The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1879-11-26
The Homestead.
In reply to our article In references TO q do
cision OF the Supreme Court as 70 the home.
stead the WdlhaHa Cburicr says:

stead the Wdlhalla Cburitr says:
-, While we admit that we have published
several articles on the homestead and the de-
cisioh OF the Supreme Court, touching the
construction of the Constitution and stat,
utes, still we 40 not remember TO have stated
verse to the right OF parties owing no land to
the exenptionOf the articles or personality
enumerated in The Constitution, In comment.
Ing on the decision in Duncan ys. Barrettand
Spencer VS.. Hartman we doubtless stated IL
might be reasonably. II not necessarily pre-
sumedt such adecision would. In the future,
be rendered. II we remember rightly the de;
cision In Duncan VS.. Barrett held that the
ana that no legislation could add to or sub.
tract from the list of articles enumerated as
exempt and corn, bacon 90, not being In
the list, were noteSempt. By parity OF reason.
one not owning land was not oxeff1pt, for the
language OF the Constitution is, -to secure
the full enjoyment OF such homestead ex.
emptiOr to the person entitled thereto, or to
Of such person of the following character, to,
W.T.; and then follows the enumeration OF
articles exempted. Now, how can one OVID.
ing no homestead fall, underline tclause, and
tied To- any cxenption or ~personaitya TIC
Court may hold the right OF persons owning
no homestead, TO be, under the Constitution,
res sssa 51tsg7 To- s s,sb th wsa any be- sts ssnssI Gran,lnS eI II
Ill W "eSA ~ ~ -
this were true. then this class might have, by
statute, an exemption, or personally W any
extent.
various statutes, Is In the clouds to lawyers
and public officers In maty respects Sill,
though O dozen OF cases have perhaps been
carried up, The construction thus fnr has
hcen In accordance with the prevailing opin-
ion among lawyers, and we hope to see tho
subject fully ventilated In further decisions.
cut where 1t will. Truth IL great and will
prevail. is an old maxim, and ia fair con-
structiUn Of the Constitution warrants or
to, ct It come. The Democrats are not re.
sponsibIe; for 1t, but 1t is the result OF Radical
ignorance In the; draft VI tho Constitution.
We are sorry the result would be 0ppressiva
TO the poor, btt law Is law, anu Its proper con.
struction and enforcement should DO exacted
though the henvensfall.
one other word on this subject. We be-
lieye in matters which so. nearly concern the
Ing the supreme Court, on a case made. 10
construe in full tho section OF the Constitu.
ton granting q homestead. When small
amounts are Involved, citizens cannot AFFORD
The less Of two evils. II the homestead ex.
emption. in all itsaspects, had been Sonstfucd
years ago, much expense and trouble would
have been saved the people,, and II deemed
g PRO- ss ta Il ioal av ssS otS SesH s oeenpeaion So we
think not, for while 1t might haue lesscned
litigation on that point, this would not only
nave been q matter Of rightto the people, but
s tns lawyers y iesit M1ala fftis oaSs sor fI sSesl
employment 1pfact, that Is the best govern
ment whose laws are clearest and most lntel-
lisible and where there isas little litigation
as possibilca n at the least expense. In our
Courts to shirk every possible point, unless
it's decision be essential to the point In issue.
Take the effect Of a final discharge. or the
right OF q ward SUI jtf7s TO call MS guardtan
to account, In the Probate Court and both
these Important questions have been shirked.
the first several times. Again, suppose IN
McNamee VS.. Waterbury. where the right OF
the probate Court to sell land for payment OF
debts came In question; a soe on whien NE
clared that such Court had no Fight 70 phrtt-
tion lands, how much trouble and litigation
would have been saved TO the people. In tho
i ieSe as to whether MeSamee vs.. waterbury
has been overrulled. Some Jtdges hold one
way and other Judges the otherway.. Who
now can pretend to understand the home:
steadin the light ofall the decisions rendered?
The best founded opinion is mere conjecture
for 1t is capable OF many constructions, and
when each points made and decided It be-
comes the law. Let us have o low by which
provisions OF such unusual Importance
The Anderson Inteligeneer, speaking on tho
anne subject, says.
This way Of bridging the matter over sounds
very we'll. but when the decisions are read 1t
will be seen that their legitimate construction
neccssitates the conclusion we have reached.
It is true no case involving the sale Of
horse or OF household property has been be-
fore the Supreme Court, but the principle In
volved has been discussed by the Supreme
Court In the cases decided. It is q most I'M
fortunate and, we think. q most unreasonable
decision, which the Legislature ut Its ap-
preaching session ought TO remedy as soon
and as efiectuallya as possible.
u,-, r,r,o Dorhopo DnfhtN0 ahouf n