ministers and preachers of the gospel an ex-
ception to this general rule for all classes of
men? I confess that I see none. Are they
less intelligent, less moral, less fitted by the
circumstances in which they are placed to
discharge properly the duties of legislators?
Sir, it is an insult to the common under-
standing to say that they are less intelligent
as a body than any other class of the commu-
nity; to say that they are less moral, or that
they have less at heart the good of the State.
If that be so, and our sole purpose in framing
a Constitution is to endeavor to provide the
best possible class of legislators, then why
exclude these men? They are bound to pay
taxes the same as other men; they are equally
liable to military duty. They owe every ob-
ligation to the State that other citizens owe;
and they are endowed with every other privi-
lege but this. They may be constables, or
justices of the peace, or road supervisors, or
county commissioners, or members of Con-
gress, or Cover ors of the State. They may
hold every civil or military office except the
single office of member of the General As-
sembly. Then what reason can there be for
that exception ?
The argument drawn from the antiquity of
the custom in this State has no weight with
me, none at all. Go back to the time when
there was an apprehension that, certain per-
sons might exert an undue influence; that it
was necessary, for instance, to exclude Catho-
lic priests from positions of political influ-
ence; or the Catholic priests themselves were
afraid that the clergy of the Church of Eng-
land would have an undue influence in po-
litical affairs. I can easily understand that
a compromise might then be made between
the Catholic and Protestant denominations,
that they would exclude all priests together;
and that in those days when each was fearful
of the future, this might have been incor-
porated in the Constitution. It has stood
here until no well-balanced mind in the State
of Maryland has any apprehension of priestly
influence. If, then, that was the original oc-
casion for the insertion of such an article in
our Constitution, and the occasion has gone
by forever, then why retain that which was
the growth of that occasion, which is a blot
upon the State Constitution as it now stands,
and which is unlike any other State Consti-
tution in that respect? What harm can there
come of it? Has there been such a rash of
the clergy for other political offices that we
apprehend they will rush for this and mo-
nopolize the halls of legislation? How many
clergy are there in the State holding political
offices, from a postmastership down? Not a
baker's dozen; perhaps not one. How is it
in other States where there is no such restric-
tion? Are their halls of legislation overrun
with clergymen? Much as I pride myself
upon the legislature of our State, I think
that the legislatures of some of the States
4 |
where this restriction is not found, will not
suffer by comparison with our own. I there-
fore say that in reason and experience alike
we find no reason for an exclusion of this
kind.
Then, again, it is an invidious and odious
distinction, extremely so. Who are excluded,
by your Constitution, from your Legisla-
ture? First, those holding certain civil and
military offices. Now, although in some of
its applications that is a hardship, still there
is some show of reason for it; because a man
appointed to a civil or military office gives an
implied pledge to the public that he will de-
vote his whole time, or so much as is neces-
sary, to the faithful discharge of his duties.
And to accept another office might be incom-
patible with the proper discharge of those
duties, and he would be holding two offices,
and receiving two emoluments at the same
time. Who else are excluded? Negroes and
convicted felons; no one else.
Mr. DANIEL. And women.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. Women have certain
legal rights, but no political privileges. But
all men in the State are admissible in your
Legislature, negroes, convicted felons and
ministers of the gospel excepted. A pretty
row, certainly. I say this is a disgrace to
our legislation, and an outrage upon the com-
mon sense of the community, and I hope it
will be stricken out of our Constitution.
Mr. PURNELL. I can see no reason why
ministers of the gospel should not occupy
seats in the legislative halls, as well as in this
Convention. It cannot be for want of culti-
vation; it cannot, I apprehend, be for the
want of moral character, or for want of lite-
rary attainments. It is a fact that that class
are better prepared in view of their qualifica-
tions than most any other class that are sent
to the legislative halls of this State. And I
I think this large and influential class of citi-
zens should be entitled at least to the same
; privileges and the same immunities with other
of the most favored citizens of the State.
Besides that, it is a matter which should
be left exclusively to the constituents, to the-
people of the respective communities, to se-
lect and choose their own agents, to say in
their primary conventions who shall and who
shall not represent them. And they should
not be bound down to any particular class,.
or to any particular line in malking their se-
lection of those to legislate for them.
And I think, as has been very properly re-
marked here, this is an invidious distinction..
They are precluded from any participation
in the legislation of the State, in the passage
of the laws by which their lives and their
liberties are controlled. Of course they must
abide by any legislation, or any terms that
may he imposed by their agents who are sent
to officiate in that capacity.
And if this evil is of that stupendous char—
acter, as has been represented by the gentle- |
