Wilmington journal., 1876-09-01


cient provisions against misfortune
scontaine in the Homestead law. A
more nnfoundcd claim was never made.
The facts of the case are we'll known
and show beyoud dispute that the
policy of a Homestead and Personal
property exemption was firmly fixed hs
part and parcel Of the law Of North
Carolina long before the Radical party
ever had an existence. The statute
books of the. State show this to he true
beyond all dispute, The records of
the Supreme Cnurt show the same fact
and not only that bnt they show that
the Iead"rs Of the Radical party knowit
to be fact Ii any man doubts. let Ilm
tnrn to the. record and sec for himself
what Thomas Settle the present Radical
candidate for Governor has to say
about the matter.
III the case OF HILL against Kessler,
decided by the Supreme Court Of the
State at June Term, 1869, N. O. Re-
ports, vol G3, page 437, Judge Settle
united Will Judge Reade in saying:
+ "We have too, our own Legislative
Construction and the practice Of our
courts nnder it for the last fVe'1ty
years The Revised Code adopted Ill
1856. makes the exemption of Zone
COW and calf, ten barrels of corn or
wheat, fifty pounds OF bacon, beef or
pork or one barrel of fish, all neces-
f.Nn Ioh
bed, bedstead and covering for every
two members If tn. family and sucn
other property as the freeholders may
deem necessary for the comfort and
support Of such a. btor's family such
other property not to exceed fifty dol
lars" apply to all debts contracted
since July 1st, 1915
SO in 1866 81, our Legislature passed
an act ex -mpting "alI necessary farm
ing and mect! anical tools. one works
horse, one yoke of oxen, one cart or
wagon, one milch COW and calf, fifteen
head of hogs, five hundred pounds
of pork or bacon, SO bushels of corn,
20 bushels of wheat and household and
kitchen furniture not to exceed $500 III
value Aud this was not restricted TO sub
segment contracts, which is the more
significant, as by the same act home
stead of one hundred ncres without
regard to value was restricted to sub
sequent debts. So that exemptions
applying to antecedent debts have had
the sanction of our Legislatures and
of this Court and of the produce OF all
the Courts for the last twenty years"
Four years later, in the case of Gar
ret against Cheshire, N. @. Reports,
vol SO, page 396. this same Supreme
Court of North Carolina had the
Homestead Law again under consider
alton and this same Judge Settle,
uniting with Judge Reade and repeating
the substance of the act of 1856 (Re~
v,sed Code) and the act of 1866 |67,
above referred to, says:
"It is apparent that an allotment of
these articles approximates $1,000, and
in many cases would exceed that sum
i'll value. And the same act allows
homestead of 100 acres without re
striction as to value, which in many
cases would be worth, with the i'm
provements, many thousands. In 1868
our constitution was adopted, and in
that our: present homestead law is
limited to $1,000 realty, not in fee
simple, but for limited time and
personally to the value of $500. Can
it be said of our homestead law, as the
learned Judge said of the Georgia
law, that any one casting his eye over
thona as aoAa f,aro1 viii, fos,1aor eRcnlp
tions would be struck by the magni-
tude Of the increase? Our homestead
laaO is not an Increase but q TestrictiOn
atOO1a former exemptions.
Two years later. or nearly two years,
the same court had the same question
once more under consideration, and for
the third time repeated the history
of the North Carolina homestead
law. In the case of Wilson against
Sparks it decided at the January term,
1875, and reported in N. q. Reports,
vol ", page 208. Judge Settle again
uniting with Judge Reade declares;
"We have had exemption laws for a
long time, varying with the times, de-
olaring upon their face the purpose to
secure necessaries and comforts for
families until they have become pnrt
of the policy of tho State. With rs
it has been no rash experiment nor
spasm of prejudice of the debtor
against tho creditor class, but it has
had a regular groaUth of half a century,
from time to time as our
necessity required and as their good |
effects were apparent. As embodied |
in our Revised Code of 1854 the ex~
of personal property are by |
art cles named; and in many cases, ac-
cording to the size and circumstances |
of families, they might at least equal |
the present exemptions. Up to 1s66-67,
when we had another statute, they |
were increased until in many instances |
they might have doubled the personal
exemptions. Up to 184S we had no
real estate exemptions, and even a
husbands interest in his wife's
estate. which was for his life or
for hers, as the case might be, was
subject to execution sale for his
debts. In 1848 that interest was
In 1868 we had statute
which made further exemption of 50 |
acres or a town lot two acres not ex-
ceeding $500 in value. In 1865 67
that was changed to an exemption of
100 acres without limit as to value"
The upshot of the whole of it. then,
if Judge Settle can be believed, is that
the claim of the Radical party to pop
ular favor based upon it's action in re-
gard to the Homestead law is utterly
without foundation, for the simple rea-
son that the white men and the Dem.
ocrats had already established
Homestead law broader and more
oenefcent than the one now existing
before the Radical party came into ex-
stance. Comment upon such a claim
8 useless Comment upon party that
would urge it in the face of all the facts