|
|
|
tent as a witness or juror who believes in the existence
of God, and that under His dispensation such person will
be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded
or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to
come; nor shall any person be deemed incompetent as a
witness on account of race or color.
Mr. McKaig moved to strike out all after the word
"practice" where it first occurs, to the word "nor" in the
eighth line, the words proposed to be stricken out being
"unless under the color of religion any man shall disturb
the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall in-
fringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their nat-
ural, civil or religious rights.
Mr. McKaig argued that the provision as it stood was
only toleration, not religious liberty.
Mr. Barry opposed the amendment.
Mr. Jones said the effect of the amendment would be
to take away from the Legislature all regulation of the
Sabbath and laws of morality.
Mr. Ford disagreed with the gentleman from Somerset,
(Mr. Jones, ) and favored the motion to strike out, upon
the ground that the rights intended to be declared were
properly declared in the preceding part of article 36, and
that the Legislature was not restricted from passing any
law that might be necessary to preserve the peace of the
State against any violation of the same under color of re-
ligious freedom.
Mr. Gill argued against striking out. If this were done,
then the laws of morality might be infringed, the natural,
civil and religious rights of persons injured, and there
would be no redress.
Mr. Page was in favor of striking out the words "shall
infringe the laws of morality, " and called for a division on
the question.
Mr. Syester did not suppose the gentleman from Alle-
gany was serious in making the proposition he did. He
then argued at some length against allowing individual
consciences to become the judges of the laws of morality,
and against taking from the Legislature the right to
regulate the laws of morality.
153
|
|
|
|
 |
