Mr. MILLER. If that amendment prevails,
we shall have to adopt another system of
raising taxes, and increase the direct tax.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. CLARKE submitted the following amend-
ment:
"Sec. 1. Strike out the words " treasurer
of the State" inline 13, and insert "the
county commissioners of the several counties
and the register of the city of Baltimore. "
Mr. CLARKE said: The result is this. Un-
der the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Baltimore city all the excess was paid
into the treasury; and the State would re-
ceive and have to pay back again these
amounts to the treasurers of the various coun-
ties. The provision now proposed is that the
return shall be made to the comptroller of
the State, but that the amounts shall be paid
over directly to the county commissioners
and the register of the city of Baltimore.
I think the principle is correct, that this
should be done as indicated by the gentle-
man from Baltimore city. In other words
the people of the various counties are taxed
to pay the expenses exceeding $3,000, and
the result is that this excess of taxation upon
the people of the county is paid to the State,
By a regular direct tax it is right to support
the State; but if a county pays over and
above the salary of these officers an excess,
is it not right that that excess should be paid
back to the county for its benefit, instead of
requiring the county to pay a direct tax to
the State, and also to make a payment
towards the general expenses of the State
over and above its proportion? In other
words whatever the county, out of the pock-
ets of its own people, pays by reason of the
extra amount of work done in the counties,
should not accrue to the benefit of the whole
State, but should go back to the county, and
to that extent the people should be relieved
from county taxation. Unless you do that
the result is that the county pays an excess.
It not only pays a proportion of the State
tax upon an equality with all the other coun-
ties, but money taken from their pockets also
goes into the general fund. It seems to me
a question of justice to the people of the
counties, that if their business is such as to
take out of their pockets this money over
and above the amount necessary to pay the
salaries of their officers, they should have
that credited on the amount of their local
taxation, and to that extent should be re-
lieved from local taxation. In other words
the money taken out of their pockets should
go back to them, and not to the State gen-
erally. This seems to me so fair and just
that I think the convention from considera-
tions of justice ought to adopt this provi-
sion.
Mr. RIDGELY. If I could concur with the
argument of the gentleman from Prince
George's (Mr. Clarke) in his premises, so far |
as this amendment is concerned, I would
agree that this money should go back to the
pockets of the people of the State. There
we would not disagree; but unfortunately
this money is not paid by the people of the
county at large, as the taxes are. It is paid
by the suitors independently of the county.
What justice is there in paying into the coun-
ty treasury-funds arising from such a source
as that? If there is any injustice, let the
people be reached who pay it. Let the leg-
islature make a new scale of fees, and reduce
the fees, so that the people shall be relieved
from this kind of taxation—so that suitors
shall be relieved. If that were to be done,
to relieve the parties engaged in litigation
from the unnecessary payment of this money,
that would be right and proper and I would
go for it. But you cannot reach them in
this form. The only mode in which that can
be done is by legislative action, by a reduc-
tion of the scale of fees, so that there shall
be no excess of fees. As it now stands,
there is nothing clearer in the world than the
position of the gentleman from Anne Arun-
del county (Mr. Miller) that if you abstract
$10,000 or $20,000 for the State treasury,
you have got to make it up by a direct tax
upon the people at large.
The PRESIDENT. You would better say
$50,000; and that would not cover it.
Mr. CLARKE. The only point of difference
between us is upon the question where the
excess comes from. In my judgment the ex-
cess really comes from the pockets of the
people of the counties, in the case of the
register, all his fees are from property admin-
istered in the county and taxed in the county ;
so that all the excess of fees in the register's
office comes out of the property of the county,
because that is the only property that is ad-
ministered there. Property outside of the
county is not administered there. When
you come to the case of the excess of
fees derived from suits, the great bulk
of the suits in which the expenses are
paid by the parties, is the case of suits
brought upon plain notes. There are
very few contested cases between non-resi-
dents of the county and residents. The
great bulk of these suits are plain cases.
Who pay the costs? The defendants pay the
costs. The plaintiffs who recover their costs
are non-residents, but the residents really
pay them. So that in the end, in the case of
suits brought, and also in the case of regis-
ter's fees, the money comes out of the coun-
ties. I know that in many counties an ex-
cess is very often paid into the treasury. 1
know that the register receives the excess
from the people of the county; and in the
case of suits, nearly every suit is upon a plain
note, a note in Baltimore city, or an open
account, and the defendants pay costs when
judgment is rendered. Although the plain-
tiff may pay it first, they get back, and vir- |
