man from Kent (Mr, Chambers,) why is it
that it has been so long tolerated in Congress?
If the public mind had been directed to this
evil, it seems to me that Congress would have
been the first place where the remedy should
have been applied, where the evil should have
been redressed? Yet, from the earliest history
of this government, you find ministers of the
gospel returned to the popular branch of the
national legislature, and also in the Senate of
the United States. I have in view now some
two or three such—Mr. Cabell, of Georgia,
Mr. Hilliard, of Alabama, Mr. Bates, of Dela-
ware, and hosts of others.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Bates was a lawyer.
Mr. PURNELL. And a minister, too, for I
have beard him preach often; and I must
do him the credit to say that he was a pretty
good lawyer-preacher. Now, if the evil was
so great as it seems to have been, in the view
of the gentleman from Kent, Congress was
the place to have applied the remedy. If the
liberties of the people, or the stability of the
Government, were endangered by the intro-
duction of that class of people into the Con-
gress of the United States, that would have
been the place to reform the abuse; that
would have been the place from which to have
excluded them. But no evil seems to have
resulted from their admission there. You do
not find hosts of ministers in the Congress of
the United States, conspiring and confedera-
ting together to overthrow the Government,
or discussing the different doctrines of their
churches. But you find them there partici-
pating in the legislation of the country in the
manner best calculated to promote the gen-
eral interest, without permitting any sectarian
feeling whatever to enter into their delibera-
tions, or to control their actions.
So far as relates to our own State there is
a large and respectable class of men, ministers
of the gospel, who, although not perhaps at-
tached to any particular congregation, yet
are local ministers, and in that connection
are excluded from entrance into the legisla-
tive halls of the State. But, as has been
properly remarked by the gentleman who
last addressed you (Mr. Stockbridge,) they
are tax-payers; are subject to military duty ;
subject to all the municipal duties that de-
volve upon the citizens of the various coun-
ties; and yet they are excluded from the
legislative halls of the State. Now, it seems
to me that they are eminently qualified for
that position. They are educated men, with
some few exceptions They are well fitted
to go upon your committees, and elaborate
subjects of legislation, moral subjects which
often occupy the attention of the legisla-
ture; subjects of education; and all subjects
of that character; and at the same time they
are well qualified to participate in the legis-
lation and debate upon those subjects, not
only in committee but in the legislative halls.
So far as moral influence is concerned, I |
think that which they would exercise would
be exemplary, and would be productive of
good. In regard to the evils which might
result to the individual or to the community,
so far as electioneering is concerned, the pic-
ture which the gentleman from Kent has
drawn was certainly a very strong one, and
it might be practically carried into effect. But
I take it for granted that there would not be
such a rush of ministers to become candi-
dates for position in the Legislature, if that
was the case. if they were nominated in the
primary meetings in the counties where they
reside, there would be no impropriety in
their accepting the nomination, and if elected,
of going to the Legislature and participating
in their deliberations, without entering into
the caucusses, without canvassing the conn-
ties in which they live, with this bottle, of
which the gentleman speaks, in their pockets,
or in their carriage-box. There would be no
necessity for anything of that kind. They
could remain at home in their closets, acting
in that sphere which is becoming to them,
and which alone ornaments their profession.
I shall vote for the amendment of the gen-
tleman from Baltimore city (Mr, Daniel,) be-
cause I think the evils contemplated by the
framers of the original Constitution, if they
ever existed, have long since passed away. I
think that the fear of the evil of connecting
church and State has long since exploded;
that there is no necessity for this provision
now. I think the good sense of the people
will at all times control this subject; and
that there can be no danger whatever that
there ever will be a sufficient number of min-
isters in the halls of legislation in this State,
or any other State, to control its whole de-
liberation.
Why are not other professional men, doc-
tors for instance, allowed to go on in debate
and elucidate the whole diagnosis of their
profession? Because it is impertinent and
would not be tolerated. Why are not lawyers
in legislative halls allowed to go on and in-
dulge in a long harangue about all the tech-
nicalities of their profession? Because it
would not be tolerated. And so it would be
with ministers of the gospel; they would
not be permitted to introduce and discuss the
various doctrinal points which might divide
them. They would be confined to the sub-
jects under consideration, and like all other
members would be controlled and bound by
the rules of the house.
I think this invidious distinction has pre-
vailed long enough. I think the time has
arrived when it should no longer be tolerated,
but should be extinguished and blotted from
the organic law of the State. It is with that
view that I shall vote for the amendment.
Mr. SCOTT. I think the argument is about
exhausted, and I shall not occupy the time
of the Convention long upon this subject.
But this appears to me to be a proper period |
