¶1was of opinion that the constitution of Maryland ought to have a liberal construction. That the professed object of the provision was to prevent oppression upon the consciences of men; and that the three eases of Quakers, Tunkers, and Menonists, were rather put by way of example, than as confining the privilege to those sects only, and leaving all other cases of conscience to the severe operation of the law. That every other case of really conscientious scruples was within the meaning of the law; the only question being as to the fact of conscientious scruples, or the membership of the witness in relation to his religious scruples; and not in relation to the discipline or civil privileges attached to membership. So that a member of a society, in regard to its religious persuasion upon the point of the unlawfulness of oaths, was within the protection of the constitution, although he should not be a member as to its civil privileges according to the rules of the society, nor subject to its moral discipline.
14 F. Cas. 520
King v. Fearson
U.S. District Court
Decided May 15, 1829
U.S. District Court · decided 1829-05-15
Assumpsit for use and occupation. Mr. Daniel Kurtz, being offered as a witness. upon his solemn affirmation, stated that he agrees in principles with the Society of Quakers; has applied to be admitted as a member of the Society of Friends, who have the matter under consideration; and that he done all in his power to be admitted. objects, that the witness is not within the words of the act of Maryland of 1797 (chapter 118), nor of the bill of rights (section 36).
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 1991
1 federal appellate ·
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1829-05-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →