The Emmett index. [volume] (Emmett, Idaho) 1893-1925, 1915-12-09
CHURCHES ASK THAT
TAX Be RENTED
Contend That Sprinkling Tax is
Unjust and Contrary to
Constitution of Idaho

Contending that the sprinkling tax
levied against church property the
past season is contrary to the consti-
tuition and laws of Idaho that it forms
a precedent that may be carried
to extremes; that it imposes a second
tax upon church members who own
property in the sprinkling district;
that the tax was imposed because of
threats of suit, and that the tax
was unjust because it was not levied
in proportion to the benefits received,
the pastors of the Baptist, Methodist
and Presbyterian churches appeared
before the city council Monday night
to ask that the sprinkling tax be re-
mitted.
Rev. A. c. Lathrop, pastor of the
Baptist church, was the spokesman
for the delegation, and his argument,
which was concurred in by his col
leagues, was as follows:
Honorable Mayor and Council:
We have come before you on behalf
of the churches of Emmett to request
that your honorable body remit the
sprinkling tax which you have as
sessed against the churches for the
current year. Our churches have al
ways been willing to bear their just
legal part in every improvement, in
the benefits of which they share, and
will continue so to do. The reason why
we ask you to remit this tax are as
follows:
First. This tax is contrary to the
current Interpretation of the consti-
tuition and laws of Idaho which ex-
empt churches from taxation. 1t is
true that cities may tax churches for
permanent improvements in the bene-
fits of which they share, such as
sewer, sidewalks, etc. We do not
object to these. But street sprinkling
is only temporary; benefits only the
business houses and private homes.
1t gives no real value to our churches
and we are entirely willing to have
the sprinking wagon omit US in its
service.
Second. We request you to omit
this tax because of the practice and
custom that has prevailed heretofore |
In large measure the custom deter
mines law. The custom has been to ex-
ampt churches from this tax. The i'm |
position of this tax is forming a pre-
which may be carried to even
farther extremes.
Third. We ask you to remit this /
AK for the reason that it practically /
imposes a second tax upon those who
lave property in the sprinkling dis
.rict, and who happen to be members
# our churches.
Fourth. We ask you to remit this
lax because it takes the churches
which are supported by the free will
,fferings of its members and friends
and which exist for religious and
work in the community
nd for social service; for. the benefit
f those who do not need, nor ask
hat the churches shall so appropriate
heir benevolent contributions. In
ther words, it is not right to tax
he churches for the benefit only of
he business houses and residences.
t thus compels US to contribute to- /:
,ard the benefit of those who are
mply able to take care of their own
interests.
Fifth. We ask that you remit this
ak because it was imposed as the
esult of threats of suit made against
our body, and there was no oppor-
unity at that time given to US to
eply to said threats. We have been
egally advised that your honorable
ody has the power to either impose
MS tax or to follow the custom of
he past and exempt the churches
rom the same, and it is not at all
kelly any action at law would change
lis power committed to you.
Sixth. For the Baptist church l
ant to protest against this tax as un-
Ist, for the reason that it was only =
that the street on the :
est side of our church was sprinkled,
lille for the same cost the business
ction was sprinkled many times. In
her words, the tax is not rated ac
riding to the proportion of benefits
ven but at fiat rate for all.
Consideration of the matter was
i'd over for investigation.
w. NJ E;..lI..- .-.-.-:--- .s Dad ii