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

| uoollsHcu. Hc coiStltutlOhnIlJy OI tnlS
legislative action would be sustained in
any court although it impaired existing
and substonitoL rIyhts. The enlightened
legal principles that control this ques-
tisn will certainly sustain the homestead
laws Of this State, upon the grounds of
humonity and 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 v.
kcsslcr 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
niaation is how iar does the case Of
Gunn and Barry effect the homestead
rights Of insolvcnt d,bto~s in u court OF
bankruptcy. In that case it is decided
thus: Congress canuot, by authorization
or ratification, give the slightest effect
to a State law or Constitution in conflict
with the Constitution OF the United
! States. This instrument is above AMI
beyond the power of Congress and
the It, ties, and is alike obligatory Ioon
both
admit the sounlncss of the legal
pr!ncipc 50 clearly and forcibly cx-
pressed. \ S,a'c statute that is in vi
olation 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
4 But there are some subject upon
which Stat" caunoi fightlully lcgi,latc
and Yet Congress may do So under the
Constitution. y State camnot coin
money, emit bills OF credit, make any
thing but gold aud silver coin il ten der
'n pnyment Of dcbt7, &c., bur Congress
can pass laws upon such subjects, aud in
IegI"'ailns may adopt and enact the
very principles AMI tcrAIs Of an uncon.
st'tu'iumal State law. Ifthis State had
adopted the present bankrupt law it
would have been Unconstitutional. as it.
'mlalrs the obligation Of contracts aod
affects Tie right Of The ctiz,us of other
states. Congress, however. conld lop t
the very language and rinciplcs of
such State law unl cuact it rs II na.
tionaI law, aud such action would be
constitutional, as it would constitute a
system Of bankruptcy uniform among
the States.
The Act of March Grl, 1873, does
not profes, by authorization or ratifca-
tion," to make valid State exemption
laws which are Unconstitutional, but
ADOPTS the principles Of such laws and
to certain extent makes them a part Of
tie general Brank:upt llw Til. Act.
says in express terms '',hIt the cxcnp
tions allowed the bankrupt Shall be III.
''moHh allowed by the Constitution aud
laws OF each State respectively rs &c St
"Y III tic year eighteen EIudrel and
seventy-Hne.' 1t will be observed that
the Act of March 3rl, 1873, makes
ma'eriAl change in rc-tnacting the .tct
oi june Sth, 1877, by substituting the
words as cris'Ng in place OF the words
m farce Il is manifest from the terms
OF the Act Of March 3rd, 1873 that the
object of Congress WIS to DO away with
difficulty that arosa under the Act of
June Sth, 1872, by some State court
declaring that m?tions to debtors in
State constitutions and laws were not j.,
! force rs to antecedent debts, 40 such
part OF such laws were in conflict with
the Constitution of the United States.
Congress therefore expressly declared
that such State exemptions should be
valid against antccedeut d BITS and cr
niTrtSfru substituted the words as eri,t
"y in place OF the words az fJ,ce, 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
cci@icncc in the yetr 1871, evon fsuch
laws as State lays, should be declared to
be unconstitutional by the Courts. AS
the power OF Congress over the subject