The weekly register. [volume] (Point Pleasant, Va. [W. Va.]) 1862-1909, 1872-08-01
THE HOMESTEAD.
Same as the ono Inaugurated by the
Radicals in 1854. and which Remain
cd in force until Recently.

Same as the ono Inaugurated by the
Radicals in 1884. and which Remain
cd in force until Recently.
We invite especial attention to the fol-
lowing extract feOm the speech Of Hon.
CD Faulkner, on the Homestead feature
|of the Constitution:
Mr.. FAULKNER said:
Lastly. by giving constitutional re-
,ognition.t the homestead principle,
| understand that a strong opposition
has been manifested in some parts Of the
State against the homestead provision en-
braced in tue new Constitution. This is
without any Just reason, for that provision
confers on the Legislature no more power
lhanit would have possessed il the Con.
sttution had been wholly silcnto on the sub.
cct. "A homestead bill was passed by tho
Legislature on the lst Of March, 1864,
under the present Constitution, aud no
one ever doubted its full authority to be
SO. am aware that the idea Of n home.
stead has never hud any peculiar charm
for our native born citizens, aud it may be
doubted whether one.in thousand, or one
in ten thousand of them, will ever avail
himself of it, The proof Of this is to be
found in tho fact that we had in this State,
for five years and one month, that is. from
The 1st Of March. 1864, until tho lst Of
April, 1869, precisely such a homestead
law. (with sibple diIlerenuc in amount,
as the new Constitution oonsemplatcs, and,
yet, | hive never heard Of ono man in my
section icountry, or in any county ofthis
State, who ayailed himselfof this provision
1t wis so perfect q dead.lettor, 50 far as
our people arc concerned, that il was drop
ped blythe Code Of 1860, without any hu.
mau being aware Of such omissioo;or feel
ing any regret for its loss.
Now. | assert that the homestead pro-
vision contemplated BY our new Conslitn-
ton, being by that instrument placed un-
der suth regulations as might be b~aiibed
JyMc Legislature, in no respect differs in
principle, nor will it effect, from thu same
provision which was Incorporated into the
act Of 1864, and which, during the fvc
years Of its existence, encountered no op.
position from any quarter III thisSt
! The question may then be asked, why.
ifthis law proved so imperative during
The Eve years ofits existence in tlis State,
WIS it deemed necessary to giveita o con-
stitu,ionAl recognition in the new instru-
ment? Il wys done as part 1f our ~.
'migrdsbap policy. It was known that the
.asait' unss Of AnMigras2 SsBs sitom Ger
many; that the Germans attach apeculiar
Importance to the right secured to them Of
land as an asylum for their widows and
orphan children. 1t was equally well
known that many Of the Western and
Northwestern States had offered to that
population this inducemen4 to immigration
into their States, and that this iuducelnent
vas broadly blazoned forth in their State
Constitutions. Those people across the
water don't look into our volumlnous
Codes; they have copies Of our State Con.
>titutious, and they Judge, in part, Of che
inducements to seek q home in particular
States by the provisions contained 10 the
State Constitutions. 1t was said that the
absence Of any such provisions 10 our
present Constitution (al,hough the power
existed there as fully as it docs in the
new, was effectually used by immigration
agents Of other States TO prejudice the
claims Of West Virginia. 1t WINS thus in.
corporated 10 our new State Constitution
to remove one impedimeut to immigration
among ua.