, 1880-01-25


tions in this country that have never yet
accomplished anything important is that In
favor Of taxing church property. The sub"
ject is now demanding some attention from
the people Of Iowa in the form Of petition
addressed to the Legislature and circulated
for signatures This petition sets forth in
brief the stock arguments ip favor OF church
taxation; and, as there are two sides to this
as to most other questions, the representa-
tions made by the Iowa petition may be used
merely to show that the exemption Of church
property from taxation, under proper limita-
ton, is notnearly SO much Of All evil as many
people think it to be.
l. It is always set up that, SO long as
church property is exempt from the charges
put upon similar property not used for re-
ligious prrkef5s, the State is assisting to
support aeettaRf34ap religion" This is only a
half-trath, exemption from taxation is
extended equally to all sects; hence the
sectarian feat1re cuts no real figure In the
case The: exemption is based, not upon
dogma, but upon the social, moral, and
public benefits which churches, as whole,
are believed to confer upon civil society.
One effect OF the exemption isft encourage
an increase Of churches, and with it an en-
largement Of the moral and ciyilizing infu-
ence8 which they are believed to exert. #
exemption we're to extend to the Methodist
ChtIch alone, Or to the Catholic Church
alone, or merely to the orthodox churches.
so-called, or to any particular and
favored set Of denominations, then it
might be fairly charged that the State
lends its special countenance and support
to sectarianism.- Yet, while no distinction is
made on account of dogma or the forms Of
worship, but the broadcast latitude given to
all societies Of religious character, there is
not sufficient reason to apprehend any un-
constitutional or unwise connection between
the Church and. State, which, it may be freely
confessed, would be severe blow at popular
government.
2. 1t is asserted rather recklesly that "for
every dollar Of property thus exempted
double burden of taxation is thrown upon an
equal amount Of other property not thus ia:
vored." It cannot ba fairly assumed that
church property in any case would be taxed
at its cost. That is not the rule for secular
property which is used for business or resi-
dence purposes, and church edifces and
grounds that do not directly serve any tenn
pora1 and worldly Or pecuniari1y profitable
uses would always be rated at lower pro-
portion than similar property which earns Its
rentals. Nor is it property itself, but the
owners thereof, that pay taxes; hence the
revenue from taxed churches would be small.
Aside from q little coterie Of professed
Liberals" ]" who remain aWay from church
on principle, the great mass Of taxpayers are
urch-members, church-goers, or persons
interested in the maintenance Of churches
either for the sake Of their own families or
for the public good. The imposition of taxes
upon church property would fall mainly
upon those who already pay them in another
form. II the church property Of Chicago,
for instance, were. to yield public revenue
of 100000 a year 41der taxation, 1t is not
likely that such refenue would bring an
actual relief of. more than 5000 to the anti
church class of taxpayers. For 1.-THE others
those who now contribute to the support Of
the churches and those who would then be
forced to contribute for the payment of the
church-tax-it would simply be paying out
Of one pocket what had previously been paid
out Of the other. There would be no saving
to the great majority Of taxpayers, but only
q donation as church-supporters Of small
part Of the sum they had previously paid In
taxes upon their individual property.
s. 'It Is a principle Of justice that who
eyer enjoys the protection Of Government
should assist in Its support It Is not neces-
sary to controvert this statement in order to
justify the exemption OF church property