Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1858-08-26
@tilai!nA Attnlfs.
For the Yorkville Enquirer.
"THE HOMESTEAD LAW"

"THE HOMESTEAD LA W.:
Mr.. Editor Your "ENoUIRER" Of the
18th inst, contained. brief article on the
.sHomestead Law" over my signature, to
which, in the ENQUIRER of the 10Th, one
had the in.paasnce to attempt a reply with
out the use of single valuable argument.
In my humble efforts then, in which you
kindly iadulged me, to elicit truth respect
-fully, I Ilittle;theaghtz that it was in forfeit
ure of feelings to be felt through the COL
umus of decent paper, by the insertion OF
an article afterwards, which, in the fullness
of pituperation and falsehood, is made so des-
,itute Of geatlemanly feelings. But / know
it is not cousonant with your wishes to hold
that the public requires your aid to an out
rage upon another's feelings. Heonly wrote
it, and you published it, but doubtless with
some good iuteot; and to this end you must
return me tie privilege this time, while l
suffer further privilege to him, with the
promise fairly made to you that, for myself
/ will not trouble you again in this matter
+ regret the occasion, in respect to my
own feelings only, that induces me to notice
This little article alluded to, and to be pa
tient, should let it pass uuuoticed. l would
thus emulate the example Of patience of the
moon in disregardiug the bayings of dogs.
IN answering him who signs himself "Mer-
chant" I win do so, but from the respect
in which I hold the calling that identifies
honorable men (and among whom 1 recog-
nize some fTieuds) I will hotuse his sigma
ture, but will designate him as "M." In
this way will give no offence to such.
Says 1M," in the beginning, '1 would
infer that his motive is not so much sympa-
thy with those who desire to have the bene-
Ct Ct of that law, as desire to aim blow at
The merchants" Now, sir, the fact that |
wrote the Homestead article was known in
the community in which live, and there is
no merchant here, nor no honorable mer-
chant elsewhere that understood me SO. l
used the word "merchaut" because the Leg
islature had, and I went upon the ground
marked out by that body to condemn their
act. In all my say. simply aimed at truth,
and truth wrote. But how with him =
Now, truth is pleasurable emotion, at least
with honorable men, and will often drive
them to many hard experiments, but l can
not yeuch that its disclosure here would add
ANYTHING, either to his enjoyment or fame.
That he may better understand me in other
words, will say that the first sentence in
the first paragraph is falsehood. Is false
hood then the first stone to throw in discus
sing matter of honesty and justice?
In his next sentence, says he: "He has
doubtless been in the hands of some mer-
chant who has been, trying to obtain what is
Justly due him." Now I cannot understand
how it was that my article gave rise to such
expression like this. Without any influence,
whatever, every man understands this speech.
He so intended it, or else the human Ian.
guage was never intended as medium OF
Communication to me. My first thought
was in ordering cane through some mer-
chant here for his benefit. But by way OF
apology for him for writing something he did
not know what, I concluded the gentleman
had the scratches. But that my opinion may
not initiate against any one for being mean,
will at once take up his own text. "To
the extent of my knowledge" continues he,
nI have never known man who, after taking
the benefit of that law, was considered by
the community In which he lived truly
honest man. cannot conceive how man
can be honest who would take the benefit of
such law." You will perceive that this is
in the teeth Of what l stated, in support of
nv convictions, for 1 expressly stated that l
would myself avail Of the benefit OF such a
law.
In vindlcation he cites this example: GA
Is Indebted to B in the sum of FIVE hundred
dollars for piece of land purchased from
B; and under the law as it did exist, A
claims the benefit of the Homestead Act;
B looses the entire debt. Would not A be
considered dishonest man? Morally speak
ing, he would"
In this example there is no such thing IN
tended by that Act. My own mind could
not be so absorbed in piracy itself to view
it 50. 1t is not AS until paid for, and can
not be recorded under the act before then.
Besides, it is after be has paid for it, and
owes nothing to any one at the time, that he
is protected in his home. l will here cite
an example that will sensibly picture the
merit of this Homestead Law.
A wants BIS land. He goes to Cwith
whom he conspires, and gets him to sell to
B another tract of land on long time, that
he might effect purchase of B the land he
wants. Now this land, bear in mind, B has,
BY long gears of hard labor and economy,
just acquired.
With this iuducement, therefore, with the
apparent prospect of more rapid accumu'
lation of worldly goods for the better sup
port of himself and family, B parts with his
land, and after paying thereon what acould
haze secured for his family Homestead,
be contracts further debt for the new pur-
chase. But, by and by, through some mis-
chance, he is unable to meet the payment
then. The whole Of the land is now forced
into a bad market, and there sacrificed, and
while it, perhaps, peaceably falls back into ut
the hands of G, it leaves b and his family
homeless and penniless
Another. A wants BIS land. He goes