The menace. [volume] (Aurora, Mo.) 1911-1920, 1917-12-22

luS III CITY anu owning properly
therein who, because of the business
he is in, requests that his property
be exempt and not required to pay
its quota for the fire, police and other
protection it receives. Yet church
property receives this protection and
pays nothing for it.
And while law should be framed
requiring all church property to be
taxed land we repeat, especially that
property not used for religious serv.
ices regularly and solely and while
we would not have one sect discrim-
mated against in favor of another
we point to the Roman church as a
concrete illustration of what an in
justice is being done when church
corporations are left free of taxa
tion.
In many of the largest cities it will
be found that the Roman church
holds many vacant lots and building
sites, listed as locations for con-
templated religious or charitable in
stitutions. In instance after in,
stance such property has been held
a few years, escaped taxation and
been sold at an enormously increased
price to private parties, and the in
crease was due to improvements
made on neighboring property which,
all the time, was bearing a heavier
tax because the church listed its va
cant lots as ground held for church
or charity building sites and escaped
paying tax.
The same is true of Houses of the
Good Shepherd. These places escape
taxation yet they operate at a profit,
through employing their imprisoned
labor in laundry and sewing rooms
Yet the legitimate laundry owner
who pays wages for his help and the
sewing factory which does the same
each pay an increased tax because
buildings listed as "papal charity
houses are listed as the property OF
a church corporation and escape
bearing any share of the local, state
or national tax burdens.
To say the least it is an unfair
practice that once thoroughly under.
stood will be remedied by the church
people themselves, or rather by such
church people as do not seek an un
fair advantage over their neighbor
We hardly believe the papal church
will favor taxation of her so-calleC
religious and other property for hel
accumulations are so vast and thu
demand for a union rather than {
divorce of church and state is so in
sistent that it is foregone conclu
sion she will not wish to pay an!
money to the state, for wherever sh,
has been dominant the finance al
ways has gone the other way.
But why, because we have sinnet
in the past should we continue to dc
so? If by failing to tax the property
of church corporations we are, il
reality, piling this millions Of tax OF
the shoulders Of others and in fac
subsidizing the church to that ex
tent, should we continue to do so
If, for sake Of suggestion, tn,
churches wish to alter this situation
let them ask that the government lis
their property at one-half it's valua
ton then each pay its proportion O.
tax the sarae as other property, sait
money to be divided as follows:
The money thus raised from Prot
estant churches to be divided hal
and half between the Y. M. C. A
cantonment recreation centers ant
the Red Cross.
The money thus raised from tn,
Roman church to be divided half ant
half between the Knights of Colum
bus cantonment recreation center
and the Red Cross.
Such a disposition of these fund
would at least lessen the necessity o
calls for more voluntary contribu
tions and would enable the govern
ment to place its Liberty Loan cam
paigns in a field not besieged witt
advertising campaigns for thing
about which SO many people hav
conflicting sentiments.
Tho da,oaorn emit in Canada racu1t