The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-10-20
What Other People Think
The Tax Amendment and Church Prop
erty.

PFO0s
erty.
TO the Editor of The Journal.
In your issue Of last Sunday was an
article containing an interview with At
torney General Young on the effect of the
proposed tax amendment as to the ex-
emption of church property Will you
allow me opportunity to dissent from
the opinion there expressed by the at
torney general? You say that in the
opinion of the attorney general the two
phrases, Church property used for re-
ngious purposes and Church prop
erty,' are Identical. This claim is not
sustained by either logic or law. It is
quite evident on the face Of them that
they do not mean the same.
If 1t. was not the intention actually to
make g. change in the constitution, why
was not the old language used, which
was established and had a meaning that
was not equivocal? How will the courts
know. that the legislature did not intend
to make any change in the wording Of
the constitution, when they made such a
radical change in the wording Of the in
strument? I notice that Mr. " Dung goes
away to Illinois to get a decision that
apparently holsters up his position. Why
did he not get something from our own
courts? We have an almost parallel case
IN our own judicial proceedings.
Prior to the adoption Of the penal code
of this state. the old law Of 1873, chapter
l01, section 20, regulating the observance
OF Sunday, said: mo person shall keep
open his shop, warehouse or workhouse,
| or shall do any manner of labor business
| or work." etc., on Sunday. Under that
| law the courts Of this state had regularly
held that any note or contract made on
! Sunday was void. When the penal code
| of the state was adopted in 1885, all the
| prohibitions contained in the law quoted
| were. included in the penal code5 with
the exception Of the one word, ''business"
| This one word was omitted from the
prohibitions contained In the penal code.
The old question was at once raised
whether a note or contract made on Sun
day was good. The writer of this ar
| ticle was attorney for the. plaintiff in
an action to collect a note made on Sun
day. The action was tried before Judge
Caldwell in !. Scott county, and reference
was made to two decisions already made
by Judge: Crosby Of Hastings and Judge
Kelly OF st. Paul, both Of which sus-
tanned the contention that the slight
change referred to had made note
| drawn on Sunday good. Judge Caldwell
held the same. The court held that 1t
| could not presume the change made by
| the omission of the word i''business'' to
have been made inadvertently, but it
! must presume that it had been, made in
tent1onally,, and If made Intentionally 1t
was made with the intention Of effect
| ing some change, and the only change
that could be reasonably drawn from 1t
was that business done on Sunday was
legal, and since that time notes and con-
tracts made on Sunday are held to be
good.
Now apply the same line Of reasoning
to the change in the proposed constitu-
ttonal amendment. The courts will not
hold That the change, in language was
made inadvertently; they are most likely
70 follow the line Of reasoning followed
In the case referred to, and hold that
the change was made Intentionally and
for the purpose Of effecting some change
and the only change that can be made
by it Is the entire exemption from tax
alton of all property Of every kind
owned by any church society. =. -
If the proposed amendment is adopted
In its present shape, it will result in ths
exemption of all church property of ever,
kind. This result is made more clear ane
sure by the fact that following the words
church property in the amendment
come the words land houses of wor.
Ship showing that the words 'churcf
property were not intended to refer tt
houses of worship .-s4 t-fL- g.. ~. :. !!
IT the people do not wish to exemp
all kinds Of church property it would
seem to be the part Of safety to vot,
down the proposed amendment, as unde,
the present constitution the practice i:
settled and there is no question about it
then let the legislature submit this amend
ment again, with the old language as t,
church property about which there ca,
be no question. This is the safe wav. an,
: the only safe way. &C. p. Carpenter. q
Mortified, Mimi, Oct. 49, 1906: