Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1868-04-30

time to time as he acquired it, to sundry
persons in various amounts, many Of them
of small p.eans, though good for the a
mount borrowed. They and their securi-
ties in many cases are not worth two thou
sand dollars; and if they claim the benefit
of the constitutional provision, the credit
or will lose the greater part of, and in ma
ny cases his entire debt. And here lies
the monstrous injustice of the measure
The creditor buys land pays down the
cash payment, and executes his bonds to
the vendor for the deferred payments, un-
der the expectation of meeting his obliga-
tons by collecting in time the debts duet
him. Before his bonds falls due, and be-
fore he can collect his debts, contrary to
his expectation, constitution is framed
exempting the property Of his debtors to
the amount Of two thousand dollars from
all liability to him for the debts due him;
and yet, he IS required to pay all has debts
the real estate he has purchased is not
exempt. Every acre of it can be sold to
pay his bonds for the purchase money, In
many parts of the State, where they have
stay-law different from that in force in
my section, the homestead bill may not
have this operation.
But will suppose another case, where
its detrimental operation will be general
Take the case of fduciaries, who have
loaned out the money of their wards. upon
security deemed good at the time. but
which will become wholly impaired by the
homestead exemption. and the estate of
the wards thus loaned is lost The ques-
ton will be who shall lose, the guardian
or wards !? Where the security was ade-
quate at the time. and has become impair
ed, Or totally destroyed, by circumstances
over which the fduciary could have no
control, it is probable the courts will de-
eide the orphans must lose Which Of the
two is the sufferer is an immeterial CUES
tion so far as the question I am discuss
ing is concerned. In either event an IN
nocent party suffers, and the injustice and
iniquity of the measure is alike appa-
rent.
This high-handcd outrage will stop ma
ny Of the hard earnings of a life time In
my section there are many persons the
bulk of whose estates consist in money
loaned out-some Of them men of small
means, some of large means, and who,
though they have a large amount of mon
ey loaned out, principally upon personal
security, yetit is loaned to sundry iudiyid-
uals in AMOUNTS ranging from hundreds to
thousands of dollars. This homestead pro-
vision, being retrospective in its operation,
will result in partial, and i'll some cases
of total loss of the debts thus due the
creditor.
Another is that it is unequal in its ope-
ration.
A borrows the money of B upon per-
sonal security A and his sureties are
each worth two thousand dollars. Under
this provision the whole estate of these OBJ
lgors is exempt, and B loses his entire
debt, Yet another man co., worth only
two thousand dollars, borrows five
hundred dollars from B, and secures the
debt, not by personal security, but by
deed Of trust on his land G has to pay
the whole of his debt under this provision
of the constitution aud cannot claim SOL
itary acre of his land as exempt. He
must be turned out of doors because he
secured the debt he owes by deed of
trust.
The provision only allows the exemp-
ton in the case of debtors, the claims of
whose creditors are not secured by deeds
of trust Or mortgage. Such a measure is
so obviously unjust, so palpably dishonest
that feel bound to oppose it, or forfeit all
claim to the reputation Of an honest man
| was educated in school of ethics which
stamps with infamy and dishonor such le-
gislation as this. Besides, it is direct,
open, palpable and confessed attempt to
bride voters. Its supposed popularity,
and the anticipated strength it will give to
the constitution, constitute its chief recon-
mendation, in the eyes of its advocates
and supporters. They concede tnao the
class of men who will be benefited by the
provision are hostile to tho constitution
and the Republican party-and are ''reb-
els''; that they afford this relief, not from
any $ynapathy for them, but in order to
secure their votes for the constitution.
which they would not touch with 'forty
foot pole" without this provision in it It
is bad enough to try to bride voters with
your own money, but when it is proposed
to use the money Of other people for pur-
pose SO fagitious, the proposition is in my
opinion, not only mefarious but absolutely
intolerable.
More than this, it would be fraud up
on the people. 1t aciU prore snare and
deluston. 1t is clear violation of the
U. S. Constitution, which declares that no
State shall pass any er post tacto law, or
law ilnpairing the obligation of contracts"
The Supreme Court has decided that ques-
ton. That court has held that the States
may pass retrospective laws, provided they
do not impair the obligation of contracts;
that any retrospective State legislation
which has that effect is unconstitutional
and void; that while it is competent for
State to divest vested rights acquired by
last will and testament or descent, they
cannot divest rights acquired under con
tract without violating the aforesaid pro
vision of the Federal Constitution. SO