00000243 |
Previous | 243 of 866 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
212 HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
$859,656 on the 1st of December, 1842, to $1,171,872 on the 1st of December,
1843; and to $1,450,961 on the 1st of December, 1844; while in seven
counties of the State the tax laws were not enforced.1
Among the many laws enacted for the purpose of raising a revenue, the
Act of 1844, chapter 280, imposing "the Stamp Tax," was the most objectionable. This law, which was called the "British Stamp Act," required
stamps to be used "for every skin or piece of vellum, or parchment, or sheet,
or piece of paper or other material, upon which shall be printed or written
any or either of the instruments of writing following, to wit: On any bond,
obligation, single bill or promissory note or notes, made or executed in this
State, above $100, and not made or issued by any incorporated bank of this
State, and on any foreign or inland bill of exchange or other evidence
of debt above $100, whether endorsed or otherwise, and whether made or
issued by any incorporated institution, individual or firm." This Act went
into operation on the 10th of May, 1845, and from its passage it was
denounced in all sections of the State in unmeasured terms—through the
public press—from the hustings, and in every other shape which the ingenuity
of its opponents could devise.
In several sections of the State resistance to the law was strenuously
urged and insisted upon as a rightful measure. In Baltimore a movement
was made in the First Branch of the City Council to reduce to practice the
doctrine which had been for some time past maintained by writers in the
newspapers. On April 11th, 1845, the bill to levy the State tax was called
up in that body for consideration, and a substitute was offered, which
provided that the levy of the State tax should be dependent upon the repeal
by the Legislature of the Stamp Act, the bill for the completion of the
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal (which was now suspended) an Act for dividing
the city into twenty wards, and the passage of a law compelling the delinquent counties to pay their proportions of the direct tax.
This substitute created considerable alarm, and although it was not
seriously considered, it had the desired effect, for the Legislature, which was
then in session, complied with all its provisions excepting the Stamp Tax, as
to which by the practical operation of the measure, it was clearly shown that
its opponents were in error. The Baltimore merchants, however, continued
their opposition to the bill on the ground that the law was unequal in its
bearing, because the greater portion of the revenue derived from it was paid
by them, and they finally succeeded in having it repealed.
In the meantime, in compliance with the Act of 1844, which empowered
the governor in certain contingencies to commission officers for the enforce-
11 ormerly, the levy or tax courts throughout converted from State into county officers, they
the State were appointed by the governor. They ceased to be responsible to the State authorities,
were then responsible to the State authorities, and in fact were practicably responsible solely
and consequently respected and observed the to the people of the county by whom they were
laws of the State. But, now, these officers were elected. To this error was attributed the non-
elected by the people of the particular county enforcement of the revenue laws,
in which they were to act, and having thus been
| Title | History of Maryland - 3 |
| Creator | Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas) |
| Publisher | J. B. Piet |
| Place of Publication | Baltimore |
| Date | 1879 |
| Language | eng |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Title | 00000243 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | 212 HISTORY OF MARYLAND. $859,656 on the 1st of December, 1842, to $1,171,872 on the 1st of December, 1843; and to $1,450,961 on the 1st of December, 1844; while in seven counties of the State the tax laws were not enforced.1 Among the many laws enacted for the purpose of raising a revenue, the Act of 1844, chapter 280, imposing "the Stamp Tax," was the most objectionable. This law, which was called the "British Stamp Act," required stamps to be used "for every skin or piece of vellum, or parchment, or sheet, or piece of paper or other material, upon which shall be printed or written any or either of the instruments of writing following, to wit: On any bond, obligation, single bill or promissory note or notes, made or executed in this State, above $100, and not made or issued by any incorporated bank of this State, and on any foreign or inland bill of exchange or other evidence of debt above $100, whether endorsed or otherwise, and whether made or issued by any incorporated institution, individual or firm." This Act went into operation on the 10th of May, 1845, and from its passage it was denounced in all sections of the State in unmeasured terms—through the public press—from the hustings, and in every other shape which the ingenuity of its opponents could devise. In several sections of the State resistance to the law was strenuously urged and insisted upon as a rightful measure. In Baltimore a movement was made in the First Branch of the City Council to reduce to practice the doctrine which had been for some time past maintained by writers in the newspapers. On April 11th, 1845, the bill to levy the State tax was called up in that body for consideration, and a substitute was offered, which provided that the levy of the State tax should be dependent upon the repeal by the Legislature of the Stamp Act, the bill for the completion of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal (which was now suspended) an Act for dividing the city into twenty wards, and the passage of a law compelling the delinquent counties to pay their proportions of the direct tax. This substitute created considerable alarm, and although it was not seriously considered, it had the desired effect, for the Legislature, which was then in session, complied with all its provisions excepting the Stamp Tax, as to which by the practical operation of the measure, it was clearly shown that its opponents were in error. The Baltimore merchants, however, continued their opposition to the bill on the ground that the law was unequal in its bearing, because the greater portion of the revenue derived from it was paid by them, and they finally succeeded in having it repealed. In the meantime, in compliance with the Act of 1844, which empowered the governor in certain contingencies to commission officers for the enforce- 11 ormerly, the levy or tax courts throughout converted from State into county officers, they the State were appointed by the governor. They ceased to be responsible to the State authorities, were then responsible to the State authorities, and in fact were practicably responsible solely and consequently respected and observed the to the people of the county by whom they were laws of the State. But, now, these officers were elected. To this error was attributed the non- elected by the people of the particular county enforcement of the revenue laws, in which they were to act, and having thus been |
