The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1886-03-31

see that this speech IS not eXtraVagant.
Just to think that money for years past
could be borrowed in New York for from three
to six per cent. per annum, when we have
been paving from ten to twenty per cent. Let
any one make the calculation of what the
excess of interest we have paid has cost this
State in the last eighteen years and he will
see that the value of our negroes set free
bv the result of the late war amounts to less.
don't mean money actually borrowed, but
the additional cost to the consumer growing
out of the scarcity of money. But this is
ONLY one, out of many ways, in which the
homestead law works an injury. 1t encour-
ages extravaganza and idlenesS and lowers
the morals.
Let man understand that what he owns, is
good for his debts, and he will buy less and
work harder to pay for what ne buys while
on the other hand, if he can claim the home
stead he will run greater risks in buying and
work less to pay what he owes, because he
thinks that if his crops prove insufficient to
nav his debts, he can dodge behind the home
stead, and avoid paying his debts; but let him
understand that all his property can be sold
to satisfy his creditors, and my word for it
he will shun debt as he would fire, he will rise
early and work late, and all of this will bring
him wealth and happiness.
have said that the homestead law has
tendency to lower morals, and if so, then it
should be repealed, for poor human nature is
naturally prone, to travel the crooked paths OF
life, and when it can do so under the saction
of law, the temptation is too great to be re-
sisted.
How many men in this County could gel
credit if they proclaimed beforehand that they
intended to claim the homestead, when called
upon to paw their debts? We all know that
there are very few. When men want credit,
they promise to pay for what they buy or bor-
row and nine out of ten would be much insult
ed. if told they would claim the homestead
when called upon to meet their obligations.
But, alas, when the evil day comes, these
very men will say "The law gives us home
stead, and though we did not intend to claim
it when we contracted our debts, yet We must
do so to protect our families.
In short, the law gives them the right and
they claim the homestead to avoid the pay
mennt of their debts, and thereby lose their
good names, and are consigned to poverty for
the balance of their days, for all know that to
a man with stain upon his reputation, the
road to fortune is hard to travel.
GOOD NAME WORTH MORE THAN A HOME
A good name is worth more to man than
fifteen hundred dollars. Combine with it
fifteen hundred dollars, but once lost 1T is
hard to regain.
A man may rally and patch up his charac-
ter, but a dishonorable deed once committed
will be rendered as long as he lives, and some
times, will affect his children even to the third
and fourth generations.
As have said, the HON estead law has a
tendency to lead our people from the path Of
moral rectitude, and in addition to this, under
recent decisions of the Supreme Court it does
not afford that protection which was contem-
plated by the Constitution.
The Constitution evidently intended to give
to each head of family home THAT is one
thousand dollars in real estate and five hun
dred dollars in personal property which
should be exempt from "attachment and sale
under any mesne or final process issued
from any court" and which the head of the
family could not sell or mortgage. But under
recent decision of our Supreme Court a
homestead can be sold or mort gagged before
or after it is laid off, which, in effect, is about
the same as repeating it, for under this decis-
ion person claiming the homestead, though
he may avoid the payment of debts then
pressing, will in the end lose his homestead.
When person claims the homestead he
proclaims to the world that he will avoid the
payment Of his debts, and thus forearmed, nc
the Supreme Court has decided that mort
gage of the homestead is good, it is natural
to suppose that when credit is asked, mort
gage will be required, and we all know that
when a man mortgages his property for sup
plies, he places himself entirely at the mercy
of the merchant. 1t matters not what prices
are asked for what he buys, he must pay what
is demanded.
CONSIGNED TO povERTY-No CREDIT.
He cannot say if you do not let me have
goods cheaper will 60 elsewhere, for no 9TH
er merchant will sell to him and the result is
that the homestead is sold to pay the mort
gage debt, and the poor wretch, will 60 forth
into the world without honor or home and, as
have said, consigned to poverty for the rest
of his life.
So we can readily see that the homestead
law, under the decision abov mentioned is
Of no benefit but has tendency to lower
morals.
As far as am able to learn, the chief OBJ
lection among us to the repeal of the home
stead law is the fear that debts, contracted
before its repeal could be collected out of the
homestead. This could not be, as our con-
st;tution prohibits .eS past .tacto laws, and
therefore if the law was repealed the home
stead would serve as basis OF credit, and
our landed property bring better security.
Capitalists would seek to invest their money
with us and competition would soon lower the
rate of interest.
COMPETITION WILL FOLLOW REPEAL.
One of the greatest benefits that would
grow out of the repeal of the homestead law
is competition in trade. What a man owned
then would be good for his debts, and this
would give him credit with any merchant
which would enable him to buy from the
merchant who would sell the cheapest and
the merchants being more certain of receiv-
ing pay for their goods, could afford to sell at
a less profit.
Another benefit thai would follew the re-
peal Of this law, is that capitalists, being no
longer able to demand high rate of interest
for the use of their money, would seek invest
ments in land, for as long as they can get
better return for their money by lending it
than by investments in lands Of course, they
will loan their money as it is an easier and
safer way to make money but let the rate of
interest be brought down to seven per cent.
per annum and you will find capitalists seek
ing investments in lands and thus creating
demand for them, their value would be great
ly increased, and thus we can point to the
homestead law as one of the causes of the low
price of our lands.
NOT THE POOR MANS LAW.
The homestead law has been called the poor
mans law. protection to the widow and or
phan. This is a mistake for whatever the
motive was in passing this law, it certainly
has a tendency to oppress the poor and help
the rich.
have already shown that it stiles COM
petition in trade, and keeps up the rate of in
terest and it is the poor and not the rich who
are affected thereby.
Tha rohp uo fN
bonds and other securities and borrow money
at about four per cent per annum and loan it
to us for from ten to twenty per cent per an
NUN hnt the NOR have only Hheir little tracts