should, it should have his support. Bat if the
proposition is that the Legislature may tax real
estate out of the State he could not vote for it,
Mr. MERRICK thought it would be best to leave
the article as it is. There are kinds of stocks
out of the State which it is impossible to reach.
The effect of the clause would be to leave it to
the Legislature to decide what kind of property
ought to be taxed. You thus leave it to the dis-
cretion of the Legislature to tax property beyond
the limits of the State, while you tie it down
from taxing within the State. It does not neces-
sarily follow that the Legislature will do a fool-
ish thing, but it would be much better to leave
the clause as it is. By grafting on the provision
the word "propose," you tie up the Legislature.
He had heard of citizens of Maryland who had
exchanged their property within the State for
property out of its limits to avoid the taxes.
This was very wrong, and ought to be prevented
if the Legislature can prevent it. He would vote
against all amendments, and for the clause as it
stands.
Mr. SPENCER expressed his hope that the sug-
gestion of the gentleman from Charles (Mr.
Merrick) would be acquiesced in. He thought
it dangerous to touch the article. It was in conformity
with our revenue system. Our State has
had an arduous struggle to get through her finan-
cial difficulties. She has, however, sustained her-
self, but if we change the article and take the
amendment proposed, we may be involved in dif-
ficulty. He had not the slightest doubt as to the
power and the policy to tax stocks out of the
State held by our own citizens. These stocks
are protected as efficiently by our laws as the
person of the owner, or the horse which belongs
to him. The law gives him full protection for
his property.
The gentleman from Annapolis had well de-
fined the protection which is afforded by the law,
against larceny, forgery, or any tort in the way
of trespass or trover. He had, therefore, no
doubt as to the legal right. Nor did he, for a
moment, hesitate as to the policy of exercising
it. If you tax your State stocks, and exempt certificates
of foreign stocks, held by resident citi-
zens, you will drive every capitalist out of the
State, to invest his money in other stocks. Thus
our stocks would be depreciated and compara-
tively valueless, and the further effect would be,
that wealth and luxury would escape taxation,
whilst it would fall on those less able to bear it—
principally on the landholder.
The gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr.
Tuck,) is also opposed to taxing our public
stocks. He, (Mr. S.,) saw no reason why they
should not be taxed, if they were now in the
hands of the persons who had loaned their
money upon them, at first view) there might ap-
pear to be some conscience in the proposition.
But even this would not stand the test of scrutiny.
It was but an investment of capital in one kind of
security in preference to another, and there was
no reason why capital invested in one mode
should be taxed, and not in another. It was the
same luxury wherever found, and the rule in
reference to it should be universal. But, in ad-

dition. this very stock has, to a great extant, pas-
sed into other hands, than the original holders.
At one time it was at a very low value in market,
and a subject of speculation. Immense invest-
ments have been made in it, and at enormous
profit. In every view of the case, it was just
and right to tax it.
Mr. DORSEY stated that he was not disposed to
make a speech at this late hour of the day. The
question is, if we shall be allowed to tax property
belonging to citizens of this State, lying in other
States, and stocks of other States held by citi-
zens of Maryland? He would give anaffirma-
tive answer. What injustice was there in doing
so? If our capitalists sent out their money lo
buy the stocks of other States already there tax-
ed, they would be able to purchase at lower rates;
no injustice would be done them. The question
is, if persons who send their capital out of the
State to loan on security, or buy stocks, may be
taxed on such property? Of the constitutionality
of such tax, he had no doubt. The only ques-
tion relates to its expediency. The constitution-
al right to impose such tax cannot be doubted.
He had no doubt of the policy of the act, and he
was not aware that any injustice would be done
to the purchaser of such stock. Sound policy
dictates to us, to encourage the institutions of
our own State, and not to drive capital away
from us, for investment in other States. We
ought to be careful not to insert in our bill of
rights an article which would prevent the pros-
perity of the institutions of our own State.
Mr. THOMAS said, that we were now about to
decide, if we will insert an article on the subject
of the taxation of realand personal property,
which shall bind the legislature and our posterity,
and in doing which we are fixing an eternal rule
of right. We ought, therefore, to proceed with
great caution, not suffering our judgment to be
misled by the excited and overdrawn pictures
which have been presented us of stockholders,
made wealthy by speculations in stocks, and liv-
ing in luxury, and of poor men contributing from
their email means to the revenue of the State;
but to act with clear and correct views of the
effect of the measure. He thought the legisla-
ture might devise a mode of assessing the value
of real estate held by any of the citizens of Ma-
ryland out of the State; it might, for instance,
require the oath of the owner to a statement of its
value. He could not vote for the clause, be-
cause it gives a discretion to the legislature to
tax real estate beyond the limits of the State, as
well as stocks and foreign securities.
Mr. RANDALL, at a late hour, took the floor,
and yielded to a motion that the Convention ad-
journ.
The Convention refused to adjourn.
Mr. RANDALL not pressing his right to the
floor,
Mr. MICHAEL NEWCOMER demanded the pre-
vious question.
But, by general consent, the question on the
amendment was taken, and the amendment was
rejected.
And the substitute of Mr. TUCK was rejected.