The PRESIDENT, pro tem., stated the question.
Mr. KILGOUR. asked the yeas and nays.
Mr. MERRICK said he hoped the gentleman,
(Mr. Parke,) would withdraw his amendment.
It certainly was unnecessary. It could effect no
great good, nor, indeed, could it do any harm,
Mr. PARKE said if it was the wish of the Con-
vention that the amendment should bewithdrawn,
he, (Mr. P.,) would withdraw it. He did not
see that it could make any great difference, wheth-
er the amendment was incorporated in the Con-
stitution or not. He had seen it in other Consti-
tutions—he had seen it in the Constitution of Cali-
fornia. He was willing, however, to withdraw
the amendment.
But, after a moment's reflection,
Mr. PARKE stated that he preferred to adhere
to his amendment.
The PRESIDENT, pro tem., then put the ques-
tion on the demand of Mr. KILGOUR for the yeas
and nays.
The Convention refused to order the yeas and
nays.
The question was then taken on the amend-
ment and no quorum voted.
Mr. MITCHELL called for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDENT, pro tem., said he had some
doubts whether the motion was in order, as the
Convention had once refused to take the yeas and
nays.
The question was then again taken on the amend-
ment of Mr. PARKE, and was decided in the affir-
mative : ayes 30, noes 25.
So the amendment was adopted.
The bill of rights had now been gone through
with.
But on a former day the Convention had infor-
mally passed over the thirteenth article of the
said bill, which is in the following words :
Art. 13. " That paupers ought not to be asses-
sed for the support of government, but every oth-
er person in this State, or person holding property
therein, ought to contribute his proportion of
public taxes, for the support of government, ac-
cording to his actual worth in real or personal
property; yet fines, duties or taxes may properly
and justly be imposed or laid, on persons or pro-
perty, with a political view for the good government
and benefit of the community."
The pending question was on the amendment
heretofore indicated by Mr. RANDALL, to insert
after the word " property," the words " within
this State."
Mr. DONALDSON was entitled to the floor, but
•aid that, as he understood it was the desire of
his colleague, (Mr. Randall,) to express his views
more fully than he had heretofore done, he, (Mr.
D.,) would yield the floor.
Mr. RANDALL. rose and said that, in order to
present his views in reference to his amendment,
he would avail himself of the offer of his col-
league (Mr. Donaldson) to yield the floor to him
for that purpose. He read a portion of the thir-
teenth article in the old Bill of Rights, and stated
that the new declaratory article proposes to omit
the words "within this State," so as to give the
power to the Legislature to levy taxes on real
and personal property whether in or out of this

State. The former Bill of Rights is framed with
the. express limitation that the taxing power is
confined to property within the limits of this
State. Such may have been the presumption
without that express limitation. If the words
"within this State" are now, however, stricken
out, it would manifest clearly the intention to
take away this limitation, and that the Legisla-
ture shall hereafter tax all the property, realand
persona] of its citizens lying out of this State.
Is the Convention, he asked, prepared to say that
taxes shall hereafter he imposed by the Legisla-
ture on the property of the citizens of this State
all over the world? We are necessarily brought
to this point by the difference found to exist be-
tween the two Bills of Rights. When he put
the question to his distinguished colleague, not
now in his place, (Mr. Dorsey,) how he propo-
sed to tax real estate which might be situated in
Florida, or Mississippi, or Europe—that gentle-
man informed him that it was not intended to
tax real estate out of this State. In that case the
change in the article effects what it was not in-
tended to do, and should therefore remain as it
is. Was it just, he would ask, to tax the prop-
erty of our citizens lying beyond the limits of
this State ? He did not deny the existence of
the power—the State had power over its citizens
and their property of every description wherever
it might be, unless prohibited by the Constitution,
He did not therefore deny the power of the State
to tax real property lying out of this State, but
he did deny the justice of the exercise of such a
power. Whether taxes are laid for carrying on
internal improvements, or for any other object,
all its expenditures are confined within its own
limits, to benefit property in the Slate. Is it
just that the property of the citizen lying out of
the State should be taxed for any action in the
State which in no manner adds to the value or
utility of property out of this State. All our
State legislation ought to be characterized by
justice, that virtue which should be the guide of
government, and faithfully administer in all its
departments. The government should be abright
example to its citizens of justice. Within the
State, where the property to be taxed will be Im-
proved by the contemplated action of the Legis-
lature, it may bejust to impose the lax, but where
the property lies beyond the limits of the State
and out of the reach of the improvements of the
State's action, where its legislation can have no
operation, its courts are not invoked to protect it
or add to the facilities of its enjoyment—it is
manifestly unjust to make it the subject of taxa-
tion by this State.
But there was another point in which it is un-
just; it is unjust to the other States of the Union.
if it were a mere proposition whether all the
States of this Union shall tax all the property
of their respective citizens, whether that prop-
erty lie in or out of their respective limits, it
would be another question—each State by its
own action equalizing its own benefits by its
losses, but that is not the case. Maryland alone
I believe imposes such taxes on property beyond
its limits—thus other States are unjustly treated,
as we derive benefit from their property—they