The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1869-08-03
Bus after its ratification by the people.

OSek4eSSss sSSSokSOo ses ~ was DE666nLGu,
and Congress did accept it uncondition.
ally. Ii the clause securing q homestead.
or the clause prohibiting the collection
Of debts, the consideration OF which was
the purchase money of a slave, had been
obnoxious to tic charge that they i'm
paired the obligation of contracts, they
would have been stricken out by Con-
gress, or the Legislature required by
solemn Act, and as a condition precedent
to admission, to repeal the clauses, as
they did in the case of Georgia. The
Constitution of Georgia, when presented
Tor acceptance, contained two paragraphs
practically repudiating all debts. These
clauses Congress required Georgia to ro-
nounce, which was done by her Legisla-
ture, but no exception was taken to the
homestead section in the same instru-
ment. though its value was fixed at
81, ,OO0-double that provided in this
State.
AS already stated. the Constitution of
the United States was not recognized as
of force in this State. Even the rights
and immunities uniformly accorded to
the organized Territories of the United
States, and to persons residing without
the States and Territories in the Indian
country, were repudiated by the acts of
Congress and practice of the military.
Protection of person and property, Of
the right of trial by jury-of being con-
fronted by witnesses presentment by
u grand jury before being held to answer
u criminal charge-of making our own
laws-of imposing our own tsxes-of
representation in a State or National
Legislature-of choosing our own officers
of executing our own laws-of making
contracts with our laborers. and of en-
forcing such contracts by any known law
of appealing to the writ of haJens
corpus-all were denied to us as rights,
and such as were enjoyed were permis-
sive only.
What single feature in any paragraph
in the Constitution of the United States
spread its protection tegis over the terri
tory or inhabitants of South Carolina :?
Can it be gravely urged, in the face of
this review of the condition of affairs
from May, 1865. to July, 1866, that such
clauses of the Constitution as restrained
the powers of State and citizens were of
force and those giving them protection
were not of force Can it be seriously
State from passing law impairing the
obligation of contracts was operative to
restrain the Convention that formed the
new Constitution, when none of the per-
sonal or political rights, privileges and
immunities Of its members, or of their
constituents, were recognized or enforced
by and through the remaining sections
of the same instrument =? Surely not.
The Constitution in this Territory was
dormant, sleeping, in abeyance. The
government was military. The recon-
struction Acts of Congress and the will
of the military commandant was the only
constitution of force-the supreme law
of the land. It was as absolute as though
we had been q conquered province,
wrested from q neighboTing nation.
If the Constitution of the United
States was not of force when the Consti-
tuition of the State was framed and rati-
fed, and did not become operative until
accepted by Congress, then there was no
constitutional restraint on the conven-
tion, and none of the provisions of the
State Constitution can be held to be vio-
lative of any clause in the Constitution
of the United States.
The Supreme Court of the United
States held, ut I'm early day, that State
laws passed prior to 179S-the date of
the adoption of the Constitution-im-
valid, as the Constitution did not, pre-
| NtOuo ~ thoo tkuO, OACACioO huy hulbh-
tions upon the legislation of the States.
After the admission of Texas into the
Union, the same decision was made by
the same Court, affirming the validity
of law passed by the Legislature Of
that State prior to annexation, which, if
passed subsequently, would have ''im-
paired the obligation of contracts"
The Convention of this State might
have declined, however unjustly, to re-
cognize any debt. judgment or lien that
existed by virtue of the laws of the pre-
ceding governments of the State, and
what remedy could have been found for
the omission or refusal? If they had the
power to refuse altogether, could they
not, when recognizing debts, liens and
judgments, annex conditions to such re-
cognition?
No more has been done here It is
said in effect to the complainant, your
mortgage is recognized, but subject to
the condition that tho defendant shall
enjoy homestead, conformably to the
constitution, and the Act of the Legisla-
ture perpetuating and defining it.
I, therefore, adjudge that the Consti-
tuition and laws of this State. securing a
homestead to each head of family,