The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1869-10-08
From the Charleston News
The Homestead Act Unconstitutional,

/ 'I''i oii''' SSo Nteti tlI fsttlliltC WIFI
each other. Some Of these have
been published. AS nisiprius dccis-
ions they have no general authority,
and had better not been published, as
they arc calculated to misIcad and
disappOint.
The writer of tl.is has little doubt
but that our Supreme Court will dc
clare this act unconstitutional, so far
as 1t is rctrospcctipe, rs impairinm the
obligation Of contracts.
No authoritative decision can be
found to sustain the act. The dccis-
ions OF other States have no authori.
ty. If the acts construed arc similar
to ours, then they arc entitled to con-
Slderation-nothiny moro. Often the
grounds Of such decisions arc entirely.
different. Georgia, for instance. has
II different constitutional provision.
and the action Of Congress upon that
constitution was different from that
upon the constitution Of any other
| State.
Ii IS argued that at tho adoption of
our constitution, South Carolina was
not, III the purvicw OF the United
States Constitution ~ State" This
question has passed the stage Of aryu-
incnt, for the United States Supreme
Court has decided the precise point
in Texas vs. White, Howard, u. 72G.
| would call especial attention to those
words in that decision "Thc obi
cations Of the State asa member Of
the Union remained perfect and un-
impaired. 1t certainly follows that
| the State did not cease to be q STATE. -
| His decision must have cscarcd the
notice Of some ofour Judges, for they
arc bound by it,
1t is argued that the homestead
! PROVISIONS or our constitutions are made
OF force by becoming, by adoption, an
act OF Congress. Now, Congress
could not give any State the power
TO do what the constitution has for
biddcn. This proposition cannot be
seriously ccntrovertcd, and is conclu-
| alvc OF the point raised. But Con-
gross did not assume Gas is asscrtcd)
TO make the constitution OF this State
an act OF Congress. Read the act.
AN., United States Statutes, y. 73
and nothing can he found therein in
| the slightest 80 justify the as.ump-
'S Sstt'lpiS IctllSS llf:tL
'.whcrcas The people Of South Caro-.
iih" have framed u constitution Of
State government that is republican,
| Therefore:
be it enacted that South Carolina
Shall be cmti led to representation in
Congress" After all the stress that
has been laid upon the action Of Con-
grcss, those who read the act will he
! surprised TO find that thero is nothing
else iii it bearing at all upon this qucs-
| ton, What, now, did Congress enact :?
Nothing, beyond allowing this State
Representations. And suppose VIC call
| the preamble an enactment, then what
follows ? Why, that the constitution
is republican! Nothing more. VIII
any Judge pretend that any legal
enactment is covered by tho word
"republican y Or to come more
closely down, that this sanctions the
homestead clauses.
| Suppose, however, that CONGRESS-
had enacted, CAS- is assumed without
any foundation, in ract.) that the Con
stitution Of South Carolina should
have the iorcc Of an act Of Congress-.
This would not sustain homestead
provision antagonistic to the Consti-
tuition Of the United States, for the
constitution Of 1868 itself provides
that nothing in it Gin contravcntioa
or subvcrsion of tho Constitution Of
the United States can have any bind
ing force" (ArticIc T, section 4. and
the "oath,' article II, section 3O.)
Let us hear 10 more about Congress
having given its authority to a meas
1lrc which is so directly in contravcn-
ton Of the Constitution Of The United
States.
But, mirnJile dictv, the Constitution
OF South Carolina docs nuke a retro
spectlvc komestc"dprovision chal-
lcngc any one to point out the clause.
Article ], section 90, and article RI.
section 81, make no provision that the
exemption is to apply TO antcccdeu: in-
dcbtcdncss. Authorities can be cited.
al nauscam, that in the construction
of constitutional or statute law. all
provisions arc presumed to be prospec-
tive, unless tho contrary be express
ly enacted.
Neither secession, then, Congress or
the constitution Of 1863, authorized q
retrospective homestead law. Moth
Ing is now left but the naked net of
9th September, 1868, XIV Stat, y.
10. The provisions Of that act are re, {
Irrespective.
Tho act Of 1868 at once falls as i'm
pairing tho obligation of contracts, by
virtue of tho prohibition ofthc United
States Constitution, and by tho pro-
hibition of our own constitution of
1868! CART. l. sec. 21.)
| DO we hear any ono bold enough to
say that retrospective homestead
exemption does dot impair the oblisa-
tion of contracts, and is not violativo
of tho Constitution of the United
States ? Ifso, we merely reply by
citing the decision ofthe United States
Supreme Court, (Which is binding up
on our judges,) in tho case of the
Planters Bank VS.. Sharp, wherein,
after deciding Gas quoted by one OF
our judges) that States can pass laws
exempting homestead and tools, &c.,
the court makes this qualification,
which, we think, ought MOTTO be over.
looked, having slight bearing upon
the question. "Again, State insolvent
laws, if made like this law, to apply
to past contracts, and stop suits. on
them, have been held not to be. uncon.
stitutional, except so far as they dis