by any judge or clerk of any court of record
of this State."
Mr. CHAMBERS. That proposition and sub
stitute being before the house, I move to lay
the whole proposition on the table.
Mr. HEBB. I suggest that that carries the
whole legislative report.
Mr. CHAMBERS, I have no such purpose at
all. I withdraw the motion. But this is an
independent motion of the gentleman from
Harford, to add to the report a specific prop-
osition. Cannot that proposition be laid
upon the table?
The PRESIDENT. The subject before the
house is the report on the legislative depart-
ment, and the proposition is an amendment
to that. To lay an amendment upon the
table carries the entire report.
Mr. SANDS moved to strike out the words
"births" and "deaths" from Mr. STIRLING'S
amendment.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think the difficulty may
be obviated. I think the expressed sense of
the house may be fully carried out by adopt-
ing the first branch of the proposition of the
gentleman from Baltimore, which covers a
very important subject, and perhaps one
which may be made more useful than under
the present arrangement. Then by declin-
ing to adopt the remainder of the section,
and taking the first branch as a substitute for
the proposition of the gentleman from Har-
ford, we shall have adopted the view ex-
pressed in the vote by the yeas and nays
taken this morning. If in order, I will
move to divide the proposition of the gentle-
man from Baltimore (Mr. Stirling,) and ask
the house to adopt the first branch of it.
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman is not in
order. The gentleman from Howard (Mr.
Sands) has moved to amend the amend-
ment.
Mr. THOMAS. When I gave way to my
colleague (Mr. Stirling,) to enable him to
move a reconsideration of the original prop-
osition, I was giving the reasons why I voted
against this proposition last night. I voted
against it simply because I thought that the
proposition of the gentleman from Harford
should have been passed by this Convention.
I refrained last night from making any re-
marks, fur the reason that the gentleman
from Cecil (Mr. Pugh) so fully explained my
views and feelings, that I considered it un-
necessary. I only desire to say now, in re-
ply to the gentleman from Kent, and the
gentleman from Anne Arundel, in relation to
the state of the law as it now exists, that I
have it from the gentleman from Harford him-
self, that the Quaker society had been knock-
ing at the doors of the legislature of Mary-
land for years and years for the purpose of
having this amendment made, and that they
have always failed to get that justice done
which they ought to have, and the only hope
they now have is to get this provision incor- |
porated into the constitution, so as to compel
the legislature to make it.
I think it is but an act of justice to them.
If people outside of the persuasion desire to
marry one inside, those inside cannot get
married without violating one of the rules of
their church, and subjecting themselves to
church censure. We should allow them to
have a mode and manner in which they can
be married without violating the dictates of
their consciences. I say that the refusal of
the Convention to pass a provision like this,
is against public policy, and is an outrage
against the rights of this class of our com-
munity. These are the reasons which induce
me to ask a reconsideration of the vote upon
the proposition of the gentleman from Bal-
timore (Mr. Stirling,) which I conceive to
meet the views presented by the gentleman
from Harford, and at the same time it gives
us a registration law in relation to births,
marriages and deaths, which I think should
have been passed long ago.
The gentleman from Kent (Mr. Chambers)
tells us that there is a registration law in ex-
istence I ask him if the law for registration
in the parishes to which he refers does not
exclusively apply to the Episcopal church?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Certainly not. It is open
to all.
Mr. THOMAS. As Methodist, Presbyterian,
and other churches do not have such a pro-
vision they do not think of having the re-
gistration made, and nine-tenths of the peo-
ple do not know there is such a law in exist-
ence. I am perfectly content that it should
be provided for in any way so as to invite
everybody to come in.
I should like to know the reason for the
registration of marriages and not of births
and deaths. I am inclined to think there is
some misapprehension about it. At some fu-
ture period it may he very important to have
some evidence in this country. It is not here
as with our ancestors in great Britain that
the first male is the heir-at-law; tout the
doors are thrown open to an indefinitely
large number of heirs-at-law. In two or
three generations, in consequence of the loco-
motive character of our people, and the wide
surface over which our country is extended,
this law will become by and by exceedingly
important. It is so now. I have known
claims prosecuted in Europe recovered by
virtue of the entry in a parish register. Such
entries are by law evidence. Patents there-
fore are providing for those who are to come
after them most important documents, by
having births marriages and deaths recorded
by the register. Certainly I cannot perceive
any reason for the important amendment be-
fore the house, to provide for the registration
of marriages and not of births. Why should
we register the marriages if not the births ?
Mr. SANDS. I will reply to my friend's
question by saying that our country differs so |
