City of Bangor v. Rising Virtue Lodge No. 10

• Decision Date: 27 May 1882
• Docket Number: FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS.,10,RISING VIRTUE LODGE
• Citation: 73 Me. 428
• Parties: THE CITY OF BANGOR
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

73 Me. 428

THE CITY OF BANGOR v. RISING VIRTUE LODGE, No. 10, FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

May 27, 1882

ON REPORT.

Assumpsit to recover a tax assessed upon the real estate of the defendant corporation for the year 1880. The defendant claims that the property was exempt from taxation, on the ground that it is a benevolent and charitable institution incorporated by this State, and the sole question submitted to the court is whether the property was exempt from taxation. The defendant was incorporated by c. 37, of the special laws of 1821. The property taxed is two brick stores and lot, owned by four masonic societies, one of which is defendant; the two upper stories they occupy as their place of meeting, the two lower stories by tenants paying rent to them, of which the defendant receives one-fourth. Whole valued by assessors, fifteen thousand dollars, and is mortgaged for four thousand five hundred dollars.

By the ancient masonic usages, a lodge of masons can be created and exist only by a charter from a Grand Lodge. Rising Virtue Lodge was chartered by the grand lodge of Massachusetts September 16, 1802. A copy of the charter is made a part of the case.

Immediately upon the admission of Maine as one of the United States, the Grand Lodge of Maine was formed, and all the lodges in the State (including the defendant) passed at once under its authority as fully as if they had been originally chartered by the Grand Lodge of Maine. The pamphlet entitled " Constitutions and General Regulations of the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Maine," is made a part of the case, also, the act of incorporation of the Grand Lodge of Maine, approved June 16, 1820. The defendant purchased its interest in the property in part, with two thousand dollars, a legacy from the late Rufus Dwinal, " for charitable purposes," as stated in Everett v Carr, 59 Me. 325. The by-laws of the lodge provide as follows:

" Article IV.--Committees.

Section 1. At the annual communication there shall be chosen, by written ballot, a committee on charity, of which the master shall, ex-officio, be chairman; a committee on finance and committee of investigation, each to consist of three members, and may each be balloted for upon one ticket.

Section 2. To the committee on charity shall be referred all applications for charity, and it shall be their duty to afford relief in all cases by them deemed proper; and they shall have authority to draw their order, through their chairman, upon the treasurer, for that purpose, for any sum not exceeding ten dollars in any case at any one time, such relief, in all cases, to be confined to members of the order, and the widows and orphans of deceased brother masons. Said committee shall report at the annual communication, specifically, in writing."

Upon so much of this statement as is legal evidence, the law court is to render such judgment as the law requires.

T. W. Vose, city solicitor, for the plaintiff, cited: R. S., c. 6, § 6; 119 Mass. 22; 3 Gray 50; 11 Allen 464; 72 Me. 159; Delaware County Institute of Science v. Delaware Co. 8 Weekly Notes of Cases, 449; 4 Conn. 172.

Drummond and Drummond, for the defendant.

R. S., c. 6, § 6, provides that " the real and personal property of all benevolent, charitable and scientific institutions incorporated by this State," shall be exempted from taxation. The defendant claims that it is a benevolent or charitable institution.

I. It is incorporated as a society instituted for purposes of charity and benevolence, and is authorized to hold property only for " charitable and benevolent uses." As an incorporation, it can hold property only as authorized in its charter; that instrument authorizes it to hold property only for " " charitable and benevolent uses." The same act expressly recognizes it as a charitable and benevolent society, for it is given the privileges " usually granted to other societies instituted for purposes of charity and beneficence." Accordingly, in Everett v. Carr, 59 Me. 325, it was held that a bequest to this very lodge " for charitable purposes" was valid, as the body was expressly authorized to take and hold property for such purposes.

II. The case shows that the defendant is a charitable and benevolent institution by its own organic laws. It is agreed, that according to ancient masonic usages, no lodge can be created or exist, without a charter from a grand lodge, the supreme governing body. The charter of the lodge is in the case. By it this lodge is authorized " to receive and collect funds for the relief of poor and distressed brethren, their widows and children; and in general, to transact all matters relating to masonry which may to them appear to be for the good of the craft, according to the ancient usages and customs of masons." By its civil charter and its masonic charter also, this body, therefore, is a charitable and benevolent institution, holding its property for charitable purposes.

III. The charter laws of the Grand Lodge, which is its supreme governing power, show this still more clearly. Act of June 16, 1820; Laws of 1820, p. 8; Constitution of Grand Lodge, § § 55, 56, 57, 77, 112. The right to relief in masonry, however, is not a legal right, enforceable by law, but a moral right, appealing to the conscience of the members.

To relieve the distressed is solemnly enjoined; but the manner of so doing is left to the party giving the relief. It is a matter of public history, that when the devastation of fire visited the cities of Portland, Chicago and St. John, and the forests of Wisconsin and Michigan, and the devastation of pestilence visited the South, the masonic lodges all over the country poured in relief with prompt and open hands.

The lodge holds its property in trust for charitable purposes, and even upon the winding up, or dissolution of a lodge, its members cannot divert the fund from its purposes. Constitution, Grand Lodge, § § 70, 71; Duke v. Fuller, 9 N.H. 536.

IV. The by-laws of the lodge in the case show the character of the society. A committee on charity is chosen annually, whose power and duty are to relieve the distress of needy brethren, their widows and orphans. The fact that the charity of the institution is not universal, but preference, at least, is given to brethren, their widows and orphans, does not affect the case. The society is none the less a charitable institution. Indianapolis v. The Grand Master, 25 Ind. 518; Maine Baptist Missionary Convention v. The City of Portland, 65 Me. 92; Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen 539; Old South Society v. Crocker, 119 Mass. 11; King v. Parker, 9 Cush. 71; Attorney General v. Old South Society, 13 Allen 474; Fellows v. Miner, 119 Mass. 541; Sohier v. Burr, 127 Mass. 221; Boxford v. Harriman, 125 Mass. 327; McDonald v. Massachusetts General Hospital, 120 Mass. 432.

We do not perceive how the court can hold that this corporation's property is not exempt from taxation, unless it expressly overrules, Everett v. Carr, 59 Me. 325; Duke v. Fuller, 9 N.H. 536; King v. Parker, 9 Cush. 71; Indianapolis v. Grand Master, 25 Ind. 518; State v. Addison, 2 S. Car. (N. S.) 499, and a host of other cases in which the same principle is involved.

APPLETON C. J.

The Rising Virtue Lodge, with other lodges, owning a block of stores assessed as of the value of fifteen thousand dollars, claim that this property, a small portion of which, in value, is used for masonic purposes, should be exempted from bearing its proportionate share of the burdens, which are imposed, for the support of government, on the general property of the community.

The just and honest rule in assessments for governmental purposes is equality of taxation. Whatever sacrifices it requires from the people should be made to bear as nearly as possible with the same pressure upon all. In this way only will there be the least sacrifice by all. If one bears less than his share of the public burdens, some other must bear more. If one block of stores remains untaxed, the remaining stores and other taxable property must be unduly and disproportionately taxed. The more numerous the exemptions, the more unequal and burdensome the taxation.

The defendant corporation denies that its property should be assessed to defray its ratable share of the expenses of the government, which protects it, in common with the other property of the people and corporations of the State. The ground of exemption rests on R. S., c. 6, § 6, part 2, by which " the real and personal property of all literary institutions, and the real and personal property of all benevolent, charitable and scientific institutions incorporated by this State," are exempted from taxation.

Assuming that the legislature have the power to relieve favored corporations or individuals from paying their just taxes, (and it is as proper in the one case as in the other,) still taxation is the general rule; exemption from taxation the exception. Statutes violating the general rule are to be construed strictly. They must be construed with the utmost strictness. The statute creating the exemption must be clear, precise and definite, so as to satisfy the court beyond all doubt that the exemption claimed was within the intention of the legislature, as every exemption is repugnant to equal and impartial taxation. " All exemptions are to be construed strictly. Such special privileges are in conflict with the universal obligation of all to contribute a just proportion toward the public burdens." Co. Com. v. Sisters of Charity, 48 Maryland, 34. " The power to tax," observes DAVIS, J., in Bailey v. Magwire, 22 Wallace 226, " rests upon necessity, and is inherent in every sovereignty, and there can be no presumption in favor of its...