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

| Legislative uSCldIdlIpll, DGCuuoc lliCS a. y
J not 'ratable estate;' because they had
| been placed in that class Of property
| which ought not to be taxed by virtue
! of a public policy too clear to be ques-
toned; and which had been followed
without any specific legislation by our
| government from its very beginning.
! The reason of such public policy is
apparent. The principle that property
necessary for the operation of state and
municipal governments, and buildings
occupied for those essential supports OF
government-public education and pub
lie Worshp--ought not to be the subject
of taxation, has been with US accepted
as automatic 1t has been Incorporated
into the constitutions of several states.
| t has been inseparably interviewer with
the structure OF our government and
the habits and convictions of our people
since 1888. 1t is not based merely on
the theory of the general benefit re-
sulting from an increase of pious uses
All exemptions imply some public ben
eft; otherwise they are invalid. 1t is
not merely an act Of grace on the part
of the state. 1t stands scuarely on
state interest. To subject all such prop
erty to taxation would tend rather to
diminish than increase the amount Of
taxable property. Other conditions be-
ing equal the happiness, prosperity and
wealth of a community may we'll be
measured by the amount OF property
wisely devoted to the common good in
public buildings, parks, highways, and
buildings occupied as colleges, school
houses and churches. 70 tax such
property would tend to destroy the HE
which produces a constant increase OF
taxable property as well as some bene-
fits more valuable. 1t is missioner to
call the n-taxation of such property
an exemption in favor of the govern
mentaI agency in whom the legal title
is vested. When sequestered to such
public use the whole property by that
act, equivalent to a single taxation TO
the extent of confscation-passed out
of the domain of private property, lost
all value of ratable estate, and became
incapable of measuring the ability of
any person to contribute to the charge
of the commonwealth whereof he re-
ceives the benefit.
These are in brief the positions which
history of Connecticut shows to have
been the foundation of our taxation
laws.
This clause of section 1920 is not
strictly so much an exemption from
taxation as the declaration OF public
policy we'll settled and long established;
it must therefore be construed reason
ably so as to give full effect to the pol
icy declared. as well as to avoid abuse
and Illustrate evasion.
The argument urged by the defendant
in support of it's claim that the dormi-
tories assessed are practically used for
the purpose of trade, is substantially
this The college is intended primarily
for scholars who are poor, and the great
majority of foundations express this
purpose more or less clearly; no one
shall be prevented by limitation OF
birth or means from the full develop
ment of his capacities for the service OF
the state: an essential feature of the
college is equality; no special privileges
nor honors can be secured except
through personal worth When, there
fore, in the apportonment of rooms the
students are practically dividend on
the IIsHl Ilillt anu iNAh eA~NSt N'''+ss
the marks of wealth, and as the finding
shows, the poor student is relegated TO
the unsightly discomfort represented by
rs cents a week, and the rich student
promoted to the comparative luxury
represented by $40 week, rule of APP
portionment is adopted which violates
the essential conditions of college life,
and the buildings or portions OF build
ings appropriated to the rich student
cease to be college buildings, because
the average student is excluded from
their occupation. There would be force
in this argument, so far as 1t is SUD
ported by facts, if addressed to the col
lege authorities. We do not care to
minimize it's force for that purpose; 1t
goes without saying that the most cost
w gifts cannot compensate for any loss
Of that spirit of independent equality
which is the life of the university, ana
which has heretofore especially charac-
terized this plaintiff. But the argument
does not touch the essential contention
that the dormltories are used for trade
and not as college buildings. The COM
mittee finds that these buildings ARE
occupied by students of the college as
study and living rooms under the su-
pervision and arrangement or college
officers resident therein for that pur-
nose" And that they are UNITED Tor
any other use or purpose. Ana such
is admittedly the fact. This is conclu-
sive. The criticism of the defendant
goes deeper, and claims that the rules
for ordering the occupation of college
buildings tend to the perverslon OF the
purpose of the college. But the power
TO make these rules is vested IN the
trustees by the charter; wise or unWlse,
they are an exercise of charter power,
AS to their effect thus far, the commit
fee finds that the corporation admins
ters college within the true intent and
meaning of it's charter wherein all
such persons of good moral character
as desire to avail themselves or It's ad-
vantages, irrespective of nationality,
domicile. color, creed or religious belief,
are at a moderate cost, to the NUMBER
Of about $500 annually, Instructed IN
+ba arts and sciences" There are no
special facts found necessarily moon
sistent with this conclusion, we are
net now, therefore, called upon TO de
eide whether complete perversloh Oh
college purpose involves a forfeiture OF