Union County courier. [volume] (Elk Point, Union County, D.T. [S.D.]) 187?-1913, 1878-10-23
~ THE ExEMr.
49, TnON Law.

fmEPRAL On TsaE ExEMf'
TlON Law.
tnt here are a few questions, aril
me years ago in Dakota police
which never had any sanding j
Act and were not worth even TN
porary notice, Int which retur
now and then out Of the spite {
in yiiduals or the plans Of dems
gogues. Sometimes innocent mine
ed persons have their fears arous
I'D by the revival Of these issues
Among these questions none ha
Iseen moro useless, misunderstood
misrepfessnfed and perversely oh
noxious to men Of oil parties thai
the one relating to the so-cailet
repeal Of The exemption law by tn
Legislature Of 1916. We refel
~ this now and finally because I
lew persons still bear it in minf
and revive it for no good purpos'
that we can conceive.
The history ofthe matter is brief
IEN4+t ~ SNENAEH LWI rM -N @NfshH4 - 49,
" this: In 1862 an exemption
law was, passed. In 1865 a con.
siderable and very important adj
dition was made to it. The latter
act has the form of an amendment
to the former, but it related solely
to the subject Of personal property
exemption, leaving in force all the
first act which related to real prop
erty. They then stood in the
nature Of two separate and destinct
acts BY two legislatures, the one
e~xempting from sale certain real
property, and the other exempt
from sale certain personal prop
erty. The Legislature Of 1915,
among other acts passed the law
governing homesteads as it now
stands in our statutes and which
sound judicial construction has
fixed as q safeguard around our
and also amended the ex-
emption laws. The object and
purport Of this law was to render
clear and exact the whole matter
and to define more perfectly the
method Of its application, afterthe
manner Of our present exemption
on pages SOS, and following,
Of the revised codes. The act left
the law Of 1865 without mention
and 1t was TO stand, but it express
" repealed the act of 1852. This
bill fecsived the votes Of almost oil
the members, Of both parties, in
both houses and was signed by
the Governor and became a law.
Soon after a wild hue and cry was
at Yankton that the effect
Of this repeal Of the act of 1862
also to repeal the act Of 1865
and thus to leave no personal prop
exemption. A rush was
to Washington and an act
was passed by congress declaring
that such repeal should not be con-
strued to repeal the act of 1865.
Many false and confused reports
were started among our people,
especially in the country districts.
The impression was GRATED that
the assembly had atfirmatively,
expressly and intentionally ire
the exemption law" 1t
took and kept that unfair shape in
The expression Of many and is by
the few now sometimes 50 repeated.
The purpose Of the assembly was
simply to amend, add too and rem
der clear the exemptions, and the
only real question ever raised was
whether the repeal Of the act of '62
operated to repeal the act Of '65.
In the fury Of the hour many were
mislead; and in the sober thought
since then they are only mislead
who are mlsinformed. There are
few if any men learned in the law
Of Dakota who now hold that the
act Of 1866 was repealed, while
nearly all hold decidedly that it wal
not. the legal question involved
is fully discussed in 81 N. Y, 100
% American Reports o., and 81
Wisconsin, and the decision is thai
such q repeal did not repeal the
act. The Wisconsin case says
aAll the provisions which continue
to be in force after the passage .
tile amerdatory acf, derive theiI
force thereafter, not from the origi
nal, but from the amendatofy act
4 . the act Of 1869 Such als'
was the effect Of Chief Justice
Shannon's decision recently at Can
ton. He said that of course tn
-M. 1SIlstsx1 af4 an \ - 800. 80,