Court Opinion

ID: 9584614
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:50:43.931653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:30.778328
License: Public Domain

Head, Presiding Justice,
concurring specially. Under the provisions of the act of 1946 (Ga. L. 1946, p. 12; Code Ann. § 92-201), exemption from taxation of specified property, including funds held or used as an endowment, is granted to institutions of learning within the class specified in the body of the act. The body of the act is followed by three provisos. “The general purpose of a proviso, ... is to except the clause covered by it from the general provisions of a statute, or from some provisions of it, or to qualify the operation of the statute in some particular.” (Italics supplied.) Georgia R. & Bkg. Co. v. Smith, 128 US 174, 181 (9 SC 47, 32 LE 377). The first proviso is to the effect that endowments shall not be invested in real estate; admittedly, this proviso is not in issue *324here. The second and third provisos purport to relate back to the body of the act, and their construction and proper application is before this court for determination.
The act of 1946 follows the constitutional provision incorporated in the Constitution of 1945, Art. VII, Sec. I, Par. IV (Code Ann. § 2-5404). The question therefore arises, what was the intent in the adoption of the constitutional exemption from taxation here involved? “The object of construction, as applied to a written constitution, is to give effect to the intent of the people in adopting it. . . If different portions seem to conflict, the courts must harmonize them if practicable, and must lean in favor of a construction which will render every word operative, rather than one which makes some idle and nugatory.” Wellborn v. Estes, 70 Ga. 390, 397.
The second proviso limits the exemption from taxation to such institutions of learning “as are open to the general public.” The intent and purpose of this second proviso is not definite, but uncertain. The requirement that the exempted institutions of learning must be “open to the general public” is without limitation or qualification. It can not be debated but that the term “general public” includes all of the public, many thousands of whom would be unfit to seek instruction at the college level by reason of extreme youth, extreme age, poor health, or by reason of total lack of preparation essential to satisfactory accomplishment at the college level. The term “open to the general public” therefore means, and could mean, only those qualified students acceptable to and approved by the admissions authority of the school or college. This construction accords with the charter of Emory University, since no limitation is imposed therein as to the admission of students.
The third proviso, “that all endowments to institutions established for white people, shall be limited to white people, and all endowments to institutions established for colored people, shall be limited to colored people,” is ambiguous, vague, and uncertain, as to the intent of its application. Does this proviso, properly construed, mean that colleges and other institutions of learning might use all grounds, buildings, furnishings, tuitions, fees, and income from all sources for the benefit of all students who might be accepted, without regard to color or race, and not *325endanger the exemption from taxation granted in the body of the act, excepting only an existing endowment? Or would use of a part of the endowment for students other than those for whom the college was established subject all property to taxation? If taxation is to be applied to endowments only in instances where the college or,institution of learning is open to the general public, would taxation apply only to so much of the endowment as might be used annually, or would the total of the endowment be subject to taxation, if any part should be used other than for the benefit of students for whose benefit the college was established? Nothing is said in the third proviso about income on endowments. Assuming that there is no encroachment on the corpus of the fund composing the endowment, would the interest or income from the endowment be exempt from taxation regardless of its use, since it is not mentioned in the proviso, or would the income only, being the only part used, be subject to taxation?
While other illustrations might be suggested to demonstrate the vagueness and uncertainty of the third proviso, the foregoing is sufficient to demonstrate uncertainty to such extent as to totally defeat the purported limitation on the use of endowments. Especially is this true since the body of the act exempts both endowments and all “intangible personal property owned or irrevocably held in trust.” At the time the constitutional exemption was granted and the tax exemption statute enacted pursuant thereto, money was included in the legal definition of intangible personal property. Code Ann. § 92-113. While an endowment might exist in property other than money, the income therefrom would be payable in money or its equivalent. The third proviso being incapable of any legal construction as applicable to the exemption from taxation, and being otherwise in conflict with the body of the act, if construed as limiting the exemption granted, the proviso must fall, and the body of the act must prevail. Penick v. High Shoals Mfg. Co., 113 Ga. 592 (38 SE 973).
I concur in the majority view that Emory University may consider the applications of students without regard to color or race and may accept students pursuant to its standards and requirements, without endangering its exemption from taxation as an educational institution. I concur in the judgment of reversal.