The amendment was accordingly rejected. The question then recurred upon the amendment proposed by Mr. CUSHING to the 43d Rule. Mr. CUSHING. I will not press that amendment, but with the consent of the Convention I will withdraw it. I now give notice that on to-morrow, or some subsequent day, I will move to amend the 42d Rule by striking out the words "the final passage of a report, or a motion to suspend the rules, or," so that the rule will then read : "All questions, except those otherwise herein provided for, shall be determined by a majority of the members present: those dividing in the affirmative rising in their places, those in the negative continuing in their seats, and so vice versa, until a decision by the President." Also to amend the 43d Rule, by striking out all after the word "nays" in the second line, so that it will then read: "The question on the final adoption of any article shall always be determined by yeas and nays." DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. On motion of Mr. HEBB, The Convention (Mr. Purnell in the chair) then resumed the consideration of the special order of the day, being the report of the committee on the Declaration of Rights. The question was stated to be upon the following, submitted by Mr. GREENE : Strike out Art. 14, and insert the following as Art. 14: "That paupers ought not to be assessed for the support of the Government, but every person in the State, holding property therein, ought to contribute his proportion of public taxes for the support of Government, according to his actual worth in real or personal property; and fines, duties or taxes may properly and justly be imposed or laid on persons or property for the good government and benefit of the community; provided, that no capitation tax shall be imposed as a qualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage." Mr. MILLER. Is it now in order for me to offer an amendment to the proposition now pending? The CHAIRMAN. The chair is informed by the Secretary, that the proposition of the gentleman from Allegany (Mr. Greene) is an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Cecil, (Mr. Scott,) and that it is so entered upon the Journal. Mr. MILLER. Then I think the Journal is wrong, for it must be evident that the proposition of the gentleman from Allegany, (Mr. Greene,) is in the nature of a substitute for the entire article, and not an amendment to any amendment of that article. Mr. DANIEL. I will state that the amendment which I submitted yesterday was submitted as an amendment to the amendment of the gentleman from Cecil, (Mr. Scott.) When that was voted down, then the gentleman from Allegany, (Mr. Greene,) submitted the one now pending as an amendment to the same amendment of the gentleman from Cecil, (Mr. Scott.) But I would like to hear any amendments read which gentlemen may have to offer. The CHAIRMAN. They can be read for information. Mr. MILLER. I do not propose to read my amendment unless I can have an opportunity for a few moments to explain it, as I think it an important one. If the amendment of the gentleman from Allegany (Mr. Greene) is adopted, I can then offer it as an amendment to that. Mr. JONES, of Somerset, called for the reading of Mr. SCOTT's amendment, to which the pending proposition was an amendment, and it was read as follows: Strike out of article 14 the words: "The levying of taxes by the poll is grievous and oppressive, and ought to be abolished; that paupers ought not to be assessed for the support of the Government, but;" also strike out the word "other" after the word "every " in the third line; so that the article would then read : "That every person in the State, or person holding property therein, ought to contribute his proportion of public taxes for the support of Government, according to his actual worth in real or personal property; yet fines, duties or taxes may properly and justly be imposed or laid on persons or property for the good government and benefit of the community." Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I felt very much inclined, at the time of the adjournment on yesterday, to support the amendment of the gentleman from Allegany, (Mr. Greene,) in the terms in which it was offered. My attention had not been called particularly to this article, and I had not considered it, until the debate arose yesterday upon it and the various amendments submitted to it. I was a great deal interested in the debate that occurred, and the longer the matter was pending before the Convention, the more I became convinced that this whole subject required and demanded at our hands a much more mature consideration than, so far as I could judge from the debate on yesterday, it had yet received from members of this Convention. It was very apparent from that debate that there was much misconception with reference to the meaning of the original bill of rights. adopted in 1776, which was reported in the Constitution adopted in 1851, and which is now proposed, I believe in almost identically the same terms, by the Committee on the Declaration of Rights in their report to this Convention. It was assumed yesterday, in almost every argument that was made upon | [without any restriction as to color,] being the subject of striking out this provision in regard to taxing by the poll, that the poll tax mentioned in the bill of rights, and comprehended in the denunciation as being grievous and oppressive, was a tax in restriction of the right of suffrage. Now, sir, that is a total misconception of the purpose and object of the Convention of 1776 in framing this article. It had no reference whatever to the question of the right of suffrage. The members of that Convention of 1776 were among the most rigid in guarding the right of suffrage, and about as far from recognizing and adopting the doctrine of universal suffrage, as entertained by us now, and held and maintained for the last fifty or sixty years in this State, as it is well possible to conceive. The Convention of 1776 adhered literally to the doctrine upon which they understood the revolution then pending to be proceeding, which was that taxation and representation were inseparable; that he who did not contribute by the payment of taxes to the support of the government was not entitled to participate in that government. That was the view entertained by the Convention of 1776. And in pursuance of the views they entertained, in the very inception of the Revolutionary war, at the very first election regulated by law in this State, they prescribed a property qualification for all voters. And perhaps, if gentlemen have not looked at the provisions adopted and insisted upon by that Convention, they may be somewhat surprised to find the views entertained of the right of suffrage by the great and learned and patriotic men who represented the sovereignty of the State in that Convention. I will read some extracts with a view of illustrating the qualifications of voters prescribed by that Convention. freeholders of not less than fifty acres of land, or having visible property in this colony to the value of £40 sterling at the least, and no others, be admitted to vote for representatives to serve in the said Convention for the said counties and districts, and the town of Baltimore aforesaid; and that all freemen above 21 years of age, owning a whole lot of land in the said city of Annapolis, or having a visible estate of £20 sterling at the least, within this province, or having served five years to any trade within the said city and being a housekeeper, and no others, be admitted to vote for representatives in the said Convention for the said city, provided such person shall have resided in the county, district, city or town, where he shall offer to vote, one whole year next preceding the election." Now there was nothing in the restriction of the bill of rights which had any reference whatever to these qualifications. And these very qualifications were carried into the Constitution adopted by the Convention elected under them, and continued to be the qualifications of voters in this State down to 1803, '4 or '5, I think. Under these restrictions, and that Constitution, free negroes who held fifty acres of land, or visible property in the State of the value of £40 sterling, were allowed to vote. But no freeman in the State, no soldier who had fought in the Revolutionary war was allowed to vote in this State unless he had this property qualification. The history of that time shows that it was the federal party in those days who sustained the principle that representation and taxation should go together; and it was the democratic party of those days that fought that provision in the Constitution. and finally triumphed in bestowing the right of suffrage upon every free white male citizen of 21 years In July, 1776, the Convention then in ses- of age who was a resident of the State. I sion determined that it should be dissolved, have heard an anecdote, which I will relate, and they resolved "That a new Convention | in reference to the political contests in one of be elected for the express purpose of forming our counties, which was always used by one a new government, by the authority of the of the democratic candidates to the great dispeople only, and enacting and ordering all comfiture of his opponent as long as this prothings for the preservation, safety and gene-perty qualification existed, although it was ral weal of this colony." I read from the "Conventions of Maryland, 1774, 75, '76," page 184. They proceeded to appoint judges of election in the several counties, and to make the apportionment of representatives, giving two each to the cities of Annapolis and Baltimore, and four to each of the counties, except the county of Frederick, which then comprised what are now Allegany and Washington counties, and which was then divided into three districts, to each of which were apportioned four representatives. Now who were to vote at that election? Here are the qualifications of voters, as prescribed by that Convention: "That all freemen above 21 years of age, a strong federal county. The anecdote is, that there was an old revolutionary soldier, who had been wounded and had received honorable scars in the battles of the Revolution to secure the liberties of his country, and who had been voting a number of years. He owned an old mare valued at £30 sterling, which was the sole property he had, and which represented his right to vote. It so happened that at one time on his way to the place of election unfortunately the old mare died. When he got to the polls it somehow got out that his right of voting had departed. When he presented himself to vote, as he had been in the habit of doing for years, the judges of election asked him if he was worth property to the value of £30. The old soldier replied "I was when I started from home this morning; I had then an old mare which was worth £30, but she has died on the way." "Then," replied the judges, "you cannot vote." "Ah!" said the old soldier, "it would seem that the right of voting was not in me, but in the old mare;" and with that he departed. Now we have heard a great deal about providing in the Constitution to have judges of election to serve away off somewhere out of the State, in Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana, wherever any citizens of this State may be serving as soldiers of the United States, and allowing those soldiers to vote there. Not upon that principle, I am sure, did the old Convention of 1776 act. And the proposiAnd the proposition is open to so grave objections on account of inconvenience, and the liability to fraudulent practices, that I apprehend this Convention will hardly entertain seriously any proposition of that sort. Now I desire to read to this Convention an extract from this book, with the view of showing the adherence of the Convention of 1776 to one of the fundamental principles of English liberty, the absolute preponderance of the civil over the military authorities; and the ideas that they had on the subject of soldiers voting. I read from page 185: "Resolved, That no person holding a commission or office in the regular forces of this province, shall, during the time of his holding the same, be eligible as a representative aforesaid; nor shall any person who shall hereafter accept of any commission or office on the land or sea service, or shall enlist in the regular forces raised, or to be raised for the continental service, or the service of this or any other colony, be eligible as a representative as aforesaid, or hold any office or place in the civil department, or have a right to vote at any election, during the time he shall hold such commission or office in the military forces, or being therein entitled as aforesaid." Now that is strong evidence of their desire to keep the civil administration apart from all military authority, and to keep the military authority subordinate to the civil administration, even in those times of revolution. In some parts of the State there were very considerable divisions of sentiment upon that question at that time. The patriotic county of Prince George's undertook to nullify that provision, and indeed did disregard it in the election which they held. And when the Convention assembled, the Committee on Elections reported-page 211, "That Walter Bowie, Luke Marbury, [the grandfather, I believe, of my worthy friend here now representing Prince George's county,] Osborn Sprigg, and Thomas Šim Lee, Esqrs., are returned by Jeremiah Magruder, Humphrey Belt, and Thomas Boyd, as duly elected for Prince George's county. "That the inhabitants of the county agreed, that every taxable man bearing arms being an inhabitant of the county, had an undoubted right to vote for representatives at this time of public calamity; that the judges appointed declined to act, and that they appointed the judges who made the return as aforesaid.” On page 214, it will be found, that the Convention, with but one dissenting voice, "Resolved, That the election for Prince George's county, not being held agreeable to the directions of the last Convention, is void, and that an election for the said county be held by the judges appointed at the last Convention, on Thursday, the 22d inst., [August, 1776,] at the court-house of the county, and that the members returned be discharged from further attendance in this Convention." And that was also done in some districts in other parts of the State. So much for the right of suffrage as fixed by the Convention of 1776, which framed the original Constitution and form of Government for the State of Maryland. It was found afterwards that the Constitution which was adopted, expressly prescribed as a qualification for the right of suffrage, the possession of fifty acres of land, or property of the value of £30 sterling; in very nearly the same terms prescribed by the original Convention. Therefore in adopting the article of the Bill of Rights which declared that poll taxes as understood and practised previous to that time, especially in Great Britain, I believe, were grievous and oppressive, and ought to be abolished, the Convention had no reference whatever to the question of the right of suffrage. This section I presume is intended to confer upon the Legislature of the State the power of taxation for necessary State purposes; that I presume is the object of it. The right to confer that power exists in the people at large; and they must confer it upon their agents before it can be exercised. They may limit the grant of power, if they please; and in this section it is limited very materially, although the limitation is not expressed in very precise and exact terms. The section reads: "That the levying of taxes by the poll is grievous and oppressive, and ought to be abolished.' That might lead to very grave litigation upon many taxes that are usually laid by governments. "That paupers ought not to be assessed for the support of the Government." That I presume will not be open to question; for if they have nothing with which to pay the tax to be collected by the Government, then I cannot conceive very well how they can be subjects of taxation. "But every other person in the State, or person holding property therein, ought to contribute his proportion of public taxes for the support of Government, according to his actual worth in real or personal property." Now there is a restriction which will go far to restrict the power of the Legislature upon the subject of taxation. And what is the concluding proposition? "Yet fines, duties or taxes may properly and justly be imposed or laid on persons or property, with a political view, for the good government and benefit of the community." | tution which declared that taxes should be laid upon property, and that a man should contribute to the support of the Government according to his actual worth in real and personal property. Hence it was that when the law of 1841, chapter 325, called the income tax, was passed, assessing a tax of 2 per cent. upon all salaries, professional incomes, and profits arising from all professions and employments, amounting to more than $500, it was very generally considered to be onerous and oppressive, as very objectionable and very unusual, and by many lawyers that law was denounced as conflicting with that very clause of the Constitution, which we now have under consideration, that taxes should be upon persons in proportion to their actual worth in real and personal property. That act provided for the appointment of assessors, that every man's income should be assessed 21 per cent.; and collectors were to be appointed, and the tax was Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I think they bet- to be collected and paid into the State Treater be stricken out, for they amount to noth-sury. It was explained by the act of 1842, ch. ing here, for the real object and meaning is that the tax shall be "for the good government and benefit of the community." That concluding provision contains terms so broad and inconclusive and vague that there will very likely be a great deal of litigation if the action of the Legislature should happen to pass out of the usual routine of taxation. Mr. PUGH. I would call the attention of the gentleman to the fact that the words "with a political view," are proposed to be stricken out by the amendment. Now it occurs to me that especially in the condition in which we are now placed, with the evident necessity that there is for taxes to be derived from every proper source of income and revenue upon which the State can rely properly in the exercise of all the proper powers of government in a civilized and christian land-it seems to me that the power of the General Assembly to lay and collect taxes should be very broad and unrestricted. Now I submit that if the power of taxation, conferred by the States, through the Constitution of the United States, upon the Federal Congress, to be exercised upon the individual citizens of every State throughout the country-and which is broad and unlimited, being concurrent with that of many of the States-I submit that the power of taxation to be conferred by this Convention upon the General Assembly of Maryland ought to be at least as broad as the power of taxation conferred upon the Congress of the United States. I think that is a reasonable proposition, and that there need be no fear that any General Assembly of Maryland, in considering upon and adopting the proper subjects of taxation to raise the necessary revenue for the support of the Government, the common defence of the State, and purposes of education, will go beyond the usual and proper sources of taxation which may be found expedient by the experience of this State. Now upon contingencies which arose upon former occasions, the General Assembly did attempt to raise revenue from some sources of taxation which were unusual in the history of this State, which at the time were considered as contravening the provision of the Consti 294, that the incomes to be taxed were those of lawyers, physicians, professors and teachers of colleges and academies, all officers of the State, and all salaries received by any person in the employment of any person, private association, firm or company, amounting to $300, should be assessed 2 per cent. And I believe that no law ever passed in this State, imposing any sort of tax for revenue, ever so signally failed of execution as this income tax law of 1841. It was denounced from the beginning as unusual and unconstitutional and it was very generally disregarded. In very many counties nobody could be found who would consent to be assessor. In some of the counties the County Commissioners would not appoint assessors, and the law was so amended as to give the Governor the power to appoint. But even then the law could not be enforced, except on those very patriotic individuals who did not object to the payment of the tax, and those gentlemen who were receiving salaries from the State, from which the tax could be deducted. I was absent from my county when the law was passed, when the assessment was made, and when the whole thing went into operation. I was absent upon duty, out of the State in fact. When I returned, some time during the summer of 1843, the collector called upon me and presented a bill of income tax for me to pay. Now I had never been asked a single question about my income; I had never even seen the assesor. I found that the assessor had estimated my professional income from the practice of law-and by the by I had for three years scarcely been in the county, but had been elsewhere, and my professional incomes had almost entirely fallen off-the assessor had estimated my income at three times what it actually was. But I paid the tax, though I have thought ever since that unless | ing man enjoys, and yet contribute nothing the State enforced it upon others, which it did not, it still owed me the fifty dollars I paid at that time; for with the exception of a few men, who, like Gov. Pratt and some others, paid the full tax until the law was repealed, all the rest of the people of the State failed to pay the tax. to the support of that government? I do not cation; also to lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports which may be absolutely necessary for the execution of the State Inspection Laws; and also such fines, duties or taxes as they may deem expedient and proper for the good government and benefit of the community.” Now I am for removing every objection, by conferring upon the General Assembly the clear and constitutional right to levy an income tax, and the suggestions which come from my friend from Cecil (Mr. Scott) meets that view precisely. His idea is that those who enjoy the protection of the government should contribute to its support. They may be making $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 a year, in the way of salary. Upon what? Not upon any real and personal property that can be found and taxed. Yet there are many men who own a few acres of land which may be worth $3,000 or $4,000, the tax upon which may be $50. Some man may own an acre of land only, and may have a wife and children to support by the proceeds of his daily "Article 14. The General Assembly shall labor, and may find it exceedingly difficult have power to lay and collect taxes for the at the end of the year to pay the doctor's defence of the State, and the support of the bills for his family, and the necessary ex-government thereof, and for purposes of edupenses of clothing them, and have a pittance left to pay his State and county tax. And will you tell me that the man whose abilities can command a salary of from $1,000 to $5,000 a year, but who does not choose to invest his money in any estate that the State can reach, shall be allowed to go scot free? What is his capital in business? His talents, his character and his industry, and upon those he trades. Where? Here in this State, where he enjoys the protection of our laws, and where if he is injured in any way our State must pay the expenses of courts and juries to redress his injuries. And yet he is to be here, enjoying the full protection of our laws and our government, for whose expenses others are to be taxed, and is to contribute nothing to the support of that government, because he does not own real or personal estate that can be reached by the assessor and tax gatherer. Is that just ?Does not the contribution to the support of the government, according to a man's real ability to make that contribution, constitute the true relation of the citizen to the State, and the true basis of taxation? And should a man who invests what little money he may have in an acre of land in the county, or in a house in the city, that he may have a homestead for his wife and children, be compelled to pay a tax upon it; and others who have their capital to trade upon, while this man's capital is but the sinews of his body and the toil of his hands, others who are blessed by heaven with higher capacities and qualifications, and can command higher wages, perhaps live far easier lives, are to enjoy every protection of the government that this labor And I beg leave to read from the Constitution of the United States the terms of the grant of power to the federal Congress, to show that I have embodied in this article, which I shall offer as an amendment, those subjects of State taxation about which there can be no possibility of dispute; for there is a restriction, to which the States agreed, in the Constitution of the United States upon subjects of State taxation. The very first clause of the eighth section of the enumeration of the powers of Congress, is in these words: ', Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes, duties, imports and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, but all duties and imposts shall be uniform throughout the United States." Then in the second clause of section ten will be found the restriction on the States : "No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws." I propose to make this article correspond precisely with the Constitution of the United States, giving concurrent power to the General Assembly with that possessed by the Congress of the United States. And whenever |