The statement previously sent was taken from
the certificates of Assistant Marshals, which were
in many instances incorrect.
I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully,
your obedient servant,
JOS. C. G. KENNEDY,
Sup't. of Census.
Hon. J. G. CHAPMAN., Pres. Con., Annapolis.
Which was read and referred to the commit-
tee on representation.
The PRESIDENT also laid before the Conven-
tion a report from the clerk of Worcester county
court, relative to fees paid the Deputy Attorney
General of said county, in obedience to the order
of the Convention;
Which was read and referred to the committee
appointed on the Attorney General and his Depu-
ties.
On motion of Mr. BISER, the Convention pro-
ceeded to the orders of the day.
THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
The Convention resumed the consideration of
the order of the day, being the report submitted
by Mr. DORSET on the 11th ult., as chairman of
the committee on the declaration of rights.
RELIGIOUS TESTS.
The article under discussion yesterday, was
the thirty-third article in the words following :
Art. 33. That as it is the duty of every man
to worship God in such manner as bethinks most
acceptable to him, all persons are equally enti-
tled to protection in their religious liberty ;
wherefore, no person ought by any law to be mo-
lested in his person or estate, on account of his
religious persuasion or profession, or for his re-
ligious practice, unless under color of religion,
any man shall disturb the good order, peace, or
safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of
morality, or injure others in their natural, civil
or religious rights; nor ought any person to be
compelled to frequent or maintain or contri-
bute, unless on contract to maintain any place of
worship or any ministry.
And the pending question was on the motion
of Mr. RIDGELY, to amend said article by insert-
ing after the word " estate," in the fourth line,
the following:
"Or suffer any civil or political incapacity."
Mr. RIDGELY said, the amendment under con-
sideration he had endeavored to explain on yes-
terday at the time of adjournment; he would now
ask the indulgence of the house, to state more
fully its purpose. It was intended for a two-fold
object. The article is designed to secure to
every citizen the rights of conscience, the privi-
lege unrestrained of religious worship, and to
protect him in person and estate from molesta-
tion, in the exercise of those rights; here the
amendment comes in, and enlarges the language
of the article, by providing also, that he shall
"suffer no civil or political incapacity" on ac-
count of his religious opinion; the right to form
and enjoy which, it is intended to secure to him.
He had stated on yesterday, that his purpose was
by this amendment, to relieve a large and highly

respectable class of people who did not believe
in a state of future rewards and punishments,
from a civil disability, now resting upon them,
and also to dispense with all tests for office, which
imposed belief in future rewards and punishments
as a qualification for such office. The latter pur-
pose it was said was obviated by the 35th article.
He thought not, but if he was mistaken in opinion,
he was willing to modify his amendment to that
extent, although, he could see no propriety for a
distinct article on that subject, when the words
"civil or political incapacity" would cover the
entire ground. It had been argued yesterday by
the gentleman from Anne Arundel, (Mr. Don-
aldson,) that there was no necessity for the first
branch of the amendment, because, as the law
now stood, any person was qualified as a
witness, who believed in a Supreme Being, and
moral accountability to that Being under pain of
punishment in this, or a future world. Such he
begged to say, was not the law of Maryland, how-
ever it may be elsewhere. In the courts of
Maryland, the question usually propounded to a
witness was, Do you believe in a future state of
rewards and punishments? If the witness an-
swered in the negative, he was rejected as in-
competent on account of his religious belief.
Such had been the practice in Baltimore county,
in Frederick and in Washington, and as he un-
derstood from the honorable gentleman from
Kent, (Mr. Chambers,) in his district. He was
not prepared to say, whether this was a proper
exposition of the common law, from which the
principle was derived; he spoke of it only as it
existed in Maryland, as a serious, and oppres-
sive civil, disability operating upon many con-
scientious and worthy citizens. He said he was
aware that a much more enlightened application
of the common law rule now prevailed in Eng-
land, and in many of the States; that the rule had
been much relaxed elsewhere; and the modern
doctrine out of Maryland now was, that belief in a
Supreme Being, and the certainty of punishment
by that Being for human acts in this world or in the
world to come, was all that was required, but he
repeated that the old English doctrine of belief
in rewards and punishments in a future world,
still prevailed in some of the courts of the State.
It was to relieve from this civil disability
citizens who did not entertain such religious be-
lief, that the amendment was designed. He
would have employed the language, which was
used in the New York Constitution, "that a
man's religious opinions should not render him
incompetent as a witness in any court of law or
equity;" but he had doubts, whether incompeten-
cy as a witness was the only civil disability,
which might arise on account of religious opin-
ions, under the rule of law which obtained in
some of the county courts. He did not know
whether the question had ever been raised, or
decided, whether disbelief in a state of future
rewards and punishments, would disqualify &
juror, but he could well imagine that the rule
would equally apply to a juror, as to a witness;
and would, under the existing exposition of the
law, be a good ground of challenge. He had,
therefore, used comprehensive language, so as to