Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1881-04-13

empowered the religious societies to sup
port religious worship by tax ton of their
members but did not empower towns To,
nor has it ever done so, since.
Giving to words their natural and ordi-
nary signifcltlon. and gathering the intent
of the trainers of the constitution and of
the people who adopted it from the intsru
ment self, no language appcars restrain
ing the legislature from taxing properly
devoted to the uses of public worship
That every member Of the community
should con- rihute his share of the eXpenSe
of that protection to life, liberty and prop
lerly, which the Bill Of Rights guarantees.
IS not a statement Of the right of any per-
son, or OF anv property, to exemption from
taxation. The power Of the legislature
q" to levy and impose proportional and rea
sonable assessments, rates, and taxes upon
all the inhabitants aud residents within the
state and upon all the estates within the
same, cannot IN AN u restriction of the
legislative power 10 IA part of the lnhabi
tants and residents" and part of the
estates" or property, within the state.
| The language i too plain and explicit to
need the all of construction. and toD Ger.
tain to require extrinsic evidence of the
lntent of those who used it. The 9th arli-
Gle of the Bill OF Rlghs, empowering the
legislature to aulhurizr towns 10 tax them
selves for the support OF pubic religious
Worship, contains no mnt Of exempting
church property from lax Iuon, and no
Itngutge from which AN intention TO ex
pmpt II can be Inferred 81 lonLas towns,
under the act Of l19l exercised ptrochia
functions ani rllSeI take, flr supporting
and maintaining houses OF public worship,
those places of worship we're exempt from
taxation as public properly, by the nature
oi things, and not 10y the constitution or
by statute"
After the act of 1919 when towns were
no longer subj ct L church rates and the
whole management ul public worship in
cudlhg its support was left to the religious
| societies authorized and orgtnII II tor n It
| purpose, the ntu uril reason Tor exemp'ing
/ lhlS property from taxation ceased The
custom OF treating II as free from any pub.
llc burden continued, though houses of
public worship We're not named among tax
| ireed property, nor enumerated in any list
OF rltahle property IN any statute, until
! lS42, when, by the revised statutes, meet
lng houses were exempted by name from
taxation. The same exemption is found in
the general statutes of 1867, and in the
| general laws of 1873
The argument from the long.continucd
custom of eNempting property devoted to
public religious worship from tlxuion, A.
practical construction Of the cons stitution,
would nave weight, if the question, wheth-
] er the exemption WAS enjoyed Is = cpnsIi.
tuliOnal right or legislative privilege.
. 1tth t., 1
'ldered.. So long as the privilege wi.
enjoyed, the question OF holding it by right
Or 10y grace wt- not thought Of The eN.
press exemptions by statute, since 1872.
show that the legisl ture may have sup
posed that meeting houses were taxable
property, unless exempted by express, stat.
ute. Besides, where the language of the
constitution, rs in this case, is unambig.
uous, to suffer Il practical construction q
d prevail would be to defeat the manifest
) intention OF the people who framed its
provisions. Story on Cnnst., sec. 4O7
Cooley Const. Linn, p. 81; Evans vs.. NV.
ers, % Pa. ST, ll6; Barnes vs.. First Parish
in Falmouth, t NJ tss. III; Union Pacific
r. r. VS.. United States, 81 U. 5. u.
| An exemption not founded on grant in
the constitution, or on any contract in any
charter or legls ltive act is not presump.
lively established by employment, however
ong continued. No prescription runs
against the sovereign, nor does the state.
/ ny omission to use, waive or lose the right
/ to exercise its supreme power, and the cit
| zen can ave no vested right in the con-
tnuance OF any statute OF general exemp.
tons.
Com. VS.. Bird, II Mass. 443; Bragg VS..
People, 79 Ill. 32S; Moore VS. Cass, 10
kan. 288 Murphy vs.. People, 81 III. 447;
Stale vs.. Miller. Z BIachf 81; State vs..
Quimby. 81 Me. 395; State VS.. Wright 53
Ne. 32S; People VS. Roper, 80 N. Y. 629,
Com. of Excise VS.. Boice, 81 N. Y. 637
irick Presb. Chnrch vs.. Mayor, Cow
j3S; ChrisL's Chnrch VS. Phil ,lelphi;t, "A
How. 80; E. Saginaw Man Co. vs.. E
Saginaw, l3 Wal, 373
d The plaintiff claim, the right to exemp-
ton from the tax, and consequent tbate-
mcnt, on the ground that the right of ex.
= emptlon rests IN II contract, either in the
constitution or in subsequent legislation,
OF in bo h, and invioltte by the constitution
b Of the United States. 1t is unquestionable,
3 that AN agreement by state, for II con-d-
{ Grafton received or supposed to be received,
shalI be exempt from tax ,tlon, Is Il con
ract protected by the provision of the
federal constitution forbid ling "a state to
pass any law imp .iring the obligation OF
contracts. New Jersey VS.. Wilson, Or
: l64; Gordon VS.. Appeal Tax Court, 3
How. 1873; Plqua Bank vs.. Knoop, l6
! How. 1863; Home of the FriondIess VS..
Rouse, s Wal 430; Hardy VS.. Waltham,
7 Pick. lO8; Atwater vs.. Wo pdbridge, 6
CT. 223; Osborn vs.. Humphrey, CT. 335,
Arlington vs.. Barnet, 10 Vt. 75l; R.il
road VS.. Parcher, II Me. 297, Opinion OF
Justices, N. II. Laws, 1879, p. 424 Cooley
Const Linn, PIP. 342, 343.
But to give II law of general exemption
lrom taxation the character of in irlepeal-
able contract, there must be consideta-
lion received by the stae; for an exemp-
ton, made as Il privilege merely, may be
revoked AT any tlme-Christs Church VS.
Philadelphia, supra; Brainerd VS., Colches
ter 81 CT. 4l0; and the intention TO reln.
I luI'h the sovereign prerogative Of taxltion
must be distinctly manifested. Providence
Bank vs.. Billings, Pet. 69l; Herrick VS..
Randolph, l3 VI 53l; People vs.. Com of
Faxes, AZ N. Y. sol; Lord VS.. Litcheld.
( 30 CT.
Neither in the 9th article of the Bill of
Rights, nor elsewhere in the constitution,
nor in the acts of 1871. 1919, and 1927, is
here any express contract Of exemption
from taxation, or any manifest intention
on the part of the legislature to make such
a contract. Nor do the statutes of lS42,
1861 and 1873, expressly excmpng meet.
'ing-huuses from taxation, indicate any de.
sign to make contract irrepealabe and
T InyioAble. In language and bv relation
they are general exemptions of particu-
lar class OF property, which the legislature
has made, and which it may unmake by
repeal. In these exemptions, there ls no
vested right which can support the idea of
= contract binding on succeeding legisla.
lures and irrepeilabe. Hospital vs. Phil
adelphia, "a Pa. ST 229; Christs Church
vs.. Philadelphia, "a How. 300; Cooley on
Taxation, PIP. So, "a. 145, l46.
We decide that the constitution does not
exempt church property frem taxation.
Whether exemption of church property is
constitutional is a question we do not de
eide, because ii is not raised by the case.
The plaintiff is not in situation to object
1 to exemption. 1t cannot claim that il