Milford chronicle., 1929-12-13
(By C. w. Whitmore, in the
Baltimore Sunday SUM


ly asked why Maryland has no pol
tax The question is a natural one
for a newcomer, as this form of tax
alton is levied in approximately
tbree-fourths of the States, and in
4 deed in some it is made a Qualitca-
tioS for voting. Maryland, among
the minority of States which do moi
resort to this simple and obvious
source of revenue, does not merely
neglect this easy money; she spurns
il and she spurned it emphatically
in the 1776 Declaration of Right
which is the fundamental law of the
State. In paragraph 1S it declares
'That the levying of taxes by the
poll is grieYious and oppressive ana
il ought to be abolished; that pau
pers ought not to be assessed for
the support of government, but eV-
cry other person in the State or per-
son holding property therein ought
to contribute, his proportion, of pub
lie taxes for the support of govern
ment according to his actual worth
in real or personal property"
The poll tax, therefore, is uncon-
stitutional in Maryland and it is evil
dent from the vigorous language us
ed in its prohibition that something
more than political theorizing enter
ed into the framing of this article
of our economic faith. 1t also seems
clear from the use of the words
"ought to be abolished" that the
trainers Of the Maryland Constitu-
tion had in mind some hated thing
which had existed in Colonial Mary
land and which they were determln-
ed should not persist during the new
reign of hoped-for freedom.
There are indeed serious theoret-
ical and practical objections to the
poll tax which have induced other
Of our States than Maryland, as
Ohio. for instance, to forbid its use
by constitutional enactment and
which have given rise from time TO
time to reform movements looKlng
: 10 its abolition in States where II
EXISTS. It is argued that a poll tax,
nv laving an equal burden upon ev-
erv taxable. irrespective Of his abll-
itv TO pay, is harder on the poor
than on the rich.
This form of taxation, moreover
has in practice lent itself in many
instances to political corruption. IL
is claimed by an investigator IN one
of the Johns Hopkins Studies series
that in some of the States using the
poll tax it is a general QaHt5ce Tor
largo groups of the m01A backward
element never to pay the tax them
selves, leaving it to be paid for tnem
nv whatever politician needed their
vote most urgently.
In 1862, four years after the revo-
luton which elected James IL ana
enthroned William and Mary the
MARYLAND Assembly passed what
thev were pleased to call An ACT
for the service Of Almighty God ana
the establishment Of the Protestant
religion in this Province" when
abolished religious liberty and I'M
nosed a DOLL tax for the support OF
the Church of England, though that
church's adherents formed MINOR
itv of the population. Thus the poll
tax was indelibly associated in the
minds of Marylanders with the de-
struction of Maryland's most cher-
ished tradition.
If was forty-three years since the
various religious elements IN the
vorng Colony, Catholic, Puritan and
Anglican, had united under the IN
spiration of the tolerant Calverts 10
mass an "Act Concerning Religion
Generally known as the "Toleratlon
Act" This law not only guaranteed
freedom of worship to all OF the con-
Aicting Christian forces of the tlme'
b11t also provided severe penaltles
for abusive attacks upon any taltn'
The Toleration Act did not create
ra1ioious liberation in Maryland. 1t
was a recognition of an already eA-
isting fact which had preVaileu III
tba Colony from the beginning. II '
was the crystallization OF the lueai {
of 7 ord Baltimore when he planned s
his Colony. ,,,oro |
tbare had developed in Maryland d
5egree of genuine religious tolera- S
+ion nnioue in that intolerant age. {
Tbere were individual bigots IN eacA
,amp. to be sure, but when tneir 1
zeal outran discretion the authorl- t
les Immediately interposed in the G
interests of decency. The measure Oh S
heir sincerity can be taken from =
he fact that, though Catholc tnem-
,eIves. they dealt with something
more than ordinary severity Win
hose of their own church who were
yuilty of offenses against toleratlon.
rhe cases Of William Lewis ana
Thomas Gerard are significant in
tances of scrupulous care to avoid
,artiality in protecting religious
reedom. Cecilius Calvert himself
vas determined that hotheads OF
vhatever faith should not destroy
be tolerant spirit he had set out to
reate.
This spirit prevailed in propor-
ion as the Calvert influence pre-
allied. When that influence began
n weld to the pressure of a large
nd increasing element whose cen
raj religious principle was hatred
f Rome and fear of the Pope, toler-
tion naturally languished, for hat
ed and fear are not ingredients OF
olerations. Finally the Calvert in
uence was destroyed by the Pro-
astant Revolution, which overthrew
1e proprietary government and
1rned the colony over to William
nd Mary as Royal Province. This
,ansfer of power marked the end
{ religious freedom in Colonial
1t was a piece Of poetic
- A. D,,ri+ou attacks I'M