I believe, exclusively to the repairs of public
roads, and not for the purposes of education,
In one or two of the other States, perhaps, it
is applied to purposes of education. But I
have ever looked upon that tax, in the lan-
guage of the hill of rights, as grievous and
oppressive. I have so regarded it because I
believe it to be a tax upon the labor of the
poorer class of people, the laboring class of
people. Because a man is not so fortunate as
to be possessed of a portion of this world's
goods and chattels upon which a tax can be
levied and collected, it does seem to me that
his misfortune should not be taken advantage
of and a tax be imposed upon his head, or, in
the language of the bill of rights, upon his
"poll." Suppose you levy this poll tax; if
the party upon whose head it is levied has no
visible means from which by any process of
law you can collect the tax, how is the tax
collector to obtain it? And if he has money,
it is true that he may, if so disposed, contri-
bute to the revenue of the county: but his
coffers may be full and yet you cannot extort
the tax from him.
Mr PUGH. If the gentleman will allow me
I will explain bow, according to my experi-
ence, this matter will work. It is not collected
except the parties upon whom it is levied
choose to pay it; and in many cases I have
known it has not been collected if parties had
no property upon which a levy could bemade
to collect it.
Mr. PURNELL. The gentleman's explana-
tion satisfies me of the perfect inutility of
such a tax. What is the use of levying a tax
if you cannot collect it ?
Mr DANIEL. You can get it if they choose
to pay it.
Mr. PURNELL. Then it is optional with
them whether they pay it or not. I think it
is the law now in Delaware that a voter can-
not approach the polls and exercise the privi-
lege of the elective franchise without exhibit-
ing the receipt of the tax collector. That
was the law at one time. and I think it is the
law now. Now that is a restriction upon the
right of suffrage which I do not think this
Convention will sanction.
Now in regard to the idea of associating
this tax with school purposes, I take it for
granted that there is no member of this Con-
vention but what would see the school fund
swelled to an illimitable amount by any prop-
er process whatever. But would you wish
to tax this unfortunate class of people to swell
that fund? I can see no reason whatever for
doing that. There are other means for rais-
ing a school fund; and fortunately for the
State of Maryland we now have a large school
fund, awaiting only the means to make it
effective. And besides that there has been
large body of land donated by the General
Government to this State, some 200,000 acres,
I believe, which will be soon made available
for school purposes, and will sustain any sys- |
tem which the Legislature may adopt. That
is another reason why we should not resort to
this odious system of taxation.
1 do not feel inclined to take up the time
of this Convention by discussing this propo-
sition further. I am opposed both to the
amendment of the gentleman from Cecil (Mr.
Scott) and the amendment of the gentleman
from Baltimore city (Mr. Daniel) and shall
vote for the article in the bill of rights as re-
ported by the committee.
Mr. Peter. The view I take of this arti-
cle as it stands is, that the reason why a tax
by the poll is said to be grievous and oppres-
sive is that there must besome fine or penalty
attached to a tax of that kind, in order that
such a tax may be made available; true, it is
impossible to take that from a man which he
does not possess. And I cannot agree with
the gentleman over the way (Mr. Pugh) who
says that you may leave it to the will of the
party to pay it or not as he pleases. We must
have our laws certain and fixed. We cannot
well have a law which shall say to this man—
if you please, you can pay this tax; and to
another—if you do not desire to pay this tax,
you need not do it. That would certainly be
unjust because, while the man who would be
benefited by it, might see fit and proper to
pay the tax, yet, knowing human dispositions
as we do,' we may be certain that the man
who would not be benefited by it, would, of
course, be the man who would not please to
pay the tax,
The reason, therefore, why I conceive that
this tax is properly termed grievous and op-
pressive, is that there must be some fine or
penalty attached to it, whereby the tax may
be made available from parties who have no
means which the tax collector can reach inor-
der to collect the tax. One of the penalties
hitherto attached in many of the States, has
been the loss of the right of suffrage; that no
party should exercise that right; unless be
could produce his receipt, showing that he had
paid his per capita tax. I do not say that in
this case it would necessarily follow, that a
man would he compelled to exhibit his tax-
receipt before he could vote. The Legislature
might affix another penalty; that if a man
did not pay his poll-tax, he should be im-
prisoned. It might be mane a penal offence,
For that reason, I say that it is just and prop-
er that we should abide by the old landmarks
which our fathers planted. They could have
had no other reason fur inserting a provision
of this kind in our bill of rights—for clearly
it does not admit of the interpretation which
some gentlemen would give it, that it affects
the right of suffrage—they could have had no
other reason for it, than that the poor should
lie protected; that they should not be over-
ridden by taxation; that their daily pittance,
merely sufficient for their meat and bread,
should not lie taxed for the support of others.
It is in this view that the poll-tax was look- |
