may be necessary. It relates to a mere role of
evidence, which can be settled by law; and if we
are to go on and insert in the Constitution provis-
ions regulating all the rules of evidence in dispute,
the instrument will be very greatly and unneces-
sarily encumbered, while its adoption by the
people would be greatly endangered. Such a
result, he had no doubt, was not desired by the
members of this Convention and should be avoid-
ed, especially if it could be done (as in this in-
stance) without the denial of a single right to
the people. He would vote against the amend-
ment.
The question on the amendment was then ta-
ken, and resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Morgan, Hopewell, Bell,
. Welch, Ridgely, Eccleston, Chambers of Cecil,
Miller, Bowie, McCubbin, Thomas, Shriver,
Gaither, Biser, Sappington, Gwinn, Brent of
Baltimore city, Fiery, John Newcomer, Michael
Newcomer, Weber, Parke, Ege, Shower, and
Cockey—25.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey,
Wells', Randall, Kent, Sellman, Weems, Dal-
rymple, Merrick, Buchanan, Chandler, Sherwood
of Talbot, Colston, John Dennis, Crisfleld,
Dashiell, Williams, Phelps, McLane, Sprigg,
George, McMaster, Fooks, Jacobs, Stephenson,
McHenry, Nelson, Carter, Stewart of Caroline,
Harbine, Davis, Anderson, Hollyday and Slicer
—38.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. BISER now offered the following amend-
ment which he had yesterday indicated his inten-
tion to offer:
"Strike out from the word liberty, in the third
line, to the end of said article, ana insert in lieu
thereof, the following:
"Therefore, no religious test shall be required
as a qualification for any office of public trust,
that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship without discrimination or
preference shall ever be allowed in this State,
and that no person shall be rendered incompetent
to be a witness on account of his opinion on
matters of religious belief, but the liberty of con-
science hereby secured, shall not be construed as
to excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify
practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of
this State."
Mr. DORSEY offered the following substitute,
which (he said) he would be glad if the gentle-
man would accept;
Add at the end of the said article, the follow-
ing:
"Nor shall any person he deemed incompetent
as a witness or a juror, or disqualified to hold
any office under the laws or Constitution of this
State, except as hereinafter provided by the
Constitution of this State, who believes in the
existence of a God, and that under his dispensa-
tion such person will be held morally account-
able for his acts, and be rewarded or punished
therefor, either in this world or in the world to
come."
Mr. BISER accepted this proposition as a modi-
fication of his own.

Mr. RANDALL called for the reading of the
substitute, which was again read.
Mr. MORGAN said, he would not to be willing
to admit ministers to hold seats in the House of
Delegates or any political body. The amend-
ment seemed to him to go further than the gen-
tleman from Anne Arundel intended. He, (Mr.
M.) said that he was willing to admit as witnesses
all who believed in a future state of rewards and
punishments,
Mr. DORSEY modified his substitute so as to in-
sert the words "except as hereafter provided by
the Constitution."
Mr. RANDALL said, it had been generally con-
ceded, according to modern decisions, that a man
is a competent witness who believes in a future
state of rewards and punishments, whether here
or hereafter. He thought the Convention gen-
erally acquiesced in this opinion. The question
is, where should this provision be placed ? It
refers to the right of conscience, and he thought
the proper place for it would be in the thirty-
sixth article. It was cognate to the place where
it is now introduced. The thirty-sixth article re-
lates to the oath and to the manner in which it
shall be administered. He was disposed to
amend the thirty-sixth article so as to mate it
more specific. The thirty-third article refers to
the duty of every man to worship God in such
manner as he pleases. The thirty-sixth article
relates to the qualification of a witness, to his
rights as a citizen of the State. He thought,
therefore, that the best course would be to reject
the amendment now proposed, and to insert, in
lieu of it, the substitute which he now offered to
come in at the head of the thirty-sixth article.
Mr. DORSEY differed from his colleague. He,
thought the provision more appropriate where it
was now proposed, than where his colleague wish-
ed to place it. It did not apply to official oaths
but was a general provision that those who were
presented as jurors or witnesses, should not be excluded
if they entertained a belief in a state of
future rewards and punishments, He thought,
therefore, that the provision was better where it
now is, and where it is entirely appropriate.
He did not concur in the statement that the prac-
tice is settled in England, that none but one who
believes in a future state of rewards and punish-
ments is a competent witness. He did not so
understand it. Some of the Judges in this State
are of opinion, that a man must believe not in a
state of future rewards and punishments, but in a
future state of rewards and punishments. The
object of the amendment is to remove that diffi-
culty. He had no particular wish to place it in
this section, but he thought it the most appropri-
ate place for it.
Mr. RANDALL thought the thirty-fifth article
was a very proper place, as it relates to the test
or qualification required on admission to any office
of trust. The thirty-third article sets forth the
duty of every man to worship God in such man-
ner as he thinks most acceptable; and the thirty-
sixth article prescribes the manner of adminis-
tering as oath to witnesses. These are the three
articles which relate to the subject, and it was
his object to keep them distinct. He thought it