Wilmington journal., 1875-07-16
WHO Is THE EEssEND 0F .EcEE
HOW ESzEzDr

EzO,IESsEsD
We gave two excellent reasons q tuw
days ago, showing how perfectly safe
from all harm the Homestead clauses
bf the Constitution VIII bein the Lands
bf the Convention to assemble in Sep
Fember. These reasons were, first, that
he restrictions in the act Of the as
Fembly, and which the delegates will
have to swear upon the dolly Lya1ge-
lists of Almighty God to respect and
Pbey, before taking their seats would
prevent any Interference. Secondly,
Fhe fact that nine -tenths of the Home
Bteads in the State belong TO mem
bers Of the Democratic party, consti-
utes an equally safe guarantee, and
Pne, too, based on that atrongcst Of hu-
han passions, that is 10 say, self inter
Fst, that no attempt viii be made to
ender the provision oi HE law FOR The
Protection OF wives and children from
ctnal want, less secure.
A tn ed reason and one entirely con
lusive, too, might also have been CIV
%, that is to say, the well known fact
bat before any change proposed by
be Convention can become a part OF
be Constitution it must be ratified
y the people at the polls
But we DO not propose to MAKE, any
fgHment on the question this morn |
Fg, we desire simply to show, ty !
poice Radical testimony, how utterly |
psurd IS The pretence sci up by tie |
|adlcal party to be the Homestead |
Prty. And now 10 the proof There
pre- Homestead and Exemption laws
North Carolina before the adoption
the present Constitution. These
VS. We're curtaileG and restricted by
e Radicals in 1868. The authority
the statement IS high perhaps
ffciW would be the more correct term.
comes from His Honor, ,Ju.lre EcaGc.
the opinion Of the court, III the cas-,
lrrett VS.. Cheshire, %, \. =. Reports
3y6. There is radical doctrine, 10 be
lnd III Reade's opinions, # il ie pos
lie to put it there. He would have ,
PIE hesitation about the prop:iuty OF
hvicting even EeecLer On such te-ti-
pny, but we suppose it is perfectly
npetert and credible as against the +
dlcal party. At any rate leaving tIls,t /
Reade and his party % decide a
long themselves, we present the !
ord the Judge makes for his bretl- C
1t shows beyond the shadow Of /
oubt that the Radical party did not .
rease but did diminish the Home D.
hdand personal property cxcmp- /
hs. O
the case OF Garrett Us. Cheshire, \. c
report, P. 396, Judge Reade deIiv y
Pc the opinion of the court SAYS
N act of 1856, (Revised Code.y ex-
pts personal property, articles bv =
pe which may be OF the value OF
eral hundred dollars more or less.
=Prdlng to the circum stances OF the f,
tors family. Andin 1SG6-G7 prior to | Y,
existence OF the debt III the +
before us, an act was passed ex- al
Ptlng all necessary farming and 4,
hanlcal tools, one work-Lorse. one y
OF oxen, one cart or wagon, one 81
ID COW and calf, fifteen head of r.
;, five hundred pounds Of pork or rn
pa, fifty bushels OF corn, twenty =
bells of wheat, household and f.
ben furniture not exceeding two So
tred dollars in value, the LII
Us of attorneys at law, practicing tie
lclans and ministers OF the Cos an
and the instruments Of surgeons T.
dentists used in their profession O.
1866--'67, Chap. 81. 1t is aD. VI
pit that an allotment OF these ar f.,
approximate 81, 200, and in MANY cb,
would exceed that sum in value on
the same act allows q homestead na1
100 acres without restriction as to
lue, which in many cases would fio
Forth, with the improvements, the
1aeo 0usan1s. H G4.. Ag
hd in that our present Homestead IL
limited to 1000 realty, not il fee con
e, but for limited time and per con