Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1910-02-09
AS TO CROP MORTGAGES.
Various Phases, Pro and Con, Fully
Discussed and Reviewed.
Greenwood INDEX

Greenwood mdeX.)
AS will be seen by the summary Of
he work Of the General Assembly
ne status quo Of crop mortgages will
not be disturbed this year.
Representative Hydrick wanted to
amend the section providing for crop
mortgages by providing that no such
mortgage should be good unless said
crop was up and growing at the time
the mortgage was made. His bill
was killed.
Some how or other the popular
idea has been that this was the way
the law read now, but it does not at
all. 1t may be that test case be-
fore the Supreme Court would so al
ter the status Of Section 1905, but as
yet no such test case has been
brought, or seems likely to be
brought, and to all intents and pur-
poses the system Of credit, based on
implanted crops as security, remains
just exactly as 1t was before the re-
peal OF the lien law, no more, no less.
The common question Is then, Why
the lien law at all? One would bet
ter ask, to be logical, why the crop
mortgage act? The lien law was en-
acted first. 1t was intended to Gre
ate system Of credit for broken
down and impoverished people who
had nothing upon which to base their
applications for credit other than
crop. Ito be planted" their promise
to pay would have been as good as
gold II they had had the gold or any
other wherewithal to pay, but that
was rather uncertain. To aid them
In getting credit and getting on their
knees so they could get on their feet,
the lien law was enacted in 1878.
The lien law had some deficiencies
and developed some abuses, Of
course, and II. would appear that an
was made in 1891 when the crop
mortgage act was passed. See goth
Statutes, S. G. This crop mortgage
act limited the contract to one year
and further made II obligatory to
accurately describe the lands on
which the crop or crops were to be
grown. Both laws remained on the
statute books until last year when
the General Assembly, in its tradi-
t1onal wisdom, repealed the lien law,
but did not so much as touch with its
sacred fingers the crop mortgage act,
which stands to-day as It has done
since It's passage in 1891, and as It
Is likely to stand for many, many
years to come. At least 1t would an
pear so from the decided vote re-
Gently when an effort was made to
limit it to crops "up and growing"
AS The Index stated when the agi-
tation first began to repeal the lien
law, the wisdom of it was doubtful.
or at least there was good argument
on both sides. It would seem now
that this system Of credit Is so natu-
raj with our people that they cannot
live without 1t, just as the morphine
eater, or better perhaps the coffee
drinker. cannot live without the long
used stimulant, and as in the case of
the coffffee drjnker, while in some
cases, maybe many cases, the indi-
vidual would be better off without
the stimulant, it does not seem to
weaken him perceptibly, If at all, and
lie goes right on living and doing the
days work as we'll as any one else.
AS stated last week, the repeal of
the lien law has done one good thing.
1t has opened the eyes OF the land
lord TO his rights, and as one of the
objects aimed at In the repeal of the
lien law was to bring about better
control OF labor on the farms, this
good Is not to be overlooked, and the
repeal Of the lien law should have
full credit for this much.
AS basis Of credit for a merchant.
either lien or crop mortgage with
out other security and without. re-
leases from the landlord is an ex-
ceedingly risky thing. Few If any
merchants depend upon It alone.
Certainly they cannot get much in
me way of bank loans when such
papers ale offered as u0iiatcral, so
chattel mortgages are taken as addi-
tional security, and landlords are re-
quired to waive their statutory liens
for rent and for advances by all mer-
chants with good business Judgment.
The practice will have to die ont
Of itself. Times will have to so i'm
prove that no man, white or black
viii have TO fall back on his unDlant-
ed crop to get supplies ere the prac-
tice Will be obsolete Certainly It
Will be some time before legislation
Will seek to restrict the right to
growing crop and It. can never take
away the right to mortgage the crop
after it is in existence.