the legislature. It has become burdensome
and onerous to the people, from the very fact
that it tied the bands of the authorities of the
State so that the people could not get rid of
abuses when they wanted to get rid of them.
I could mention as many instances of this as
I have fingers. Allow me to mention one—
the system of public roads. The public road
system was established in the constitution
itself. The result has been that in my coun-
ty we have had no roads since the constitu-
tion was adopted. We were tied up to this
particular system, and it was impossible to
have a change without a change in the con-
stitution itself. If it had been left to the
legislature, we should have quickly substi-
tuted for the system we have to-day, a more
acceptable one, tile very moment we found
that the system establisbed in the constitution
did not work in oar own and a great many
other counties.
I hold that the proper function and duty
of a constitutional convention is to lay down
the organic law, and the constitution should
be the mere framework of organic law, the
foundation principles upon which political
society is to rest. Separating the commit-
tees for the different departments, it would be
the duty of the executive, legislative and ju-
diciary committees to establish these and
other merely primary and elementary princi-
ples which under the American system are
held to he necessary to a republican form of
government, and there to stop. Invest the
legislature with full primary functions, and
let them meet every year, and you will find
that we shall be a more prosperous and a
happier people: for the reason that we
should have here, as the people intended to
have, in the popular branch of the legisla-
ture, the right so to shape their laws in al-
most all particulars, as would have advanced
all our interests under circumstances con-
stantly occurring of a. different character.
I shall therefore, when this thing comes to
the ultimate test, vote for that proposition
which will decline to impose any particular
duty upon the legislature, either in reference
to this or any other particular subject, leav-
ing the legislature free to act as time and oc-
casion may demand. But as we are upon
this, as a broad proposition, there is an
amendment which I shall propose to attach
to it, which I will read ;
"Provided however, that the general as-
sembly shall not pass any law requiring the
intervention of any minister of the gospel, or
of any civil officer, or any registration as
being necessary to the validity of any mar-
riage which would otherwise be valid at com-
mon law or under the existing laws of this
State."
Whatever may be the prevalent impression
among a great many moral people as to the
sanctity and Christian authority of the insti-
tution of marriage, there can be no doubt |
that the law in this State is that the consent
of the panties, acknowledgment of children,
and the fact of living together as man and
wife, are received in the courts of justice as
evidence of marriage; nay, as marriage itself.
Not in England, from which we derive the in-
stitution, not anywhere upon the face of the
earth, is the doctrine that marraige is a mere-
ly civil contract more prevalent than it is ill
Maryland, at this very day. All the deci-
sions, so far as they have gone, point in that
direction. It is here recognized in no sense
as a religious rite. In the eye of the law it is
a civil contract, to the same extent as any
other contract that is made and allowed to
subsist between individuals.
As to the question of morality, are we to
say that the perpetuation of what is now pub-
lic law among us, will work immorality, be-
cause it has a tendency to shut out ministers
of the gospel from performing marriage?—
Take the other view of it. We know that so
long as society shall last, although the great
bulk of the people may always regard marriage
as connected with areligious ceremony,
yet there will be many cases, in which there
will be no such connection; but there will be
marriage by consent and all the consequences
of it. What shall we say then of the morality
of illegitimizing the offspring of such mar-
riages, seeing that they are bound to occur?
I hold that morality is promoted, that the
highest interests of the church and of reli-
gion are promoted, and that public decency
is promoted by the public law of this State
recognizing those marriages by consent, fol-
lowed by the fact of living together as man
and wife, as valid marriages within the
meaning of the law. But I do not suppose
that the adoption of any of these propositions
would cause that law to be differently inter-
preted.
Mr. STIRLING. I have heard that statement
made before. I recollect that my friend
tried a very important case, in which that
principle was sought to be established; and I
think it was vehemently denied by the coun-
sel upon the other side; although I believe
the court did sustain the views of the gentle-
man from Prince George's (Mr. Belt.) But I
would ask him whether that question is set-
tled; whether there is not great doubt wheth-
er that is so? That is a, matter of some
importance. I ask: whether it is not a fact
that whenever a man sets up his own mar-
riage, he must prove that. he actually was
married; and when an attempt is made
to hold him criminally responsible, whether
you are not bound to prove actual marriage?
Is not the decision merely that long continu-
ance of living together as man and wife shall
be received as evidence of marriage, instead
of being sufficient to constitute marriage ?
Mr. BELT. The only answer requisite for
me to make is that after the investigation that
the circumstances required me to make upon |
