Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1869-06-17
THE HOMEsTEADLAW.


fore him at Anderson, has recently decided the
Homestead Law" of South Carolina constitution
al, whether with reference to old or new debts.
Judges Carpenter, Green and Rutland have al
ready affirmed the contrary. The opinion is pub
lished in full in the Greenvile Mountaiueer from
which we make the following extracts, bearing on
the constitutionality of the law in question:
| The State of South Carolina had no constitu-
tional existence from the close of the war in April
1865, until July 1868, when representation under
and in conformity to the Reconstruction Acts OF
Congress, was admitted: 1t is practically matter
of little consequence, whether the State was legal
y in or out of the Union by the act Of secession.
The State certainly had no constitutional rights
recognized until July, 1862, when she was read
mitted in contamination OF the Reconstruction
Acts. From 1865 to 1868 the State was notrepre-
sented 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 de-
cided that the Reconstruction Acts OF Congress
we're constitutional Again, if within the dates
! above, South Carolina had been Constitutional
State, the Civil would have been superior to the
Military law of the United States-the rebellion
having ended, and the supremacy of the authority
of the United States having been established after
April, lS65-and yet, it is notorious and conced.
ed fact, that no civil government existed in the
State after the passage of the Reconstruction Acts
of March, 1867, that was not subordinate to the
Military authority Of the United States The
Military Commandant Of this District, under these
Acts, was authorized to abrogate all civil govern
ment in this and other States, and it is we'll known
that this authority was exercised in 1867, in Geor-
gia and few months later, in Mississippi.
The Convention that was called in this State to
frame new Constitution was called, not by the
civil authorityof the State, but by the Military
Commandant of the United States. A large ma
iority of the persons who were declared entitled to
vote for delegates to this Convention had never
been recognized as citizens by the laws or Consti-
tuition of South Carolina as they existed prior to,
or during the war, but we're made citizens by the
Act of Congress and enforced by military orders in
the election of delegates to the Constitutional Con-
vention. They assembled in Convention and
adopted Constitution which, according to the
provisions of the Reconstruction Acts of Congress,
was mere nullity, unless Congress accepted the
same after its ratification by the people Of the
State, including the new citizens. The people OF
the State ratified the Constitution by majority
very decisive, and Congress accepted it as present,
ed and thereupon admitted the State to represent,
stead provision had been Objectionable to Congress
applyng to existing liens at the date of the adop-
tion of the Constitution, it would doubtless have
been excepted to in the Act admitting the State to
representation, as was done by Congress with ref
ence to certain features in the Constitution OF
Georgia.
The view now presented, that the Homestead
Act as to liens existing at the date of the adop-
tion of the Constitution, violates that clause OF the
Constitution of the United States which prohibits
any State from passing. "any. law lmpalrlng the
obligation of contracts" would seem to be fully
met and answered by the foregoing statement OF
the history of the enactment.
But the objection may be answered very salts
factorily by this view Of the question: Suppose
the Constitutional Convention in Charleston, IN
January, 1868, had refused to recognize any lieu
whatever, whether mortgage orjudgment.) given
or created, or any property BY or under the pro,
visional, rebel or antewar governments that had
existed in South Carolina and directed all officers
created by their Constitution to refuse to enforce
such liens, could its powers have been questioned,
and if SO, how and before what tribunal could the
! liens have been enforced? Now if they could
have ignored all these liens by declining to provide
for their enforcement, what prevented the Conven-
ton from recognizing the liens with such condl,
tions as their Judgment esteemed wise and prudent
to wit Ifa mortgage or judgment obtained under
former government was recognized by voting
population totally different from the population
that was represented in the former government,
that the lien should be enforced subject to the
claim of the defendant in execution or mortgage
to homestead of the value Of one thousand. dol
lars These views might be elaborated and sus,
tanned by the decisions in New York, Michigan,
North Carolina, Georgia and other States, but it
is not considered necessary to pursue the matter
further in this case. The Homestead Act OF this
State carrying into effect the provisions of the Con-
stitution Of this State, Article H. Section 80, pro-
yiding homestead, for the head of each family in
this State, and the Constitutional provision ITSELF
is not violation of the provision of the Constitu-
tion of the United States, which prohibits any
State from passing any law impairing the obliga-
tion of contracts, and that the same is constitu-