Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1876-03-24
LEGISLATORS ON TAXING CHURCHES


| FERENT QUARTERS OF THE STATE
/ THE VALLEY MEMBERS,
&C., &C., &C.
! On Friday last, after brisk discussion
in the Virginia House Of Delegates, the
proposition to tax church property was de-
feated by vote of IS to 1s., The clause in
the tax bill was to tax all church property
on it's value, where it exceeded $4,000, and
an amendment offered by Mr.. Clarke, OF
Campbell, was to strike out that clause,
which would leave the church property
without any tax at all, as before. The
Richmond :Whig" gives an excellent
resume of the debate, which will be read
with particular interest by the people of
the country. We copy it:
MIR. Armstrong supported the amend
ment. He regarded an attempt to impose
tax on churches as an attack upon re-
ligion. He spoke warmly of the great good
accomplished by the churches. In answer
ing objections to the cost OF some OF the
church edifces, he referred to SolomOn's
temple as having been constructed under
the immediate direction of the Deity, and
as being far more costly and magnificent
than any ever built.
| sOLOMON's TEMPLE AGAIN.
MI. Lampkin concurred with Mr.. Arm
strong. He said that Solomon's temple,
so far from being taxed, was built by tithes
| He referred to church editices as ornaments
to cities. TO blot out the churches would
| be like blotting out the sun. and would be
followed by more than an Egyptian dark
ness.
BUSINESS VIEW.
Mr.. Nicely said we cannot afford in our
present financial condition to exempt any
| property from taxation that can legiti-
mately be taxed. He quoted, 'Render
unto Caesar the things that are Caesars"
He spoke of the religious ostentation that
showed itself in the erection of costly piles.
He pointed to Italy, where he sad that the
affairs Of the magnificent church edifices
blazed with jewels and precious stones,
while thousands of squalid wretches. filled
with vermin, crowded the streets. In the
very shadow of the great church buildings
in this city, men, women, and children are
suffering for bread. He referred to the
policy pursued in other States of taxing
church property, and said that many of our
best ministers approved oft. He discard
ed all mere sentimentallsm, and treated
the question as a practical one.
Mr.. Gordon could see no reason for dis
eliminating between church edifices. If
one was taxed all should be taxed, as well
| the humble as the great. He was opposed
to all class legislation. If the bill should
be so amended as to embrace all church
property, he would vote for it, unpleasant
though it would be to him to do so.
THINKS 1T AN ATTACK ON RELIGION.
MI. Gilman spoke in glowing terms of
the handsome city churches. and said they
were built by voluntary contributions and
gave employment to the mechanics. They
were ornaments to the city. He referred
to the charitable societies connected with
| them, and of the great benefits conferred
bv them He said the more wealth spends
the more poverty gets. Those who build
| fine houses, dress extensively and live
luxuriously, furnish employment and sub
sistence to a great number OF poor people.
He was opposed to taxing churches. Like
| the member from Rockingham, he regarded
such an attempt as an attack upon religion.
| 1t was an innovation which he hoped would
never be sanctioned by the Virginia Legis-
| lature.
''sLANG WHANGING," AND GOOD AND
| PIOUS' CHRISTIANS.
Mr.. Crump said that from the foundation
of the Government to the present time no
such tax had been imposed Church edi-
fees had been built upon the implied pledge
that they should not be taxed. They were
not such property as could be legitlmatcly
reached by taxation. They brought in no
revenue, but on the contrary were main
tanned by voluntary contribution. The
church was itself Il perpetual tax on both
saint and sinner. He spoke of the different
kinds of sinners, the slang whanging
Christians, whom he did not respect, and
those good, humble, pious Christians,
whom he revered-those pure men who
not only point out the way to heaven. but
lead the way. He next referred to the
value of the churches in checking vice, and
encouraging morality and good order. He
said thas church ediices ought to be
spacious in order to accommodate numbers
of people, and handsome in order to attract
| them.
PRIDE OsTENTATION AND CORRUPTION.
Mr.. Smith, of Fauquier, said he came
here tn raise revenue to carry on the gov
ernmeuU. With his usual tenacity he
should continue his efforts to do so. He
| should cry aloud and spare not. Those
who spoke OF elegant church edifices and
! defended them by the example of Solomon's
temple should remember that that temple
was built under the Jewish di5pensation.
The Christian dispensation was less osten-
tatious. He could not agree that the pres
emit beautiful morality of the country was
attributable to the churches. Ii so there
must be something wrong in them. There
are three or four hundred millions of
church property in the country exempt
| from taxation, and about S. 900, 900 in Vir-
ginia He said the world had never seen
| such monstrouS corruption as prevailed
Under the shadow of these churches. He
branched off ID little to instance and illus
trate the prevailing political corruption.
( He claimed, while not being a protesting
| Christian, to have the highest reverence
| for { tU O w
ly professed it. Christ taught self-denial
and humility, but there was about these
| grand churches an appearance OF pride
and ostentation. He referred to Maryland
as having adopted the policy of church
taxation.
| REV. MIR. MASSEY.
Mr.. Massey referred to the embarrass-
ment he always felt in speaking in the
House on any subject connected with re-
ligion. He felt it to be sacrilegious to deal
with such subjects in the manner we some
times do. He referred to the respect that
had been expressed by all who had spoken
for religion, and told an anecdote, the NOR
al of which was that no beast but bear
would mock at religion. We could not,
| in consequence OF some confusion, catch
Mr.. Massey's points with precision, and
shall not, therefore, venture to give them
for fear of mistaking them.]
HON. A. II. II. STUART.
Mr.. Stuart said he was not a member of
the Finance Committee, by which this pro-
vision was adopted, but it met his hearty
approval, and not because of any hostility
to religion. Far from it. No man had a
higher appreciation of the Christian reli-
gion, and he had always considered it both
a duty and I. privilege to contribute liber-
ally to churches. Instead of regarding
this tax as hostile to religion, he thought
its tendency was to strengthen and purify
it. He thought that whatever tended to
separate Chruch and State was in aid of