Court Opinion

ID: 9868299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:28:19.343087+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:49.125415
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Fraser-
I dissent. The language of the Constitution is “used exclusively for public use.” If the language had been “used exclusively for private use,” the construction placed upon it by the majority of inis Court would be proper. Parks and playgrounds are for public use, but the use is free to all. The $41,000 expended would have been expended if the whole building had been used exclusively for the public use, and the $20,000 is profit. That is, it is a saving of $20,000, and $20,000 saved is $20,000 made. If these figures were reversed, and the receipts were $40,000 and -expenditures $20,000, it would make no difference, for the word used is “revenue” and not “profit.” The doctrine, it seems to me, is dangerous, and *114there is no telling where it will lead. ' The city may establish a public bathing pool. May it charge a fee to all bathers and still be exempt? Decidedly the most popular form of entertainment is found in the moving picture show and the baseball park. If this be a public use, then the city can condemn land to provide a baseball park and a building used exclusively for games of baseball and moving picture shows. The State may authorize quasi public corporations to condemn land for public use. Can a private corporation get a charter that will allow it to condemn land for a baseball park or a moving picture show? I know “public use” is given a broad interpretation; but I do not think it is as broad as all this. What about condemning a city lot for a grocery store ? It is very necessary for people to eat. All business has a public use.
Liberal constructions are not allowed by our Constitution. It seems to me that the city hall is not used exclusively for public use, and the city is not exempt. Article X, section 1, provides for the taxation of all property, except such as may be exempt. The exemption is found in section 4 of that article. The exemption is of municipal property used exclusively for public purposes, and not for revenue. The occasional, use of the city hall for public purposes is immaterial. The Constitution says “exclusively,” and it seems to me that we must read that word out of the Constitution in order to exempt the city from this tax. If the purpose of the members of the Constitutional Convention had been to tax opera houses from which the cities derived a revenue, they could not have made it much plainer. More specific language is not appropriate to a Constitution. I know of no other property to which it applies or can apply.
I agree with the appellant that the cases cited from this State do not "apply to the question now before this Court. Dor instance, the case of City of Columbia v. Tindal, 43 S. C. 547, 22 S. E. 341, refers to the remedy and not the right.