The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1872-10-12
Quaker Hats IN Court.

The question of wearing hats by members OF
| the Society of Friends in court has lately be-
come an interesting one in Pennsylvania, since
the order of Judge Allison makinga member OF
that society uncover in presence of the court
The Sunday Dispatch gives the following his
torical "reminiscences on this point:
When William Penn became proprietor of
Pennsylvania, it was specified in the frame of
government and by the charter oflibertes that
religious toleration should be secured to ALL
1t was with particular design to secure this BEN
eft that in the great law which was agreed up
on in England and adopted by the first Pro-
vincial Assembly at Chester in article 9th it
was provided: That in all courts all persons
of all persuasions may freely appear in their
oaon aoay and according to their manner, and there
personally plead their own cause themselves,
or, if unable, by their friends.
Pursuant to this fundamental law the courts
of Pennsylvania, which were in the beginning
entirely within control of members of the So
ciety Of Friends, were held with Quaker judges
caring their hats upon the bench, with Quak-
er Jurors and Quaker witnesses, also wearing
hats and the right of every man to follow his
own inclination in this respect does not seem
to have been doubted for many years after the
settlement of the province. In 1925 Sir VIM.
Keith, lieutenant-governor under the Penns,
and himself churchman, either denying or
ignorant of the Quakers' rights under the great
law, undertook to interfere with the exercise of
privilege which he possibly thought was in
6icative of want of respect to himself Con-
trary to the wishes of the Assembly of the pro-
vince, as manifested for many years, it was
agreed in 1920 that Court of Chancery should
be created, of which the Governor should be the
chancellor, as the represen tative of the King
In this court, in the year 1925, curious incl
dent occurred; John Kinney, a Quaker and
lawyer who was afterwards Chief Justice of
Do vi IN, affapdipO tha az
solicitor in a case then pending, appeared "ac-
cordng to his own way and in the manner of
his persuasion" wearing his hat. This excited
the disapproval of Sir William Keith, sitting as
chancellor, who ordered that the hat should
be removed, which was accordingly done by
some persons present. The members of the So
cety of Friends looked upon this as an arbitra-
ry proceeding, and at the Quarterly Meeting
held at Philadelphia on the second of April,
1925, memorial was prepared to the Govern
or.
On the presentation of their address the Gov
ernor and chancellor perceived that he had
made mistake. But, without actually admit.
tingit, he prepared himself against any future
difficulty by ordering that hereafter the people
called Quakers, may and shall be admitted, if
they so think fit. to speak or otherwise officate
or apply themselves decently unto the court
without being obliged to observe the usual GER
emony ofuncovering their heads by having their
hats taken oil. IL has 0een nearly one nunureu
and fifty years since Sir William Keith thus
practically confessed his error, and never per-
haps since that time, until now, has the hat of
Quaker been forciby removed from his head
in court of Pennsylvania. Chancellor Keith
committed mistake; Judge Allison has imita-
ted the error. The law is undoubtedly with
the Quaker
The great law of 1852 has never been repeal
ed, and if the Quaker determines to come into
court Gin his own way and according to his own
manner" he has not thereby any privilege
which makes him an exception to the doctrine
that all men are equal before the law. The act
which allows the Quaker to wear his hat pro-
tects the Jew who wears his hat when he takes
the oath, and it protects the Chinaman who
breaks his plate when he testifes, and the
strict Presby terian, who, rejecting the ceremo-
ny of kissing the book, swears by the uplifted
hand. Every man is equal before the law who
is protected In the courts in the exercise of his
conscientious belief, whether the same is mat
ter of form or of substance. This is what the
act of 1852 was designed to secure, and the force
of that law has never been repealed by any
constitution, or act, or bill of rights which has
since been agreed upon in Pennsylvania.