Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-05-06
NEW JERSEY WINS
CHURCH FIGHT ON
INHERITANCE TAX
Religious Bodies, if Not Incorpo-
rated Here, Are Not Exempt
from Assessment.
Especial to the Newark start

lSpecial 10 the newark start
TRENTON, May 6.-Vice-Chancellor
Edwin Robert Walker, as vice-ordinary
Of the P~rerogative Court, has filed an
opinion in the appeal of the collateral
inheritance tax assessed by the State
on W legacles of the will of Jane Ann
| Gopsill, who died January 10, 1909. One
of the requests was $32, 500 to h Wom-
ems Board of Foreign Missions of the
Reformed Church in America. and the
other was 81. 900 to the Board of Domes-
tic Missions of the Reformed Church in
America, which organizations are cor
porations under the laws of New York.
The vice-ordinary holds that to be ex-
empt from the provisions of the collat-
eral inheritance tax a corporation or
institution must be of New Jersey. This
construction, of course, result in a VIC
tory for the collateral inheritance tax
Of New Jersey. The ground set up by
the executors of the estate of Mrs, Gop-
sill to upset the assessment was that
the legacies were left to charitable Or
CARNATIONS, whose charity work is not
within any single State, but which ex-
tends throughout the United States n
In foreign countries.
This appeal was based on the law OF
1894, exempting foreign Missions, n
on the amendment of 1905. of the same
language as the original act, but pro-
viding that no other exceptions be al
lowed. 1t was held by the executors
that the act of 1898 had not been re-
pealed. This contention Is not In ac-
cord with the decision Of the vice-ordl-
nary, who says in part in his opinion:
Opinion Of Court.
ssIn 1906 an amendment to the collat-
eral inheritance tax act was passed,
which, among other things. provided
that all property passing to churches,
hospitals and orphan asylums, public
libraries. Bible and tract societies, and
all religious. benevolent and charitable
institutions and organizations, shall be
exempted from the payment Oh x
under the act, but no other exemption
of any kind shall be allowed. n ex-
emptfon contained in the act of 1906 Is
Identical in substance, though dillerent
somewhat in phraseology, from nat
contained IL the act of 1894. mat eA-
emption was held to not extend TO cor
porations located outside of the state OF
New Jersey.
by the supplement OF 1898 all gifts
grants, ~legacies, requests and devlsees
to any Bible or tract society or reilglous
institution, not confined in its opera
lions and benefactions to local OF state
purposes, but for the general GOOD Oh
the people interested therein, snail not
be taxed under the act, whether such
societies are organized under the laws
of this State or some other state. AS
already remarked, exemptions under the
! act OF 1894 were held to extend only 10
domestic corporations. The act OF 1895
II would clearly appear, was passed lor
the EXPRESS purpose of exempting for-
eisn corporations, as well as our own
Act Not Repealed.
"Tvhere is no repeater in the act OF
1aO6. and admittedly repeater byimplica-
tion is not favored. Still, repeater by
,mplication is recognized, and the IN
tention Of the Legislature in this re-
pard. when ascertained, governs. An
;ntention TO repeal certain statutory
provisions may be inferred from radical
changes in the existing law Ana TINS,
as I understand it, applies to different
sections of a statute. as well as 10 tne
whole act. Laws are presumed TO pc
| paSSe0 Witt u6llDeTdliOH ohN
knowledge by the Legislature OF the ex-
listing law upon the subject.
Now, as the act of 1894 did not ex-
empt foreign corporations from the
operation of our collateral inheritance
tax. as construed in Alfred University
against Hancock in 1895, n SO known
TO the Legislature when h act OF 1888
expressly made that exemption, 1T
clearly ppears hat a restoration by
J the Legislature of the exemption OF 1879
of necessity repeats the OF
1898. The exemption in the act or lso6
covers that whole subject, which clearly
indicates an intention to establish the
latter as the only enactment.
Another rule of construction thai
operates against h appellant Is tna'
all exemptions from general taxatlon
are to be considered strictly, the resoiu-
ton, in Ease of doubt, being IN OF
the rule which subjects all property 10
a just share of the public