The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-02-12
F,orthe Dispatch.
The New CONFERENCE.-The Home.

81. 5Fi $3.50. Htead. /
Among the many delicate and responsi-
'ble duties imposed On the Legislature OF
Virginia, the duty of giving practical force
aud meaning to the homestead clause is not
the least.
! II the idea of many persons were cofrect,
that 81, 900 Of the real estate and personal
effects of the debtor, in addition to present
oxemptions. cannot be subjected 70 his past
or prescnt Indebtedness, then it would, per-
hans. have been far better for the pecat,,
uiarv interests as we'll as the quiet and
morals Of the people that reputation, 40
solpte and entire, of all Indebtedness were
to take place because, in such event, the
Industrious and saving creditor, alter the
loss of all his hard-earnings, woaia not De
compelled to pay his debts by sale OF Ms
property or out Of bis equally hard earn
incs in tho future. Such Interpretation as
il would mainly favor the indolent and
thriftless debtor at the expense Of the in
lustrious, enterprising, and economical
classes of the people, which it may be
safely assumed was not the purpose Of this
clause Of the Constitution.
\ somewhat careful study of the home
stead clause of the Constitution induces
ne to draw the following differences and
conclusions:
FIRST. That ii was only intended to ope-
rate on past Indebtedness as to "Judg'
mcnts rendered or docketed on or after
the 18th Of April, 1861, and before the 4th
of April, 1866 -; that so far as other past
judgments, liens, contracts, trusts, securi-
ties. etc.. the homestead was not to affect
these: and a reason given by the advocates
Of the measure was that Judgments be-
tween these periods were cod and OF no
force whatever.
Second. That the property exempted is
not to be exceeding the value of $4,000,
but may be reduced in value by the Lesis-
lature TO say $500. If this view is not
correct, then the Constitution should have
made the exemption of $4,000 absolute,
which is not done.
Third. The Radical trainers of the Con-
stitution could never have intended by this
homestead clause to conflict with and defy
the Constitution of the United States, which
in section 10 forbids any State from pass
ing "any law impairing the obligation Of
contracts" ~
Fourth. The Legislature would not be
iust:fable in giving life and vitality to a
ciorse if in conflict with the Constitution
of the United States, which is the supreme
!q,c. Should this be done by retro
active homestead, they could MOI calculate
on the sympathy or support OF Congress or
the Supreme Court, which have both, lately
and al'cnys, shown themselves averse to the
rcpudiation of debts:
Fifth and lastly. infer that the Legis-
lature has the power under the Constitution
in any homestead bill to require of persons
claiming its benefits so to enter of record,
either in open court or before the clerk in
the Office, as to give notice that when they
ask for credit it is done with full knowledge
GA the part of the creditor that he cannot
lcol; 10 tie deJtor's property for payment.
II these crude differences shall elicit
more correct views on this subject (now
matter Of discussion and anxiety to the
pcoue Of Virginia), l will have accom-
ptianed the object in view by this
CoMMrNICArI0N.
February 10, 1870.