Morning journal and courier., 1881-01-05
COMMUNICATIONS.
Taxing Church Property.

To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER:
 When a newspaper quotes the language of others without objection, and especially with the half commendation of asserting that good many agree with the sentiment, the ed1- tor ought to be open to answer just as much as if he was the originator of the idea. It is
 on this principle that venture to protest
 against the spirit and reasoning of your lead
 ing article in a recent issue of the COURIER , am not about to claim that all property
 happening to be owned by any church organ
 ization should for that reason be exempt
 from taxation, nor to object to the taxation
 of many kinds of property which are source
 of income and profit to an ecclesiastical cor
 poration These are questions which may be
 calmly discussed and decided on fair reason
 ing. looking in each case to the public good
 But it is rather to the spirit and tone of your
 article and the measurably false assumptions
 on which it is based that object There IS
 a tone of bigotry in the assumption that the
 exemption is claimed or generally placed up-
 on the sacred character of the church, and
 then sneering at the conflicts of religious
 creeds.
 AsI read between the lines, the speeches
 which so pleased you seem to be about as
 much covert attack upon 8 liberal support
 and announcement of religious institutions ! 5B.
 Iieve any burden of taxation. There have
 not been wanting imitators of the '.poor Monk of Wittenberg" and there is no objec-
 tion to their being encouraged by those who think them right If they are honestly seek ing the same object professed by the church as they may do as Luther did, benefit the general public and the churches at the same time
 I believe the true ground and the only ac- five principle on which church property has always been to some extent exempted rom taxation in this country is this-that ecclesl- astical societies are of such great pubnc pen aft that they ought to be encouraged as far as may be done consistently with the good of society in other respects-that is to the ex- tent of Axemption from taxation and protec- tion by the law against interference with their teaching and worship. 1t has been common idea among wise legislators that ln- stitutions tending to make men orderly in l their public behavior, regardful of the rights of others honest in their dealing, actuated l by knowledge of the right and a t1isposition to do it, were to be encouraged as adiuncts to good government, more effect l i've and every way more desirable than DO liceuen and prisons Let any one imagine, 1 if he can. what would be the order of oul city if through the State every church were | closed for generation-if the duty and necessity of acting on right principles were not by these agencies constantly urged on the | people and like fertihzing streams percoiat l inp society. It requires but little knowledge l of public affairs to know that law not sus tained by the average conscience of the peo- | ple will not be obeyed and cannot be gener l ally enforced Experience and sound reason | inp have indeed taught that the State canno, l safely assume the internal management o1 any church, nor allow any church or combi nation of churches to manage the govern I ment. And, on the other hand, instances | will occur to very young witnesses in thls l country where from the absence Of moral | restraints like those referred to, law, order l and government in whole States became 6 farce We may, therefore, it seems to me, even at this day, when there is so much lib erality in supporting churches, question whether the money invested in decent I churches Gin keeping with other buildings, I is not quite as useful to the objects Of gov I ernment as if it were put into the treasury and used in paying policemen and building I jails. | of church. property when 1t IS simply an m yestment of surplus, bringing accumulated
 wealth. like the investment of Q money mak CT. But doubt the correctness of the as l sumption that church property is generally 1 so much drawn from taxable property. It I l rather the earnings of the giyers in excess O their wants if not used in this way, yer. 4 likely to be wasted in show or amusement l If is eomparatively rare nowadays for anyon' 1 to pinch himself much to give to the church I so as to give it surplus.
 I The argument in part is If people choos
 to put their money into church when It l
 not earning anything, let them but the, si have no business to put it where It will no
 help pay taxes. Follow the argument httl