and to bear testimony against all those en-
croachments, as he considers them, upon the
true interpretation of the gospel of our
Saviour. I demand for the society of people
called Quakers nothing more than an ac-
knowledgment upon the part of this con-
vention, in this particular, as it has always
been acknowledged in other particulars, of
their right to the enjoyment of their reli-
gious relief in every respect and to the fullest
extent.
I am astonished that the gentleman from
Caroline (Mr. Todd) should offer the amend-
ment that he does. Has not a man a right, if
he so reads and interprets the gospel of our
Saviour, to say that he interprets these words,
"It shall be given unto you without money
and without price " to mean, " You shall not
pay any man for preaching the gospel"? and
has he not a right as a citizen of Maryland
and of the United States and as a religious
man, to be protected in so interpreting it?
What right have you, by any portion of the
organic law which you are here to frame, to
impair in the least the exercise of that right,
by treating him in a different way from what
you treat every other citizen of Maryland and
every other citizen of the United States ?
Suppose I am a member of the society of
Friends, and have been thus reared, and 'they
are generally very well reared; suppose that I
have been taught by my parents from my
childhood thus to Interpret the Scripture, and
never on any account to give any sanction to
what they call a hireling ministry; and sup-
pose that I wish—I have not done so yet, but
possibly I may—to get married; what right
have you to prevent me from exercising that
glorious privilege, without in the least inter-
fering with my duties as a citizen of the
State?
It has been suggested outside of the hall
that a Quaker desiring to marry alady outside
of the church, my go over into Pennsylvania.
We have no right to assume here that there is
any such place as Pennsylvania. As a citizen
of Maryland, I wish to get married in the
State of Maryland, according to the laws of
Maryland; and as a citizen of Maryland and
as a Christian, I demand that right. If you
interpret the bill of rights as it should be in-
terpreted, you give to me the privilege in one
instance and deny me the right in another,
by requiring that I, forsooth, a good citizen,
shall not have the right that you have. I
must violate my conscience by going before
a hireling minister in order to have him per-
form this marriage ceremony, or on the other
hand I must go out of the State to get mar-
ried. You oblige me to do either the one or
the other, me, a Christian citizen of the State
of Maryland, having every right to my inter-
pretation of the gospel of our Saviour that you
can claim, and being protected in that right
by the organic law, so far as it has been made. |
I wish the constitution to be made good
throughout.
Gentlemen have claimed here that it is not
necessary to say anything to the legislature
in this respect; that it is only necessary to
let the legislature go on, not doing forever
the thing which they have thus far failed to
do. Have we done nothing so far in this
constitution in reference to legislation? Have
we requested the legislature in no instance to
do anything? Have we denied to them
nothing? It is only because, if we do not
make it obligatory upon the legislature, they
may in the future, as they have in the past,
entirely overlook this duty, that we ask to
incorporate it into the constitution.
It has been admitted by the gentleman from
Somerset (Mr. Jones,) that this is only a civil
contract, and I believe he admits no more
than the universal admission.
Mr. JONES of Somerset. I say in law; but
I say that it is a ceremony as well.
Mr. PUSH. I mean in law. He believes
it to be a religious ceremony. That is his
opinion. Many others believe it to be nothing
more than a civil contract, and that is their
opinion. I agree with every syllable he says
with reference to the validity, and what
ought to be the law in reference to marriage.
I do not dissent from a syllable he uttered.
What I object to is the disposition to sneer
against a society which I consider, although
small in numbers, has as clean a record from
the days of their early persecution to the
present time, as can be produced by any other
society since our Saviour first visited the
earth.
There is not a gentleman in this hall who
will doubt that statement. There is not a
gentleman here who will deny to them this
eulogium. There is nothing can be said
against their character.
All the arguments that have been used in
this hall, against casting even by imputation
a slur upon ministers of the gospel by put-
ting an article similar to the old constitution
into this one, will apply to this class. Why
do you discriminate against these people,
whom all the world call good people. That
is all I demand, that they shall be placed upon
the footing they have a right to claim, the
exercise of their duties and opinions in obe-
dience to the dictates of their religion, the
right to interpret the gospel according to the
light which they have, and to be guaranteed
by the State of Maryland in the enjoyment of
the rights which the State of Maryland guar-
antees to every other citizen of the State.
I will make no remarks with regard to the
Jews, or the question of registration. There
seems to be a generally prevailing impression
in favor of the registration of manages. For
the reasons so ably urged by the gentleman
from Baltimore city (Mr. Stockbridge,) I am
in favor of that. I am in favor of the whole
section of the gentleman from Harford, for |
