ances, I do not know when I can be present
certainly not during this week.
Yours, truly,
W. H. MACE."
In accordance with that request, I offer the
following order:
"Ordered, That it be entered upon fie
journal, upon the request of Mr. Mace, of
Baltimore county, (absent from indisposition ')
that the vote cast by him against the propo-
sition of Mr. Schley, of Frederick, requesting
the President of the United States, and the
military authorities in Maryland, to assess
upon the known rebels of the State, the losses
sustained by the loyal men of the State by
the recent rebel raid, was so cast in entire
misconception of the true state of the facts,
and that upon more mature reflection and
better information, he is convinced that the
proposition was just and proper, and ought
to have been adopted."
The order was agreed to.
On motion of Mr. BARRON,
It was ordered that it be entered on the jour-
nal, that if John Barron bad been present on
Monday, July 25th, he would have voted for
section 40, of the legislative department, as
reported by the committee.
On motion of Mr. MARBURY,
It was ordered, that it be entered on the
journal, that had Mr. Marbury, of Prince
George's county, been present when the reso-
lution of Mr. Cushing', of July 9th, the re-
prisal resolution of Mr. Schley, of July 19th,
and the banishment resolution of Mr. Stir-
ling, of July 20th, 1864, were preseated, be
would have voted in the negative.
On motion of Mr. RIDGELY,
It was ordered that it be entered upon the
journal, that if Mr. Ridgely, of Baltimore
comity, had been present when the vote was
taken upon the resolutions offered by Mr.
Stirling, of Baltimore city, on Thursday, the
21st inst., relating to disloyalists, he would
have voted for the resolutions.
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT—MARRIAGE.
The convention proceeded to the considera-
tion of the order of the day, being the second
reading of the legislative article, the pending
question being on the adoption of the follow-
ing amendment submitted by Mr. DUVALL:
"Section—. The general assembly shall
pas? laws providing for the rites of marriage
between any persons legally competent to
contract marriage, and. provide for the regis-
tration of all marriages, in whatever manner
the same may be solemnized."
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have not heard any reason
assigned for this amendment, and the votes
seem to indicate that the desire for such an
amendment is growing weaker. I hope the
convention will decline to adopt it. I do not
know that there is a religions sect that does
not regard the marriage ceremony as of a re-
ligions character. The Roman Catholic be- |
lieves it to be entirely a sacrament. The
Quaker has other religious forms. I think
any inroad upon that principle would be a
very serious violation of the feelings of ninety-
nine out of every one hundred of the commu-
nity.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I shall op-
pose any legislation upon the subject of mar-
riage, other than the legislation now upon
the statute books, which think is sufficient to
cover all questions which may arise. We had
a most interesting case which arose in Prince
George's county, which was very fully tried
before the circuit court of the United States
for the district of Maryland some two years
since, in which all the law of marriage was
fully discussed before the court. There we
had a most learned and elaborate opinion de-
livered upon the law of marriage. The court
in its decision determined that cohabitation
and birth of children and recognition were
presumptions of marriage; that marriage was
first of all a civil contract. I recollect that
the judge very forcibly stated reasons why
this should be the case. Very frequently in
the wilds of the west, parties who represent
themselves to be ministers of some denomina-
tion of Christians, are called upon to perform
marriage ceremonies. The marriage ceremo-
ny is performed by them. Would it not be
an outrage that the children born of that con-
nection should be bastardized because they
could not prove that the party who married
them was a minister of some denomination of
Christians, and authorized lo perform the
ceremony "
This question has been twice before the Su-
preme Court of the United States. I think a
case will be found in 8 Peters' reports where
this very question was presented, and the
court gave a divided opinion upon that ques-
tion. A subsequent question arose in the Su-
preme Court of the United States, and the
court then determined that that was the law
of the land, and should be the law of all civil-
ized nations. Then that is now the law of the
State of Maryland—the recognized law of the
State of Maryland. That is enough for all
purposes; and I do not see the use of legisla-
ting further upon this subject. I shall oppose
all further legislation upon the subject, as
having a tendency to break down the fixed
rules of law upon the subject. The adjudi-
cated law upon the subject would again be-
come unsettled, and it would be necessary to
go into the courts of law of the State in order
to have a judicial interpretation of the law.
Mr. DUVALL demanded the yeas and nays,
and they were ordered.
The question being taken the result was—
yeas 11, nays 58—as follows:
Yeas— Messrs. Abbott, Annan, Carter,
Duvall, Hatch, Lansdale, Marbury, Nyman,
Parker, Peter, Ridgely—11.
Nays—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Audoun, Barron, Berry, of Prince George's, |
