, 1880-01-25

from taxation. Itis true that the churches
enjoy protection from the Government pa1
it IS also true that they assist in more ways
| than one in supporting the Government. In
the first place, the real owners OF the church
nroparty-the men who contribute to It's
maintenance for themselves, theiF families,
or the poor-contrtbute to the support OF
Government In ninety-nine out OF every
hundred cases by the payment Of taxes on
other property. In the next place, the
| churches Of themselves assist In the sup
| port OF the government in so far as they
/ maintain charitable institutions, and pro-
| mote public morals. good habits, the
sentiment of subordination to constl-
tuted authority, obedience to law, the
sense Of public duty among citizens, and Inc
other attributes of temperance, and decency'
and honesty which are included In the mis-
sion of every Church, without regard to Its
dogma. School property Is exempted from
taxation without protest because 1t, is EN-
ployed in the work Of educating the youth
of the country to q condition Of Intelligent
citizenship. The most intolerant non-church-
man will scarcely deny that the Sunday
schools, which are now such prominent adj
iuncts of the church system, teach many
Door and illiterate children who would never
learn to read otherwise, and inculcate moral
principles that might not be acquired In the
secular schools. The moral restraints exer-
olsed by the churches In manifold ways are
undoubtedly of such service to the State as
to warrant the latter's countenance. and en-
couragement short Of an Identification be-
tween Church and State.
4, The argument that; by continued ex-
emption of church property from taxation,
, ecclesiastical CORPORATIONS ara enabled to
'amass immense wealth the exemption Of
which lays much heavier burdens upon secu-
lar property" has more force than apy other.
But a remedy for this evil may be found in
an improvement Of the laws aud the admin
istraion thereof without an indiscriminate
imposition Of taxes upon places OF worship.
1t is not to be denied that the exemption
should be confined strictly to property occu~
pied and used exclusively for church serv-
ices, So fax as church ownership is used
merely to cover up property that serves secu-
lar purposes and is thus made profitable ex-
emption is fraud upon the public. Nearly
every large city has cases Of this kind, and 1t
is the business and duty Of the lawmakers
and law officers to make such cases Yield
proper proportion of the tax-levy. Avoid
ance of tax in every such instanceis as repre-
hensible as a similar escape In the ease OF
secular ownership, but it has no direct ap-
plication to the general question whether or
not church property, used for religious pur-
poses only, should be taxed.
S, There is no force whatever in the un-
founded apprehension that the exemption of
church property from taxation will, at some
future day, extend the acquisitions and power
Of the churches beyond the control Of the
Government. This might occur, as it. has
occurred in other countries and other times,
if the Government were committed to the
support Of any single Church Of oyershadow-
ing strength and encouraged this protege's
greed for wealth. But the safety Of Govern
ment in this country from church encroach-
ment is pretty. well assured by the number OF
and irrecfmcilaRe conflict among the sects,
each and all Of whom enjoy equal but no
special favor at the hands Of Government
The various denominations may be safely
trusted, according to all the indications Of
late years, to maintain differences so radical
and dissensions so lively that any combina-
ton against the civil pollty Of the State will
be out of the question.
For those who do not advocate church
taxation on principle (and those who do, as a
rule, simply constitute the small number Of
people who affect to deprecate church infu-
ences), the practical view Of the agitation is
that the game is not worth the candle. The
amount Of taxation which church property,
strictly speaking, would yield to most COM
munities would not repay the time, labor,
and contention which will be involved in the
effort to abandon the usual policy Of exemp-:
ton. The indifference which this view of !
the case naturally creates is increased by the
obvious reflection that nearly all taxpayers
would be compelled to pay for the support of |
Government in as large proportion after
taxing the churches as they do now, because,
to the extent that their individual taxation |
might be abated, they would be called upon
for additional church contributions. The
new rule would only exempt the stingy peoa
pie, after all.