The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-10-18
MAKES NO CHANGE
IN THE EXEMPTIONS
ATTORNEY GENERAL CONSTRUCTS
PHRASE CHURCH PROPERTY,
Other Language in Present Constitution
Omitted Because It Was Unnecessary
Use and Not Ownership the Test
Of Exemption, by All Rulings Of the
Courts. m

! Attorney General Young has issued
an opinion on the wide-open tax amend
ment, to be voted on at the coming
election. It formally confirms the
statement he made in a journal in
terview a few days ago, that the
amendment will make no difference in
the present constitutional exemptions.
The opinion is written in reply to a
question from Minneapolis attorney.
It is as follows: ri.
You ask my opinion as to the effect
Of the provision relating to the exemp-
ton of church property, contained in
the so-called 'wide-open tax amend
ment' to the constitution which is to be
voted on at the coming election. You
call my attention to the fact that the
present constitutional provision ex-
empts churches, church property used
for religious purposes, houses of wor
ship, etc, while in the proposed amend
ment the same language is used except
that the words used for religious pur-
poses are omitted. You state that the
omitted words, the amendment might
be construed to exempt from taxation
all property owned by church organi-
cations, whether used for religious pur-
poses or not. ---
ct beg to state that, in my opinion,
the omission of the words referred to
from the constitution will not and could
not have the effect feared by the crit
| les. --....
"In the first place, It is a universal
| rule Of construction that laws provid-
ing for exemptions from taxation will
be strictly construed. so that one claim
ing exemption must bring himself clear
ly within the terms Of the law. In
such laws nothing is to be implied. The
courts will give the language used
it's narrowest meaning.
| Gin the second place, it is univer-
sally held, under exemptions of this
kind, where church property or school
property is referred to-, that it is the
use and not the ownership that is the
test Of the exemption. w..
cold South society VS.. Boston. 1877.
| "Washburn college VS.. Commission.
"Yail VS.. Brack, 10 Kansas, 214.
"Under these rules, no court or in.
| dividual could 90 astray in determin
ing the meaning Of the term "church
property as used in this amendment
| The same question was before the court
in People vs.: Campmeeting association
| 100 ILL.,, SIG (579), where the court
H'By the term "church property
as used in the statute, is plainly mean
the church-defned by Webster to b.
a building set apart for Christian wor
! ship-and a lot Of reasonable size TO-
it's location = ~ ..s.' .%..' =
cit is the well-establighed policy
in this and other states to exempt from
taxation only such property owned b,
religious organizations as is used strict
~ for church purposes, The Legislature
never thought Of changing that policy
The words referred to were omitte,
because they were unnecessary an.
therefore bad English. The word
fused for religious purposes' In con
nection with the term church property
would not, I'D this law, make it's mean
ing clearer. It is It's use that deter
mines it's character, and to be 'churc
: property it must be used exclusivel
For church purposes. Yours truly,
7 RI: .%..% e. T. Young,
= = Attorney General.