El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1898-01-08
A Malignant Law.

A Malignant Law.
A concrete instance of some abusive
and injurious law is often more Ell.
ficacious in arousing disapproval and
indignat. on than the most profound
exposit on of.the gener al grounds OF OBJ
lection.
We have often referred to the Just
and iravoidable suspicious excited
aeainstthe people of Texas by her home
stead ard preferred creditor laws.
This particular point has also been
copently SGT forth in our Cores
ponder ce Forum.
We, therefore, invite the serious at
tention of all Texans to an 'eXcep-
tiopal and extraordinary case, as
legged of an ipsolveut de btOr " no sought
the aid of a court of justice to cradle
him to etfectually withdraw from the
reach of his cre ditors the grossly ex-
cessive sum of $50, 900 in money, the
proceeds of insurance policies Issued,
at the expence of bis creditors, as an
indemnify against loss by fire OF q cost
ly mansion, constructed also at toelr
expense, and with intent to defrano
them, by the in 'ensiCna use OF an ex-
cessive amount of his assets for that
purpose. with the contemplated result
of hopeless and notorious insolve ncy:
The attainment, by the application CT
equit ,ble principles of liberal C 'nsti PC
ton, of q result so monstrous, in
vitality shocks the conscience, and
brings reprOach upon that humane ana
sacred institution, the homestead; Tor
the establishment of which the first
honor is un rer-aly escrlbed to Tex
as" quoting from Judge I.'W. StepbeI
of Fort Worth court of civil appeals,
in the case styled Swayns vs.. Chase.
When the laws of 9 ate pc NIT, and
even put a premium on, fraud, the peo-
pie of that state cannot complain when
their n Ugh bors accuse them OF unfair
dealing. When the laws are so franz
ed that the gross sst sa indies can be
practicsd upon c. editors by dishOnes st
debtors. and the cour's are obliged to
| uphold these pa'pable swindles, even
admitting fraud-whO is surprised that
capital fights shy o. Texas? That ca
pitsl does reso1utely remain away is
evidenced by the fact thSt most of our
Texas merchants ara paying 10 and
even II per cent On their credit pur-
cha>es. Imputations of dishonesty
| legaliZed thefts as is illustrated in the
instance now under consideration. 1t
it Is our belief that such laws are a
calumny upon our people who are il,
| their intentions, as honest as the peO-
Pile of any state in he union. But the
miscarriage of good intentions in our
| homestead law cannot long be plead in
exteuuation of absolute robbery. No
people cognizant of the failure of law
a premium on dishonesty, can hope to
escape scathing charges of dishonesty.
unless they strepuously eudeavOr to
make impossible such robbery by pro-
cess of law. 1t is an instance of mean
ness and in justice that deserves to be
Haunted in the faces of Texans until
from very shame, they shall hasten to
q recurrence of such disgraceful and
the case we all avoid, so far as. pos 81.
BILE, technical expressions.
| About three years ago Fort Worth
merchant, in contemplation of failure
in business, put about 1925 900 in q
homestead. Withdrawing that sum from
his business to put it beyond the reach
of his creditors, aud, the evidence
that he would soon fail. The costly
residence burned. The insurance was
$780, 900. One john F. Swayne, who
had lost heavily by Chase's failure,
sued the insurance company in the
district court for $4,000, due on judg
ments already obtained, alleging that
after subtracting these claims there
| WOuiu TOuolu UT OfO.OVO.
amply sufficient for homestead exemp D.
ton, the constitution having coutem-
plated home of $4,000 value. The
district court held that creditors could
not touch the insurance money from
Chase's homestead, however large this
sum might be. Swayne carried the
matter to the court of civil appeals
at Fort Worth. and the court of ap-
peals reversed and remanded the de-
cision of the district court. Chase and
wife then appealed to the supreme
court, where the constitution was
literally construed, the judgment Of
the court of civil appeals reversed,
the district court upheld, and Chase
allowed to reta n his ill-gotten $50 600.
Associate Justice Brown concluded his
opinion as follows: whatever Judges
of courts may think of the policy OF
exemptinR homestead Improvements
of great value from the debts of the
owner, the policy of the state is too
unmistakably settled by the constitu-
ton for any court to assume to give q
new policy to the state upon this ques-
ton. The people of Texas made the
constitution, and they have right to
change it if it is found to work harshly
and uujustly but the courts have no
choice but to obey it's mandates -
| If Justice Brown Is right. how long
will the people of Texas submit to this
malignment?-A
A Cure for Lame Back.
my daughter when recovering from
| an attack of fever, was great sufferer