furnishes of his zeal, energy, patriotism and abili-
ty. He had had the honor of being himself an
humble member of that committee, and he could
speak advisedly of the patient toil which that dis-
tinguished gentleman underwent both in the com-
mittee and in the House. He could not see the
justice with which either the executives of the
State or the Legislatures prior to 1844, were to
be held as having failed in view of all the circum-
stances to discharge their duty upon the subject
of State credit, because in their repeated efforts
they had not matured a system which time alone
could adequately suggest. It required much
more sterness of purpose in his opinion, to meet
the responsibilities involved in the system of di-
rect taxation as adopted in 1841, and amended in
1842, by which twenty-five cents on every $100
worth of real and personal property was levied
throughout the whole State, than to add thereto
auxiliary taxation which bore mainly upon a
single portion of the State, and that section most
unequally represented in the General Assembly
or inc State. Besides all this, the Convention
will remember that prior to the year 1844, the
doctrine was almost universally held in Mary-
land, that under the thirteenth article of the bill
of rights, the Legislature was forbidden to lay any
tax fur the support of government, except it was
general in its operation, and bore atike upon
every description of property. He hazarded no-
thing in saying that in the year the direct tax sys-
tem was adopted, such was the view of the mem-
bers of the General Assembly, as is abundantly
shown by the basis established in that act. No
man had the courage at that time to " cut the
gordian knot" of constitutional restriction sup-
posed to exist, and which was subsequently boldly
done by Governor Pratt; and he might perhaps
in view of the exigency in which the State's faith
was involved, be disposed to forget these nice dis-
tinctions, and rejoice that he had "assumed the
responsibility "at that time. But, sir, it ought
not to be forgotten that in the gloomy darkness
which overshadowed the financial affairs of the
State, no backward step was taken from the
policy first adopted in 1841; and there was one
other gentleman to whose course he might refer
with pride and pleasure, to whom something of
these large honors was due, who as chairman of
the committee of ways and means of the House
of Delegates, in 1842, suggested a considerable
increase of the direct tax of 1841—he alluded to
the honorable R B. Carmichael, of Queen Anne's
In that proposition he was supported by the en-
the delegation of the city of Baltimore It failed
except so far as an increase of five cents,
which was the maximum to which the direct tax
has ever reached. A single word would explain
his opposition to the proposition now before the
Convention. While he yielded to no man in hi
determination to sustain untarnished the State's
credit, and would not for a single moment desire
to see repealed a single revenue act which was
necessary to its support, he was unwilling to bind
up the Legislature of the State to the extent of
forbidding any change of a system which in some
of its parts bore most unjustly, as he thought
upon the commercial metropolis, which he had

the honor, in part, to represent, when the necessi-
ty which prompted their adoption might no long-
er require their continuance. The city of Balti-
more was engaged in a severe struggle of com-
mercial rivalry with the northern cities, and she
should be as much unfettered in the race of com-
petition as could possibly be allowed.
Mr. SPENCER said—whether the State of Mary-
land had sustained a profit or loss by the sale of
her stocks? what is the present condition of the
treasury? what stocks the treasurer may now pur-
chase ? what are the causes of the fluctuation in
the stock market? or who are the parties to be
benefitted by stock operations ?—were not ques-
tions before the Convention. He desired to ask
the attention of the House only for a few mo-
ments, while he assigned the reasons which would
influence his vote He had before said. that he
should look with extreme jealousy to any action of
this body which interfered with the finances of
the State. He deeply regretted that the subject
had ever been introduced here. He was sorry
that the present proposition had been brought for-
ward. He should vote against it. We had met
here to form a Constitution; and it was never an-
ticipated that we would interfere with the financial
operations of the State. Such an idea had never
entered into the mind of any man. The financial
arrangements of the State properly belong to the
Legislature, who come fresh from the people,
and are to be regulated by circumstances of which
we have no fore-knowledge. Adopt the principle
of interference with the system of finance here
and you cut off all the power of the Legislature
over the subject forever, let what exigency may
call for their action. They would not be able
to make a new assessment for the valuation of
property. The financial system embraces the
existing assessment and taxation. They stand
together and form one system.
They depend upon each other, and it will not
do to say, if you put this inhibition in the Consti-
tution, that the Legislature could provide for a
new assessment. If they could do so, they
would have jurisdiction over the whole subject,
and hence, could direct such mode of assessment,
embracing valuation and other matters, as they
thought best to adopt. And who will say, that if,
in a new assessment, a depreciated valuation were
adopted, it would not affect the amount of the
revenue as much, as if the rate of lax were di-
minished. And this would defeat the object of
the provision. He was opposed entirely to all
action on the part of this Convention which looked
to closing the doors of legislation on this subject.
He was unwilling to admit, that the system was
so perfect that future legislation may not take
place, wisely and justly, on the subject. There
was now, one very important item of wealth
which escaped taxation, unless it had been reached
by recent legislation, of which he bad never
heard. He meant rent charges. He, with Hon.
J. A. Pearce, had raised the question, and it had
been decided by the Court of Appeals that they
were not embraced in our tax laws. Inhibit all
legislation on the subject, and wealth will very
soon find conveniences for investments not now
covered by the laws. But for other reasons,