to be a civil contract only, and desire the
privilege to be united by a civil officer, such
as a mayor or a magistrate. Such, I believe,
is the practice of nearly every other State.—
I do not think it is right to compel persons
who believe it to be only a civil contract, to
go against their will, before a minister of any
persuasion. I think we should leave the
question open, that they may be married
either by a minister of the gospel or by a
minister of the law. I shall vote for the sec-
tion as proposed.
Mr. RUSSELL. I am not accustomed to
public speaking, and it is with a great deal
of diffidence that I say anything on the sub-
ject. I must confess I have been very much
surprised to hear some of the remarks that
have been made by gentlemen of this conven-
tion. They seem to me to have been consid-
erably wanting in liberality. I have been
very much astonished by the remarks of the
gentleman upon the other side of the hall,
from Anne Arundel (Mr Miller,) who has
spoken, as I understood him, as if Quakers
wanted this privilege in order to violate their
own principles. Such is not the fact. I en-
deavored this morning to make the conven-
tion understand this matter. I stated that
the society of Friends, from its earliest rise,
more than two hundred years ago, had had a
testimony against a hireling or paid ministry.
That has been the ground of difficulty about
their members intermarrying with others than
members. It is not against the dicipline of
the church at all for their members to marry
those who are not members, provided it is not
done by a minister, by what is termed a hire-
ling or paid minister. It was on that account,
in order to avoid this difficulty, to allow that
which the church allows—for the church al-
lows those that are members to marry those
who are not members, as can be done in
Pennsylvania, New York and elsewhere—
that I introduced this section.
It seemed to me so plain that there could be
no objection to it. It hurts nobody. It vio-
lates the principles of nobody. It only gives
those who are members the right to marry
with other persons without coming under
church censure, and without being under the
necessity of going to Pennsylvania, New York
or elsewhere.
I had a case which came very near home to
me, a member of my own family, which I will
mention as an illustration. I have had a
daughter married since this convention was
in session, in Philadelphia, to one who was
not a member of the church. In order to do
that, and not to incur church censure, she
was under the necessity of going out of the
State, and she went to Philadelphia to be
married. If it had not been for this law, it
might have been done at home in a more
agreeable manner.
I cannot see for the life of me, how a sin-
gle individual in this hall can object to a |
provision of this kind. It violates nobody's
right. Those wanting to be married by a
minister can do so, as they always have done.
The society of Friends have nothing at all
against the ministry, although they bear tes-
timony against what is called a hireling or
paid ministry. They are far from believing
that there are not ministers of the gospel
among them. They do not hold the idea at
all that there are not. It has always been a
tenet of the church that a hireling ministry
is not recognized in the church of Christ. But,
they do not say that every man who takes
pay for preaching is necessarily a hireling
minister. He ought not to preach for pay.
It should be from a higher motive. And
when such a person does preach—whether he
receives $500, $1,500 or $2,000 a year,
makes no difference—according to their
views, he is not a hireling minister. But
they cannot single out cases. Hence that is
their system, and hence their discipline must
stand as it is.
Mr. TODD. There are many ministers in
our midst who are not paid for their services,
having no pastoral charge. It seems to me
that the difficulties of the case would be
avoided by their employing a minister of that
character. However, in order to enable the
gentleman from Howard to offer his amend-
ment, I will withdraw the amendment I
offered.
Mr. SANDS submitted the following amend-
ment :
Strike out all after " assembly, " in the first
line, and insert;
" Shall pass laws providing that the rites of
marriage between any persons inhabitants of
this State, shall not be celebrated by any per-
son within this State unless by some minister
of religion, ordained according to the rites of
his or her church, except in the case of per-
sons members of the society of Friends, com-
monly called Quakers, or persons intermarry-
ing with members of that persuasion, between
whom the marriage rites may be celebrated
by the mayor of any city of the State or any
justice of the peace thereof, or in the manner
usually practiced by the members of that de-
nomination."
Mr. PETER. I believe that every man and
every woman is entitled to be married in that
manner which they may select, If they be-
lieve marriage to be a religious ceremony, let
them be married by a minister. If they be-
lieve it to be a mere civil contract, let them
be married by such a civil officer as they may
choose—by a mayor, justice of the peace,
magistrate, or constable, if they desire it.
Viewing it, as I do, as a mere civil contract,
I conceive that it would constitute a valid
marriage if two persons were to rise in this
house and declare that they were man and
wife, and intended to live as man and wife.
But I am confident that the gentleman
from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller) was excusa- |
