The question being taken, the result was—
yeas 45, nays 25—as follows :
Yeas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President;
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Barron, Belt, Bris-
coe, Carter, Clarke, Cunningham, Cashing,
Daniel, Dellinger, Ecker, Farrow, Galloway,
Hatch, Hopkins, Hopper, Jones, of Cecil,
Kennard, King, Lansdale, Larsh, Markey,
McComas, Mullikin, Murray, Nyman, Parker,
Peter, Pugh, Purnell, Ridgely, Russell,
Sands, Smith, of Carroll, Stirling, Stock-
bridge, Swope, Sykes, Thomas, Todd, Val-
liant, Wooden—45.
Nays— Messrs. Berry, of Prince George's,
Blackiston, Bond, Brown, Chambers, Dail,
Davis, of Charles, Dent, Duvall, Earle, Ede-
len, Harwood, Hebb, Hollyday, Horsey,
Jones, of Somerset, Lee, Marbury, Mitchell,
Miller, Morgan, Parran, Smith, of Dorchester,
Sneary, Wilmer—25.
The third branch of the amendment was
accordingly agreed to.
The question recurred on the adoption of
the amendment of Mr. RUSSELL as amended.
Mr. CHAMBERS, I wish to bear my testi-
mony against this proposition. For the pur-
pose of gratifying a thousandth part, or a
ten thousandth part of the community, you
are going to give offence to the rest of it. 1
do not suppose the society of Friends will be
offended it we do not adopt this; and they
do not bear the proportion of more than one
ten thousandth part. Every other Christian
community is scandalized, in my judgment,
by adopting this process of making marriage
simply a civil contrail, and divesting it of
every element of a religions ceremony. 1
ask the yeas and nays, that I may place my
name upon the record in opposition to the
adoption of the proposition in any form.
The yeas and nays were ordered,
Mr. SANDS. I do not see bow this is to
shock anybody's religious sense. Certainly
it does not disturb the existing practice with
regard to marriage.
The question being taken, the result was
—yeas 44, nays 24—as follows :
Teas—Messrs. Goldsborough, President
Abbott, Annan, Audoun, Barron, Belt
Briscoe, Carter, Clarke, Cunningham, Cush
Ing, Daniel, Dellinger, Ecker, Farrow, Gal-
loway, Hatch, Hopkins, Hopper, Jones, of
Cecil, Kennard, King, Landsdale, Larsh
Markey, McComas, Mullikin, Murray, Ny-
man, Parker, Peter, Pugh, Purnell, Ridgely
Russell, Sands, Smith, of Carroll, Stirling
Stockbridge, Swope, Thomas, Todd, Val-
liant, Wooden—44.
Nays—Messrs. Berry, of Prince George-
Blackiston, Bond, Brown, Chambers, Davis
of Charles, Dent, Duvall, Earle, Edelen
Harwood, Hebb, Hollyday, Horsey, Jones,
Somerset, Lee, Marbury, Mitchell, Miller
Morgan, Parran, Smith, of Dorchester
Sneary, Wilmer—24,
As their names were called, |
Mr. DAVIS, of Charles, said; I conceive
that this provision will require the legisla-
ture to pass a law creating a distinction be-
tween the people of Maryland, to allow the
judge or clerk of a court of record to marry
some persons and not to marry others. Any
party who has not conscientious scruples
about being married by the minister of one
of the religious denominations, under the
existing rules now established for marrying,
cannot be married in a court of record.
They must have those scruples to enable
them to go into the court to be married.
Those who have scruples about being married
by ministers of any denomination receiving
pay for preaching the gospel, can go into
court and be married; but any other person
not having scruples cannot. It confers a
privilege upon one class of persons which is
denied to others; and tor that reason the law
will not be general in its provisions. I vote
"no."
Mr. JONES, of Somerset, said; If this pro-
vision was that members of the society of
Friends might be married by some civil
officer, I should have far less objection to it.
In the form in which it now is, it opens the
whole question, and any man may be mar-
ried by a civil officer who chooses. All he
has to say is that he has conscientious scru-
ples. Of course nobody else can judge.
His own statement of his opinions must be
taken. To make it obligatory upon the leg-
islature to pass a law to this effect, it seems
to me will hamper them very much; and I
therefore vote "no,"
The section was accordingly adopted.
The next section in order was the follow-
ing, of which Mr. THOMAS gave notice yester-
day :
"Section —. Laws shall be passed by the
legislature taxing, by a uniform rule, all mo-
neys, credits, investments in bonds, stocks,
joint, stock companies or otherwise, and also
all real and personal property, according to
its true or actual value in money, and the
tax payable thereon shall be paid to the
county or city where the same is located at
the time of its assessment or valuation, and
the location of all stocks, bonds or other
evidence of debt shall be in the county or
city where the principal office of transacting
the business of such company or corporation
is located."
Mr. THOMAS. With the consent of the
house I will withdraw that section. I judge
from the canvass I have made of the house
since, that there is no likelihood of its ever
getting through. It is well known to mem-
bers of this convention that people who own
stocks, residing in Baltimore county and other
counties, which stocks are located in Balti-
more city, carry their stocks along with them,
and Baltimore city is annually—I will not
say cheated—but does not receive the tax upon
those stocks which I think she is entitled to. |
