Argument for Defendant in Error.

the Supreme Court of Illinois in Theological Seminary v. People, 174 Illinois, 177, and this is res judicata.

It is the law of the State of Illinois, as it is the law adhered to by the Supreme Court of the United States, that all laws exempting property from taxation must be strictly construed. It is not to be presumed that the legislature intended to exempt property from taxation; that intention must appear af firmatively, and will be strictly construed.

As to the question of strict construction of contracts exempting property from taxation when there is involved a question of the alleged impairment of that contract contrary to the provisions of the Federal Constitution, reference is had to the following adjudicated cases: Wilmington & Weldon R. R. v. Alsbrook, 146 U. S. 279–293; Delaware Railroad Tax, 18 Wall. 206; Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U. S. 679; Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. Debolt, 16 Howard, 416; Railroad v. Dennis, 116 U. S. 668; Providence Bank v. Beattie, 4 Peters, 514; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Peters, 544; Chenango Bridge Co. v. Binghamton Bridge Co., 2 Wall. 51; University v. The People, 99 U. S. 309.

The Supreme Court of Illinois has consistently adhered to the same rule. First M. E. Church of Chicago v. City, 26 Illinois, 482; Montgomery v. Wyman, 130 Illinois, 17; Theological Seminary v. The People, 101 Illinois, 518; In re Swigert, 123 Illinois, 267.

The title of an act furnishes little aid in the construction of the provisions of the act itself, and can only be referred to when there is a doubt as to the meaning of the act itself, and when necessary to refer to the title that fact of itself is sufficient to defeat the claim of exemption. Hadden v. The Collector, 5 Wall. 107-110; Yazoo R. R. Co. v. Thomas, 132 U. S. 174-188.

A reasonable and consistent construction of the exemption clause of the charter of plaintiff in error calls for the following definitions of the words used, viz., the verb "belong" is to be defined as "to be a part of or connected with," as is given in Webster's International Dictionary. And the word "seminary" is to be defined, according to the same authority, as "a

Opinion of the Court.

place of education, as a school of a high grade, an academy, college or university."

Construing the exemption clause of the charter in this manner it will exempt all property owned by the corporation which is a part of or connected with the school, which the corporation has located and is maintaining in the city of Chicago.

MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, after making the foregoing statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

The Supreme Court of Illinois, by its decision in this case, has but followed its prior decision upon the same question between these parties, reported in 174 Illnois, 177, decided in 1898. It there held that the exemption was limited to property used in immediate connection with the seminary, and did not include such property as is involved in these cases, which was not property used in immediate connection with the seminary, but was other property separate and apart therefrom, and owned or rented or held by the seminary as an investment, the income from which was nevertheless used solely for school purposes.

The rule of construction followed by the Supreme Court of Illinois in construing this act exempting property from taxation is so well established by this and other courts as scarcely to need the citation of authorities. One or two, however, from this court may be given. Tucker v. Ferguson. 22 Wall. 527; New Orleans City & Lake Railroad v. New Orleans, 143 U. S. 192, 195; Bank of Commerce v. Tennessee, 161 U. S. 134, 146. The rule is that, in claims for exemption from taxation under legislative authority, the exemption must be plainly and unmistakably granted; it cannot exist by implication only; a doubt is fatal to the claim.

The reasoning of the Supreme Court of Illinois, 174 Illinois, supra, in refusing the exemption claimed, so far as relates to the property not connected with the seminary, is best stated in the language of the opinion of that court. After stating the rule of construction, as above mentioned, the court said (p. 181):

"If, however, taking the express words of the act, and with

Opinion of the Court.

out extending their meaning by implication, they may be held to include all property belonging or appertaining to the 'seminary' mentioned in the second section, or to include all the property belonging or appertaining to the corporation, and there is reasonable ground for doubt which was intended by the legislature, that doubt must be resolved in favor of the State. In other words, if the language is capable of a broad or more restricted meaning, the latter must be adopted. The second section of the charter mentioning certain property to be located in or near the city of Chicago, and which is denominated the seminary,' we think the words in the fifth section, 'said seminary,' refer to that particular property, and to so hold seems to do no more than to give the language of the two sections their literal and ordinarily understood meaning. To say, as is contended by appellee, that 'said seminary' was intended to mean the corporation, is to extend the meaning of those words by implication, which is not permissible.

6

"It is said that the only entity mentioned in the charter capable of owning property is the corporation, and therefore it could not have been intended that property belonging or appertaining to the seminary was meant by section 5. We think this position is based upon a too limited meaning of the words belonging or appertaining,' as here used. Of course, if the language of section 5 had been that the property, of whatever kind or description, owned by the said seminary shall be forever free from all taxation, etc., or if, as counsel seem to assume, the words' belonging or appertaining' here necessarily meant ownership of the property, then there would be force in this argument of counsel. It is undoubtedly true that the word 'belonging' may mean ownership, and very often does. But that is not its only meaning. Webster's International Dictionary defines it: 2. That which is connected with a principal or greater thing; an appendage; an appurtenance.' He also defines the word 'pertain' as meaning, 'to belong or pertain, whether by right of nature, appointment or custom; to relate, as "things pertaining to life." Manifestly, the purpose of section 5 was to exempt property owned by the corporasion, but it does not follow that the intention was to include in VOL. CLXXXVIII-43

Opinion of the Court.

that exemption all property owned by it used for purposes of the school."

We think there is force in this reasoning, and we are disposed to concur in the result arrived at.

It is contended by counsel for plaintiff in error that the words "said seminary," contained in section 5 of the charter, referred to the corporation created by the act and not to the school buildings and grounds, and that, therefore, the exemption necessarily exempted from taxation all the property against which the judgments below were rendered.

Here are two different constructions of the exemption clause, each of which might be maintained with some plausibility. That view which limits the range of the exemption to property used in immediate connection with the seminary might seem to many to be the correct one, while in the opinion of others, the broader claim of total exemption would be the best founded. The judges of the Supreme Court of Illinois have unanimously taken the former view, while counsel for the plaintiff in error very strongly and very ably has taken and maintained the other. We can ourselves see that a construction either way would not be clearly erroneous, or, at any rate, either construction would not be so obviously erroneous as to leave no doubt upon the question. In such cases we think the rule as to the construction of statutes of exemption from taxation should be applied, and as there may be room for reasonable doubt whether a total or only a partial exemption was meant, the partial exemption should alone be recognized. Great weight ought also to be attached to the decision of a state court regarding questions of taxation or exemption therefrom under the constitution or laws of its own State. As is said in Wilson v. Standefer, 184 U. S. 399, 412:

Especial respect should be had to such decisions when the dispute arises out of general laws of a State, regulating its exercise of the taxing power, or relating to the State's disposition of its public lands. In such cases it is frequently necessary to recur to the history and situation of the country in order to ascertain the reason as well as the meaning of the laws, and knowledge of such particulars will most likely be found in the

Opinion of the Court.

tribunals whose special function is to expound and interpret the state enactments."

We acknowledge and affirm the principle that this court in this class of cases must decide upon its own responsibility as to the existence and meaning of the contract, but in arriving at such meaning in a case like this, the decision of the state court is entitled to exercise marked influence upon the question this court is called upon to decide, and where it cannot be said that the decision is in itself unreasonable or in violation of the plain language of the statute, we ought, in cases engendering a fair doubt, to follow the state court in its interpretation of the statutes of its own State.

The case of University v. People, 99 U. S. 309, is no authority for the construction contended for by the plaintiff in error. In that case the charter provided "That all property, of whatever kind or description, belonging to or owned by said corporation, shall be forever free from taxation for any and all purposes." The difference between the two provisions is intrinsic and material. What is lacking in the case at bar is present in the case cited, namely, a provision exempting all the property "owned by said corporation." In the case before us it is the property "belonging or appertaining to said seminary," and the word "belonging" is construed by the Supreme Court as not synonymous with "owned by," nor is the word "seminary" regarded in this connection as the equivalent of the word "corporation."

But the plaintiff in error contends that however correct the construction adopted by the state courts might be if founded upon general rules of construction pertaining to claims for exemption from taxation, it is plainly erroneous under the provision of section 6 of the charter, providing that the act “shall be deemed a public act, and shall be construed liberally in all courts for the purposes therein expressed."

To adopt the construction contended for by the plaintiff in error would call for a reversal of the rules otherwise prevailing in and governing claims for exemption from taxation. But it is nevertheless urged that if in any way the language of exemption can by a liberal construction be said to cover the whole