church. He was no sectarian. Believing him-
self in the doctrines of Christianity, he had al-
ways entertained the opinion that every civil offi-
cer of the State of Maryland, when entering up-
on the discharge of his duties, had to subscribe
to a belief in the Christian religion, or at least in
a state of future rewards and punishments. And
when the gentleman from Baltimore county,(Mr.
Ridgely,) offered an amendment, the object of
which, as he, (Mr. W.) conceived, was to depart
from the good old system which had so long ex-
isted iii our State, he felt it to be his duty to op-
pose it. He was also of opinion that it would
open the door to the admission of ministers of the
gospel into ow legislative halls. He intended to
vote against any such innovation.
He did not pretend that his opinions upon this
or any other question were infallible, but, he be-
lieved, that if no restraints were to be imposed—
if a man did not so far believe in the doctrines of
Christianity, as to have some dread of eternal
retribution—the result would be, that the better
portion of mankind would be placed at the
mercy of that corrupt and depraved portion, who
would not hesitate to swear to any thing, how-
ever diabolical, which might subserve their own
purposes of interest, malice, or revenge. He had
declared yesterday, and he now repeated, that, in
his opinion, all those persons who were so cal-
lous as to proclaim their disbelief in a state of
future rewards and punishments, should be ex-
cluded from testifying. This was his judgment.
He had declared it yesterday, and would acknow-
ledge it any where. This, however, was a mere
matter of opinion. He would go as far as any
gentleman, to promote and secure religious toler-
ation, but he thought that the adoption of this
amendment would open wide the door for im-
morality, and lead to a total disregard of the
solemn obligations of an oath. For these rea-
sons he should vote against the amendment.
Mr. DONALDSON suggested a contingency in
which, under the amendment of the gentleman
from Baltimore county, (Mr. Ridgely,) difficulty
might arise; and said, he, (Mr. D.,) thought the
amendment went beyond the gentleman's own
meaning or intention. To avoid ambiguity, and
make the amendment more explicit, he sug-
gested to the mover to place it at the end of the
section, though he, (Mr. D„) was of opinion that
it would come in better as an amendment to the
thirty-sixth article.
Mr. BRENT) of Baltimore city, offered an
amendment, to come in at the end of the section,
[and which as subsequently modified by Mr.
RIDGELY, read as follows:]
"Provided, That nothing herein shall be con-
strued so as to qualify as witnesses, jurors or
judges, or other officers under the constitution
and laws of this State, any Atheist or other per-
son who does not believe in any accountability
to the Supreme Being for his acts."
Mr. RIDGELY said that this amendment suited
his views, and he would therefore accept it as a
modification of his own.
And the question being on the modified amend-
ment,

Messrs. MCLANE and RIDGELY asked the yeas
and nays, which were ordered,
Mr. MCLANE called for the reading of the arti-
cle, as it would stand with the modified amend-
ment.
And it was read.
Mr. RANDALL suggested that the gentleman
from Baltimore county, (Mr. Ridgely,) had con-
fined the application of his amendment to two
classes, whereas there were hundreds of officers
who were to take the oath. Did the gentleman
intend that the amendment should apply to all,
or only to a part?
Mr. RIDGELY modified his amendment to meet
this suggestion.
Mr. CHANDLER thought that the Convention
should be very cautious in throwing off the moral
restraints, which should guide and control men
when about to give their testimony upon the wit-
ness stand. It was contended that every man
had the right to worship God according to the
dictates of his own conscience. This doctrine
was believed by every branch of the Christian
church; and no law, no organic regulation should
be introduced, the effect of which, would be to
deprive men from the exercise of that sacred privi-
lege. But there were classes of men who did
not believe in God, nor worship him, nor ac-
knowledge any responsibility to him. He was
opposed to such men being called upon to give
testimony in any case—because, there was no
moral restraint to guide them in bearing testi-
mony to the truth. It might be said, that such
men might be thrown on their honor. Why not
then throw all men upon their honor, and allow
the most reckless and abandoned characters to
come in and bear testimony without check, res-
ponsibility, or restraint of any kind ?
The gentleman from Calvert, (Mr. Weems,)
had objected to the amendment, because he
thought that, under its provisions, a minister of
the gospel might find his way into our legislative
halls.
He, (Mr. C.,) opposed the amendment on no
such ground. He did not think that, in the part
which he had taken in the deliberations of this
body, he had given much evidence of being a
dangerous man; and, in taking a view of our fel-
low citizens generally, he thought that ministers
of the gospel were found to be as quiet and
peaceable as any other class.
He repeated, therefore, that he did not oppose
the amendment on that ground; but he thought
that ministers had equal rights in every respect,
with other citizens. As to the expediency or
propriety of their serving in the legislative halls,
that was a question to be left to the judgment of
their own consciences, and to the decision of the
people at the ballot box.
He proceeded to refer, in language of high
eulogy, to the patriotism, the fortitude, and the
self-sacrificing devotion with which this class of
our citizens, had stood forward in the front of
the battle during our revolutionary struggle, and
asked, whether we were now to be told that min-
isters of the gospel were not entitled to equal priv-
ileges with ourselves, and that they were only