ment upon many weighty matters he had often to
rely, were gentlemen not bred to the law.
To intelligent men he never had any fear of
speaking the truth; it is only the ignorant who
profess to know every thing. Lawyers bow
with deference to the superior attainments of
others, who have devoted their lives to a particu-
lar calling.
To draught a law or frame a Constitution
is in many respects peculiarly appropriate to
lawyers, though to pass upon its expediency or
fitness for the wants of the people required
sound common sense, which belonged to no class
exclusively.
He repeated what he had said, of the certain
definition of the term, infamous crime. He had
tried cases where witnesses was objected to as
incompetent to testify, having committed an in-
famous crime; the courts and lawyers readily
understood the term. The party in order to tes-
tify, must have purged himself of the offence be-
having served out the punishment allotted, or
produce the evidence of pardon.
Mr. SOLLERS said, he was not satisfied with the
explanation of the gentleman from Baltimore.
It appeared then, that the courts had to deter-
mine this question. What is, and what is not an
infamous crime, is a rule of court, to be decided
by the dictum of the court. But if it so happen
that the court disagree, who is to decide? Take
the case of aduel; it is an assault with intent to
kill, but although no one is hurt, yet the accused
may be convicted of an infamous crime and must
pay the penalty And yet, would any man pre-
tend to say that such a person ought to be re-
garded as infamous? According to the definition
of the gentleman from Baltimore, however, he
might be held so by the decision of the court.
Mr. CONSTABLE objected to the phrase infa-
mous crimes, because its meaning was uncertain,
and there might be a want of uniformity in its
application, arising from a diversity of opinion
as to import, which would operate injustice.
He also thought it objectionable as investing
the legislature with an indefinite power to ex-
tend these disabilities. Whatever might have
been the crimes known as infamous at common
law, and he believed there were none below the
grade of felony, it was obvious that they might
be multiplied indefinitely by statute. Thus for-
gery, which was not a felony at common law, and
hence not embraced in the class of offences
which it denounced as infamous had been made
so by act of parliament.
In the same manner, assault and battery and
other trivial misdemeanors, may be made infa-
mous crimes, and those who commit them be sub-
jected to the harsh disabilities imposed by this
section. This phrase then, was liable to be ex-
tended both by legislation and construction, and if
done by the latter, the same crime when commit-
ted by different persons might not always be visit-
ed with these disabilities. In order to obviate
this objection, though not that resulting from leg-
islative extensions, which could only be avoided
by a specific enumeration of the offences intended
to work these disabilities, he would move to sub-

stitute the word, felony, for the phrase, infamous
crimes.
The amendment was not now in order.
The question was then stated to be on the
amendment of Mr. CHAMBERS, of Kent, and hav-
ing been taken.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CONSTABLE then offered his amendment,
(as above indicated.)
A brief legal discussion, technical and collo-
quial in its character, here took place; in which
it was contended, by Mr. CONSTABLE, that if the
infamy of an offence was decided by the fact of
confinement in the penitentiary, under the fifth
amendment to the Federal Constitution, the of-
fence of assault and battery is infamous, because
it is presentable in the United States courts by a
Grand Jury, and punishable by confinement in
the penitentiary. He also stated, that in Har-
ford county, a man who had been convicted of
an infamous crime twenty years before, and had
served out his imprisonment, was rejected as an
incompetent witness.
Mr. CHAMBERS dissented from this view, that
assault and battery, and misdemeanor, could be
classed among infamous crimes.
Mr. PRESSTMAN insisted that the gentleman
from Cecil, (Mr. Constable,) had raised this
question as on argument, which did not express
his real sentiments, and contended that the term
" infamous crime," exists in the law books with
a technical meaning, including treason, felony
and all offences which come within the " crimen
falsi" of the Roman law. To avoid uncertainty,
the committee had designaled some offences by
name, and then added the word " infamous " to
cover the rest. Because the courts may commit
errors, was not a sufficient reason for changing
the language of the books.
The question then recurred and was taken on
the amendment of Mr. CONSTABLE.
The amendment was agreed to,
The question then recurred on the amendment
of Mr. STEWART, of Caroline.
Mr. CHAMBERS said, the gentleman from Cal-
vert, (Mr. Weems,) had asked what was to be
understood by the words "infamous crime," and
had remarked that to spit in the face of a gentle-
man would be an "infamous crime."
Mr. WEEMS explained. He did not say it
would be. He put the matter hypothetically.
He repeated what he had before said.
Mr. CHAMBERS said, let it be so. He then
went into a technical argument to show that the
term was known to common law and to lawyers.
It was very desirable to use definite language,
and when words had acquired a known meaning,
the more technical the better. Nothing produ-
ced more confusion than the use of words of vari-
ous significations. He instanced the word "clever,"
which in different locations indicated very differ-
ent qualities, such as intelligence in one place,
honesty in another, and fine social habits in a
third. He denied that assault, and battery was
at common law regarded as amongst "infamous
crimes," nor was it so classed by the fifth section
of the amendments to the Constitution of the
United States, as had been said by the gentleman