The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1869-07-29

Legislature required by solemn act, and as con-
dition precedent to admission to repeal the claus
es, as they did in the case of Georgia. The Con-
stitution Of Georgia, when presented for accept
ance, contained two paragraphs practically repu-
dating all debts. These clauses Congress re-
quired Georgia to renounce, which was done by
her Legislature, but no exception taken to the
homestead section in the same instrument, though
its value was fixed at S2,000-double that pro-
yided in this State.
| AS already stated, The Constitution of the Uni
ted States was not recognized as Of force in this
State. Even the rights and immunities uniformly
accorded to the organized territories of the United
States and to persons residing without the States
and territories in the Indian country, were repu-
dated by the acts Of Congress and practice Of the
military. Protection of person and property, Of
the right of trial by jury-of being confronted by
| witnesses-of presentment by grand jury before
being held 10 answer criminal charge-of ma
king our own laws-of imposing our own taxes
of representation in State national legislature
| of choosing our own ofices-of executing our
own laws-of making contracts with our la6orers,
and of enforcing such contracts by any known
law-of appealing to the writ of habsas corpus
oil were denied to us as rights, and such Us were
enjoyed were permissive only.
| What single feature in any paragraph in the
Constitution of the United States spread its pro-
lection agis over the territory or Inhabitants Of
| South Carolina?
Can it be gravely urged, in the face of this re-
view of the condition of affairs from May, 1866,
TO july 1866, that such clauses of the Constitu-
on as restrained the powers of State and citizens
were of force and those giving them protection
were not of force? Can it be seriously insisted
that the clause p ohibiting any State from passing
| law mpairing 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
! its members, or of their constituents, were re-
cognized or enforced by and through the re-
naming sections Of the same instrument? Surely
not The Constitution in this territory was dor
mant, sleeping, in allegiance. The government
was military The reconstruction acts of Con-
gress and the 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 q conquered province, wrested from
neighbOring nation.
| If the Constitution of the United States was not
of force when the Constitution of the State was
| framed and ratified, and did not become operative
until accepted by Congress, then there was no
constitutional 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 United States held at
an early day, that State laws passed prior to 1893
the date of the adoption of the Constitution
impairng the obligation Of contracts, were valid,
as the Constitution did not previous to that time
exercise any limitations upon the legislation Of the
States.
After the admission of Texas into the Union, the
same decision was made by the same Court, affirm
ing the validity of law passed by the Legislature
of that State prior to annexation, which, If passed
subsequently, would have "impaired the obliga-
| tion OF contracts"
The Convention of this State might have de-
clined, however unjustly, to recognize any debt,
Judgment or lien that existed by virtue of the laws
of the preceding governments of the State, and
what remedy could have been found for the omis-
sion or refusal? If they had the power to refuse
altogether, could they not, when recognizing debtg.
liens and judgements, annex conditions to such
recognition?
No more has been done here. It is said in ef-
feet to the complainant, your mortgage is recog-
nized but subject to the condition that the defen-
dant shall enjoy homestead, conformably to the
Constitution, and the oct of the Legislature per-
petuatng and defining it.
1 therefore adjudge, that the Constitution and
laws of this State, securing homestead to each
head of family, whether the debt or lien existed
at the date Of the adoption of the Constitution or
has been subsequently created, is NO violation Of
the Constitution of the United States.
If had grave doubts on the question, should
feel it my duty to solve them by pronouncing the
Constitution and laws Of the State violation Of
the Constitution of the Uni.ed States. When the
Circuit and Supreme Court Judges of a State de-
eide State law unconstitutional no appeal lies to
the Supreme Court of the United States, and the
citizen is thereby denied the privilege Of vindica-
ting the constitutionality Of the State enactment
before that august tribunal.
(Signed) JAMES L. ORR.
| Julv Dist 1869