advisable in the future. I shall therefore vote
for the amendment, leaving the question of
levying a poll tax within the competency of
the Legislature, not being abolished by the
Constitution, nor by the Constitution made
obligatory upon the Legislature.
Mr. BRISCOE. When this article was under
consideration by the last Constitutional Con-
vention, having been reported by the Com-
mittee on the Bill of Rights, of which, I be-
lieve, Chief Justice Dorsey was chairman, it
was reported in this form, omitting the words
"That the levying of taxes by the poll is
grievous and oppressive and ought to be
abolished " It came before the Convention
as a substantial article, commencing :
"Article 14. Paupers ought not to beas-
sessed for the support of the Government," &c
An amendment was offered to that article
by Mr. Kilgour, in these words: " That the
levying taxes by the poll is grievous and op-
pressive and ought to be abolished."
"Mr. Dorsey stated that this subject had
been before the committee. There was a
question tinder consideration on the subject of
raising a capitation tax, or poll tax, for the pur-
pose of education. The committee had thought
it best to strike it out and leave it to the Leg-
islature to act." [Debates, p. 187.]
Therefore, in the opinion of the Committee,
and in the general acceptation of the force
and construction of this article as it now
stands, it was not considered by the Conven-
tion at that time, except as laying down an
abstract proposition as a guide for legislation,
that the practice and policy of imposing a
poll tax was impolitic and unwise as a general
rule; and I think it will be perfectly compe-
tent for the Legislature hereafter to adopt any
taxes they see fit, under the subsequent clause
of the Declaration of Rights as it now stands.
Judge Dorsey proceeds:
"It was for the Convention to decide this
question. There was a great deal of contra-
dictory opinion on the subject among the
people. Many persons who subsisted on their
labor were willing to be taxed for this object,
while others were not. If the tax was laid
under constitutional provision it must remain
If the Legislature imposed the tax and it
proved unacceptable to the people it could be
repealed."
it is clearly indicated by Judge Dorsey and
the men who incorporated this article as it is
now recommended to this Convention, and in
the identical words of our present Constitu-
tion, that it was competent for the Legisla-
ture to impose that tax notwithstanding the
adoption of the article in the bill of rights
as it now stands. Therefore, I think that the
amendment indicated by my friend from
Prince George's (Mr. Belt) and the criticism
so far as the word " abolished " is concerned,
are irrelevant in this case; as it only lays
down an abstract proposition to direct the
Legislature in time to come, not prohibiting
12 |
them from the exercise of the power) but a
recommendation to the Legislature for the
time to come.
Mr. STIRLING. My objection, so far as 1
have any, to this article, which is the same as
that in the bill of rights in the Constitution
of 1776, is that I find that, without intend-
ing it, there is a slight alteration in it as it
stands, and I shall, at the proper time, move
to amend it so as to place it exactly where it
stood in the bill of rights of 1776. In that
bill of rights the words "persons and pro-
perty " in the eighth line are not contained.
It reads: " Yet fines, duties or taxes may
properly and justly be imposed or laid with a
political view," &c., without using the words
' persons or property," which I do not think
add anything to the clearness of the article,
and render it liable to some confusion.
But I wish merely to say that I am opposed
to striking out this article. I cannot agree
with my friend from Calvert (Mr. Briscoe) as
to the effect of it. It certainly does prevent
the levying of a poll tux, because it decides
that it is oppressive and ought to beabolished.
As the gentleman from Prince George's (Mr.
Belt) very clearly indicated, the expression
" ought to be abolished " amounts to a pro-
hibition. The bill of rights is as much a
part of the Constitution as any other part,
and if it states that such a thing ought to be
abolished, for the Legislature afterwards to
establish that thing is to violate the Constitu-
tion.
I think my friend from Baltimore (Mr.
Stockbridge) is mistaken in his interpretation
of the article, as is manifest from the debale in
the last Convention. The committee reported
the article leaving out those words in the first
clause altogether, and Mr. Kilgour moved to
insert those words as an amendment. Judge
Dorsey explained that the subject had been
before the committee, but that they had
thought it best to strike them out, so as to
leave the Legislature free to act. But the
Convention agreed with Mr. Kilgour, that the
Legislature ought not to be left to act, and
they adopted the amendment, showing that
they thought the committee were wrong in
leaving the subject open to Legislative action.
Judge Dorsey argues against putting it in,
upon that very ground, and be voted against
Mr. Kilgour's motion to put it in, upon the
yeas and nays.
I have not given this subject any very great
consideration, I was induced, so far as I was
concerned, to leave this proposition in the
bill of rights, because it was one of those
propositions established by the Convention
which framed the foundation of the govern-
ment of this State, and I thought the men
who put it in that first Constitution were a
pretty sensible set of men and understood
what they were about, pretty well. I was
disposed not to depart from their principles
unless we had new light or experience to guide |
