Thomas N. Lindsay, of Franklin, fell below the expectation which his known talents had justified.

Dr. Alexander K. Marshall, of Jessamine, was of that talented family of which Thomas F. Marshall is best known. Dr. Marshall was a radical Democrat, and though not equal to his brother in culture and genius, possessed strong intelligence.

Martin P. Marshall, of Fleming, was a man of integrity and political sagacity, proved an excellent member, and has been pronounced one of the brainiest in the convention.

Richard L. Mayes, of Graves, was a

very strong man intellectually.

John H. McHenry, of Ohio, a kinsman of Mr. Hardin, was of ripe judgment, well-balanced faculties, a clear and vigorous thinker.

Thomas P. Moore, of Mercer, nicknamed "Free Tom," had had considerable legislative and congressional experience, was influential with the Democracy, to which he belonged, but for reasons somewhat conjectural eschewed debate.

JOHN W. STEVENSON.

Elijah F. Nuttall, of Henry, was a singular genius, a warm Democrat, and very whimsical in his opinions. He was ardent in debate, had decided views on all questions, but influenced no one on anything.

Ignatius A. Spalding, of Union (kinsman of the distinguished lawyer and politician of Morganfield, who bears his name), was a typical Kentucky farmer-vigorous, hearty, frank, intelligent, and honest. When Garrett Davis precipitated the Native American issue upon the convention, Mr. Spalding led the opposition.

John W. Stevenson, of Kenton, had not at that time attained his full intellectual maturity, but proved a useful, hard-working member. He was conceded a leading place in the convention, not only for his legal acquirements, but for his well-poised temper and sound and intelligent statesmanship. As a Democrat, he had some difficulty in restraining the impetuosity of his co-partisans within his own conservative views of propriety. When the Green river Democracy, and that of the "Purchase," were inclined to stampede under the incitation of Hardin or Gholson, Stevenson would encounter them

with some scrap of a letter from Washington, Jefferson, Madison, or Monroe with such urbanity that if he did not control them, he gave no offense. It was charged that he could aptly quote from the writings of Mr. Madison, no matter what the question-whether the composition of a custard or the construction of a constitution.

Philip Triplett, of Daviess, was a useful member of the convention, and in harmony with its more conservative aims.

Squire Turner, from Madison-on the line between the bluegrass and the mountains-was very potential, on account of locality, as well as of his marked talents and consummate lawyership.

Silas Woodson, of Knox, was a bright man, and has since abundantly redeemed, by a brilliant career in a sister State, the promise of his early manhood.

Twenty-four members (so far as the report shows) took no part whatever in the debates, and possibly in so doing, acted more wisely than some who were heard "for their much speaking."

"The debates of the convention were taken verbatim," says Colonel John W. Finnell (who had charge of reporting), "but they were very much cut down in the published debates. A full report would

have made them intolerably voluminous."

On December 21st, the constitution was completed and the convention adjourned until the first Monday in June, following. Meantime, the product of its labor was assailed with vigor, and as vigorously defended. The most notable debate of that period occurred in the hall of the House of Representatives in January, 1850, between Mr. Hardin and the famous Thomas F. Marshall. They not only dwelt on the merits of the questions involved, but enforced their respective views with a degree of sarcasm, wit invective, and ridicule never before witnessed in the State. This tournament lasted several days. Marshall established a campaign paper at Frankfort, styled the Old Guard. The Old Guard fiercely attacked the new constitution. of which The Champion of Reform was the advocate. Throughout the State, speakers were on the stump, exerting their logic and eloquence for and against the new form of government. No one was more untiring and enthusiastic than Mr. Hardin, and an Ajax he proved himself. As he had predicted, the new constitution was approved by the vote of the people in May, by a decisive majority. To him the result was doubly gratifying. Not only were the principles triumphant, which he had long cherished, but at the close of his career he had crowned the labors of his life with a master-piece.

WH

CHAPTER XXXII.

A PLEA FOR THE CLERGY.

HEN Virginia formed its first constitution, that instrument contained a provision prohibiting clergymen from seats in its legis. lative body. The cause of this discrimination may be readily traced to jealousy of the church establishment of colonial times. The Estab lished or Episcopal church had been supported by an annual stipend, levied by authority of the colonial government. Naturally, this levy generated discontent and bad feeling on the part of other religious sects. This burden, and the infliction of legal penalties against dissenters, had produced and intensified the opposition to the union of church and State. The first fruit of these, under Republican rule, was the constitutional inhibition in question. Rev. John L. Waller, in the constitutional convention of 1849, gave the following account of its origin:

"There was some show of an excuse for it, but not the shadow of reason in its justification, when it was first introduced into an American constitution, in that of Virginia, adopted in 1776. That State was then influenced by peculiar circumstances. Previous to that time, under colonial regulations, the Episcopal church was established there by law. To support the clergy of that church, certain lands, called glebe lands, were appropriated; besides a large stipend in tobacco was annually paid them. This became oppressive. Other denominations of religionists sprang up, who felt unwilling to support a church to which they did not belong, and to whose doctrines they did not subscribe. The law was appealed to by the friends of the establishment. Persecution ensued. My own ancestors suffered severely were whipped and cast into prison. This odious and persecuting establishment was put down the year that the first Virginia constitution was ordained. The ministers of all other denominations submitted to it quietly, because it debarred their persecutors from office.

"But there was another and more controlling reason for this restriction. The great statesman who drafted that constitution was no friend to religion.* He had tasted and felt the influence of the French philosophy, which just then began to lower upon the brow of the moral firmament, and soon after shrouded in darkest gloom the moral heavens of the civilized world. The great men of the earth, and many of our own statesmen, were enveloped in its

Thomas Jefferson.

darkness. This philosophy subsequently led its disciples to declare that there was no God, and that death was an eternal sleep. It was, I say, the promptings in part of this philosophy, which first gave birth to this proscription of gospel ministers."†

When in 1792, Kentucky-Virginia's eldest daughter—started on her own account, the disabling clause referred to was dutifully, though without any special rhyme or reason, incorporated into her fundamental law. "No minister of a religious society *** shall be a member of either house (of the General Assembly) during his continuance to act as a minister." So the provision ran. Again in 1799, when a second constitution was constructed, still more emphatic language was adopted: "No person while he continues to exercise the functions of a clergyman, priest, or teacher of any religious society or sect" ** shall be eligible as a member of the Legislature. It is not known what, discussion, if any, occurred at the adoption of either of these provisions. If any, doubtless the calamity of uniting church and State was a controlling consideration.

When the constitutional convention of 1849 assembled, it was the preponderating sentiment of that body, as well as of the constituency it represented, that Church and State should still be kept separate, and, as an indispensable precaution to effect this vital object, that clergymen should be debarred from taking active part in the conduct of political affairs. The reasons for this sentiment at that day were certainly more imaginary than real. The political sagacity of the priestly Ximenes, Richelieu, and Mazarin has possibly received some adornment from partial historians, and undoubted exaggeration from the facile romancist. Anyway, the clerical profession of modern times is exceedingly barren of types resembling those famous cardinals. A political preacher -with due reverence be it said-is most usually a political maladroit.

The provision in question was perpetuated by the Virginia convention of 1829-in some respects the most notable body of this century. It received brief consideration, as appears from the report: "The question being then put on the second paragraph, Mr. Henderson moved to strike out the provisor (which inhibits the election of priests and ministers of the Gospel to the Legislature). Mr. Henderson put his motion on the ground of principle. It was a conviction of his mind which he could not yield even to the views of his constituents. He considered such exclusion directly at war with the principles laid down in the previous part of the resolution.

"Mr. Clopton demanded the ayes and nays, which were ordered.

"Mr. Giles, in a short speech, pressed these two points-that ministers were taken from among the people by two important privileges. First, the license to preach, and second, the exemption from military duty. This made them a peculiar and privileged order. If those privileges were taken away, it might be more fair to admit them to political privileges, though on that point, he gave no opinion.

"Mr. Campbell, of Brooke, suggested that these objections applied with equal force to justices of the peace, and nobody contended for excluding them."

The vote being taken, ex-President Madison was of the fourteen who voted to strike out, while Philip P. Barbour, Chief-Justice Marshall, ex-President Tyler, and John Randolph were of the eightyOne who voted against the motion.-Debates of Virginia Convention of 1829-30, page 707.

If the clergy exhibit but little genius for politics, still less is anything discoverable in American tendencies that points churchward, or threatens alliance with any religion.

But in 1849, it was urged that ambitious religionists would corrupt the church for political ends. The argument for perpetuating the political disability of the clergy also found fresh force from a prevailing idea of that particular period. The agitation of the slavery question had produced great feverishness in the public mind. Popular sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of that peculiar institution. Not only those who were openly unfriendly to it, but those even suspected of being so, were under popular ban. The opponents of slavery were classed as emancipationists. To be an emancipationist was the unpardonable political sin, and worked for the culprit political damnation. It so happened that in the mere handful constituting this party in Kentucky, were ranged certain distinguished clergymen, who, in talent and attainments, were the peers of the brightest intellects of the country. They assumed to speak for their estate, and did so with such boldness and force that the undiscriminating public suspected all clergymen of emancipation tendencies. Unreasonable and unjust as was the suspicion so originating, yet it was none the less potential.

John L. Waller, member of the convention from Woodford county, led what opposition there was in the constitutional convention to the further continuance of clerical disability. He was a minister of the Baptist church, and had received the degree of doctor of divinity. He had long been editor of the Banner newspaper, of Louisville, the organ of his denomination in the West. He was justly distinguished, in and out of the State, for great learning, and as a graceful writer and a forcible and eloquent speaker-ripe both in years and fame. He had become a candidate for delegate to the convention under somewhat remarkable circumstances. The celebrated orator and politician, Thomas F. Marshall, had for some time been a candidate for delegate from Woodford county, and was making public addresses to forward his election. Dr. Waller happened to be present on one occasion when Marshall delivered a public speech, and dissenting from certain views relating to Bible teaching on the subject of slavery, asked permission to reply. This was denied by that haughty child of genius unless Waller would become a competing candidate. This condition Marshall supposed would silence his dissatisfied auditor. Somewhat to his surprise, the latter arose, announced himself a candidate for delegate, and delivered a vigorous response. The debate thus begun