The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1889-11-14
THEY MUST BE TAXED.
THE CITY ATTORNEYS OPINION
ON GROUND-RENT LOTS.


70 Taxation Unless Especially Ex-
cepted The City Attorney Unable
to Find Any Evidences of Exemp-
tion-The Question of Assessing the
Property for 1890 to be Considered
by the Council Next Week.
Corporation Attorney Adams submitted
his opinion to the city council last night on
the question whether ground rent lots are
subject TO assessment for city taxes, hold
ing that the property is subject to taxation.
The opinion is a lengthy one and covers
seventeen pages Of type written legal cap
paper.
The attorney establishes the fact that
ground rent property does not belong TO
the city; 1t belongs to the holders of the
titles. He cites a decision of the superior
court in a case which determined that
ground rent lots are subject to state
and county taxation. Nothing was
intmated in that case as to the
liability to city taxation, but the decision
the attorney, in his opinion, holds that 1t
has obviously, material bearing upon the
question. If the city is the owner of the
property, he says, it must be the landlord,
and the writings under which the property
is held would be leases, but it cannot be
claimed that these papers are leases.
THE CITY's EARLY LAWS.
The first ordinance looking to the dis
position of the public domain in this way
was passed in 1870, and the subsequent
ordinances, including the last, passed in
1854, are modelled after the first ordinance.
1t and the subsequent ordinances provide
for the sale of the lots-not a
lease; that the highest bidder shall be
deemed the purchaser of the lot, and for
ever secures to the purchaser, his heirs and
assigns, the lots sold subject to the condi-
tions of his paying what is called a ground
rent, but what in realty is only an interest
on portion of the purchase money with
held. One of the ordinances speci-
fies ground rent as interest All
of the ordinances show an
unmistakable purpose, Gs do the deeds. that
the title shall go out Of the city and shall
vest absolutely in the purchaser, subject
only to the condition mentioned.
Ground rent lots and the titles under
which they are held have been before the
supreme court twice. The first decision
IS where the court sustains the lawfulness
Of the city's re-entry, and the claim of the
purchaser from the city after such re-entry
as against the titles of those claiming under
the original purchase. No point was decided
IN that case of a controlling character as
far as the present question is concerned.
THE HOLDER WAS THE OWNER.
The court, however, evidently thought
that the holder of one Of these lots was the
owner. In the other decision it is held by
a unanimous court that the city, in the
event of a noncompliance by the grantee
with the conditions of his deed, could re-
nDtpr OTIW for Tha Of Caliipn. thor
the city must sell, pay itself the balance
Of the original purchase money and
hold the residue for the holder of the title.
In delivering the decision of the court,
Judge Hall referred to the holder of one of
these titles as ''the true owner" In view
of this decision, the corporation attorney
holds that the city's position with reference
10 these lots is substantially that
OF any other seller who has taken a
purchase money mortgage to secure the
balance of the purchase money. In answer
ing the question whether ground rent
property is taxable by the city the attorney
holds that it is subject to taxation unless it
can be made to appear, and to appear
clearly, that the property is exempt by law
OF by valid contract.
WHAT THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES.
Under the present constitution all prop
erty must be taxed, except that specially
excepted. Former constitutions permitted
some discretion as to exemption, but the
present permits none. The party
claiming the exemption must
produce the law exempting him.
In the language of the supreme court "all
property of whatever kind in this state,
unless expressly exempted by the laws
thereof or by the laws of the United States,
IS subject to taxation, and must
pay. its pro rata part of the
tax for the support of the government,
IN whatsoever hands it may be, or whoever
may return the same for taxation. In view
or the decision of the courts the conclusion
IS unavoidable that the ground rent prop
erty is not public property, which only can
De exempted. 1t does not belong to the
city, and it will not be contended that it
belongs to the United States or to the state,
or to the county. If the city has parted
with the title the lots will not be covered BY
this exemption. The corporation attorney
mas Jailed to find any laws, state or munich
pal, which provide that ground rent prop
erty shall be exempt.
Ii law had been passed prior TO the
present constitution it would have been
repealed or abrogated as a law and could
Dc OF no service to those claiming the ex-
empuon, in SO far as it might be utilized as
evidence of a contract. A valid contract
Vi exemption, If made prior to the
constitution of 1877, is not set
ASIDE and if law or ordinance can be
found which provides that ground rent lots
snail be exempt, it might be of evidential
value, although not conclusive, to aid in
me proof of contract. As mere law or
ordnance, however, apart from the idea of
control, it would stand repealed
The QUESTION OF CONTRACT EXEMPTION.
- The only question about which
.ne attorney had experienced
any difficulty in reaching a conclusion was
whether ground rent property is exempt by
d Valld, lrrepealable contract. Such a con-
uacI must exist to exempt the property,
una the attorney was unable to
ma any act of the legislature or
ordinance of the city which says
a word as to exemption. The ground rent
teeos do not say anything about exemp-
elon; 1t is true that these deeds call the
small interest paid on the part of the
purchase money retained ground rent
ana an Ingenious mind might find in this
.ne suggestion that the city did not
cohtemplate, did not intend to tax the
property, but how those words can copsti-
ute complete ana valid contract, and
edn 90 so with the clearness and certainty
ffe e4 by the authorities, the attorney
tailed to understand.
WHAT THE CITY CONTEMPLATED.
de did find, however, words in the deed
s %HIcn support materially the propo-
s that they contemplated the