the subject, I am satisfied that every decision
which has ever been rendered in this State,
sustains the doctrine as I have stated it here.
In the matter to which the gentleman alludes,
the rulings of the court went to the very ex-
tremest extent; even further than I have gone.
I will not detain the convention longer.—
I will offer this amendment in order that the
convention may expressly say that the law as
it now exists shall not bechanged; although
I believe it would remain so notwithstanding
the adoption of any of these clauses. If the
convention is going into the business of mark-
ing out the duties of the legislature, or per-
forming the functions of the general assembly
deciding beforehand what shall be the legisla-
tion of the State, I want the convention not
to interfere with this point. To say that a
man shall not be legally married, no matter
what difficulties may surround him, and no
matter what interest he may, have in keeping
the marriage a secret, that no matter what cir-
cumstances of this sort may influence him it
shall not be a legal and valid marriage unless
he is married by some public minister or civil
officer, and shall have his marriage registered,
is an invasion of private liberty to which I for
one will never give my assent.
Mr. MILLER called the previous question; and
the call was sustained.
The question was first stated upon the
amendment moved by Mr. BELT, to add to the
original section the following :
"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."
The amendment was rejected.
The question was then taken upon the fol-
lowing amendment submitted by Mr. SANDS:
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
person within this State, unless by some min-
ister of religion ordained according to the
rites of his or her church, except in the case
of persons, members of the Society of Friends
commonly called Quakers, or persons inter-
marrying 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 denomination."
The amendment was rejected.
The question was then stated upon the fol
lowing amendment of which Mr. STIRLING
had given notice.
Strike out all after the word " assembly''
and insert the following : |
" Shall provide by law for the registration
of births, marriages and deaths, and shall pass
laws providing for the celebration of mar-
riage between any inhabitants of this State
not prohibited by law from marrying; and
shall provide that any persons prevented by
conscientious scruples from being married by
any of the existing provisions of law, may
be married by any judge or clerk of any
court of record of this State."
Mr, HEBB demanded a division of the sub-
ject, being in favor of the first branch and
opposed to the second.
The question then being on the first branch,
viz:
" Shall provide by law for the registration
of births, marriages and deaths, and shall
pass laws providing for the celebration of
marriage between any inhabitants of this
State not prohibited by law from marry-
ing"
Mr. DANIEL demanded the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 19, nays 34—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President ;
Abbolt, Daniel, Davis, of Washington, Far-
row, Harwood, Hebb, King, Markey, Mulli-
kin, Nyman, Parker, Purnell, Smith, of Car-
roll, Stirling, Stockbridge, Swope, Todd—19.
Nays—Messrs. Annan, Belt, Blackiston,
Bond, Brown, Clarke, Cunningham, Cushing,
Dent, Duvall, Earle, Ecker, Edelen, Gallo-
way, Hollyday, Hopkins, Hopper, Jones, of
Somerset, Kennard, Lansdale, Lee, Marbury,
McComas, Mitchell, Miller, Murray, Negley,
Parran, Peter, Pugh, Russell, Sands, Sneary,
Thomas—34.
When their names were called,
Mr. EDELEN said: For the reasons stated by
my friend from Anne Arundel (Mr. Bond,)
and reiterated by the gentleman from Prince
George's (Mr. Belt, ) and the fact that this is
a subject with which I believe we as members
of a constitutional convention have nothing
to do, but coming peculiarly, within the
sphere of legislative action, I vote against
this and every proposition submitted to the
convention on the subject. I vote " no."
Mr. KENNARD said: While I have no ob-
jection to the views embraced in the original
proposition of the gentleman from Harford,
because I believe this is a matter properly be-
longing to the legislature, and do not wish
to interpolate in the constitution matters of
this sort, I vote "no."
The first branch of the amendment was ac-
cordingly rejected.
Mr. STIRLING. That kills the proposition.
I will withdraw the other branch if there is
no objection.
By general consent the second branch of
the amendment was withdrawn.
The question recurred upon the amendment
of Mr. RUSSELL to insert in the legislative ar-
ticle the following section: |
