posed to re-enact the clause of the old Constitu-
tion. The difference between that and the arti-
cle as proposed, was a substantial one. The
amendment inhibited the Legislature from pass-
ing any law, taxing property beyond the limits of
the State. The attempt to tax property without
the State, must, it seemed to him, be a failure in
nine cases out of ten. Those upon whom the
exercise of the power devolved, had no means of
ascertaining the value, or even the existence of
that property; and thus the system led to perjury,
and to frauds upon the revenue, and hence was
wrong in itself.
Another, and an unanswerable argument was,
that property was responsible for taxes in the
community in which it existed. Surely, it was
wrong, that a man should be compelled to pay
taxes both in and out of the State for the same
property. It seemed to him, that there could
be, and ought to be no distinction between real
and personal property in the State of Maryland.
If there was the power in the one case, why should
there not be in the other? He contended also,
that the system was not courteous to our sister
States. He alluded to the injurious operation
which this example would have upon our own
State stocks, if other States should, in retaliation,
follow this example; and argued that no such
tax ought to be laid, whether regarded either in
the light of justice, or of sound policy. And he
referred the Convention to a letter which had re-
cently been presented by Mr. Chambers of
Kent, from Mr. Hall, setting forth the evils
which resulted from the taxation of property thus
situated, and its injurious operation upon the peo-
ple of Maryland.
Therefore, pending the question,
The Convention adjourned until to-morrow at
eleven o'clock.
Sketch of the Remarks of Mr. BROWN, of Carroll, on
the 30th of January.
The pending question being on the amendment
offered by Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, to the
amendment of Mr. PRESSTMAN.
Mr. BROWN, said : he came to the House with-
out any intention to make a speech. He usually
contented himself with saying what he thought,
and sometimes he spoke earnestly, and after ex-
pressing what he had to say, he sat down. He
recapitulated what he had said yesterday in reply
to the reference made to the Dorr case in Rhode
Island by the gentleman from Somerset. He
adverted to the ridicule which had been cast on
the seventeen gentlemen who had voted for the
popular basis of representation by the gentleman
from Dorset and others; and then went on to state
that he had replied that although seventeen was
a small minority out of seventy-seven votes, yet
the name of the constituents of these seventeen,
was "legion." They represented in fact a majori-
ty of the white population of the State.. The gen-
tleman from Worcester bad spoken of the tyran-
ny of a majority. The phrase was entirely new
to him; he had never read of it, had never heard
of it until be came into this hall; and he was un-

able to convince himself that there was any truth
in it. But he had heard of the tyranny of a mi-
nority. It so happens, that the majority of mem-
bers of this body represents less than one-third
of the people of the State. He could not com-
prehend how government, based upon the majori-
ty) could be called a tyranny. One of our leading
principles is, that majorities shall govern; and
that these majorities were tyrants, was an entire-
ly new doctrine. He could easily imagine how
a minority could usurp the rights and trample on
the rights and feelings of the majority; and this
sort of tyranny was the first step to monarchy.
Our forefathers were induced to take up arms,
and to resist tyranny to obtain political rights for
all ! They fought to throw off the yoke of a few
who tyrannized over them. He expressed his
inability to comprehend some of the doctrines
and some of the phrases of the gentleman from
Kent. If the doctrines laid down by that gentle-
man were correct, they should prevail. But the
language of that gentleman was new to him.
The gentleman spoke of giving the people their
rights. He could only reply that his constituents
did not come here to ask alms. They under-
stood what were their rights, and those they would
not beg for, but demand.
He went on to state that his ancestors settled
where, he now resides, when it was called the
back woods, and Baltimore was a small town.
The population of the State was then principally
to be found on both sides of the Chesapeake
Bay, and below its head. The Allegany moun-
tains had probably, at that time, never been trod-
den by the foot of a white man. And what is
now the condition of that part of the State? Bal-
timore city and Western Maryland contain a
large majority, (perhaps two-thirds,) of the
wealth and population of the State.
Our forefathers had lived under the rule of a
monarchy, but they had fought for their liberties,
contending against the most powerful nation on
earth. The freedom which they achieved, they
had handed down to us, and we should hand it
down to our children.
He would tell the gentleman from Kent, how
this reform question could be settled certainly
and quietly. Give us a Constitution that will se-
cure to the people their rights, and nothing more
will be heard in the way of complaint.
The state of things was this: two-thirds of the
people of the State have no political rights.
Could any one suppose they would remain quiet?
Could it be permitted that the one-third should
tie down and control the two-thirds? Further to
illustrate the principle for which he contended,
he read an extract from the works of Mr. Jef-
ferson on the subject of Constitutions, and the
necessity of changes in laws and institutions to
keep pace with the times. That was the princi-
ple for which his constituents were contending.
They asked no favor of the Eastern Shore. "We
out-number you, and we think we are able to
take care of ourselves." But there is no disposi-
tion among them to exercise tyranny over the
small counties: and was it not an insult to them,
when a minority undertook to control and govern
them, and talked of giving them their rights?