but every other person in the State, or person
holding property therein, ought to contribute
his proportion of public taxes for the support
of Government, according to his actual worth
in real or personal property; yet fines, duties
or taxes may properly and justly be imposed
or laid on persons or property, with a polit
ical view, for the good government and benefit
of the community."
Mr. DANIEL. I move to strike out this ar-
ticle, I wish to obtain the sense of the Con-
vention in reference to it. Several persons
have spoken to me about it. In Delaware, in
Pennsylvania, and I believe in a number of
the other States, there is a poll tax levied,
which is devoted to the school fund, and
which raises a large amount of money for
that purpose. I think we ought not to prohibit
ourselves from making such a tax; and
I therefore move to strike out that section,
Mr. SCOTT moved to amend the article by
striking out the first two clauses, so that the
article should read:
"Art. 14. That every person in the State
or person holding property therein," &c.
Mr. DANIEL. I will accept that. It is jus
what I was about to offer.
The PRESIDENT stated that it was a different
proposition and could not be accepted.
Mr. DANIEL withdrew his motion to strike
out.
The question was stated upon the amend
ment offered by Mr. Scott.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE, it must be obvious to
every gentleman that that article needs some
modification. It involves two or three con-
tradictions or absurdities on its face. Unless
it be designed to enunciate a general rule ap-
plicable throughout the world as well as Ma-
ryland, the first section is simply an absurdity.
" The levying of taxes by the poll is grievous
and oppressive, and ought lo be abolished."
We cannot abolish a thing that does not ex-
ist. Taxes by the poll do not exist, and have
not existed in Maryland time out of mind.
What propriety then is there in inserting that
a tiling ought to be abolished that has no ex-
istence?
The next clause is, "that paupers ought
not to he assessed for the support of the Gov-
ernment." What harm is there in assessing
them? They cannot pay it and never will.
It is simply an absurdity putting it on the
books, but it does no harm.
Then when we come to the last clause we
come to what appears to contradict the first :
" Yet fines, duties or taxes may properly and
justly be imposed or laid on persons or prop-
erty, with a political view, for the good gov-
ernment and benefit of the community." if
laid on persons and not on property, it is a
poll tax. If we leave this article as it stands,
the first clause forbids the levying of a poll
tax, while the last clause authorizes it, and it
will be a doubtful question whether levying a
poll tax is unconstitutional and in conflict |
with that article or not. Unless these absurdities
can be removed, I should be disposed
to vote for the motion to strike out. Perhaps
this may be remedied by the amendment of
the gentleman from Cecil, (Mr. Scott.)
Mr BARRON. I cannot see how these two
lines do any harm; and I do not wish to leave
it in the power of the Legislature to say
whether a poor man shall vote in Maryland
or not. If it stays there it cannot possibly do
any harm. But if you strike out this 14th
article from the bill of rights, the next Legislature
may say that a. poor man shall not
vote unless he pays a dollar; and a great
many men in my district could not pay a
dollar to vote. There are but two places on
earth where the rich and poor are on an
equality, at the ballot box and at the grave
1 want that article kept sacred, and I shall
not vote to alter it. It may be there is a
conflict of one portion with the other; very
likely there is. That is not our fault: it is
the fault of the lawyers that got it up.
Mr. BELT. I am disposed to doubt the ap-
plicability of the criticism of the gentleman
from Baltimore city (Mr, Stockbridge) upon
the language of this section. The form of
words " ought to be abolished," runs all
through the bill of rights, and I think that
very expression is used more than once, and
with no more reason in other cases than in
this. The true construction of the words, 1
think, is to consider them only equivalent to
the words "is and remains abolished." it
has all the advantages which antiquity lends
to those old forms of expression which have
come down to us from the Magna Charta.
1 do not think the gentleman is any more
felicitous in his criticism of the latter' portion
of the section. If the gentleman's construc-
tion is correct, that portion of the section is
in direct conflict with the first clause of it.
The eminent men from whom these words
originate, and under whose supervision this
Constitution was passed, could surely never
have considered this proposition so ill as to
have suffered so manifest a contradiction in
the terms of the section to remain. I may be
wrong in the construction I put upon it, to be
sure; but I think the true construction is
ibis: "Yet fines, duties or taxes may prop-
erly and justly be imposed or laid on persons
or property respectively," that is, the duties
and the fines on persons, and the taxes on
property. Unless that is the meaning it is
surely in conflict with the clause forbidding
the levying of taxes by the poll. inserting
the word "respectively" may help to make
the meaning clear. I am, as a general thing,
opposed to changing even the form of words
in this ancient charter of our State, unless
there is a great necessity for it. But I think
there are some reasons, based on facts which
have already occurred In Maryland, in con-
nection with others which may ensue, which
may render the levying of a poll tax highly |
