The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1877-07-19


I Will'briefy examine the latter OBJ
ieotion before proceeding to discuss the
applicability of the statutory and consul
tutional provisions. The real questloh
before us is
WHAT PROPERTY
the State Of Ohio by its lawfully enacted
statutes has in fact actually exempted
from taxation, and isnot aquestion what
laws she ought to pass or what properly
She ought TO exempt. That a thing is
Opposed to public policy" is often said
in a sentimental or oratorical way, hut
we have TO concern ourselves with things
tbat are opposed to the public policy in
lie legal sense ofthe term, and which are
in some way tainted with illegally OF
origin, purpose or tendency, or are a
breach Of public morality, 1t is not easy
to perceive what force there could be IN
an argument against exemption drawn
from its supposed opposition to pu6llc
policy if the property shall be found to
be actually exempt by the plain provision
of the statute and if not exempt by the
plain provision Of the statute it would OF
course be taxable, although it were in
entire harmony with the public policy OF
the State. With what force could 1t be
claimed that the public policy Of the
State would forbid the exemption OF pro-
perty from taxation which pubicstatute
of the state, made in pursuance OF the
constitution, should in express terms ac'
tually exempt from taxation.
But if we proceed to analyze the ques-
ton further aud inquire how, why and
in what respects the establishment OF
these schools is in any legal sense oppos
ed to the public policy of the State, or
what particular part of the public policy
it is opposed to, or what part of the pub
lie policy of the State it is that tlorblds
their establishment within its limits, we
are certainly left without satisfactory re,
sponse or definite information. Can it
be claimed that the establishment OF
these schools is opposed to the religions
public policy of the S ateP Clearly not,
for the reasonsthat
The State has no religious policy to op-
pose or be opposed. AS a state it is Meth
er Catholic, Protestant, Jewish nor
Christian. 1t protects and is bound to
protect all equally and impartially, but
does not specially uphold or encourage
any one kind of religion above another
On the contrary, the constitution provides
that "no preference shall be given by
law to any religious society nor shall any
interference with the rights of conscience
be permitted"
Ii is plain then that it can not be any
particular religious policy of the state
that these schools are opposed to.
Let us then inquire what civil public
policy Of the state these schools are op-
posed to, or what portion of its civil po'
icy in regard to the establishment o.
public schools forbids the existence oI
these Catholic parochial schools, and how
the establishment of such schools places
them, or those who establish them, in
opposition to public policy of the state in
taht behalf. Itcertainly cann't be claimed
that it is the public policy of the state
that the children of the state shall mo-
receive any education in any other schoo
than in one of the public shoots establish
ed by itseli; no such policy as that il
hinted at in any of the statutes of the
state. If this policy were actually estab
lished by statute and in harmony witt
the constitution, all private shoots anC
colleges in tue state would be liable to bt
abolished by such public policy. Neithe
do we think that it can be truthfully
claimed Il a. it is the public policy Of tn
state that children shall not he taught re
ligious faith and morals in addition to Sc
cular instruction, either in the public o
private schools in the state. A discretion
over this subject is vested in the publi
school authorities, which, if reasonably
exercised, is not to be supervised by th'
courts of the state, and the idea that tht
public policy OF the state is opposed tore
Iigious instructions in the private chool
is wholly without foundation. | canno
see, then, that in the establishment ant
conduct of these parochial schools an!
statute of the state is violated, that publi
morality or the policy of any law is in
fringed upon, or that any opposition tc
the laws of the land is therein taught o.
encouraged in any way.
Not only this, but it is clearly apparen
that if these schools, because they are es
tablished by Catholic influences chief.
and in pursuance Of Catholic purposes
are SO opposed to the public policy Of th
state that a trust can not be enforced o
a general statute Of the state allowed t
operate in their favor, that the argumen
is equally strong and conclusive agains
allowing the statute exempting churCl
property to operate to exempt it 80 ia
as Catholic church property is concerne
for surely,
THEIR SCHOOLS CAN NOT BE OPPOSED T
PUBLIC POLICY
in the legal sense and their church itse
be in harmony with the same public pc
Icy.
Yet it has never been claimed in th
state, so far as | know, that Cathol
church properly is not exempt nor tht
the proper reading of the constitutio
would be, SAN houses used eXclusivel
for public worship are exempt from tal
alton except Catholic churches, which al
opposed to public policy"
Neither is it apparent why, if we reac
the conclusion that they are clearly o.
= posed to the public policy of the state
the legal sense or if either of them a.
forbidden by the same policy, they shouI
not both be prohibited and their unlaV
full practices, if they have any, suppress
q ed by statute law, There is no logic
stopping place short ofthis, ifin any Il
gal sense of the word the claim that tht
are opposed 20 the general public polio
4 Of the state has any solid foundation u
i der its feet ,g3e. .vl,.
1t also seems further to be claimed tn
the fact that NV 7o.i6sr1
THE BISHOP HOLDS THE LEGAL TITLE
! to all the school property (and as the d
!. fendant claims with absolute power
: alienation and conversion) has somethil
! to do with this question or with the g
! emption Of the property from taxatio
y under the statutes Of the stale. Fro
! the evidence in thecase it clearly appea
= that Bishop Gilmore is merely the trust
holding the legal title to the school al
:. church property for the benefit Of t
= schools, parishes and congregation
q whose money purchased it and for who
II roo aa anhoO1 and chnreh DroDnftV IL "