us. Whatever their own experience had es-
tablished I think is worth about as much as
the opinions of any similar body of men a
this day. So far as my own judgment goes
I think it is a true proposition, that levying
taxes by the head, upon each individual
without reference to property upon men per
se, is oppressive, unjust, unreasonable, desti
tute of principle. I certainly should he op-
posed in any bill of rights to any poll tax
whatever. I do not think the Legislature
ought to have the right to impose a poll tax
If the Legislature chooses for political reasons
to impose a fine upon a man, if taxes are im-
posed not for the purpose of raising revenue,
but distributed per cupita to further political
purposes, or with a political view, then it does
not come within the provision of the last
clause of the article. Nor does this article
affect the question of the right of suffrage, or
the means of contributing to the support of
public schools. I see no reason why there
should be a poll tax for either of these pur-
poses. On what principle can you levy a
poll tax for the support public schools? If
a man has property and no children, you can
tax him for the support of schools on the
ground that it is his duty as a citizen to con-
tribute for that property for the general good
of the community. And if a man has no
property and has children, he may be called
upon to make provision for their education,
and may be liable to taxation for the support
of the public schools on the ground that he
receives a benefit from them. But if a man
has no property and no children, I do not
know upon what principle of law you can
require him to pay just as much school tax as
anybody else, or that he shall pay a dollar, if
those who have properly pay on their prop-
erty and one dollar besides. I see no princi-
ple upon which you can levy a tax upon those
who own no property; if they are paupers,
they cannot be taxed, or if they are felons,
they cannot be taxed. This is the class in the
community who render to the community for
their support, their bodies and their blood.
They are the people who rest at the bottom
of society, and support the fundamental
groundwork of society. They are a class of
people who ought not to be taxed, unless they
acquire property. I believe the proposition
contained in this article, not only can do no
harm, but asserts a principle which is just
and true; and I do hope it will not be strick-
en out.
Mr. SCOTT, The object of my amendment
was not to enact a poll-tax by this Conven-
tion, but to leave it within the power and at
the discretion of the Legislature to impose
such a tax if they think proper. At this time,
when every interest of the State is burdened
with taxation, particularly the agricultural
interests; and when there are thousands of
young men in the counties and in the city of
Baltimore who receive from three to five dollars |
a day for their services, who own no proper-
ty liable to taxation; when, in addition to
the present burdens of taxation, the proba-
bility is, that a general school system will be
established, thus increasing our taxes, I want
to leave it to the Legislature to tax those
young men if they think necessary and prop-
er to do 80.
Mr. DANIEL. I move the following as a
substitute for the amendment of the gentle-
man from Cecil Mr. Scott); strike out the
14th article, and insert :
"That every person in this State, or per-
son holding property therein, ought to con-
tribute his proportion of public taxes for the
support of Government, according to his act-
ual worth in real or personal properly; and
that fines, duties or taxes may properly and
justly be imposed or laid on persons or prop-
erty for the good government and benefit of
the community,"
It will be seen that my amendment is in
substance the same as the amendment of the
gentleman from Cecil. I leave out the word
' other" in the third line of the article; sub-
stitute the word "that" for "yet" in tile
seventh line and leave out the words " with
a political view " in the eighth line.
I disagree entire with my colleague from
Baltimore city, (Mr. Stirling) and cannot see
the force of his argument in relation to the
injustice of such a tax as here indicated. As
I have already stated, we have the examples
of several other States, who have doubtless
as well considered this question as we are ca-
pable of doing now; and yet, they have
thought it wise and beneficial to enact such a
tax, appropriating its proceeds especially to
school purposes And I have yet to find the
first man from those States who does not
think it a wise and proper mode of taxation.
It raises a large revenue, does it easily, and 1
think in a proper way. And as my friend
from Cecil (Mr. Scott) suggests, I cannot see
the justice of subjecting a man who has earned
enough to get him a little house to live in,
and who has earned some other little proper-
ty, merely and hardly enough to subsist his
family upon, to this heavy pressure of taxa-
tion to the extent of, it may be, every cent of
property he is worth, and yet permitting a
man in government employ, or a man receiv-
ing a salary as clerk, of $1,500 or $2,000,
and yet, to not pay one cent of the taxation
of the State, because he does not own real or
personal property.
Mr. BARRON. I will ask the gentleman one
question. Does he net think that by impos-
ing a poll tax one-fifth of the citizens of Bal-
timore would be disfranchised?
Mr. DANIEL. Not at all; I do not propose
that this tax shall be made a condition prece-
dent to the right to vote, as "my friend seems
to think must be the alternative. I do not
propose to prescribe any particular condition
to this tax; I leave that to the Legislature. |
