passed. You might just as well say that the
legislature shall perform every other duty in-
cumbent upon them to perform, as that they
shall perform this duty. The only change
this makes at all is in allowing marriages to
be celebrated by the mayor of a city, or any
justice of the peace, and in providing for the
registration of marriages. I believe that in
Maryland marriage has always been consid-
ered a religious contract, as well as a civil
contract. The policy of the legislature of
Maryland has been that marriages should be
celebrated by some minister of the gospel
Tinder a license or the publication of the bans
between the parties. The provision of the
law as it now stands is :
"The rites of marriage between any white
persons, citizens or inhabitants of this State,
shall not be celebrated by any person within
this State, unless by some minister of the
gospel, ordained according to the rites and
ceremonies of his or her church, or in such
manner as is used and practiced by the society
of people called Quakers,"
This allows the Quakers to marry accord-
ing to the rites of their church, a» well as
every other denomination. That we should
undertake to make a constitutional provision,
to provide especially for the case of a good
Quaker lady who wants to marry some per-
son who does not belong to her church, or of
some Quaker man who wishes to marry some
lady outside of the Quaker church, seems to
me to be going a little too much into an ab-
surdity. The legislature is competent to pro-
vide for this by law whenever they please. I
do not see the necessity of putting such a
provision into the constitution.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. It is true, as has been
remarked by the gentleman from Anne Arun-
del (Mr. Miller) that the legislature have
power to pass laws such as this amendment
of the gentleman from Harford (Mr. Russell)
makes it obligatory upon them to pass. The
only difference will be that instead of having
the power if this is adopted by us, it will lay
them under the obligation of passing it.
The difference however is greater than was
stated by the gentleman from Anne Arundel.
While the proposed amendment provides that
the rites of marriage may be celebrated by a
minister of any religious denomination, the
law as it stands is that they shall not be cele-
brated unless by some minister of the gospel.
There are in this State not less than 50,000,
and probably more, of the people called He-
brews, or Jews. How are they married? Is
& Jewish rabbi a minister of the gospel ac-
cording to this law? If not, by what mode
and in what manner is marriage to be cele-
brated by them? The law makes no provi-
sion.
This is also the law for white persons alone.
There are 100,000 in this State to whom that
has no application, not being white persons.
It is time there was some general law. The |
attention of the legislature has often been
called to this subject. It has been pressed
upon them in the most urgent manner; as
has also, what is at this time of the utmost
importance, the registration of marriages, for
the want of which in this State there are
thousands upon thousands of widows and
orphans at this time likely to lose, I may say
sure to lose, bounties and pensions to which
they are entitled, because there is no mode of
authenticating their marriage which is recog-
nized by the laws of the land.
It is a thing of the utmost importance, and
yet the most strenuous efforts upon the part
of a large number of men in the last legisla-
ture failed to get any law upon the subject.
I think it is highly important, in both of
these respects, as a matter of religious free-
dom to the Jews as well as the Quakers, and
as a matter of duty to those whose marriage
cannot easily be proved, that we should adopt
the new section offered by the gentleman from
Harford. It is made obligatory upon the
legislature that they shall pass such a law ;
and I shall vote for it with a great deal of
pleasure.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. I am surprised to
hear so good a lawyer as the gentleman from
Baltimore city say that there is no law in
Maryland evidencing the fact of marriage,
whereby widows and orphans are likely to
lose the bounties to which they are entitled.
My friend must remember that although there
is no express statute prescribing the evidence
of that tact, Maryland decisions have left no
doubt upon the subject as to the nature of the
evidence which is held sufficient in this State
to establish the fact of marriage. In the ab-
sence of any one who was present at the cere-
mony, to prove the fact, the courts have held .
that cohabitation, and acknowledgment, and
reputation, sufficiently establish the fact, un-
less it is expressly rebutted. And I appre-
hend that such evidence, before the anthor-
ities anywhere in the State, with reference
to the bounties, evidence recognized by the
highest judicial tribunals in the State, is suf-
ficient to establish the fact, and would un-
questionably be sufficient before those tribu-
nals.
With reference to the phraseology of the
code, that the marriage may be performed by
some minister of the gospel, I apprehend that
that phrase has been held, although perhaps
not strictly legitimately and technically, to
embrace Jewish rabbis; that it has been held
to mean the ministers of any religious de-
nomination in the State. If there is any
doubt about that construction, it seems to me
that no legislature could hesitate» to make it
broad enough to meet that designation.
Although marriage is recognized as a re-
ligious ceremony, in law it is true that mar-
riage is bat a civil contract, and it has been
held that no such ceremony is necessary.
Full acknowledgment of the fact of marriage, |
