matter which everybody ought to be al-
lowed to regulate for himself, to marry
whom be pleases, consult his own taste, and
get married in any way he chooses. The in-
stitution of marriage is a social institution
on which rests the whole fundamental struc-
ture of society. It is a matter within the
absolute discretion of the State. The State
has a right to say that nobody shall get mar-
ried. The State has a right to abolish mar-
riage. It has a right to provide regulations
under which it shall be taxed. It is simply a
question of State policy. It is not only the
particular people who are sought to be relieved
in this matter, who are interested in the
question. I tell gentlemen that if they put
into the constitution a provision which has
never been known in the State in its whole
history, to allow justices of the peace to marry,
they will shock to a great extent a large por-
tion of the best religious sentiment of the
State.
Everybody knows what the office of a justice
of the peace is, in a great many places, even
when the justice of the peace himself is a very
decent and respectable man. They are sur-
rounded by crime and vice of every descrip-
tion; and the persons who come forward
there are particularly persons of the lower
class of life, and they are allowed under this
provision to come there and celebrate the
most solemn connection in life alongside of a
thief admitted to bail.
Mr. PUGH. It does not provide that it
shall be celebrated in his office.
Mr. STIRLING. I am talking of what might
be the fact, and I think would be the fact. It
offers an inducement to corrupt officials, be-
fore whom men are constantly brought in
cases in which people can be pursuaded to
marry, to exert an influence to have the cere-
mony performed. There is in the existing reg-
ulation on the subject a degree of security, not
so much as there ought lo be, but some se-
curity. There are some States that tolerate
the proposed authority; but they are States
differently situated from what we are. They
have been accustomed to it, and have grown
up under it. In the New England States
they have an absolute registration. It is a
serious matter there to be married betore a
justice of the peace; but it would not be so
here, because we have never been accustomed
to it here.
There is one thing to be said in favor of the
regulation in this State; that there is no State
in the Union in which the marriage relation
is more respected than in this State under the
existing regulation; or where the law of di-
vorce is more in accordance with right morals
and right principles; or where there are
fewer divorces in proportion to the popula-
tion. There are some States which throw
open the doors so wide that people move into
them to get divorced; and the marriage re-
lation is so trampled upon that there are all |
sorts of court expressions to signify the dif-
ferent relations of people in society, and some-
times it is not known whether they are mar-
ried or not. It is notorious that in some
parts of the country from their earliest set-
tlement the doors have been thrown open to
everybody.
This is a matter which concerns the interest
of the State. And if the law is put in an
improper form it is as much my right and in-
terest to object to it as of the man who expects
to get married. This proposition it seems to
me relieves any difficulty, it does not say
anything about the Society of Friends, As
it has been suggested by gentlemen here, it
may be possible for a man not strictly speak-
ing a member of the Society of Friends, or
not registered as such, to be in a condition to
desire some provision of this sort. Therefore
I use the general term, " persons prevented
by conscientious scruples from being married
by any of the existing provisions of law,"
exhausting all cases, and allow such persons
to be married by the judge of a court.
There may be one objection that the judge
of a court is not always accessible; but really
taking a little trouble, there is not a county
in the State in which the attendance of a
judge cannot be had to perform the ceremony.
in most towns in the State, it can be had
without any trouble whatever. Certainly in
those parts of the State in which the larger
class of very respectable and worthy people
of the State to be benefited by this provi-
sion reside, there is ready access to the.
judges.
There is an amount of responsibility about
marriage by the judge of a court. And the
legislature can very easily provide that a re-
cord shall be kept in the court. I submit
that it is not expedient, not right, and so far
as I am concerned I will never consent to it,
to allow the marriage ceremony to be per-
formed in this State by justices of the peace.
Mr. BOND. I shall vote against the origi-
nal proposition of the gentleman from Har-
ford (Mr. Russell) and all the amendments.
I have waited with some patience to bear the
reasons for my action in this matter stated
by some one; for as I am not fond of public
speaking I rarely indulge in it when I can
have an opportunity of voting upon a propo-
sition, and when somebody else happens to
express my views. But the reason upon
which I found my action has not been stated,
at least has not been pressed with the earn-
estness which I desired.
It is this: that this is a matter purely for
the legislature of Maryland. The business
of constitution-making, according to my ap-
prehension, is to limit or restrict the powers
of the legislature; not to fill the constitution
with mandates of legislation, that they shall
do this, that, or the other, but to restrict, to
limit, if you please, the powers of the legis-
lature. |
