american atheist magazine nov/dec 1964

8/10/2019 American Atheist Magazine Nov/Dec 1964

1/55

M E I I C I T E I S T

/ I bttf~M

ol.6: No. 11 and 12

One Dollar

ovember December 1964

(Picture from the Denver Catholic Register for January

14, 1965.)

President Johnson's much heralded

$1.5

billion

plan for federal aid to education hae just been sent to Con-

gress. It is advertised as a new venture to encourage public

and parochial school cooperation to aid needy children and

cut through the Church-State impasse over government aid to

education. The program calls primarily for

$1

billion to 'be

given public school districts enrolling children from needy

families.

Aware that a substantial part of the War on Poverty

funds have already fallen into the hands of the Catholic

Church and being concerned about the remaining one-half

billion dollars from the President's plan that would be avail-

able to private and parochial schools, the Freethought

Society of America and POAU have joined forces in register-

ing oppos it ion to this plan.

(See page 3])

-


2/55

AttIIIIINf

or

oJWNlllHl ,

MANACMMIN' r

AND

C IIIC\ILATION

No

..,_ .J, ~ _ .,.,.T III


3/55

The American Athe ist,

N o t i c e

In the area of separation of church and state there

have recently been three important developments, all

revolving around the issue of government subsidy of

religion. They are

(1)

The ruling of the lower court

against our suit brought before it to force the church to

pay its fair

share

of property taxes,

(2)

The suit brought

before the Maryland Courts by the Horace Mann League

challenging the constitutionality of State aid to church

schools, and

(3)

Endorsement by the President's 1.5

Billion School Aid Plan of the ltshared time programs,

in which private and parochial school students use

some facilities of the public schools. All three of

these issues are of major importance; their resolution

will have far reaching consequences. Therefore, a

substantial part of this issue will be devoted to a dis-

cussion of these developments.

L O W E R C O U R T R U L I N G A G A I N S T

T H E T A X T H E C H U R C H

P R O P E R T Y

C A S E

In a Z4-page Memorandum Opinion filed by Judge

Wilson K. Barnes of the Circuit Court #2 of Baltimore

setting forth in detail the facts and the reasons for the

Court's ruling against the suit to force the church to

pay its' fair share of property taxes, Judge Barnes

declared that tax exemption of church property does not

violate the First or Fourteenth Amendment of the

Constitution of the United States. He concluded,

November-December1964

Baltimore, Maryland 21218

the exemption does not result in the establishment of

religion or in state action prohibiting the free exercise

thereof. And, ... there is no denial of due process

of law as prohibited to the States by the Fourteenth

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

We of course expected to lose this

cas

E

in the lower

court, however, we disagree that tax exemption of

church property does not violate the First or Fourteenth

Amendment and contend that the exemption constitutes

a clear establishment of religion by the state, seriously

restricting the free exercise of religion. Free exercise

of religion is only a part of the important concept of

Religious Freedom which must include freedom from

religion as well as of religion. Hence, it should be

obvious that we as Atheists and others not enjoying

this exemption are compelled to maintain places of

worship and ministries, a practice prohibited by the

Declaration of t1ights of the Maryland Constitution.

We have appealed this case to the State Appeals

Court for these reasons: (1) Our conscience is violated

in that we are forced to contribute to the maintenance

of institutions we do not attend or benefit from, and to

support beliefs to which we do not subscribe; (2) Our

case is a sound one with considerable public support

in every state of the Union, particularly from religious

circles; and (3) We are convinced that the time is now

to bring this case before the United States Supreme

Court. Based on the nature of today's Court and its

language in the Prayer and Bible case, we a.e confident

that we will be successful in reaching the Court and,

once there, in having the tax exemption now granted

church property by all of the 50 states and the District

of Columbia d rclared unconstitutional.

Wepresent here an edited reprint of the Memorandum

Opinion filed by Judge Barnes because the interest of

our subscribers is very great in this suit. In the Aug-

Sept. issue of The American Atheist we reprinted in

full the testimony of your editor who testified as an

Atheist when the suit was heard for its merits on July

1, 1964. At that time we stated that the intervention

of Lemoin Cree, his wife, and the Freethought Society

rf America as additional parties Plaintiff had saved

the suit from sinking into oblivion. Previous to July 1,

1964 Mrs. Madalyn E. Murray and her mother, the origin-

al plaintiffs, had irresponsibly (and illegally) fled the

state withou t making any provision for the continuation

of the suit-without even notifying the lawyer in the

suit, Mr. Leonard J. Kerpelman. You will note in the

Opinion that our intervention and testimony AS AN

ATHEIST did indeed save the suit and had an affirma-

ti ve bearing on it.

Page 1


4/55

The American Atheist, Baltimore, Maryland 21218

MADAL YN E. MURRAY , T r u s t e e, and *

L EDJ I E MAYS,

*

Or i g i na l P l a i nt i f f s ,

*

I N THE

EMOI N CREE and

MARI E CREE, h i s wi f e , and

F REET HOUGHT SOCI ET Y OF AMERI CA>

*

*

I n t e r veni ng P l a i n t i f f s ,

*

CI RCUI T COURT NO. 2

v s .

*

LOUI ~ L . GOL DSTEI N, Compt r o l l er o f t he

T r eas ur y o f Mar y l and, *

ALBERT W. WARD, Di r e ct or ,

St a t e Depar t ment of As s es s ment s , *

ROBERT L . MAI NEN, Super v i s o r o f

As se s sment s o f Ba l t i mor e Ci t y ,

*

J OHN G. ARTHUR, Di r ec t o r o f A s s e s s men t s

of Ba l t i mor e Ci t y ,

*

Or i g i na l De f endant s ,

OF

*

and

BAL T I MORE CI T Y

*

T HE MOST REVEREND LAURE NCE J. SHEHAN,

Ro man Cat ho l i c Ar c hbi s hop of

*

Bal t i mor e , a Co r po r a t i on So l e ,

THE CONVENT I ON OF THE PROTESTANT *

E P I SCOPAL CHURCH OF THE DI OCESE

OF MARYLAND>

*

UNI T ED CHRI ST I AN CI T I ZENS , I NCORPORATED,

TEMPLE EMANUEL OF BAL T I MORE, and

*

MARYLAND SYNOD OF THE L UT HERAN CHURCH

I N AMERI CA, *

No .

A - 3 8 8 5 1

Doc k et 7 2 - A

F o l i o

3 4 3

I n t e r v e ni ng De f endant s . *

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPI NI ON

The Or i g i na l Bi l l o f Compl a i nt was f i l ed i n t hi s Cour t on Oc t o ber

1 5 , 1 9 6 3

by Mada l y n E. Mur r ay , Tr us t ee and L eddi e May s , t he Or i gi n a l P l a i n t i f f s , aga i n s t t he

Compt r ol l e r o f t he Tr eas ur y o f Mar yl a nd, t he Di r ec t or o f t he St at e Depar t ment o f

As ses sment s and Taxa t i on, t he Super v i s o r o f As s es s ment s of Ba l t i mor e Ci t y and t he

Di r ec t o r o f As s es s me n t s o f Ba l t i mor e Ci t y . The pr aye r s f or r e l i e f wer e t ha t :

Page 2 November-December 1964


5/55


1 .

A r t i c l e

8 1 ,

Se ct i o n

9 ( 4 )

o f t he Anno t at ed Code o f Mar yl a nd

( 1 9 5 7

~L t i o n) , ( t he Mar y l a nd Code ) , be dec l a r ed unc ons t i t ut i o na l .

2 . The Or i g i na l De f endant s be enj o i ned f r om c a r r y i ng out Ar t i c l e 8 1 ,

Se ct i on

9(4)

o f t he Mar yl a nd Code and f r om gr ant i ng any f ur t he r ex c ept i ons f r om

t ax at i on unde r t ha t Sec t i on .

3 . The Or i g i na l De f endant s be di r e c t ed t o i nc l ude upon t he i r l i s t s o f

t ax ab l e pr oper t y a l l hous es and bu i l d i n gs us ed f or publ i c wo r shi p and any ~a r sonage

u8ed i n c onnec t i o n t her ewi t h and t he gr ounds appur t enant t o s uc h hous es , bui l d i n gs

and pa r sonages , and a l s o be di r ec t ed t o l e v y and c o l l e c t t ax es upon s uc h hous es ,

pa r s onages and gr ounds appur t enant wh i c h a r e no t us ed f or r e l i g i o us s e r v i c e s o r f or

publ i c wor s hi p , and

4 .

The Or i g i na l P l a i n t i f f s may hav e o t he r and f ur t he r r e l i e f .

T he Cour t per m t t ed f i ve r e l i g i o us bodi e s t o i n t e r vene as pa r t i e s

De f endant . Thes e we r e t he Roman Ca t ho l i c Ar chbi s hop o f Ba l t i mor e, t he Convent i on

o f t he P r ot es t an t Epi s c opa l Chur ch i n The Di o c e s e o f Mar yl a nd , t he Uni t ed Chr i s t i an

Ci t i z ens , I n c o r po r at ed, Templ e Emanue l o f Ba l t i mor e, and t he Ma r yl a nd Sy nod o f t he

L ut h e r a n Chur c h i n Amer i c a.

The Cour t a l s o pe r m t t ed L emo i n Cr ee and Ma r i e Cr ee , h i s wi f e, and F r ee -

t hought Soc i e t y o f Amer i c a t o i n t er v ene as add i t i ona l pa r t i e s P l a i n t i f f . Th i s i n t er -

v ent i on wi l l r ec e i v e addi t i o na l c omment l a t er i n t hi s Op i n i o n.

The Or i gi na l Bi l l o f Compl a i nt i s a t ax pay er s s u i t f i l ed by Mr s . Mur r ay , a s

t r us t ee and by Mr s . May s , a s t axpay e r s , on t he i r own beha l f and on beha l f o f a l l

o t he r t ax pay e r s s i m l a r l y s i t ua t ed. They a l l ege t ha t t hey ar e c i t i z ens o f t he Un i t ed

St a t es and o f t he St a t e o f Mar y l and and a r e t ax pay e r s o f t he St a t e o f Mar y l and ( t he

S t a t e ) and o f t he Ci t y o f Ba l t i mor e ( t he Ci t y ) by v i r t ue o f t he i r owne r s h i p o f a

j o i n t l e a s eho l d e s t at e i n t he pr ope r t y 1 5 2 6 W nf or d Road , Ba l t i mo r e Ci t y , Ma r yl a nd.

I t i s t hen a l l eged t ha t t he Or i g i na l De f endant s hav e v a r i ous dut i es i n

November-December 1964

Page 3


6/55

T he American Atheist, Baltimore, Maryland 21218

~ r ega r d t o t he as s es s ment and c o l l e c t i on o f t axabl e pr oper t y i n t he St at e and Ci t y;

-

:

~ that taxes are levied by the riginal efendants against the property of the

r i g i n a l

Q

~

=

P l a i n t i f f s and ar e l e v i e d uni f o r m y aga i n s t a l l o t her l i k e pr ope r t y owner s whos e

CI

z

~ pr oper t y i s no t exempt ed f r om t ax at i on; t ha t owner - s o f pr oper t y , l i k e i n k i nd and i n

Q

~

~ s i t ua t i on t o t he pr oper t y o f t he Or i gi na l P l a i n t i f f s a r e no t be i ng t ax ed uni f or m y

y l it h t hem by t he Or i g i na l De f e ndant s but a r e be i ng exempt ed f r om as s es s ment and t ax a -

t i o n whe r e s uc h pr ope r t i e s a r e be i n g us ed f or pub l i c wor sh i p , i . e . , pUbl i c r el i g i o us

s e r vi c es , o r a r e be i n g us ed as pa r s onages i n c onnec t i o n wi t h s uc h pl a c es o f publ i c

wo r s hi p and appur t enant gr ounds , s uc h exc ept i on be i ng pur por t ed l y gr ant ed by Ar t i c l e

81 , Sec . 9(4) o f t he Mar yl a nd Code ; and, t ha t t hes e ac t i ons by t he Or i g i n a l

Def endant s p l a c e a d i r e c t de t r i ment and f i n anc i a l bur den upon t he Or i g i n a l P l a i n t i f f s

whos e t ax bur den i s t her eby i n c r eas ed f o r t he s o l e pur pos e o f a i d i n g and s uppo r t i n g

t he r el i g i o us pr ac t i c es and r el i g i o us i n s t i t ut i ons o f o t he r s , s i n c e a dec r eas e i n t he

t axabl e baSi S , does by l aw r equ i r e an i nc r eas e i n t he r at e o f t ax at i on o f t ho s e .

t a x ed . II

F i v e gr ounds o f unc ons t i t u t i o na l i t y and i n va l i d i t y unde r bot h t he

Cons t i t ut i ons o f t he St at e and o f t he Uni t ed St at es ar e t hen a l l e ged~ Thes e a r e:

1. The ac t s o f t he Or i g i n a l De f endant s c ont r avene Ar t i c l e

36

o f t he

Dec l a r at i on o f Ri g ht s i n t he Ma r yl a nd Cons t i t ut i on as t hey i n di r e c t e f f ec t c ompe l

t he Or i g i n a l P l a i n t i f f s as t axpay er s , and a l l o t he r t ax paye r s , t o ma i n t ai n and

c ont r i but e t o a pl a c e o f wo r s hi p o r a m n i s t r y .

2. Thes e ac t s and pr ac ' Uc es v i o l a t e Ar t i c l e 15 o f t he Ma r yl a nd Dec l a r at i on

o f Ri g ht s pr ov i d i n g f o r uni f o r m t y o f t ax as s es s ment s s o t ha t t ax es may be i mpos ed

upon a l l member s o f t he c onnnunit y f o r pUbl i c pur pos es onl y and t he f ur t her anc e o f

publ i c wo r s hi p i s no t a v a l i d pub l i c pur pos e .

3. Thes e ac t s , pr ac t i c es and s t a t ut e deny . due pr oc es s o f l a w c ont r a r y t o

A r t i c l e 23 o f t he Mar y l and Dec l a r at i o n o f Ri ght s .

Page 4

NQvembe I '-Decem,ber 1964


7/55


z

o

-

Z

0.

o

: 2 :

:::)

CI

z:

~

r: :c

o

: : :

LI . I

: 2 :

4 .

The s e a c t s , p r ac t i c e s and s t at ut es v i o l a t e t he F i r s t Amendment t o t h e

Co ns t i t u t i o l : o f t he Un i t ed S t at es as made app l i c ab l e t o t he s t at es by t he F ou r t een t h

Amendment o f T ha t ~ons t i t u t i on i n t ha t t hey c ons t i t u t e a l a w r es pe c t i ng an e s t ab l i s h -

ment o f r e l i g i on and a l aw pr oh i bi t i ng t he f r e e ex e r c i s e t he r eo f .

5 .

The s e a c t s , p r ac t i c es and s t a t ut e s deny due pr o c e s s o f l aw unde r t he

F ou r t eent h Amendme n t .

I t i s f ur t he r a l l e ged t ha t de c l a r at or y r el i e f i s r e~u i r ed unde r t he Un i f o r m

De c l a r a t o r y J udgment s Ac t ( Ar t i c l e 31 A, Se c t i ons 1 - 16 o f t he Ma r y l and Code ) , t h a t

i n j u nc t i v e r el i e f i s a l s o r e~u i r e d and t ha t t he Or i g i na l P l a i n t i f f s ha v e no ade~ua t e

r emedy a t l aw.

As t he c ons t i t u t i ona l i t y o f a s t at ut e o f t he S t a t e i s i nv o l v ed , t he At t o r ney

Gener a l o f Mar y l and was s e r v ed wi t h a c opy o f t he Or i gi na l Bi l l o f Compl a i nt a s

r e~u i r e d by Ar t i c l e 31 A, Se c t i on 11 o f t he Mar y l a nd Code .

Ans we r s we r e du l y f i l ed on beha l f o f t he Or i g i na l De f e ndan t s and on be ha l f

o f mo s t o f t he I n t er ven i n g De f endan t s . I n gene r al t he s e Ans we r s i nd i c a t ed no

k nowl edge i n r ega r d t o t he s t a t us o r p r o pe r t y ho l d i n gs o f t he Or i g i na l P l a i n t i f f s

a nd den i e d t he v a r i o us l e ga l c o nc l u s i o ns s e t f or t h i n t he Or i g i na l Bi l l o f Comp l a i n t ;

i n mo s t o f t he An s we r s i t wa s den i e d t ha t t he Or i g i n a l P l a i n t i f f s had s u f f i c i e nt

i n t e r e s t , f i r . a nc i a l o r o t he r wi s e , t o s eek a dec l a r a t o r y dec r ee unde r t he Un i f or m

Dec l a r a t o r y J udgment s Ac t , t ha t t he r e wa s a j us t i f i a b l e i s s ue s u f f i c i e n t t o g i v e t he

Or i g i na l P l a i n t i f f s s t and i n g t o ob t ai n an i n j u nc t i on on t he g r ounds t ha t Ar t i c l e 81 ,

Se ct i o n 9 ( 4 ) o f t he Ma r yl a nd Code was unc ons t i t u t i ona l , t ha t t he r e wa s a c a s e o r

c on t r ov e r s y wi t h i n t he mean i ng o f Ar t i c l e I I I , Se c t i on 2 o f t he Cons t i t u t i on o f t he

Un i t e d S t at e s and t ha t t he ex c ep t i on unde r t he Ma . r y l a nd S t a t u t e wa s unc ons t i t u t i o na l .

I n t he o r i g i na l ans we r s f i l ed on beha l f o f t he Or i g i na l De f endan t s , i t

was adm t t ed t ha t t he Or i g i n a l P l a i n t i f f s we r e t ax pay e r s o f t he St a t e o f Ma r y l a nd .

Th i s adm s s i o n wa s wi t h d r awn i n an Amended Ans we r f i l e d on J u ne 2 5> 1 96 4 wi t h l e a v e

o f Cou r t .

November .December 1964

Page 5


8/55


I n t he ans wer f i l ed on beha l f o f Templ e Emanue l o f Ba l t i mor e , t he i n t e r e s t -

i ng and nove l de f ens e i s r a i s ed t hat not onl y i s t he exempt i on o f t he s ~ogue

f r o m t a xat i on by Ar t i c l e 81, Sec . 9(4) o f t he Mar y l and Code c ons t i t ut i onal , but t h a t

a f a i l ur e t o exc ept t hat pl ac e o f publ i c wor s hi p f r om t axat i on by t he St a t e and Ci t y

woul d r e sul t i n an unl awf u l and unc on s t i t u t i ona l abr i dgment o f r el i g i ous l i ber t y ,

t he f r ee exer c i s e of r e l i gi on and t he s epar at i on of c hur ch and s t at e

ll

i n v i o l a t i on

o f t he F i r s t and Fou r t eent h Amendment s t o t he Cons t i t u t i o n o f t he Uni t ed S t a t es and

t he Mar y l a nd Dec l a r at i o n o f Ri ght s .

The s ui t c ame on f or hear i ng on i t s mer i t s on J u l y 1, 1964. L eonar d J .

Ke rpe l man, s o l i c i t o r f or t he Or i g i n a l P l a i n t i f f s as k ed l eave of Cour t , i n open Co u r t

a t t he hear i ng, t o move f or t he i n t er vent i on o f L emo i n Cr ee and Mar i e Cr ee , hi s W f e ,

and o f F r eet hought Soc i e t y o f Amer i c a, ( F r eet hought Soc i et y ) , an Ohi o Cor por a t i o n,

as addi t i ona l pa r t i es P l a i nt i f f , and f or l eave t o f i l e an Amended Bi l l o f Comp l a i n t

s e t t i ng up t he i r pos i t i on as t axp~er s and t he i r i nt e r es t i n t he l i t i ga t i o n.

Mr s . Mur r ~ and Mr s . Mays had r emoved t h ems el ves f r om t he St a t e o f Mar y l a nd

t o t he s t a t e of Har l a i i s hor t l y pr i o r t o t he hear i ng under c i r c ums t anc es whi c h need

not be r ec i t ed her e. The s o l i c i t or s f or t he Or i g i na l Def endant s and f or s ame of t he

I nt e r v eni ng Def e ndant s s t r enuous l y obj e c t ed t o t he r eques t ed i nt e r vent i on of Mr . and

-

Mr s . Cr ee' and o f t he F r eet hought Soc i e t y and t he f i l i n g o f an Amended Bi l l o f

Compl a i n t on t he i r behal f . The Cour t r es er ved i t s r ul i n g on t he mot i on at t ha t

t i me and di r ec t ed t he hear i ng t o pr oc eed, s ubj e c t t o t he exc ept i on o f t he Or i gi n a l

Det endSnt s t o t he mot i on f o r i nt e r vent i on.

~~e t es t i mony es t abl i s hed t he f o l l owi ng:

(See American Atheist lor Aug-Sept. con

t

ad.ni.ng entire testimony)

The Or i g i n a l Def endant s of f e r ed t he t es t i m


9/55

The American Atheist Baltimore, Maryland 21218

~ lIe has been wi t h t he C1t y

f

e Dep~ent of As se s smen t s

tor.

38 yea r s i n a l l . He i s a

~

~ devo t ed and we l l i n f or med publ i c s e r vant . Af t er des c r i bi n g h i s dut i es as Di r ec t or ,

o

:: l

=

whi c h i nc l u de t he as s es s ment of pr oper t y i n t he Ci t y f o r t ax pur pos es and t he appl i -

Q

z

~ c at i on o f t he l aws o f t he St at e i n r ega r d t o s uc h as s es s ment , Mr . Ar t hur po i n t ed out

Q

: iE

~ t ha t t he t axabl e bas i s i n s ubs t ant i a l pa r t i s de t er m ned by t he as s es s ment s made by

hi s Depar t ment , t he budget i s f o r mul a t ed by t he Budget Di r e c t or , appr oved by t he

Boar d o f Es t i mat es and i s t hen s ubm t t ed t o t he Ci t y Counc i l o f Ba l t i mor e Ci t y f or

f i n a l ac t i on . By t he pr ov i s i o nS o f t he Ba l t i mor e Ci t y Cha r t er , t he Ci t y Counc i l m~

e l i m na t e o r r educ e i t ems i n t he budget , but may no t i n c r eas e t hem. Af t er t he f i na l

amount o f t he Ci t y ' s Bu~get i s de t er m ned, t he t ax r at e on r ea l pr oper t y f or m v ~

t he pr i n c i pa l pa r t o f t he t axabl e bas i s i s f i x ed. The gr ea t er t he amount o f t he

as s es s abl e bas i s i s , t he l e s s eac h t axpayer has t o pay on hi s own r ea l es t at e as

Pr oper t y whi c h i s exempt ~r om t ~~t i o n by l a w i s no t pa r t o f t he as s es s abl e bas i s Q

At t he r eques t o f t he At t or ney Gener al , Mr . Ar t hur had as s embl e d t he

c omput er s hee t s o f t he Ci t y whi c h s howed t he t ax exempt pr oper t y i n t he Ci t y as

exempt e d by Ar t i c l e

8 1 ,

Sec t i o n

9 ( 4 )

o f t he Mar yl a nd C~de , as p l a c es o f publ i c

wo r s hi p , pa r s o nages , and appur t enant gr ound. Ther e a r e a number o f o t he r exempt i o ns

f r om t axa t i on i n Sec t i on 9, i nc l u d i n g publ i c pr oper t y, j ' l : a t e r n albene f i c i a r y

aasocf,a .

t i ons , hos p i t a l s , c ha r i t ab l e i n s t i t ut i ons , e t c . , a s wi l l be l a t er ' ) o i nt e d out , but

t he c omput e r s hee t s o f f e r ed as Agr ee, ~Exhi b i t 1 , wer e c onf i ned t o Subs ec t i on 4 o f

Sec t i o n

9.

Chr i s o i - i anc ongr ega t i ons wer e di v i ded i nt o t wo gr oups : Roman Cat ho l i c ,

mar ked wi t h a r ed c hec k mar k , and P r ot e s t ant mar ked wi t h a bl ue c hec k mar k .

J e wi s h c ongr ega t i ons wer e mar ked wi t h a gr een c hec k mar k . Whi l e no t pur po r t i n g t o

be an abs o l u t e c hec k , t he s t udy i s r oughl y ac c ur at e and s hows t he f o l l owi n g t ot a l

as s es s ment s exempt i n t he l ev y f o r 1 9 6 4 f r om t axa t i o n i n t he Ci t y under Ar t i c l e 8 1 ,

Sec t i o n 9( 4) :

P r o t e s t . ant

Roman Cat ho l i c

J ewi s h

4 1 , 0 3 1 , 4 3 0

3 1 , 3 3 9 , 8 8 0

6 , 1 3 6 , 5 1 0

$ 78 ,5 07 , 8 20


Page 1


10/55

The r ec o r ds o f t he Ci t y i nd i c a t e t he t ot al as s es s abl e bas i s o f t he Ci t y

II:

o

i

a. .

o

I

o

:II:

c

a:

~

:E

Of t he

5 7 8 , 9 9 7 , 4 0 0

t o t a l exempt pr oper t y ,

7 8 , 5 07 , 8 2 0 . 0 0

i s ex empt by

v i r t ue of Ar t i c l e 8 1 , Sec t i o n 9 ( 4 ) o f t he Mar y l and Code .

f o r

1 9 6 4

as f o l l ows :

Al l t axabl e r ea l pr oper t y

Al l t ax exempt pr oper t y

To t a l o f a l l r ea l es t at e, bo t h

t a xabl e and exempt

2 , 2 6 3 , 7 08 , 7 6 8 . 0 0

5 7 8 , 9 9 7 , 4 0 0 . 0 0

2 , 8 4 2 , 7 06 , 1 6 8 . 0 0

Mr . Ar t hur s t at ed t he met hods us ed by t he as s es s or s o f t he Depar t ment i n

ar r i v i n g a t va l u es f or t he pur pos es o f t axat i o n . Ther e ar e t he t hr ee us ua l met hods

us ed i n r ea l es t at e appr ai s a l and s pe l l e d out i n t he Manua l i s s ued by t he St at e

Depar t ment of As s es s ment s and Taxat i on , whi c h, i n t i me , i s bas ed on Boec k ' s Manua l

f or Appr ai s e r s . I n as s es s ment s f or l a nd, t he c ompar abl e s a l e s met hod i s us ed, wi t h

a f r ont f oo t c a l c ul a t i on i n many i n s t anc es and i n s ome, but no t many i n s t anc es , a

un i t va l u e , bas ed on an ac r eage va l u at i o n . F o r de t er m n i n g t he va l u e of bui l d i n gs ,

t he c os t l e s s depr ec i a t i on met hod may be us ed. I f t hi s met hod i s us ed, t he l a nd

va l ue i s added t o t he va l ue of t he bui l d i n g as t hus det er m ned. I n s ome i n s t anc es

a c ompar abl e s a l e s va l u e f o r t he ent i r e pr oper t y may be us ed and i n ot he r i n s t anc es

an i nc ome c api t a l i z a t i on met hod wi t h appr opr i a t e a l l o c at i ons as be t ween l and and

i mpr o vement s , may be us ed.

Under t he po l i c y es t ab l i s hed by t he St at e Depar t ment of As s es s ment s and

Taxat i o n , t he f i n a l f i g ur e f or pur pos es of t axa t i o n o f l a nd as s es s ed by t he met hods

des c r i bed i s

: : f o

o f t he c ur r ent f ul l c as h va l ue . Mr . Ar t hur f r ee l y adm t t ed t hat

as s es s ment o f pr oper t y f o r t axa t i on , even us i ng t he es t abl i s hed met hods out l i ned,

i s no t an exac t s c i e nc e .

Ar t i c l e 81, Sec t i o n

9 ( 4 )

pr o vi d es :

(4) Chur c hes , par s onages , et c , , - Hous es and bui l d i ngs

us ed exc l u s i v e l y f o r publ i c wo r shi p , and t he f ur ni t u r e _ c o nt a i ne d

t he r ei n , and any par s onage us ed i n c onnec t i o n t he r ewi t h and t he

gr ounds appur t enant t o s uc h hous es , bui l d i ngs and par s onages and

nec es s a r y f o r t he r es pec t i v e us es t he r eof .

Page 8

November-December 1


11/55

The American Atheist Baltimore Maryland 21218

.~

I n appl y i ng t hi s exempt i o n , Mr . Ar t hur and t he Ci t y Depar t ment o f As s es s -

)

ment s have gi ven t he wo r ds I I publ i c wo r s hi p l l a c ompr ehens i ve i nt e r pr e t a t i on, Hous es .

bui l d i n gs and appur t enant l ands us ed f o r t eac hi ng o r c ont empl a t i n g t he be l i e f s o f

~ phi l o s oph i c a l s y s t em, r egar dl e s s o f whet he r t ha t ph i l o s ophi c a l s y s t em i n c l u des a

be l i e f i n a Supr eme Be i n g, a r e c ons i d er ed t o be ex empt under Sec t i on 9 ( 4 ) and s uc h

ex empt i o ns ar e gr ant ed i n t he r egul a r c our s e o f adm ni s t er i ng t he t ax l a ws . F o r

ex ampl e , t he pr ope r t y us ed by t he Ba l t i mor e Et hi c al Cul t ur e Soc i e t y wh i c h does not

,

t eac h any be l i e f i n a Supr eme Be i n g, but wh i c h c onf i n es i t s t eac h i n gs t o mo r al and

et h i c a l s t a nda r ds and educ at i ona l pur pos es has been exempt ed under Sec t i on 9 ( 4 ) .

P r oper t y us ed by Buddhi s t o r gani z a t i ons f o r t he i r r e l i g i ous t eac h i ngs ar e exempt ed.

The Ph i l os ophi c a l Co l l e ge o f Oc c ul t Sc i e nc e has had i t s pr oper t y ex empt ed under

Se ct i o n

9 ( 4 ) .

Over obj e c t i o n and s ubj e c t t o ex c ept i o n, Mr , Ar t hur t es t i f i ed t hat

a f t e r ~av i ng hea r d Mr . Cr ee des c r i b e hi s p~i l os ophi c a l s y s t em, i f app~i c at i o n wer e

made, t h e pr o pe r t y

o t

t ~e F r eet hougAt Soc i e t y woul d be gr ant e d an ex e~pt i on unde r

I

Se ct i o n 9 ( 4 ) .

The St a t e t ax r a t e i s 15 c ent s f or $100 o f as s es s ed v a l ue . Thi s i s l ev i ed

t o pr ot ec t t he bond i s s es o f t he St at e.

By s t i p ul a t i o ns i n Agr eed Exhi bi t 4 , i t was agr eed t ha t t he Roman Ca t ho l i c

Ar chb i s hop o f Ba l t i mo r e i s a c o r por at i o n s o l e hav i n g t i t l e t o, o r be i n g P r es i d ent o f

COl ~o r at i o ns , hav i n g t i t l e t o va r i o us pr oper t i e s o f t he Romand Cat ho l i c Chur ch i n

t he Ci t y i n c l ud i n g

1 6 3

pa r i s hes or m s s i o n c hur ches . The h i s t or y o f t he i n c o r por a-

t i o n o f t he Conv ent i o n o f t he P r ot es t ant Epi s copa l Chur ch i n t he Di o c es e o f Ma r y l a nd

was agr eed upon i n Agr eed Exhi bi t

3 ,

i t s aut ho r i z at i o n t o i nt e r vene was es t abl i s hed

and a c ompl e t e l i ~t o f t he pr ope r t i e s o f t he Convent i o n was g i v en , wi t h an aggr egat e

v a l ue o f Di o c es an pr ope r t i e s i n ex c es s o f $2 , 0 00, 0 00. Templ e Emanue l , by s t i p ul a -

t i on i n Agr eed ' Exh i b i t 5 , i s a Re f o r med J ewi s h Congr egat i on i nc or po r a t e d under

Ar t i c l e 21 o f t he Mar y l a nd Code as a r el i g i o us c o r por at i o n, aut hor i z ed t o i n t er vene

N o ve m be r-D ec em b er 1 96 4

Page 9


12/55

The American Atheist


i n t he s ui t . I t s pr ope r t y i n t he Ci t y i s as s es s ed as f o l l ows:

Land

I mpr ovement s

Tot a l

$16, 945. 0 0

21, 3 00 . 0 0

l 38, 24 5. 00

By agr eed Exhi b i t 6, i t was s t i pul a t ed t hat t he Cong r e g at i ons o f t he

Mar y l and Synod o f t he L ut her an Chur c h. i n Ame r i c a had t o t a l as s e t s o f $ 35 , 3 56, 581 o f

whi c h $13 , 63 7, 275 wer e l o c a t ed i n Ba l t i mo r e Ci t y . Thi s was s ubj e c t t o $247, 625 o f

i nd eb t e dnes s . I t s r i ght t o i nt e r vene was not c ha l l enged.

I t was es t abl i s hed a l s o t hat t he pr ope r t y 2502 Nor t h Ca l ver t St r e e t ,

Ba l t i mor e , Ma r y l and was as ses sed f o r t axat i on f o r 1962 as f o l l o ws :

Land

I mpr ovement s

T o t a l

$ 1640. 00

6600. 00

$ 8240. 00

On t hi s as s es s ment , S t at e and Ci t y t axes o f $353. 50 ( l es s a di s count on

t he Ci t y t axes o f $3. 41) wer e pa i d on J a nua r y 24, 1964.

The i ndi v i dua l a s s es s ment s o f t he pr ope r t y oc c upi ed by t he Cat hedr al o f

Mar y Our Queen, t he pr o per t y oc c up i ed by t he s ynagogue o f t he Ba l t i mor e Hebr ew

Cong r ega t i on and t he pr ope r t y oc c upi ed by t he s y nagogue o f t he Har Si na i Congr ega -

t i o n wer e gi ven, but as t hes e as s es s ment s a l l appear ed t o be i n ac cor d anc e W t h t he

met hods us ed by t he Depar t ment , i t i s no t nec es s ar y f or t h i s s ui t t o gi v e t he

i ndi v i dua l f i gur es .

Subs equent t o t he c ompl e t i on o f t he t e s t i mony on J u l y 1, 1964, Mr .

Ke r p l eman, i n ac c or danc e wi t h t he Cour t ' s s ugges t i o n a t t he hear i ng, f i l ed a f onmU

Pet i t i on f o r l e ave t o f i l e an I n t er l i n eat ed Amended Bi l l o f Compl a i n t and s ubm t t e d

t he pr opos ed Amended ' Bi l l o f Compl a i nt . Thes e pape r s ' Wer e f i l e d i n t he Cl e r k' s

Of f i c e on J ul y 23, 1964. The onl y s ubs t ant i al c ha r ge i n t he Or i g i na l Bi l l o f

C a n -

pl a i n t was t he add i t i on o f Mr . and Mr s . Cr ee and t he F r ee t hought Soc i e t y as

part

P l a i n t i f f and o f

a

new Par agr aph 2- A s et t i ng out t he pr ope r t i e s o f t hes e new

P l a i n t i f f s .

Page 10

I


13/55


On Augus t

1 0 , 1 9 6 4 ,

t he Cou r t pas s ed. a n Or de r g r ant i ng l e av e t o Mr . a nd

Mr s . Cr ee and t he F r ee t hought So c i e t y t o i n t er v ene as add i t i ona l pa r t i e s P l a i n t i f f ,

a l l o wi ng t he f i l i ng o f t he I nt e r l i ne a t ed Amended Bi l l o f Compl a i nt a s o f t he da t e o f

t he Or de r and pr o v i d i ng t ha t t he Ans wer s o f a l l t he pa r t i e s v ou l . d be deemed t o be

r e f i l e d a s Ans we r s t o t he I nt er l i ne a t ed Amended Bi l l o f Compl a i n t wi t h l e av e t o any

pa r t y De f endan t t o f i l e a Supp l ement a l Ans we r t o i t , i f f i l e d on o r c e t ' o r - eSep t ember

25,

1 9 6 4 .

No Suppl ement al Ans wer s have been f i l e d .

S i x l ega l Cl ue s t i o ns a r e pr es en t ed t o t he Cou r t f o r dec i s i on . The s e a r e :

1. Do t he P l 8. i n t i f f s , bo t h Or i g i na l and I nt e r v e n i ng , ha ve suf'f'Lc Lerr'.

s t a nd i ng a s t a x p8. y e r s t o mn i n t a i n t he p r e s ent s u i t ?

As s um ng t ha t Que s t i c n 1e ans we r ed i n t he a f f i r ma t i v e ,

2 . Does t he exempt i o n f r om t ax a . t i on o f hous es and bu i l d i ngs us ed

ex c l us i v e l y f or pub l i c wo r s h i p , a nd t he f ur n i t ur e c ont ai ned t he r e i n , a nd any pa r s onaGe

us ed i n c onnec t i o n t he r ewi t h and t he gr ounds appur t enan t t o s uc h hous es bu i l d i ngs

and pa r s onage s and nec es s a r y f or t he r e s pec t i ve us es t he r eo f as pr ov i ded i n Ar t i c l e

8 1 , Se ct i on 9 ( 4 ) o f t he Ma r yl a nd Code , v i o l a t e Ar t i c l e 3 6 o f t he Dec l a r a t i on o f Ri g h t s

o f t he Mar yl and Cons t i t u t i on pr oh i b i t i ng t he St at e f r o~ c ompe l l i n g anY pe r s on t o

ma i n t ai n o r c on t r i b u t e t o ma i n t a i n any p l ac e o f wo r s h i p o r m n i s t r y ?

3. Does t he ex empt i o~ v i o l a t e Ar t i c l e 15 o f t he Mar yl a nd Dec l a r a t i on o f

Ri gh t s r equ i r i n g un i f or m t y o f t ax a t i on?

4.

Does t he ex empt i on v i o l a t e Ar t i c l e 23 o f t he l 1 J . ' y l andDe c l a r a t i on o f

Ri ght s pr Oh i b i t i ng ' t he S t a t e f r om depr i v i ng a c i e i z en o f l i f e , l i b e r t y o r p r o p e r t y

wi t hout due pr o c e s s o f l aw' ?

5. Does t he ex empt i o n v i o l a t e . t he F our t een t h Amendment t o t he Cons ' titu-

t i op o f t he Un i t ed St at es p r oh i b i t i ng a St at e f r om deny i ng a c i t i z en o f t he Un i t ed

St at es , l i f e, l i b e r ~y o r pr o pe r t y wi t hout due pr oc es s o f l aw?

6. Does t he ex empt i o n v i o l a t e t he F i r s t Amendment t o t he Cons t i t u t i o n o f


Page 11


14/55

, '


the United States, as madeapplicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment

prohibiting Congress (and nowthe General Assemblyof Maryland) from making any l a w

respecting the establisbIilent of religion or prohibiting the free exercf se 'thereof ?

The Court has concluded that Question 1 must be answered in the

and holds that the Original and Intervening Plaintiffs have sufficient standing a s

taxpayers to maintain the present suit. The Court, however,has concluded that ail

of the remaining questions, - Questions 2 through

6, -

must be answered in the

negative. The Court holds that the exemption violates no constituttonalprovision,

State or Federal. nle Bill of Complaintmust be dismissed with prejudice, and the

plaintiffs required to pay the costs of this suit.

The Court's reasons for these conclusions follow.

L The Plaintiffs, both Original and Intervening, have sufficient

standing to maintain the present suit.

The Defendants, both Original and Intervening, have earnestly

none of the Plaintiffs has sufficient standing to maintain this suit, but

clear to the Court that they have sufficient standing as taxpayers of the State a n d ,

except for the Intervening Plaintiffs,Mr. and Mrs. Cree, of the City of Baltimore

welL As indicated in the statement of the facts, the ownership of property hasbe

established as well as the actual payment of taxes by all of the Plaintiffs. The

sui t is a class suit, on behalf of all taxpayers ofthe State of Marylandandof tb

City of Baltimore similarly situated to have deciared void and to enjoin the con-

tinuation of the exemption from taxation granted under Article 81, Section 9(4) of

MarylandCode.

Although the total assessed value of real estate in Baltimore

from taxation ($578,997,400.00) is something over 20%of the total assessed value

all real estate in Baltimore ($2,842,706,168.00), the exemption under Section

9 (4 )

($78,507,820.00) is only approXimately

2 F Y a

of that totala.ssessed va.lue. It is

fJage 12


15/55


z

5

z

-

.

Q

appr ox i ma t el y l 3~ of t he t ot al a s s es s ed v a l u e o f t ax ex empt r ea l es t at e i n

J a l t i mor e Ci t y. Whi l e t he i mpac t upon t he t ax es o f t he i nd i v i dua l p l a i n t i f f s i s

pr o bab l y no t l a r ge , t he i mpac t on ~ t ax pay e r s i s s uf f i c i ent l y s ubSU4i t i a l t o

oa i n t ai n t hi s s u i t a s t he t es t i mony was c l e a r t ha t a r educ t i on i n t he t a x ab l e bas f s

r ai s e s t he r at e o f t ax a t i o n upon t he pr ope r t y s ubj ec t t o t ax at i on , mld i nc r eas es t h e

t a x e s f t hos e owni ng t he pr ope r t y no t ex empt f r om t ax a t i on .

I t i s we l l s e t t l e d i n Mar yl a nd t ha t wher e t he s t at ut e and enf ' c r - c emc r r t f

i t wi l l i nc r e a s e t he t axes o f t he c ompl a i n i n g t ax pay er s , and t hi s i s a l l eged and

pr ov ed, a s i n t he c as e at ba r , t ax paye r s have es t ab l i s hed s pec i a l damage , o r s pec i a l

i n t e r e s t , d i s t i n c t f r om t hos e o f t he gene r al pub l i c enab l i ng t hem t o mai n t ai n a c l a s s

s ui t c ha l l engi n g t he va l i d i t y o f t he s t a t ut e and i t s enf o r c ement .

When, howeve r , t he s t a t u t e and i t s en f o r c ement bene f i t t he t a xp~er s

f i n anc i a l l y and r ~duc e t he amount o f t he i r t axes , t hey have no s t andi n g ~ t ax paye r s

t o c ha l l enge t he f i n anc i a l l y benef i c i a l s t at ut e . Ci t i z ens Comwi t t e e v . Count y

~omm ss i o n e r s o f Anne Ar unde l Count y , 233 Md. 398,

1 9 7

A. 2d

1 0 8 ( 1 9 6 4 ,

Ho r ney ,

J . )

See t he r ev i e w of t he Mar y l a nd Cas es on pages 4 0 1 - ~ o f 233 Md. ( P age 1 1 0 o f 1 9 7

A. 2d) . As i ndi c a t ed , t he a l l e ga t i ons and pr oo f e s t ab l i s h a f i nanc i a l i n j u r y t o t he

t a x p a y e r s , i nd i v i dua l l y and as a c l a s s , whi c h di s t i ngu i s hes t he c as e a t bar f r om t he

Ci t i z ens Comm t t ee Case .

I t was a l s o s ugges t ed at t he a r gument and i n one o f t he Memor anda t hat

t her e was no s t andi n g i n t he p l a i n t i f f s , a s t ax pay e r s , t o ma i n t ai n a s u i t i ~ t he

F ede r al Cour t i n v i ew of t he dec i s i o n o f t he Supr eme Cour t o f t he Un i t ed St at es i n

F r o t h i ngham v . Me l l on ,

The r e a r e t wo ans wer s t o t h i s s ugges t i o n :

1. Th i s s u i t i s i n t he St a t e Cour t and no t i n t he F ede r a l Cour t . The

Ma r yl a nd l aw c l e a r l y g i v es r el i e f t o t ax pay e r s i n a c l a s s , ac t i on i n t hi s t ype o f

s i t u at i on.

November-Decemoer 1964

Page 13


16/55

Novembe r-D e


2. Bo t h t he F r ot hi ngham and El l i o t t c a s es i nvo l ved s u i t s by a s i ngl e

t axpay er and wer e no t br ought a s a c l as s s u i t . I t s eems doubt 1' u l t ha t t hey a r e

aut ho r i t y f o r ho l d i n g t hat a t axpaye r c l a s s ac t i o n may no t be ent er t a i ned i n t he

f ede r a l c our t s , but as t o t h i s no opi n i on i s e~r es s ed , a s none i s nec es s ar y; i t

i nv o l ves a f ede r a l ques t i on bes t l e f t t o t he dec i s i on o f t he f eder a l c our t s .

The nat ur al p l a i n t i f f s , bo t h o r i gi n a l and i n t e r v en i ng , may a l s o hav e a

s pe ci a l i n t e r es t , d i f f er ent f r om t he publ i c gene r a l l y . as a c t i v e at he i s t s , whi c h

m gh~ wel l g i v e t hem s uf f i c i e nt s t at us apar t f r am t he i r s t a t us as t ax pay er s , t o

ma i n t a i n t h i s s u i t i n v i ew o f t he dec i s i ons o f t he Supr e me Cour t o f t he Uni t ed

S~

i n Abi ngt on Sc hoo l Di s t r i c t

v

Sc hempp ,

As t o t hi S , however , t he Cour t ex pr es s es no op i n i o n as none i s nec es s~

s i nc e i t t oo i nvo l v es a f ede r a l ques t i on bes t l e f t t o t he f ede r a l c our t s f o r

de ci s i on .

2,

3,

and

4.

The ex t i on does not v i ol a t e Ar t i c l e s

36 15

or

23

o f

Dec l a r at i o n o f Ri g ht s o f t he Mar y l a nd Cons t i t u t i o n.

n l e a l l eged v i o l a t i on o f Ar t i c l e s

3 6 , 1 5

and

2 3

o f t he Dec l a r a t i o n o f

Ri ght s o f Ma r y l and Cons t i t u t i o n may be c ons i d er ed t oget her a s .

o f Mar y l a nd has a l r e ady i n di c a t ed t ha t t he exempt i o n does not v i o l a t e t h, esepr o -

v i s i o ns o f t he Dec l a r at i on o f Ri g ht s i n Ba l t i mo r e Ci t y v . St a r r Chur c h , 106

Md.

67 A. 261, ( 1907, Roger s ,

J . ) .

Bef o r e c ons i d e r i ng t he ~ar r Chur ch Cas e , i t w i l l

he l p f u l t o c ons i de r t he pa r t i c u l a r exempt i o n unde r a t t a c k .

As a l r eady i n di c a t ed, t he exempt i o n i n ques t i o n

9

o f Ar t i c l e 81 o f t he Ma r y l and Code . Sec t i on

9

i s

headed

II

Exempt i ons

II

Ther e

t h en many s ubs ec t i ons gr ant i ng ex empt i ons f r o m St a t e , Co unt y and Ci t y t axat i on of

wh i c h Subs ec t i on

i s one . At t he t i me o f t he f i l i ng o f t he Bi l l o f Compl a i nt

m

s ui t t her e we r e

57

s pec i f i c exempt i o ns i n c l ud i n g t he pr oper t y o f f r a t e r na l bene

as s oc i a t i ons , gr aveya r ds , war memor i a l s , ho s p i t a l s , c har i t ab l e i ns t i t u t i o n s ,

Page 14


17/55


educ at i o na l and l i t er ar y i n s t i t ut i o ns , vet er an' s o r gani z a t i o ns , wor ks o f a r t , c e r t a i n

hi s t o r i c a l s oc i e t i e s , Boy Sc out s , Gi r l Sc out s , vo l u nt eer f i r e c ompani e s , Rur i t a n

I nt e r n at i ona l , s t a t e , c ount y , c i t y and f eder al l y exempt pr oper t y and many ot her

exempt i ons .

As a l r eady i ndi c a t ed t he exc ept i on under Subs ec t i on i s a s ma l l par t o f

t he t ot al as s es s ed va l u e o f r ea l es t at e i n Ba l t i mor e Ci t y exempt f r om t aY~t i on under

Se ct i o n

9 .

An exempt i on f r om t axat i on s i m l a r t o t hat gr ant ed by Sec t i on

9 ( 4 )

has

ex i s t ed i n ~~r yl a nd s i n c e t he St at e began t he gener al t axat i on o f r ea l es t at e by t he

Ac t o f 1 7 9 7 , Chap te r 8 9 , pas sed on J anuar J

r

20, 1 7 9 8 . The exempt i on i n t hat Ac t was :

exc ept pr oper t y be l o ngi n g t o t he St at e or t he Uni t ed St at es , hous es f or publ i c

wo r s h i p) bur y i ng gr ounds II. T I u s bas i c exempt i o n has c ont i nued i n eac h t ax

b~at ut e adopt ed i n Mar y l a nd s i n c e t he or i g i n a l Ac t o f 1 7 9 7 , Chap t e r 8 9 unt i l t he

pr es ent t i me.

A r t i c l e 38 o f t he Dec l a r at i on o f Ri g ht s o f t he Mar yl a nd Cons t i t ut i on f or

ma ny y e ar s r es ui r ed t he s anc t i on o f t he Gener a l As s embl y f or any gi f t , s a l e o r dev i s e

o f l and Qr gi f t s o r s a l e s o f per s ona l pr oper t y t o t ak e pl a c e a f t e r t he deat h o f t he

Se l l e r o r Donor f or t he s uppor t o r benef'L t o f any Re l i g i ous Sec t , Or der o r Denomma-

t i on exc ept a l ways , any s a l e , g i f t , l eas e or dev i s e o f any quant i t y o f l and, no t

e~c eedi n g f i v e ac r es , f o r a c hur ch, meet i n g- hous e , o r o t her hous e o f wor s hi p , o r

par s onage , o r f o r a bur yi n g gr om d, whi Ch s ha l l be i mpr oved, engaged or us ed o~l Y

f o r s uc h pur pose . il

A c ons t i t u t i ona l amendment t o Ar t i c l e 38 was adopt ed by t he vot er s a t t he

e l ec t i on o f November 2, 1 9 4 8 whi c h gave t he Gener a l As s embl y pOi f e r t o r equi r e s uc h

s anc t i on but di d not i t s e l f r equi r e s uc h s anc t i on wi t hout s uc h a s t at ut e, t o gi f t s

a n d

c onveyanc es s ubs equent t o November 2, 1 9 4 8 .

t

i s t hus s een t hat hous es o f wor Shi p , par s onages and appur t enant gr o und

N ov em b er-D ec em b er 1 96 4

Page 15


18/55


hav e been ex empt f r om t ax a t i on and f r om l e g i s l a t i v e s anc t i o n and appr ov a l i n ,

f or o v e r 165 y ea r s . The ex empt i on has been uni f or m y appl i ed and adm n i s t e r e d

has no t been t he ob j e c t o f any s ubs t an t i al a t t a c k he r e t of or e .

I n t he c a s e o f ~l t i mo r e Ci t y v . S t a r r Chur c h , 106 Md. 281 , 67 A.

26 1

( 1907 , Roge r s )

J .

s upr a , t he Cour t o f Appea l s o f Mar y l a nd, i n c pns i de r i ng and

dec l a r : i , ng unc ons t i t u t i ona l , unde r Ar t i c l e s 15 and 33 o f t he Dec l a r at i on o f Ri g h t s ,

a s pec i a l a c t pur po r t i nG t o gr ant a s pec i f i c ex empt i on f or a pa r t i c u l a r p r ope r t y

owned by a c hur c h o f one denom n at i on , s t r ong l y i nd i c a t ed t ha t t he gene r al ex empt i

o f hous es o f wo r s h i p , pa r sonages and appur t enant l a nd was

J udge Roge r s , s peak i ng f or t he Cour t o f Appea l s , s t at ed a t page

386

o f 106

Md . :

l i l t wi l l no t be den i ed a t t h i s l at e day t ha t t he L eg i s l at u r e

ha s t he pov e r , wi t hi n r ea s onabl e l i m t s , t o ex empt c e r t a i n s pec i e s

o r c l as s e s o f p r ope r t y f r om t ax a t i on , when t he pub l i c i n t e r e s t s s o

r equ i r e . Th i s i s a c t ua l l y done i n t he c as e o f hous es us ed

ex c l u s i v e l y f o r pub l i c wo r sh i p , and t he gr ounds appur t enant t he r e t o ,

i n t he c a s e o f g r av ey a r ds and c emet e r i es , and i n t he c a s e o f

ho s p i t al s ? a s y l ums and benev o l e n t i n s t i t u t i ons . ( Code , 1904 , Ar t .

81 , s e c .

4 ) .

The v a l i di t y o f p r ov i s i ons o f t h i s k i nd i s t oo we l l

e s t ab l i s hed t o be nov ques t i oned . But i t wi l l be pe r c e i v ed i n t he s e

c a s es a l l t he pr ope r t y o f t he c l as s i nd i c a t ed i s ex empt ed . The

L egi S l a t ur e does no t ex empt s ome hous es o f pub l i c wo r sh i p and t ax

o t he r s . I t does no t ex empt s ome gr a . v ey ar ds and c eme t e r i es , s ome

hos p i t al s , and t hen t ax o t he r pr ope r t i es o f ex ac t l y t he s ame k i nd .

I t does no t a r b i t r a r i l y s ay t ha t t h i s par t i c u l ar hous e o f pub l i c

wo r s h i p s ha l l be ex empt , but t ha t one s ha l l be t ax ed . On t he

c ont r a r y , a l l p r ope r t y f al l i ng wi t h i n any one o f t he c l a s s e s

ment i o ned i n Sec .

4 ,

i s e x empt . The r e i s t he r e f or e no a r b i t r a r y

d i s cr i m na t i on be t ween d i f f er ent p r ope r t i e s o f t he s ame k i nd , bu t

a l l a r e t r ea t ed a l i k e .

1I

The r e i s no Ma r yl a nd c a s e i n d i c a t i ng any ' d i f f er ent op i n i o n an~t h i s s t

ment f r om t he St ar r c a s e r epr e s ent s t he Mar y l a nd l aw on t hi s s ub j e c t . ,

I t may be po i nt ed out t ha t t he r ea l pr ope r t y o f c hur c hes no t us ed f o r

hous es o f wo r s h i p and pa r s onages , bu t he l d f or us e o r ev en f or t he f ut u r e c o n s t r u

o f c hur c hes o r pa r s onages i s s ub j e c t t o r ea l es t a t e t axa t i o n t o t he s ame ex t ent

M

s i m l a r p r ope r t y he l d by pr i va t e pe r sons .

Pa~e 16


19/55


The r e i s no t hi ng unus ua l abou t t he Mar y l a nd ex empt i o n . I n deed t he r e i s

a s i m l a r ex empt i o n i n a l l o f t he o t he r S t a t es o f t he Un i on, and i n t he Di s t r i c t o f

Co l u mb i a . I n 33 St a t e s , c ons t i t u t i ona l pr ov i s i ons expr ~s s l y p r ov i de f o r t he exemp-

t i on and i n

1 5

o f t hos e St at es t he c ons t i t u t i o na l l a nGUage i s manda t or y . I n t he

o t he r St at es and t he Di s t r i c t o f Co l u mbi a , t he r e a r e s t at ut or y exempt i o ns , a s i n

Mar y l a nd . I t i s i n t er e s t i ng t o no t e t ha t i n t he l a s t t wo St at es t o be r e c ent l y

adm t t ed t o t he Uni o n - Al a s k a and Hawa i i - t he r e a r e s i m l a r exempt i ons . See Van

Al s t y ne , Tax Exempt i o n o f Chur ch P r oper t y, t I 20 Ohi o St . L . J . 4 6 1 ( 1 9 5 9 ) .

The opi n i o n o f t he Cour t o f Appea l s i n t he St ar r Chur ch c a s e i n d i c a t i ng

t he v a l i d i t y o f t he exempt i on i n vo l v ed i n t hi s s u i t , i s i n a c c o r d wi t h t he dec i s i o ns

o f eve r y Cour t i n t he Un i t e d S t a t es whi c h ha s c ons i d e r ed t he ques t i o n .

W t h s uc h un i v e r s a l and l ong c ont i nued c ons t i t u t i ona l and l eg i s l a t i v e

pr ac t i c e i n a l l o f t he St at es and t he Di s t r i c t o f Co l umbi a and wi t h s uc h unan i m t y o f

j u d i c i a l a ut ho r i t y , t hi s Cour t mus t ho l d t ha t t he exempt i o n does no t v i o l a t e Ar t i c l e s

3 6 , 1 5

o r

2 3

o f t he Dec l a r at i o n o f

R i g h t s

o f t he M a r y l a n d C o n s ti tu t i on .

5 . The exempt i o n does no t v i o l a t e t he F our t een t h Amendment t o t he

Cons t i t u t i o n o f t he Uni t e d St at es p r oh i b i t i ng a St at e f r om deny i n g c i t i z ens o f t he

Uni t e d S t at es , l i f e , l i be r t y, o r pr ope r t y wi t h out due pr oc es s o f l a w.

I t i s we l l s e t t l e d t ha t t he St at e may s e l e c t i t s ob j e c t s o f t ax a t i on and

may dec l i ne a l t o ge t he r t o t ax c e r t a i n k i n ds o f p r oper t y , as l o ng a s t he r e i s a

r ea s onab l e bas i s f o r t he exempt i o n.

I n o r de r t o s us t a i n exempt i o ns f r om t axa t i o n gr an t ed by t he l e g i s l a t i v e

br anc h o f t he St a t e gove r t t

men enc our age o r f os t er t he publ i c good, a l l t ha t i s

nec es s a r y i s a s howi ng o f s ome f a i r l y d i s c e r ni b l e r e l a t i ons h i p be t ween t he good o f

t he pe r s on r ec e i v i ng t he ex empt i on and t he good o f t he c ommun i t y .

Mr . J u s t i c e Ca r do z o i n W l l i a ms

v

Ba l t i m~~, s upr a, a c as e a r i s i n g i n

Ma r y l and and s pec i f i c a l l y c ons i d e r i ng a t a x ex er nmt i o n g r an t e d by t h e

. - ~ Gene r a l As s embl y



20/55


Z

Q

-

Z

-

.

Q

:l :

:: J

CI

Z

c:c

IlC

Q

:l :

l o L l

= =

o f Mar yl a nd, t o a par t i c ul a r Rai l r oad Company by t he Ac t s o f 1 9 3 1 , Chapt e r 4 9 7 ,

a l l eged t o v i o l a t e Ar t i c l e

1 5

o f t he Mar yl a nd Dec l a r at i o n o f Ri g ht s , s t at es a t pages

40 and 4 1 o f 2 8 9 u . s . :

l i T h e C. : : >ur t sf Mar yl a nd ho l d t hat t he r ul e o f uni f o r m t y

es t abl i s hed by t hes e pr ov i s i o ns does not f or bi d t he c r eat i on o f

r e as onabl e ex empt i ons

; n

f u r t her anc e o f t he publ i c good.

I t does not even pr ohi b i t an exempt i on i n f avor o f an

i n di v i d ua l as di s t i n gui s hed f r om one f o r t he benef i t o f t he member s

o f a c l as s . Al l t ha t i t exac t s i n r es pec t o f t he nar r o wer exempt i on

i s t he pr es enc e o f a r el a t i on, f a i r l y di s c er ni b l e , bet ween t he good;

o f t he i n di v i d ua l and t he good of t he c ommuni t y . 1 I

As a l r e ady po i nt ed: out , t he exempt i o n o f hous es of wor s hi p, par s onages

and

appur t enant l a nd i s onl y one o f 5 7 exempt i ons whi c h t he Gener a l As sembl y has

det er m ned s houl d be made f or t he publ i c good. Thes e i n c l u de hos pi t a l s , c har i t abl e

i n s t i t ut i o ns , f r at er na l o r der s , ve t er ans or gani z a t i ons , h i s t o r i c a l s oc i e t i e s , t he

Boy Sc out s , t he Gi r l Sc out s and many ot her s . Thes e exempt i ons pr oduc e s oc i a l l y

des i r abl e r es ul t s and mos t c er t a i n l y have a f a i r l y des i r abl e r el a t i ons hi p bet ween

t he exempt i o n and t he good o f t he c ommuni t y .

The Supr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es has s us t ai n ed a s i m l a r exempt i on

i n t he Di s t r i c t o f Col umbi a . Gi bbons v . Di s t r i c t of Co l umb i a ,

1 1 6

u. S . 404,

6

s

Ct . 4 2 7 , 2 9 L . Ed. 6 8 0 ( 1 88 6 , Gr ay , J . ) .

I n r egar d t o t he power o f Congr es s t o pr ov i d e f or s uc h an exempt i on,

M r.

J u s t i c e Gr ay s peak i n g f o r t he Cour t s t at ed:

*** t he power o f Congr es s , l e gi s l a t i ng as a l o c a l L egi s -

l a t ur e f or t he Di s t r i c t , t o l evy t axes f or di s t r i c t pur pos es

onl y , i n l i k e manner as t he L egi s l a t ur e o f a St at e may t ax t he

peopl e of a s t at e f or s t at e pur pos es , was expr es s l y adm t t ed,

and has never s i nc e been doubt ed.

5

Wheat .

3 1 8 ( 1 8

u. S . bk .

5

L . ed.

9 8 ) j

Wel s h v . Cook , and Mat t i ngl y v . Di s t r i c t o f

Co l umb i a ,

9 7

u . S .

5 4 1 , 6 8 7

( B k .

2 4 ,

L . ed.

1 1 1 2 , 1 0 9 8 ) .

I n t he

exer c i s e o f t hi s power , Congr es s l i k e any s t at e L egi s l at ur e

unr es t r i c t ed by c ons t i t ut i ona l pr ov i s i o ns , may at i t s di s cr et i on

who l l y exempt c er t ai n c l a s s es o f pr oper t y f r om t axat i o n, o r may

t ax t hem at a l ower r at e t han ot her pr oper t y. I I

See a l s o Uni t ed s t at es v . Depar t ment of Revenue of I l l i n o i s , 202 F .

7 5 7

( 1 9 6 2 ,

N. D. I l l . t hr ee J udge Cour t , L aBuy , D. J . ) s us t ai n i n g,

Page 18


21/55


and c ons t i t u t i o na l , a r e t a i l e r ' s o c c upa t i o n t ax ex empt i on ac c o r ded t o pe r s ons s e l l -

i ng t o non- g ov e r nment a l i ns t i t u t i o ns ope r a t e d f or c ha r i t ab l e , r e l i g i ous , o r

l i T he exempt i on ac c o r ded t o non- g ov e r nment a l i ns t i t u t i o ns

ope r a t ed f o r c ha r i t a b l e , r e l i g i ous and educ a t i ona l pur po s es i s

no t o f r e c ent o r i g i n , bu t i s t he c ont i nuanc e o f an o l d and

we l l - e s t ab l i s hed pub l i c po l i cy . Ar t i c l e I X, Sec . 3 o f t he

Cons t i t u t i on o f t he St a t e o f I l l i no i s S . n. A. , p r ov i de s t ha t pr o -

pe r t y us ed ex c l u s i v e l y f or c ha r i t ab l e , r e l i g i o us a nd edu ca t i ona l

p u r p o s es may be ex empt ed f r om t ax a t i on by gene r a l l aw. T he

Re v enue Ac t o f t he St a t e o f I l l i no i s , Sec s . 500. 1 , 5 ~J 500. 7 , c h .

120, e x pr e s s l y ex empt s f r om t ax a t i on pr ope r t y us e d f o r s uc h

bene f i ce nt o b j ec t i v e s . Many s t a t e s o f t he Un i on hav e s i m l a r l y

pr ov i d ed f o r s uc h ex empt i o ns f r om t ax a t i on . The f ede r a l gov e r n -

ment has a l s o ex empt ed t he i n c ome o f c o r p o r a t i ons o r ga n i z ed and

ope r at ed ex c l u s i v e l y f or r el i g i o us , c ha r i t ab l e o r educ a t i o na l

pur po s es . 26 U. S. C. A. Sec . 501( c ) .

e du c at i o na l pur po s es .

The t hr e e - J udge Cou r t , s t at ed ( at page 759) :

I L l e ex empt i o n o f t hes e i n s t i t u t i o n s enc our ages t he i r

ex i s t enc e and r el i e v es t he St at e o f t he heav y bur den o f ma i n t ai n -

i ng and pe r f Or m n g t hes e es s ent i a l s e r v i c e s . Ar t i c l e VI I I , Sec . 3

o f t he Cons t i t u t i on o f t he St a t e o f I l l i no i s f or b i ds t he us e o f

pub l i c f unds i n t he ' a i d o f any c hur c h o r s ec t a r i an pur po s es ' no r

may ' a ny gr ant o r dona t i on o f l a nd , money o r o t he r pe r sona l

p r ope r t y ev e r be made by t he s t at e o r any s uc h pub l i c c o r po r at i on ,

t o any c h u r c h , o r f o r any s ec t ar i a n pur po s e .

I

Obv i o us l y , a d i s -

t i nc t d i s s i m l a r i t y ex i s t s be t ween r el i g i o u s i n s t i t u t i ons and

gove r nment a l bod i e s . Wh i l e c ha r i t ab l e and ec uc a t i o na l ob j e c t i v e s

c an , and a r e, pe r f o r med t hr ough gov e r nment a l un i t s , t he r ev enue t o

s uppo r t t hem i s de r i v ed f r om t he powe r and aut ho r i t y o f t he gov e r n -

ment t o t ax i t s c i t i z ens f or t he pub l i c we l f ar e . But no c aopu l s o r y

pr o c es s ex i s t s t o ex ac t c ont r i bu t i ons t o non- gove r nment al o r gan i z a -

t i ons ded i c a t ed t o t he mo r a l , s p i r i t ua l a nd phy s i c a l we l l - be i ng o f

mank i nd . The f i nanc i a l r e s our c e s t o ac c ompl i s h t he i r ob j e c t i v e s

a r e de r i v ed f r om t he c onc ept o f g i v i n g v o l u nt ar i l y - - , wi t h ou t l ega l

ob l i g a t i on o r c ompu l s i o n . Th i s d i f f e r enc e f or ms

0.

r e a s o n a bl e bas i s

f o r a s epa r at e c l a s s i f i c a t i on and t he ex empt i o n , t he r ef o r e, does

no t d i s c r i m na t e aga i ns t gov e r nment a l bod i e s .

November-December Hl64

Page 19

Th i s dec i s i o n was a f f i r med by t he Supr eme Cour t o f t he Un i t e d St a t e s ,

wi t h out op i n i on , i n Un i t ed St a t e s v . Depa r t ment o f Rev enue o f I l l i n o i s , 371 U. S .

21 , 83 S . Ct . 117 , 9

L .

Ed . 2d 95 ( 1962) .

Th i s Cour t mus t c onc l ude t ha t t he r e i s no den i a l o f due pr o c es s o f l aw as

pr o h i b i t ed t o t he St at es by t he F our t eent h Amendment t o t he Cons t i t ut i o n o f t he

ll. S)


22/55

ho l d i n g has been f o l l owed s i n c e Cant we l l by t he Supr eme


z:

o

z:

a..

Q

6. The exe t i on does no t v i o l a t e t he F i r s t Amendment

o f t he Un i t ed St at es , a s made app l i c ab l e t o t he St at es by t he F our t eent h Amendment ,

pr oh i b i t i n g Congr es s ( and now t he Gene r al As s embl y o f Ma r yl a nd) f r om mak i n g ~ ~y

t l r e s pec t i ng t he es t ab l i s hment o f r e l i g i o n or pr oh i b i t i ng t he f r ee ex er ci s e t her eo f .

Ques t i o n 6 was t he one pr i nc i pa l l y a r gued i n t h i s c a s e .

i n g and pr ov oc a t i v e ques t i on .

At t he t hr e s ho l d o f t he c ons i der a t i o n o f t h i s ques t i o n, one i s me t wi t h

t he c ur i ous i d ea t ha t t he F our t eent h Amendment i mpos ed t he r es t r i c t i ons upon t he

powe r s o f Congr es s c ont ai n ed i n t he F i r s t Amendment upon t he l e gi s l a t ur es o f t he

s ev e r a l S t a t es . ' l r l i t houtd i s c us s i o n o f p r i or dec i s i o ns o f t he Supr eme Co ur t o f t he

Uni t ed St a t e s t o t he c ont r a r y - o r i ndeed, wi t hout t he di s c us s i on o f any c a s es ,

l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t or y o f t he F our t eent h Amendment , o r any o t he r r el e v ant

Supr eme Cour t i n Cant we l l v . Connec t i c ut

l

310 U. S . 296, 60 S . Ct . 900, 84 L . Ed .

( 1 940, Robe r t s ,

J .

s i mpl y he l d t ha t t i t he f undament a l c onc ept

t ha t Amendment embr ac es t he l i be r t i e s gua r ant eed by t he F i r s t Amendment . Th i s

i n Abi ngt on Sc hoo l Di s t r i c t v . Sc hes pp , s upr a . The c a s es ar e r ev i ewed i n t he

ma j or i t y opi n i on o f Mr . J us t i c e Cl ar k ( 217 o f 374 U. S. ) . He s ugges t s t ha t t o

ques t i o n t h i s ho l d i ng i s

entd.rely

unt enab l e and o f v a l ue onl y as ac adem c

e xe r c i s e s

l l

Thi s Cour t i s o f t he op i ni on t ha t t he ho l di ng

and i s s t i l l f i r m y o f t h i s opi n i on no t W t hs t andi ng t he br i l l i ant c ons i de r a t 100

t hi s ho l d i ng by Mr . J us t i ce Br ennan i n h i s c onc ur r i ng opi n i on i n Ab i ngt on

( 2 5 3

258 o f 374 U. S . ) .

T h i s pr es ent l y pr ev a i l i n g doc t r i n e , howeve r , has been as s umed t o ha

t he appl i c abl e Cons t i t ut i ona l L aw by t he Cour t o f Appea l s o f Mar yl a nd i n Mur r

Cur l et t , 228 Md. 698, 179 A. 2d 698 ( 1962, Ho r ney , J . , Br une , C.

P r e s c o t t , J . J . , d i s s ent i ng) i n bo t h t he ma j o r i t y and d i s s ent i ng opi n i ons .

Page 20


23/55

The American Atheist, Baltimore, Iviarytand 21218

z Cour t wi l l ~t e t h i s s ame as s umpt i on f or t he pur pos es o f t h i s c as e . I t mer e l y f i l es

QI

-

z

~ a c avea t now, wi t h a v i ew t o s e t t i ng out i t s v i ews i n r ega r d t o t h i s doc t r i ne a t a

QI

~ l at e r t i me and i n a di f f er ent f or um.

: =

Q

~ The ques t i ons t hen a r e pr es ent ed as t o whet he r t he exempt i on r es u l t s i n

a: :

o

~ f anes t ab l i s bment o f r e l i g i on

ll

o r i n s t at e ac t i o n I I pr event i n g t h e f r ee exer c i s e

~

t he r eo f , a s t he f i r s t c l a us e o f t he F i r s t Amendment s t at es :

Congr es s s ha l l mak e no l aw r es t r i c t i ng an es t ab l i s bment

o f r el i g i o n , o r pr oh i b i t i ng t he f r ee exer c i s e t he r eof ; ***.

The a r gument s of t he pa r t i e s pr es ent t hr ee wi de l y d i f f e r ent pos i t i ons :

The f l a i n t i f f s , bo t h Or i gi n a l and I n t er ven i n g, t ak e t he pos i t i on t ha t

t h e exempt i on does r es u l t i n an es t ab l i s hment o f r el i g i o n and i n s t at e ac t i on pr o-

h i b i t i ng t he f r ee exer c i s e t he r eo f .

The Or i g i na l De f e ndant s , and a l l o f t he I n t e r ven i ng De f e ndant ~ ex c ept

Templ e Emanue l , a s s e r t , t ha t a l t hough t he St at e o f Mar yl a nd ~ ~ power t o i mpos e

r ea l es t a t e t a xa t i on upon hous es o f wor s h i p , pa r s onages and appur t enant l and, i t

a l s o has t he power t o exempt t hem and t ha t t he exempt i on i n t he c as e a t ba r i s a

r eas onabl e , pr oper and non- d i s c r i m na t o r y exempt i on whi c h does no t r e~ul t i n an

es t ab l i s bment o f r el i g i o n o r pr oh i b i t t he f r ee exer c i s e t he r eo f .

Templ e Emanue l ur ges upon t he Cour t t h l . t , a s pr oper l y i nt e r pr et ed i n t he

l i ght o f s eve r al r ec ent dec i s i o ns o f t he Supr eme Cour t and t he i r l o g i c a l appl i c a t i o n

t o t he pr es ent pr ob l e m, t he St at e o f Mar yl a nd has no power t o i mpos e r ea l es t at e

t axes upon hous es of wor s h i p , pa r s onages and appur t enant l a nd as t hi s woul d r es u l t i n

pr oh i b i t i n g t he f r ee exer c i s e o f r e l i g i o n c ont r a r y t o t he pr ov i s i o n o f t he F i r s t

Amendment . Th i s i s a f aSCi n a t i ng t hought , but t he Cour t does no t f i n d i t nec es s a r y


t o pas s upon t hi s appl i c a t i on o f t he F i r s t Amendment as i t i s no t nec es s a r y f or t he

dec i s i o n i n t hi s c as e . The Cour t r ej e c t s t he pos i t i o n advanc ed by t he P l a i n t i f f s

and ho l ds t ha t t he exempt i on i s a r eas onabl e , pr oper and non- d i s c r i m na t o r y

exempt i o n whi c h does no t r es u l t i n an es t ab l i s hment o f r el i g i o n o r pr oh i b i t t he

f r e e exer c i s e t he r eof .


24/55


The First Amendmentas presently construed by the SupremeCourt estab

the principle of government neutrality, not only between different religious gr

but also as between believers and non-believers. An interesting recent bookanti

Religion and American Constitutions by Dr. Wilber G. Katz, Professor of lawat

LawSchool of the University of Wisconsin, (the book is made up principally of

Professor Katz

IS

1963 Rosenthal Lectures at NorthwesiErn University School of Law)

in his last Chapter entitled Epilogue. Neutrality as of June 1963 , states at

91:

Through the foregOing lectures runs the theme that the

impact of the First Amendmenton religion is best understood in

terms not of church-state separation but of government neutrality.

neutrality not merely between sects, but also between believers

and nonbelievers. This broad neutrality is promoted by judicial

action checking legislative aberrations in either direction. But

in manyfields where laws affect religion inCidentally, the

promotion of neutrality requires affirmative provision for

religion. Here legislatures have been left with discretion; in

this area provisions affirmatively fostering religious freedom

are not invalid as establishing religion, but their omission

does not make the legislation invalid as a restraint on free

exercise of religion.

The exemption involved in the case at bar represents governmentneutr

not prohibited by the First Amendment. The SupremeCourt indicated the validity

such an exemption in the District of Columbia in Gibbons v. District of Columbia,

supra, in 1886. Such validity is indicated by Mr. Justice Brennan in his cone

opinion in Abipgton on June 17, 1963. He sta.tes (301 and 302 of 374 U.S.):

Nothing we hold today questions the propriet~ of certain

tax deductions or exemptions which inCidentally benefit churches

and religious institutions, along with many secular charities and

nonprofit organizations. If religious institutions benefit, it

is in spite of rather than because of their religious character.

For religious institutions simply share benefits which government

makes generally available to educational, charitable, and

eleemosynary groups. There is no indication that taxing authorities

have used such benefits in any way to subsidize worship or foster

belief in God. Andas amongreligious beneficiaries, the tax

exemption or deduction can be truly nondiscriminatory, available

on equal terms to small as well as large religious bodies, to

popular and unpopular sects, and to those organizations which

reject as well as those which accept a belief in God.

1 I

Page 22


25/55


Al l o t he r aut ho r i t i e s , b o t h S t at e and F eder al , have s us t a i n e . d t h e ho l d i ng

t ha t t hi s t ype o f exempt i o n i s c ons t i t u t i o na l and va l i d .

I n Swa l l ow v . Uni t e d S t at es , s upr a, t he r e was a di r ec t c ha l l enge t o t he

f eder al i n c ome t ax ex empt i on t o r el i g i o us i n s t i t ut i ons . ~i s f a i l e d i n t he Uni t ed

St a t e s Cour t o f Appea l s

ot

t be Tent h Ci r c u i t on Dec ember 12, 1963. The Supr eme

Cour t den i ed c e r t i o r e . r i a nd a l s

r

a r e hea r i ng.

Th i s Cour t c onc l u des t ha t t he exempt i o n does no t r es u l t i n t he es t ab l i s h-

ment o f r e l i g i o n o r i n s t at e a c t i on pr oh . i b i t i ng t he f r ee exer c i s e t he r eo f .

As i nd i c a t ed , t hi s ho l d i ng i s a s f ar a s t hi s Cour t need go , and i t i s as

f ar as i t does go .

I t may be added, however , t ha t i f t he Supr eme Cour t o f t he Uni t e d St a t es

dec i d es t o c ons i d e r any ~ appl i c a t i on o f t he pr ov i s i o ns o f t he F i r s t Amendment i n

r ega r d t o t he exempt i on i n t he c as e a t ba r , t he r e i s muc h i n t he pr i o r dec i s i ons o f

t he Supr eme Cour t whi c h gi v es a i d and c omf o r t t o t he pos i t i on o f Templ e Emanue l .

I t woul d appea r t ha t t he Supr eme Cour t woul d l i k e l y move i n t hi s d i r ec t i on .

I n Mur doc k v . penns y l v an~a , 319 U. S . 105, 63 S. Ct . 891, 87 L . Ed. 1292

( 1943) , Dougl a s , J . s peak i n g f o r t he ma j o r i t y c ons i s t i n g o f h i ms e l f and St one , C. J . ,

Rober t s , Bl a c k , Mur phy and Rut l e dge , J . J . ( Reed, F r ank f u r t er and J a c k s on, J . J .

d i s s ent i n g) , i n d i c at ed t ha t t he Ci t y o f J e anne t t e , Penns y l v an i a , had no power t o

i mpos e upon a J e hov ah' s W t nes s pr omul ga t i ng h i s r el i g i ous t eac h i ngs and s e l l i ng

( or g i v i ng away ) r el i g i ous book s and pamphl e t s publ i s hed by t he Wat c h Tower Bi b l e

&. T r ac t SOCi e t y , a r at he r s ma l l gener al l i c ens e ' t a x upon per s ons c anvas s i n g f o r o r

.November-December 1964

Page 23

s o l i c i t i n g f or goods , pa i n t i ngs , p i c t ur es , war es o r mer chandi s e o f any k i n d. I n d i s -

c us s i n g t he ac t i v i t y o f t he i t i ne r at e pr eac her , d i s t r i b u t i ng t r ac t s f r om door t o

doo r , Mr . J u s t i c e Dougl a s i n d i c a t ed a t page 109 o f 319 U. S . :

I t has t he s ame c l a i m t o pr ot ec t i on as t he mor e

o r t hodox and c onvent i ona l exe r c i s es o f r e l i g i on .


26/55


For the state to exempt the property of other

tha

p e

rea

tha

am c

ing

me

P

z

:)

-

z

a : :

:)

= =

:)

z

c:c

II:

o

= =

. 1

: : : E

It would seemto follow from thiS, that the more conventional e

religion in a house of worship where the sermons are preached and the sac

other rites performed is also entitled to the exemption from taxation given

itinerant preacher.

In his dissenting opinion, Mr. Justice Reed, points

states ( 1 3 3 of 3 1 9 U.S.):

This late withdra.wal of the power of taxation over the

distribution activit~es of those covered by the First Amendment

fixes what seems to us an unfortunate principle of tax exempt1on,

ca.pable of an indefinite extension.

Mr. Justice Goldberg in his concurring opinion in Abington (306 of

374

U.S.) suggests that there Should be no hositility to the religious as t

prohibited by the provisions of the First Amendment.

used for charitable purposes and decline. to exempt the property of houses

of

parsonages and appurtenant land would indeed be an act of hostH ty toward

woulddestroy the principle of neutrality and would,

religious and would represent a brooding and pervasive devotion to the 8

which Mr. Justice Greenberg indicates is prohibited by the First Amendment.

intervene on the side of the secular and nonMbeliever.

It ~ also be pointed out that but for the exemption, it would

impossible, as a practical matter, to avoid discrimination between tl1.eas

of the houses of worship, parsonages and appurtenant land as these asses

lys

from

adeby individuals having various religious beliefs

area in which individual judgment plays a substantial part, as pointed out

Arthur in his testimony. Complete exemption of houses of worship, parse

appurtenant land from real estate taxation by the State is far morecal

maintain the required neutrality than any possible system of taxation c

States and the United States do well not to enter this

Page 24


27/55


w e l l h a v e t he ~r emo n i t i o n t h a t t he ~r o v i s 1 0 n s o f t he F i r s t A me n d me n t p r o h i b i t s u c h

a n e n t r y a s T e mp l e E ma n u e l u r g e s . As i n d i c a t e d , h o w e v e r , i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o

T h e C o u r t p a s s e d a n d f U e d a f i n a J . d e c r e e i n t h i s s u i t , w h i c h e f f e c t u a t e d

t h e h o l d i n g s i n t h i s Op i n i o n , o n De c e mber 14, 1964. T h e De c r e e i n d i c a t e d ' : t h a t h i s

Op i n i o n w o u l d t h e r e a f t e r b e f i l e d . T h e C l e r k i s d i r e c t e d t o f i l e t h i s Op i n i o n i n

Z

Q

-

Z

-

C)

::2

l

Z

c : : c

cc

Q

:E

w

:;:

ma k e t h i s h o l d i n g .

t h e s u i t .

Wilson K. Bames,

Judge

January 7, 1965

As a footnote to the Opinion, refers nee is made to

that part of the Opinion which states that church pro-

perty is a small part of the total assessed value of

real estate in Baltimore City exempt from taxation and

that this is a long standing practice. Neither the

amount of money involved nor tradition have any bear-

ing in this case; the issue of constitutionality must be

met head on. As Justice Douglas has said in the

Prayer and Bible case,

... contributions may not be made by the State

even in a minor degree without violating the

Establishment Clause. It is not the amount of

public funds expended ... it is the use to which

public funds are put that is controlling. For the

First Amendment does not say that some forms

of establishment are allowed; it says that no

law respecting an establishment of religion

shall be made. What may not be done directly

may not be done indirectly lest the Establish.

ment Clause become a mockery. U

Along with Justice Douglas, Justice Black repeated-

ly states

that

no law means no law. Yet, quoting

from the Opinion, In

33

States, constitutional pro-

visions expressly provide for the exemption and in 15

of those states the constitutional language is manda-

tory. Obviously the states have taken it upon them-

selves to do much legislating in an area prohibited by

the Federal Constitution. There seems little question

that this legislation of special laws by the states goes

far beyond the idea of neutrality and clearly consti-

tutes an establishment of religion. In this connection

Justice Douglas has said,


... The most effective way to establish any

institution is to finance it ... FinanciIig a church

either in its strictly religious activities or in

its other activities is equally unconstitutional

as I understand the Establishment Clause.

Budgets for one activity may be technically

separable from budgets for others. But the

institution is an inseparable whole, a living

organism, which is strengthened in proselytizing

when it is strengthened in any department by

contributions

flOm

other than it.own members. f'

Building on thi s idea, let us take the case of a

church that saves enough money through tax exemption

to enter some kind of business. This business mayor

may not be operated out of

the

actual tax-exempt pro-

perty from which the original capital was obtained

through property tax exemptions. As referred to in the

Opinion, the federal government has also exempted the

income of

church-owned

and/or operated businesses

in direct .competition with private enterprise constitutes

a federal subsidy of those businesses. Agreement is

almost unanimous that this federal exemption is un-

constitutional. Agreement is not so uniform about the

unconstitutionality of the state exemption of church

property. However, upon examination it is clear that

both exemptions are equally unconstitutional and more

and more churches are voluntarily requesting that they

be added to the tax roles. (This activity is reported

in the OTHER AMERICANS NEWSLETTER for this

month.)

Page 25


28/55


Actually the increased revenue that would be col-

lected with equitable taxation of church property is not

small' it is estimated between $3.5 and $7.0 million

.

per year in Baltimore City alone. Nor is the entire

problem of tax exemption for church property and income

a small one. Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, Chief Adminis-

trative Officer of the United Presbyterian Church, Past

President of the National Council of Churches, has

warned, With prudent management, the churches ought

to be able to control the whole economy' within the

predictable future.

The companion suit to the property suit is the Un-

related Business Deduction suit to force the church

to pay income tax on its income from businesses un-

related to its religious function. This suit was filed

August 13, 1964 in the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland against the United States

of America and the District Director of Internal Revenue

Q U E ST IO N NS W E R E D

Y

L E O N R D J K E R P E L M N

CORPORATION COUNSEL

Lemoin Cree has spoken to me of the frequency with

which he is asked whether the revocation of the tax ex-

emptions granted churches would also, by implication,

challenge the similar tax exemptions which are granted

to hospitals, universities, and various non-profit charitable

organizations

-whose

primaryfunction is other than religious.

This is also the most frequent singly query which I

receive on the subject of the church tax cases.

The answer is, quite simply, that these other grants of

assistance are clearly sustainable under the theory that

they are general welfare legislation which valid under

the authority which state and federal legislatures have to

promotethe general welfare of the public, in public matters.

Page 26

for the District of Maryland in behalf of L

and his wife who are federal income taxpay

brief has been filed by our lawyer, Mr.Leon

pelman and the Justice Department's answer

received which is now being included in a

publication entitled The Church Tax Ca

special three-judge Federal court has beensel

hear the suit. No date has been set for this

but it is expected to occur in the near future.

'report the important developments as theyoccur

important suit.

Both the suit filed in the state court ch

exemption of church property and the suit f i l e d

federal court challenging exemption of church

are necessary to end abuse of our tax syBtell

church. We repeat: both litigations are of II

portance with far reaching implications. The

will be known as milestones in church-state

Religion, however, is placed by both state

IIIIl

constitutions, in a different category. Congre88

States, it has been provided federally, shall

respecting an establishment of religion'or pro.

fre~ exercise thereof . The State Constitutions

have similar provisions. Thus, in Maryland,

may be required to contribute,

-excep t

on con

support of any ministry .


29/55

Tax xempt Religious Property in altimore

The American Atheist,

Religion, in other words is singled out, by our Con-

stitutions, as a private matter, a matter of singularly

personal concern, a matter which cannot be the subject of

publicaction or public expense.

This is not so, for example, of a hospital, or a uni-

versity, which are considered to perform, and indeed, with-

out doubt (as to a free university), do performpublic func-

tions of an exceedingly important nature. That.is to say,

functions which affect the public welfare.

To put the proposition another way, the Constitution

provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an

establishment of religion. But the prohibition is unique as

to religion. It does prohibit a law respecting the establish-

mentof a hospital, university, a non-profit research founda-

tion, a volunteer fire department, a veteran's home for the

aged, a boy scout office building, or a girl Scout cookie

by artin A. arson

Baltimore, Maryland, is an interesting city for a

study of tax-exempt religious property. Although it

was the place in which Roman Catholic strength in

this country was first concentrated, and was given

American priority in

1858

by the Vatican over all

other dioceses in the United States, its population is

not predominantly Catholic now, nor has it been so

during the current century.

Baltimore has a large Negro community: it com-

prised 67,000 members in 1890. Negroes remained be-

tween

15%

and

19%

of the population until

1940.

Then they increased to

24%

in

1950

and to

35%

(329,000)

in

1960.

Negroes are predominantly Protes-

tant. One might have expected, therefore, an increase

in Protestant wealth and influence in the community.

The development has been the exact reverse.

Another distinctive factor is the large number of

Jews who settled in Baltimore after

1906.

By

1936

the

two synagogues and

75

members (as noted in

1906)

had increased to

59

synagogues and

73,000

members,

making the Jews 16% of all communicants and 8.6%

of the population. Since

1936

the number of syna-

gogues has declined to

40,

but the influence and

wealth of the Jewish religious community remains

strong in proportion to its numerical strength.

Baltimore is notable for the number and size of its

churches and other religious properties, Jewish, Protes-

tant and Catholic. There are

619

individual congrega-

tions of which

40

are Jewish,

70

Roman 'Catholic and

509

Protestant or other. The Jews have provided ex-

traordinary facilities for care of their aged, having


drive (all of which are in Maryland, and legally will, re-

main tax exempt).

Of course, interesting other problems are raised (which

I understand you intend, in the future, to pursue), as border-

line cases attempt to sidle up to seek the protection and

advantages which have been granted by tax exemption

statutes. Thus, the question arises as to whena supposed

educational institution run by a sectarian organization is in

fact no longer educational, but entirely religious; Likewise,

when is a fraternal organization serving private and not

public ends. Whenit excludes members because of race?

Or do such organizations really ever serve a public rather

than a private purpose?-They are all granted tax advan-

tages. What about those which are closely allied with

churches? Knights of Columbus, for example, \\hich owns

Yankee Stadiumand pays no taxes on the profits? I don't

know all of the answers, but I do think that the questions

are very interesting.

built such facilities assessed at nearly

$15

million.

Protestant churches are everywhere, though some are

extremely modest and others own no property at all.

Still others are spacious and a few are ostentatious.

It is, however, the Catholics who possess the

american atheist magazine nov/dec 1964

Documents