St. Landry democrat., 1880-12-04
Churches and Taxation.
New York Timcs.I

GXcnDtluS iHC pAopSioJ VI CA"h ShNo
from taxation, taking as his start
ing point the action of Congress i'll
regard to the matter in the District
of Columbia. The general tax law
for the District in 1874 made no ex-
press exemption, nor did it in terms
repeal the exemption which pre-
yiously existed. The Commission
ers proceeded to assess the property
of churches, and where the taxes
were not paid, which was generally
the case, it was advertised and sold,
being bought by the Commissioners
in the name of the District. A
committee took up the contest on
behalf of the churches and carried
il before Congress, and at the last
session all act was passed by a
unanimous vote of both houses re-
lieying the churches from the tax
and restoring to them the titles to
to their houses of worship which
had been sold. With the assent of
the committee, the exemption now
extends "only to church buildings
in actual use forpurposes Of Worship
only. together with the ground ON
which they stand" All other prop
erty belonging to them and not
thus used is subject to taxation.
This is taken by the writer in the
Review as establishing the right
principle, with the sanction of the
highest legislative authority in the
country. Whatever weight this
sanction may have as a matter of
precedent or example, it does not,
of co rise, affect the right OF any
state to deal with the question ac-
cording to the ideas of it's own peo-
ple as to the considerations of JUS
tice and expediency involved.
The author of the article referred
to, taking the moderate ground that
only property occupied and used
for purposes Of worship should en-
10y the exemption, proceeds to de-
fend it with variety of arguments,
the chief Of which is the familiar
one that the work Of religious soci-
cites is benefit to the public, and,
while they are paid nothing by the
State for its support, they should
not be required to pay tax on the
appliances for carrying it on.
Without touching upon the general
question of expediency, we may be
allowed to point out the weakness
of some of his reasoning. He adj
mits the soundness of the principle
that the State should have nothing
directly to do with the maintaining
the Church OF promoting institu-
tons of worship as such. LII short,
complete separation of Church and
State is sound political doctrine.
Then he remarks on the exemption
from taxation of charitable and ed
vocational institutions, and claims
that the Church is engaged in the
same general work and should en-
joy the same pri, elege for like rea-
sons. Here is evident confusion of
the whole subject. 1t is universally
conceded in this country to be the
duty Of the State to make provision
for the support of the needy and
helpless among it's people, and for
the education of the young within
certain limits, in SO far as this is
not done by private means. If this
is a work properly to be performed
at the public expense, then does it
follow logically that if any part of
it which would otherwise devolve
upon the State is done by private
benevolent associations, the prop
erty necessary for carrying it on
should at least be free from public
charges. There is here logical
seqence which is entirely wanting
in the plea put forth in behalf Of
churches. They are primarily for
worship and for the promotion Of
the particular religious faith and
opinions of those who build and
maintain them, and it is admitted
not to be in any sense the business
of the State to fulfill those objects.
Hence this argument appears to us
to break down utterly. 1t does not,
therefore, follow that the good to
the community which results from
the work of religious bodies is not
sufficient ground for the exemption
claimed. That is the very question
in dispute, and it is certainly not
settled by arguing from an analogy
with charitable and educational in
situations, which does not exist, so
far as relation to the State is con-
cerned.
Against the argument based on
beneficial effects upon the commu-
nifty at large, is to be set that of
the opponents Of exemption, who
claim that the primary object of the
churches is worship and the propa-
cation of certain forms of belief,
and SO far as they are relieved from
taxation, the burden is increased
upon the property of those who take
no part in the worship, or do not
share i'm the belief. In other words,
the community is in effect, taxed
for the support of the Church, and
to that extent it is an institution
favored and maintained at the cx-
pense of the State, which is incon-
sistent with the doctrine Of an alb
solute separation offnterests. But,
after all, this question is for us a
,romnfo ono INhon Il ie