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

t" repeal it on some good year Wien there was
Il good crop made.
NIX. w.. H.. PARKER.
stated that he did not agree with ;bc css,v;:,
IN his views ON the srhjc, ; treated iy him.
AS TO the matter of homestead, he agreed very
m"cn WIN Mr.. Perrin and Judge Mc(inwan
VIII" had preceded him. lie was al. o,., t,,r i.
favor of IL reasonable homestead. w..
humane provision ior the rAmlIv OF unj,r,n-
nate debt"rs-waS intended to be ana shr,,Il
pe II rooi-trcc or home, and incauabiy of alien
alton or any disposition which wouIJ dn,,,t
the intention and spirit If In, C,nst;tn;:n"
lie was Surl: Used al the stat. m,n;s or n,nn,.
orrS ihai the hunirste ca , ana lien laws warn -.
cide'itai aud J." sn,ue cX;rutS ucp"nuYn, uro,
each otic:. The !aci was the, wcrc ,;,,r;.,;
en'iTc,y Independent of each other. At one
TIME there had existed all cxrmutinp tot nrr-
sonar property to Il small amount, when there.
was n" lien law, and again the lien law wn.
enac!eu IN 1896 when there was II" homestead
provision existing. The no .,estcad law WAS
inc creature of the political revolution in TN.
state. He regretted that the court had I,It
itsc!t constrained To hold that the homestead
couid be mortgaged. The statute declared
s''aI no waiver, however solemn, should de-
tcat:thc homestead, but the Court held that
the right could be defeated by mortgar.. He
regretted the still later decision of Bank W
iiafp'n. lie did not believe in the application
III s"ch cases OF the equitable doctrine as to
TWO t"nus. lie lid NOT agree also in the allie
CATION that The homestead provision cncour-
hErh dlShoncSty Or disregard of prcuniury
obligations. The creditor was not misIcJ'.
he knew the legal right to homestead existed,
ana ne assumed the risk Of losing his dcbt
with his eyes open. He thought il the duty
Oh the head OF Il family, who was unfortunate
to claim the homestead, and tina, only the
"l h NECESSITY justified a mortgage of it,
which would defeat what wus intended to br -
pr vision for his family.
AS 10 the lien law dc did net agree with the
cSSayi;t that 1t was the fruitful source of woes
mnh'inbcred and of all the embarrassment of
'nt aellcnitnral interests. 1t had been per-
pGtnated because the people were not prepar-
ca To un without it. He held different views
from the cSSayist also, as to wuman's rights
VI property. lie WAS 4 thorough wuman's
rights man rs to her separate property.
MR.. ". H.. HAHCKEL.
SAID he did not believe in any body repudiat-
ing 'hIir DEBTS that the Sratc itself set the
example. when It rcpudlated the debt a., rhc
state House and made the holders of thu
p"huS take nifty cents on che dolIur: t q stream
could not Use higher than the source. If The
avs "cfe bad the people who lived under
tncin would not have 4 correct idea of their
obligations.
MR.. W. 4. LEE
said that he had listened to the rss,v with
pleasure aud profit but felt constrained to uif-
Ter from ne essaylSt as (" hath of his posi-
IonS. lie was III favor bstn of the homestead
and the lien laws. The fact that tn. home
stead provision had been Incorporated into the
LAWS Oh every Slate in the Union. he thouyn,
was IN itself Il strong argument i'm it's favor.
lue unfortunate debtor was no longer regard
ca as criminal, and even in the late bankrupt
III" Oh the United states $500 was reserved to
nm from the wreck OF his property. Even in
South Carolina, before the war. in the dny, Of
COW and calf exemption, it was strongly
urSeo TO cXemp; by law one or two slaves To
each citizen. Had This been done, the result
OF 'he war would probably not have been
ChahGcd, Due We would probably nu. nave
been charged with making a erich mans ward
n poor inau'S tight" BY Il homestead law he
thought the debtor was benefited ana no in
jury was done to the creditor. The creditor
actcu VIII his eyes open, and after extending
credit could not blame the debtor for mnkinS
use of the provision which was made by Law
IN his favor. AS to enhancing the rate of in
tcrcst ana other evils of the time, he thought
II was an arGumen of p0s: lac ergo, printer
noe. AS to the amount of the homestead. he
Thought $500 little enough not more Than
enough to pay the wages and board of a rood
laborer. He thought that in the matter of dis
posing Of the homestead, the law to be consi,-
tent' should not only prohibit IL waiver, but
all lntents the exercise Of the jus dispontndi.
with these restrictions, he thought the home
stead exemption should continue ONLY until the
youngest child became OF age.
NS I" thc ii"n la". all the ODleCtlOnS urged,
he thought, applied to the whole credit svs,
tenn. The lien law NAV in some respects, be a
novelty in Legislation, yet after all it is only
MaE'nS more effective a provision which al
ready existed the right to mortgage tho flu
tu:e increase of stock, and the products eff
our iao"r. The arguments for the repeal of
tue law s"v"rcd too much Of class legislation |
IN faVorlug the rich against the laborer.
MR.. II. P. DEBRUHL
said he was in favor of the homestead law but
thought 1t ought to be so restricted and limit
Cd as not To be abused. He had not definite |
~ made up his mind in regard to the lien law.
MR.. ". Y. CALHOUN
said that in the outset he would state TINT bo
tonnd great fault with our government both |
National and state in the tendency which
they now had of Interfering with tn. nrivata
affairs of Individuals. Matters that shouId |
be left 10 the citizen, were being handled bv
the government, iii such matters as the Blair
educational Gill, homestead aud lien law. Tho |
prcrogatiTcs of our law making leaders onIv
extended t" "thc welfare" Of our citizcns as
regards thepio:ection of their life, liberty and
prosperity. The citizen should not be tau,.ht |
to rely upon the government fer his credit and |
the education Of his children.
AS to the Homestead law he was unable NJ
the present. TIM" to express any definite
opinions, tut at the same time lie rhnuvbt
though that II had Its advantages as wei! az
as l S draw backs.
Tne lien law he Thought was a complete
ibis law bad been passed in 1866
a"E ."l