The Orangeburg news. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1867-1875, 1873-06-07

SAID act or not. 1t enacts that the
exemptions in each State shall be the
amount allowed by the Constitution and
laws Of each State as existing in
the year IS71-meaning the amount
designated or fixed by such State law
nothing more nor nothing less. 1t
simply adopts the exemptions in EACH
State as the measure Of its own exemp.
tions, without adopting the State home.
stead laws. This is obvious from the
following eaacfment:
"And it is hereby enacted that such
exemptions shall be valid against debts
contracted before the adoption and pas
sage of suclFsState Constitution and laws,
as we'll as those contracted afterwards, :"
&c.
Now, they were not so valid under
the State laws, and Congress could not,
by "aufhorisation" of them as State
'u,rs, make them So In this the Dis.
patch is undonhtedly right. But that is
not what Congress did or attempted to do
in the act of March 3, 1873. That
body, in which there are some sound and
able constitutional lawers, especially in
the Senate, simply enacted that such
exemptions should be "valid" against all
classes Of debts under the bankrupt law
"a law Of Congress, which none can
doubt its power to pass"
We have this to say in reply: If the
new act of Congress does not change the
Virginia Law. thea the same amount is
to be exempted under the Virginia law.
and against the same debts that were
thrown out by the Virginia law, as this
law was expounded by her highest Judi
cial tribunal. In word, the bankrupt
law has not changed the Virginia law
And if tn" act of Congress does not
change the Virginia law, it failed to do
what it WAS intended to do ; for that was
the avowed purpose of its authors. Gu
tie other taud, if it does change the
Virginia IL changes it by validating
.IraD rsrc dyiRr y;.s;u;. low mhi,l. the
Court Of Appeals had pronounced uu.
constitutional. And this is just what
the Supreme Court Of tho United States
said, in the case from Georgia, I'll. At Con.
gress could not do.
The writer in the Ners SAYS that Con.
srcSs did not attempt by authorization
OF thcii u, State tdHs IL valid lie the
homestead laws of the several States.
lie quotes enough of the act Of Con.
gress to suit his purpose; but he om,ts
the following:
1T is hereby euau.ed that they shall
be the amoaut allowed by the Constitu.
ton and laws of each State respectively
as existing in the year 1871 aud that
such exemptions shall be valid against
debts contracted before the adoption
aud passage of such State Constellation
and laws, as well as those contracted
after the ame, and against liens by
judgment or decree Of any State Court,
any decision Of any such court rendered
since the adoption and passage of such
constitutions to the contrary notwith,
standing.
"Any decision Of any such court 2"
What does this uncan d? 1t means that
Congress attfmptcd to override the State
courts. 1t gems that our Court of Ap-
peals having decided what the law Of
Virginia wal, and against what debts
the Homestead exemption should be
allowed, Congress tried TO override both
the law and tle court. Admitting, then,
that the vfiIsr for the News is right
thus far, hi has only got out of one
difficulty sto II into agreater. Con.
gress has POT to pass mnitorm bank,
rupt law. his uniformity must either
be derived frlm the fact that it respects
the State lisEs, es the fact that it fixes
the amount ;ssclf. 1t Is, therefore, not
uniform. and not being uniform, it not
constitutional; for if it docs not change
the Virginia Jaw, it has no effect, here,
whilst if it do$ change the Virginia law
it is not uiiform, since ths only uni.
formty it CO possibly claim is due to
its allowing what the State allows as
exemptions" Erchanye.
Wedding Cake.