according to their white population, and the other
half to be divided into twenty parts, allowing one
to each of the counties in existence in 1833, and
one to the city of Baltimore.
It seemed to him that if such distribution were
ever to occur, it should be made in the same pro-
portion in which the fund was contibuted. He
would refer to the table marked [statement G.]
in the Treasurer's report of 1849. The amount
of the whole yearly levy for the State was $477,-
276-and of this Baltimore city contributed
$175,762, or more than one-third of the gross
amount of this whole revenue. Now with what
reason is it urged, that Baltimore should, after
making contribution of a fund, which was not
required by the necessity of the case, receive
back only eleven-twentieths of what it had paid,
and not the whole sum which it contributed.
The same injustice would result to the counties
relatively also. Why should Frederick county,
which pays eight times as much as Calvert, re-
ceive back only one-half of its contribution-and
one-twentieth of the gross sum-when it has
contributed in a far different proportion. It was
certainly an extraordinary idea, and though it
might work to the advantage of the small coun-
ties, it could not be supposed that they would
obtain this benefit by injustice to the larger
counties and to the city of Baltimore.
The question was taken and resulted as fol-
lows:
Affirmative-Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Mor-
gan, Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Sellman, Weems, Bond, Sol-
lers, Colston, James U. Dennis, Crisfield, Da-
shiell, Williams, Hodson, Phelps, McMaster,
Fooks, Jacobs, Carter, Thawley, Fiery, John
Newcomer, Kilgour, Brewer, and Waters-30.
Negative-Messrs. Donaldson, Wells, Bu-
chanan, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd,
Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot, Constable,
Miller, McCubbin, George, Wright, Thom-
as, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sappington, Ste-
phenson, McHenry, Nelson, Gwinn, Stewart,
of Baltimore city, Brent of Baltimore city, Sher-
wood of Baltimore city, Presstman, Ware, Schley,
Neill, Harbine, Michael Newcomer, Weber,
Slicer, Fitzpatrick, Parke, Shower and Brown-
39.
So the second branch of the amendment was
rejected.
Mr. JACOBS. I have one other proposition
which I desire to submit. And I move the pre-
vious question on its adoption.
The amendment was read as follows:
"The Legislature shall at its first session after
the adoption of this Constitution, and from time
to time thereafter, diminish by law, the direct
taxes of the State, to a minimum, equal only to
pay the interest on the present State debt; and
no law shall hereafter be passed to raise money
by taxation with a view to the payment of any
part of the principal of the State debt."
There was a second to the demand for the
previous question.
And the main question was ordered to be now
taken. |
Mr. JACOBS asked the yeas and nays, which
were ordered.
Mr. BREWER called for a division of the ques-
tion, which was ordered.
And the question was taken on the first branch
of the amendment was follows:
"The Legislature shall, at its first session af-
ter the adoption of this Constitution, and from
time to time thereafter diminish by law, the di-
rect taxes of the State, to a minimum, equal only,
to pay the interest on the present State debt."
And the question having been taken, the result
was as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Weems, Bond, Constable,
Miller, McMaster, Fooks, Jacobs, Thawley,
Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Parke, and Show-
er—12.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Morgan,
Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers
of Kent, Donaldson, Wells, Jenifer, Buchan-
an, Bell, Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd,
Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot, Colston, James
U. Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams, Hodson,
Phelps, McCubbin, Grason, George, Wright,
Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Annan, Sap-
pington, Stephenson, McHenry, Nelson, Carter,
Stewart of Caroline, Gwinn, Stewart of Balti-
more city, Brent of Baltimore city, Sherwood of
Baltimore city, Presstman, Ware, Fiery, John
Newcomer, Harbine, Waters, Anderson, Weber,
Slicer, and Fitzpatrick—54.
So the first branch of the amendment was rejected,
The question was then put on the second branch
of said amendment being in these words "and no
law shall hereafter be passed to raise money by
taxation, with a view to the payment of any part
of the principal of the State debt."
Mr, JACOBS asked to withdraw the last branch
of said amendment, but the Chair stated, that the
yeas and nays having been commenced being ta-
ken by the Clerk, the Convention must proceed
in taking the vote.
And the question was taken and resulted as
follows:
Affirmative— Mr. Fooks—1.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Morgan,
Blakistone, Dent, Hopewell, Ricaud, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Donaldson, Wells, Sellman,
Weems, Sollers, Jenifer, Buchanan, Bell, Welch,
Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickinson, Sherwood
of Talbot, Colston, James U.Dennis, Crisfield,
Dashiell, Williams, Hodson, Phelps, Miller, Mc-
Cubbin, Grason, George, Wright, McMaster,
Hearn, Jacobs, Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser,
Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, McHenry, Nel-
son, Carter, Thawley, Stewart of Caroline,
Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent of Bal-
timore city, Sherwood of Balt. city, Presstman,
Fiery, John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael New-
comer, Kilgour, Brewer, Waters, Weber, Slicer,
Fitzpatrick, and Brown—66.
So the second branch of the amendment was
rejected.
file twenty-second section of the report was
then read, and, no amendment having been offered,
was adopted as follows: |
