The southern enterprise. [volume] (Greenville, S.C.) 1854-1870, 1869-08-11
were enjoyed were permissive Oh.

What single feature in any par.
agraph in the Constitution of tile
United States spread its protection
@gis over the territory or inhabi.
tants of South Carolina2
Can it be gravely urged, in the
face OF this review of the condition
of affairs from May, 1866, to July,
1865, that such clauses of the Con.
stitution as restrained the powers
of State aud citizens were of force
and those giving them protection
were not OF force2 Can it be seri.
ously Y insisted that the clause pro-
hibiting any State from passing a
law impairing the obligation Of
contracts was operative to restrain
the Convention that formed the
new Constitution, when none of
the personal or political rights,
privileges and immunities Of it's
members, or Of their constituents,
were recognized or enforced by
and through the remaining sec
tions of the sam instrument
Surely not. The Constitution in
this territory was dormant, Sleep
ing, in abeyance. The govern.
ment was military. The recon.
struction acts of Congress and tho
will of the military commandant
was the only Constitution of force
the supreme law of the land.
1t was as absolute as though We
had been a conquered province,
wrested from neighboring nation.
If the Constitution of the United
States was not of force when tho
Constitution of the State was fran.
ed and ratified, and did not become
operative until accepted by Con-
gress, then there was no constitu-
tional restraint on the Convention,
and none of the provisions of the
State Constitution can be held to
be violative of any clause in the
Constitution of the United States.
The Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States held at an early day,
that State laws passed prior to
179s-the date Of the adoption of
the Constitution-impairing the
obligation of contracts, were valid,
as the Constitution did not previous
to that time exercise any limita.
tions upon the Legislation of the
States.
After the admission of Texas in.
to the Union, the same decision
was made by the same Court, af.
tirming the validity of a law pass
ed by the Legislature of that State
prior to annexation, which, if pass
ed subsequently, would have "im-
paired the obligation of contracts.
The Convention of this State
might have declined, however un-
justly, to recognize any debt, judg-
ment or lien that existed by virtue
Of the laws of the preceding gov
ernments of the State, and what
remedy could have been found for
the omission or refusal? If they
had the power to refuse altogeth.
er, could they not, when recogniz-
ing debts, liens and judgments, all
mex conditions to such recognition 2
No more has been done here.
1t is said in effect to the complain
ant, your mortgage is recognized,
but subject to the condition that
the defendant shall enjoy home
stead, conformably to the Constitu-
ton, and the act of the Legislature
perpetuating and defining it.
l therefore adjudge, that tie
Constitution and laws of this State,
securing homestead to each head
of a family, whether the debt or
lien existed at the date of the adop-
ton ofthe Constitution or has been
subsequently created, is no viola
tion of the Constitution of the Uni
ted States.
| If had grave doubts on the
question, 1 should feel it my duty
to solve them by pronounciDg the
Constitution and laws of the State
no violation of the Constitution of
tho United States. When the Cir
cult and Supreme Court Judges of
a State decide State law uncon-
stitutional, no appeal lies to the
Supreme Court of the United
States, and the citizens is thereby
denied the privilege of indicating
the constitutionality of the State
enactment before that august tri.
bunal.
n
| (Signed) JAMES L. ORR.
July 21st, 1859.