point. The gentlemen who preceded him had
said all that could be said on the subject. He
would however notice in a few words, some of
the positions of the gentleman from Anne Arun-
del, (Mr. Donaldson.) The case put by him of
the capitalist who lives among us while his estate
is located elsewhere, does not meet the argument.
In the first place he pays taxes on his property un-
der the laws of the State in which it is located, and
in the next place he spends all his income among
us. It is better, to be sure, for us to have capital
and men both, but I am not for driving away or
taxing a man who is veiling to spend large reve-
nues among us merely because his property is not
here. If we cannot have the man with his capi-
tal, I will take him with his revenues. These go
into circulation and trade, and are thus of advan-
tage to us. The gentleman says his certificate of
Stock in his pocket or drawer is property in the
State. Mr. T. disagreed. But if the certificate
is property here because of his possession of
it, suppose he leaves it in the hands of his agent
or broker in the State where the Stock is, what
protection is allowed him then ? The same ar-
gument may be made as reasonably, and be as
well met in regard to any other property beyond
the State. If one holds a bond of a person in
another State our courts afford no remedy for
recovering the debt, and yet the bond is taxed for
the support of government here.
And again, if the certificate is the property, a
man who holds stock in one of our banks, should
pay double taxes; first, on the stock itself, be-
cause that is property—another on the certificate,
because that is the evidence of his property.
According to the gentleman's theory, a man
should net pay any tax on his bank stock located
here, if he happened to reside beyond the State,
because the tax must be paid where the certifi-
cate is held. A. man who has stock in another
State, and lives among us, is taxed because he
does not invest here—while one who lives in an-
other State, and holds stock here, is taxed be-
cause he has invested here. You tax the proper-
ty in one case for being in the State—and you
tax the man in the other case, because his prop-
erty is not here. In the former case we tax him
for the protection actually afforded, and in the
other respect of the benefits he might derive from
our institutions, if the property were here. It
is said this is necessary to prevent persons send-
ing their capital beyond the State. This is no
answer to the injustice of the act; and besides,
instead of bringing property here for investment
we are likely to drive the man away too—thus
losing a citizen with all the advantages to be de-
rived from the expenditure of his revenues
among us. All these taxes can be put on another
ground, not liable to any objection.
Let us provide for an income tax which will reach
the revenues, and salaries and income of all who
have no property here, or which the tax laws can
operate. We shall then make persona contribute
for the support of government, in respect of the
protection afforded to their persons as well as
Mr. T. repeated that he had no intention to in-
terfere with the present system of taxation. We

are providing for the future He was for leaving
the power with the legislature. But, if we make
any declaration on the subject, let it be clear
and explicit, no as to prevent the complaints that
were made against some of the present laws,
Mr. DONALDSON replied briefly to gentle-
men, who had spoken in favor of his colleague's
amendment. After hearing their arguments, his
opinion remained unchanged. He recapitulated
the points on which he based that opinion. The
gentleman from: Frederick, (Mr. Thomas,) did
not seem to be aware that we already taxed the
public loans of our State, and the stocks held by
non-residents in our State corporations. Such
was the fact. He seemed to think, also, that we
were endeavoring to subject to taxation, property
which heretofore had been exempt. But the
laws of the State have all along taxed such pro-
perty, and the tax has been regularly collected.
Whether the law was consistent with the mean-
ing of the old bill of rights, was a point which
had never been contested, and, therefore, there
had been no decision upon it, in our supreme
court. The ground of the law was that all per-
sonal property, followed by the person; and the
words "within the State," in the old bill of rights,
had been struck out by the committee, in order
to exclude a. doubt. It must be remembered,
further, that the certificate of stock, the evidence
of the debt, was actually in the possession of the
owner.
Mr. D. said, that he differed from the gentle-
man from Frederick, (Mr. Thomas,) and the
gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr. Tuck,)
who regarded protection to the particular pro-
perty itself, the sole ground of taxation. Pro-
tection to the person—protection in the prosecu-
tion of his business—the advantages derived from
the public expenditures that create or foster, the
mode from which the citizen is enabled to accu-
mulate wealth—all must be considered as the
sources of the power to impose taxation. If a
State had not power to prevent immense masses
of wealth accumulated here, from being put out
of the reach of taxation, whilst its possessor
still enjoys all the advantages of his residence
and citizenship, then there can never be an ap-
proach to equality in the distribution of the bur-
dens of government. The honest and patriotic
must pay for the dishonest and the selfish. If
such an exemption, as that proposed, is adopted,
vie shall be obliged, before a great while, to re-
sort to an income tax as the only adequate reme-
dy for such injustice.
It had been said that the collection of the tax
was impracticable. This was a mistake. Some
frauds and evasions would take place under every
system of tax laws. The honest always have to
contribute more that their due proportion; but
with the present provisions of our law, it would
be impossible to dispose of one specific piece of
property, and get a deduction on the assessment
books on account of it, without answering, on
oath, as to the manner in which the purchase
money received has been applied, and the new
investment would be at once changed on those
books. If, however, this exemption prevails,
any amount of property may be deducted from