attend to the interests of the souls of men, and to cultivate the religious information and knowledge and feeling of the people. He is empowered to use every faculty of his mind and soul in the service of a Master whose kingdom is not of this world. His duties are exactly the opposite of those of a secular character. His interests, his object, his avowed purpose, the solemn obligation assumed by him when he takes his vows; his first duty is to contend against the world, as well as the flesh and the devil. Now, I ask if any one legitimate purpose for which a man goes to the altar, and there solemnly by his vows devotes himself exclusively to the service of his God, and the salvation of the souls of his fellowmen-I ask if one single purpose, one solitary object, one possible end, to which that vow and that devotion of his life commits him, is accomplished by his becoming a politician? The great business of his life is to serve his Master, by extending the interest of His kingdom to sinners. Does he accom plish that by quitting the field of this labor, and engaging in the strifes which will necessarily, not which may, accompany the position of a politician? I think no man can answer that question affirmatively.

And when, on the contrary, I ask, does not the engaging in politics go to deleat every object of his existence as a minister, go to counteract every purpose to which he professes to devote himself and his whole life; does not an entry into politics necessarily defeat to that extent every object which he has thus promised to make the great object of his life, what must be the answer? In the first place what is he to do? He has to electioneer for the place. I am not to be told that he may or may not do it. We are to take men precisely as we find them. A minister of the gospel, when he lays aside his ministerial character, is neither more nor less than any other individual in society. When he ceases to act in his character of minister he becomes a common citizen.

derstand what was meant, and asked what was the matter. One of them-Mr. Bucbanan-came up to me and said-"Judge, did anybody tell you about the minister and myself going about the county electioneering ?" I said "No." "Why," said he, "if you had been present you could not have given a more accurate description of what passed; we thought somebody had told you the whole story." Now, is not that a sad predicament for a minister to be placed in?

There would not be one instance in a thousand when his clerical character would not be lost sight of. A minister of the gospel should live a life of purity, holiness, devotion to his duty, disregarding all secular considerations, all collisions of sentiment, all acts of engaging in politics; he can have some other duty or employment, provided it does not operate against the interest of his flock. No time, occasion, or necessity should, in his view, compare with the interests of immortal souls intrusted to his care, and for which he is accountable before God, for which he must account at the great day, if they are lost because he did not attend to them, while he was devoting himself to other matters. A minister thus entitles himself to respect, and will be respected every where. But when he forgets his vocation and devotes his time and attention to other matters, he cannot but expect the natural consequence to be that which awaits every man who misemploys his time and talents, and devotes them to illegitimate purposes.

There are other considerations, however. This is not the only thing a minister is restrained from. You restrain ministers from receiving donations, because they have an influence which other people have not; an influence which they ought to have, not for political purposes, but which controls the minds and judgments and feelings of men. I have no doubt at all the gentleman I alluded to in the last Convention had not been in the county more than a year or so, and yet he was the first man on the poll. Of course every man that belonged to his church voted for him. This influence necessarily attached to him on account of his profession, not in consequence of his political opinions or capability.

my views at large on another occasion, and do not deem it necessary to repeat them now. The reasons are so numerous and so palpable that I deem it unnecessary to enlarge upon the subject..

4

ministers and preachers of the gospel an exception to this general rule for all classes of men? I confess that I see none. Are they less intelligent, less moral, less fitted by the circumstances in which they are placed to discharge properly the duties of legislators? Sir, it is an insult to the common understanding to say that they are less intelligent as a body than any other class of the community; to say that they are less moral, or that they have less at heart the good of the State. It that be so, and our sole purpose in framing a Constitution is to endeavor to provide the best possible class of legislators, then why exclude these men? They are bound to pay taxes the same as other men; they are equally liable to military duty. They owe every obligation to the State that other citizens owe; and they are endowed with every other privi- | lege but this. They may be constables, or justices of the peace, or road supervisors, or county commissioners, or members of Congress, or Gover. ors of the State. They may hold every civil or military office except the single office of member of the General Assembly. Then what reason can there be for that exception?

The argument drawn from the antiquity of the custom in this State has no weight with me, none at all. Go back to the time when there was an apprehension that certain persons might exert an undue influence; that it was necessary, for instance, to exclude Catholic priests from positions of political influence; or the Catholic priests themselves were afraid that the clergy of the Church of England would have an undue influence in political affairs. I can easily understand that a compromise might then be made between the Catholic and Protestant denominations, that they would exclude all priests together; and that in those days when each was fearful of the future, this might have been incorporated in the Constitution. It has stood here until no well-balanced mind in the State of Maryland has any apprehension of priestly influence. If, then, that was the original occasion for the insertion of such an article in our Constitution, and the occasion has gone by forever, then why retain that which was the growth of that occasion, which is a blot upon the State Constitution as it now stands, and which is unlike any other State Constitution in that respect? What harm can there come of it? Has there been such a rush of the clergy for other political offices that we apprehend they will rush for this and monopolize the halls of legislation? How many clergy are there in the State holding political offices, from a postmastership down? Not a baker's dozen; perhaps not one. How is it in other States where there is no such restriction? Are their halls of legislation overrun with clergymen? Much as I pride myself upon the legislature of our State, I think that the legislatures of some of the States,

where this restriction is not found, will not suffer by comparison with our own. I therefore say that in reason and experience alike we find no reason for an exclusion of this kind.

Then, again, it is an invidious and odious distinction, extremely so. Who are excluded, by. your Constitution, from your Legisla ture? First, those holding certain civil and military offices. Now, although in some of its applications that is a hardship, still there is some show of reason for it; because a man appointed to a civil or military office gives an implied pledge to the public that he will devote his whole time, or so much as is necessary, to the faithful discharge of his duties. And to accept another office might be incompatible with the proper discharge of those duties, and he would be holding two offices, and receiving two emoluments at the same time. Who else are excluded? Negroes and convicted felons; no one else.

Mr. DANIEL. And women.

Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. Women have certain legal rights, but no political privileges. But all men in the State are admissible in your Legislature, negroes, convicted felons and ministers of the gospel excepted. A pretty row, certainly. I say this is a disgrace to our legislation, and an outrage upon the common sense of the community, and I hope it will be stricken out of our Constitution.

Mr. PURNELL. I can see no reason why ministers of the gospel should not occupy seats in the legislative halls, as well as in this Convention. It cannot be for want of cultivation; it cannot, I apprehend, be for the want of moral character, or for want of literary attainments. It is a fact that that class are better prepared in view of their qualifications than most any other class that are sent to the legislative halls of this State. And I think this large and influential class of citizens should te entitled at least to the same privileges and the same immunities with other of the most favored citizens of the State.

Besides that, it is a matter which should be left exclusively to the constituents, to the people of the respective communities, to se-lect and choose their own agents, to say in. their primary conventions who shall and who shall not represent them. And they should not be bound down to any particular class, or to any particular line in making their selection of those to legislate for them.

And I think, as has been very properly remarked here, this is an invidious distinction.. They are precluded from any participation in the legislation of the State, in the passage of the laws by which their lives and their liberties are controlled. Of course they must abide by any legislation, or any terms that may be imposed by their agents who are sent to officiate in that capacity.

And if this evil is of that stupendous char-acter, as has been represented by the gentle

man from Kent (Mr. Chambers,) why is it that it has been so long tolerated in Congress? If the public mind had been directed to this evil, it seems to me that Congress would have been the first place where the remedy should have been applied, where the evil should have been redressed? Yet, from the earliest history of this government, you find ministers of the gospel returned to the popular branch of the national legislature, and also in the Senate of the United States. I have in view now some two or three such-Mr. Cabell, of Georgia, Mr. Hilliard, of Alabama, Mr. Bates, of Delaware, and hosts of others.

Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Bates was a lawyer. Mr. PURNELL. And a minister, too, for I have heard him preach often; and I must do him the credit to say that he was a pretty good lawyer-preacher. Now, if the evil was so great as it seems to have been, in the view of the gentleman from Kent, Congress was the place to have applied the remedy. If the liberties of the people, or the stability of the Goverment, were endangered by the introduction of that class of people into the Congress of the United States, that would have been the place to reform the abuse; that would have been the place from which to have excluded them. But no evil seems to have resulted from their admission there. You do not find hosts of ministers in the Congress of the United States, conspiring and confederating together to overthrow the Government, or discussing the different doctrines of their churches. But you find them there participating in the legislation of the country in the manner best calculated to promote the general interest, without permitting any sectarian feeling whatever to enter into their deliberations, or to control their actions.

a large and respectable class of men, ministers of the gospel, who, although not perhaps attached to any particular congregation, yet are local ministers, and in that connection are excluded from entrance into the legisla-, tive halls of the State. But, as has been properly remarked by the gentleman who last addressed you (Mr. Stockbridge,) they are tax-payers; are subject to military duty; subject to all the municipal duties that devolve upon the citizens of the various counties; and yet they are excluded from the legislative halls of the State. Now, it seems to me that they are eminently qualified for that position. They are educated men, with some few exceptions They are well fitted to go upon your committees, and elaborate subjects of legislation, moral subjects which often occupy the attention of the Legislature; subjects of education, and all subjects of that character; and at the same time they are well qualified to participate in the legislation and debate upon those subjects, not only in committee but in the legislative balls. So far as moral influence is concerned, I

think that which they would exercise would be exemplary, and would be productive of good. In regard to the evils which might result to the individual or to the community, so far as electioneering is concerned, the picture which the gentleman from Kent has drawn was certainly a very strong one, and it might be practically carried into effect. But I take it for granted that there would not be such a rush of ministers to become candidates for position in the Legislature, if that was the case. If they were nominated in the primary meetings in the counties where they reside, there would be no impropriety in their accepting the nomination, and if elected, of going to the Legislature and participating in their deliberations, without entering into the caucusses, without canvassing the counties in which they live, with this bottle, of which the gentleman speaks, in their pockets, or in their carriage-box. There would be no necessity for anything of that kind. They could remain at home in their closets, acting in that sphere which is becoming to them, and which alone ornaments their profession. I shall vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Baltimore city (Mr. Daniel,) because I think the evils contemplated by the framers of the original Constitution, if they ever existed, have long since passed away. I think that the fear of the evil of connecting church and State has long since exploded; that there is no necessity for this provision now. I think the good sense of the people will at all times control this subject; and that there can be no danger whatever that there ever will be a sufficient number of ministers in the halls of legislation in this State, or any other State, to control its whole deliberation.

tors for instance, allowed to go on in debate and elucidate the whole diagnosis of their profession? Because it is impertinent and would not be tolerated. Why are not lawyers in legislative halls allowed to go on and indulge in a long harangue about all the technicalities of their profession? Because it would not be tolerated. And so it would be with minis'ers of the gospel; they would not be permitted to introduce and discuss the various doctrinal points which might divide them. They would be confined to the subjects under consideration, and like all other members would be controlled and bound by the rules of the house.

I think this invidious distinction has prevailed long enough. I think the time has arrived when it should no longer be tolerated, but should be extinguished and blotted from the organic law of the State. It is with that view that I shall vote for the amendment.

Mr. Scorr. I think the argument is about exhausted, and I shall not occupy the time of the Convention long upon this subject. But this appears to me to be a proper period

to put in a word of commendation of a brave man of my own county, and I can scarcely resist the temptation to do so. I refer to the late chaplain of the 6th Maryland regiment, Rev. Joseph T. Brown. He was an industrious working mechanic, who became a local preacher of the Methodist Church. He left a prosperous business, a pleasant home, and an interesting family, to engage in the arduous duties of chaplain to the 6th Maryland regiment. While so engaged he was taken prisoner and confined at Richmond until he nearly lost his life. He has returned home with a shattered constitution; and it is more than I can do to go home and meet the gaze of that brave good man, without recording my voice and my vote against such an invidious distinction as has so long disgraced the Constitution under which we live. At the same time you disqualify him, you admit to the same place the poorest pettifogging lawyer, that ever hung out his shingle; and the physician that never could make a living at his business; the farmer and the mechanic that have not succeeded in their business; not to say men of the most degraded and despicable character. They are all admitted into the halls of legislation, while ministers are excluded, while that brave good man who has perilled his life in the service of his country, is excluded. I take this opportunity, not to make any argument, but to record my voice in favor of that good and gallant man.

Mr. CHAMBERS. One gentleman says that we have nothing to do with the morality of the State. Now, I differ altogether with my friend on that point. I think that if we have a proposition before us that involves the moral condition of the State, we are bound to respect it highly for that consideration.

It has been rung in our ears that this provision creates an invidious distinction. Well, sir, it is not the only instance in which the influence of the religious man upon other members of the community is noticed in our laws. A clergyman cannot go to the death bed of his parishioner and induce him to grant him his property. But anybody else is permitted to do so; the pettifogging lawyer and the worthless physician is not prevented from doing so.

Why not have them sent here? Because you want men sent here by the independent uninfluenced voice of the people in the respective districts or counties. We are told by one member here that these matt rs are all fixed at primary meetings. Now, a man with a very large congregation can have a majority at the primary meeting out of his own meeting house. The religious influence which he exercises on that class controls the action of the primary meeting; that action controls the election in the county; and the man is sent here simply because as a preacher

he has an influence by his clerical office, which other people cannot exercise.

But what I have chiefly to say is this: I suppose there is hardly a man on this floor who would suppose that a preacher of the gospel, whose soul and mind is as devoted to the legitimate business of his calling as it ought to be, will ever dream of becoming a member of a political body. It never has been known, and I humbly trust it never will be, when a man actively, zealously engaged in the performance of the duties of his office as minister of the gospel, when sinners abo ind to an extent which employs every moment of his time and every hour of his thoughts-I hope the time never will be known when he will desert that field, and enter into another utterly foreign to any purpose which relates to his vocation in life. You will never, therefore, get that class of clergymen who really devote themselves, according to their vows, strictly to the business of their calling.

Then, whom will you get? Men-I will not say pettifogging clergymen-men who cannot find a community anywhere willing to give them a subsistence for the exercise of their calling; men who have a very indefinite idea-I will not say a very erroneous one-of the obligations which they owe to their Master; men who are willing to partially desert his interests for the purpose of taking part in politics. Such men may find places here. We have clergymen of all sorts; we have religion of all sorts; we have sects of all sorts. Some think that religion is a very small affair, and a little attention given to it once in a while is enough. Now, I do not want to have a provision in the Constitution, which, while we know it will never open the door for the entrance of any one of the elect and best of the class, is to admit exclusively the very inferior members of that class. You might just as well-for the prac tical consequence would be the same-insert in your Constitution a provision that the better order of the clergy shall never be permitted to hold a seat in the Legislature, while those who are less attentive to their duties, less sensible of their obligations, less capable of performing them, may be admitted.

It is said that ministers of the gospel are equally competent to fill this office. I say-no. They are equally intelligent, it is said. In what sense is that used? They may have more intelligence in regard to the Bible; they may understand that better. They may have belles-lettres intelligence to a greater extent than others. I say that if they understand their business and will attend to it, they do not understand politics as well as others. It is not such an intelligence which it is their business to acquire. A clergyman, in my humble judgment, who is a politician, is not entitled to respect.

Mr. SCOTT. Such as Bishop Hopkins.