The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-12-13
CHURCH AND STATE.
or CHURCH PROPERLY
PUBLaG EnUCATHOH.
VIEWS OF REV, DIR. JErER.

4 HI response TO u Tt4ueStf VI, IUfQt8Q tQe
Dispatch with bis views OF those portions oil
the Presidents message which refer 10 the
taxation sofs church property and to phbsic
| tedueation, Rev. Dr.. ]. B. Jeter, senior ed.
| it0r of the Religious Herald, aud one Of the
most distinguished Baptist clergymen Of the
tSouth, on Saturday said = s14 az tl-F
l 81 have been nfseto besfow but little con.
isideratton on the parts to which yot, refer. !
will tgiye you my hastily formed views o!
them without attempting to support shem
by arguments. ii;. =; -
aIte First, then, in regard TO public education
must say can see no good reason why the
Federal Government should intermeddle
with it. To ray nothing Of the difficulty OF
compelling poor States,2with scattered pop
ulatiop, to furnish adequate means for the
education OF all the children within their
limits, &c seems eminently proper, ifs there
are State Governments, That they should
have the entire control of popular education
| within their respective territories. They
may be supposed TO be best acquainted with
their resources and tbe necessities, tastes, and
wishes Of their constituents.
..a To compulsory education, by Federal OF
State Government, am earnestly opposed.
The right to teach inyoiyes the right to de:
eide what shall be taught. II a Government
| has right to prescribe & @ailreligions, athe-
istic lif there be any such, and pagan;D In its
public schools, then it has an equal right to
require that Christianity or Mohammedanis
shall be taught. The Constitution does not
create rights, but merely defines and limits
such as are admitted To exist. It changes,
as the history Of our country has shown,
with the views, interests, and caprices Of the
people. The principle involved In compul.
sory education by the State lies at the foun-
dation of all despotism and tyranny: 1t is
that the people are not to be trusted to edu.
cate themselves and their children; but must,
| for their own good, be taken under Govern
ment tuteIage. With many doubts as to its
ultimate advantages favor system of pub
lie education by State authority, OF which
parents and guardians may avail themselves
| In the instruction of their children so far as
! their interests, tastes, aud circumstances
may permit; but1I would greatly prefer the
abolition Of the system to compulsory edu-
cation. ..., ,sstt..y. 80 - sssgra
"With the views of the message in regard
to church property in the main i agree, but
do not clearly perceive why they should
have been presented ny the President. The
General Government derives no portion OF
| It's revenues from direct taxation on property.
It will be time enough to discuss the pro.
| priety of taxing church property by the
Federal authority when it is proposed 10 tax
lother property. AT present the question is
theoretical, not practical, err
Gas, however, the Goyerporof this State
has suggested the desirableness OF taxing
church property for the support Of the Gov
ernment, I will offer few remarks on the
subject: am an advocate Of clear separa'
tion of Church and State. BY how much the
State RENTS of taxes on church property by
| so much it. imposes burdens ON other inte'
lrests for the support of religion. The right
to impose taxes arises from the necessity .o
revenues to enable Governments to accom-
pIish their legitimate purposes and hey
should be laid equally on all property and al
interests sharingin governmental protection
Eunless there be clear reasons, affecting the
1 public good, to depart from that rule
/ IChnrch property is protected by Govern
ment, and should bear its share OF the bur
den Of supporting it. That this principle IL
ljust and polite in regard to all church pro
perty yielding an income there seems no goot
cause to question. The history Of European
nations furnishes decisive proof on this
point. The gradnaf accumulation of pro
perty ia the hands Of the religious order:
| became burden and curse, which had tt
be thrown off by revolution and violence.
1.-The principle stated requires the taxing
of houses OF worship as we'll as Of othel
church property. As, however, all Govern
/ ments are founded more or less on compro
mise, as almost all persons in every commu
nifty are interested in the support of house!
| of worship-as they are kept up by public
charity, and as the payment of taxes on then
would, in many cases. be inconvenient ane
onerous--it may we'll be considered whether
they should no. be exempt from taxation, a.
least to the extent OF securing to the people
neat, convenient, and comfortable places o
worship. Congregations might be permitted
to hold free from taxation houses OF ceE
tain value in the country, and of still highe
value in towns and cities; and taxes Nigh
be imposed on houses of worship of still
greater value, designed for display rather
| than for convenience and comfort.P ~T
| DR.. Jeler, In conclusion, said: !.
| 81 present these views with hesitation ami
distrust of my own judgment, especially q:
II have had but little time for maturing them:'