the assessments, provided the proceeds are to be
invested in stock of other States.
In regard to the policy of these tax-laws, he
differed toto caelo, from the gentleman from Frede-
rick, (Mr. Thomas.) That gentleman thought
the exemption proposed, was good policy, and
that it was good policy to tax the public loans of
our own State, and the stocks of our State insti-
tutions held by non-residents. He, (Mr. D.,)
had already endeavored to show the impolicy of
exempting, from taxation, stocks in other States,
held by our own citizens; and it seemed to him
clear, that to tax the investments of non-residents
in our State, had the direct effect of discouraging
- foreign capitalists, from sending their capital
here to assist us in the various enterprises, roads,
canals, factories, furnaces, and the like, which
require associated wealth. He thought such dis-
couragement injudicious. In regard to taxing
our own Maryland stock, it always seemed to
him a breach of faith with our creditors. Be-
fore any direct tax existed here, we borrowed
millions of dollars, on a solemn pledge to pay a
stipulated interest, and after the money was re-
ceived and expended, we said, we will not pay
you the stipulated interest, but will deduct a por-
tion of it in the shape of taxation. In this he
agreed entirely with the gentleman from Prince
George's, [Mr Tuck,] and stated that if he could
have accomplished the repeal of the tax on State
stock, when he was in the Legislature, he would
have done so.
Mr. GWINN said, that he was opposed to the
amendment of the gentleman from Anne Arun-
del. It was true that the words "within the State"
were in the old Bill of Rights, but it did not fol-
low that it was prudent to retain them. The
reason of the case should be considered.
The right to tax property, real or personal, is
derived from the necessity of supporting the gov-
ernment, by which protection is afforded. It
cannot exist without such aid, and it must be de-
rived from the individuals over whom its rule is
extended, or from the property which lies within
its jurisdiction. Protection to property, is as es-
sential as protection to persons, for the peace,
good order, and duration of society; and prolec-
tion to property is not only extended by the State
over that which lies within its own borders, but,
from the nature of our confederacy to that also
which is beyond its borders. If a citizen of Ma-
ryland is deprived of property situated in another
State, he is enabled, by virtue of this privilege,
to use the judicial power of the Federal Union,
and to enforce his rights by its aid, if need be. It
is right therefore, that he should contribute his
share towards the support of that State Govern-
ment from whose existence he derives this privi-
lege. The same argument, which makes it pro-
per that the citizen should contribute to the pro-
tection of the State, which affords shelter to the
property within its limits, renders it proper also
that he should contribute towards the upholding
of the civil power of that State, which as a party
to the Union, gives him a right to resort to the
Federal power of all the States,
The objection has been urged that the same

property would be doubly taxed,—in Virginia,
for instance, if located there,—and in Maryland,
if the owner resides in this State. If it were, this
would constitute no objection. Our citizens ob-
tain the protection of the Virginia courts, and
should pay their share towards their support.
They have protection also to themselves, while
resident here, from the power of the State of
Maryland, and should contribute to its support
also.
The argument turned chiefly upon the proprie-
ty of taxing personal property. This suggests
itself most readily as a subject of taxation, he-
cause it follows the person in the contemplation
of law. But the reason of the rule is the same
with relation to real property as in reference to
personal. If the Legislature chooses to discrimi-
nate, it is in its discretion; but no argument can
properly be founded on the preference which
they may accord to this source of revenue.
It has been said that the State and municipal
authorities should be deprived of the power of
taxing the stock of the State. He could see no
reason for this. It is true that it is a debt of the
State. But, nevertheless, it is property, created
by the State for the common advantage which de-
rives protection from the public law, and the val-
ue of which, moreover, is sustained by our whole
system of State government. It is right and pro-
per, therefore, that it should do something towards
the support of that government from which
it derives its annual increase and protection.
The same argument applies to the city of Bal-
timore. It contributes largely to the prosperity
of the whole State, and it accomplishes this end
by the influence, which, in its municipal capacity
it exercises over the form and growth of that
wealth and labor, which it centers within its lim-
its.
It is right and proper that those who hold the
State stock, and who have all the benefit of that
personal security and comfort which the ordinan-
ces of a city afford, should contribute to the
maintenance of the civil power of the community
itself. There is reason and justice in the rule
and it should not be interfered with.
Mr. TUCK said, the first part of the gentleman's
argument answered the last. He now consider-
ed that gentlemen on the other side had
abandoned the argument. You cannot tax the
land of your citizens in Virginia, or the negroes
on it, because you cannot get at them to collect
the tax. Taxation and protection go hand in
land. You cannot tax where you cannot pro-
tect.
Mr. GWINN explained,
Mr. TUCK: said, the gentleman from Anne
Arundel, referred to the money spent in Balti-
more on harbors. The property out of the State
derives no protection from these harbors, no ben-
efit from them whatever; yet, it is taxed for their
support. An individual is taxed properly so far
as he is protected in his trade or occupation.
But it is unjust to tax him further. If the legislature
thought proper to lay a tax on dogs for the
benefit of sheep, let them do it. The proceeds
of a dog tax have been estimated at $50,000 a
year, at one dollar per head. Let the legislature