Mr. D. then proceeded to state several cases I
by way of illustration. A man engaged in a
successful business in the city of Baltimore, may
accumulate, from year to year, vast profits,
growing rich from the great advantages he de-
rives from the system of internal improvements,
which has cost the State and city together, up-
wards of twenty millions of dollars, and from all
that the city has spent in the improvement of her
harbor; whilst he is protected in person, in pro-
perty and in the quiet pursuits of his business,
by the laws of the State and city. All his pro-
fits, as fast as they accumulate, he may, if the
amendment prevails, invest in stocks of other
States, and he may thus convey out of the reach of
taxation, say four-fifths of his property. On the
other hand, a man of small property, whose earn-
ings barely support and educate his family, must
pay taxes on the whole of his worth. A farmer,
who expends his profits, not generally very large,
in improving his land, and adding to his buildings
and stock, finds that the increased value is added
to his assessment. He must pay a tax on the
whole. Thus those most benefitted by the ex-
penditures of the State, and most able to bear
the burden, would have to pay far less, in propor-
tion, than their proper share; and their deficiency
must be made up by an increased tax, on men
more honest and poorer. To make this exemp-
tion, would create the greatest inequality, and di-
rectly encourage the dishonest evasion of taxes.
But, (continued Mr. D.) this exemption would
injure all the holders of public and private stocks
here, by diminishing their market value. It
would discourage the investment of our home
capital, in the improvement of our lands, in
building up factories and furnaces, and in vari-
ous industrial occupations; for all these are sub-
ject to taxation here, whilst the same capital in-
vested abroad, would enjoy an exemption.
It is said that the present state of the law, or
of legislative practice, prevents men of capital
from coming into the State, and bringing part of
their means with them. A Boston capitalist,
worth five hundred thousand dollars, may wish
to bring one hundred thousand dollars here, and
leave the remainder invested at his former home.
There might be such a case, but it is merely ex-
ceptional. Very few men will come here merely
for the sake of a fancy residence; and the amount
of capital excluded in this way, is but trifling
compared with what would be driven out
by the exemption proposed. Undoubtedly the
fact that we suffer such heavy taxation, does
tend to discourage men of capital from settling
here. It cannot be otherwise, and it is certainly
to be regretted; but the great growth of Mary-
land, within the last ten years, in wealth and
population, demonstrates that the effect of our
works of internal improvement, has been to make
the State more desirable, as a residence, for ac-
tive and enterprising men, than it would have
been if no such works had been projected; and,
consequently, no such taxes levied. Active, en-
terprizing, business men, of small capital, are
those who come from other States, to seek a
residence among us; and such men are the most
valuable accessions to our community.

Mr. D. concluded by saying, that we had not
a great many years longer to bear the weight of
our taxes. The public mind had become con-
tent under them, and, at present, it would be un-
wise in any essential particular, to change the
system,
Mr, THOMAS stated that, until this morning, he
did not know that such an amendment as this was
pending. It was a very important proposition,
and he had been turning it over in his mind, and
bad satisfied himself that it would produce a
change in our policy which would work injustice.
He would take an illustration, by applying the
new principle to the localities with which he was
familiar. He would take, for example, the counties
of Harford, Cecil, Frederick, Carroll, Washing-
ton and Alleghany, in all these there were nu-
merous landholders who possessed property over
the line of one of the adjoining States, What
would be the response from these counties, if we
were to impose a tax on our citizens for this
property lying beyond the limits of the State ? It
would be repudiated. For what reason do we
impose a tax on property within the State ? It is
because the State gives it in return protection
against robbery and other dangers to which it is
liable in an unprotected state. So, in regard to
personal property, we make laws for the enforce-
ment of contracts, and in other ways to secure
this kind of property, and we tax personal proper-
ty on the principle of protection. Maryland has,
in her exigency, been compelled to resort to heavy
taxation, and the change of policy looks to the tax-
ation of the property of our citizens, personal as
well as real, lying without the limits of the State.
If one of our citizens had left the State and gone
to California., and obtained property there, would
it be right to tax his property there for the pur-
pose of keeping up in this State, roads and high-
ways in which he was not interested, and would
he not refuse to pay such tax? He, (Mr. T.,)
would vote against any attempt to impose a tax
on real estate lying out of the State, because, it
ought only to be taxed where its rights are pro-
tected by law. So ought personal property to
stand in the same position. We cannot change the
policy of Virginia and of the other States of the
Union, Maryland may adopt the policy of tax-
ing her State stocks, and lie would vote for it; or
she might impose a tax on the banking capital in
the State, or on insurance stocks, or any other
personal property within the State. That is, all
stock in the State of Maryland, and we have a
right to tax it. But it would he injurious to Mary-
land, if holders of foreign stock were taxed here,
because there is more stock held by foreign hold-
ers in Maryland, than by citizens of Maryland
in foreign stocks. He did not believe that other
States would tax these stocks, and the effect of
taxing the stocks of other States in the hands of
our citizens, would be to drive them beyond the
reach of our taxation. Tax the amount of the
certificate of stock in his hands, and you drive
him from your State, If his income be $30,000
a year and he has employed it in diffusing bene-
fits round him, you deprive the State of those
benefits hereafter. So as to bank stocks, a great
deal of it is held by persons who are not citizens