tions. If, therefore, be should succeed in his
amendment, the effect is to be, that we admit
those only who are either ignorant, or regardless
of their solemn vows and duties.
Now, would the gentleman, or would the Con-
vention, be willing to put into the Constitution a
provision, directing in terms that ministers, un-
worthy of the character they bear, and none oth-
ers, should be considered proper candidates for
these responsible offices ? Certainly not. Then
why should they adopt a provision, the necessary
and practical effect of which, would be precisely
the same ? The gentleman had used one expres-
sion, the force of which he could not have duly
considered. He had deplored the exclusion of
his clerical brethren from the participation of
the "loaves and fishes"—the significant expres-
sion by which John Randolph defined office and
emolument.
Did the gentleman mean to intimate that min-
isters of the gospel were to be influenced by such
sordid motives, as to neglect the spiritual inter-
ests of immortal souls to secure the paltry sum of
four dollars a day ? Or did he suppose the Con-
vention capable of being influenced by a desire to
secure it for laymen exclusively ? Surely not.
He would remark, in answer to what the gen-
tleman had said about lawyers, that it would have
been more candid, if he bad stated, what he and
every other minister must know, that the persons
alluded to in the texts he has referred to, were
"Doctors of Divinity"—teachers of Divine law—
not such persons as are now known by the term
lawyers.
Having passed his whole life at the bar and
bench, he might be permitted to add a word in de-
fence of lawyers as a body. He would remark
to the gentleman, that be who assailed them would
be apt to get a hornet's nest about him in the first
place, and would fail to enlist public sentiment in
the next. There were, undoubtedly, bad men in
the profession. So there were bad men in every
profession and department of life. But as a body
—as a class—they were entitled to as much re-
spect as any other class of citizens. It was, per-
haps, not saying more than history and fact would
justify, to assert that they were the authors and
effective promoters of all the great political
movement; which had ameliorated the condition
of man, in his civil and political relations; the
pioneers in all the great struggles for freedom
against tyranny. It was, then, so far from being
true, that this long standing provision, which ex-
cludes preachers from the legislative hall, originated
in the want of proper regard and respect
for the ministerial office, that the motive was to
preserve it pure and blameless.
It was asked, why not protect them ? We did
give them the protection best suited to their wants
—protection against the vices, the snares, the
temptations incident to political life. We have
too much need for their valuable services, in re-
straining our own violations of the pure precepts
which would make saints of sinners, too much in-
terest to have them possess the virtues they should
teach to us, to expose them to the contaminating
influences of a life of politics. Their duty is to
advocate the interests of their master, not their
50 |
own—to warm our hearts with love to God, not
devotion men—to inspire us with hopes of hea-
ven, not of office—to minister to the poor, the
humble, the sick, the dying, and to talk to them
of the vanity of all things temporal; not to com-
pany with the rich, the great, the influential men
of the world, and court their aid, to robe them-
selves in the glittering baubles of this world's
honor, or fill their pockets with the mammon of
unrighteousness.
Mr. CHANDLER, in reply, adverting to what the
gentleman from Kent had said on the subject of
cutting the clergy horizontally, said the gentle-
man had stated that the bad ministers would be
thrown on one side of the line, and the good on
the other, if his amendment should prevail. But
he thought the argument did not make against
the proposition, because, if the amendment did
not prevail, the clergyman who was not consci-
entious about the matter, could now, if elected,
present his credentials to the church and take
his seat, because then he would have a right to
it. He could not but be struck with the affec-
tionate regard which the gentleman from Kent
expressed for ministers of religion. He said they
stood on too high a platform. He presumed that
the gentleman supposed they must wear long
faces and a sanctimonious aspect, which would
be outraged by their association with members of
the Legislature. And in what light did the gen-
tleman place legislators? It would appear that
they are all covered with mud and dust, and he
would not let us come into the body and mix with
such corruption. He certainly felt some surprise
at the acknowledgment. But he would beg leave
to remind the gentleman from Kent, that those
who formed the Constitution of the United States
did not feel the force of such scruples as the com-
mittee who prepared the Legislative Report did,
on this subject. That Constitution was formed
by some of the wisest men the country had ever
produced, yet it contained no such disqualifying
provision. Aid although it was not of frequent
occurrences, it was well known that ministers of
religion had had seats in Congress; and, if he was
not mistaken, there was one, or perhaps two
ministers in Congress, at this time.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, there is Mr. Palfrey.
Mr. CHANDLER. He is an abolitionist.
Mr. CHANDLER now modified his amendment so
as to strike out to the word "and" in the second
line of the section.
Mr. BUCHANAN said:
Before the vote was taken on this proposition
he desired to put a few questions, and to make
a remark or two to his friend and colleague,
(Mr. Chandler,) for whom he took the opportu-
nity to say, he entertained the highest personal
regard.
It so happened, said Mr. B., that during the
address of his friend, he, [Mr. B.,] was so cir-
cumstanced, (being in the temporary occupancy
of the Chair,) as to render it impossible for him
with propriety to put a question to his friend,
which, if at the time he could have put, would
have saved him the necessity of say ing any thing
at present.
His colleague had remarked, that some eigh- |
