very nature OF the case.
"A Baptist" divides this argument into
two, and replies 10 it accordingly. He does
not .'see how the manner Of ownership
should exempt property from taxation" The
question is not one Of manner Of ownership
bu! Of 0,eaerShtp itself. Certainly ga Bap'
tlst" eau see this distinction. He can see the
difference between property which man
owns and that which he does not own; be.
tween that which he can sell and that which
he cannot sell; between that which increases
his credit and that which does not; between
that upon which he can give deed or
mortgage, and that upon which he can give
no deed or mortgage; between that which
gives value TO his bond or note and that
which docs not. This is just the difference
between mans own property and church
property.
"A baptist" further objects to my argu'
ment because very large part OF the pro-
ptrty owned at the South yields no revenue
10 its owners" He ought to have put In all
my arguments. / was careful to use other
words besides revenue 10 regard to church
property. I said, property which does not
increase their estates or credit trhsch ss'aot
source Of ,oealh 10 hem-from which
they derive no revenue" &c. Now. while
there is much property which does not
yield its owners any direct revenue, yet u
is Of value to them--it increases their
possessions and credit, and it gives value 10
their paper. But not SO with church pro-
perry. Uncu!aivated lands do not yield an
immediate revenue to their owners, yet they
have money value to their owners. Dwell
lng-houses, barns, stables, stock, and I'M
plements of husbandry may not yield an
immediate Income but they have money
value TO their owners, and yield them az indi.
rect revenue. They eau be SOLD, rented, mort.
gagged, exchanged, used, for the personal
benefit OF the owners. This Is not true,
however, in any particular of church pro-
perry.
Would ga Baptist" or any one else, keep
and pay taxes upon piece OF property that
had no money value to him at all--that did
not in any way add to bis temporal estates or
happiness! Certainly not. He would either
dispose Of it or let ii 20 for It's taxes.
ga Baptist" says: "The third reas> IN
seems TO me TO amount to about this: that q.
man, or rather set Of men, who voluntarily
tax themselves for the public good should
not be taxed exactly like other persons who
are not SO good" My dear sir. yon never
were more mistaken in your life. j never
thought, meant, said, or dreamed such thing