The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-10-23
THE uOaIEsTEAD Law.

Tho decision OF tho State Supreme
Court, holding that persons not owning
real estate and having homestead thero-
on are entitled TO no exemption from
levy and sa1o OF their crops and personal
property under execution for dobt. Is
creating q very general dissatisfaction
throughout the upper portion OF tho
State, and II not corrected will probably
DO drawn into the political canvass Of
noxt year. Tho decision has evoked
from many very respectable tenants tho
assertion that they will not vote the
Democratic Sicket again. This, OF course,
tis wrong, and those who make 1t do not
duly consider the facts Of the case. Tho
law under which this decision Is made
was passed by tho Republicans. and the
decision itself was written by the Chief
Justice, who is Republican. 1t is not
tho net Of q Iegfelatute, which is tho rop-
resontative of tho slccessful party at the
polls, but Is tl:1 decision upon aquostion
of law by Q Court. which Is not political
body. Wo think tho decision an unfor-
tunate one. It Is provocative OF class
dissenaions,. and is subject to all of tho
odium and discomfort which unfair and
unreasonable Determinations against
ono class and In favor or another class
are sure to elicit. This decision holds
that tho man who h fortunate enough TO
possess one thousand dollars worth Of
land cannot be msdo to pay his debts by
execution, but that tho less fortunate
tenant, who perhaps has nothing but d
little household furniture, mule
and large family dependent upon
him for its support, can bo sold
out TO satisfy tho demands against him
It seems to dis that this will be generally
admitted to bo wrong. The homestead
ought TO be abolished as TO all, or 1t ought
TO extond It's provisions over ell Tho
doctrine that to him that has much moro
shall bo given, and from him that hath
little that which he hath shall he taken
away, iS u very 6oud douttTiro, 20 fhar as IL
relatos I'd the moral qualities Of man, bnt
it Will scarcely be contended that it Is q
good principle to ongrait into the laws OF
tho land relating to. tho material pogses-
sions OF men. It Is, however, exactly
The doctrine made of force In South Caro-.
lima under tho decision above quoted.
For this, however, the Democratic party
10 In no wise responsible, for It did not
mako the Constitution or the law, and
citizens do very wrong to mako threats
against tho Democracy on account Of a
I law with which 1t hos no connection
whetever. Neither landowners nor ten.
ants can afford to allow the Democratic
party to pass out Of power in this State,
for the rings and corrnptionB of the past
warn us OF tho ioppresslons that will
again be heapsd upon us If Republican
ism;ahould ever triumph In South Caro-
lima. Tho Inconvenience and hardship
created by this decision can bo as easily
corrected by tho Democratic party as by
any other, and wo believe. that it.will be
done. The Legislature at Its CT ng SEES
sion should submit o. cpn tutlonal
amendment to the people mh.-ing the
Homestead provisions applicable to every
Citizen OF tho State, whether he be rich
or poor, whose necassities shali require
him 30 take advantage Of 1t. Webelieve
this will bo done, and that this trouble,
OF which those who are Independently
disposed hopo to mako an apple Of dis
cord in the Democratio party, will be
settled before the demagoguea have G
chance TO Inisrepreasnt and distort t.
In the meantime, we say to tho whole
people that they should stop giving po-
lltical complexion to tho question.