The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1869-06-24
THE HOMESTEAD LAW.


the oonstitutionality of the Homestead Law, which
is Of considerable interest to the people of the
country. Judge CARPENTER, we know, has deci-
'dedthatthe law is unconstitutional, and it is un
derstoed that Judges GREEN and RUTLAND concur
with. him. in: opinion. A great deal depends upon
the-ihal decision of this question, and We can on
ly hope that if the law can be sustained by any
legitimate mode of; construction in the Courts Of
lastresort; that: it; will be done. We think that
good faith to people who have been mere instrn-
ments in the execution of the will of Congress,
in guaranteeing to US governments republican in
FORM aside from the constitutional questions in
volvod, requires, that this should be done. Judge
ORR has started out in this direction, by declaring
that the law wisconstitutonal and with character
isticgoed sense bases his opinion upon the points
upen. which, incur judgment, the whole question
must turn. He holds that the Constitution adopt
ed by the Convention, Of the State would have
been q mere nullity under the provisions of the
roeenstruetioa acts, unless, accepted by Congress
after its ratification by the people of the State;
and that if, at the time, it was accepted by Con.
gress, the Homestead provisions had been objec-
tionable it would doubtless have been exceptedto,
as was done by Congress in reference to certain
features in the Constitution. of Georgia. He fur
ther holds that it was competent for the Consti-
tutional Convention. to, refuse to. recognize any
lien whatever, given or created undep the proEis-
onal, rebel or ante-war governments, and shat If
it was competent for them to do this, it was equal
ly competent for them to recognize these liens,
subject to such conditions rs were, in their judg
ment, wise and prudent. These are strong points,
and it will be difficult to answer them in deciding
upon the unconstitutionality of the act.
But the Judge says: "From 1865 to 1858 the
State was not represented in the Senate or House.
If State, the right Of representation could not
have been denied and yet the Courts of the United
States have decided that the reconstruction diets Of
Congress were constitutional" Again. "If with
in the dates above South Carolina had been s. Con-
sttutional State, the civil would have been superior
to the military law of the United States" In the
case of Texas vs.. White and Childs recently deci-
ded in the Supreme Court of the United States,
Chief Justice CHASE remarked Hthat there is
nothing in the case before us which requires us to
pronounce judgment upon the constitutionality of
any particular provision of these acts;" and in
speaking of the provisional governments estab-
lished under Executive direction, which are by
these acts declared illegal and continuing them
subject to military control and the paramount au-
thority of Congress, says--s'we do not inquire
into the constitutionality of this legislation"
So that while the constitutional power of Congress
to pass such acts has been fully recognized, we
submit that these acts have never been decided to
be unconstitutional as whole 1t will be per-
ceived, therefore, that when Judge ORR says-'.if
this Ssate bad been Constitutional State, the civil
would have been superior to the military law of
the United States'-that the supremacy of the
one over the other, created by the reconstruction
acts raises question whose constitutionality has
not Seen decided
Ifwe have not misunderstood the learned Judge
in tile quotation made from his opinion, the infer
euce is that we were not State within the periods
referred to BY him. for if we had been We could not
have been denied representation in Congress
But in the case referred to, Chief Justice CHASE
held that the ordinances of secession were null
provisions looks to an indestructible Union COM
posed of indestructible States" That the States,
Notwithstanding secession, did not cease 10 be
STATES, their citizens to be citizens of the Uni
ted States but that they were without gorern-
ment, in constitutional relations with the Union,
and that the rights Of the State q member, and
of her people as citizens of the Union, were mere
ly suspended. In this condition of things, it be-
came the duty of Congress to guarantee to the
State government republican in form, and in do
ing 50 to exercise discretion in the choice of
msaas, with this qualification, that the means
must be necessary and proper. IT, then, We were
excluded from representation as State, it was
net because we were not States, but because we
were without governments in constitutional rela-
tions with the Union, because our rights were
suspended, and because this exclusion was neces-
sary as part of the scheme of reconstruction in
the formation of such governments as were repub-
lican in form.
The conclusion that we were not States is not
supported, we submit, by the high authority re-
ferfed to. That we were States will constitute
the great difficulty with the Homestead Law, un-
der that clause of the Constitution inhibiting
State from passing Law impairing the obligation
Of contracts But, in our humble judgment, that
is by no means conclusive of the question. Judge
ORR's decision rests upon grounds which distin-
guish cases which must arise under the present
Homestead Law, from all others of similar char
acter. 1t cannot be ignored that the Constitu-
tion, under the provisions of the reconstruction
acts, would have been mere nullity unless it had
been, as it was, accepted by Congress after ratif-
cation by the people Of the State. AS State we
have received from Congress the Constitution it
was bound 10 guarantee to us, and it is not inhib
tied to Congress to pass law impairing the obli-