The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-03-06

questions involved in the determination
Of this application.
The first IS. has a childless widow
| homestead exemption, and If 50. 10 what
extent.
The second Is. the deceased having sold
| a part Of his homestead IN his life time.
would the note representing the proceeds
| OF sale be exempt in the hands Of his
personal representative.
Our supreme court has never passed
upon either branch OF the first question,
After careful examination Of our con-
stitudon and statutes. and alt decisions Of
the supreme court bearing upon the ques-
ton indirectly. 1 am constrained to be-
lieve, upon reason and principle, that the
husband dying the widow. though child
less, would be allowed a homestead ex-
empt from her husbands or her own
debts.
While the husband survived he, being
the head OF the family. would be allowed
the homestead exemption. by express con-
situtional and statutory provision. Should
his death divest the widow Of the Same
right? The object of the law is plain, and
Is we'll understood by the profession and
the people generally; 1t Is TO provide a
home for the family, and to retain iuvio-
late this home, free from the vicissitudes
of fortune, upon the theory that the safe
ty of the state and the welfare OF our
entire people depend, in a large measure,
upon the integrity Of the home. The
| safety of the people is the supreme law"
is maxim as old, almost, as the law
itself. "The homestead Is a place toward
which the eye of the creditor need never
be turned" says our supreme court
But, says the technical lawyer. our law
provides a home stead only when 1t is
occupied as a residence by tho family
OF the owner" and when the owner has
no family but himself, or herself, then
the exemption ceases. / cannot subscribe
to this view. / believe. IN contemplation
OF our law. a family may consist OF one
person / know this definition does not
conform TO that given by photographer.
but, nevertheless, 1 believe II TO be the
true meaning OF the term as used by the
makers of our constitution and the franz
ers of our statutes.
II a person has others dependent upon
him, or her, the decisions are to the e.
feet that he or she is the head OF the
family and therefore entitled TO the ex-
emption.
But suppose a widow. or widower, Is de-
pendent upon others. because they are not
his children should that fact alone deprive
him Of his home. deliver him % the ten
der mercies OF his creditors. and make
him a charge upon the public? II seems
to me not.
Suppose the owner Is a widow. OF MD
over, who Is not dependent upon others
but who chooses 20 stay upon the home
stead and fight LIES battles alone. as Ear
as possible, should that fact deprive such
an one Of the protection OF the Lax. In
truth, can see no reason IN It. Whle
the widow had a husband 20 lean upon.
should the law be more compassionate
and moro soHcitous about providing her a
home. than when LETT companiouIess. ard
left 70 buffet lies tempests and fight
LIES battles alone?
Suppose a man IS deprived % fis wife
and Is 1eft the s5ls tenent % his home.
should that fact permit creditors % IN
wade his home, and deprive him Of h.s
rOof-tree2
II seems 20 me not r young man.
and the law Is collections IN providing him
a home during the afs time % hls wife.
It seems to ne the RS son = the is~
would permit him. Il he 50 desired. 70 go
cure another wife and companion and
thus maintain that sacred institutional
home y an old man, and the law has
been so3cft0us about guaranteeing him a
home during his iusty and vigorous man
hold. + should not withdraw is protect
Ing arm II hls old age wien he has Isl
met win HES greatest calamity The .ess
az nis lifetime companion. 80 peraoa
can be absolutely fodepeadent foT saT
great length q time. and 30 long a. 3
widow o. whoever remains aDon tie
home stead and maintz41s a bone. tas