Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1858-07-29
Ml(l 8eaai11g,
For the Yorkville Enquirer.
THE HOMESTEAD LAW.

Mr.. Edlt0T In the ENQUIRER OF tne
18th July instant, I notice communication
under the signature Of 81. b." on the
"Homestead Law" and from the tenor of
his communication, I would infer that his
motive is not so much sympathy with those
who desire to have the benefit of that law,
as desire to aim blow at the merchants.
He has doubtless been in the hands of some
merchant who has been trying to obtain what
is justly due him.
To the extent of my knowledge, have
never known man who, after taking the
benefit of that law, was considered by the
community in which he lived, a truly honest
man. I cannot conceive how man can be
honest, who would take the benefit of such
a law. Can man who, when he is perhaps
indebted to another. for his daily bread, and
refuses to pay-when he has, the means
because he is protected by law, be honest ?
Certainly not. For example,: A is iudebt-'
ed 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 loses the
entire debt. Would not A be" considered a
dishonest man? Morally speaking, he would
be downright swindler, and should receive
the frown of every honest many; but no
more so than for defrauding his neighbor out
of any other property to the same amount.
~. B." says sit is believed that the mer-
chant possesses nothing that the little farm.
er feels absolutely compelled to pledge his
homestead for. In their dealing with mer-
chants their wants are almost solely fictitious.
I would ask "J. B." if it had not been for
the merchants, what would have become of
the poor in the winter and Spring Of '45
and '46 To the merchants they were in
debted for bread to sustain life for then it
could scarcely be obtained in any other way
than through the merchant In fact, when
the country is scarce of provisions, it can be
obtained more readily through the merchant
than in any other manner. 81. B" says ''it
is not the merchant that needs protection. I"
I contend that he deserves as much protec-
tion as any other class of citizens. Who is
it thatbuilds our railroads, canals, churches,
&C.? By referring to the subscription lists
and stock books, you will see that the mer-
chant contributes larger portion than per-
haps any other class of citizens.
I will venture the assertion that, in nine
cases out Of ten, the man himself who claims
the protection of such law is entirely cul.
pable and by tracing back his misfortunes,
you will find that they usually originate Ell
ther from dissipation or incidence, or perhaps
both. We want no law to protect such char
acters.
The first case is yet to come to my knowl-
edge Of any industrious and economical fam
lily, who have been "forced to wander with
out shelter, and seek subsistence in the wild
provisions of nature" And I unhesitating-
ly say that there is no man in this country,
who will use industry and economy, but can
easily provide subsistence for himself and
family. But even if misfortune has dealt
hardly with him, and be has no friends to
whom he can look for assistance, has not our
State made ample provision for the poor, and
does not the merchant pay his full share of
tax for their care and protection? Then
why pass laws to desraud the merchant or
any other man out Of his just rights, be he
poor or rich?
No, Mr. Editor, give US laws to help men
who will help themselves, and not laws to
protect the idle and indolent. And when
men see they are dependent on themselves,
they will put their shoulders to the wheel,
go to work, and not stand still crying for
help. A MERCHANT.
?. St is proper that l should state
that I do not know who "J. B" is; and,
therefore, what have said cannot be con-
strued into personal allusion.
m - A. -