leaving out this section. And I wish to
state very briefly the reasons which induced
me then, and induce me now, to support this
proposition. I entirely agree to everything
that has been said by the gentleman from
Kent (Mr. Chambers,) in regard to the im-
propriety, as a general thing, of a minister of
the gospel taking part in politics. If I had
my way in regard to it, I would desire that
as a .general thing none of them should do
so. But I think that so far as the Constitu-
tion of this State is concerned, there is no
reason why we should disqualify that class of
persons, unless it proceeds from some doubt
that as a class it is dangerous to the State to
have them in the Legislature. That is the
only ground upon which this restriction can
be defended. The question whether they do
or do not discharge their clerical duties, is a
question with which the State has nothing
to do. It is not a part of our business to
prevent them from coming here, or to pre-
vent people from sending them here, unless
it can be shown that they are dangerous,
and unfit to take part in public affairs. Now
that I do not believe.
On the contrary, the Constitutions of most
of the States, that have introduced this pro-
vision, put at the beginning of it the decla-
ration, that whereas a minister of the gospel
ought to devote himself exclusively to the
service of God, therefore be ought not to go
into the Legislature. And that declaration
is made by men, nine out of ten of whom
have no regard for God or the minister.
Now, tint is stating a wrong reason. In
most cases the object of putting in such a re-
striction was far different from that.
Now, whatever may have been the case
in the past, though our fathers may have
thought that the Church and State should be
separated finally, and this was one of the
measures for that purpose, we have fallen
upon different days. There are a large class
of people in this State who are excluded from
a seat in the Legislature, who are not ex-
cluded from the position of member of Con-
gress, or that of Governor of the State, or
any office in the State, except that of a mem-
ber of the Legislature. Now, why a man
should be disqualified from being a member
of the Legislature, and allowed to be a Gov-
ernor of the State, really to me seems to be
hard to explain.
At the time this Constitution was originally
adopted, there were very few religious de-
nominations in the State. As everybody
knows, the settled minister of the Episcopa-
lian, Presbyterian and such denominations,
was more permanent than the minister of
other denominations of the present day. But
the interpretation put upon this Constitution
excludes from the General Assembly large
numbers of people who have no congregation,
and who are laymen in every sense of the term
as distinguished from ecclesiastics. I know |
a gentleman in Baltimore, who is the presi-
dent of a bank, who has held office under the
city government, and who is everywhere
known as a layman, but who happens to hold
the position of local preacher. He is ex-
cluded from being nominated to the Legis-
ture of this State, because he happens to be
a local preacher in the Methodist Episcopal
Church. And such men can be numbered in
this State by hundreds,
And while I think no harm will result from
striking out this prohibition, it will satisfy
and gratify a large class of those people, who
feel that while in every other respect they are
allowed to take part in the concerns of this
State, they are excluded from the General
Assembly. The evil intended to be guarded
against is at least an evil that nobody has
felt. It is not likely that many ministers
will be sent to the General Assembly. Those
who will come are those whose circumstances
have obliged them to abandon preaching,
and engage in other pursuits. And it will
gratify many who are friendly to this Consti-
tution, and desirous to vote for it.
Mr. MILLER. The clause as it now stands
only prohibits those who are actually en-
gaged in preaching, as ministers.
Mr. STIRLING. All these local preachers
are engaged as ministers, although they do
not perhaps preach more than once a month.
Although they perform certain duties which
that Church recognizes as clerical duties, they
have no settled charge. Take a preacher who
I has abandoned his profession from sickness,
or some other cause, but who still continues
to preach attimes, like my friend from Caro-
line (Mr. Todd;) if he continues to preach
once a year, he is still exercising his function
as a minister. I know some people who have
abandoned the ministry, and gone over to in-
fidelity, and denied the gospel and every-
thing else; yet you allow them to come to
your Legislature. You do not think there
is any danger in admitting those people
in the Legislature, for you do not regard
them as ministers of the gospel. And if they
are expelled or excommunicated priests, they
are admitted into your Legislature.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. If this were an eccles-
iastical instead of a political body, I could
see the full force of the argument offered to
us by the gentleman from Kent (Mr. Cham-
bers.) But we are not here for the purpose
of preserving the purity of the clergy, how-
ever desirable an end that may be to accom-
plish, We are here to form a Constitution
for the State, and we set out with the idea
—that is the theory that runs all through
it—that all the citizens of the State are under
equal obligations to the State, and entitled to
equal privileges in the State. If we are
going to provide any exceptions to that gen-
eral rule, they should be upon grounds clearly-
defined and well understood.
Now, what ground is there for constituting |
