The Helena independent., 1893-12-20
II IS NOT ALL EXEMPT.
An Important Decision in Regard
to Property Of Charitable
Institutions
Unless In Actual Use for tho Soci-
ety's Purposes It Pays
Taxes.
The Supreme Court Passes ON the Case OF
the Montana Catholic Missions,
Society of Jesus.

The supreme court yesterday hande'
down q decision which involves the ver!
important question Of the exemption from
taxation Of all properly belonging to char
liable institutions, The case was that o
ths Montana Catholic Missions. Society o
Jesus plaintiff and appellant versus th'
county Of Lewis and Clarke and Il. p. Bar.
den, treasurer, defendants and respondents
Only two points we're involved and on thea,
tho supreme court ruled: HrsA that an In
stitution of public charity itself 10 not ex
empt from paying taxes on its property
but that certain Of its property 10 exempt
second. that the property IL exempt which
10 actually used for An institution Of purely
public charity. Itis the hrst decision eve,
given BY the suprems court Of this state or
this important question.
The action was brought by the society &c
have declared void the assessment and levy
Of general taxes ngainst certain Of its real
estate, and to enjoin Treasurer Bsrleu
from selling the property for the taxes.
The society claimed shat II was an institu-
tion of purely public charity, and the
owner Of certain lands. 1t was not set ur
in the complaint that this land 10 now be-
ing used by the society in any manner. but
IL 10 alleged that the property 10 held fol
the purpose Of erecting buildings for oor-
tain purely charitable purposes, unssosar-
ian in character. General taxes wero as
sssssd and levied on tho property. An ap-
peal was made to the county commission
srs. who refused to allow any exemption
except ss to twenty nc es on which an or
phsn asylum was being built.
general demurrer to the complaint was
sustained, and judgment entered for de-
fsndants. Plaintiff appealed. The appeal
brought up for construction the following
provision Of the constitutions: "Tho prop
srty of the United States. tho state. the
counties. cities. towns, school districts.
municipal corporations and public librar-
les, shall be exempt from taxation, and
such other property a. may be used ex.
clusivsly Tor agricultural and horticultural
societies. for educational purposes, places
for actual religious worship, hospitals and
rlases Of burial. not used or held for psi-
vats or corporats profit. and institutions of
purely public charity, may be exempt from
taxation." The Legislature passed an act
saying tho Same classes Of property ''are
exempt" with proviso that mo more
land shan is necessary for said purposes
shall be exempt
Associate Justice Dewitt wrote tho opin-
ion Of the supreme court. the Other judges
cenourHing. He says: III is fully con-
is nos used BY the plaintiff exclusively. or
At al. for An institution of purely public
charity. The section Of the constitution
cited describes two classes of property. We
will notice the distinction as to thego two
classes. Fiat, il names the United States,
the state, counties, cities. towns, school
districts, municipal coEp0r ations and pub
lie Libraries. It il not loft to tho legislature
TO say whether or not the property Of these
institutions shall be exempt. The consti-
tuition. in itself. settles that II shall be.
Nor 10 the test Of exclusive use mentioned.
The constitution sxys. simply. tho PROF.
erty' Of these Institutions shall be exempt
Then the section Of the constitution ad-
vanses to another GLASS Of property and de-
scsibss II as property as may be used ex-
olustvely tor certain purposes. and defines
the purposes, and among them names in:
situations OF purely public charity
This class of property is not exempt from
taxation, under the constitution. bat may
be made 80 by the legislature. Tho leQis-
lature has acted in the revenue act of 1891.
It has therein declared to be exemp, prop
srty 81 10 used exclusively for the purposes
tion. and redesoribss those purposes, In tho
exact language of the constitution, making
only the appropriate changes in the mood
of the verbs.
$50. with she constitution and the law
together. We have this condition: Property
of certain entities. as the state, cities, etc..
10 exempt; and property exclusively used
for certain purposes. is exempt. The PROF.
eYty In question falls within the second
GLASS. 40 tho plaintiff 10 an institution of
pu; ely public charity And, We know from
the complaint. that the property is not used
OF purely public charity The most that the
complaint alleges Is that the property is in
tended to be so used. Such intention is
not sufficient to constitute the use contem-
plated BY the conssitution and tho law.
'Ws are, therefore. clearly of opinion
that. as the property in question is not all
used for an institution of purely public
charity II ls not exempt from taxation.
This must bs hold unless construction OF
the constitution and the law. which tho So
ciesy urges, Is to be adopted. II contends
that the language docs not mean that the
property used by such instttution shall be
exempt. but Iathor that the institution as
such as an association o. corporation, shall
be exempt from paying taxes on its prop
erty. J he conclusion would be that such
institution Is exempt from payiny taxes
upon any of its property. The society con-
tend. that tho word Institution used in
the statute means tho association, the cor
poration or the concern. whatever it may
bo. Concede shat suoh Is the meaning. Still
We are of opinion that tho section ie
describing property that 10, or may
be, exempt, and not the institution which
10 the owner of property. he whole sense
Of tho section 10. that il describes property:
the property Of the United States; Of cities,
etc.; property used exclusively for certain
purposes. then setting forth the purposes.
The word for ID mos repeated before each
descrlbed purpose, nor does grammatical
construction or perspicuity require it. Its
sense IL carried over to each mentions cd
purpose. The intention Is Just ss clear
that the section means used exclusively for
Institutions of purely public charity aa
that IL means 'used exclusively for axrioul-
turxl societies. We adhere TO the view
that the language intends to describe tbs
property used, and not tho concern usiuG
it, az being exempt. This view 10 in accor q
with the grammatical construction OF the
language. with the context Of tho section,
and the general intont expressed therein.
ITO adopt appellants construction " would
be to hold that il an institution were sim.
ply Of the character described in the con-
laws are concerned. IL might hold exempt
from taxation all property Of any charsc-
ter. ana of any amount in value whe.hel
It used sach property exclusively. or at oil,
for purely public charity. Against thi,
view are the decided cases, reason, tho con
text and spirit OF the constitutioa on III,
subject of taxation. That instrument pro-
vides: All property shall be assessed in
the manne. prescribed BY law, except q
Otherwise provided in this constitution.
Go appellant seeks to bring itself within an
exception to the constitutional rule tha,
all property shall be assessed" The opin-
ion says the socisty sesks to bring !.seli
within the exception by q strained and uu.
tyr nf ho