the people—the freemen of the State, should be
represented, we must not strike down the pro-
perty of the State; but that it must be taken into
the calculation. I certainly have no objection;
and if gentlemen prefer it, let them adopt the
South Carolina basis, (now urged in the Vir-
ginia Convention by some.) The proposed com-
promise of the gentleman from Washington, will
bear this test also.
I have compiled from the Treasurer's annual
report, a statement which I now have in my
hands, showing the amount of the direct tax le-
vied upon the property of the several counties and
city. and the miscellaneous or indirect taxes paid
into the treasury by the several counties and city,
The column under the head of miscellanous taxes
is made up of the amounts received from the coun-
ty clerks, registers and other officers, for the various
kinds of licenses, stamps, &c. I would read it if it
were not so long, but will content myself with
giving the aggegates in the several sections into
which I have divided the State, and hand the
statement to the reporter; my object being to
have it laid before the people.
Mr. W. then read the column in the follow-
ing table, which shows the amount of miscella-
neous taxes received.
STATEMENT
Showing the amount of Taxes paid by the sev-
eral counties, compiled from the Treasurer's
Rport.
Direct Levy Miscella-
Counties. for 1850 neous paid Total.
in 1850
Allegany, $9,031 89 $10,450 $19,481 89
Washington, 29,143 49 11,540 40,682 49
Frederick, 45,365 84 25,980 71,343 84
Carroll, - 16,581 83 2,900 19,481 83
Baltimore, 33,516 00 57,730 91,246 00
Harford, - 12,727 74 3,410 16,137 74
$146,365 79 $112,010 $258,375 79
Cecil, - $12,849 63 $5,381 $18,329 63
Talbot, - 10,064 08 3,860 13,934 08
Kent, - - 8,849 10 2,980 11,829 10
Q. Anne's, 9,737 49 3,200 12,937 49
Caroline, - 3,610 96 1,900 5,510 96
Dorchester, 10,392 64 4,670 15,062 64
Somerset, - 8,335 04 4,790 13,125 04
Worcester, - 8,758 19 4,210 12,968 19
$72,597 13 $ 30,990 $103,587 13
Howard, - $3,613 45 $3,020 $11,633 45
A. Arundel, 14,409 51 6,200 20,609 51
P. George's, 23,224 44 4,650 27,874 44
Calvert,- 5,271 03 1,050 6,321 03
Montgomery13,045 02 3,470 16,515 02
Charles, - 8,280 21 3,320 11,600 21
St. Mary's, 9,728 78 5,000 14,728 72
$82,573 38 $26,710 $109,282 38
Balt. city, $175,762 85 $137,000* $312,762 85
Exclusive of amount from Lottery Licenses,
Live Stock and Hay Scales and Inspections.
8 |
Mr. TUCK. I would ask the gentleman a ques-
tion. Does his table include all the taxes that
accrue from year to year, or only the amounts
received ?
Mr. WEBER. The figures constituting what I
term the miscellaneous or indirect taxes are
made up from the actual receipts into the treasu-
ry during the year. Where it was apparent that
arrears of other years were brought in, I have
excluded them. it is probable that, in some ca-
ses, the full amount that accrued during the year
did not come in. I will not say that the state-
ment is correct to the figure—I have not been
particular about fractions. But I think it is near-
ly correct—sufficiently so for the purpose I use it.
Now, sir, if we regard taxation as a proper ba-
sis of representation, and test the proposition of
the gentleman from Washington by that basis,
we will find that the western district would have
one delegate for every $9569 of taxation—the
eastern shore one for every $5179 of taxation—
the southern district one lor every $7285 of taxa-
tion, and Baltimore city one for every $31,276
of taxation.
1 have now shown the practical operation of
the plan of compromise recommended by the
gentleman from Washington, in various aspects.
And, whilst gentlemen in all parts of the House
agree that this is a question which must be com-
promised, and that it ought to be adjusted on
terms fair and equitable to all parts of the State,
I cannot but believe that many will concur with
me that the proposition which I am now favor-
ing, is the fairest one yet submitted for our con-
sideration.
But there is an exception in the plan against
the city of Baltimore. Now, the question arises:
Is it fair, is it proper, is it right, to make the ex-
ception? I think there is some propriety in the
exception. But I am free to say here, that if
what I believe to he the proper system—the di-
vision of the several counties and city into sepa-
rate and independent representative districts—
were adopted, I would not then be for carrying
the restriction against Baltimore to the extent
now proposed. Indeed, as it is, Baltimore will
be mure restricted than she would have been had
the arrangement of the question been under my
control. But compromise is the order of the
day, and all must expect to yield something. I
believe, too, that the proposition of the gentle-
man from Washington can command more votes
than any other which has been submilled or sug-
gested.
But why do I say there is propriety in making
the exception against Baltimore? It is a large
city in a small State, and is rapidly growing.
Already it embraces about one-third of the po-
pulation of the State, and if it progresses with the
same rapidity that it has for the last twenty
years, no gentleman here can close his eyes to
the fact, that in ten years from now it may con-
tain a majority of the people of Maryland. If the
doctrine of representation according to popula-
tion were carried out to its full extent, the city
would then be entitled to a majority in the popu-
lar branch of the Legislature. Self-preservation |
