"no sectarian;" still he had his prepossessions. But
it would be congenial to his own feelings) as it
surely would be to the spirit of the age in which
we lived, that all these harsh and invidious re-
straints should be billed out from our statutes.
He referred to the former history of the State, to
show how little sympathy her people had mani-
fested in that bigoted and intolerant spirit which
would inflict punishment upon men for the mere
sake of religious opinion, and expressed the hope
that the Representatives here assembled, for high
and solemn purposes, would follow the glorious
example held up to them by our sister States,
and place upon an equality all men who believed
in the existence of a Supreme Being.
Mr. MERRICK obtained the floor, but yielded
for the moment to,
Mr. TUCK, who suggested to the gentleman
from Baltimore county, (Mr. Ridgely,) that the
more appropriate place for his amendment, would
be the thirty-sixth article.
Mr. RIDGELY intimating his intention to adhere
to the amendment at this point.
Mr. TUCK proceeded to remark, that the ques-
tion involved in it, was one of much delicacy and
importance, and that any provision, in relation to
it, which might be engrafted in the Constitution,
should be drawn with great circumspection and
care. It seemed to him, however, that the most
appropriate place for the amendment, was the
thirty-sixth article, and he would, therefore,
move that the pending article be informally pas-
sed over, (as had been done with a previous arti-
cle, on a former day, ) in order that it might here-
after be taken up.
My own opinion, (continued Mr. T.) is that
the true question to be put to a witness,
should be whether, according to his religious
faith, whatever that faith might be, he believed
in a State of future rewards and punishments.
Every man ought to be presumed to have some
religion—a religion which teaches him to look
up to a Divine Being—to a First Great Cause—
and to acknowledge his belief in Him. And I
say that every man who comes upon the stand,
and avows his belief in a Divine Being—who ac-
knowledges himself responsible for deeds done
upon earth—ought to be allowed to testify, for,
as has been well said, the most respectable men
in the community, whose word, in any matter of
business, would be taken in preference to the oath
of some men, are turned from the witness stand,
whilst the testimony of any one, however worth-
less, is admitted, if he will only say that he be-
lieves in a future state of rewards and punishments.

Mr. T. thought that the better way was to
leave these questions, as to the competency of
witnesses, to be regulated by the Legislature.
But if this Convention is to pronounce its judg-
ment of the question, he thought the appropriate
place was the thirty-sixth article, and he there-
fore moved to lay aside this amendment for the
present.
Mr. MERRICK said, that gentlemen had argued
the question as if this were a proposition to en-
graft on the Bill of Rights, a religious teat. No

such idea existed. On the contrary, the whole
scope and object of the article was to proclaim
the largest possible latitude to all persons as to
their religious opinions. Gentlemen get up,
talked about religious liberty, and involved the
genius of Maryland, as if some great outrage
were in contemplation. Such arguments were
totally inapplicable. The amendment actually
proposed to restrict and limit the natural force
and efficacy of the article as it stood in the Bill
of Rights. Such, was the import of the language
of the amendment, whatever its object might be.
Whatever evils existed could be better left to the
general action of the Legislature, than be speci-
ally provided for by the organic law. God for-
bid that it should be supposed that he would
place restrictions upon any class of oar citizens
on account of their religious opinions. Nothing
could be further from his wishes. All he desired
was to bring the Convention to consider the na-
ture of the work they had in hand, in order that
they might confine themselves to it—and leave
all matters proper for future deliberation and
general legislation to the action of the Legisla-
ture. This was certainly one of these matters.
Mr. CHANDLER desired to say a few words in
explanation. He held that every man had the
right to worship God, according to the dictates
of his own conscience. To whichsoever of the
many religious creeds into which men have divi-
ded themselves, he may belong, he has this right.
But the object of the remarks he had made was
that those who do not worship God in any form,
and who have no hope of future rewards, nor
fear of future punishments to influence their con-
duct, ought not to be permitted to act as jurors.
He did not concur in opinion with the gentleman
from Frederick, that persons who acknowledge
no moral responsibility are more to be relied on
than those who do.
Mr. HARBINE stated his intention to vote
against the amendment, not because he was op-
posed to the fullest extent of religions toleration,
or to the principle that every man should be per-
mitted to exercise his own conscience in matters
of religious faith, without forfeiting any of his
rights: but for the reason assigned by the gentleman
from Charles (Mr. Merrick) that it was not
necessary to engraft such a provision in the or-
ganic law. it was a power within reach of the
Legislature. It had, been said by his colleague
(Mr. Fiery) that it has been used for the purpose
of preventing a respectable class of citizens from
being sworn as witnesses. If he thought such a
construction would be put on the provisions of
the new Constitution, he would go in favor of the
amendment. But the new Constitution will not
admit of the same construction as the old one.
He referred to the change which had been made
in the thirty-third article of the Bill of Rights
to shew that the construction put on that article
in the old Constitution would not be applicable
to the new one. The other reason for opposing
the amendment had been better explained by
the gentleman from Charles than he could ex-
plain it. It is within the competence of the
Legislature to make such laws on the subject as