The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1896-04-02
HE KICKS ON TAXES
HARDING CLAIMS EXEMP lI0NS ON
THE GARFIELD.

He Insists on the Constitutional Right to
Pay No Taxes on an Educational Insti-
tuition and in the Legal Contest Gets
First BIood-It VIII Go to the Supreme
Court-Cornty Insists That When a
school is Unused There Are no Exemp-
tions Allowed-seyeral Cases of a SINH
lar Nature Passed Upon Heretofore.
Sedgwick county and Millioaire Hard
ing of Boston are going to have legal
tilt that will not end until il goes to the
supreme court for final adjudication.
About two years ago when the Gar
field university ceased TO be a school
and became the private property Of Mr..
Harding the city assessor put il on the
tax rolls of the county. About LOO
taxes was levied on its assessed valua-
ton, but afterwards the county COM
missioners reduced the amount down 20
about s., 900. Mr.. Harding did not want
to pay the taxes and through his at
torney petitioned the district court for
an order restraining the county treasur-
er from collecting the taxes. County At
torney Davis filed a demurrer TO the Pc
tttion and when the case came up Judge
Dale knocked the demurrer out. He
held as a similia that if man went 10
Oklahoma for the purpose of making a
living and with the intention Of coming
back that il could not he held that he
had rot forfeited his homestead ex-
emption rights in Kansas. In substance
he held that although the university -
not used as school but that the inten-
To-, 60
tuition the right of exemption from tax
alton should not be forfeited. He ask
ed County Attorney Davis, therefore,
to file an answer TO the petition of Mr..
Harding.
The case will come TO trial as soon az
possible and il it does not come 70 trial
some action will be taken to furnish an
excuse to take 1t to the supreme court.
The contention of Mr.. Harding is that
the Garfield university is an educational
institution and as such is exempt from
taxation under the constitution OF the
state. The contention of the county at
tcrney is that it ceases to be an educa.
tional institution when it is not actual
ly used as such. They argue that any
person VINO Owns a building of that
character can hold it for speculation
by calling it an educational institution
and avoid paying taxes on it. That it
is simply private property under the
ownership of Mr.. Harding, who is will
ing TO sell ii any time he gets his price
for it and don't care whether il is TO be
turned into a flour mill, a school house
or a place for storing corn. They al
lege that all the features in ii that indi-
cate the intent to have it used eXclu-
s!veiy for school have been removed,
such as the laboratory, the museum,
the furniture. etc.
There are several decisions of courts
on the subject. In this state Judge
Brewer decided that land belonging 10
the Washburn college not in use was
subject to taxation. Another decision
says that the parsonage of a church not
used by the pastor but by the bishop
was subject to taxation under the con-
stitutiOn. A Pennsylvania decision
says that a building not completed but
IN course of construction for church pur
poses is subject to taxation until il
comes into actual use. The whole theo-
~ of the constitution IS, according 10
the way the county attorney and coun-
ty commissioners look at ii. that no
church, school or charitab BILE institution
is exempt from the law OF assessment
and taxation unless it is IN actual use
for such purposes. Not only in use but
exclusively in use. The county attOr-
ney also contends that if Mr.. Harding
inteded it for a college he would COM
plete it and operate il as such and
shows that he is financially able to do Il.
When MIR. Harding first made appli-
cation for an order restraining the coll
lection of taxes he was advised to en-
ploy a cheap teacher to hold school in
the building, but he declined TO do it.
II there was a teacher in the building