The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-09-29
The Code and the Canvass.

The Fusionists are vainly attemptin
to make the question of the repeal 9
certain provisions of the Code of 1873
an issue in the canvass. As we hav
said, a hue and cry is raised in referenc
to that part of S 1855 providing tina
no property shall be exempt when tn
Judgment is "upon forfeited recogni
zance or bail bond, or when the process
is for rent" Whether this should b
repealed or not is not in any sense
political question. This law does no
enter into or form any part Of our part
policy. If it is wrong, let it be strick
en- from the statute books Objection.
have been raised to various provisions
OF the Code, notably the pint liquor
law, and the section prescribing the
description of ballots and this by
citizens Of all classes without reference
TO parry lines. 1t is not claimed that
the Code is perfect Notifications in
the statutes viii no doubt be made, nc
matter what party is successful. II
there are Objectionable features in the
law; if any of its provisions are harsh,
unjust or unwise, the sooner we recog-
nlze the fact and proceed to remedy the
evil the better. We must not take the
wrong side of any question. Our polit-
zeal opponents cannot force US into any
false position. We must make the fight
on its merits.
If any of our Fusionist friends shall
succeed in getting into the Legislature,
they will find Democrats who will Join
hands with them in carrying through
any proper amendments. The OPPOSE
ton certainly cannot complain that our
position on this subject is inconsistent.
The Code of 1871 was adopted by a
Republican Legislature, and within a
year after it went into effect about forty
sections were amended or repealed.
In reference to that part of s 1855
above quoted, we have heretofore set
forth the reasons which have been urged
IN support of it, and which doubtless
influenced its authors in framing it.
Candor compels the admission, on a
more critical examination of the law,
that it should be modified. It does not
accord with sound policy, humanity, or
justice to deprive any class of creditors,
renters or what not, of reasonable COM
forts, and to reduce them to pauperism.
No sounder opinion was ever expressed
than that of Judge Ellet in the case of
Mosel Y VS.. Anderson doth Mississippi.
49,, that it els the interest of the State
that no citizen should be stripped of the
implements necessary to enable him to
carry on his usual employment, and
hat families should not be made paupers
'r beggars, or be deprived of shelter and
comforts in consequence of
he follies, the vices, or the crimes of
heir head" The same view is happily
by Judge Simrall in deliver
ne the opinion Of the Supreme Court in
he case of Thomas vs.. Thomas As
iississippi, 1863 that exemption laws
re founded in the beneacient policy of
eeuring families against poverty and
ant and protecting them against the .
lisfortunes the extravagances and fol-
es Of their heads" The landlord I'M '
er the Code has a prior lien on all ag-
cultural products grown on the leased
remises fer the payment of the rent
I'd for all advances made il the way of =
pplies TO make and save the crop. :,
his sufficiently protects those who rent n
nds for agricultural purposes. There il
no reason for giving special protection CT
oli.ee Iandlords. b.