Volcano weekly ledger., 1857-02-28

~fN~-N------
tually resides; to give the proceeds of all sales
of homesteads to creditors, and debar aliens
from its advantages.
These changes are sought to be brought
about by a bill now before the legislature, in
troduced in the Senate by Mr. Shaw of San
Francisco.
We object to the amendments proposed,
with the exception Of the amount; as to that
we have no care. The present law allows
home of the value of $4,000, which may be
too much. The amount is matter of little
consequence Certainty of exemption to all
is what we want, beyond all quibbles and
techncalities
In the first place, if you only exempt the
house in which man resides, of what use is
it to require him to record it? None posi-
bly, His residence in it is sufficient notice
The only object is to throw difficulties in the
way. We know Of hundreds of men who
would never acknowledge on record that they
to take advantage of such a law,
and who would live with no wife who would
in her own name, claim the protection of the
law and thus proclaim to the world that she
had no further confidence in her husband
Is it deemed necessary for man to " de-
clare his intention" to take the benefit of the
InsoIvent Act while in business, in order to
warn all persons trading with him of their
danger? No. The law notifies all that each
man may at any time diyest himself Of his
liabilities And that is sufficient.
But that law was intended for far differ
ent class Of persons; for those who have con-
tracted debts with false show of wealth
for the mercantile communty-the specula-
tor Every facility must be given to them
they must be allowed all advantages of appa-
rent security no expose Of their design is to
be made public---and when their means of
further deception are exhausted, they are re-
lieved by the courts, especially in San Fran
cisco, from all liability, as though it were a
mere FORM while women aud children are to
be turned upon the world homeless and un-
cared for to satisfy the demands of these same
commercial cormorants.
Is such favoritism to be tolerated in Cali
fornia?
If the present law is amended as proposed
how many think you, Of the women would
avail themselves of its protection, how
many Of the very ones who should be the OBJ
jects of its benefcence would ever obtain one
iota Of its salutary effects
A reason for requiring the family to reside
on their homestead continuously, we have
never heard advanced even by the most in
veterate "old fogy;" nor do we believe any
argument in its favor exists. If no one
knows of man's having homestead he
certainly gets no credit on the strength of it,
And what difference can it make in any point
of view if one let's out his house and pays
rent for another more convenient to his
present purposes? Yet, make the proposed
change, and however Improbable mans
business may be where he liyes,-whateyer
may be the inducements for him to remove to
another locality, he would be forced to re-
main or lose his rights. If he sell, then the
purchaser is held responsible for the purchase
money to the creditors; if he removes, the
sheriff at once pounces on the deserted home
A good way truly to encourage energyl
Such an amendment must have been pro-
posed in irony
Restricting the persons who are to be in
cluded in the law to citizens and those who
have declared their intention to become such,
seems to us to be unconstitutional, as that
instrument says "oR heads Of families aud
requires no comment.
We have extended this article already to
as great a length as our limits will allow
But we do not pretend to have stated all the
reasons that exist against change in the
law;--that could not be done in much more
elaborate article, and yet we think that we
have shown enough to convince any man that
the proposed changes are radically wrong
Let the true representatives of the people see
to it that those only interested in building up
the commercial interests do not get the adj
vantage of them in their fnancicring and log
rolling
The present law has been fully interpreted