ed upon as grievous and oppressive. And I
could not go home to my people, especially to
the poor of my county, and say to them that
I had advocated a provision whereby their
daily pittance could be taken from them for
the support of our State, or its school fund.
There are men enough who will advocate the
principle that the taxes for the support of our
schools shall be laid upon the property owned
in the State, and upon the property owned
and enjoyed by its citizens; and if need be,
to follow out the plan adopted by the general
government, to levy a tax for the school fund
upon the annual income of any person which
may exceed a certain sum. But in all in-
stances, leave to the poor man sufficient of his
earnings to buy his meat and bread before
you levy a capitation tax upon him.
This provision .has, indeed been one of the
landmarks of our State. It gave rise to great
controversy in the last Convention, and has
been brought before the people in our county
on many occasions. And this tax is one
against which the majority of the people have
always lifted up their voice in tones which
may not be disregarded. Conceiving, there-
fore, as I do, that a per capita tax will be
grievous and oppressive, as it must have con-
nected with it fines and penalties to enforce
its collection, I shall vote against any amend-
ment to this article,
Mr. SMITH, of Carroll. This is manifestly
an important question, not only as involving
a great principle, but, as was stated by the
gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Thomas)
as bearing upon the result of the submission
to the people of the Constitution we may adopt
here. This principle has received the sanction
of some of the wisest and best men that the
State of Maryland has ever produced. And
it has been adhered to and sanctioned by the
people of the State, and unless some para-
mount reasons are urged against it, I think
we ought still to adhere to it.
Now if a law is passed by the Legislature of
Maryland inposing a poll tax, it will be nuga-
tory to a great extent unless it imposes some
penalty, and that penalty in other States usu-
ally has been that the payment of the tax was
made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of
the elective franchise, it is so in every State
with which I am acquainted where such a lax
is imposed. And if the tax is not paid here,
and it will not be in a great many instances,
because of the inability or unwillingness of
persons to pay it, what position will they be
placed in? There will be an odium attached
to them; they will be in some sense defaulters
to the treasury whose coffers the law is in-
tended to fill; and if the payment of the tax.
is made a condition for the exercise of the
right of suffrage, then those who cannot or
do not pay it, will be operated upon by schem-
ing politicians, and the candidate who has
the most money will get the most votes. Now
no man likes to be in the position of a de- |
faulter, or in any way of violating the law,
however slightly; and wily politicians will
take advantage of the poverty of men, and
pay their taxes for them to further their own
selfish ends. And the same frauds will attend
the execution of this law, that once attended
the execution of the naturalization laws; but
which do not attend them now, because it is
not quite so safe now to be a citizen of the
United States as it used to be.
And though the imposition of a poll tax
may not be made in effect to prevent directly
any one from voting who does not pay it;
still it is one step in that direction, for the
most usual and almost universal penalty at-
tached to the non-payment of a poll taxis the
denial of the elective franchise. I think
this question of the elective franchise is so im-
portant, so vital to the unity and security of
our institutions, that we ought to hesitate be-
fore adopting any measure which looks in any
way directly or indirectly towards affecting it
injuriously. I am therefore opposed to alter-
ing this article in any manner, and shall vote
against all amendments to it.
In regard to the inconsistencies said by gen-
tlemen to exist between the first and the last
provisions of this article, they have been ex-
plained so satisfactorily by others, that it
must be evident to all that the two portions
are in perfect harmony with each other, and
in no way inconsistent.
Mr. BELT. The conclusion to which my
friend from Frederick (Mr. Schley) seems to
have come upon this question, has been so
well answered by my friend from Cecil (Mr.
Pugh) that I think it can be passed by with-
out further remark, except that I cannot
but express my astonishment that the gentle-
man has not been able to discover the differ-
ence between the provision to secure us against
property qualifications for voting, and the
provision to secure us against taxing by the
poll. Property qualifications, as a matter of
fact, have existed in some of the States of this
Union. But the 6th article of this bill of
rights, referred to by the 'gentleman from
Anne Arundel, (Mr. Miller,) is a clause which
renders it an impossibility for the Legislature
of Maryland to enact a property qualification.
And the gentleman from Carroll, ( Mr. Smith, )
although he does not appear to think with the
gentleman from Frederick, (Mr. Schley,) that
by any construction of this clause it can be
possibly made so as that a poll tax may mean
a tax at the polls, yet does think that the ex-
clusion of this prohibition will have a tend-
ency towards a poll tax in the sense of the
gentleman from Frederick. Now how can
that follow as long as we preserve that article
of the bill of rights, which provides against
a property qualification " The one is as much
a principle of government as the other.
' I therefore think we can come to a consid-
eration of this question apart from any con-
sideration of property qualifications for voters. |
