The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1895-10-24
W.
ONE DOLLAR a YEAR.

breath say he can't mortgage u part of
1T which has been set on.
Mr.. Sligh said that once q man is
reduced to the necessity Of applying
| for n homestead he should not mort
gage il because it is for the benefit of
his wife and children.
Mr.. Is. II. TilIman said he was in
favor Of protecting the women and be-
fore as. vol as after the homestead
was set apart.
The whole genius of our laws, Mr..
liutson continued, is to allow party
t" have control OF his property after
it is st aside. isn't it better to let
the law remain us it is ?
MIR. w. j. Montgomery agreed with
| Mr.. llutson shat the law was grounded
IN the Jurisprudence of the State and
| it Is useless to try and uprOot it, We
should tinker with the law Us little as
possible. because much Of the uncer-
talnty that surrounded it he's been
taken away by judicial decisions and
| to change IL wOuid make uncertain the
rights OF people now under it, Ac-
"nrdin| to tho decisions of the court
tn" law is not so much for the protec-
tion OF tn" head of the family as the
iamlty itself. With that as the object
once II Is SGT apart, the family should
not Inc deprived Of it by mortgage.
! The object Of the law can by that
means be defeated. The head of tho
family may mortgage his property
until through improvidcnce or other
cause he becomes unable to take care
OF his family That family should be
thcn protected against his further
| imprOvidcncc.
Mr.. Ragsdalc said that he had been
Il friend Of the homestead law as it
ha~ been on our statute books for
,,tt I ~ f,-n =
line the committc rrt,.ins tho old law.
There are those who would deny the
rtgnt 10 mortgage before or after the
homestead. The logic Of the situa-
hou. 1t seemed to him, was that if a
man was denied tho right of mortgage
after II homestead was set of he should
nc denied the right before. Tho home
stead Is not taken from the creditor.
i'he creditor contracts upon the pre-
sumption th;,t he cannot touch Il home
~t"H0. The law Is It part of the con
I''art. The assignment of tho home
stead simply makcs definite what was
Ind"iinite before. a man now will not
rontraCt unless the wife renOunces her
right Of dover and is that not check
enough up0n Il man in the control of
his property? The poor man under
Nhis provision would have to pay ut
! least TloN 10 get II court to permit him
! 20 SCH MS property IN order tU move
! from 0nH township to another A
nun!n"r Estates have tried this prop
"siuNn but is found that it does not
work, because it, is wrong in principle.
rms %oniu he the greatest error we
"0uih commit TO adopt such prOvis-
ION. Ih" homestead is worth only
.W'O, me lawyer will have to get
$50 on t;in the clerks fees will amount
10 80 and The sheriff will have to get
r,s incs and it will cost fully 800 to
Il" what the interest of Il family re-
! qulr"S them to do. Not even If his
wife agreed with him could the head
"i lhc family dispose of his property
without III" intervention of the court.
To Keep in this provision would work
II 2reat hardship upon the poor man
ana those who would vote to adopt it
"nuid hear from them in no uncertain
way.
Senator Tillman said that this was
such an important matter and deals so
directly with the interest of thousands
anu ten thousands Of the people, that
II" asked the attention and patience
OF the convention while he in q brief
way spoke not so lnuch to the pending
amendment us TO the whole subject.
Ih~ theory Of the law is this, which
hhC craftsmanship and the best in
i"rcsL OF the commonwealth demand,
inaL the people should have q shelter
IN which TO live and gain u sustcnance
| IOr themselves. ana once owning u
! nome that they should keep it, It is
| 10 project the wife and children from
she IaZlnoss, drunkenness or thrift
| IcasncsS OF the father. AS far as he
va concerned he didn't hesitate to
's"y that the article reported by the
I committee was a humbug and pre-
! tense. H. holds N tho hf,
| D"IicI that it. is giving them u home
stead law, hut it is wordcd so that they
! haven t got it,
iic thcn read the homestead law as
passed ny the convention Of 1868 and
said thai in 1850 for some reason, he
didn't know why, provision was
added TO IL which is the same as the
Hrticlc reported by the committee
down 30 the word same " in line Is.
H." was no lawyer but he had the
common sense 10 say that the decision
"i the supreme Court which allowed
~ editors LO come in and take the shell
ter from man family was II disgrace.
It allowed them 10 take away the home
when il was the aim and intention of
the constitution not to allow it. They
c~iid sneak through a hole and say
thah mortgage come in before the
homc5tCad. Don't let us come here
| 70 pcEpetuatc IL wrong and allow peO-
pic To mortgage their homes and lose
I thcm. Don't pretend to allow them
/" home and allow them to give it
| away.
If you are going TO make q man u
charGc on tho State and protect him
against himself, why discriminate
;t%nins" those who own no homestead ?
lie was IN the convention to battle for
ihc rights OF every man, whether he
md $4,000 or 5000, and says he shall
"AVc shelter over his wife's and
chiidrcu's heads.
Tmcy talk about destroying the basis
of credit. Grant that it does, but If it
IS right To have homestead lots have
It or strike the section out Before
the war There was no nced for all this
credit. People made their own sup-
plies and ltvcd at home, but now thew
j bad been scducod by the lien law and
such in to making debts for nearl,
everything. they needed. They viii
not startc. but they will have o. hous,
l. and land upon which to make some