far to go beyond what I think ought to be
the policy of the State. I am willing to
make an exception for them; but when I
have gone thus far and made this exception
I do think our friends ought not to ask us to
go any further, and let all people be married
in the same way, because they choose to differ
from us and want to be married in a particu-
lar way.
I do not care which amendment is adopted ;
bat I rather prefer the amendment of the gen-
tleman from Howard (Mr. Sands,) because I
think it takes the very proposition submitted
by the gentleman from Harford (Mr. Rus-
sell, ) and allows a magistrate or mayor of a
city to marry them. As that is their propo-
sition, I want to yield them everything they
ask. But I ask them not to insist that the
religious sense of myself or anybody else, or
the community be violated in other respects.
The respect which the community have for
this religious society is such that their reli-
gions sense would not be violated in granting
them this privilege, because everybody knows
that denomination too well to suppose that it
would detract from them to be married in
any way they thought proper. But I think to
extend the same privilege to persons not re-
ligious would detract from this ceremony, and
shock the sense of the community. I am
willing to giant this to them; but I do not
think it ought to be given to others, on that
account.
it is said here, as I understand it, that the
proposition of the gentleman from Howard
is covered by the law already on the subject.
That that cannot be the case, is shown by
the case of the gentleman from Harford (Mr.
Russell,) whose daughter had to go over the
line to get married. Under this provision
she would not have been obliged to go to
Philadelphia to get married. But if you al-
low them to be married here, as they are now
married when they cross the line, you give
them everything they now have in the State
and out of the State.
I do not care which amendment is adopted.
It struck me when my colleague presented
his proposition, that it would put persons to
considerable trouble to find the judges in
some of the counties.
Mr. STIRLING. I will add the word
"clerk." Everybody has got to have a li-
cense, and they will easily find either the
judge or the clerk.
Mr. NEGLEY. I am entirely opposed to all
these amendments. I think with the gentle-
man on the other side of the house (Mr.
Bond,) that this is entirely a subject of legis-
lation; and if you stick so many other mat-
ters into the constitution, you will have a
constitution that may be very burdensome to
print and to read. The matter of which the
gentleman from Harford complains, strikes
me as a very curious one. It arises from the
indisposition of the outsider to be married |
according to the rites of the denomination of
Friends. If the outsider would always con-
sent to be married according to the rites
of the denomination of Friends, there would
be no trouble about it. And I cannot see
why the man or the woman outside of that
denomination must always be married by
ceremonies outside of that denomination.
We have a religious denomination in Wash-
ington county known as the Menonists; and
if you pass this law with regard to the Qua-
kers you ought to pass it in regard to them.
If any of their members marry an outsider
and are married by an outside minister, they
are subject to discipline. They are under
the same discipline that the gentleman from
Harford pays his denomination is.
There is no need of it. It is not properly
a subject for the constitution but for the law.
think the law as we have it on the statute
book already, nearly covers the whole case.
If it does not, let the legislature pass the ne-
cessary law,
Mr. BELT. I have an amendment to offer,
which I will preface with a remark or two.
My colleagues and myself take very little in-
terest in this question, and we should have
preferred that the discussion should be limited
altogether to the gentleman from Cecil (Mr.
Pugh,) the gentleman from Howard (Mr.
Sands,) and the gentleman from Anne Arun-
del (Mr. Miller,) by whom in the earlier part
of the discussion, it was so ably handled.—
The question how marriage shall be celebra-
ted is one in which we benedicts cannot be
said to have the same interest as the unmar-
ried members; although perhaps we might
take more interest in the question of the way
to get out of it.
The original proposition submitted by the
gentleman from Harford, is one towards
which I occupy the singular attitude of being
in favor of it, and yet against it. I am in
favor of it, at this present stage of the ques-
tion, and shall vote for it as a naked proposi-
tion, embracing what I think to be the true
doctrine as far as it goes. But I will say
that the only proposition which I have heard
which I am fully infavor of, is that of which
notice has been given by my friend from Mont-
gomery (Mr. Peter,) and which has been so
ably and opportunely supported by my friend
from Acne Arundel (Mr. Miller.) It has
been justly remarked by some gentlemen,
that if we proceed in this direction, putting
into the constitution provisions enforcing
upon the legislature the performance of these
particular positive, affirmative duties, we
shall never cease until we get the legislation
in the constitution in such a condition that
there will be no necessity for a legislature at
all. One great difficulty in the present con-
stitution, which upon conversation with
prominent members, we trusted this conven-
tion would remove, is that there is too much
in it, that it is all fall of restrictions upon |
