tion to the privilege of holding office. But
I do not desire, by striking out the term
"Christian religion," to deny that we are
a Christian community, and to let them in
as a matter of right without any distinc-
tion between them and others.
I do not care, sir, what other States have
done. I know that the most of them have
left the words ''God" and "religion"al-
together out of their Constitution. But in
my opinion it has been on false principles ;
on principles which our fathers lever established
and which have no foundation either
in justice or in right. The law says yon
shall not require any man to believe in or
support any particular form of worship.
But when you are passing upon qualifica-
tions of office it is your business and jour
duty to recognize the conditions of society
in which you live, and to fix the qualifica-
tions for office to suit those conditions of
society; and you do no injustice to any
man by providing safeguards around the
seats of power in the State. That is the
reason why no man has the right to say,
if you require an oath of allegiance from
him, that you are fixing upon him prin-
ciples to which he does not agree. It
is for the sovereign people of the State to
say what principles they consider safe; and
if they make up their judgment that it is
necessary for the safety, of the community
that certain principles only shall sanc-
tioned, no man has the right lo complain.
The idea of the gentleman from Baltimore
county (Mr. Ridgely), that every man who
is a voter shall be entitled to hold office,
cannot be carried out. You allow a man
to vote when he is twenty-one years of age ;
but you require a Senator to be twenty-live
years of age, and a judge to be thirty. You
allow a man to vote in this State after one
year residence; but you do not allow a
man to hold office in this State until he has
resided in it three years. The distinction
between the qualifications of a voter and of
an office-holders is kept up all through the
Constitution.
The part of my amendment relating to the
oath of allegiance, I do not suppose can be
objectionable to anybody; because it says,
"such oath of allegiance and fidelity to the
State and to the United States, as may be
prescribed by this Constitution " I give
notice that I shall offer what I have lead as
a substitute tor this while article.
Mr. CLARKE. I agree entirely with the
gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr Stir-
ling) in all he has said in reference to the
declaration of belief in the Christian reli-
gion. And when I first drew up my amendment,
my idea was that all men who be-
lieved in the existence of God, the God
whom we Christians recognize as God, were
believers in the Christian religion, except in
the case of Jews. |
Mr. STIRLING. And that is the class I
want to pet in.
Mr. CLARKE. And I thick my amend-
ment covered all classes when it provided
for a declaration of belief in the Christian
religion, or in the existence of God and a
future state of rewards and punishments I
think it will meet the views of the gentleman
in relation to this last clause, to move lo
strike out all after the words " Christian re-
ligion," and insert the words "or in the
existence of God and a future state of re-
wards and punishments." The article will
then read—
" That no other test or qualification ought
to be recognized on admission to any office
of trust or profit, than such oath of office
and qualification as may be prescribed by
this Constitution, or by the laws of the
State, and a declaration of belief in the
Christian religion, or in the existence of
God and in a future state of rewards and
punishments "
That, I think, would cover all cases. As
to the other point, which the gentleman pro-
poses to raise by his substitute, in reference
to allegiance, etc, we do not desire to meet
those questions now. I think they will be
better met hereafter
Mr. STIRLING. I do not offer my substi-
tute to be voted upon now. I have no ob-
jection to the amendment indicated by the
gentleman from Prince George's (Mr.
Clarke.)
Mr RIDGELY. I desire to say a word or
two in reply to what has fallen from the
gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Stir-
ling.) And first, in relation to the inter-
pretation which he has put upon the argu-
ment which I addressed to the House upon
the subject of the qualification of the elector
and the elected. He has entirely misapplied
the idea which I deaired to convey to the
house, and therefore the comment he has
made upon my argument does not at all
meet the case. The theory of my argument
was that the qualification in relation to a
religious test-the subject then particularly
under consideration—should not differ be-
tween the elector and the elected. Of course
there may be different qualification . In other
respects, such as age, length of residence,
&c., which it would be perfectly competent
for the Constitution to prescribe, as our
present Constitution does prescribe.
I now ask the attention of the House to
the very impressive view which the gentle-
man has attempted to take in relation to
this word "Christian;" and the inference
be seeks to make, that if we withhold the
word'' Chistian" from the Constitution,
we in point of fact ignore we are Christian
people. Now, it is hardly necessary for me
to offer a word in reply to the argument
that the withdrawal of the word " Christian "
from out Constitution necessarily or even |
