see the force of the objection made by the
gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling,)
and knowing that the object I have in view
is attained by the federal law, I withdraw the
amendment that I offered.
Mr. SANDS. I will suggest that in its
present form the amendment will not only
exempt persons whose faith has always here-
tofore exempted them, but being in the dis-
junctive, " whose religious opinions or con-
scientious scruples forbid them to bear arms,"
it will take in all people all over the State
who are conscientiously opposed to bearing
arms.
Mr. STIRLING. They have got to prove it.
Mr. SANDS, I saw a case of this sort in
the court room. A gentleman came in and
was put upon the witness' stand. The judge
said, "Swear him,'" "No, sir; I do not
swear; I affirm." "Are yon a Quaker?"
Well, he laughed and said he was a kind of
one. "Are yon in full standing in the
Quaker church?" "No, sir." He bad mar-
ried a Catholic lady and could not say he was.
"Swear him," said the judge. I am per-
fectly willing that those belonging to reli-
gious societies, who have professed and whose
fathers belore them professed conscientious
scruples against bearing arms, should be ex-
empted; but, I think it would better be done
by name. If you put in this amendment
" religious opinions or conscientious scruples"
yon will have nine-tenths—
Mr. STIRLING. If the gentleman will allow
me, I move to strike out "or" and insert
"and."
Mr. RUSSELL. I accept that amendment.
Mr. SANDS. I know that these people and
their fathers have always held this faith and
borne their testimony against arms-bearing ;
and I want to see them relieved; although I
very much admired the spirit of the Quaker
gentleman in a village store who was aiding
in raising a cavalry company, and who, when
reproached with violating his peace princi-
ples, said, " Well, brother, I have declined
until after the war." I admired that
Quaker.
Mr. ECKER. That story sounds very doubt-
ful, because they do not generally call each
other " brother." They do not use that term
at all.
I hope the amendment of the gentleman.
from Harford will pass. The people up in
our section are very much interested in the
matter. We have some Friends there. We
have a good many there who are conscien-
tious in the matter; and we do not ask any-
thing excepting of those who are really con-
scientious, and who can prove that fact before
the proper authorities. I know a case that I
will cite, as the gentleman has cited one. A
young man about the time the draft was go-
ing on, wanted to be exempted, and said, "I
am conscientious about this; I belong to the
Dunker church." " But you are not a mem- |
ber of the Society of Friends; and we can-
not do anything for you." He had been a
full member of the Dunker church and was
really conscientious; and there was an effort
made to exempt him. If any member is not
conscientious on the subject, of course it will
be known to the society. It will be known
by the society to which they belong whether
they are conscientious or not. That is as far
as we want to go. I have the honor of being
a kind of birthright Friend myself, although
1 do not object to fighting in this war.
Mr. PUGH, The principal reason why 1
am in favor of the amendment of the gentle-
man from Harford is because it makes a dis-
tinction between the members of the same
religious body. There are a great many
Quakers who are not conscientiously opposed
to bearing arms, and I have no doubt it was
for that reason that the gentleman from Har-
ford drew up his amendment in this form.
It might have been proper to exempt the whole
class of people called Quakers, and the whole
class of people called Dunkers; but there are
whole regiments of men .now in the armies,
who have been Quakers, and who are Quakers
in all other respects except so far as this war
is concerned. They had no conscientious
scruples about going into this fight. And
there is no religious society better represented
in this war, so far as Pennsylvania is con-
cerned, than the religions society of Quakers.
This amendment is only to exempt those who
even in this war still feel it their duty to bear
the testimony the society has always borne
against all wars at all times.
Mr. AUDOUN. I should be perfectly willing
to vote for the amendment offered by my
friend from Harford, if he would insert this
language:
" Persons whose religious opinions or con-
scientious scruples forbid them to bear arms,
shall not be compelled to do so in time of
war, but shall pay an equivalent for such
personal service."
While these gentlemen do not desire to
enter into military service, I should like to
see them willing to do something to assist the
government.
Mr. PUGH. Will the gentleman permit me
to explain? If they were to pay an equiva-
lent, it would only be a public acknowledg-
ment of their cowardice, it is not because
they are cowards. They have given positive
evidence that they are not. It is not that be-
ing unwilling to expose their precious bodies
they will pay for ex mption. That would be
an acknowledgment that they are cowards.
It is not because they are afraid; but these
men are conscientiously opposed to bearing
arms; and if they were not they would cer-
tainly go and fight.
Mr. AUDOUN. Then I desire to ask the
gentleman one question. Do they desire to
be exempt from military service, and exempt
from paying for carrying on this war, and |
