Marvin Mandel, Governor                         1971

to the case of Morning Cheer, Inc. v. Board of County Commission-
ers, 194 Md. 441 (1950) which did hold that a property to the extent
it was used exclusively as a religious retreat was exempt from
property taxation. See also the broadened language for the church
exemption in House Bill 37, Section 9 (c), p. 22.

Assuming, however, that the subject property did not fall within
the class of exempt property, the case of Baltimore City v. Starr
Church, 106 Md. 281 (1907) appears applicable. In that case the
Court of Appeals held that a statute which exempted from taxation
certain wharf property owned by a religious body while similar
property owned by other religious bodies was taxable was uncon-
stitutional and void because it was in conflict with Article 15 of
the Maryland Declaration of Rights which provides for uniformity
of taxation. While the wording of Article 15 has been revised since
1907, its thrust is basically similar. The property involved was
revenue producing, but the Court's holding does not appear limited
to revenue producing property. The Court applied a three-pronged
test as follows, 106 Md. at 287:

"1. Does public policy justify the exemption? On the con-
trary it is confined solely to the relief and benefit of the appellee.

"2. The exemption is not within reasonable limits because
it is absolutely arbitrary.

"3. The exemption does not apply to a species or class of
property, but to one piece of property only, leaving all other
property of the same class or species subject to taxation; and
for no other reason except the purely arbitrary one of a benefit
or personal favor to the appellee and no one else." (emphasis
the Court's)

In Murray, etc. v. Comptroller, 241 Md. 383, 394-95 (1966) the
Court of Appeals in upholding the general property tax exemption
for houses of public worship, etc., described and quoted approvingly
from the Starr case as follows:

"Baltimore City v. Starr Church, 106 Md. 281, 286, 67 Atl.
261 (1907) held that a special act of the legislature granting
exemption for a specific property owned by a church of one
denomination was unconstitutional, because it violated Article
15 of the Declaration of Rights and Article III, Section 33 of
the Maryland Constitution. However, Judge Rogers, for the
Court, had this to say as to the validity of the statutory exemp-
tion from taxation of houses used for public worship:

" 'It will not be denied at this late day that the Legislature
has the power, within reasonable limits, to exempt certain
species or classes of property from taxation, when the public
interests so require. This is actually done in the case of houses
used exclusively for public worship, and the grounds appurte-
nant thereto, in the case of graveyards and cemeteries,
and in the case of hospitals, asylums and benevolent institu-
tions. (Code, 1904, Art. 81. sec. 4). The validity of provisions
of this kind is too well established to be now questioned. But it
will be perceived in these cases all the property of the class
indicated is exempted. The Legislature does not exempt some
houses of public worship and tax others. It does not exempt
some graveyards and cemeteries, some hospitals, and then tax