, 1880-08-09
The Burd Asylum Case.


A case of considerable Interest, bear
ing upon the taxation Of the property
Of charitable institutions, has recently
been decided by the Supreme Court Of
Pennsylvania.
Twenty years ago an Episcopalian
woman named Burd bequeathed large
sum Of money for the establishment of
an orphan asylum in Philadelphia, to
be called by her name. The bequest,
which was duly executed, provided,
first, for the reception of white orphan
eirls between the ages of four and eight
years, who have been baptiHed in the
Protestant Episcopal Church of Phila.
delphia; second, Of the same class of
girls living in the State of Pennsylva-
mia; third, of all other white orphan
girls of legitimate birth and of the pre-
scribed age, except that in every case
the orphan children of Protestant
3piscopal clergymen should have the
preference. The will further directed
that there should be q chapel in the
asylum building, in which the form of
worship of the Episcopal Church. and
ne other, should be observed, and
whore all the children received intothe
institution should be instructed in the
principles of the gospel, as held and
taught by the Protestant Episcopal
Church in the United States. The rec
tor, wardens and vestrymen of St. Ste
phen's church, in Philadelphia were
made Trustees Of the asylum, and ap-
pear to have faithfully executed their
trust.
But not long ago the School Direc-
tors of the township in which the asy-
lum is located levied tax on the prop
erty belonging to it for school purposes.
The Trustees resisted the demand on
the ground that, as q charitable institu-
ton, it was, by law of the State, ex-
empt from taxation. To this it was OBJ
jected that the Constitution of Pennsyl-
vania permits the exemption only of
certain public property, houses of
worship, and institutions of purely
public charity" within the meaning of
the Constitution, and the law exempt
ing it and similar institutions from tax
alton was unconstituti0nal.
The Supreme Court has decided that
the view taken by the school authori-
ties is untenable. It is not necessary,
it holds, that in order to be "a purely
public charity" an eleemosynary insti-
tuition should be open to all classes.
Its benefits may be restricted to q sim
gle class, or to specified number of .
class, and still be public charity" !"
and as such be entitled to exemption
from taxation. It makes no difference
in the application of this principle that
the institution is for the benefit of per-
sons belonging to particular religious
denomination. All that is necessary to
constitute it "purely public charity "
is that it should be charity strictly,
whether for the relief of the blind or
disabled, the aged or orphaned, or any
other helpless class.
The principle here enunciated is u1-
questionably sound one. These instl-
tutions are a public benefit. for they
relieve the public of the support of
persons who might easily become a
general burden. To permit them to be
tazed would tend to discourage be-
quests for such institutions, and to ex-
I pose their property to serious hard
ship, or even to confscation, in case of
ruinous taxation brought on by official
extravaganza or corruption.-N. 7. Ec-
ominer and Chronicle.