Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1873-04-17

States, is, that while their wealth is decreased
immensely, taxation has increased with still
greater rapidity. While property has depre-
ciated almost one hundred per cent, taxation
has increased from three to four hundred per
cent. This, to great extent, is attributable
to misgovernment in the South; but, as Col.
Wilson remarked in the railroad meeting at
this place the other day, the surest way to
tighten taxation is by increasing the value OF
property and promoting general prosperity.
The School Fund.
- The Phenir says that Treasury Cardo-
"a has begun to pay the school claims under
the new apportionment. The claims of An
derson and Richland counties have already
been paid of: In a circular addressed by the
State Superintendent of Education to the sew
eral County School Commissioners, he says:
"Dear Sir r:-There has already been for
warded to you, from this Office, statement
showing your county's portion of the State ap-
preparation of 100000 for the support and
maintenance of free common schools tor the
fiscal year ending October 81, 1878. You
will apportion the same among the several
school districts of your county, in proportion
to the number of children between six and
sixteen years of age, inclusive. See Section
5 of "An Act concerning school funds" ap.
proved February 20, 1873, and Section 6of
"An Act to make appropriations and raise
supplies for the fiscal year commencing No.
vember l, 1872" Do not allow the current
school expenses of any school district under
your supervision to exceed the school revenue
of said school district for the current fiscal
year."
Retrospective Homestead Laws.
- The Raleigh, N c., Ne,os calls atten'
ton to the fact that the Supreme Court of
the United States has recently decided that
the retrospective homestead laws as recently
enacted by the Legislature of Virginia, North
Carolina, this State and Georgia, are unconsti.
tutional, and cannot apply to debts contracted
previous to the passage of the said laws. We
have no information of this decision other
than that derived from the article below and
one of similar purport which we find in anoth-
er exchange but if the decision of the United
States Supreme Court goes to the length that
the language quoted below would imply, it
may turn out to be of great Importance to
many of our people, who, to relieve themselves
of the pressure of pecuniary embarrassment,
will yet have to resort to bankruptcy, as the
recent declaratory act of Congress saves the
homestead Speaking Of the decision, the
Neacs says:
"A recent decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States pronounces against the va
lidity of homestead laws as applied to detes
contracted previously to the enactment of the
said laws.
"In 1868 the State of Georgia enacted
lawincreasiug the homestead exemptions, and
the Supreme Court of that State held that
such enlarged exemptions were good as against
all debts contracted prior to 1863
"The sheriff refused to levy on certain prop
erty of debtor against whom judgment was
obtained on an old debt for the reason that
such property was exempt from execution un-
der the homestead law. The judgment cred
itor asked for a writ of mandamus against the
sheriff to compel him to make the levy. This
was refused by the Judge, and the case was ia
ken to the Supreme Court ofthe United States.
Associate Justice Swain, of that tribunal, de-
livered the opinion of the court few days ago,
reversing the decision of the Georgia courts,
and holding that homestead exemptions can
not apply to preexisting debts, being viola
ton of that clause of the Constitution of the
United States which prohibits any State from
passing law that mpairs the obligations Of
contracts.
"This decision in effect sustains Chief JUS
tice Pearson, of our Supreme Court, and Judge
Brooks, of the United States District Court
both of whom have decided in cases brought
before them that the homestead clause, in
chapter tenth of the Constitution of North
Carolina, in so far rs it exempted property
from execution against debts contracted pre-
vious to the adoption of the Constitution, is
unconstitutional and void.'
The South Carolina Railroad.
- A meeting of the stockholders OF the
South Carolina Railroad Company was held
at Charleston on the 9th instant The report
of the President and Directors contained
very clear and elaborate statement of the man.
agement of the finances of the road during the
past year. The gross earnings of the road for
the year 1872 are stated by the Vice-Presi
dent at S., ,401, ,2l1.25-an increase of $751;
1925 over the gross earnings of 1871. The
net earnings for the same period amounted to
s545, ,1O5.6O against 5,5S4.37 for the year
1871, showing an increase Of s99,52227 dur
ing the year.
The following is the result of the election
for Directors of the Railroad Company and
the Southwestern Railroad Bank:
Directors of the RaiIroad.-William j. Ma
grath, George A. Trenholm, L. D. DeSaus-
sure, John Hanckel, Andrew Simonds, Geo.
w. Williams, Henry Gourdin, Francis j.
Pelzer, Daniel Tyler, William A. Courtenay,
James S. Gibbes, James P. Boyce, Samuel
Sloan, Moses Taylor, J. P. Southern.
Directors of the Southwestern Railroad Bank.
J.. C. Cochran, l.. D. DeSaussure, George A.
Trenholm, J. H. Wilson, w. A. Courtenay,
G.. w. Williams, F. j. Pelzer, j. S. Gibbes,
w. j. Magrath, w. A. Pringle, Henry Gour-
din, j. Hanckel, James Conner.
At meeting of the Directors of the Rail-
road, W. j. Magrath, Esq, was unanimously
reelected President.
During the meeting, communication was
read from General Connor, attorney for the
company, explaining the recent decision Of
the Supreme Court of the United States in
the tax cases. 1t appears that the road from
Augusta to Branchvile is liable to taxation,
but. those portions from Branchville to Col
umbia, and from Kingsvile to Camden, are
e,-ouor oxan,nt from tayatinn With regard