Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1880-08-05
The Homestead.

4 u0 1AOlnSSGouus
We understand that some disaffeoion exists
in tho Democratic ranks in our county by reason
of recent decisions of our Supreme Court,
touching exemptions Of personal property.
These decisions having been made by Demo-
cratic court, and denying tho right of eXcmpting
personal property of agricultural laborors under
the Act of 1878, and by reason thereof bearing
hardly upon portion of our people, are held
up by some as expressions Of the poor for which
tho party is responsible. This feeling causes
some good citizens, whose hearts are with u.s. to
stand aloof from the clubs and thus withhold
their support and influence from tho only party
to which wo con look for honest and competent
government in South Carolina. Wo admit this
feeling to be natural and at first blush to wear
the appearance of being we'll founded, but upon
full understanding Of the law and of tho
action Of tho Democratic party since the de-
oisions, We think they furnish tho highest
evidence Of tho integrity and intelligence of
our courts and of tho fairness aud sense of
justice pcryading tho Democratic party.
Let US reason calmly on tho matter and SEQ
where the responsibility for this condition of
things rests, and what remedy and by what
party it has been proposed. The constitution
is tho supreme law Of State. II is the will of
the people expressed in convention assembled,
touching their fundamental rights. II Is a
declaration Of the reserved rights of the people,
with which neither the courts nor tho Legislature
can interfere, and which no other power in tho
State con override. If tho constitution were
silent on tho matter Of homestead and cxemp-
tion, or if its only declaration on tho subject
was that found in Section 20 OF Article in
these words, 'and reasonable amount of pro-
perty, as q homestead, shal be exempted from
seizure or sale for the payment Of any debts or
liabilities, except for the payment of such
obligations as arc provided for in this constitu-
tion," thon in the former case tho Legislature
would have been unlimited in power as to the
amount and quality Of exemptions, and in the
latter it could have granted exemptions to q
reasonable extent, leaving, as is said in Duncan
vs. Barrett, 1lth South Carolina Reports, the do
termination Of what is to be regarded as rea-
sonablo to tho Legislature, 30 for as unfettered
by subsequent clauses Of that instrument. or
course in both cascs such legislation could not
have had the foroe of law as to antecedont con-
tracts, as such construction would have impaired
their obligation.
The Republican Convention Of 1868 was not,
however, silent US to exemption, nor did it CON
tent itself with the declaration in Article I,
Section 20, but in Article II, Section 80, after
providing for a homestead exemption on the
land of debtor, it declares, "to secure tho full
enjoyment Of said homestead exemption to tho
person entitled thereto, or the head of anv
family, the personal property of such person of
the Following character, to wit: Household fur
niture, beds and bedding, family library, arms
carts, wagons, farming implements, tools, ncat
cattle, work animals swine, goats and sheer"
not to exceed fyo hundred dollars in value. md
also oil necessary wearing apparel arc exempted.
Under this clause the question arises could the
Legislature extend or restrict the exemptions
horein allowed? The court held it could not
ana this conclusion was forced upon it indc-.
pendent OF the general rules of interpret alton
That tho enumeration Of kinds Of property in
tended for exemption is exclusive. without
rcsorting to these general rules or plaoing their
decision on any technical rule or reasoning, tho
court hold that tho nature of the subject and
tho fact that until recently it was considered an
unWise exercise of Legislative power to screen tho
property of debtor from tho just demands Of his
creditor showed that tho constitution. in calling
intocxercisc by introduction in 1T, function which
had lain dormant heretofore and setting It ont
with auch particularly, clearly intended TINT IL
should operate as n restriction on legislative
authority, and could neither be added 10 nor
taken from. We think tho construction Of Tho
court was right and is sustained by the general
rules of Interpretation as wcl as by the intention
as gathered from the provisions Of tho constilu-
tion. Tho question had mover been before tho
Republican Supreme Court, but knowing Judge
Moses loyal ability wo arc satisfied, had IL been
raised, that q like conclusion would have been
arrived at and In fact Judge Willard, ono Of tho
old court, delivered tho opinion in Duncan vs..
Barrett. Upon a like principle of construction
buggies, pleasure carriages, &c., had been
always hold moi. exempt.
Who, then, irresponsible for tho present con-
lition of things? Should tho court have disre-.
,arded established rules of construction and tho |
'lear intention Of its trainers as gathered from
he provisions of tho constitution to reach
onclusion moro satisfactory to tho people, or
hould j., as IL did, declare the law'hoGvstly and
81 IL