The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1873-05-21

The first section of the act of the
Sd October, 1868, is in the same
terms.
1t may well be doubted whether
both these provisions were not in
tended to be both wholly prospec-
tive in their effect.
But as we understand the Su-
preme Court,of the State has come
to a different conclusion, we shall
no. consider the question.
The statute in force when the
Judgment was rendered declared
that the following property belong
| ing toa debtor who was the head
of q family should be exempt from
sale, to wit: Fifty acres of land
and and five additional ones for
each of the children under the age
Of sixteen years, the land to include
the dwelling house, if the same and
improvements do not exceed two
hundred dollars, one farm horse or
mule. one COW and calf, ten head
Of hogs, and fifty dollars worth OF
provisions, and five dollars worth
additional for each child; beds,
bedding, and common bed
steads Sufficient for the family; one
loom, one spinning wheel, and two
pairs LOT cards. and one hundred
pounds of lint cotton; common
tools of trade for himself ana his
wife; equipments and arms Of a
militia soldier and troopers horse
ordinary cooking utensils and table
cookery; wearing apparel tor him
self and family; family Bible, reli-
gious works and school books -;
family portraits; the library of
professional man in actual practice
or business, not exceeding three
hundred dollars in value, TO be se-
lected by himself."
Noone can cast his eyes over the
former and latter exemption, with
out being struck by the greatly in
creased magnitude of the latter.
Section 10 Of article 1 of the
Constitution of the United States
declares that "no State shall pass
any law impairing the obligation Of
contracts.
II the remedy is a part of the
! obligation OF the contract, clearer
case OF Impairment can hardly occur
than is presented i'll the record be-
fore. US.
The effect of the act iu question,
! under the circumstances of this
Judgment, does not indeed merely
impair, it annihilates the remedy,
There is none left. But the act
reaches still further. 1t withdraws
the land from the lien of the judg-
tment, and thus destroys a vested
right Of property which the credl-
tor had acquired in the pursuit OF
the r, m dy to which he was enti-
tied b., the law as it stood when the
Judgment was recovered. 1t is in
effect taking one persons property
and giving it to auother without
compensation. This is contrary to
reason and justice, and to the fun
damental principles If the social
compact.-Calder Us. Bull, 3 DALI,
3So. But we must confne our
selves to the constitutional aspect
of the case. A few further remarks
WILDE sufficient to dispose of it.
1t involves no question which has
not been more than once fully con-
sidered by this Court.
Georgia, since she came into the
Union as one Of the original thlr-
teen States, has never been a State
ont of the Union. Her constltu-
tional rights were, for time, nee
essarily put in abeyance, but her
constitutional disabilities and obli-
cations were in no wise affected by
her rebellion. The same view is to
be taken of the provision in her
organic law and of the statute IN
question, as if she had been in full
communion with her sister States
when she gave them being.
Though .lsr Constitution was
sanctioned 3 y Congress, this pro;
WON can in no sense be considered
an act of thatbody. The sanction
was only perrnissive as part OF
the process of her rehabilitation,
and involved nothing affirmative or
: negative beyond that event. If it
T were express and unequivocal, the
result would be the same. Con-
gress cannot, by authorization /. or
ratification, give the slightest effect
to a State law or Constitution IN
f conflict with the Constitution OF
! the United States. That instru-
, ment is above and beyond the pow:
er of Congress and the States, and
is alike obligatory upon.both..
A State can no more impair an
existing contract by constitutional
provision than by a legislative act ;
:, both are within the prohibition o1
, the national Constitution.
The legal remedies for: the en-
+ forcemcnt of contract, which be
Y long to it at the time and place
q where it is made, are part of it
obligation. A State may change
o them, provided the change Involve
no Impairment Of a substantial