The main question was ordered to be taken.
Mr. HICKS asked the yeas and nays;
Which were ordered; and
Being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative-Messrs. Tuck, President, pro tem.,
Morgan, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall,
Kent, Sellman, Merrick, Buchanan, Welch,
Constable, Bowie, Sprigg, McCubbin, Spencer,
George, Wright, Shriver, Biser, Magraw, Brent
of Baltimore city, Ware, Anderson, Parke, Show-
er and Brown-26.
Negative-Messrs. Ricaud, Chambers of Kent,
Mitchell, Dalrymple, Brent of Charles, Bell,
Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot,
Colston, John Dennis, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks,
Hodson, Eccleston, Phelps, Miller, Bowling, Dir-
ickson, McMaster, Hearn, Fooks, Jacobs, Thom-
as, Gaither, Annan, Stephenson, Nelson, Carter,
Stewart of Caroline, Hardcastle, Gwinn, Stew-
art of Baltimore city, Presstman, Schley, Fiery,
Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael New-
comer, Davis, Brewer, Waters, Weber, Holly-
day, Fitzpatrick, Smith and Cockey-50.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. McHENRY offered the following amend-
ment:
Amend said second section, by striking out all
from the word "delegates," in the second line to
the end thereof, and inserting in lieu thereof, the
following:
"For the term of one or two years from the
day of the general election, as the people may,
byseparate vote determine at the first of such
general elections."
Mr. McH. said, he had seen great evidence of
a change in the public mind, not only in his own
county, but in the city of Baltimore.
Mr. McH. demanded the previous question on
the amendment.
There was a second, and
The main question was ordered to be now
taken.
The yeas and nays were ordered, and
Being taken, resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Tuck, President, pro tem.,
Morgan, Donaldson, Dorsey, Wells, Randall,
Kent, Sellman, Buchanan, Welch, Chambers of
Cecil, Miller, Bowie, Sprigg, George, Shriver,
Biser, McHenry, Magraw, Stewart of Caroline,
Gwinn, Brent of Baltimore city, Presstman,
Ware, Davis, Anderson, Shower and Brown—
28.
Negative—Messrs. Ricaud, Chambers of Kent,
Mitchell, Dalrymple, Brent of Charles, Bell,
Ridgely, Lloyd. Dickinson, Sherwood of Talbot,
Colston, John Dennis, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks,
Hodson, Eccleston, Phelps, Bowling, Spencer,
Wright, Dirickson, McMaster, Hearn, Jacobs,
Thomas. Gaither, Annan, Stephenson, Nelson,
Carter, Hardcastle, Stewart of Baltimore city,
Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine,
Michael Newcomer, Brewer, Waters, Weber, |
Hollyday, Fitzpatrick, Smith, Parke and cockey
-46.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. SPENCER moved the following amend-
ment:
"But the legislature shall have the right to
provide by law, for annual sessions."
A motion was made, that the Convention ad-
journ, but was waived to enable
Mr. THOMAS to give notice that he should, to-
morrow, move to amend the twenty-first rule of
the Convention, by striking therefrom the words
"voting with the majority."
And the Convention adjourned, until to-morrow
morning, 11 o'clock.
Remarks of Mr. MERRICK, (revised) Monday, Feb.
10, in relation to taxing property beyond the lim-
its of the State.
Mr. MERRICK thought it would be best to leave
the section as it stood in the report of the com-
mittee. He said there were some descriptions of
properly beyond the limits of Maryland and own-
ed by some of her citizens, which our revenue
laws could not reach, and any attempt to tax
which would be ridculous, yet there were other
kinds of property, particularly public stocks of
other States and counties, equally beyond our
limits, which, if owned by resident citizens of
Maryland, we could and did make subject to our
revenue laws with advantage to our Treasury,
as well as to the benefit of the value of our own
State stocks. The effect of this clause as it stood
would be to leave to the Legislature full discre-
tionary power over the subject, they would ex-
ercise that discretion wisely and with due refer-
ence to the circumstances which may exist at the
time they may be called upon to act—and it is
certainly not to be inferred because the Legisla-
ture have full power over this subject, and have
to choose between a wise policy and a foolish at-
tempt to reach property which cannot be reach-
ed—that they will do the foolish thing, as some
of the arguments seem to imply. I think very
differently of our State Legislatures. By engraft-
ing upon the section the amendment proposed,
you tie up the Legislature, and deprive them of
the power to do that which may be wise, proper,
and salutary, because you fear they might at-
tempt that which is ridiculous. I have heard of
an attempt on the part of some citizens of this
State to evade the payment of their fair propor-
tion of the taxes necessary for public purposes—
by selling their Maryland State stocks which are
subjected by our laws to taxation, and purchas-
ing and holding in its place the stocks of other
States; this attempt seems to be improper, and
one, the success of which should be prevented by
subjecting such foreign stocks to taxation equal-
ly with our own—but make the amendment now
proposed, and you take away from the Legislature
the power to do this. He should, for these
reasons, vote against this and similar amendments,
and for the section as it now stands. |
