ASSESSMENT FOR TAXATION.
Mr. BELL moved to amend the sixth subdivision of Section 8 exempting property "used" for educational purposes, by striking out the words "or by any individual or individuals."
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. BELL moved to further amend the seventh subdivision by reducing the number of acres on which Church building are situate from ten to two acres. He thought that would be a sufficient number of acres to exempt from taxation.
Mr. LOCKRIDGE moved to amend the amendment by restricting the number of acres exempt from taxation to five.
Mr. SPANN considered two acres as sufficient, inasmuch as the bill exempts also parsonages and parsonage property.
Mr. OWEN regarded the bill as being in the interest of stingy people who desire to give the preacher ten acres of land and let him grub his living out of it. He favored the two-acre amendment.
Mr. GRAHAM insisted there should be no reduction in the number of acres exempted in the original bill. As a general thing this kind of property is not very valuable.
Mr. HENRY favored the amendment of the Senator from Allen and Whitley (Mr. Bell). Two acres are ample and sufficient for Church buildings. Parsonages anci parsonage grounds and cemeteries are provided for in another part of the section.
Mr. WILSON moved as a substitute for the seventh subdivision, a clause exempting all cemeteries not owned and sold out in parcels for the sake of profit by those who own the same.
Mr. BROWN hoped the section would be adopted as it appears in the bill. The Church edifice and the grounds surrounding and such school buildings erected proximate to the Church, used for benevolent purposes, should be exempt from taxation. It is niggardly in the State to tax Church property.
Mr. MENZIES said the State has by a long line of precedents held out to these Churches the idea that they can have exempt a certain amount of land from taxation connected with Churches. Many have invested money in this class of property with that understanding, and for that reason if for no other he should oppose the amendments.
Mr. WOOLLEN should oppose the taxation of Church property. He did not think ten acres is too much to exempt.
Mr. BELL disclaimed any intention to tax Churches; but when you talk of first principles he was satisfied Church property should be exempted only up to a certain amount. He deprecated the custom of building Church palaces for paupers sometimes, to worship in. Let the line be drawn now where it is proposed to be drawn in the amendment. If 320 acres are necessary for a Church exempt it, but let the line be drawn where it falls by necessity.
Mr. KEISER was glad to find so many Senator so familiar with the Churches and the wants of Churches. It has been said by implication that Churches own land they do not use for Church purposes, but that they own land which they use for purposes of gain. He ventured to say there page: 272[View Page 272] were very few, if any, using property for any other than Church or educational purposee. You give to State Institutions thirty or forty acres exempt from taxation, and besides that a large appropriation every year, While these Church Institutions are hard put too, many of them, and sorely in need of help. Many men like to see and like to worship in a beautiful building. The Senator himself would rather go into one of this kind than go into the little Church around the corner, or into a school house that has not been swept for a week. Such a pride is a commendable pride. He thought it unnecessary to change this subdivision, from the fact that the proposition is simply to exempt such land whereon the building is situate. The parsonage in ninety-nine out of one hundred cases is situate on the lot with the Church. Under the substitute there are very few burying grounds that would escape taxation. Some in the country, kept in a manner that is a disgrace to civilization, would escape taxation, but those beautified as we love to see beautified the last resting place of our dear ones, would not escape. He liked to see taken away, as much as possible, all the sombre and dark surroundings of death. He believed the best plan would be to let the law stand as it has stood for many years.
Mr. Henry moved to amend by way of substitute, so as to exempt "so much of" any building or so much of ten acres "as is necessary to the use thereof."
Mr. COMSTOCK moved to reject all the amendments.
Mr. CHAPMAN contended that ten acres was too much to exempt--it is unfair and unjust. There ought to be a reasonable limit. The two-acre proposition is eminently just and fair, as that is all that is needed.
Mr. HEFRON said there is not one Church in a hundred which occupies one acre of ground, but if there be one in 100 which has use for ten acres, the ten acres should be exempt from taxation. Then the parcels of land set apart as a place where the body shall rest till it becomes a part of the soil should be exempt from taxation.
Mr. COMSTOCK submitted that if any real estate should be exempt, it should be the amount the Church proposing to use its shall determine. If one denomination, the exercises of which is largely carried on out of doors, requires more ground than another, the ground required for its use should be exempt. He was not pleading the inability of any denomination to discharge any tax that may be imposed on it by the State. Acting upon the idea that this property would be free from taxation, many persons have invested their means in Church property, and now, would it be in good faith to impose a tax upon such property? He hoped the motion to reject would be adopted.
Mr. HENRY spoke in favor of his amendment, proposing to exempt so much of ten acres as is necessary for the uses referred to in the section. He insisted no Church organization should have the right to hold property not necessary for the use of the Church. No sufficient objection can be urged against changing the section as his amendment proposes.
Mr. CHAPMAN--There is a sentimental side in favor of exempting ten acres,and the side of justice and right is in favor of not so large an exemption. It Can not be gainsaid but that two acres of ground will accommodate any congregation in the State, or that may come into the State in the next fifty years. When you apply this provision to a city, two acres is more than an abundance.
Mr. GRAHAM thought the exemption of ten acres as proposed in the bill is just what it should be, and he could see no reason why the number of acres should be reduced.
Mr. HEFRON'S opposition to these amendments was as much in the interest of one denomination as another.
On motion by Mr. GRUBBS, it was ordered that debate cease.
The motion to reject all the amendments was agreed to by the casting vote of the Lieutenant Governor, the Senate being a tie-yeas, 19; nays, 19. The vote in detail was as follows:
Those who voted "aye" were--Messrs. Benz, Brown, Coffey, Compton, Comstock, Davis, Graham, Hefron, Howard, Keiser, Leeper, Marvin, Menzies, Poindexter, Traylor, Viehe, Woods, Woollen, Yancy and Mr. President--20.
Those who voted "no" were--Messrs. Bell, Bischowsky, Chapman, Davidson, Grubbs, Henry, Hostetter, Langdon, Lockridge, Macartney, Owen, Ristine, Sayre, Smith, Spann, Urmston, Voyles, White and Wilson--19.
So the amendments and the substitute were laid on the table by the casting vote of the Lieutenant Governor.
Mr. YANCY entered a motion to reconsider this vote.
Mr. SPANN moved to strike out of this subdivision the words "parsonage and parsonage property." This is a class of property in addition to what has been customary to exempt, and the debate has indicated a feeling that there is too much Church property in this State ($13,000,000) already exempt. In the last five years this class has increased nearly 35 per cent., and now it is proposed to further extend the exemption another class embracing $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 more.
Mr. URMSTON moved to amend by adding to the section these words, "not to exceed one acre."
Mr. VIEHE opposed the amendment. An acre for a parsonage in a city is too much, but in the country not sufficient.
The substitute was rejected, and the amendment was agreed to by yeas, 21; nays, 14.
Then came a recess till 7:30 p. m.
