The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1899-01-06

| " be NLul L u. ol. oot, olo, olo, ClllNii
natl College V. The State, 10 Ohio st.
| 110) Neither contention is correct.
The rule that laws eXempting proper
| ty from taxation should be strictly
construed is we'll settled and is based
on solid reason But it is often referred
/ to, and several times in our own re-
ports in cases where it has no applica-
| ton and is not, in fact, applied. Gill
! lette V. Hartford, 81 Conn. S51, 957
! Brainard V. Colchester, ID. 407, 40; First
| Unitarian Society of Hartford V. Town
| of Hartford. sc Conn, 36S, 374; Hart
ford V. Hartford Theological Seminary,
lib. AIS, 452.) The last two cases mark
the distinction in treating a mere char
! ter exemption and statute declaring
public buildings non-taXable. The rule
is limited by the reasons which brought
| 1t about. These are tW0-eXceptlon to
| a general rule should be distinctly
| stated; private privileges are obnoxious
! to the law and must be clearly eXpr S.
| ed. The rule in truth is based on pre-
sumption of intention; the legislature
ordinarily intends its laws to apply to
all equally; it does not intend to grant
| privileges to select individuals. SO
| when exceptions or special privileges are
| claimed under a statute, this ordinary
or presumptive intention is entitled to
| weight, according to the circumstances
in ascertafning the actual intention eX-
pressed by the language used. These
reasons do not fully apply to the law
under discussion. The non-taxation of
public buildings is not the exception
but the rule. The corporations, whether
| mn 11iaipn1 "a which AVID
are by law charged with the mainten-
ance of such untaxed buildings, are not
the recipients of special privileges in
any sense obnoxious to the law This
clause of section $500 does not ex-
empt any individuals from the bur-
den of taxation that is common to all;
it does not grant to one, particular
privileges denied to all others; it de-
clafes that lands and buildings Sc
questered to certain public uses, i. e.,
taken out of the body of private prop
erty, and devoted exclusively to the
common good, from which no indi-
vidual can derive any profit, are not
taxable property. And this has been,
not the exception, but the rule from
the foundation of our government. The
seats of government, state or munich
Pal, highways, parks, churches, public
school houses, colleges, have never
been within the range of taxation; they
cannot be exceptions from a rule in
which they were never included. Our
theory of taxation was laid down in
the code of 1850, and has not been
changed, except so far as the revenue
of estate may have become the basis
of assessment. every inhabitant shall
contribute to all charge both IN church
and commonwealth, whereof he doth or
may receive benefit, proportionately to
his abilty''-his ability to be deter
mined by his occupation and the amount
of his ratabe or taxable estate 1t is
the person enjoying the benefits of gov
eminent who is taxed according to his
ability The mere stuff of land and
buildings is not the subject Of taxation
except as it may be the source Of profit,
present or prospective, to some person
bound to contribute to the charges of
government And this same code com
PEELED each town to tax itself for the
support of schools that youths might
'be fitted for the university" and APP
pointed commonwealth collectors to de-
mand Of every family gifts for the main
tenance of scholars at Cambridge. q
Col, Rec. PIP. 547, 555) Buildings erect
ed by means of such taxes and gifts
were not source of profit to any per-
son; towns and trustees charged with
the maintenance of such buildings were
contributors to the public benefit rather
than recipients. So these public build
lngs We're not taxed; they were not ex-
empted, because they had not been
WITHIN the range of taxation; they We're
SIMPLY not mentioned in our tax laws
1T was differentWith exemptions in the
more strict sense. The polls and estates
of individuals were from time to time
exempted; in 1851 those of commission
ers or magistrates in the plantations
We're so exempted, and a like exemp-
tlon was rendered Winthrop to induce
him to accept the appointment of gov
ernor. g Col. Rec. SO, 64) In 1899 the
estates of settled ministers were exemp-
ted from paying rates, and in 1903 the
polls of students at the collegiate school
were exempted. CA Col Rec. 287. 4aO)
And many like exemptions occur When
the legislature in 1902 adopted our stat
ute OF charitable uses, it not only Sc
cured the perpetuation of gifts for pi-
Gus uses according to the intent of
donors, but also declared that estate
so given shall be free from payment
of rates. This was an exemption of a
very wide range and somewhat uncer
tain description. The language is per-
hapS broad enough to cover some pub
lie buildings which previously had
been and afterwards remained untaxed
because of the nature of the property
and not by reasons of special legisla-
tive exception; but the main purpose of
this declaration of exemption related to
productive funds, lands or personal es-
tate, given for charitable uses, posi-
bly, with special reference to the gifts
Of Hopkins, Gibbons and Talcott,
which had recently come into use for
the support of grammar schools, to an
ticipated gifts for the support of the
collegiate school, and to appropria-
lions made for payment of ministers
salaries. "a Col. Rec. D 81, AtWater "
Woodbridge, 6 Conn, 223, 227.) And so
we find that subsequent laws of taxa
ton except or exempt from payment of
rates, not only prior personal exemptions,
but lin like manner "all lands in this
colony seCuestered to or improved by
schools and other pious uses" 6 Col
Rec. 1889, and this special exemption in