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

|
action in several of the State Legislatures,
! New York and Massachusetts, being leading
instances. The subject is still under con-
sideration in the Legislatures of both Of
these States. The New York attempt has
called out an emphatic letter of condemna-
we cannot approve because it substi-
tutes denunciation for argument So i'm
portant q question should not DO de-
cided on sentimental grounds, even If the
sentiment appealed 20 be the sacred one of
religion. II seems to us that exaggerated
expressions of horror have no rightful place
! in such discussion, and we regret that Gen.
eral Dix has so far deviated from his habitual
cogent reasoning as to declare that the proper
way Of treating the proposal to tax church
| property lis to scout it out of tho commit
| tee rooms, Legislative halls and social circles,
which it has def!ed by its presence" This
| is not the tone Of statesman but of zealot.
1.-THE scheme" says General Dix, SHOULD be
repudiatcd and denounced in all its parts.
| One can hardly debate it without feeling
! of dcbasement. 1t Is not subject for hu-
| man logic Heaven forbid that the tax
| gathercr should be sent to fill his bag Of
| lucre by levying contributions on the sane
/ tuaries Of the living God |" Such I'M
| restrained invective has no tendency
to convince opponents. We dislike this
method of defending the exemption
! of church property, for the same reason that
we dislike the appeals to sectarian prejudice
| which are SO freely employed on the other
side of the question. This is prominently
q question which should be decided by calm
reasoning and fair argument.
General Dix has contributed nothing Of
| any value to the discussion beyond the
| statements of fact in his letter to President
Grant on the 18th Of December,
wherein he showed that all the
property Of Trinity church, except
that devoted to sacred uses, is subject to
ordinary taxation. Other gentlemen of high
treating the question on its proper merits.
The most valuable arguments which have
yet appeared are those of President Eliot, Of
Harvard University, and Hon. George H.
Andrews, Of this city. The very able letter
of President Eliot was not elected
by the recent phase of the con-
| troversy II was addressed to the Tax
Commissioners of Massachusetts, in 1874.
and printed among the legislative
| documents Of that State in 1875. 1t is
mastery production, in which the question
is argued on broad general principles. Tho
| twelve letters Of Mr.. Andrews, published in
one Of our city journals were prompted by
President Grants Message, and are a fuller
and more exhaustive discussion of the sub
ject than has appeared from any other source.
Mr. Andrews has long served as one of our
city Tax Commissioners, and is among
the best informed men in the coun-
| try on questions connected with tax
| alton, which he understands in all
their bearings and details. His letters are
| magazine of pertinent information, abound
ing in the most recent statistics explaining
the present state of the law, arguing the
question from the highest standpoints of
public policy, and convicting President
Grant of incoDsiderate haste and glaring in
accuracies President Eliot is Unitarian
can be suspected of a prediction for the
Catholic Church. They nre both republic
cans, and neither of them has any party
bias against the views of President Grant
Their arguments are entitled to respectful
attention until somebody shall have sue
ceeded in refuting them, q task in which mo-
| body has yet succeeded.
80. l. - IL.
can find the subject very fully handled we
| proceed to state our own views Of it. 1t is
| important, at the outset, to draw line Of
distinction between two classes of ecclesias-
teal property. One class consists Of prop
erty which is devoted solely to religious uses
and yields no income, like church edifces
and burial grounds; the other class consists
of productive property owned by churches,
| like the stores and dwellings of Trinity
church, for example, let to tenants who pay
rents. The first of these classes of church
property is a source of constant ex-
pense; the second class is q source of
income. BY the laws of the State
of New York the first is exempt from taxa
ton, and the second is taxed like the prop
| erty of private owners. We think this
sound and just rule, and there are no diff
culties in its application which might not be
removed by specific legislation relating to
cases where these two kinds Of property
seem to shade into each other Exemption
can be fairly claimed only for such church
property as is strictly devoted to public
uses, including. certainly, church edifccs
and burial grounds, and perhaps schools,
hospitals and other charitable institutions
maintained by churches, not as a source OF
profit, but as relief to suffering indulgence.
| We think we can make the ground of ex-
emption clear by simple illustration.
Why does not the State or the city tax the
public property owned by itself? This city