The vote having been announced,
Mr. RIDGELY moved to amend the amend-
ment as amended, by adding at the close, the
following: " Nor for any other purpose than
the promotion of public education."
Mr. RIDGELY said: I do not propose to en-
ter into any discussion of that amendment.
The condition of my health, if nothing else,
would prevent, I beg, however, to state that
a capitation tax per se, notwithstanding the
various definitions that have been given to
the word "poll," is well understood by
every body. It is a tax on the head, or the
person, irrespective of all other circumstances.
It confines itself to the man. It
must therefore necessarily be a uniform tax-
ation. There can be no graduating scale by
which it can be made to address itself to the
circumstances of the party. I have not been
able to hear anything this morning responsive
to the argument which has been made on this
side of the House, that such a tax would ne-
cessarily be unequal and unjust. I believe,
therefore, that if the majority of this House
are determined that the Legislature shall have
the power to paps a law which will have such
an effect, it ought to be restricted, and not
'general; and that the only excuse or defense
on which the exercise of such a power should
be granted, is that the end justifies the means;
and I know of no end, no interest of Govern-
ment which would be better subserved, than
by aiding the cause of universal or general
education. We may disguise it as we please,
when we go before the people with this Con-
stitution, we shall be met with the execration
that we have created a general power in the
Legislature to impose a bead tax.
1 concede that the power indirectly exists ;
and I make that concession upon the theory
of this decision of Chief Justice Le Grand, on
the Court of Appeals, on the review of this
very 13th article in the bill of rights, that
the power exists in the State, either for rev-
enue or for public purposes, to impose a tax
on the person. But it does not address itself,
although it substantially exists there, to the
Legislature, in this grave form which the
Convention will give to it by the open and
direct avowal of the purpose to confer on the
Legislature the power to tax men irrespective
of their circumstances, simply upon the the-
ory that they are men. To take away, there-
fore, from the offensiveness of the proposition,
as much as in my judgment we can take from
it, I propose to limit the power of the Legis-
lature by confining it exclusively to the pur-
poses of common education.
Mr. BELT. Before the vote is taken I will
take the liberty of making one or two brief
observations. The gentleman takes the
ground that it is already the law of this
State under the present Declaration of Rights,
that the Legislature may impose a capitation
tax. The proposition he now offers, therefore
is, not to change the organic law by investing |
the Legislature with a power not heretofore
conferred upon them, but to detract from the
power with which, under judicial decision,
the Legislature is invested. The weight of
authority, therefore, will rest against his
proposition, instead of in favor of it. Those
who propose to let the law stand as it now is,
with all the results of experience, cannot, of
course, consistently with the view that gen-
tleman takes, support his proposition.
There is one other matter to which I would
like to make a brief reference. The gentle-
man, and in fact all who have occupied that
side of this question, argue against granting
the Legislature power to impose a capitation
tax, because they say it will be dangerous
and oppressive in its exercise. Some argue
that it would be oppressive to one class of
the population, and others that it would be
oppressive to somebody else; but the gist of
their argument was that they did net want to
grant the power lest it should be abused. If
this theory is to control us in our action here,
we would better not create any Legislature
at all; because the wrong that can be done
to any class of people by impolitic legislation
under the power to impose a capitation tax,
will be as nothing, can be as nothing, corn pared
with the infinite wrong that may bedone by
any Legislature by an unwise exercise of the
powers which we all agree are conceded to it.
Take the ordinary power of taxation. Here
you wish to deny to the Legislature the power
to impose a capitation tax upon the theory
that they may not impose a sensible tax in
that direction, one that will not be oppressive.
Yet you concede to the Legislature the most
irresponsible power of general taxation.
What if the Legislature should pass a tax
law taking nine-tenths of a man's property
for taxes, or that one-halt' of every man's
revenue should be paid in for taxes. That
is possible as a law. That would be Consti-
tutional. That would be within the proper
limits of their power. No doubt it would be
an abuse of power, it by no means follows
that if yon give the Legislature the power to
impose a capitation tax they will necessarily
use that to oppress the people, any more than
that they will abuse the general power of tax-
ation by passing laws that will be oppressive.
Mr. MILLER. I do not think (he gentleman
from Baltimore county (Mr. Ridgely) has
correctly stated the decision of the Court of
Appeals. I do not think that they decided
that it was competent, under the 13th article
of the bill of rights for the Legislature to tax
the person. The amusements of the people,
1 they say, may be taxed for purposes of rev-
enue or as a police regulation. The question
before the Court was whether a gentleman or
a private club, keeping a billiard table, should
pay a license; and they said it was competent
for the Legislature to impose a tax for a
license. I do not think that covers the case
of a capitation tax. |
