Milford chronicle., 1929-12-13

clergymen accused of negligence or
misconduct. This further relieved
the situation, but final relief came
with the American Revolution.
1t was not only the unworthiness
of the unsupported ministers of
the Establishment that caused Of
fense. Fully as Objectionable was
the persecution directed against the
Catholic religion, which was insti-
tuted by the Royal Government. The
first act of 1892 was comparatively
mild. Subsequent acts were feroci-
were spasmodically. they made it
well nigh impossible for Roman
Catholics to practice their religion.
Mass could not be celebrated.
Priests were forbidden to minister
tc the sick and dying. Catholic
schools were outlawed and under
certain conditions children were
taken away from their own parents
to prevent Catholic teaching. CathO-
lies could not hold Office and CathO-
lie attorneys were forbidden to prac-
tice their profession. Catholic
churches were closed, including the
historic chapel at st. Mary's City. A
peculiarly offensive law required a
Roman priest to secure a license
from an Anglican rector in order to
officiate at a marriage.
In 1715 the Proprietary was re-
stored to Benedict Leonard Calvert,
who had Joined the Church Of Eng
land. He lived but six weeks after
the restoration and the title and
property passed to his son, Charles,
the fifth Lord Baltimore, also a Pro-
testant. These later Calverts were
mere feeble shadows of their pred
ecessors, but they retained some
thing of the tolerant Calvert spirit.
The return to the Proprietary,
therefore, resulted in some mit1ga-
tion of the persecution, but the laws
were not revealed and their reten-
ton kept alive the bitter resentment
of an important part of the Colony
against the poll tax which helped
maintain their oppressors.
In 1863 the forty pounds per poll
was reduced to thirty by a tempor-
ary law running for seven years.
when this law expired in 177O, Gov
ernor Eden ruled that the forty per |
noll was automatically restored.
Charles Carroll of Carrollton rose
in strong opposition to this rullng:
He maintained that the Act OF 1908
had ended the forty per poll and
now that the thirty per poll had ex-
nired the DOLL tax was no more. Inc
controversy ragged for three years
and the election. of 1878 was fought
out largely on this issue. The re-
sult was a sweeping victory LOT
Charles Carroll and against the poll
tav Indicating the direction OF pop
ular feeling in Maryland, as the
date of the Declaration OF Rlghts
The matter, however,
in legal controversy unuI
the Revolution swept it away.
Paragraph 80 of the Declaration
NJ Rights. which concerns religious
freedom. also contains a retiectlon
of this feeling in the words: mo
county court shall assess any guam
-i+v of tobacco or sum OF money
hereafter on the application OF any
restrvnan or church warden" The
constitutional prohibition against
,uergvmen sitting in the Legisla-
ure-perhaps as unfamiliar to the
,ublic as the poll tax prohibition
AN be added as another relic OF the
establishment hatred.
In 1851 a Constitutional Conven-
ion was held to consider reform
# the Constitution of Maryland
)uring the proceedings of this con-
-ention an attempt was made to
mend Paragraph 13 by striking
mt the declaration against the poll
ak. but leaving the balance OF the
undisturbed. The commit
ee having the matter in charge
rought in report favorable to the
hange and when questioned from
he floor as to the reason for the
roposed amendment declared that
movement was no foot to assess a
oil tax for the benefit of public
ducation, and it seemed wise to the
ommittee to leave the matter open
or the Legislature to settle the
uestion on it's merits unhampered
v constitutional restrictions. Strong
pposition was aroused by the sug-
estion. The amendment was lost.
The memory of the unhappy ex-
erience of the Establishment with
S forty per poll left a permanent
ear on the Maryland body polite.
s lesson was well learned and
aryland has taken effective steps
Y constitutional protection to see
lat it is not forgotten.