Tax- Exemption 
 
 No Excuse for Spoliation: 
 
 CONSIDERATIONS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION, NOW BEFORE THE 
 MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE, TO PERMIT THE 
 SALE OF THE 
 
 OLD SOUTH CHURCH. 
 
 BY 
 
 JOSIAH PHILLIPS QUINCY. 
 
 “We shall set up^vithin the church a lottery of such prizes as are the direct inviting causes 
 of* avarice and ambition; both unnecessary and harmful to be proposed, and most easy, most con- 
 venient, and needful to be removed.” — John Milton. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE 
 
 PROPRIETORS OF “OLD AND NEW.” 
 
 1874. 
 
V3 V V 
 
 Gt 
 
 \ • 0 , , 
 
 
 T 
 
O H ‘ -L.0/ trof lo / 
 
 P* 
 
 i 10 
 
 >1 
 
 * TAX-EXEMPTION NO EXCUSE EOE SPOLIATION. 
 
 *' * 
 
 i 
 
 a 
 
 p 28626 
 
TAX-EXEMPTION 
 
 NO EXCUSE FOR SPOLIATION. 
 
 It is well known that petitions have been presented to the General Court of 
 Massachusetts, praying for the repeal of those clauses in our statutes which prohibit 
 the collection of taxes from corporations claiming to be religious, educational, or 
 benevolent. This movement against tax-exemption, which has found its ablest 
 advocate in an Orthodox journal of wide circulation, has no connection with any 
 special form of' belief or unbelief, and has nothing to do with any theory respecting 
 the propriety of granting State aid to corporate bodies. It asserts only that this 
 form of State aid is unjustifiable and dangerous. It seeks to call the attention of 
 legislators to the present injustice of our exemption-laws, and to the evils with 
 which they threaten our future. But while many good men feel strongly, and 
 even bitterly, the impolicy of these laws, all wise men must unite in opposing their 
 immediate and unconditional abolition. Any one but a fanatic must see that it 
 would be inexpedient — and inexpedient, because it would be unjust — to assess 
 the Institute of Technology or the noble Catholic Cathedral upon Washington 
 Street on their property valuation in the coming May. The penalties of injudi- 
 cious legislation cannot be remitted by drawing the pen through a bad law. If 
 taxes are ever to be assessed upon existing corporations now exempted, they must 
 come very gradually, after due warning, and as part of a statesmanlike scheme of 
 economic reform. I offer three suggestions, which embody all the legislation which 
 seems to me desirable at the present time. 
 
 First , That, so far as regards all corporations hereafter to be created , this 
 objectionable form of State aid shall be abolished. If assistance is to be given 
 them, it shall take the form of direct appropriation. 
 
 Second , That no existing corporation shall be permitted, upon sale of exempted 
 property, to appropriate its increased value for secular or non-charitable purposes ; 
 except such corporations as shall elect to purchase this right by paying, principal 
 and interest, all taxes which have been remitted to them. 
 
 Third , That a commission be appointed to consider what may be the just 
 claims of tax-exempted corporations upon the State ; and also how that mode of 
 State assistance may be finally abolished with the least possible injury to the reli- 
 gious and educational interests of the Commonwealth, and to the just property 
 interests of any special class of her citizens ; and that this commission shall report 
 to some future legislature. 
 
6 
 
 The legislation above indicated would give a reasonable protection to the public, 
 and would interfere with the existing rights of no one. It is, however, to the 
 second suggestion, that I ask especial attention ; for this touches, not tax-exemp- 
 tion in itself, but a most flagrant abuse of that privilege. Many persons who find 
 nothing objectionable in the principle of exemption from taxation will heartily con- 
 demn a wrong for which it is in no wise responsible. The remarks that I have to 
 offer upon this subject may be introduced by quoting a statement of that very relia- 
 ble journal “ The Boston Daily Advertiser.’’ From the issue of Sept. 26, I cut 
 this paragraph : — 
 
 “ The old Congregational Church at Litchfield, Conn., has been turned into an 
 opera-house ; and they now dance under the shadow of Dr. Lyman Beecher’s 
 pulpit.” 
 
 I do not trust myself to speak oft the taste that would condemn to such uses a 
 venerable edifice hallowed by the worship of God, and associated with a distin- 
 guished family whose fame is dear to all Americans. There is, to be sure, dancing 
 and dancing. The memorable saltation of King David before the ark was, doubt- 
 less, a modest and improving performance that might not have been out of place 
 tC under the shadow of Dr. Lyman Beecher’s pulpit.” As for the opera-dancing 
 that at present goes on there, one can only hope that the shadow cast upon it is a 
 pretty deep one. But, however offensive to sensitive people may be the spectacle 
 of an ecclesiastical corporation running a venerable church as a dance-house or a 
 post-office, it is only as an outrage upon property, that they have a right to demand 
 the interference of the legislator. I claim that no equitable interpretation of our 
 exemption-laws permits these enormous spoliations. The intention of these laws 
 must be ascertained by a consideration of the circumstances which gave them birth, 
 as well as by principles notoriously professed by modern legislators who keep them 
 upon our statute-book. The original value paid for certain lands as church-lots 
 was exempted from taxation. Their constantly-increasing value as sites for opera- 
 houses, post-offices, or stores, was never exempted. It was not taxed, because it 
 was assumed not to exist. The church was regarded by the legislator as a per- 
 petual church , never as a possible theatre. When ecclesiastical corporations appro- 
 priate this latter value, they use their exemption-privilege for a purpose for which 
 it never was designed. They possess themselves of the people’s wealth, for which 
 they have given no compensation. 
 
 In examining the purpose and scope of our exemption-laws, I shall not hesitate 
 to use abundant, and perhaps tedious illustration. Owing to the complex nature 
 of the subject, it may be difficult to bring the real facts before the minds of some 
 of our voters who are unaccustomed to economical considerations. In making the 
 attempt, something will be borrowed from a paper upon the Secularization of Church- 
 Lands, which I contributed to the last May number of Mr. Hale’s magazine. The 
 question we have to consider is this : Given our exemption-laws, how should equity 
 and common sense interpret them in dealing with valuable churches thrown upon 
 the market by their proprietors ? Let me put a case. 
 
 Jo,hn and James take money earned by their labor, and saved by their self- 
 denial, and with it buy adjoining lots, and put up buildings. Each spends, we will 
 
7 
 
 say, ten thousand dollars. John builds a church: James builds a dwelling-house. 
 They call upon their legislator to ask what he will do for them. The answer they 
 receive from him amounts to this : — 
 
 “ As I am bound to carry out the laws upon the statute-book, I shall exempt 
 from taxation the ten thousand dollars that J ohn has earned, and put into a church ; 
 or, what amounts to the same thing, I shall tax it, but I shall require James, 
 Charles, Patrick, and the rest of the people in the directory, to pay the tax. The 
 ten thousand dollars that James has earned, and invested in a dwelling-house, I 
 shall tax him for every year.” 
 
 So far, all is perfectly clear. At the end of twenty years, J ames calls upon 
 his legislator ; and the following conversation ensues : — 
 
 James. — I am hardly used. My house, which cost ten thousand dollars, is now 
 taxed upon a valuation of twenty-five thousan<J. Nothing has been added to its 
 utility as a dwelling ; it is not as good as it was twenty years ago : and yet I have 
 been required to work harder and harder every year in order to pay a constantly 
 increasing tax upon it. And, if I cannot do this, you threaten to turn me out of 
 doors. I built this house as a convenient residence for myself and my family. 
 Suppose my grandson occupies it one hundred years from to-day, please to consider 
 the immense sum (over and above our tax on ten thousand dollars) that we shall 
 have paid the State (!) 
 
 Legislator. — It is evident, my friend, that you have not considered the nature 
 of property in real estate. To the ten thousand dollars earned by your labor is 
 now added a value of fifteen thousand, resulting from the labor of other people. 
 You can demand this increased value by putting your land into the market ; and it 
 is right that you should make an annual payment to the community for the privi- 
 lege. I grant, that, if your grandson occupies this house one hundred years from 
 to-day, you and your representatives will have paid, principal and interest, an enor- 
 mous sum of money to the State. But you must remember that every thing you 
 pay (above the just tax on your original ten thousand dollars) is in the nature of 
 an investment. Your payments resemble deposits in a bank, which you have the 
 privilege of withdrawing upon writing a check. In the case of real estate, your 
 check is written in the form of a deed of sale. If, at the end of a hundred years, 
 your grandson sells your house-lot as a site for a merchant’s exchange, he will with- 
 draw from the community some compensation for the taxes that I shall compel you 
 and your family to pay. 
 
 James. — I acknowledge that this is just. You are now taxing my house-lot upon 
 its increased value as potentially a store-lot. But why not tax my neighbor John 
 for the increased value of his land ? I do not ask you to tax him upon the ten 
 thousand dollars which he earned ; for that sum is forever exempted : but how can 
 you, with any show of reason, omit to tax the unearned fifteen thousand dollars 
 which he has now the privilege of taking from the community by selling his land as 
 a store-lot. 
 
 Legislator. — I do not tax John’s church-lot upon its increased value as poten- 
 tially a store-lot, because I assume that it is forever consecrated to religious uses, 
 and never can be a store-lot. 
 
8 
 
 Now I venture to say that the answer here given is the only one which a legisla- 
 tor who was acquainted with the history of our exemption-laws, and acknowledged 
 the principles which underlie American government, could possibly make. It is 
 plain that the worth of a commodity for a particular purpose may be given to per- 
 sons of high moral character under an implied understanding that it shall not be 
 used for any other purpose. If a bishop, in his ecclesiastical capacity, accepts a t 
 
 free ticket from a railroad-company, it is easy to see that he is entitled only to that 
 portion of its value which may aid him in discharging his episcopal function upon ^ 
 
 the line of the road. He has no right to sell his free pass for what it would be 
 worth to an expressman. Let us consider a parallel case between individuals. The 
 editor of a journal, being desirous to promote the moral welfare of the community, 
 offers a clergyman one of his columns every week in order that he may print his 
 sermon. The reverend gentleman sends a few discourses, and then calls at the 
 office to say that he has decided to sell his weekly column for what it may be worth 
 to advertisers. He condescends to add, that the sum he expects to realize will be 
 useful in publishing an edition de luxe of his sermons, on cream-laid paper, bound 
 in red morocco. Editors are mild and long-suffering men ; yet I fear that the reply x 
 that would be elicited by so extraordinary a proposition could not be printed with- 
 out several dashes. 
 
 If there is a distinctive American principle, understood by every schoolboy, it is 
 that any State favor shown to religious associations must give no unequal aid in 
 propagating the different creeds held by the churches ; and, if a given interpreta- 
 tion of the exemption-law must always violate this principle, it is not one that our 
 legislators can be supposed to countenance. An illustration will make plain the 
 violation I allege. ^ 
 
 Paul and Peter build churches in villages ten miles apart. Each pays for land 
 and building twenty thousand dollars. Both churches are alike in size ; and both 
 are filled. The service each renders the State is identical in value. At the end 
 of forty years, Paul’s church stands in the village where it was placed. Peter’s 
 church is now im the centre of a city, built up by the toils and risks of a heavily- 
 taxed population of all creeds and of no creed. Peter now proposes to sell his 
 church for two hundred thousand dollars ; the land upon which it stands having 
 acquired that value for commercial purposes. Whereupon Paul calls upon his legis- 
 lator, and makes this just complaint : — 
 
 “ While favoring our churches with a special privilege, I beg that you will take 
 care to favor them equally. Peter and I have rendered precisely the same service ; 
 yet, through your interference, Peter proposes to possess himself of a large sum of 
 money, nine-tenths of which he has in no way earned. I have only the twenty 
 thousand dollars that I earned by labor (for my church will bring no more if put 
 into the market) wherewith to evangelize the world with my scriptural Calvinism. 
 
 To be sure, I hold that sum untouched, through your privilege of exemption from 
 taxation ; but Peter asserts that this same privilege has given him ten times the 
 amount wherewith to forward his unscriptural Romanism. I ask you to do justice 
 between us.” 
 
 Now, if our supposed legislator be worthy to exercise his function, I hold that 
 he must reply substantially thus : — . 
 
9 
 
 1 
 
 “ My design was obviously to exempt from taxation the savings of a man’s la- 
 bor, provided he built a church with them. I also desired to assure church-mem- 
 bers that they should never be driven from their familiar houses of worship by taxes 
 assessed upon their increasing value as potential store-lots. I could do this justly 
 only upon the ground that they were consecrated to sacred uses, and were not 
 potential store-lots. It is evident that I never contemplated your churches as mar- 
 ketable commodities. So long as both are used for religious purposes, there is no 
 discrimination between you ; but now Peter proposes to turn into cash no.t only the 
 value of his own labor, exempted from all taxation, but the value of other people’s 
 labor, which he claims to hold under a similar privilege. He has no right to do this. 
 I exempted the value of his land as a perpetual church-lot , never as a future store- 
 lot. In assuming that he was possessed of this latter value, he uses my exemption 
 privilege to gain a great advantage over Paul, and to appropriate wealth for which 
 he has given no compensation. I therefore decree, that, if Peter chooses to sell his 
 church, he shall take his original twenty thousand dollars, untaxed and untouched, 
 and put them to such religious work as he shall elect. Or, if he asserts that his 
 shrewdness in selecting this church-site, now so valuable as a store-site, deserves 
 compensation, he may receive it on the same terms that all other citizens take the 
 increased value of their estates, — by showing receipts for back tax-bills.” 
 
 I think that every disinterested person must admit that such a decision would 
 carry out the intention of our exemption-laws, and bear some relation to equity and 
 common sense. Let us proceed to apply the principles that have been considered 
 to the case of 
 
 The Old South Church. 
 
 A little more than a year ago, a majority of the proprietors of the Old South 
 petitioned the Legislature for leave to lease that historical church to the United 
 States Government for a post-office. Let me recall the circumstances under which 
 that petition was presented. Boston had just been visited by an appalling calamity. 
 The Legislature was hastily summoned to lend any aid that might be possible in 
 that hour of her great distress. From the general ruin and confusion that suc- 
 ceeded the conflagration, the Post-Office had taken temporary refuge in Faneuil 
 Hall. It was urged that the functions of this important institution, vital to the 
 religious, social, and business interests of the afflicted city, should not be cramped 
 by the unsuitable situation to which it had been driven. Postmaster Burt came 
 before the committee of the Legislature with the statement that the Old South 
 Church was “ the only available . central position ” for the temporary use of the 
 Post-Office. I quote the exact words of his plea as given in the journals of the 
 day, “ The Government has decided that the Old South Church is the only place 
 they can go to ; and it will be bad policy to refuse to allow them to have it.” 
 And the decision of the Legislature, resulting, it must be supposed, from the weight 
 justly due to the testimony of Gen. Burt, was a correct one. All private interests, 
 be they theological, business, or sentimental, should be sacrificed to the general 
 good upon occasions of unexpected calamity. Whatever place the Gpvernment had 
 
10 
 
 decided was u the only plhco they could go to” to render proper postal service to 
 the citizens of Boston in that day of their distress, the Legislature of Massachusetts 
 might well consider itself bound to grant. It is to be especially noted, that the 
 action of the Legislature of 1872 concerning the Old South Church is no precedent 
 for further legislative action, and does not furnish the slightest presumption of in- 
 tention concerning its final disposition. 
 
 But if the action of the General Court admits of a satisfactory explanation, and 
 one that all citizens who respect their government are bound to put upon it, how 
 shall we explain the storm of indignant remonstrance which greeted the proprietors’ 
 petition ? It was owing to the motive that was perceived to animate their move- 
 ment. It was clear that they designed to shelter themselves behind the excuse of a 
 sudden public necessity, in order that they might with safety outrage the sentiment 
 and the property of the community. These proprietors (already enjoying an income 
 of forty-four thousand dollars per annum) asked permission to lease their old church 
 for two years for forty-six thousand dollars, in the hope, that, by its sale, they might 
 possess themselves of a yet larger sum, to which they had no equitable title. The 
 Merchant of Venice thought “ there was much kindness in the Jew ” who offered 
 him a loan in the day of his necessity. The merchants of Boston were not quite so 
 simple. The loan offered them by these Christian proprietors was to be paid for 
 by a usury that Shy lock himself might have blushed to ask. 
 
 Then came dignified remonstrances from the Congregational clergy, protests from 
 the leading citizens of Boston, a general condemnation from the higher portion of 
 the press, and a shower of small jests and sarcasms, in which the feelings of the 
 general community sought relief. It was asserted that the difference between the 
 sin of selling doves in the gates of the temple, and letting the temple itself as a post- 
 office, was not discernible to the carnal mind. It was asked that the inscription 
 that these proprietors had set upon the old church, giving the year of its “ desecra- 
 tion ” by British troops, should be followed by another record, proclaiming the date 
 of the second “ desecration,” the names of its “ desecrators,” and how much they 
 got for it. It was not right to say these things. Aggrieved persons should have 
 hearkened to the counsel of the Psalmist, and declined to sit “ in the seat of the 
 scornful.” We can only excuse them by remembering, that when the seat in ques- 
 tion is, as it were, stuffed and padded with all the resources known to ecclesiastical 
 upholstery, it takes a pretty good man to keep out of it. 
 
 At a meeting of the Orthodox ministers of Boston, a remonstrance against the 
 actions of the proprietors was carried by a majority of twenty-nine affirmative over 
 three negative votes. Distinguished divines of that faith, represented by the 
 honored names of Leonard Bacon, Theodore G. Woolsey, and Noah Porter, added 
 weight to the disapproval of the local clergy. The press throughout the country 
 expressed an indignation, which found its climax when “ The New York Nation,” 
 “ unused to the melting mood,” experienced an attack of commendable ‘‘sentiment- 
 alism.” 
 
 And the rumor of the day did no wrong to the parties who style themselves “ Pro- 
 prietors of the Old South Church.” They now propose to carry out their pro- 
 gramme with all convenient expedition. By a vote standing twenty-three in the 
 
11 
 
 affirmative to ten in the negative (let this dissenting minority be always honorabl) 
 remembered) tfyey come before the Legislature for leave to sell the church. 1 
 desire to put this modest petition into plainer words. The Legislature is ashed tc 
 lay a tax of some half-million of dollars upon the people, for the benefit of an 
 ecclesiastical corporation from whose views of religious truth an immense majority 
 of them dissent. I contend that the money that the Massachusetts Legislature has 
 permitted these proprietors to receive from the General Government constitutes not 
 only a most generous equivalent for the value of their church-site on the day when 
 Madam Norton gave to it them, but will cover whatever value there may be in the 
 bricks and other materials of the Old South, after deducting the expense of taking 
 it down. And, if the proprietors abandon the church by their own act, I assert 
 that this is all that a reasonable interpretation of our exemption-law should permit 
 them to carry off. It requires but little consideration to see that the sudden crea- 
 tion of competing store-sites for the benefit of an ecclesiastical corporation is equiv- 
 alent to an impost upon tax-paying citizens. The half-million of dollars which 
 a business-firm might give for the Old South lot must be taken from the floating 
 capital that would otherwise remunerate the risks, and reimburse the outlay of 
 tax-payers ; for, if this church-lot was not to be had, it is clear that the money 
 that would be paid for it must be expended in purchasing business facilities from 
 the holders of taxed real estate, and through them be distributed among the 
 people in just compensation for their sacrifices and labors. 
 
 But it may be urged, that it is very hard that this wealthy corporation should not 
 be permitted to appropriate half a million of the people’s money, seeing that other 
 ecclesiastical bodies have made off with value to which their title was no more satis- 
 factory. To which it may be answered, that, according to all sound ethical writers, 
 if a thing be wrong, no citation of precedents can make it right. The boy who 
 was caught carrying off the fish whose tail protruded beneath his jacket was much 
 distressed that some of his companions, who were content with taking shorter fishes, 
 escaped the notice of the policeman. The judge", however, did not recognize the 
 cogency of this affecting defence. When public indignation was excited by the 
 scandalous “ back pay grab” of the last Congress, the. ready apology was forth- 
 coming, that the same thing had been done before on a smaller scale, and had 
 excited no marked rebuke. This was very true ; and it is also true that the excuse 
 was worth nothing in the judgment of right-thinking persons. It was further urged, 
 in palliation of the congressmen’s “grab, ” that it was made under legal forms; 
 the members using powers, which, 1 under the law, they undoubtedly possessed. But 
 the proprietors of the Old South Church do not offer the poor apology that any law 
 gives them the power to make this levy upon the public. They come before Mas- 
 sachusetts legislators to ash permission to lay this assessment upon their constitu- 
 ents. In the case of the congressional “grab,” the people were graciously 
 permitted to tax the money which their representatives appropriated. Let it never 
 be forgotten, that, when the “grabbing ” is done by an ecclesiastical corporation, the 
 sum secured may be put beyond the reach of all taxation, and the people annually 
 assessed for the benefit of its appropriators. 
 
 It has been said that tlfff Old South is wanted for business-purposes. If that 
 
were true, its value for business-purposes should be paid into the public treasury 
 to lessen the fiscal burdens of the people. Undoubtedly, churches are sometimes 
 .in the way of street-widening, and other necessary improvements. When they 
 are taken for these objects, against the wishes of their congregations, government 
 should provide equally good church-buildings in convenient localities. Any claim 
 for further value is preposterous. But is the Old South wanted for business-pur- 
 poses ? I think that it is wanted for business-purposes in precisely the sense in which 
 Dr. Beecher’s old church is wanted for Terpsichorean purposes, and Boston Com- 
 mon is wanted for house-lots. We cannot too soon rid ourselves of the fallacy 
 that the interests of the community in a given piece of land are to be measured by 
 the price which an individual will pay for a monopoly of it. Mr. Barnum would 
 give a very high rent for the use of Westminster Abbey as a circus and menagerie ; 
 but it would be an abuse of language to say that the people of London wanted 
 their cathedral for those purposes. 
 
 But the Congregational clergy tell us that the Old South is wanted for religious! 
 uses ; and their opinion deserves respect. Is it not in the place, of all others 
 where a church is wanted? A writer in the last “Westminster Review” per 
 nently asks, “ How is it that we build our churches where we sleep , and not where 
 in the proper sense of the word, we live ? How is it that the idea of retiring fror 
 the world’s friction and temptation, to the seclusion and quiet of God’s house tl 
 pray, excites a smile? Is it not a proof that we make religion a thing to b] 
 donned with our Sunday clothes, and reserved for special occasions ? ” I am sur] 
 that there are religious teachers in Boston who can fill the Old South everj 
 Sunday and several evenings in the week. When all just claims of these allege! 
 proprietors have been satisfied, the church would seem to belong to the people : 
 might be kept as a sort of sacred Faneuil Hall, where good men of every nar 
 and creed could preach the truth that was in them. Let this go as a suggestio] 
 which I do not press. If the Congregational clergy can show that they have 
 peculiar claim upon the old church, after its abandonment by the proprietors, 
 doubt they will put it to good use. 
 
 Although it has seemed to me right to state the case of the people against th| 
 wealthy corporation in as strong language as the facts would justify, I make 
 imputation against the motives of individuals who compose it. Honorable ai 
 good men, acting as members of a corporate body, have, before now, appropriate 
 to their sectarian uses value which no just interpretation of our exemption-la^ 
 can be stretched to cover. They helped themselves upon a comparatively smal 
 scale, outraged no public sentiment, and, I suppose, experienced no twinge 
 conscience. It probably never occurred to them that their title was not goc 
 to all they could get off with unchallenged. And here, in truth, lies the mo| 
 alarming feature of the matter. When the assumption, now prevailing, that tl 
 people have no rights which moneyed corporations are bound to respect, has reack 
 those bodies who profess to be the especial guardians of religion and morality, it 
 time for the legislator to give redress.