the gentleman. I merely said that unless they
had a Constitution later than that of 1834,
they are still voting under a property quali-
fication. If they are, then it is all right.
But I want gentlemen to keep in mind the
idea that you can make a man feel very badly
by taxing him one dollar when he cannot pay
it.
Now as to the phraseology of this article.
It now reads, ''that the levying of taxes by
the poll, is grievous and oppressive, and ought
to be abolished," Now I think those words
"ought to be abolished," ought to be abol-
ished from this article. They were put in
there at a time when there was a poll tax to
be abolished. I suppose they were put in the
Constitution of 1850, by being copied ver-
batim from the Constitution of 1776, long
after the poll tax had ceased to exist. Section
13 of the Constitution of 1776 did abolish
the pre-existing pull tax, which those who
had borne it said was grievous and oppres-
sive. But the language of the article in the
Constitution departs from that of 1776, in the
latter clause, by putting in the word "per-
sons," where the old Constitution had a much
clearer provision. The old Constitution reads
thus:
" Yet fines, duties and taxes may properly
and justly he imposed or laid with a political
view for the good government and benefit of
the community."
The words "on persons or property"
are interpolated into the provision of the old
Constitution, doubtless looking towards Judge
Dorsey's idea of a poll tax. Now I will go
as far as any man to devise a scheme fur
taxing" those who have made fortunes and are
now enjoying them without contributing to
the support of the Government in the propor-
tion they should. And if you make the man
who has made a fortune of one, two, three
or five hundred thousand dollars pay a tax of
one or five hundred dollars, it will not be so
oppressive to him as the tax of one dollar
would he to the poor man. Mr. Stewart, the
millionare of New York city, or Mr. Astor,
or any of those very wealthy men, would nut
feel a tax of a thousand or five thousand dol-
lars as much as the poor man would the tax
of the one dollar which he needs to buy the
bread and meat for the day for his family.
Mr. SCOTT. A great deal of the argument
here to-day, it seems to me, proceeds upon
the conception that we are now providing a
poll tax, instead of leaving it to the Legisla-
ture to exercise their discretion upon the sub-
ject. The gentleman who last addressed this
House, and the gentleman from Carroll, (Mr.
Smith,) speak of the misery of the poor man
under this lax, which he cannot pay. And
the gentleman from Carroll suggests a very
singular way for relieving this so much op-
pressed poor man from the odium which will
attach to the non-payment of this tax. He
says the poor men would relieve themselves |
by selling their votes to any politician who
would pay their taxes for them. A beautiful
way that would be of relieving themslves
from odium 1
Now, sir, the young men upon whom this
proposition would operate are in favor of a
poll tax. They lire men without families,
without the necessity of providing for house-
keeping expenses—the most of whom board,
and many of them in the families of their
employers. And they say they are in favor
of a poll tax, that they want to be elevated
at least to the condition of a dog, who pays a
tax of a dollar—or at least his owner does for
him—that they feel degraded by not contrib-
uting so much to the support of the govern-
ment as a dig does, and they want to be re-
lieved from that degradation.
The question was stated to be upon the mo-
tion of Air. DANIEL to strike out the 14th
article and insert the following :
"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 lo his ac-
tual worth in real or personal property; 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."
Upon that question Mr. DANIEL called for
the yeas and nays, which were ordered.
The question being then taken, by .yeas and
nays, it resulted, yeas 35, nays 48, as fol-
lows :
yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Annan, Belt, Bond, Brown, Carter. Clarke,
Cushing, Dail, Daniel, Dellinger, Earle,
Greene, Hebb, Henkle, Hodson Hopper, Hor-
sey, Johnson Jones of Cecil, Jones of Som-
erset, Lee, Miller, Noble, Parker, Pugh, Rob-
inette, Scott, Smith of Dorchester, Sneary,
Sykes, Todd, Valliant, Wickard, Wilmer—35.
Nays—Messrs. Abbott, Audoun, Baker,
Barron, Berry of Prince George's, Billingsley,
Blackiston, Briscoe, Brooks, Crawford, Cun-
ningham, Davis of Charles, Davis of Washington,
Ecker, Edelen, Farrow, Galloway,
Harwood, Hatch, Hoffman, Hopkins, Keefer,
Kennard, King, Marbury, Markey, McComas,
Mitchell, Morgan, Mullikin, Murray, Negley,
Nyman, Parran, Peter, Purnell, Ridgely,
Russell Sands, Schley, Schlosser, Smith of
Carroll, Smith of Worcester, Stirling, Stock-
bridge, Swope, Thomas, Wooden—-48.
So the motion to strike out and insert was
rejected.
Pending the call of the yeas and nays upon
this question, the following gentlemen ex-
plained their votes as their nannies were called.
Mr. ABBOTT said: By way of explaining my
vote, I will say that I vote "no" for the
purpose of voting for the article as it stands
reported,
Mr. BELT. I vote "aye," ball wish to place
myself distinctly upon the record, by saying |
