live, they will be burdened with a double tax,
and perhaps, have their capital driven out of this
State. And he believed that, in carrying out
this policy, it would be found in the end, that
Maryland had lost more than she had gained.
We are surrounded by other States. Property
is held within our limits by citizens of the ad-
joining States of Delaware, Pennsylvania and
Virginia; and if we tax the property in this State
belonging to the citizens of either of those States
they will also be taxed at home, and thus have to
pay a double tax. or else remove out of this
State, which is likely to be one result or another,
that he would cease to be a holder of property
in our State.
Suppose a citizen of Boston comes into Balti-
more to reside, and carry on trade with a part of
his capital, you lax not only all he owns in Bal-
timore, but all the property he has elsewhere—
even though this property is elsewhere taxed—
subjecting him to double tax, because you declare
that your citizens shall pay a lax on all the pro-
perty they possess throughout the world.
The effect of this would be to drive all such
citizens out of this State, and to prevent others
from coming in to settle among us. I have per-
sonal knowledge of one such case where a citi-
zen of Georgia was prevented from settling in
Baltimore, because his property consisting of
debts in Georgia, for property he had sold there,
would be taxed. He went to Georgetown, and
there settled to avoid this tax.
He was perfectly contented with the bill of
rights as it stood. As it stood it was just; now
in its changed form, it would he unjust. What
reduction would be made from the revenue of the
State by this measure, he knew not. But he
would say that if the other States of the Union
should carry out this principle, and there is no
reason to expect that they will not—it is but just
to themselves that they should—it will be fol-
lowed by inconveniences to us, which will more
than counterbalance any good which can possibly
result from it; and we shall actually lose in a pe-
cuniary point of view, more than we gain by it.
He had now discharged his duty in bringing the
subject before the Convention, and he left it with
this body to act as it may deem best.
Mr. DONALDSON expressed his regret at being
compelled to disagree with his colleague, (Mr.
Randall,) for whose clearness of judgment and
uniformily conscientious motives, he entertained
the highest esteem. It was from the strength
of his honest convictions, that his colleague had
spoken with such warmth of what he considered
the injustice of the existing system of laws, by
which stocks held by citizens of this State, in
the public loans of other States, and in the insti-
tutions of other States, were subject to taxation.
As an act of justice, he, (Mr. Randall,) demand-
ed the exemption of such property. He, (Mr.
D.,) considered that both policy and justice were
against such an exemption. If he thought there
was a departure from justice, he would not argue
ill favor of the policy of a measure, but where
both stood on the same side, they might well for-
tify each other.
What is the injustice complained of by the

mover of the amendment ? A citizen of this
State, residing here, owning stocks in other States,
has to pay a tax according to his actual worth,
including those foreign stocks. Compare him
now with his neighbor, all whose property is in-
vested within the limits of Maryland. Both have
the same protection from the laws—both have the
same advantage in their business, from those
great works of internal improvement, the con-
struction of which has produced almost all our
taxation. One pays for that protection, and
those advantages in proportion to his property,
and the others does not.
But, it is said, the present system leads to
double taxation. A man may be taxed on the
same property in two States. This does, not fol-
low, In many States there is no direct taxation;
in others it is very small. Very few of them tax
stocks held by non-residents. A citizen of Mary-
land, holding a million dollars of the State stock
of Virginia, pays not a cent of tax in Virginia,
and if this proposition to exempt should prevail,
he would pay not a cent on that stock here. Be-
sides, it must be remembered, that all this is
voluntary. No man is obliged to invest in
these foreign stocks; and if he becomes liable to
double taxation, he can easily change his invest-
ment, and purchase stocks, or other property,
here. Then he would be on a perfect equality
with his neighbors. If there is any injustice, he
need not suffer it for an hour. If he retains it,
it is because lie finds it more profitable, in spite
of its liability to our taxation, than. the invest-
ment of his neighbors at home, liable to the same
taxation:
Real estate beyond our limits, has never been
considered as liable to our taxation, because it
has a locality, whereas stocks, being personal
property, are considered in law as following the
person.
So much in answer to the charge of injustice
made against the present system. Now, let us
look at the other side of the question. What
would bo the consequence of the exemption from
taxation of stocks, in other States, held by
citizens of our own. Almost all the surplus
wealth of this State, would be withdrawn from
taxation, both for State and county purposes, and
invested in the stocks of States, where there is
no taxation, or but little. This would be done,
as a matter of course, by those possessing the
greatest wealth. Such are the men who try
every device to escape their proper share of the
burdens of the State. It is a trait of human
nature, not to be denied, although noble excep-
tions exist, that wealth generates this kind of sel-
fishness. There is no estimating how much
might, in this manner, be lost to the State and
counties. The abstraction of ten millions of
capital, from the city of Baltimore, for instance,
would make to State and city, together an annual
loss in taxes, of upwards of one hundred thou-
sand dollars. Necessarily, those who did not so
remove their capital, and the property holders
who had no surplus capital to invest, would have
to pay a higher rate of taxation, to make up for
the deficiency thus caused. Could anything be
more manifestly unjust?