*1 323 such, continuously inso in effect been rate circumstances has 3.6% far as involved Un in the since the enactment instant issue 586, Subsec. (Laws 1937, p. employment Compensation law in 1937 material, been 6(C), (2).3 far has (3), (b), Thus, provision so as enactment, original its carried forward as the of the State since law retrospective nor was to the case was not applied and as instant 581, 248 W. (Mo.), matter at all. v. S. new Stouffer Crawford 104, citing Dirckx, 198, 199, 283 223 S. W. 188, Smith v. Mo. 584[2], 106 A. L. R. 11 510. [3], quarters In 2nd addition, applied rate to the 1st and 3.6% 1942, subsequent which were to the effective date of the amendment 1941, computed and the fact that the rate on the actual em- ployment experience occurring predecessor employing^ of. the unit July prior 1, 1941, provision retrospective did not make the in a Whitney reasoning constitutional sense. See Pratt & Air. Corp. Unemployment Comp. Comm., v. 354 Mo. 1017, 1022, 1024[3], 1, respect 193 W. 2d with S. to a somewhat similar 4[6], [3], (Laws 1943, p. ). of 1943 to 9427(j) amendment the law Subsec. W judgment .Barrett, is affirmed. estimes and CC., concur. foregoing opinion PER Bohling, C., adopted CURIAM:—The All judges as the of the court. the- concur. opinion Ap Corporation, Chamber of Commerce of North City, Kansas Unemployment Compensation pellant, Commission of Mis Harry and Carl J. P. Drisler and Elmer souri, Henry, J. Unemployment Compensation Members Keitel, Sr., Commission Missouri . No. 40012 . 201 W. S. 771. f o April Two, Division 1947. 6(C), (2), supra; (3), (b), 3 Subsec.- “. . . If-the reads: total of his contributions, past period on and credited own behalf for all his. or paid sixty past period months,

for the consecutive calendar whichever is more advantageous than the total benefits employer purposes paragraph, to such for the of this is less charged against during period, his account the same per three and six-tenths his rate shall be centum.” (Laws 1939, p. 904, This was carried forward in the amendment of 1939 (3), (b), appearing 6(C), (2), 9427(C), (3), (b), (2), as Subsec. Subsec. supra. S. R. form here involved in the amendment of *2 ap- Simrall Palmer and Simrall <& Potter, A. Judson L. James pellant. *3 Moseley respondents;

John L. Michael Porter and Charles F. J. Carroll of counsel.

-.826

WESTHUES, question presented C . The on appeal whether under the Unemployment Compensation Law the Chamber Commerce City, North Missouri, required Kansas to make .of contributions wages with paid reference to individuals. The Com- mission decided that the Chamber of ap- Commerce was liable. On peal to the Circuit County Court of Cole the decision the Commis- of. sihn was affirmed. From that judgment an appeal was taken to this *4 court. Appellant, Commerce, of Chamber that it exempt contends

making by 9423, Ann., contributions virtue of Mo., Mo. R. S. R. sec. S. by as amended Missouri, 1943, Laws of pages 920 and sub- (F), sections and which read as follows: ‘' ” (6) Shall not include: “(F). performed Service in employ corporation, of a com-

munity chest, fund, foundation, organized or operated and exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or purposes, educational prevention or for cruelty of to animals, children or part no of the earnings net of to inures any private which benefit of shareholder individual;” or Appellant also contends that is organized it and operated exclu sively for charitable and educational purposes and part that no of its earnings any inures to private the benefit of shareholders or individ may uals. dispose of the latter clause, and not mention it further, by stating that no earnings ever accrued and therefore none

’ from dues only was derived were income Appellant’s ever distributed. voluntary of its and contributions. members provi- under the decree by pro a forma Appellant organized 1939, which Mo., Ann., R. 10, chapter 33, Mo. R. S. sions of Art. S. religious, benevolent, organization incorporation for permits and See sec. scientific, fraternal-beneficial or educational part in reads Mo., Appellant’s R. Ann. charter S. R. S. Mo. as follows: and benevolent formed for educational

“Fourth: This association is territory with- Missouri, its trade purposes City, Kansas and North profit out financial to its members. gathering dissemination include and

“The field of education shall industrial, professional, business, in relation information to community in- life and interests of the home and institutional meeting place of matters serve, providing tended to a for the discussion furnishing interest, and and other whole- furnishing speakers, music some forms entertainment. ‘‘ promotion include better streets and The benevolences shall trade police protection, and business and highways, fire better better unemploy- conditions, labor reduction practices, better health and good harmony, will charity, promotion and ment, aid in works of encouragement of beautifica- throughout community, fellowship and public places, improve and to the civic business tion of and homes community generally.” life of the by-laws following: contain

The promote to the welfare “The of this Association shall be purpose interests, manufacturing and industries of North Kansas of the trade development City Vicinity, and extension to to and contribute ways: acquire and disseminate valu- all lawful to of such interests encourage greater information, and able commercial and economic importance understanding of manufac- and a better interest growth prosperity; turing as factors our and trade industries just equitable principles of trade and foster the promote its among highest integrity; acquaintanceship to increase commercial adjustment speedy facilitate the arbitration busi- members and upon secure- action interchange view's and disputes; ness concerted using interest; abuses, and correct to discuss public matters of may protect rights the interests and be best calculated to means as business inen and citizens.” of its members secretary only appellant and a regular employees of are place appellant be sufficient to janitress. That number would not *5 (i) 1943, (h) 9423, page and Laws Subdivisions sec. under the act-. employment an eight employees or more constitute that provide evidently members of However, the the Chamber Commerce unit. they weekly or The record shows that held good appetites. possessed meetings. prepare employed Housewives were to biweekly luncheon 328

these employees luncheons. about and one- Some of these worked two half hours on the day, worked about four luncheon while one cook Mondays hours on eight Tuesdays and on the time of hours luncheon. It was at meetings that educational principal these feature was carried in- speakers out. The record were discloses that vited and subjects widely. that the discussed varied notice We will these later. conceded, appellant It was in stipulated it was that fact had a sufficient employees number so within the act. as to come may, therefore, question this consideration. dismiss from our generally applied considering

The rule question when exemptions of the consideration, is, nature now under on the that grounds employer that benevolent, engaged charitable or work, educational organization that such an or must be association organised, both operated exclusively purposes. for If such either fails, exemption then the apply. does not Osteopathic Northeast Hos pital v. al., Keitels et 355 Mo. (2d) 970; Murphy 197 S. W. Concordia House, Pub. 348 Mo. 122; 155 S. W. Amer ican Medical Ass’n. v. Dept. Board of al., Beview of Labor 392 et Ill. (2d) 350; N. E. Better Washington, Business Bureau of D. C., Inc. v. States, United Sup. however, Ct. 112. Appellant, contends that it came within that organized rule because it was was operating exclusively for benevolent and educational The real dispute in case, this is therefore, per whether the functions by formed appellant, as authorized its charter, should be classified as benevolent educational within meaning Unemploy ment Compensation Law. many case

It and the evidence shows was conceded purely charitable and educational as appellant’s activities were their restricted sense. That generally terms are understood those way needy they promoted educational is, aided the in material consisting general topics. non-commércial For of lectures on features Charity and the' so called United col example, Bed collections Cross year year supervised by ap from conducted and lections were pellant organization. As to educational features we find that topics during years some of the the course of discussion were: Warfare,” Higher “Whither Bound In Bib,'” “Adam’s “Chemical Money,” “Marriage Education,” “Bobinson And Divorce Crusoe’s Dwellers-Bryee’s Canyon,” Bussia,” In “Treatment Hus “Cliff Keep Strange To Out Wife,” And and “How Of Jail.” band as,it among years may during all the varied lectures delivered seem, 1936, May, 1944, we fail September, to find one devoted to Keep Paying From subject, “How To Taxes.” Some of subjects following that the discussed topics indicate were commercial: Helps You,” Business,” “How Helps Business Is “Greater “What Manufacturer Through Cooperation” Betailer and and “The Profits Salesman.” Master

329 decided, cases evidenced authority, as weight of find that is organization anof the activities portion of if a substantial advantage then business or to improving business to devoted apply. not Act does Compensation Unemployment in the exemption ac- authorizes such charter if the exemption apply does the Neither case, Hospital Osteopathic in the Northeast example, tivity. For the court said: supra, ‘1 facilities encouraging providing fostering and and purposes The of clearly professional, quite believe, are osteopathy, we practice of for the purposes held nature; it should not be charitable, in and and not for practice encouraging providing facilities fostering and of and (F), meaning'of Sec- Clause charitable within profession of are they if are to be (i) supra, and seen (6), purposes, such 9423 tion prevent Hos- Hospital’s organization, should purposes of substantial purview Unemployment Compensa- pital’s exclusion from tion Law.” Medical Association contended

In the Illinois the American State of engaged for exempted that was because scientific it Illinois, the association was however, held that Supreme Court of exempt unemployment contributions because not payments portion protecting devoted a substantial of its efforts toward and Colony furthering benefits members. economic to its individual See Commission, v. Michigan Unemployment Compensation Town Club (2d) 28; American Mich. 3 N. W. Medical Ass’n. v. Board 301 Labor, York, Dept. supra. of Review of So also in New in the case 22 Ass’n., Inc. Miller, of Mohawk Mills v. N Y. S. where earnings charity, exemption all the of the association were devoted to require denied the charter not to be was because did done. More point to direct now under consideration is the ease of Boston Boston, (2d) 199, v. 54 N. E. Chamber Commerce Assessors exemption A. L. R. 174. In 152 that ease from taxation denied organization’s because the provided charter as follows: “ objects corporation ‘The of the new promote be to shall commerce, industry public Boston, interests of Eng and of New promote regulate land; to exchange city a commercial in the Boston; acquire, preserve and disseminate business information; adjust controversies and misunderstandings; to establish and uniformity maintain usages; commercial promote and to just and ’ ’’ equitable principles of trade. Activities the Chamber of Commerce held were within the char- provisions. ter’s In the Supreme State of Tennessee Court held, Memphis City Chamber of Term. Memphis, Commerce 232 S. W. that the organization exempt was not from taxa- among tion because the charter provided, things: other “ improvement ‘in the of labor conditions, foreign trade and merchant municipal highways, good roads marine, traffic transportation, ” city.’ civic in the conditions and health public The court said: “ stated, but, as before profit, ‘It corporation is true it not a *7 interests primary its commercial object promote business and the City in charter. of the its Memphis. expressly of stated This is the of claim benefit opinion, therefore, are the it cannot the that educational scientific, or exemption religious, charitable, extended to may charity, or institutions. The it administers mere fact that lines, does give along certain instructions of an educational nature the not an institution in sense render it educational or charitable institu- our such exempting, property Constitution and statute ” tions from taxation.-’ in the case Supreme held likewise Court of the States United States, Inc. C., Better D. v. United Washington, Business Bureau of 66 Sup. Ct. 112.

Appellant holding that a Chamber point cited one federal ease of Commerce should from such as contributions be excluded taxation to Unemployment. Oklahoma is, The case Better Business Bureau of City Jones, (same case) Supp. 573, 123 Fed. 767. Fed. in the by Supreme But case Court expressly that referred to case Washington, C., Inc., supra, of Better D. Business Bureau of the ruling exempting disapproved. such The fed- organizations was eral by ruling Supreme authorities are bound Court.

Viewing appellant’s by activities, as find record, disclosed we many that purely them purposes, were devoted to charitable how- ever, appellant power had the under its and it did in charter fact promote the City. trade and commerce of North Kansas The evidence that disclosed in bringing was interested new industries to the community. special The evidence that a organization, showed not directly appellant, connected with what furnished finances were necessary to bring in new industries, appellant’s but officers aided in by gathering this work attending meetings information and both at home and Bringing elsewhere. industries, promoting new just equitable principles actively of trade and' fostering pur- other poses appellant’s enumerated in charter, may all very be considered community to a beneficial general and the certainly citizens they are all laudable However, great weight under the of au- thority a by Chamber of exempt Commerce is not our virtue of statute making contributions under the Unemployment Compensation cited, Act. supra. Cases A Chamber of Commerce, generally as un- derstood, is: “A board or promote association to the commercial interests of a locality, country, a like; society or the a of the principal merchants city traders a promote general who meet to trade and com- place.” .merce of the affirming the circuit court judgment of follows It is affirmed. must be and Compensation Unemployment decision GG., concur. Barrett, Bohling and Westhues, C., is foregoing opinion PER CURIAM:—The judges concur. All the the court. opinion of

adopted as Kyle City Hugh Company, Corpora a Life Insurance v. Kansas C. Building Ap Company, Corporation, Robert E. Lee tion, and (2d)W. 912. S. 40034 . 201 pellants . No. One, April 12, 1947.

Division May 12, Rehearing Denied, 1947.

Bay appellants. B. Lucas and Jos. B. Btewart for