The southern enterprise. [volume] (Greenville, S.C.) 1854-1870, 1869-06-16

:;
until July, 1868. when represents.
tion under, and IN conformity to
the Reconstr6ction Acts of Con
gress, was admitted. tt is practi-
cany . matter Of little consequence,
! whether the State, was legal y in. or
| out of the Union by the act of Sc.
cession., The Stats certainly. had
no constitutional rights recognized
until July, 1S6S when she was re.
admitted in contamination Of the
Reconstruction Acts From 1866
to 1868 the State was not ,represen-
ted in. the Senate or House.. IF q
State, the, right of representation
acouldsnot have been denied, and
yet the Courts of the United. States
have decided tbat4the Reconstruc
tien Acts Of Congress We're consti-
tt,tional. Again, If within the
dates above, South Carolina had
been q Constitutional State, The
Civil would have been, superior to
the Military, law of the United
States--the rebellion having end.
ed, and the supremacy of the au-
tlrority of the U:rS: having been cs-
tabished after 'Apfib 1868 4sahd
yet, IL isia notorious andpconceded
fact, that no civil government ex-
listed In tile State, after the passage
Of tho Reconstruction Acts of
March, 1867, that was not subor-
fdinate to the Military authority of
Itbe United States. The Military
Commandant Of this District, un.
der these Acts, was authorized to
abrogate all civil government in
this and other States, and it is well
known that this, authority was ex.
iercised in 1861 in Georgia, and "a
few months later, in Mississippi,
l"fdThe Convention that was called
in this State to frame q new Con.
stitution was called, notify the civ.
il authority Of the State, - but by
the Military Commandant of the
United States. A large majority
of the persons who were declared
entitled to vote for delegates to
this convention had never been re-
coenized as citizens by the laws or
Constitution of South Carolina as
they existed prior to, or during
the war. but were made citizens by
Act of Congress and enforced by
military orders In the election of
delegates to the Constitutional
! Convention. They assembled in
Convention, and adopted q Consti-
IstRtion which, according to the pro.
,xisiens of the, Reconstruction Acts
of Congress, was mere nudity, un-
less Congress accepted tie same af
ter'its ratification by the pe4le of
the eState, including the new citizen.
l'rlie people Of the State ratified
the Constitution by a majority ve-
Try decisive, and Congress accepted
it as presented, and thereupori ad-
| mitted the State to representation
in both Houses Of Congress. II
the Homestead provision had been
Objectionable to Congress applying
to, existing liens at the date of the
adoption of Che Constitution, it
would doubtless have been excep-
ted to in the Act admitting the
State. q to representations as was
Ndone by Congress with reference
to certain features in the Constitu-
tion of Georgia a.-s .- .s.
I The view now presented, that
! the Homestead Act, as TO liens ex-
listing at the date Of the adoption
Of the Constitution, violates that
\ clause Of the Constitution of the
United States which prohibits any
State from passing "any law i'm
paving the. obligation of con
tracts" would seem TO be fully
met and answered by the forego
ing statement Of the history of the
enactment. = Gs rs r. tr@h
l But. the objection may, be an
swered very satisfactorily by this
view of,tbe question Suppose the
j Constitutional Convention in Char
lesion, in January, 1868, had re
fuscd~te recognize any lien what.
eyers whether mortgage or judg,
ment, given or created, or any
property by or nnder the provision
alsrebel or ante war governments
that had. existed in South Carroll
ma, and directed allofficers createc
| by their Constitution to refuse ia en-
force such .liens, could its power
have been questioned, and If, so
/ how and before what tribunal eoulo
4 1.-THE liens have been enforceda Now
I Eifthey could haveignored all lien,
Il by declinipr To Drovide for tbei,