.c 
 
 u 
 
 -U 
 
 5 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 029 498 852 A 
 
 Hollinger Corp. 
 pH 8.5 
 
V) 
 
 "' IG 
 
 COLLECxE TAXATION 
 
 REIiLAJlKS OF CHARLES W. ELIOT, PRESIDENT OF HARVARD 
 UNWERSITY, BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXA- 
 TION, MASSACHUSETTS LEGISLATURE, MARCH 13, 1907 
 
 The advocates of the several measures proposed for taxing 
 colleges use as one argument in support of their proposals an 
 alleged ambiguity in the present statute, an ambiguity which 
 has given rise to litigation. If there be any ambiguity in the 
 present statute, the opponents of the new legislation would be 
 glad to have it removed; so that the intention of the Legislature 
 to exempt from taxation institutions of religion, education, and 
 charity may be expressed with perfect clearness. It is hard to 
 see, however, how language can be plainer than the language of 
 the exemption statute. Proposals to change the statute, or to 
 reduce the field of its operation, are not properly described as 
 proposals to remove ambiguity from the statute. Moreover, the 
 proposed new acts contain the very phrase over which litigation 
 has arisen, "occupied by them or their officers for the purposes 
 for which they are incorporated." The courts have repeatedly 
 been called upon to define the meaning of that term, ''the pur- 
 poses for which they are incorporated." Senate Bills Nos. 53, 
 54, and 224 retain this clause. House Bill No. 474 does not con- 
 tain that phrase, because that bill relates solely to the repayment 
 by the Commonwealth of one-half of any tax assessed by a city 
 or town on an educational institution. Moreover, Senate Bill 
 No. 54 introduces a new phrase which will be sure to give rise to 
 extensive litigation. It declares that "property owned and oc- 
 cupied by any college or university, or by any scientific institu- 
 tion authorized to grant degrees, which is used or appropriated, 
 wholly or in part, for residential, commercial, or mercantile pur- 
 poses, or for dormitories, shall not be exempt from taxation." 
 What are the commercial or mercantile purposes of a college, or 
 university, or technical school? There are none. At Harvard 
 University, for instance, there are no such purposes in any proper 
 
2 InjCL \Z(o 
 
 sense of those terms. Commercial or mercantile purposes in- 
 variably involve the application of a profit to private uses. Every 
 man or corporation engaged in commerce, manufacturing, or trade 
 is looking for a personal or private profit on every transaction. 
 If he is not seeking that profit, he is not in business. 
 
 Letting College Rooms not a Commercial Transaction 
 
 During the hearing on last Thursday, we several times heard 
 the letting of rooms to students described as a commercial trans- 
 action on the part of a college. This description is obviously 
 incorrect. It is not a commercial operation for a college to let 
 rooms to students; because there is no profit whatever in it for 
 any private individual. If, for the college itself, there is ever a 
 balance of receipts over expenses on a dormitory, every dollar of 
 that balance is applied to the public use of teaching. We also 
 heard of the Harvard Cooperative Society as carrying on an un- 
 taxed mercantile business in competition with taxed shops about 
 Harvard square. I am glad to explain the case of the Harvard 
 Cooperative Society; because it perfectly illustrates the real prin- 
 ciple which underlies this whole subject. The Harvard Coopera- 
 tive Society was formerly a society confined to members of the 
 university, and intended to enable them to buy such goods as 
 they needed — clothing, stationery, shoes, bats and balls, brushes, 
 soap, etc. — for less money than they could be bought for in the 
 ordinary retail shops. There was no profit to any individual con- 
 nected with it, except this advantage of buying good articles at 
 lower rates than were elsewhere procurable. It was an aid or a 
 facility for students in getting an education, exactly like the col- 
 lege dining-hall which yields no profit to anybody concerned, but 
 enables students to buy their food cheaper than would otherwise 
 be possible. A few years ago it was thought expedient to incor- 
 porate the Harvard Cooperative Society, and to carry on a general 
 business, not for students only, but for all comers. Up to that 
 time, the Society had occupied a college building which was not 
 taxed. As soon as it was incorporated, the Society bought from 
 a private person the large building on the opposite side of Har- 
 vard square, where its excellent business is now conducted; but 
 on that building, and its other property, the Society pays taxes 
 just like any other shop in Cambridge. In other words, so long 
 as its business was confined to members of the University, and 
 offered them, and them alone, a pecuniary advantage in buying 
 
 Gift 
 The University 
 
the necessaries of student life, it was exempt from taxation; but 
 the moment it did a general business open to everybody, and 
 conducted under the general incorporation law, it became subject 
 to taxation; it had ceased to be purely an aid to students in 
 getting their education. 
 
 ExEMPTioi^ IS Based on Application of Income to a Public Use 
 
 I cannot too strongly insist that in the ordinary mercantile 
 sense there is never any "profit" on the operations of a college, 
 university, or technical school. It is confusion with regard to 
 the use of this word "profit" which explains the presentation of 
 many of the fallacious arguments I have heard this year and in 
 many former years before committees of the Legislature examin- 
 ing the question of college exemptions. Every source of income 
 of a college or university may be described in some inexact or 
 ill-considered sense as yielding a profit; but every source of in- 
 come in an institution of education, religion or charity, has a 
 public application, and is not yielding a profit in the commercial 
 or mercantile sense. It is curious that this confusion of thought 
 arises most commonly concerning presidents' and professors' 
 houses, dormitories and athletic grounds, and sometimes concern- 
 ing dining-halls or refectories, but very seldom concerning the 
 income from railroad stocks and bonds, public securities, mort- 
 gages, or other like sources of income. I think I have never heard 
 anyone propose at legislative hearings in Massachusetts that the 
 personal property of institutions of religion, education, and 
 charity should be taxed. The taxing proposals relate to real 
 estate used, as the statute says, "for the purposes of the institu- 
 tion." Now the plain fact is that the application of the whole 
 income of these exempted institutions is the same, and there is 
 no good reason for exempting one class or sort of property which 
 does not apply to the whole property. The reason for the ex- 
 emption is that the whole property of exempted institutions and 
 all the income thereon is used for public purposes. When a 
 college lodges and feeds students it usually competes with private 
 persons who also perform these functions. That competition is 
 an aid to students, and as such is one of the incentives for colleges 
 to maintain dormitories and dining-halls. 
 
 One advocate of taxing colleges last Thursday asked this ques- 
 tion, "Suppose a college did nothing else but let dormitories; 
 should not those dormitories be taxed?" Of course thej^ should. 
 
Such an institution would not be a college at all. It would be 
 nothing but a provider of rooms for college students at a mer- 
 cantile profit. That is exactly the business of the trustees or 
 individuals who provide dormitories for students in Cambridge 
 for the private profit of the owners. Such dormitories are a 
 private investment, and their net rents are used for nothing but 
 a private purpose; accordingly, they are all taxed, and the 
 present valuation for taxation of such buildings in Cambridge is 
 $2,519,900. (See p. 13.) 
 
 Taxation of Professors' Houses and Dormitories means 
 Diversion op Funds from their Present Public Use 
 
 The advocates of the legislation which would cause professors' 
 houses and dormitories to be taxed all protest that they have no 
 desire to injure Massachusetts institutions of education. They 
 find themselves unable to face squarely that imputation. Yet 
 what they propose would take many thousands of dollars out of 
 the income of these institutions now devoted to teaching, and 
 apply it to streets, sewers, lights, police, fire department, etc., in 
 the cities and towns where these institutions of education are 
 situated. Thus Senator Feiker indicated clearly that he desired 
 to secure for Northampton the full tax on $400,000 of the prop- 
 erty of Smith College. That, to be sure, is only a portion of the 
 property of Smith College; but if Senator Feiker had his way he 
 would subtract $6,800 from the annual resources of Smith Col- 
 lege applicable to education, and spend that money on the schools, 
 highways, sewers, police, etc., of Northampton. He would dam- 
 age Smith College just so much, and relieve taxpayers in North- 
 ampton by the same amount, in spite of the fact that the presence 
 of Smith College has done nothing but good to the property 
 holders and business men of Northampton, — a fact which was 
 demonstrated before the Recess Committee on Taxation last 
 October beyond the shadow of a doubt, Northampton having 
 been shown to have SSJ per cent, of the taxable property of 
 Hampshire County, when it has only 30^ per cent, of the taxable 
 individuals, and only 32 per cent, of the population of the County. 
 In other words, Northampton is much better off than the average 
 of the County. 
 
 Another advocate of taxing professors' houses and dormitories 
 suggested that Senate Bill No. 54 would probably not make more 
 than a million dollars' worth of college property assessable in 
 
Cambridge, and that taxes on such an amount would be a trifle 
 for Harvard University. True, such legislation would not ruin 
 Harvard University; it would simply divert $19,000 a year, or 
 four professors' salaries, from teaching purposes to the ordinary 
 Cambridge objects of municipal expenditure; but so far as it 
 went it would be nothing but an injury to Harvard University, 
 and whoever advocates it is advocating the diversion of money 
 heretofore used for educational purposes to lower public uses, 
 namely, city expenses. So far forth, he is impairing the Massa- 
 chusetts faith in education as the supreme public interest. I 
 make allowances for the errors of some of the advocates of these 
 pitiful measures, when I see that they are not Massachusetts born, 
 and cannot be expected to understand the Massachusetts policy 
 towards education so well as those of us who are natives; but I 
 want to point out plainly that their protests that they are not 
 attacking, or attempting to injure, Massachusetts institutions of 
 higher education, do not blind or deceive anybody. 
 
 Property Exempted for a Public Use Enriches a Community 
 
 The attorney for the town of Amherst made much of the fact 
 that the valuation of property exempted in the town of Amherst 
 was 47 per cent, of the whole valuation of the town, or, in other 
 words, that in Amherst the value of the exempted property was 
 almost as great as the value of the assessable property; and he 
 seemed to think that this fact proved that the presence of Am- 
 herst College and the State Agricultural College in the town of 
 Amherst was a burden on that town. Before the Recess Com- 
 mittee on Taxation, last October, it was conclusively proved that 
 the amount of exempted property in a city or town gave no 
 indication whatever of the financial condition of the town itself, 
 provided the amount of assessable property was well proportioned 
 to the number of assessable persons in the town; that some 
 Massachusetts cities and towns in which the amount of exempted 
 property was large were decidedly more prosperous than similar 
 cities and towns in which the amount of exempted property was 
 small; that the most probable supposition was that a town with 
 large amounts of exempted property would be a better town to 
 live in, and therefore a more prosperous town, than a place with a 
 small amount of exempted property in churches, colleges, schools, 
 hospitals, and parks; but, at any rate, that the existence of a 
 large amount of exempted property gave no indication that the 
 
town was financially oppressed or burdened. Thus, the total 
 amount of exempted property in the city of Boston is enormous, 
 and is increasing: as the value of land in the best parts of the city 
 rises, handsomer and better-planned buildings are erected for re- 
 ligious, educational, and charitable purposes, and parks and play- 
 grounds increase in number and in value. 
 
 Consider for a moment what Boston Common means in the 
 way of exempted value. Consider that the Harvard Medical 
 School alone has lately added three millions of dollars to the 
 value of property exempted in Boston, and will, within a few 
 years, add as much more, through the hospitals which are to be 
 built about the Medical School. Consider what the presence of 
 this State House means in the way of exempted property for the 
 city of Boston. Consider the great parks and parkways which 
 Boston has built and set aside forever for public enjoyment. 
 And then realize fully that all these exempted properties in Bos- 
 ton make it richer and not poorer; that they are not a burden; 
 but a priceless possession, not only for the present, but for future 
 generations. 
 
 Exemption an Imaginary Burden 
 
 To return to Amherst. Amherst, probably because of the 
 presence within her limits of Amherst College and the State 
 Agricultural College, has a lower tax rate than Ware, Easthamp- 
 ton or South Hadley, comparable towns, except that they have 
 not nearly so much exempted property as Amherst. The tax 
 rate in Amherst is decidedly lower than the average tax rate of 
 the County. It has 8| per cent, of the population of the County, 
 but 8.8 per cent, of the taxable individuals residing in the County, 
 and 10 per cent, of all the taxable property in the County. If 
 the presence of exempted property within the limits of the town 
 were a burden, Amherst's burden would indeed be large. Its 
 singularly prosperous condition as compared with the rest of the 
 County proves that the presence of its large proportion of ex- 
 empted property is no burden at all, but simply an advantage. 
 With a few insignificant qualifications, the same is true of all 
 the towns and cities in the Commonwealth which enjoy the pres- 
 ence of colleges or universities. No burden falls upon them in 
 consequence of the exemptions within their limits; but, on the 
 contrary, their financial condition is better than that of the towns 
 and cities which do not enjoy the presence of valuable educa- 
 
tional institutions. And yet the ears of this Committee and of 
 many earlier Committees have been wearied with cries for reHef 
 from a burden which is wholly imaginary. 
 
 Reimbursement of Towns not called fob, there being no 
 Local Burden 
 
 The same argument to an imaginary burden is used in support 
 of the various proposals that the Commonwealth shall hereafter 
 annuall}' pay to every city or town in which an educational in- 
 stitution is situated the whole or one-half of the tax levied upon 
 the property of such institution. This proposition assumes that 
 there is a local burden resulting from the legislation of the Com- 
 monwealth in favor of religious, educational, and charitable in- 
 stitutions; it admits that it is the duty of the Commonwealth to 
 aid such institutions, but insists that the Commonwealth should 
 not force the cities and towns where these institutions are situ- 
 ated to give that aid, but should give the aid itself. If, as I have 
 pointed out, the legislation of the Commonwealth imposes no 
 burden on the towns and cities in which these exempted institu- 
 tions are situated, the whole argument for annual payments from 
 the treasury of the Commonwealth to these towns and cities falls 
 to the ground. The accompanying allegation that Massachusetts 
 has not really aided these institutions of education and charity 
 has no foundation. Massachusetts has cherished her colleges and 
 technical schools by direct grants, and she aids some of them 
 still in that way, besides supporting the State Agricultural Col- 
 lege and the normal schools. You may still see at Harvard 
 College the president's house which the Province of Massachu- 
 setts built and gave to the College. You may still see there 
 three other venerable buildings which the Province built and gave 
 to the College, two of them built for dormitories and one for the 
 other public uses of the College. Between 1636 and 1824 Harvard 
 College received the sum of S21 6,000 in numerous small grants 
 made by the Commonwealth in aid of the College. To-day, the 
 Commonwealth is paying $25,000 a year to the Massachusetts 
 Institute of Technology. The Province and the Commonwealth 
 have aided the institutions of higher education, and the Common- 
 wealth is still aiding them. The exemption statute itself is 
 effective cherishing. The Legislature of Massachusetts is far too 
 intelligent to be influenced by the false statement that she ne- 
 glects to cherish her institutions of higher education, and is also 
 
too intelligent to vote to pay large sums of money to the cities 
 and. towns which contain colleges or universities, in order to re- 
 lieve those communities from a wholly imaginary burden. Let 
 me remark in passing that under House Bill No. 474 the Common- 
 wealth would annually pay to the city of Cambridge at least 
 $200,000 a year, with the sole result of reducing to that extent 
 the tax levied on the taxable citizens of Cambridge. Cambridge 
 already possesses more than 18 per cent, of the taxable property 
 in Middlesex County, while it has but 16 per cent, of the popula- 
 tion of the County. Senate Bill No. 53 proposes that the whole 
 of the tax levied locally on the real estate belonging to literary 
 and scientific institutions shall be paid by the Commonwealth to 
 the city or town which contains the exempted institutions; under 
 such a law an immense sum would be annually payable to the 
 city of Boston out of the State Treasury, since Boston contains a 
 large number of exempted literary and scientific institutions which 
 own costly lands and buildings. To be sure, under such legisla- 
 tion (if I understand it) the exempted institutions would not suffer 
 any reduction of the resources applicable to their public objects, 
 but the State Treasury would suffer severely, not for the promo- 
 tion of religion, education, or charity, but to relieve the citizens 
 of certain privileged cities or towns from a burden which is wholly 
 imaginary, or, in other words, to give those fortunate cities and 
 towns a large pecuniary bonus in addition to the advantages 
 which they derive from the presence of the exempted institutions. 
 It would be a striking peculiarity of such legislation that the more 
 the value of land rose in the vicinity of the exempted institutions, 
 in consequence of the good effects of those institutions on the 
 towns and cities in which they are situated, the larger would be 
 the payment made to those towns and cities by the Common- 
 wealth. Thus, the value of the land about the site of Harvard 
 College in Cambridge has risen very much within the last ten 
 years, and is likely to rise, because of the presence of the College. 
 The higher goes the price of land in its vicinity the higher will 
 be the assessors' valuation of the territory occupied by the Col- 
 lege, and the greater will be the sum to be paid annually from 
 the State Treasury to the city of Cambridge. In general, the more 
 prosperous the city of Cambridge or the city of Boston became, 
 a prosperity indicated in the values of Cambridge or Boston real 
 estate, the larger would be the sums annually to be paid by the 
 Commonwealth to the city. 
 
Excessive Valuations 
 
 A single foolish purchase by a small but rich college club of a 
 corner lot opposite the College at an extravagant price induced 
 the Cambridge assessors to raise the valuation of large areas of 
 land about the site of the College, and to add correspondingly to 
 their valuation of real estate exempted in Cambridge. The ad- 
 ditions they made to the valuations were extravagant; so that 
 they were forced subsequently to retrace some of the steps they 
 had taken. Consider how the temptation to excessive valuation 
 of real estate, to which assessors are now subject, would be in- 
 creased, if for every increase of valuation in the real estate of 
 their town or city they could suck thousands of dollars out of 
 the State Treasury, under such legislation as that of Senate Bill 
 No. 224 or House Bill No. 474. 
 
 Massachusetts does not Grudge the National Service 
 Rendered by its Colleges 
 
 I heard on Thursday last with pleasure and surprise, one new 
 argument in favor of putting the support of every institution of 
 higher education on the state or the nation, rather than on the 
 locality in which the institution is situated. Of course, this new 
 argument assumed, what is conspicuously untrue, that the 
 locality carries a burden in support or aid of the institution of 
 education; but overlooking for a moment that ancient fallacy, 
 there was a new element in the argument, namely, that while a 
 church is a purely local institution, a college or technical school 
 is not; for the college or technical school is resorted to by stu- 
 dents from all parts of the state, or all parts of the country, and, 
 therefore, the state, or the whole country, ought to support it 
 or aid it. Thus students from many parts of the country and 
 some foreign countries resort to Amherst College. Why should 
 the town of Amherst do anything for them? The first answer to 
 this question is that the town of Amherst does not support Am- 
 herst College, or even contribute to its support. The College is 
 supported partly by the students who resort to it and pay its 
 tuition fees, and partly by the benevolent individuals in many 
 parts of the country who endowed it under the protecting and 
 cherishing laws of Massachusetts. How short-sighted and un- 
 generous is this argument! Can we suppose that the people of 
 Massachusetts, or of any town or city in Massachusetts, really 
 
10 
 
 desire that the resort to Massachusetts institutions of education 
 should become less national in range? Do the people of the 
 Commonwealth grudge to the students who come to our excellent 
 institutions of education from other parts of the country or from 
 other countries, the facilities they seek and find in Massachusetts 
 institutions? Do the people of the Commonwealth really desire 
 to check the flow of gifts and benefactions from outside of Massa- 
 chusetts to these institutions of higher education? It is incredi- 
 ble that they should feel any such desire. The people are proud 
 of the reputation of the Massachusetts institutions of higher 
 education. They welcome to these institutions students from all 
 other parts of the country and from other countries; and they 
 take especial pride in promoting in every possible way the Massa- 
 chusetts industry of giving instruction. Moreover, they know 
 that an institution to which students resort from far and wide 
 will be for that reason a better and more influential institution. 
 It would be easy to check both the flow of students and the flow 
 of money into the Massachusetts institutions. Would the Gen- 
 eral Board of Education, lately so largely endowed, give any sup- 
 port to Massachusetts institutions if they could suppose that 
 Massachusetts was going to tax educational benefactions? Would 
 the great stream of benefactions continue to flow to Massachu- 
 setts institutions if intending givers learned that Massachusetts 
 entertained a proposal to tax any part of the properties set aside 
 forever under the existing laws of Massachusetts for the purposes 
 of higher education? It has been repeatedly said, during the 
 discussion of these bills which propose to tax certain portions of 
 college property, that the immediate damage caused by this 
 legislation would be small. True, the edge of the wedge is thin, 
 and it is not proposed at this moment to drive it in very far; 
 but no prudent man will permit even a thin wedge to be inserted 
 into the post which supports the corner of his dwelling. This 
 proposed legislation, petty as it is in its immediate effects, will 
 go far to impair confidence in the stability of the great Massachu- 
 setts policy for the support of the higher education, a policy 
 which has contributed largely to make Massachusetts what it is, 
 a policy which has produced institutions of education as yet 
 unsurpassed in the entire country. 
 
11 
 
 No Evidence that Taxed Land is Rendered Exempt Faster 
 THAN Compensating Benefits are Diffused 
 
 I turn now to consider some of the predictions about the future 
 effects of insistence on the part of Massachusetts in her present 
 policy of exempting from taxation her institutions of higher 
 education. It is said that under the exemption policy of Massa- 
 chusetts the colleges and other exempted institutions are contin- 
 ually taking more and more of the real estate of their towns or 
 cities out of the taxable lists by buying private property which 
 has heretofore been taxed, and adding such property to the real 
 estate already devoted to their own educational purposes, thus 
 progressively diminishing the assessable valuations of their towns 
 or cities. On this suggestion of future evil several reassuring 
 comments may be made. In the first place, when a college or 
 hospital buys private property in its vicinity, it pays for it, and 
 the price it pays ordinarily remains as taxable property in the 
 town or city. Occasionally exceptions to this rule will occur; 
 but such is the rule. In the next place, by increasing its holdings, 
 a college usually increases the valuations of the lands lying about 
 or near its holdings, old and new. Thirdly, when a college in- 
 creases its holdings, other lands in the same town or city usually 
 come into use and acquire a new value. There is plenty of un- 
 occupied land in every Massachusetts town or city which harbors 
 a college, waiting to experience this rise of value. In the city of 
 Cambridge there are at this moment hundreds of acres of un- 
 marketable land waiting for Harvard University, or new indus- 
 tries, or new residences to give them value. Fourthly, it is clear 
 that there is no existing evil of this sort within the Common- 
 wealth; and that it is never expedient to legislate against non- 
 existent evils. All the towns and cities in the Commonwealth 
 which contain institutions of higher education are to-day better 
 off in regard to their several amounts of taxable real estate than 
 the corresponding towns and cities which do not contain colleges. 
 This is not a matter of opinion; it is demonstrable from the 
 published tables of the Commonwealth's Tax Commissioner. If, 
 in the future, any evil of this sort shall appear locally, it will 
 probably not be beyond the ingenuity of the Legislature, aided by 
 the assessors, to devise a local remedy. 
 
12 
 
 Publicity of Accounts a Proper Condition of Exemption, and 
 THE ONLY Needed Defense against its Abuse 
 
 Finally, we must consider what weight to attribute to a line of 
 argumentation always used by the advocates of taxing colleges. 
 They say — where there is so much smoke there must be fire; 
 where there is so much sense of injury there must be some in- 
 justice; this proposed legislation is bound to come, therefore it 
 had better come now. Doubtless there is fire under this smoke. 
 There is the fire of ignorance, the fire of jealousy, and the fire of 
 natural desire to get one's own taxes reduced by acquiring the 
 right to tax large masses of visible property which now are ex- 
 empted. There is also the burning zeal of assessors eager to get 
 hold of new resources for taxation. The right way to deal with 
 these smoky fires is to put them out by means of the cooling 
 streams of knowledge, unselfishness, and public spirit, and of 
 wise legislation to improve our methods of taxation. The argu- 
 ment that something is bound to come, and therefore shall arrive 
 now, ought to be put out of court without ceremony as wholly 
 unworthy of intelligent freemen. It is not destiny which has 
 made Massachusetts; it is Massachusetts that has carved out her 
 own destiny. The traditional policy of Massachusetts needs, in 
 my opinion, only one defense, and that is, a complete publicity 
 concerning its own workings. If only the whole people of the 
 Commonwealth could be shown just how the endowment and 
 exemption policy has worked, and is working, for the highest 
 interests of Massachusetts, the people would not permit that 
 policy to be tampered with. I am not sure that existing legisla- 
 tion has adequately procured this very desirable complete pub- 
 licity; indeed, the amount of misapprehension on this subject 
 throughout the Commonwealth, even among the educated classes, 
 seems to show that the present provisions for publicity are in- 
 adequate. All the wise exempted institutions publish their 
 annual accounts as fully as possible. I venture to suggest to 
 this Committee that no institution or society ought to be ex- 
 empted from taxation which does not publish in complete form 
 its annual accounts. Such publication is needed to show the 
 public that the whole income of such institutions and societies 
 is really devoted to public uses of religion, education, or charity. 
 
13 
 
 PRIVATE DORMITORIES TAXED IN CMIBRIDGE, 1905 
 
 Name of Building 
 
 ClaverlyHall 
 
 Apley Court 
 
 Randolph Hall 
 
 Apthorp House 
 
 Russell HaU 
 
 Westmorly Court . . . . 
 
 Quincy Hall 
 
 Brentford HaU 
 
 Ware Hall 
 
 Fairfax Hall 
 
 Hampden Hall 
 
 Little's Bl'k, 1350 Mass. Av. 
 Little's Bl'k, 1358 Mass. Av. 
 
 Dunster Hall 
 
 Dana Chambers 
 
 Theta Delta Chi 
 
 Read's Block 
 
 Draj'ton Hall 
 
 Trinity Hall 
 
 Craigie Hall 
 
 Waverley Hall 
 
 Shepherd Block 
 
 Hapgood Hall 
 
 25 and 27 Holyoke St. . . 
 
 RidgelyHaU 
 
 68 Mt. Auburn St 
 
 5 and 7 Linden St 
 
 Beck Hall 
 
 66WinthropSt 
 
 Totals 
 
 Valuation 
 of Building 
 
 $125,000 
 
 55,000 
 
 200,000 
 
 7,000 
 
 47,000 
 
 140,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 60,000 
 
 134,000 
 
 73,000 
 
 130,000 
 
 30.000 
 
 25,000 
 
 150.000 
 
 70,000 
 
 23,300 
 
 20,000 
 
 35.000 
 
 15,000 
 
 110,000 
 
 50,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 9.000 
 
 70,000 
 
 4,500 
 
 7.000 
 
 58,500 
 
 3,000 
 
 $1,691,300 
 
 Valuation 
 of Land 
 
 $42,000 
 
 27,000 
 
 60,000 
 
 68,000 
 
 35.000 
 
 57.000 
 
 12,000 
 
 11,400 
 
 21,000 
 
 72,800 
 
 39.000 
 
 40,500 
 
 43,800 
 
 50,000 
 
 45,000 
 
 12,000 
 
 37,000 
 
 7,000 
 
 5,800 
 
 18,000 
 
 4,200 
 
 8,800 
 
 9,100 
 
 20.000 
 
 10.000 
 
 15,000 
 
 17,500 
 
 36.000 
 
 3.700 
 
 Total 
 Valuation 
 
 $167,000 
 
 82,000 
 
 260,000 
 
 75.000 
 
 82,000 
 
 197,000 
 
 32.0C0 
 
 71,400 
 
 155,000 
 
 145,800 
 
 169.000 
 
 70,500 
 
 68,800 
 
 200.000 
 
 115.000 
 
 35,300 
 
 57,000 
 
 42,000 
 
 20,800 
 
 128,000 
 
 54,200 
 
 18,800 
 
 19,100 
 
 29,000 
 
 80,000 
 
 19,500 
 
 24,500 
 
 94,500 
 
 6,700 
 
 Real Estate 
 Tax 
 
 $3,173.00 
 
 1.558.00 
 
 4,940.00 
 
 1,425.00 
 
 1,558.00 
 
 3,743.00 
 
 608.00 
 
 1,356.60 
 
 2,945.00 
 
 2,770.20 
 
 3,211.00 
 
 1,339.50 
 
 1,307.20 
 
 3,800.00 
 
 2,185.00 
 
 670.70 
 
 1,083.00 
 
 798.00 
 
 395.20 
 
 2,432.00 
 
 1,029.80 
 
 357.20 
 
 362.90 
 
 551.00 
 
 1,520.00 
 
 370.50 
 
 465.50 
 
 1,795.50 
 
 127.30 
 
 $828,600 |$2,519.900 $47,878.10 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 029 498 852 P #