The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1869-08-03

enthusiastically impsirs its .aeiciancy.
Therefore, is does not condigs with tie
provisions of the Constitution Of the
United States forbidding any State 20,
pass law inpairing The obligations Of
co1tracts, and Is valid. - 3t 80
In Bigelow vs. Pritchard, Judge Put
nans, delivering the opinion Of the 3d.
preme Court of Massachusetts,, said
11that the Legislature might lawfully al.
minish the creditors remedy to enforce
payment by exempting Q part OF the pro.
perty OF the debtor from attachment or
m,esne process, or levy or execution"
In Rockwell Vs. Hubbell, Q Douglass
I97, in the Supreme Court Of Michigan,
it is held ''that property may be ex-
empted from execution for debts con-
tracted before the lew of exemption was
enacted"
The Supreme Court of Georgia, in
recent case, has decided that the ex-
emptioh of homestead of the value of
81, 900, authorized by the constitution
of that State, from levy or sale even for
antecedent debts, liens and judgments,
is valid, and does not impair the obliga-
tion OF contracts. The same point has
been ruled, or the same principle in
of the Union.
In Parsons on Contracts, 552, the
learned author, after reviewing many of
the cases decided in different States,
says: cat the same time, however, it is
admitted that State may make partial
exemptions of property, as of furniture,
food, apparel, or even homestead.
Again, on the same page, he says: cit
is to be observed that as to the remedy,
there can be no difference between debt
existing before and one contracted after
the law is made"
In the Planters Bank os. Sharp, 6
Howard, 301-33O, Judge Woodbury., in
delivering the opinion of the Supreme
Court of the United States. admits that
claws may be passed by the State Legis-
latures exempting tools or household
goods from levy or sale under existing
contracts"
If the principle is once conceded that
property of small value con be exempted
from levy for contracts existing before
the passage OF the law, how can such an
enactment be said to be unconstitutional
when the value of the property exempted
is enlarged
The exemption of household effects,
OF small value, under what was popularity
designated the ''cow and bed law OF
this State, more effectually hindered and
defeated the creditor, in many cases,
than a homestead exemption of $1,000
would do in others.
The principle upon which the oonsti-
tutionality of the homestead law is main
tained has been admitted by the Su-
preme Court of the United States, in
cases where the State Legislatures have
passed laws changing the statute of limi-
tations; disoharging insolvent debtors;
and abolishing imprisonment for debt.
1t is said, however, that such legislation
effects only the remedy" of the creditor,
but does not impair the obligation of
the contract.
Will not an examination of the result
of such enaetments show that the ex-
emption of part OF the debtors goods
and lands hinders. delays and defeats the
creditor in many cases in less degree
than the enactments referred to, which
have been ruled constitutional by the
Supreme Court of the United States {?
The debtor contracts debt; his pro-
mise is to pay the money; the creditor
is entitled to demand and receive it when
due. He has his remedy, as the law
exists at the date of the contract, against
the property of the debtor then held,
and oil his subsequent earnings, until
the whole debt is paid. He may hold
but little property when the credit is
given, but being skilled artisan or me-
chanic, the creditor relies more upon his
future earnings for payment than upon
the property then held. Suit is insti-
tuted and judgment recovered. In the
meantime, the Legislature cnacts an in
solvent law, which authorizes the debtor
to surrender his effects, which may be
only nominal in value, to the creditors
and be forever discharged from all liza
bility ever to pay another cent to the
creditor. all his future earnings being
protected from liability for the unsatis-
fed portion of the debt. Is the original
contract impaired. or the creditor him
dered, defeated or delayed by the enact
ment? The Supreme Court says no.
So, too, of the statute of limitations
when the debt is contracted the statutory
term is q given number of years; the
Legislature reduces it, and if it possesses
the constitutional power to reduce it
from six to three years, why not less
than three, and if less, how much less
can they declare it? The creditor, by
accident or ignorance, fails to sue under
the amended statute, and on the theory