The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-10-28
JOHN LIND Defends
The TAX AMENDMENT
FORMER GOVERNOR URGES I'M
PoRTANCE OF IT'S ADOPTION.
He Is Positive that the New Language
WILL Make no Change in the Exemp-.
tions, aud that There Is No Ground
for Alarm on that Score. -

Former Governor John Lind is
strong advocate. of the wide-open tax
amendment to the state constitution,
which will be voted on at the coming
general election. He is positive that
the "'church property exemption will
not change the present rule, and that
there is no danger of it exempting
property held by churches for invest
ment In support Of this position he
has written a legal statement in reply
to a friend, who sent him a circular
attacking the amendment on this
ground.
The friends of the amendment are.
much gratifed at this active stand
taken by Mr. Lind, which they believe
will be worth good many votes to the
amendment.
His statement is as follows:
wish to say at the outset that II the pro-
were capable Of the construction that you place
upon the language, I should be as active In Its
defeat as any man In the state, Tor ! oeheve
constitution goes quite far enough III 1ts
exemptions of church property.
It will of course be for the supreme court
to eonstrue the language of the proposed amend
ment; but we have every right to believe that IN
constituting that language the court Will ne
guided BY well-settled maXims of construction
that are as much binding on the conscience or q
jurist as are the positive enactments OF consul
tutions or acts Of the legislature. One OF those
nlaxims Is that a provision exempt1nS properly
from taxation, whether in constitution or
statue Is strictly construed, for 1T Is IN dero-
CATION of common right. It's language Is never
extended or given, a greater scope 1nan tne
words used or the words Of the context require.
Uses of Term "Property."
You object to the substitution of the term
"church property for the term ''church prop
erty used for religious purposes" as IN the
ctiu If church property were
the only term used for designating religious ex-
emptions 1 should agree with you In your con-
structon that the exemption extended to all
classes Of property, both real and personal ZOE
the term property Is broad enough to in
clude both real and personal estate. At the
time we must not lose sight of the fact
that property" is very flexible word, ITS
specific meaning frequently depending upon Its
context and the words that are used to ex-
plain OF qualify 1t. 1t may mean real property.
1t may mean personal property alone. 1t may
mean both. In this Instance "church property
In the proposed amendment in my Judgment
means church personal property, and nothing
else, that is, In contemplation of law, and
these are my reasons for giving it that construc-
ton:
Language Limits It.
II il had been intended in the proposed amend
ment to give the word 'property' the broad
Significance which includes both real and personal
estate, then why insert specifically the word
''all churches immediately preceding the phrase
term ''church property" in its broad sense.
clearly includes both churches and houses OF
worship. The insertion of these phrases. there
fore, necessarily limits the term Church prop
erty.' Churches used here, necessarily ILL
plies structures buildings. not the church or
ganization as society. Hence It is q term
that embraces real estate. The words houses
of worship indicate, their face. that real
property Is intended. Consequently, the pro-
posed amendment specifically exempts real prop
erty used by Jew and Christian alike for pur-
poses Of worship.
If the term Church property" had been in
tended to cover the entier jdeId. why exempt real
property specifically p Why use any other term
than ''church property? On the face of the
section, the term Church property must there
classes Of property already enumerated. AS the
term property Is more usually employed in
it's limited sense, referring only to personality,
that construction is the natural construction to
give It IN this connection, for otherwise there
Is mere idle repetition of words-mere tautology.
and such Of language will never be pre-
sumed.
Other Construction Impossible.
The real meaning Of the section, as constrae
It, and as I believe our supreme court will con.
strue It, Is therefore that all churches (referrins
more particularly to Christian houses Of Worship
church property tmeaning here personal property
in the church. such as vestments. furniture.
paintings, etc.) and houses OF worship, which
is a broader term than Churches in this that
1t may include the synagog of the jew and the
Joss house Of the Chinese. to be exempt
from taxation. The section could never be
nationally construed to mean that property held
yn,1pnoS he