The present movement toward the payment to the city of taxes on College property out of the treasury of the state is another step in a controversy which has assumed large proportions and which threatens to be a menace to College income. A summary of the taxation of Harvard property is therefore most opportune at this time.

When Harvard was incorporated in 1650 not only was it wholly exempted from taxation but the State even made grants for its support. Every few years the law of exemption was repeated until 1780, when a reference was made to the "persons" who had the "management and improvement of Harvard College," saying that they should not be assessed for the same. In 1800, a provision was added to the effect that the town of Cambridge could tax houses and lands outside the College bounds, except those improved by the president, professor of the theory and practice of physic, professor of theology, professor of mathematics, and the tutor of logic, meta-physics and ethics.

A considerable extension in exemption was granted in 1818 when the court voted that the exemption of College property from taxation was not to be construed to prevent the town of Cambridge from taxing the lands and houses belonging to the Corporation outside of the College bounds, except those occupied by the president, instructors, students and resident graduates. From 1822 until 1829, a restriction was added to the last law, to the effect that the personal estate of these persons valued above $8000 could be taxed. The court, thinking the laws were too indefinite, appointed a committee to draw up the Revised Statutes. In summing up these laws, the committee said that all lands and buildings connected with the College were exempt, which were occupied for the purpose for which the College was incorporated. The terms "occupied" and "purpose" were sources of much discussion and were the loopholes through which subsequent attacks were made.

In 1897 the people of Cambridge complained of the heavy taxation they were obliged to bear on account of the presence of so much untaxed property in the community, and maintained that several of the professors' houses on Quincy street were not occupied for the purpose for which the College was incorporated, but were a source of private gain to their occupants. The College paid the tax on these houses but carried the case to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts last fall. Mr. Samuel Hoar '67, attorney for the University, argued that Harvard was a benefit to the city in many ways because it gave prestige to the city, increased the value of property, and was an advantage to tradesmen. The case was won by Harvard, and the $11,000 which had been collected in taxes for the years 1897, 1898, and 1899 have just been paid back. The Supreme Court held that the test which should decide whether property is taxable is whether it is used for investment or for College purposes.

To circumvent this decision of the Supreme Court, the city of Cambridge has, during the past month, been attempting to carry a bill in the State Legislature, asking that the College property be assessed for its full value of over $10,000,000 and that this tax be paid to Cambridge out of the State treasury. This is justified, it is argued, on the ground that about 40 per cent. of Harvard men live in Massachusetts and enjoy the municipal advantages and improvements of Cambridge. The principle of this plan has a great significance since it will acknowledge the justice of taxing college property and will be a step toward direct and complete taxation.