The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1880-10-10

ent. 1t has two sides to it, and strong argu.
ments pro and con can be advanced; there
fore il would seem that if happy medium
eoul be settled upon, ii would suit the views
OF all and 80 equal justice TO all. Now,
those who oppose tho taxat on of church
property contend that "the right of state
to tax any property involves of necessity the
corresponding right to exempt any property
from taxation" and they go on to argue that
because tho church is in the service Of God,
because it is both educational and charitable
in its workings, it ought not t. b. taxed. We
are inclined to tho opinion that "the right of
state to tax property inhbits the fright
to exempt any property from tax
ut tin" The right of state to tax
property is given to it by the people,
with the express injunction that all taxation
shall be equal and uniform, or in other
words that one citizen or class ofcitZens shall
never be called upon or required to bear pro-
portionately more Of the burthens Of the
government than any other citizen or class
of citizens. AS under our forms of govern
ment, federal and state, the church and the
state are separate, the governments, federal
and state having no knowledge whatever of
the church, as church, therefore the church
is to the state but Ms any other rpora
ton, as any individual, and how can it e1-
empt church property from taxation, if it
make taxation equal and uniform? This is
only ar argument from II legal standpoint.
that we are making, but Ms we do not propose
to discuss the question on that line in this ar
tce, we will consider ii 10 its other phases.
We are not of tho,e who are clamoring for
the taxation of every church lot and
church building aud graveyard attached, and
grayeyards throughout tho country, for we
believe that the lots and this churches that
stand upon them, no matter Whist the denom-
ination, whether Jewish, or Catholic, or
Protestant, or Mohamedan, or Bhuddist, are
bearing well their part Of the burthens Of
government in the good accomplished
through them IN making mon and women
be ter and more moral, and purer and more
elevated in their aspirations, habits and con-
duct in life. These things, in so far as II
church building, used for religious purposes,
and the lot on which it stands, is worth
more to the government than the yearly pit
lance of taxation ould be. And who
would tax the last resting places of the dead,
with their silent tombstones telling the world
that they had lived in days gone by and
borne their share of the loads of taxation to
support the government? The census of
1870 put tho value OF church property in
tho United States at $3.50, 100000. Assuming
that tho shrinkago in values and the increase
in quantity during the past ten years will
offset each other, wo can put the figures the
same for 1880. Of this property the Bap-
lists have S40,0O0,000 the Roman Catholics,
$50, 100000 the Episcopaliaes, $36,000,000;
the Methodists, SIC, 1000 900; the Presbyteri-
ans Si70OO,0OO; the Congrcgatienaists,
25000,0O0; the Luthersns, $4,000, 900.
Various other smaller denominations own
the remaining $5s0OO,OOO. Now, tho APP
proximats rate of taxation throughout the
various states of the union il, state, county
and municipal, say two per cent. This rate
of taxation on $3.50, 900 of church prop
erty, not now assessed, would DO $1,000, 900
annually in excess of what goes into the
treasures of tho several states, counties
and municipal corporations in the union.
This is not an enormous sum of money, but
II applied every Year to the reduction of tho
public debt of the federal government it
would assiss towards that ond very materially
1t this $S5O,O0OOOO of property owned by
the churches was simply the value of neat,
comfortable church buildings and the ground
thoy stood upon there would DO more reason
in asking that church property DO wholly ex-
empt from taxation. Bat such is not tho case.
All over this land there are church buildings
the erection of which has cost thousands and
multiplied thousands of dollars until in some
instances, the cost runs up into hundreds o.
Thousands Of dollars. OF course tho mem
bers of church have right to erect jus
such building in which to worship God q
they are able to pay for, but they have nc
moral right to erect one they of themselvc
cannot pay for. Yet they d
thi, thing. They give fairs an,
festivals and concerts, sacred, of course al
ways, and have games and rahles and sol
hungry mortSls at their lunch stands Al
legged oyster soup, and. sometimes, we yer
sorrowfully say, with only ono lonesome, in
hnitesmal bivalve floating around with piec
Of cracker, for quintuple the worth thereof
and they send out committees soliciting cor
tributions to help build tho churct, quit
frequently asking and expecting the lsrges
gifts from the wckedest men, as though sue
offerings might help purchase salvation, or
least be = soothing sSlve to some little burr
spot in the hereafter. And then, after obtair
ing this money outside of themselves, froi
the general public, they ask that their fir
church DO exempt from taxation. L he
seem never to reflect that when they have
ane church and big organ and fancy char
delers, that they must have high .pricc
preacher of the Talmsge, Swing or Beechr