that I vote " aye " simply for the purpose of
giving the Legislature the power to enlarge
the basis of taxation by the imposition of a
capitation tax, if it shall so please; but I am
opposed to the requirement of the payment of
any tax as a condition precedent to the exer-
cise of the right of suffrage.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I shall
vote " no" upon this proposition for the rea-
son .that I have always been opposed to a cap-
itation tax. I think that taxes of all sorts
ought to be levied upon property rather than
upon persons.
Mr. BRISCOE. As I understand the amend-
ment now being voted upon, it does not con-
form to any article in the Constitution of
1776, the Constitution of 1850, or the bill of
rights, as reported by our committee, inasmuch
as it leaves out the provision—''Paupers ought
not to be assessed for the support of the Gov-
ernment," I vote "no."
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. My vote will be
given upon this principle: that the Legislature
ought not to be restricted, hut should be left
free to act upon the principle which underlies
all government, viz: that where a man enjoys
the benfits and the protection of the govern-
ment and its laws he should contribute to the
support of that government, if be is able to
do so, whether he be in possession of property
which can be reached by the tax collector, or
of a salary only which cannot be so reached
by ordinary taxation. Now with the view
of leaving the Legislature untrammeled—cer-
tainly not with any expectation that the power
will ever be used to deprive those unable to
pay the tax of the right of suffrage—I vote
"aye."
Mr. MILLER. For the reasons so well as-
signed by the gentleman from Somerset (Mr
Jones,) I shall vote "aye" upon this propo-
sition believing that in so doing I am not en-
abling the legislature to oppress any poor
man, or depriving him of the right suffrage.
Mr. NEGLEY. I give the vote I do upon the
ground that I am utterly and entirely oposed
to clothing the Legislature of Maryland with
the power of enacting a property qualification ;
for with the gentleman from Carroll (Mr.
Smith) I believe that a law without a penalty
attached is not worth the parchment upon
which it is written. And the penalty has in-
variably been the depreciation of the right of
suffrage for the non-payment of the tax. I
therefore vote "no."
Mr. RIDGELY. If this proposition was a
limited one, I should vote in the affirmative.
I am opposed to giving a general power to the
Legislature to levy a capitation tax If the
power were limited to purposes of education
and schools, I should vote for it. But as it
confers the general power upon the Legisla-
ture, I shall vote "no."
Mr. VALLIANT. I will not trouble the Con-
vention with giving my reasons for voting as
I do upon this question, I will simply say that |
1 vote in the affirmative with the distinct un-
derstanding that this amendment is not a
stepping-stone lo any other qualification for
voters than such as are laid down in the old
Constitution.
The amendment was accordingly rejected.
Mr. DANIEL, I now move to strike out the
14th article, and insert :
"That every person in this State, or person
holding property therein, ought to contribute
his portion of public taxes for the support of
Government according to his actual worth in
real or personal property; and that fines,
duties or taxes may properly and justly be
imposed or laid on persons or property fur the
good government and benefit of the com-
munity; but that paupers ought not to be
assessed for the support of the Government."
This is the same proposition a? the one just
voted on, with the addition of the clause in
relation to paupers.
Mr. NEGLEY. I am opposed to this propo-
sition, as I was to the one just voted down.
1 am in favor of the article as it stands, with-
out any alteration or emendation, it has
been argued that whether you strike out this
i provision or not, nevertheless in the latter
clause this power to impose a capitation tax
is given, if that argument be true, then what
is the necessity for striking out this first
clause? For gentlemen who favor this amendment
of this article contend that even if you
do not touch it, it would still leave the power
in the hands of the Legislature, by the latter
portion of this article, to impose a capitation
tax. If that be so, then why advocate this
amendment at all? If it be discretionary
with, or open to the Legislature, to pass such
a tax law, when the power is inhibited in the
first part of this article and reinstated in the
latter part of it, then why undertake to alter
it ait all? They can accomplish all they want
without any alteration.
Now I am opposed lo giving the legislature
any power lo pass a law that in its character,
in its very nature, is one of property qualifi-
cation, As the gentleman from Carroll (Mr.
Smith) has conclusively demonstrated, the
only penalty ever known in connection with
such a law in any State of this Union, is the
inability to cast a ballot if the tax be not. paid ;
in other words the certificate of the proper
officer, of the payment of that tax, always to
lie exhibited before the vote can toe given If
that is so, and I think it is so beyond all pos-
sibility of doubt or controversy, then is it not
a tax upon the elective franchise, just as much
as if you required a man to own an ass, or an
ox, or any thing else, or pay so much money,
or have the means to pay it, before he is
allowed to vote in the case of the man who
is required to own an ox or an ass, it would
be the ox or the ass that would pay the tax,
or rather the possession of the ox or the ass
which can be taxed, is the qualification to
vote, as much so as the payment of a capita- |
