The Orangeburg news. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1867-1875, 1873-06-28
tracts. The legislature thought this

abolished. The constitutiohality of this
legislative action would be sustained in
any court, although it impaired existing
and substantial rights. The enlightened
legal principles that control this 9ues-
tisn will certainly sustain the homestead
laws of this State, upon the grounds of
humanity and a wise public policy.
These laws do not destroy vested rights,
disturb specific liens or abolish any
legal remedy, but only postpone the
time OF their enforcement.
do not regard the case of Hill ".
KcssIcr as ovcrrulcd by Gum v. Barry,
but will not consider the question fur
ther, as it belongs more appropriately to
another tribunal.
The question presented for my deter-
niDatiou isThow far does the case Of
Guam and Barry effect the homestead
rights Of insovcnt debtors in court OF
bankruptcy. In that case it Is decided
thus: Congress cannot, By authorization
or ratification, give the slightest effect
to u State law or Constitution in conflict
with the Constitution OF the United
States This instrument is above and
beyond the power of Congress and
the st, ties, and is alike obligatory upon
both"
| admit the soundness of the legal
principle 50 clearly aud rorcibly ex-
pressed. a State statute that is in vi
olaton Of the Constitution of the Uni.
ted States, is absolutely void, and no
power in the government can give it
vitality or authorize its operation as
State Ldao. eezsss.=.r.-
1 But there are some subjnct upon
which. State cannot rishtluliy legislatc
and yet Congress may do SO under the
Constitution. y Stuie cannot cein
money, emit bills of credit, make any
thing but gold aud silver coin Il tender
N payment of debts, &C., but Congress
can pass laws upon such subjects, aud in
Ieg'a!at'ng may adopt aud eaact the
very principles ana tcr!ns Of an uacon.
stitutioual State law. Ifthis State had
adopted tho present bankrupt law il
would have been unconstitutional, as it
lnpairs the obligation Of Contracts aad
affects the right Of the citizans of otler
States. Congress, however, conld alop t
|
the very language ard principles of
such State law and cuact it us na
tiounl law, and such action would be
constitutional, as it would constitute
system Of bankruptcy uniform among
the States.
! The Act of March Grd 1873, docs
not profcs, by authorization or ratifca-
tion,' to make valid State exemption
laws which are unconstitutional, but
adopts the principles Of such laws aud
to certain extent makes them n part of
tie general Brankrupt llw. The Act
says in express terms ..thit the cxcmp
tions allowed the bankrupt shall be the
amount allowed by the Constitution and
laws OF each State respectively as &c St
lY IN the year eiShteen EuAdrel aud
seyenty-9ne." 1t will be observed that
the Act of March 3rl, 1873, makes
material change in re-enactng the Act
Of June Sth, 1872, by substituting the
words as cristing in place OF the words
an farce. 1t is manifest from tho terms
OF the Act Of March 3rd, 1873 that the
object of Congress was to do away with
a difficulty that arose under the Act of
June Sth, 1872, by some State court
declaring that cxcm 7tions to debtors ID
State constitutions and laws were not in
force rs to antecedent debts, MS such
part OF such laws were in conflict with
the Constitution of the United States.
Congress therefore expressly declared
that such State exemptions should DC
! valid against antccedeut d bts; and cr
ntditSt'Ia substituted the words as e,cist.
d9 IN place OF the words !n /;Dcc, aud
Intended that the exemptions allowed
under the bankrupt law should be the
amount designated in the Constitution
aud laws of the States respectively in
eciStencc in the year 1871, evon fsuch
laws as State lays, should be declared to
be unconstitutional by the Courts. As
the power Of Congress over the subject
Of bankruptcies is pleDary aud para
mount and as its intents is SO clearly
manifested by its action, we ase O. the