The Lancaster ledger. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1852-1905, 1852-04-01
fFor the Ledger.l
STONY HILL, March 27.

in reply to your views on the Homestead
Law in the first number of the Ledger,b
from the press of other business | have
been unable to finish it and from the lapse
of time had finally concluded to dispense
with it, but in looking over the 7th num-
Der, 25th instant, you seem to be champ
ing and knashing with your mental grind
ers as though you wished something;
have concluded to throw you some nuts
to crack, least your masticators might be
rendered unfit for use when you might
need them, l assure you | am in perfect
good humor and hoping you are therefore,
! may take some liberty otherwise would
not, and in the first place wish to assure
you that b. means regard the Home
stead Law as being perfect among man
than other human entertainments, for it
would be very difficult to find any Law in
all of its bearings that would not be objec-
tlonable in some respect, ard do not sup
pose that am any greater friend, or, ad-
vocate of this law than all of those who
voted for it, and think it yet remains to
be tested, whether it will be beneficial or
not. With these remarks | shall proceed
to notice your version of the matter.
First, the Exemption Law of Virginia,
and as she is prosperous State, therefore
it is to be inferred that her prosperity in
some degree, is connected, if not entirely
dependant, upon the nature of her Excmp-
ton of property fr IN levy and sale. This
may be so, or not; but if Virginia or any
other States prosperity is owing to the
small quantity of property exempted from
levy, DC, then, l think, it would be bad
policy to exempt any and I think the deb
tor would be infinitely better off not to be
encountered with his bed, bedding, wheel
cards, working utensils, cow and cooking
vessels, DC, if he has to shoulder them d
hunt shelter to protect him and his dis
tressed family from the inclemency Of the
weather. And at least ifhe should be ev-
er so fortunate he must stop on some per-
sons premises, possessed of more human
ity than his unmcl ciful creditor, and seek
employment for a day, week, or month
without assurance that at the expiration
Of the time he will not have to move else
where or take rs n remuneration for his
labor whatever he can get Secondly YOU
next infer from the number Of vagrants in
Massachusetts and New York is owing to
the amount that is exempt, as you pro-
ceed to quote the provisions Of the Acts,
this must be the conclusion to carry out
your aphorism now sir, do you not know
that there are other causes for vagrancy
existing in these two States rs well as
in the most Of the Northern States. +
think it cannot have escaped your notice
that Boston and the City of New York
have been the landing places of thousands
annually of cmigrants (as well as other
Northern cities) from every nation, kin
dred and tongue, under heaven, then
this in connection with other circumstan-
ces are sufficient to satisfy any reasonable
friend the cause Of vagrancy in the Nor
thern States, and Sir your reference to the
Homestead Laws in the North, ifit proves
any thing it proves too much to carry out
your object; it evidently shows the density
of the population which must exist from
some cause, and what can it be, if it is not
from the great desire to become settlers of
the countrya Consequently the Exemp-
ton Law adds much to the value of the
same. In the third place you proceed to
notice the Exemption Law of this State
prior to the late Act, and concluded it was
enough and those who differ from you
are not only guilty of the height of folly
but are perfect ignoramuscs, consequently
you must be SO fortunate as to be num-
bered with the few Solomons of the pres
ent day, and as you assume the character
Of conducting free press, you give us
your opinions most frankly, therefore we
hope to avail ourselves of the opportunity
Of doing likewise, and IS you still PRO
nounce anathamus upon the Old Ban
kropt Act, we presume Homestead is E.
qually resting under your sentance ofcon-
demnation. But sir, there is q material
difference between the two, and when you
show us that there is every analogy exis
ting and that their objects are the same,
then, and not until then, shall we feel
ourselves at liberty to make TIE distinction
and as you seem to think both are calcul-
sted to propagate villains and your objec-
ton arises from the amount that is exem
pied being too much the leoitinoata con-