The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-03-01
EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION.
A CASE AZ TO WHEN PROPERTY Is
USED FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.
Decision OF tho supreme Court Of
Appeals I'm the Petersburg Benevo-
lent Mechanic Association suit.

lent Mechanic Association suit.
The Court Of Appeals Thursday decided
the case Of the city Of Petersburg Us, The
Petersburg Benevolent Mechanic Associa.
tion. The question was whether the real
estate OF the Association is subject TO tax.
alton. No tax on its property is assessed
by the State, but In 1880 il was assessed for
taxation by the city OF Petersburg, and the
collection OF the tax was enjoined by the
Corporation Court Of that city. The prop
erty In question Is certain lot in Peters
burg. upon which Is building. one.third
OF which is used by the Association and
the other two-thirds Is rented ont and
the proceeds applied exclusively 10 the pur-
poses OF the Association. The Association
claimed the right OF exemption under an act
OF the Legislature approved April 2. 1877,
which provides that real estate owned by
Masonic, 0dd-Fellows, and other like be-
nevolent associations. when the proceeds
arising from said property are devoted ex-
clusively to charitable or school purposes,
shall be exempt from taxation. The claim
TO exemption was resisted by the CITY on
three grounds: 1. Because the Legislature
has no power, under the Constitution, to
not itself used by the Association although
the proceeds derived from its use are ap-
piled to the purposes OF the Association.
,. Because the proceeds arising from the
leased property are not applied to charita-
ble purposes; and 3. Because the statute
relied on does not exempt property which
is used for private purposes or Tor profit,
no matter to what purposes the proceeds
are applied.
Judge Lewis delivered the unanimous
opinion of the court. He said:
The Constitution, Article ", section
3. empowers the Legislature to exempt all
property from taxation which "Is used eX-
cluSively for State. county, municipal, be-
nevolent, charitable. educational, and reli-
gious purposes" 1t is contended that eX-
emption from taxation being in derogation
OF common right, this provision OF the
Constitution must be strictly construed.
II is certainly true that public grants, Of
which exemption from taxation is one, are
always to be strictly construed. Liability
to taxation is the rule, exemption the eX-
emption, and before such exemption can
be admitted the in ent OF the Legislature
10 confer it must be clear beyond
q reasonable doubt. .-Minot rs. The
Railroad Commpany, Is WALL, 20G.
And hence il has been often held where
exemption from taxation is granted by
statute, in respect TO property used for
particular purposes. that the exemption
ceases when the property is used for dii-
ferent purposes, although the proceeds are
devoted to the purposes which the Legisla-
ture had in yiew.-St. Mary's College Us.
Grove. treasurer, 10 Kan, 442; CHM.
Col. Us. the state, 10 Ohio, no: Pierce
rs. the inhabitants OF Cambridge 2 Cush.,
GIL : State Us. Ross, 4 Zab., 1874, and many
other cases cited by the appellants cOun-
sci. But this rule in regard to the judicial
construction OF statutory grants has no
application TO the present case. Except
where limited by the Constitution the
power Of the Legislature over all subjects
OF general legislation is absolute. And
so the power OF taxation, as well
as the power OF exemption, being
essential elements OF sovereignty, are con-
fided to the Legislature. Every statute,
the object and provisions of which are
within the acknowledged powers Of legiS-
lation, is presumed to be constitutional
until the contrary is clearly demonstrated.
Whether the effect of the constitutional
provision quoted. when fairly construed, is
a limitation on the power of the Legislature
in respect to the exemption of property
from taxation, or whether its power over
the subject is unlimited, as was held by
two Of the judges in Williamson as. The
Auditor, (33 Graft, 237,) and as to which
Judge BurkS, who cOncurred in the iudg-
ment, expressed no opinion, is question
which need not be decided in the present
case. 1t is sufficient to say that we enter
tain no doubt that the grant OF power to
exempt all property used for the purposes
enumerated carries with it the power to
exempt such property when its proceeds
are devoted exclusively to any OF those
purposes, and that the act in question is
constitutional and valid.
But the appellant denies that the pro-
ceeeds are applied to charitable purposes.
A charitable use, it is cOntended must be
q public use within the meaning OF the
statute. The same rule of construction
cOntended for would exclude from the
benefit Of the statute Masonic, Odd-Fel-
lows, and other like associations, whose
revenues are not applied to public pur-
poses, and whose right OF exemption is
unquestioned. The authorities relied on
by the counsel for the appellant are cases
arising under the statute OF the 43d OF
Elizabeth, relating to trusts for "charlta-
ble use," or similar statutes not in force
10 this State, and have no bearing on
the present case. We think the term
" charitable is used in the act not
in restricted but rather in its enlarged
sense OF benevolent, which is one OF
its definitions given by the photographers,
and that in this view the funds OF the Asso-
citation are used for charitable purposes.
The objects of the Association, which was
incorporated by the Legislature in 1876,
are set forth in its constitution and by
laws and IN the preamble thereto, which
declares that in nstituting a society OF me-
chanics charity should be the principal but
not the only object. Its revenues. as the
testimony shows. are wholly applied to the
payment Of It's current expenses, the assist
ance Of its INDECENT members, and the lam
lilies OF such of them as may have died In
needy circumstances.
We cannot doubt that the exemption
conferred by the statute extends to the
present case. BY the act approved March
i6. 1874 (Acts 1S74-'75. page 2l0), it was
provided that no lot or building partially
or wholly used for any private purpose or
profit should be exempt from taxation.
But by the act now in force (Acts lSl6o77,
pages 1929 it is provided that where
part OF the proceeds derived from the pro-
% ha rtfablp school