So the Convention decided that the section
should not be stricken out.
The question then recurred and was taken on
the adoption of the said thirty-fourth article, and
having been decided in the affirmative, the arti-
cle was adopted.
The thirty-fifth article was then read, and no
amendment having been offered thereto, was
adopted as follows:
Art. 35. That no other test or qualification
ought to be required, or admission to any office
of trust or profit, than such oath of support and
fidelity to this State and the United States, and
such oath of office as shall be directed by this
Convention or the Legislature of this State.
The thirty-sixth article was read as follows:
Art. 36. That the manner of administering
an oath to any person ought to be such as those of
the religious persuasion, profession or denomina-
tion of which such person is one, generally es-
teemed the most effectual confirmation by the at-
testation of the Divine Being, and that the peo-
ple called Quakers, and those called Tunkers,
and those called Menonists, and all others con-
scientiously scrupulous of taking an oath on any
occasion, ought to be allowed to make their
solemn affirmation in the manner that Quakers
have been heretofore allowed to affirm, and to be
of the same avail as an oath, in all such cases as
the affirmation of Quakers hath been allowed and
accepted within this State, instead of an oath.
And on such affirmation, warrants to search for
stolen goods, or the apprehension or commitment
of offenders, ought to be granted, or security for
the peace awarded, and Quakers, Tunkers, Men-
onists and such others ought also, on their solemn
affirmation as aforesaid, to be admitted as wit-
nesses in all criminal cases.
Mr. PARKE moved to amend it by striking out
all after the word "being," in the fourth line, to
the end of the said article, and inserting in lieu
thereof the following:
"And all persons who are conscientiously scru-
pulous about taking an oath on any occasion, shall
be allowed to make their solemn affirmation, in
the manner heretofore practised, which shall be
in all cases of the same avail as an oath.
Mr. BOWIE said he understood that the reli-
gious creeds of some sects interdicted them from
taking an oath. These had therefore been per-
mitted to substitute their solemn affirmation.
Formerly, every man was obliged to take an
oath. Any man who may choose to aay that he
is connected with a certain sect, and that his
scruples of conscience forbid him from taking an
oath, may now escape. It was likely, in his opin-
ion, to open the door to great frauds.
Mr. DONALDSON stated that on reference to the
old Constitution, it would be found that all the
different sects were enumerated. Quakers, Tunk-
ers or Menonists,, are all embraced in the old bill
of rights.
Mr. PARKE said that he did not wish to keep
this array of names in the bill of rights. He de-
sired to embrace all who were conscientiously
scruplous on the subject of taking an oath. Be-
sides this, he saw no necessity for retaining the
last part of the article. That part of the article

seemed to him to be entirely unnecessary. His
amendment, if properly understood would be
found to contain all that the previous article had
contained, and it would have this advantage,
that it greatly simplified the former provision.
The question was then taken, and, by ayes 34,
noes 32, the amendment was rejected.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the said thirty-sixth article.
Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, moved to amend the
said article by striking out all after the word
'' oath," in the tenth line, to the end thereof.
The question was taken and the amendment
was agreed to.
Mr. RANDALL moved to amend the said article
by adding at the end thereof, the following :
" And that an oath may be legally administer-
ed to any person who believes in a state of fu-
ture rewards and punishments by a Supreme
Being in this life or in the life to come."
The PRESIDENT, pro tem., intimated his opin-
ion that the amendment having been once voted
down, was not in order.
Some conversation followed on the point of
order, when,
The PRESIDENT, pro tem., said he would put
the question.
After some further conversation,
The question was taken and the amendment of
Mr. RANDALL was rejected.
And then the article, as amended, was adopt-
ed.
The thirty-seventh article was read as follows:
Art. 37. That the city of Annapolis ought to
have all its rights, privileges and benefits, agreea-
ble to its Charter and the Acts of Assembly con-
firming and regulating the same; subject, never-
theless, to such alterations as have been made by
the Legislature or as may be made by this Con-
vention or any future Legislature.
Mr. BISER moved to strike out the said arti-
cle.
A motion was made that the Convention ad-
journ.
The convention refused to adjourn.
After some conversation,
The question was taken on the motion of Mr.
BISER;
And the amendment was rejected.
The thirty-seventh article was then adopted.
The thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth, and fortieth
articles of the report were then read, and no
amendment having been offered thereto, were
adopted as follows:
Art. 38. That the liberty of the press ought to
be inviolably preserved.
Art. 39. That monopolies are odious, contrary
to the spirit of a free government and the principles
of commerce, and ought not to be suffered.
Art. 40. That no title of nobility or hereditary
honors, ought to be granted in this State.
The forty-first article was read as follows:
Art. 41, That this declaration of rights, or the
form of government to be established by this Con-
vention, Or any part of either of them, ought not
to be altered, changed or abolished, but in such
manner as this Convention shall prescribe and
direct.