Arizona weekly citizen., 1895-03-09
Taxation of Church Property.


 property in these United States has never been questioned. If so, why the word exemption" on our law books?
 The framers of the constitution of the United States put nothing in that in- strument prohibiting the exemption of property from taxa'ion, leaving it to each state to govern themselves on this point. The right to exempt certain property-where the Constitution of the state does not forbid it-is conceded on the grounds that the sovereign people, who exercise it, can do as they w,sh.
 The slgners of the United States Con. stitution were among the first men, in their Various states, to advocate the doc Urine of eXemptIng these species of prop erty from taxation, on the grounds of pu blic good, public charity, or beneficial to the pubic in part from either or both these grounds, to the extent of more than the tax would amount to. Where ever, in any state. this species of prop erty has been exempt from tax it has been wholly on this ground, that it ls 5enicial for the whole body polite. 4 ere it made on any religious grounds it would be contrary to all principles of American government and subversive of the Constl ulion itself.
 In the early days of our republic these exemptions were thought only just and right, but ln the last 45 years doubts have arisen in the minds of many wheth- CT the state and the public are benfi:ted by these exemptions, and whether in some cases they are not positive de- triment to the state and the public well fare.
 These doubts have grown to positive convictions in thousands of minds, and some states have ceased to grant exempt. ions in full to this class of property, while others exempt only part or on a basis of valuation, California 1 believe being the first state to refuse any ex- emption whatever. In every state in our union the subject has been written on and talked about.
 Now why have these doubts grown so rapidly into firm convictions? Why have the following questions been pro. pounded, every one of them, by the lead CTS themselves, in these different church associations?
 ''Do taese church associations, hold ing enormous wealth which is continu- ally exempt from any tax, confer on the whole body politic a benefit equal to such excemption?" "Do all these church associations extend their chari- ties to the whole people alike?" "When these church associations become ex- elusive in their practice of charity and benevolence, are they still public bene- factors?" "Have not many of these church bodies refused. (even when pay has been offered) to offloiate for the general public in the most solemn per iods of human life-birth, marriage and death?" Are not the functions for public charity, in many of these church associations, exercised exclusively for their believers and followers alone?" "Does not quite large portion of the money received for charitable purposes by some of these church bodies come from the pockets of those who do not hold to their faith, and are there any who do not believe with them that re- ceive benefits from such money?" Can the trustees, custodisns and leaders of many of these church associations of wealth, be loyal citizens of the United States when they take an oath of allegi. ance to foreign protentate who claims both spiritual and temporal power them and also infallibility?" Are not many Of these church bodies sptagonistic to onr public schools and pubic institu tions?" "Is not tLe increasing wealth of this species ofproperty dangerous to the welfare of our republic?" "Are not many of these church associations menace to the Constitution of our United States, in the separation of church and state?"
 These questions and thousand others like them have been, in the last few years, propouDded by the ministers, priests and bishops of these church associations, themselves. Every one of these questions. have emsnsted from the brains of leading men in Christian ch urch associations. Enough for the present. Let the people-the sovereign people - think. JOHN E. MAGEE.
 Tu cson, Feb. 2, 1895.