The Newberry herald. [volume] (Newberry, S.C.) 1865-1884, 1879-04-02

1i;ctlnS provisions must be held
Guconslitutional and vcid.
This involves i question Of in
lcn,iun 20 be made out construct
lively Oh the provisions Of The Con-
>tilut;on. 1t is contendcd that the
enumeration Of kinds OF property
intended for exemption is cxclu-
sjve, and general rules Of interpre-
tation are urged as leading 10 that
conclusion. 1t will not be ne
cessary to resort to such general
rules, or to place the decision on
any technical rule or reasoning, as
the nature Of the subject with
which the Constitution deals
points very distinctly to the solu-
ton of the question ct issue.
The question Of allowing legis-
lative exemption to debtors is i'll
it's nature fundamental, as invol-
wing an inquiry into the principles
ct government. Until within q few
years it has not been regarded as
u Legitimate exercise Of Legislative
power to place the property of the
debtor beyond the reach uf his
creditor, except to an inconside-
rable extent. Not that the COM
potency Of the Legislature to
mako such exemptions indepen.
IDENTIFY Of constitutional restric-
tions, was doubted. but BECAUSE
the spiri: Of the laws was sup
posed to oppose such exercise ot'
Legislative power. it may well
be considered that in sowing the
question Of the legitimacy Of such
legislation, the constitution had
in view 2 linlit that should bo i'm.
posed on its unrestricted exercise.
When it is treating Of subjects that
nave been constantly dealt with
by Legislative bodies, with tho
sanction Of the pourss and the
community, such an Inference
does not necessarily arise,
In such cases some special
ground would have to appear by
inferrlng, in the absence of an ex-
press declaration to that effect,
that the constitution, in prescrib-
ing the mode in which a power Of
that class, should be exercised, in
tended TO exclude its exercise
in any other mode. But in the
present case where the constitu-
tion was dealing with principle
fundamental to the policy Of our
Jurisprudence, and which by its
abuse might unsettle the very
cornerstone on which that juris-
prudence rests, it is obvious that
in imposing limits to such power
Of exemption regard was had to
the general question, to what ex-
tent government should go in re-
taxing the Tvs for the enforce
ment Of obligations. There can
be no doubt that the object Of the
section in question was to limit
the Legislature. If the constltu'
ton had been silent altogether Oil
the subject, the Legislature would
have, doubtless, been competent,
as affecting future contracts, to
create such exemptions, and TO
give them any measure Of extent
that might appear desirable.
Again, section 20 Of article l,
confers express powers on the Leg
islature to grant homestead ex-
emptions to q reasonable ex tent,
leaving the determination Of what
is to be regarded as reasonable to
the Legislature, SO far as untet-
tered by subsequent clauses OF
that instrument. If that section
had stood alone it would leave in
doubt as to The power OF the Leg
isIature being unrestricted. But
the constitution was not content
with establishing this as a princl'
pie, and in section 50, article 2,
assumes to give more accurate
definition Of the kind Of leglsla-
ton contemplated in the 10th sec
ton Of article 2, cnumcratipg the
subjects to which it should extend
and the limitations that should be
established as affecting these sub
jucts. Such !: definition IS applied
to u kind Of Legislation not sane
toned ut the time Of the adoption
OF the constitution, but introduced
by that instrument, must be re-
garGed as intending Limitation OF
the legislative authority. True,
# * MOI. thn case of 4 mower en-