The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-04-02

assessed Tor this private property. 1t would
be absurd enough to urge the assessment Of
the church us relief to the taxpayers who
compose the congregation because the same
individuals would have to pay the church
tax II may be answered that ii would, never
thcless, be relief to the rest of the commu-
nifty but this is q fallacy resting on the
assumption that the rest of the community
do not also support churches The
truth is that the whole community
is divided up into small groups Of
people. each of which supports its own
place Of worship, SO that what is true of any
one congregation is true Of the community
OF large A poor congregation builds q
cheap church rich congregation crects a
magnificent edifice on costly ground the
value Of the church property is pretty fair
measure of the pecuniary resources of the
congregation II church property were
assessed the tax would fall upon the indi-
vidual taxpayers Of the respective congre-
cations. who would have to pay rs much
more in contributions to the church ns they
paid less on their private property. The
supposed relief to tho taxpayers would be
like n man trying to increase his money by
taking sum out Of one pocket and putting
it into the other
This parallel holds true only in the rough
and is not quite perfect There is fraction
of the community which takes no interest in
churches and contributes nothing to THAR
Tbio Ia
somewhat relieved by the taxation Of church
property but they have no title to ask the
majority to grant them such relief A tax
on churches would be q tax on the most
liberal, philosophical and generous part
of the community for the benefit Of
the irreligious md selfish few, who deny
their families the advantages Of religious
instruction. Our American churches md
synagogues are supported by the voluntary
contributions of their members, and a
tax on them would be tax on the best SEN
timents of humanity. Every wealthy church
or synagogue makes provision for its own
sick and poor, thus tightening the expenses
of the public institutions Of charity many
of them support their own schools, thus
saving the taxpayers from part of the bur-
den Of the common school system and tho
necessity Of additional school buildings,
teachers and text books, and the irreligious
minority have no equitable claim to profit
by such liberality beyond the benefit they
derive from diminished public taxation for
the support OF educational and charitable
institutions.
1t is quite possible that the exemption of
some kinds of church property from taxa
ton may be attended with abuses in relation
to other kinds which ought not to be ex-
empt and we favor o stricter scrutiny by
the public authorities. AS President Eliot
fifty said, in concluding his wise, impressive
letter eff abuses have crept in, let them
be reformed. If institutions which are really
not of o public character get exempted, cut
them off; if greater publicity is de-
sirable in regard to tho condition
and affairs of the institutions ex-
empted, provide for annual published re-
turns; if there be fear of improper sales Of
land, long exempted, to the private advan-
tage of the trustees or proprietors of the mo-
ment, enact that oil sales of such property
shall be by order of court, md that the
Court shall take cognizance of the invest
ment of the proceeds. But while we reform
the abuses let us carefully preserve the
precious uses of the exemption statute. That
statute is an essential part of our existing
system of taxation. It may be expedient
that the whole system should be recon-
structed; but the exemption of religious,
educational and charitable property is GER
tainly not the point at which the recon
struction should begin.