stable, however humble his situation in life
might be, rather than to have the ceremony
performed by that man, who for the sake of
gaining a little paltry cash, made the cere-
mony a mockery to an assembled crowd ?
The gentleman says that this ceremony lies
at the base of society. I cannot comprehend
how the ceremony forms the basis of society at
all. One minister may perform the cere-
mony one way, and another in a different
way. One minister requires of the parties
certain vows; another minister requires
other vows, and some no vows at all. Then
how does the mere marriage ceremony lie at
the base of society? Not at all. As I said
in regard to first principles, it is the acts of
the parties themselves, their conduct, their
action in life, which form the great basis of
society. If they respect the vow which they
have taken upon them; if they honor it and
do not disgrace it, then they form the true
basis upon which society should rest. But if
the parties break the vows which they have
taken, and violate the pledges which they
assume, the great basis of society will be un-
settled and unstable. We have had said ex-
perience of that in this country already, in
our large cities. We have read of it in years
gone by in the large cities of Europe; and
now, alas, the same things which we have
read in past years as existing in European
life, are fast becoming true of our American
cities.
If the gentlemen from Howard and from
Baltimore would make this marriage vow all
that they would have it, if they would build
society upon a firm foundation, or upon a
rock. which the tempests should break around
and should not disturb, if they would raise
up their children to honor and respect it, if
they would make them ornaments of that so-
ciety, let them follow the teachings of Christ
and receive his commands, and let them re-
ceive the teachings of the word which be has
given them; and then, whether Roman Cath-
olic or Protestant, Quaker, Jew or Gentile, if
the man regards his obligations us a husband
and the woman her obligations and duties as
a wife, then will society rest upon a firm
foundation,
But really I think that the gentleman from
Anne Arundel (Mr. Bond) is altogether right,
that we are truly wasting time. I only re-
gret that I have taken up so much time of the
convention in discussing this question. But
I hold, from my respect for the Quakers in
my own county, whom we term there and
who term themselves the Society of Friends,
if they think it right to be married by a
magistrate, a mayor, or any civil officer, that
they do not desecrate it, or make it a mock-
ery. As the gentlemen from Baltimore and
from Howard do not think the permission
granted to the Quaker would make a mockery
of it, or desecrate it to marriage by a foul-
mouthed man, although they think that other |
men professing other religions views, or hav-
ing no religious views at all, ought to be
married by some holy, pious clergyman, I
rose to show that others ought to have equal
rights with the Quaker, and that their mar-
riage would be as holy and as much to be re-
spected as if they were married by a minister.
Mr. DANIEL. Lest my view upon this sub-
ject should be misunderstood, I wish to ex-
plain the reasons which govern me in voting
for one or the other of these propositions, and
I care very little whether that of the gentle-
man from Howard (Mr. Sands) or of the gen-
tleman from Baltimore (Mr. Stirling.) I
think that the gentlemen who have taken the
view that this simple proposition as first of-
fered, ought to be adopted by this conven-
tion, and if we do not so adopt it, we make
an invidious distinction against this religious
denomination called Friends or Quakers, rest
upon a proposition wholly wrong. I think
that the truth with regard to either of these
amendments to the original proposition, is
just the contrary. Suppose we throw open
the door and adopt the proposition simple
and plain as it is proposed Then we are
asked to violate the religions sense of all
other religious denominations in order to
oblige this one. They can be obliged, I
think, just as well by either of the proposi-
tions as by the one suggested. I think that
is the state of the case, that we are ashed to
pass this provision, which I certainly think
would violate the religious sense of a large
portion of the people of this State, to throw
wide open the doors to everybody who may
marry.
After all that has been said by the gentle-
main who has just addressed this convention,
that the marriage contract consists after all
in is proper performance, there is a sanctity
around the very marriage ceremony itself, as
being performed by a minister of the gospel,
there is a sacredness about that very cere-
mony that tends to render marriage mure sacred
and more inviolable through all lift;. I
do believe that if you thus allow everybody
in the community to be married by justices of
the peace, it is pretty much the same as al-
lowing anybody in the community to per-
form the ceremony; for justices of the peace
have no more religious Sanctity than any
other men or any other business in the whole
community, it will be breaking down and
degrading the religions sanctity of the cere-
mony.
But I am willing to make an exception of
this estimable class of religious people, for
whom I have the highest respect. They are
my neighbors in the city of Baltimore, and
live all around me, and I may say there is
not one religious denomination I respect so
highly—not even my own—as I do the Friends
or Quakers. I am willing to give them what
they ask. I am willing to say that they may
be married in any way they prefer; and thus |
