to put in a word of commendation of a brave
man of my own county, and I can scarcely
resist the temptation to do so, I refer to the
late chaplain of the 6th Maryland regiment,
Rev. Joseph T, Brown. He was an indus-
trious working mechanic, who became a
local preacher of the Methodist Church, He
left a prosperous business, a pleasant home,
and an interesting family, to engage in the
arduous duties of chaplain to the 6th Mary-
land regiment. While so engaged he was
taken prisoner and confined at Richmond
until be nearly lost his life. He has returned
home with a shattered constitution; and it is
more than I can do to go home and meet the
gaze of that brave good man, without re-
cording my voice and my vote against such
an invidious distinction as has so long
disgraced the Constitution under which we
live. At the same time you disqualify him,
you admit to the same place the poorest pet-
tifogging lawyer, that ever hung out his
shingle; and the physician that never could
make a living at his business; the farmer and
the mechanic that have not succeeded in their
business; not to say men of the most de-
graded and despicable character. They are
all admitted into the halls of legislation,
while ministers are excluded, while that
brave good man who bars perilled his life in
the service of his country, is excluded. I
take this opportunity, not to make any argu-
ment, but to record my voice in favor of that
good and gallant main.
Mr. CHAMBERS, One gentleman says that
we have nothing to do with the morality of
the State. Now, I differ altogether with my
friend on that point. I think that if we
have a proposition before us that involves
the moral condition of the State, we are
bound to respect it highly for that consider-
ation.
It has been rung in our ears that this pro-
vision creates an invidious distinction.
Well, sir, it is not the only instance in
which the influence of the religious man upon
other members of the community is noticed in
our laws, A clergyman cannot go to the
death bed of his parishioner and induce him
to grant him his property. But anybody
else is permitted to do so; the pettifogging
lawyer and the worthless physician is not
prevented from doing so.
Why not have them sent here? Because
you want men sent here by the independent
uninfluenced voice of the people in the re-
spective districts or counties. We are told
by one member here that these matters are
all fixed at primary meetings. Now, a man
with a very large congregation can have a
majority at the primary meeting out of his
own meeting house. The religions influence
which he exercises on that class controls the
action of the primary meeting; that action
controls the election in the county; and the
man is sent here simply because as a preacher |
he has an influence by his clerical office, which
other people cannot exercise.
But what I have chiefly to ?ay is this: I
suppose there is hardly a man on this floor
who would suppose that a preacher of the
gospel, whose soul and mind is as devo-
ted to the legitimate business of his calling
as it ought to be, will ever dream of becom-
ing a member of a political body. It never
has been known, and I humbly trust it never
will be, when a man actively, zealously en-
gaged in the performance of the duties of his
office as minister of the gospel, when sinners
abound to an extent which employs every
moment of his time and every hour of his
thoughts—I hope the time never will be
known when he will desert that field, and
enter into another utterly foreign to any
purpose which relates to his vocation in life.
You will never, therefore, get that class of
clergymen who really devote themselves, ac-
cording to their vows, strictly to the busi-
ness of their calling.
Then, whom will yon get? Men—I will not
say pettifogging clergymen—men who can-
not find a community anywhere willing to
give them a subsistence for the exercise of
their calling; men who have a very indefinite
idea—I will not say a very erroneous one—of
the obligations which they owe to their Mas-
ter; men who are willing to partially desert
his interests for the purpose of taking part
in politics. Such men may find places here.
We have clergymen of all sorts; we have
religion of all sorts; we have sects of all
sorts. Some think that religion is a very
small affair, and a little attention given
to it once in a while is enough. Now, I do
not want to have a provision in the Consti-
tution, which, while we know it will never
open the door for the entrance of any one of
the elect and best of the class, is to admit
exclusively the very inferior members of that
class. You might just as well—for the prac-
tical consequence would be the same—insert
in your Constitution a provision that the
better order of the clergy shall never be per-
mitted to hold a seat in the Legislature,
while those who are less attentive to their
duties, less sensible of their obligations, less
capable of performing them, may be admitted.
It is said that ministers of the gospel are
equally competent to fill this office. I say—
no. They are equally intelligent, it is said.
In what sense is that used? They may have
more intelligence in regard to the Bible;
they may understand that better. They
may halve belles-lettres intelligence to a greater
extent than others. I say that if they under-
stand their business and will attend to it,
they do not understand politics as well as
others. It is not such an intelligence which
it is their business to acquire. A clergyman,
in my humble judgment, who is a politician,
is not entitled to respect,
Mr. SCOTT. Such as Bishop Hopkins. |
