Charitable Organizations. It is also customary to exempt from taxation the property of charitable corporations and associations, so far as it is actually made use of for charitable purposes. This is upon the ground that they perform service for the public, and to some extent, at least, relieve the state from expense. The question, what is to be regarded as a charitable organization within the meaning of a statute making exemptions, is sometimes one of much difficulty, and it has been discussed in numerous cases which are referred to in the margin.1

Schools. School property, and all actually devoted to the business of public instruction, is also commonly exempted, though held and owned by private corporations or individuals. Sometimes the exemption is general, and sometimes it is restricted to some particular class of schools. If the exemption is only of property used for school purposes, it will not apply to property merely held for revenue."

Libraries. Where the advantages of a library are offered to the public, it is common to exempt it from taxation, and the property also which is held for its purposes.

Church Property. The property owned by religious societies, and made use of for the purposes of public worship, is also commonly exempted; the exemption being made uniform

ors, 36 La. An., 347; New Orleans v. Arthurs, 36 La. An., 98. Exemptions to encourage the planting of trees are sometimes made, but they may be recalled even after the trees are planted. Shiner v. Jacobs, 62 Ia., 392.

1 See State v. Addison, 2 S. C., 499; Savannah v. Solomon's Lodge, 53 Ga., 93; State v. Board of Assessors, 34 La. An., 574; Bangor v. Masonic Lodge, 73 Me., 428; Appeal Tax Court v. Grand Lodge, 50 Md., 421; State v. Powers, 10 Mo. App., 263, and 74 Mo., 476; Thiel College v. Mercer County, 101 Pa. St., 530; Cleveland Lit. Inst. v. Pelton, 36 Ohio St., 253; Hennepin County v. Grace, 27 Minn., 503; Orphan Asylum v. School District, 90 Pa. St., 21; Donahugh's Appeal, 86 Pa. St., 306; Delaware Co. Institute v. Delaware County, 94 Pa. St., 163.

2 As to what would come within an exemption of free public schools, see St. Joseph's Church v. Assessors, 12 R. I., 19. See, also, Chegaray v. New York, 13 N. Y., 220; State v. Ross, 24 N. J., 497.

3 See State v. Assessors, 35 La. An., 668. Compare University v. People, 99 U. S., 309; Wesleyan Academy v. Wilbraham, 99 Mass., 599.

4 See Providence Atheneum v. Tripp, 9 R. I., 559.

so as to embrace the property of all sects and denominations of worshipers.1

In any of these cases if the property which is exempted for a particular use is leased or otherwise appropriated to any other use, the exemption is lost; 2 but school property will not lose its exemption by being leased in vacation, neither will church property by a merely incidental and occasional use for schools.1

3

Cemeteries. The property of cemetery associations is also commonly exempted, so far as it is actually appropriated to the purposes of burial." But a mere appropriation on paper is not sufficient for the purpose, and the appropriation of one acre in forty would not be sufficient to give exemption to the whole."

6

1 Exemption of church property held not to include a parsonage. State v. Lyon, 32 N. J., 360; State v. Krollman, 38 N. J., 323; State v. Axtell, 41 N. J., 117; Hennepin County v. Grace, 27 Minn., 503; Gerke v. Purcell, 25 Ohio St., 229.

2 Pierce v. Cambridge, 2 Cush., 611; Proprietors, etc., v. Lowell, 1 Met., 538; New Haven v. Sheffield, 30 Conn., 160; County Commissioners v. Sisters of Charity, 48 Md., 34; Appeal Tax Court v. Grand Lodge, 50 Md., 421; Same v. Baltimore Academy, 50 Md., 437; State v. Board of Assessors, 34 La. An., 574; Armand v. Dumas, 28 La. An., 403; Old South Society v. Boston, 127 Mass., 378; New Orleans v. Russ, 27 La. An., 413; Lee v. New Orleans, 28 La. An., 426; Wyman v. St. Louis, 17 Mo., 335; State v. Assessors, 35 La. An., 668; Enaut v. Tax Collectors, 36 La. An., 804.

3 Temple Grove Sem. v. Cramer, 98 N. Y., 121; S. C. below, 26 Hun, 309. 4 St. Mary's Church v. Tripp, 14 R. I., 307. See further for questions of exemptions under these heads, Griswold College v. Iowa, 46 Ia., 275; Laurent v. Muscatine, 59 Ia., 404; Fort Des Moines Lodge v. Polk County, 56 Ia., 34; Monticello Seminary v. People, 106 Ill., 398; Theological Seminary v. People, 101 Ill., 578; Redemptionists v. Howard County, 50 Md., 449; Appeal Tax Court v. St. Peter's Academy, 50 Md., 321; Same v. St. Mary's Seminary, 50 Md., 333; Same v. Red Men's Hall, 50 Md., 352; Temple Grove Seminary v. Cramer, 33 Hun, 309; People v. Seamen's Friend Society, 87 Ill., 246; Chapel of Good Shepherd v. Boston, 120 Mass., 212; Workingmen's Aid Society v. Lynn, 136 Mass., 283; Redemptionist Fathers v. Boston, 129 Mass., 178; First Presb. Church v. New Orleans, 30 La. An., 259; Trinity Church v. Boston, 118 Mass., 164.

5 People v. Cemetery Co., 86 Ill., 336. As to what would be exempt as a church burial ground, see Appeal Tax Court v. Zion's Church, 50 Md., 352. 6 Woodland Cemetery v. Everett, 118 Mass., 354.

7 Mulroy v. Churchman, 60 Ia., 717. An old burial ground held by a cemetery company is exempt. Swan Pt. Cem. v. Tripp, 14 R. I., 199.

Exemptions in these cases are granted on considerations of general public policy; and, being freely granted, they may as freely be recalled when the legislative view of public policy may have changed. In law they are to be regarded as favors or privileges to the class exempted, granted and to be held at the pleasure of the sovereign power. There is no pledge by the state that they shall be permanent, and no wrong done when they are recalled.'

State Indebtedness. A state sometimes makes the bonds or other evidences of indebtedness issued by itself non-taxable. When this is done before the indebtedness is incurred, a contract is established between the state and those who become its creditors, which precludes withdrawing the exemption; but one state cannot make exemptions for others; and the obligation, though not taxable by the state issuing it, may be taxed in other states if held there.?

Taxability Presumed. As taxation is the rule, and exemption the exception, the intention to make an exemption ought to be expressed in clear and unambiguous terms; and it cannot be taken to have been intended when the language of the statute on which it depends is doubtful or uncertain.3

1 Ante, p. 69. See Hospital v. Philadelphia, 24 Pa. St., 229; Commonwealth v. Fayette, etc., R. R. Co., 55 Pa. St., 452; Brewster v. Hough, 10 N. H., 138; St. Joseph v. Railroad Co., 39 Mo., 476; State v. Dulle, 48 Mo., 282; Tomlinson v. Jessup, 15 Wall., 454; Appeal Tax Court v. Grand Lodge, 50 Md., 421; Same v. Regents, 50 Md., 457; Shiner v. Jacobs, 62 Ia., 392; Probasco v. Moundsville, 11 W. Va., 501; State v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 60 Mo., 143.

2 Appeal Tax Court v. Patterson, 50 Md., 354. The liability of a corporation to taxation where it exists will not preclude taxation of its shares in other states where they may be held. Appeal Tax Court v. Gill, 50 Md., 377. Or of its bonds. Ibid.

3 See ante, pp. 69-72, and cases cited in the notes. "Taxation is an act of sovereignty, to be performed, so far as it conveniently can be, with justice and equality to all. Exemptions, no matter how meritorious, are of grace, and must be strictly construed." This was said in a case where the court felt compelled to hold that a married woman was subject to a tax for the raising of bounty moneys, though her husband was actually in the military service. Crawford v. Burrell, 53 Pa. St., 219, 220. See, also, Lord Colchester v. Kewney, Law R., 1 Exch., 368; Platt v. Rice, 10 Watts, 352; Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet., 514; Minot v. Philadelphia, etc., R. R. Co., or the Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall., 206; Trask v. Maguire, 18

Strict Construction of Exemptions. It is also a very just rule that, when an exemption is found to exist, it shall not be enlarged by construction. On the contrary it ought to receive a strict construction; for the reasonable presumption is that the state has granted in express terms all it intended to grant at all, and that unless the privilege is limited to the very terms of the statute the favor would be extended beyond what was meant. On this ground it is held that an exemption of property

99;

Wall., 391; Gordon v. Baltimore, 5 Gill, 231; Howell v. Maryland, 3 Gill, 14; Baltimore v. State, 15 Md., 376; Hannibal, etc., R. R. Co. v. Shacklett, 30 Mo., 550; Washington University v. Rowse, 42 Mo., 308; Pacific R. R. Co. v. Cass County, 53 Mo., 17; Stewart v. Davis, 3 Murphy, 244; State v. Town Council, 12 Rich., 339; Martin v. Charleston, 13 Rich. Eq., 50; Anderson v. State, 23 Miss., 459; B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Marshall County, 3 W. Va., 319; Same v. Wheeling, 3 W. Va., 372; State v. Bank of Smyrna, 2 Houst., Municipality v. Railroad Co., 10 Rob. (La.), 187; Louis. Canal Co. v. Commonwealth, 7 B. Monr., 160; St. Peter's Church v. Scott County, 12 Minn., 395; Portland, S. & P. R. R. Co. v. City of Saco, 60 Me., 196; State v. Parker, 32 N. J., 426; Hart v. Plum, 14 Cal., 148; People v. Whyler, 41 Cal., 351; Biscoe v. Coulter, 18 Ark., 423; Harvard College v. Boston, 104 Mass., 470, 475; Orr v. Baker, 4 Ind., 86; City of Indianapolis v. McLean, 8 Ind., 328; City of Madison v. Fitch, 18 Ind., 33; Methodist Church v. Ellis, 38 Ind., 3; Washburn College v. Shawnee County, 8 Kan., 344; Vail v. Beach, 10 Kan., 214; St. Mary's College v. Crowl, 10 Kan., 442; Miami County v. Brackenridge, 12 Kan., 114; No. Mo. R. R. Co. v. Maguire, 20 Wall., 46; Redemptionist Fathers v. Boston, 129 Mass., 178; People v. Commissioners, 95 N. Y., 554; Franklin St. Soc. v. Manchester, 60 N. H., 342; Lima v. Cem. Ass'n, 42 Ohio St., 128; State v. Woodruff, 37 N. J., 139; State v. Elizabeth, 37 N. J., 330; Carpenter v. School Trustees, 12 R. I., 574; Bridge Co. v. Dist. of Columbia, 1 Mack., 217; Union Pass. R. Co. v. Philadelphia, 83 Pa. St., 429; Hope Mining Co. v. Kennon, 3 Mont., 35; Balt. & O. R. R. Co. v. Dist. of Columbia, 2 Mack., 122; Wright v. Railroad Co., 64 Ga., 783.

If by its charter a ferry company is not to be taxed higher than any other ferry company, this provision is not in itself an exemption, and is not violated unless some other ferry company is taxed less. Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. Louis, 107 U. S., 365. Whether a license fee is a tax within the meaning of the provision, see Same v. Same, 102 Ill., 560.

A railroad company having a perpetual lease of a road, held not to be owner so as to be entitled as such to a statutory exemption. State v. Housatonic R. Co., 48 Conn., 44. Where a corporation by its charter is exempt from taxation, an amendment of the charter which is accepted by it may repeal the exemption. Petersburgh v. Railroad Co., 29 Grat., 773.

1 Erie Railway v. Pennsylvania, 21 Wall., 492; Conklin v. Cambridge, 58 Ind., 130; Plaisted v. Lincoln, 62 Me., 91; Chadwick v. Maginnes, 94 Pa. St., 117; Westmore Lumber Co. v. Orne, 48 Vt., 90; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v.

from taxation will not preclude business or privilege taxes being imposed on the favored class; and that bequests to colleges, etc., may be taxed under the general statute taxing bequests, though after being received they would be exempt under the general statute exempting the property of such institutions. So an academy of arts is not exempted under an exemption of "universities, colleges, academies and schoolAlamance Co., 76 N. C., 212; Hand v. Savannah, etc., R. R. Co., 12 S. C., 315; Commonwealth v. Ches. & O. R. Co., 27 Grat., 344; Baton Rouge, etc., R. Co. v. Kirkland, 33 La. An., 622; People v. Commissioners of Taxes, 82 N. Y., 459; Buchanan v. County Commissioners, 47 Md., 286; State v. Fuller, 40 N. J., 328; State v. Collector, etc., 38 N. J., 270; Louisville, etc., Co. v. Gaines, 3 Fed. Rep., 266.

An exemption of mortgages from taxation will not be held to include socalled building association mortgages, in which the sum to be paid eventually is uncertain. Appeal Tax Court v. Rice, 50 Md., 302. An exemption of lands from taxation for general city purposes does not exempt from school taxation. South Bend v. University, 69 Ind., 344. An exemption of the property of an orphan asylum will not exempt from a collateral inheritance tax. Miller v. Commonwealth, 27 Grat., 110. But an exemption of the lands of a cemetery company will cover its improvements. Appeal Tax Court v. Baltimore Cem. Co., 50 Md., 432. An exemption from city taxation of the agricultural products of a state will not prevent the imposition of an occupation tax on the business of one who sells it. Davis v. Macon, 64 Ga., 128. The exemption of "an endowment or fund of any religious society," etc., will not embrace lands. State v. Krollman, 38 N. J., 323, 574. See State v. Lyon, 32 N. J., 360. An exemption of “mines and mining claims" allows of the taxation of surface improvements. Gold Hill v. Caledonia, etc., Co., 5 Sawy., 575. Where a statute provides that every foreign railroad company which extends its line within the state shall be subject to taxation, such a company will be liable for taxes upon a line purchased from a domestic corporation which was exempt from taxation. Railway Co. v. Counties, 5 Dill., 289. See for a somewhat similar point, Hoge v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S., 348.

1 New Orleans v. Savings, etc., Co., 31 La. An., 637. Exemption of stock and real estate of a corporation will not preclude a license tax. New Orleans v. Canal Bank, 32 La. An., 104; New Orleans v. State Nat. Bank, 34 La. An., 892.

2 Barringer v. Cowan, 2 Jones, Eq., 436. See for a peculiar case, Mass. Gen. Hospital v. Somerville, 101 Mass., 319. An exemption from state, municipal and parish taxes held not to preclude an occupation license tax. New Orleans v. Canal, etc., Co., 32 La. An., 104. Compare New Orleans v. People's Bank, 32 La. An., 82. A saw-mill not exempt as "property employed in the manufacture of textile fabrics, machinery, agricultural implements and furniture, and other articles of wood." Jones v. Raines, 35 La. An.,