ENPages
1
CARROLLTONIAN-EXTRA. Wednesday February 20, 1828.
SKETCH OF Mr. TEACKLES remarks, in the House of Delegates, in the debate upon Sales by Public Auction.
HOUSE OF DELEGATES. Thursday. Feb. 14. 1828. AUCTION DUTIES.
The house having resumed the consideration of the bill to regulate sales by public auction, upon the motion to strike out the enacting clause. Mr. McMahon, the mover of that motion, moved to withdraw it, which, after debate, was refused by the house, and the question reccurring upon the original motion to strike out the first section of the bill, MR. TEACKLE rose and said that before proceeding further in the debate, it became him as the author of the Report upon which the gentleman from the City of Baltimose (Mr. McMahon) was pleased to descant, a few days since, in a style peculiar to himself, to offer some defence of that report; and in doing that it would be proper to state the circumstances which gave rise to the course pursued on that occasion. Mr. Teackle then proceeded as follows: When the bill to regulate sales by public auction, was introduced at the last session, time was requested by the delegates from the City of Baltimore, for the purpose of obtaining information; and the request was readily acceded to — the subject was subsequently postponed, from day to day, until several weeks had been consumed; when it was announced that a deputation of the corporation was coming down to present a memorial to the Legislature, and a further delay was conceded on that account—the deputation was expected early in the ensning week, but did not arrive until Thursday, and the memorial was not delivered until the Monday following, and then at the very moment when the bill in question according to order, was to be taken up —and when presented a motion was made, by the delegate from the City of Baltimore, who handed it to the chair, “that the memorial be laid upon the table”—but that extraordinary proposition was resisted, and the memorial was, (and very properly) referred to the standing committee on Ways and Means. At the next moment a printed copy of the same memorial was laid upon the table of every member. Struck with the impropriety of permitting so plausible an argument on one side of the question to remain unanswered, the further consideration of the bill, (on my motion) was referred to the next day, and the report upon which the gentleman from the City of Baltimore (Mr. McMahon) has been pleased to descant so unceremoniously, was drawn immediately, in the house, and during the progress of legislation: It was considered in the committee on Ways and means, at a special meeting held for the purpose, and adopted without the change of a single word. It was re-considered at a subsequent meeting of the some committee and again adopted without amendment.
I now beg leave to give some illustrations by way of lecture upon the report. Mr. Teackle then proceeded to read the report, (which may be seen in the Journal of the House of Delegates December session 1826, pages 403 to 409, inclusive) and made his remarks and illustrations in passing along—upon arriving at the “view,” of the “expenditures for improving the harbour of Baltimore, and the revenues derived to the city from auction duties, licenses to auctioneers and tonnage on wharves and vessels, he stated, as from official information to be relied upon the aggregate of those expenditures & revenues, for the years 1821 to 1826, to be as follows to wit:— Revenues from Auction duties, 136,994. Licenses to auctioneers 50,200 Tonage upon wharves, 61,572 Dolls. 248,946 Expenditures in improving the harbour apparent 140,054 Balance in favour of the city for the revenues $ 108,892
Mr. Teackle then stated that he would presently shew that very little, if any part, of the auction duties was, in fact, applied to improving the harbour, and that the duty upon tonnage was very nearly, if not quite, sufficient for that purpose —and after adverting to that part of the report from which it appeared that the above large balance derived to the city from sources mainly belonging to the state, was enhanced by the augmented value of her real estate, from the operations of improving the harbour, which augmentation he estimated according to the judgment of persons deemed competent to a due understanding of the matter, to be “sufficient for the eventual redemption of the debt incurred for the improvement of said city”—(the debt for expenditures in the last war; having been reimbursed by the U. States, as understood by Mr Teackle)—he then proceeded to detail the following facts:
From the official statement of monies received and expended by the Register of the city of Baltimore, for the year ending Dec. 31, 1827, there appears under the head of “harbour account” an aggregate charge of $29,895 51
But when the particulars of this account are examined critically, it is manifest that a large portion of that amount is more properly chargeable to the interior improvement of the city.
To wit—For Jones' Falls 2335,21 For Harford street, 59,27 For Extending do. 1071,92 For Hand rail, 330,08 For Walling Harford run 999,54 For Albemarle street, 868,98 For Caroline street 1485,54 For Steam Engine & boat 6215,06 13,365 59
Leaving an apparent expenditure for deepening the harbour of $16,529 92
But as the city is benefited in the improvement of her valuable real estate, by the deposits of the dredging machine, a large portion of that expenditure, say one half of the amount might be deducted on that account. 8,264,96
Which would leave a balance of $8,264 96
But as the Steam Engine for dredging and boat are of a perishable nature, and liable to charge for repairs, over and above the receipts for “hire of the mud-machine, and sales of mud” — for be it known that a revenue is derived for the use of the machine for the excavation of private docks, and sales of mud for the embankment of private wharves, a part of the expenditure for that item, say 1–5 might be added to the above balance. }1,243 01
Making a total of charge proper for the harbour account of $9,507 97
Now let us look at the other side. The duty on tonnage which is sanctioned by an act of Congress, & specifically appropriated to the improvement of the harbour, in the same statement appears as follows. “Tonnage upon wharves” Bay craft $7,079 52 do. Sea vessels. 2937,85 Making together, $10,017 37 deduct “for repairs of wharves” 218,03 Nett revenue derived from tonnage. $9,799,34 Further deduct, the harbour acas above. 9,507,97 Excess of receipts for tonnage, beyond the expenditure for deepening the harbour. 291,37
And thus it would seem that the entire charge of improving the harbour of Baltimore is more than defrayed by the tax upon tonnage, which is chieffully drawn from the Bay craft, and that no part of the auction duties are, necessarily applicable to that charge. But we will inspect the exhibit of those duties in the Register statement before referred to— The amount extended for “auction
| duties” is | $25,970 11 |
|---|---|
| “ditto permit do.” | 1,407 07 |
Mr. Teackle then resumed the report and dwelt upon the fact that “of the vast revenues of the corporation, amounting to $214,718,” more than three fourths, or a sum exceeding $170,000 was drawn, in a great degree, indirectly, from the pockets of the people in the several counties
Upon taking up that part of the report which presents a statement of the gross amount of foreign produce and Manufactures annually consumed in Maryland, of the proportion sold by public auction, and of their consumption in Baltimore, and in the counties, relatively. Mr. Teackle remarked that, the gentleman (Mr. McMahon) had indulged his wonted humour in impugning the “estimates” of the report; but had he read a little further he might have found substantial grounds for those “estimates”—such grounds, as he conceived would have proved as conclusive and satisfactory, to the house, as they had at the last session—that those assumptions were founded upon the fact that “the whole of the Asiatic and Colonial produce and manufactures, with rare exceptions, and a large proportion of other goods are passed through the auction stores.”
Mr. Teackle proceeded and said, if I understood the gentleman, (Mr. McMahon) correctly, he attempted to deny that so much as three millions was sold at auction in Baltimore, whilst he admitted, at the same time, the avails received by the corporation to be thirty thousand dollars; and the rate of duty being one per centum, the amount stated, to wit: 3,000,000, would result as a necessary carollary.
I would ask the gentleman if he meant to assert, seriously, that real estate and ships and vessels are at present subject to auction duty in Baltimore, or any where else—and whether the collection of such duty upon sales of land would not be, in effect and operation, a most oppressive and unjust tax—upon the whole, it will be found that the list of exceptions in the pending bill is in accordance with common usage in such cases; it is the same, substantially, which now exist in Baltimore, in Philadelphia and in New York.
Mr. Teackle admitted, according to the report, that the improvement of the harbour was an object of desire to all who trade to Baltimore, but denied the justice of achieving that improvement at the common charge of the whole state—that, it was equally true, the improvement of a rich estate, by means of roads and draining ditches was essential to the convenience and accommodation of those resorting to the estate, but it did not follow that visitors, or persons having business with the landlord, or rich proprietor, were bound to contribute to that improvement.
With regard to assertion that the revenues paid by the city of Baltimore into the treasury of the state are paid in the ratio of population, and distributed in the ratio of territory, the pretension was rejected as inadmisable—on the contrary it was demonstrable that, “not only a large proportion of the amount, apparently paid by the city,” was, in effect, drawn indirectly, from the interior sections of the state; and that an “inordinate capital has been absorbed from year to year, through a long series of years, by direct appropriations to various objects within the city, numerous acts of incorporation, and other indirect appropriations, to the great injury and impoverishment, of the country by deleterious and withering abstractions, and the enriching of the city by accumulations of floating capital” —that it was also demonstrable, from history and experience, “that commercial cities, from the earliest ages of antiquity to modern times, and the present era, had operated as absorbing sponges upon the common fruits of national labor—absorbing the political blood, and essential aliment of the great body of the population; and that this absorption of the wealth of the country, the essence and marrow of the common people, was the natural effect, and the inevitable consequence of concentrated population, and the peculiar attractions, of trade and traffic — and whilst this effect results from a cause so absolute, and imperative, it becomes the wisdom of the Legislature to exercise a sound discretion in the exercise of its taxing power, and the distribution of its revenues—to guard against the paralizing influence of a principle so powerfully tending to exhaust the energies of the state, through the agency of a great source of public income, unjustly devoted to the exclusive use of one community or favored city.”
Having completed his review of the report, Mr. T said, I will now turn to the honorable gentleman from the city of Baltimore, (Gen. Steuart) who spoke last upon this question, and will freely accord with the gentleman, that it is enough for an individual to be distinguished in any department of the arts and science, or in one of the learned professions. The gentleman is a lawyer, and I readily admit a very learned and profound lawyer; but we have lately witnessed the engenuity of lawyers, that they make “the worse appear the better cause”—but I will concede that, although but recently delivered from the nest of political incubation, and scarcely fledged in this house — the shell of the egg from which he was hatched almost visible upon his back—that he has displayed an extraordinary talent, an admirable proficiency in the abs true science of legislation —and after having conceded thus much I am very sure that the learned gentleman, from that courtesy and amenity of disposition for which he is so remarkable, will make to me some small concession I profess sir, to be a merchant, both theoretic and practical, of long experience in various commerce, vested in the laws of exchange and insurances, the business of banking, and sales by auction, and the necessary knowledge of a merchant includes the doctrine of revenue; and quo ad hoc. I claim some fitness for legislation upon this subject.
The honorable gentleman, however, must pardon me for believing that he has mistaken the character of this bill in many particulars; and that his tabular statements, elaborated at great length, and detailed with infinite patience, do not apply to this system; and without attempting to follow the gentleman through all his course of calculation and deduction, I will assure the house that it is a system well matured, and well constructed in all its parts—a system with which its friends are satisfied, and from its enemies they neither ask, nor expect amendments.
Mr. Teackle then explained the relative rates of duty on sales by auction, and the tax on licences at Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York; and found that the proposed charge was lower than the present duty in either of these cities— he proceeded to state that the course of the gentleman yea, of both of the gentlemen from the city of Baltimore, appeared to be somewhat unreasonable and inconsistent—they are strenuous advocates for large investments of the public money in rail roads, whilst they oppose, with all the might of their eloqueuce, the essential supply of ways and means— I accord, said he, with these gentlemen in the policy of supporting a liberal system of improvement, but cannot consent that such support shall be drawn by partial and unjust exactions from the landed interest. The support of measures calculated to promote the welfare of the whole state, demand an equal contribution from all property without exception, or privilege; this is the true and equitable basis, and the faithful observance, in actual practice, of this principle, will promote the prosperity of every class, and confirm a system of incalculable value upon the best assured and stable grounds.
To conclude, I would not have it to be believed that I am actuated, in this question, by bad feeling towards the city of Baltimore. I would repudiate the charge with indignation, and should abhor myself for entertaining such a feeling. In local concerns I stand here as an humble delegate from one of the lowest of the lower counties; but in matters of revenue or of general improvement, I can act only as the representative of the whole state; and in so acting, I can be govorned only by the best lights of my own judgment, and the dictates of a pure conscience—I profess to act upon general principles, with a sole regard to public good; and upon those principles, and with that regard, I will always act whilst enjoying the confidence of my constituents, and honored by a seat in this house.
The bill passed ayes 55, noes 14
