cause his interests as a member of society imperatively demand it, and because, also, he is impotent to successfully resist it or over come it. It is equally plain that the Church, by which is meant the aggregate religious influence of the country, is not one of the legitimate objects for which taxes can be levied. This is apparent because it performs no office which is recognized by the constitu tion or the laws, and it is an institution not essential to the maintenance of public order or good society. It is not the agent of the State, is not controlled by it, and is not sup posed to have any direct interest in common with it, but is maintained for the special pri vate ends of the various religious organiza tions. The work of the Church is local, not general; its influence is limited, not wide spread and universal.1 Exemptions from taxation of church prop erty involves a union of Church and State, which is at variance with the fundamental principle of our government. The infidel, for example, believes in no church, believes its influence is hurtful, yet is brought face to face with the unpleasant fact, unpleasant and disagreeable to him at least, that the govern ment is a partner in the very influence which his own conscience and judgment condemns as vicious and detrimental. And if he is a taxpayer, he is obliged to contribute out of his holdings to the keeping up of the vicious relation. The policy of exemption promotes the accumulation of great wealth to be held in mortmain by never-dying corporations, in dependent of the State, not accountable to it, possibly subject to foreign control, and which may be used against the best interests of the public. The danger from foreign interven tion is not regarded as imminent or serious. It is not, however, a good omen, in a free country, to see vast wealth under the control of religious bodies, and costly edifices, erect ed for religious services, are not financial 1 See also Johnson's Universal Cyclopedia, Title : "Taxation."
triumphs of which the true lovers of suffer ing humanity can be justly proud. Church property should be taxed because not to tax it, a portion of the community is favored at the expense of others not inter ested. According to the census of 1890, slightly less than one-third of the population of the United States are communicants or members of churches or religious denomina tions. Undoubtedly, this percentage does not represent the full number of persons that are willing to, and do, contribute to the sup port of religious services, voluntarily. But what shall be said of that class who are com pelled, through the process of public taxa tion, to contribute to the support of religious work and service, involuntarily? Why should the atheist be required to pay taxes in order that others may go to church? And especially, what right have others to compel it, through the governmental machine? Yhy should members of any of the financially weaker religious denominations, too poor to have church buildings, be required to con tribute to the regular support of religious .services in the gorgeous structures of their wealthier brothers? Where is the justice of such a system? Is not this system rank oppression? If the foregoing contentions are maintain able, there is no warrant, in ethics or reason, why the Church should not bear its share of the burden of government. It is no answer to this claim that the Church is not a money-naking institution; that it contributes to the good morals and good order of the social state. As to the latter claim, there are many good citizens who sincerely deny it, and cer tainly, they ought not to be required to con tribute to that which their own judgment and conscience repudiates. It is possible, too, that a large contingent of the population pre fer to contribute of their means to works of benevolence, charity or education, in some other manner than that indicated or outlined
