The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1868-07-22
To the Legislature.

a = I
Communication addressed to the
Legislature, over the signature of
sLaw." Lawyer, perhaps, wonld
have been more appropriate, as The
writer is undoubtedly q lawyer.
His familiarity with the decisions of
the Supreme Court of the United
States would lead any one to that
conclusion. He writes like lawyer;
thinks like lawyer; is aware, no
doubt, like all lawyers, that if the
ordinance establishing homestead
law, passed by the Convention, is
carried outNaccording to Gov. Orr's
recommendation, and made retro
active, which is the only way in
which it can be Of any service to the
people, as we'll as prospective, that it
might possibly diminish, to some ex-
tent, the profits Of the lawyers and
sheriffs, Ly keeping out of their
hands large amount of property
that would otherwise pass through
them.
Now, while volunteer my services
to the Legislature as an adviser,
(which I have rs much right to do as
Orr, or .tLaw," or anybody else,) I
want it distinctly understood TINT I
am no olawyer,zbut simply one of the
people, .one;of your constituents,
whom you ARE bound to represent,
and whose views and opinions you
are bound to. respect, if not to adopt.
In the first place, then, + would dis
regard the opinions of Mr. Law"
as his advice, it seems to me, is de-
cidedly bad, and carry out in good
faith the ordinance of the Conven-
ton establishing n homestead law,
according to- the literal meaning of
that Act-that is, that homestead
of o certain value and certain
amount OF personal property shall
be exempt from execution under any
order or final process Of any Court,
with q; few exceptions, named in the
Act. Now, this is as plain rs the
English language can make it, that
the ordinance is retrospective, as well
as prospective; that the members of
the Convention SO understood it; and
/ tell you now, what I know to be
true, If you will carry out this home
stead law, according to Gov. Orr's
recommendation, SO far from bring
ing disrepute upon your body, you
will do an act which, if it does not
lmmortalize you, will, at least, be ap-
proved and sanctioned by nine -tenths
of the people of South Carolina. I
say that, and I know what I saw.
But you are told that the law is un-
constitutional, and will be pronounced
so by the Supreme Court of the
United States, and many cases and
decisions and opinions of Chief JUS
tices are referred to, IN order to con-
vince you that it will be so. The
opinion of Chief Justice Taney,
among others, in the case of Bron-
son as. Kinzie, is cited, which proves
pretty clearly to my mind that that
eminent jurist believed that the State
possessed the right in question. He
says, undoubtedly State may, if it
thinks proper, direct that the neces-
sary implements of agriculture, or
the tools of the mechanic, or articles
of necessity in household furniture,
shall, like wearing apparel, not be
liable to execution on judgments.
Thus far State may go, unqnestion
ably, according to the opinion of this
eminent Judge. Now, if the State
can exempt these several articles of
property from execution, on the
ground of humanity, why can it not
exempt the homestead on the same
ground? The principle is the same.
Is not the house as much an article
of necessity as any of the above-men-
tioned-as the household furniture.
for example? What benefit would it
be to poor man to have household
furniture and no house to put it in?
Has not the State the same motives
OF humanity to prevent the destitute
poor being turned out of doors. that
1T has to protect his old tables, chairs
and cup-boards? If it can do one,
it can do the other; and it cnn, and
ought, to do both. Did you ever
ask yourselves, why it is that South
Carolina has no homestead law, while
all the other States. both North and
South, have? Why it is that even
the fatherless and the widow. in this
State, may be turned out of doors
for the benefit of the heartless credi-
tor? Did you ever reflect, that while
all the other Stotas both Nortbo,,,