The Abbeville messenger. (Abbeville, S.C.) 1884-1887, 1886-03-30

~"N IN '"iy hatS S"tt SldiNS III the WAY oil
gaining the consent of ali to its It peal, is the
homestead law.
The Dis ..,.un.
NIB. W. c. BENET
Said he had not much to say on the subject.
Gave i; as Sam Jones' opinion that those WHO
claimed the homestead and were agents for
their wives and boarded with them, were des-
tined to u climate of warmer tcmp.ratur, than
this latitude. That he agreed with the essay-
list and thought the homestead and lien laws
should be repealed.
Mr.. A. ". SMITH
thought that the cssayist had taken the cor
rect view
said that in his opinion the homestead law was
both deIn"raiizing and unjust. 1t was wrong
for n man to be able To clam the exemption Of
his property from honest debt contracted. 1t
lowered the sense n ones obligation to pay
his debts. a debtor could not claim home
stead against the purchase money-,his it
was thought ~ the law making power to bs
inequitaoic, yet he could have his exemption
against Il debt contracted for the meat and
corn ana clothes used Ill enjoying the home.
stead, without which 4 homestead would be of
little use. There is no justice in such dis
against creditors. Under the do
cisiOns of the Supreme Court a creditor may
diStrain for rent and the renter could MOI
claim homestead exemption II he put his deb,
Tor rent, however, into Judgment, and sought
10 sell the same property under the %iu.rmrnL.
which Me could Lave sold under his distress
procedure, he will be met by 1t successful
claim of homestead. This on the ground that
the one was n process and the other was not.
There was no justice in this. a man could
mortgage his II oncstead for a loan of money
and i; could be sold to pay the money loaned
he had given Il note for the same money.
a mortgage, he could claim his home
stead. Such distinction could not be made ON
any moral ground. 1t was notorious that
much more was set OF to the debtor. than n.
was entitled to. He would often select as his
commissioner some one whe had claimed the
benefit, or was II debtor and expected to claim
the benefit, and then Il bad law was made
1t should be repealed aud the lien law
with it.
MIR. l.. W. PERRIN
was in favor of the homestead and lien laws.
lie Thought that If n maj made an honest tnil-
Ire hts property as a homestead should be
withheld from the creditors and he debtor al
owed to have . home for his family. That
he abuse of the homestead law was no arau-
nent against 1t and was caused by the dcmur-
ut The times. Did not think il was
morally wrong for a man to claim homestead.
md the creditor knew when dealing with his
ieb!or that .hc latter had the RICH, to claim his
and therefore there was no imposi-
ion. lie though, the Itch law was necessary |
o thc protection OF Il certain class II our Cit
Zcns VINO could no. get credit without it. Thai
I WAS cheap security and was such dis afforded,
ready relief. That it cenld not DC SAID that
ne lien law had brought about such bad rcsuits |
5 was attributed Ia it. twas law mat tn,
'eai,te could take advantage OF or MOI, rs The,
aw IT,. and was not forced on ihcin. That a
Merchant at Prosperity stated to him that tn.
ZEN Law was not much in vogue there that
hey oniy charged their customers ten pcr
ent. above cash price and ISSUED to them tnc.4 |
hccks which WAS the same as cash. Tia |
hey had succeeded we'll there. 1.-The tssav,s
this fact was an argument IN his ftv-
ri Mr. Perrin thought both laws should re-
lain.
Mr.. Tustcn agreed with Mr.. Perrin.
JUDGE MCGOWAN
the intention of the homestead las
'as good, but thai it had been fearfullv abused
hat the government thought that the citizen,
part of the Stare, should be protec, ed in the
njoyment of his hOme tead, as contributing
.rgely to the welfare Of the State. Tn
is not an estate but a mere excu.p-
on. The creditor can only collect his debt by
of the law, because The Law allows
i'm to ao 40. ifthe law wiihhU,is from hi.
$ process, he suouid not complain. 1t il
of the law TO say IL can be sold, wei
can be. it Should br kept intaci as homo
ead-tkc roof tree. That. he was moi very
.uch il favor Of the homestead law .hai if
apj within proper liclu%lt was tcierabie. out
perverted u was intClerablr. AZ to the Lon
", he said he could not state Whether b. had
definite. seeded opinion IN Teg4fd 20 It's nat-
Y or not, Tast his MUD had often ohanre6
regard ro it,. The law was an uomaI as
undertook t0 mortgage thai which had un
That IL was neither sea nor dry
nd, bnt a thing IN the ara something in
lie nndeiive.ed wombof time. The c%ountry