as was consistent with the terms of our obliga-
tions.
The works of internal improvement were not
designed for the benefit of the present generation
only. This result could never have been antici-
pated even, because their extent and character
made it evident that the main advantage would
be derived from the future. And, although the
responsibility which we assume, imposes on us the
duty of taking our fair share of the burden we
have created, yet those who derive the chief ad-
vantage our investment, should also contribute
to the discharge of the liability.
Again, it would seem reasonable that this scale
of taxation should be gradually reduced. The
gradation would maintain the equipoise in the
value of property in this State, which would
else be suddenly disturbed if the whole burden
were removed at once. Prudence, no less than
justice, would require reductions running through
a series of years. He would gladly provide for
a diminution, following a certain per centage;
say five cents in the hundred dollars, in every
period of three years, until the whole debt was
discharged. But he could not support the pro-
position as it now stood. It was not necessary
to the credit of the State, for there was no risk
following upon gradual reduction in taxation.
Mr. JENIFER now offered the following amend-
ment, (which he had yesterday indicated his in-
tention to offer to the then pending proposition of
Mr. JACOBS.)
Amend the first branch of the amendment by
adding, at the end thereof, the words " except
by an act passed at one session, submitted to the
people and re-enacted at the next succeeding
session of the Legislature."
Mr. JENIFER did not see the necessity for the
insertion of any restriction in the organic law.
He saw no necessity, either for restricting or for
urging on the Legislature in reference to taxes.
If the question was to be taken now, he would
wish to make the first proposition so as to pre-
vent any restriction on the Legislature, to take
off the taxes, when, in their discretion, they may
think it ought to be done. He was opposed to
taking off the taxes, until the debt was paid; but
when the debt was paid, he would wish taxation
to cease. He was not so clear on the point that
the last tax which would be repealed, would be
the tax on land. In the modification he had sug-
gested was adopted, he would vote tor the pro-
position; if not, he must vote against it,
The auxiliary tax, as it was called, did operate
more on Baltimore than any other part of the
State, but it should be recollected that she re-
ceived nearly all the benefits from these works of
internal improvement, and if that tax should he
repealed, the burden must fall more heavily on
the property of the counties, and on those which
never expected to derive any direct interest from
these works. Much had been said of the large
amount of taxes paid from Baltimore, She ne-
cessarily pays the largest portion from her wealth
and population but much less in proportion than
the advantages derived from being the termini
of these great works. Her commerce is en-
larged—her wealth increased—her city becom-

ing a rival to the first of the Union—these facts
should satisfy gentlemen, that no injustice will
be done to Baltimore, by a continuance of these
auxiliary taxes until the final extinguishment of
the public debt. Then she will receive her fair
proportion of the nett revenues arising from these
works, and all the advantages they were intended
to bestow. For these reasons, (Mr. J. said,) he
should not be for disturbing the present system of
revenue at any point until the entire liquidation
of the public debt.
After some conversation on a point of order,
between Mr. SOLLERS and the CHAIR,
The question was taken on the amendment of
Mr. JENIFER,
And it was rejected.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the first division of Mr. JACOBS' amendment,
which was read as follows:
"The Legislature shall not repeal the taxes
now imposed for the payment of the public debt,
until the revenues and funds of the State shall be
sufficient to ensure its ultimate extinguishment
within the period limited for its payment."
Mr. BROWN asked the yeas and nays;
Which were ordered.
And being taken, resulted as follows :
Affirmative..—Messsrs. Chapman, President,
Blakistone, Ricaud, Lee, Chambers, of Kent,
Donaldson, Wells. Crisfield. Dashiell, Williams,
Hodson, Phelps Bowling, McMaster, Fooks, Ja-
cobs and Waters—16.
Negative.—Messrs. Morgan, Dent, Hopewell,
Sellman, Weems, Sollers, Jenifer, Buchanan,
Bell, Welch, Chandler, Ridgely, Lloyd, Dickin-
son, Sherwood, of Talbot, Colston, James U.
Dennis, Constable, Chambers, of Cecil, Miller,
McCubbin, Grason, George, Wright, Thomas,
Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Sappington, Stephenson,
Nelson, Carter, Thawley, Stewart, of Caroline,
Gwinn, Stewart of Baltimore city, Brent, of Bal-
timore city, Sherwood, of Baltimore city, Ware,
Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Harbine, Michael
Newcomer, Kilgour, Brewer, Weber, Slicer,
Parke, Shower, and Brown—52.
So the first division of the amendment was re-
jected.
The question then recurred on the second
branch of the proposition ;
As follows:
"And when the public debt is paid, the surplus
revenue derived from the public works of the
State, after defraying the necessary expenses of
the government, shall be distributed according to
the mode provided by the resolution No. 47, of
the General Assembly of December session, pas-
sed 1833."
Mr. GWINN said that the rule fixed in the se-
cond branch was based on a resolution that ap-
plied to the school fund. In that view, it was
wise enough as a sort of compromise, only for the
reason that ii was perhaps the easiest way that
could be devised of settling a mooted question.
It was now, however, proposed to give it a
much wider meaning, by providing that the fund
indicated in the second branch should be divided
into two parts—one of which should be distribu-
ted among the counties and city of Baltimore