The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1872-08-19

Extract from Mr.. Faulkner's Port
land Speech-COmpIete Vindica-
OF the Hemeatesd Provision in the


New C0nstituttOn.
i understand that a strong opposition
has been manifested in some parts o
the State against the homestead provis
ion embraced in the new Constitution
This is without any just reason, fol
: that provision confers on the Legiss'
ture no more power than it would have
possessed il the Constitution had been
wholly silent on the subject. A home
stead bill was passed by the Legislature
on March let, 1864, under the present
Constitution, and no one ever doubted
its full authority to do so. / am
aware that the idea of homestead has
never had any peculiar charm for our
native born cilizens. and ir nay sbe
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 the fact that We had
in this State, for five years and one
month, that is, from the lst Of March,
1864, until the first Of April, 1869, pre-
cisely such homestead law, with a
simple difference in amoint,) as the
new Constitution contemplates, and yet,
! have never heard OF one man in my
section of country, or in any county
of this State, who availed himself Of it's
provision. 1t was so perfect dead let
ter so far as our people are concerned
that it was dropped by the Code OF
1869, without any human being having
been aware Of such omission, or feeling
any regret for its loss.
Now, | assert that the homestead
provision, contemplated by our new
I.Constitution, being by tbst instrument
placed noir s"1h regulations as might
5,pr,Srr,bsi 6q III L,g.x'p'.'r'. in no re
spect differs in prlucipie, nor wlII II IN
effect, from the same provision which
was incorporated into the act of 1864,
and which, during the five years of It's
existence, encountered no opposition
from any quarter in the State.
The question may then be asked,
why, if this law proved 40, imperative
during the five years Of its existence in
! this State, was it deemed pecessary to
give it q constitutional recognition in
the new instrument 1t was done as a
part of our immiyration policy. Itwas
known that the great mass OF imml-
grants come from Germany; that the
Germans attach a peculiar importance
to the right secured to them Of setting
apart a piece Of land as an asylum for
their widows and orphan children. 1t
was equally we'll known that many ot
the western and northwestern States had
offered 10 that population this induce
ment to immigration into their
States, and r@that this induce
| ment was broadly .blazoned forth 10
their State Constitutions. Those people
across the water; don't look into our
voluminous Codes; they have copies oil
our State Constitutions and they judge,
in part, Of the inducements to seek a
home in particular States by the provis-
ions contained in the State Constitu-
tions. 1t was said that the absence Of
any such provisions in our present
Constitution although the power ex-
listed there as fully assit does in the
new) was effectuslly nsed by immigra-
ton agents OF other States to prejudice
the claims of West Virginia. 1t was
thus incorporated in our new State
Constitution to remove one impediment
to immigration amongst US.
And what objection can there be to
homestead law as it exists in our new
Constitution, upon the grounds of either
Justice, reason or policy? No one is
bound to avail himself of it unless lie
chooses to do 90, no one will be allowed
to acquire the right, except upon com
plisnce with conditions that will give
due notice to the community, 30 that no
one will be allowed to resort to it, tothe
injury of then existing creditors In
fact, the whole provision is lett subject to
such regulations as may represented
by the Legislature, and if'the act of
| 1864 may be taken "a an illustration Of
the views Of that body. none need antic-
ipate any improper results from that
| provision Of the rev Constitution
Many persons in this State e'have been
prejudiced against the Homestead pro-
visiot, contained IN Dur new Constitu-
ton by s1pposing'it TO be the same in
substance and principle, with a provis-
ion having the same name now en-
braced in the Constitution Of Virginia,
framed in 1867 by Scsllawags and
negroes, under the auspices OF the mill
tsry power then dominant in that State.
No two provisions could be Imoret dis
ttinct, either in their motives or charac-
ter. In the Virginia Constitution, it
was bribe distinctly offered to impov-
erish people, to secure the adoption OF
an instrument marked bygmsny odious
and detesti BILE. features. IL vas enor-
nous in amount, regardless ofthe rights
Of creditors, and independent Of
/ Legislative action 1t will here do
General Grant the justice to say
that he allowed them sSseparate vote
upon the most hateful Of the provisions
of that Constitutions, and they were thus
expunged from that Instrument. The
! homestead in the West Virginia Con-
stitution is plain snd honest psovisiou.
IL sppeals 70 no dishonest feelipgforits
support and can prejudice no honest
| creditons 1t will merely authorize a
| roor man, from the honest earnings Of
bis labor. to set apart small piece Of
4 land not to exceed one thousand dollars
in value, rs anasylxm for his wire 'aud
children against sthe storms and vicissi-
tuies of humaa hfs. IxthSrs fnythsng
morally srpsg In this r thsrs pot
everything nobfy praisewofthym sdch
aProvision.
The homestead principle has been re-
cognized BY ythe common law Of Eng
land and OF this country, as lar back as
Wa have record of the existence OF the