The Orangeburg news. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1867-1875, 1869-10-09

""~ ''SioiotO uo nOt cOu,i
flict with tho provision Of the Constitu.
tion Of the United States
This was the opipion of Judge Dcuio
OF New York, and of Judge Putnam of
Massachusetts,, aud was the decision of
the Supreme Court of Michigan.
The Supreme Court of Georgia, has
decided in recent case, that the ex.
eniption of u homestead of the value of
$4,000, authorized by the Constitution
of that State, from levy and sale, even
for anteccdent debts: liens and judgments
is valid and does not impair the obliga.
ton of contracts. The Supreme Court
of the United States has admitted that
claws may be passed by tho State lcgis-
latures exempting tools or hosehold
goods from levy or sale under existing
contracts"
Judge Orr argues that elf the princi-
pie is once admitted that property may
be exempted, the enactment is not un-
constitutional which simply cnlargcs the
amount of property SO exempt" and
"that the Homestead Exemption is ms
constitutional as the old 'cow and bed
law of this State"
The Statute Of Limitations. the In.
solvent Debtors Act, the Act abolishing
imprisonment of debtors, all these are
upon the same principle of generous hu-
manity to the debtor and for the good of
the State aud all these are recognized
as constitutional then why should this
homestead exemption whose humane pro-
vision will cheer and bless thousands of
beggarcd families, and save the widows
aud the little ones of our gallant and
heroic dead from poverty, and crime,
why should this be overruled and rem
dered null, under the plea of its uncon-
stitutionality!
"All contracts are made with full
knowledge of the parties that the law
making power may modify the remedy"
Chief ustice Marshall said: with
out impairing the obligation Of the con-
tract, the remedy may certainly be modi-
fed, rs the wisdom of the nation shall
direct"
The wisdom aud policy and veal of
the State certainly directs that this hu-
name provision should be carried out
and enforced.
Judge Orr, also assumes the position
that South Carolina was not under the
protection aud governancc of the Consti
tuition of the United States, at the time
OF the ratification of the Constitution of
1868, and the Supreme, Court of tile
United States has decided that Stnte
laws passed prior to 1T9s,-the date of
the ratification ofthe Constitutiop-im
pairing the obligation of Contracts. were
valid, as the Constitution prior to that
time did not exercise any limit to State
legislation.
No damage is done by this law to the
creditor. BY the decision that this law is
constitutional, his mortgage is good, is
recognized but subject to the condition
that the defendant shall enjoy home
stead, in accordance with the Constitu.
ton and laws of this State. And this
modification of the creditors remedy is
for the good of the public, and the State.
in the cause of a high, and holy human
ity.
1t is maxim of general acccptation,
Rat justifea, ruat coelum. "Let Justice
be done though the heavens fall :" but
when Justice can be done in accordance
with the dictates of humane mercy.
and for the well being of the community,
we say let it be done in this way.
In conclusion regarding this law as
wise aud beneficial, we hope that the