Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1847-02-24
REMARKS or Nm. LOWELL.


sew CoADe'psioa in clse Of the rejection
.cftAe Constitution. Feb. 6, 1917.
Sin. PnEsrDENT:-
| cannot give silent vote opon this i'm
poItaGt question; is scuss.on has taken
a vide range, in which the proposed law
has betn warmly opposed upon grounds
Of policy upon one SIDE, while the Consti-
tuition has been vigorously assaiIed OH the
Uihc; but as neither The arguments urged
against The law, nor against ihe Constitu-
iian itself foFn any part of the considera.
lions which ctate my on, shall take
advantage Of the opening now offered 10
make few remarks ON both subjects -
And first, of the Corstilulion:--T That in
strumeDt HIS met the Sc vere animadversiun
of my colleague IMLS,rong;l doubtless it
has impe ne tiohs; what human work has
noj? but il does seem 10 me, that they
have been much ggerated BY him, vhle
its merits have been deprec a.ed, hurried
over or forgotten. The oil j2clions urged
are, the protection Of a separate property
TO mlrried women; the real Estate Exemp.
lion, The sixth section OF the Bank Article,
the large number Of the House Of Repre-
sona!iyes, and the EIe ctiye Jud ciarv. |
di,lcr with my colleague upon nearly oil
these poihts,and shall proceed TO comment
rpon the O jec;ions and examine their
,enubilty.
have sad that dtfar with him in
nearly all these objections; there is one
Eowcver, which has great weight with mo,
and for which | fiud in my own mind 10
sufficient answer; and that is, Tie separate
property Of married women When
this SUI ject was first broached, super
fetal examination led me 10 favor it, tc err
gard t as humane provision ~ which lheie
cOuld be no danger; bul its discussion, and
an examination Of its obvious effects in
countries where it prevails, land of The very
few cases in which it will pro.ecton
and benefit, has led me TO different con-
c!usion; | tear that it W Il create separate
interests in families and thus tend TO de-
prcciate morals; fear that it will be the
cover for numerous frauds, and thus pro-
duce ce!seless litigation aud its attendant
confusion, and fearing these effects, |
cannot gluss,t over, or in any MINER en-
dorse it; neither can nor will say or do
anything which will palalizo future effort
10 eXpunge it from the organic law, should
experience prove these anticipated evils to
be real 1t is SAID that these evils will steal
slowly and surely, almost unperceivcd
upon u; this may be true, of its effects
upon female character, in destroying It's
present saluary influence, but all Tho other
evils attendant upon it will be seen and felt
at once. The rev sers Of the laws, must
find the whole SUI ject full of fliculties;
The provision has none of the lleNiblliy OF
alu;C, all tie laws must bend 10 il, and
be so changed as TO meet il; and, sir, they
will be unable 10 satisfy themselves, the
legislature or The people. The first leg
lsla ufe which coEvenes and attempts 10
adapt the laws TO this section will be con-
vnced OF the numerous obstacles which
must attend every endcayor 10 graft upon
our common law, this dangerous feature Of
the civil law; those who now oppose it will
be more firmly convinced Of lis tendency
TO produce fraud and foster litigation, and
those who favor it will open their eyes to
the difficulties which egislative enuctmen;s
in the coTsfitnIion create; aud it i-'0y irm
conviction lh,t all will unto in expQnging
ii from that instrument.
Numerous objections have been suggcS-
tel, not urged, against the section on cx.
emptions Of real estate from forced sale on
executions; and it is sad, that one Of The
Judges Of the supreme court, has expressed
an opinion. that the adoption of this pro-
Wis on excludes all legislation on the sub
Jects Of exemptions, because the inclusion
OF one provjS Oh excludes all others upon
the same subject, and Judge Story is quo>
cd as authorlty--that others think that this
exclusion would be confined 10 real cs, ate :
while still others adopt tie opinion that the
constitution eXcmpis in addition to the real
estate all The personal property now ex
empt, but tha. no more or Cther can
ever be exempted. Does my colleague
endorse these opinions? Does he not be
lievc, does he not know that the jldgos
chosen under this constitution viii give
this section that Reasonable construction
in ended by the convention who framed
and the people who adopted it? Sir, |
owould recommend the learned Judge and
who hold his opinion, one more reading
|iie commentaries Oh JuSllCt story, Isl
psge 433. cit has been suggested"
bat eminent Iurls,. " that an lli,ma~
Foyision in particular case excludes
Existence of u Ike provision IN every
d-a negative pov.sion in par
5StaSe admits the existence Of the
thing in every oiher case. Both ties Q
factions are, or rather may be nafouaGei
GOLD reasoning: Thus, it was nh, rc;cd
The constitution, having provd ed Tor the
by july in criminal cases, there was
Phn implied excelsior of ii in civil cases -
AS il there was not an essential diAt renee
e!ween silence aud abolition: belwt en-
tho positive adoption Of il in one class aud
n dscteu nary right Git being clearly
within the reach of the judicial power con
fded 20 the Unon) 10 adopt or reject it in
oil or any other cases. The truth is tina,
ia order 10 ascertain how far an atiirmSt OIL
or negative provision. ex, ludes CT implies
o hers, se must look TO tie nature Of he
precision, tie Sutj'ct matter, the objects
ana scope # the instrument. :" submit il
10 The candid Judgment of all who hear me
whether the rule Of construction here laiI
down, excludes all legisl ,tion upon Tho
su'J,ct of exemptions as has been conten-
del. Various other objections have been
hute1 ~, and in reply 10 them all il is ouly