The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1913-08-13
He May Run Foz Go7ers-:-.

DE May Kan fos HoTeTs-r.
Summerton. S. c., August !, 1913.
To the Editor OF The Manning Times:
I have read the article in your
paper today, entitled "Lien Law Situa-
tiop," and I am surprised that you
should take u position in the matter,
antagonistic to the best interests Of the
farmers OF your. County and the State.
The merchants and every corporation
and business concern in this State are
absolutely protected in the operation Of
their private affairs by the absence OF q
garnishment statute and no one should
be permitted as a matter Of law TO ac-
ouire a right 10 the crops of farm
| hand without the written consent OF the
farmer or landlord; as a matter OF fact,
the farmer does make the advances OF
his farm hand and to give the merchant
the legal right to do likewise without
the consent of the farmer, simply CON-
plcates the situation and works on IN
Jury to the farmer, the merchant aud
the tenant.
In order that your readers may un-
derstand the question at issue, ard IN
order to show that the position taken oy
Senator J. L. McLaurin is correct as q
matter of law, history and morals, will
state that in the year 1878, after the
white people secured control OF the
State Government, the Legislature OF
South Carolina passed an Act, provid-
ing in effect that landlord or farmer
shall have lien for rent and advances
made to 3 tenant during the year, with
ous writing of any kind, and in the
case of State against Elmore, IS S. c.,
145, our State Supreme Court declared
this Act constitutional.
However. in the same year, 1878, the
Legislature enacted the so-called agrl'
Ecultural lien law, whereby any person
could supersede the rights OF the land
lord as aforesaid with respect TO ad.
vances. by acquiring in writing lien
for advances made to tenant and eX-
pended IN making the crop during the
year and said lien had to be indexeo
and recorded, but on the 4th day OF
March. 1909. this so-called agricultural
lien law was repealed by the Legisla-
ture.
Now, therefore. in the decision to
which you refer in your article, our
State Supreme Court has declared that,
while it may be true that farmer has
lien for advances made TO a tenant
without a writing of any kind, at the
same time said lien cannot be asserted
against a subsequent purchaser or the
holder OF chattel mortgage, unless the
farmer or landlord records his lien as
provided under section 4165 OF the Code
OF 1912.
The court did not undertake to ex-
plain the physical process OF which the
unwritten lien of the farmer for adTanc-
es as aforesaid could be recorded, but
assuming for the sake OF argument that
! such miracle can be performed in this
day and generation, it becomes the i'm
perative duty of every sincere friend OF
. the farmers of South Carolina to advo-
, cate the immediate repeal Of section
4l65 OF the Code OF 1912, since it is very
evident that il the law as thus inter
preted is to remain, the farming indus
try OF South Carolina is placed in the
identical status as prevailed under the
rule of the negro and the Yankee, and
0 the white people of South Carolina so
E nobly repudiated in the year 1878 as
aforesaid.
!, Now, Mr.. Editor, have shown clear
= ly how the Supreme Court, in the de-
: cision referred to. has ignored the legal
; history of the State aud by one stroke
i of the pen. placed the farmers unoe:'
e complete negro domination: further
; more, I receive letters every day from
prominent farmers in different sections
y of the State approving my position in
= the matter and unless the Legislature
in January makes the ameaGment |
suggest, 1 will offer for Governor on
the question at issue, since am satisi-
ed the freedom and independence OF the
Individual farmer meaus more to the
prosperity of South Carolina than free
, liquor, or free compulsory negro edu-
cation.
In connection with the cause OF action
and the letter OF Senator McLaurin, to
which you refer in your article, take
the liberty of quoting from my printed
argument in the Supreme Court, as fol-
: lows, TO wit: Under section 3059 Code
= = of Laws 1902, merchant for instance,
u could acquire lien superior to the un-
written lien of the landlord; but even 3
> lien acquired under section 3O59 Code
= OF Laws 1902 was limited to advances eX-
= pended during the year 10 making the
! crop, and such lien had TO be indexed
and reduced to writing: interpreting
such liens as have heretofore been ac-
: ouired under section 3059 Code OF Laws
1902, there are numerous decisions IN
the South Carolina reports which follow
strictly the provisions of section 30o9 as
=, aforesaid; it follows as a matter OF law,
that since the repeal of section 30o9 on
the 4th day OF March, 1909, all OF the
! aforesaid decisions dealing with said
section 3059 Code OF Laws 1902 have
: been repealed; for the Supreme Court
of this State to now hold or decide that
a merchant can acquire, under and by
!, virtue Of chattei mortgage, lien su-
perior TO the lien of the landlord, would
:, unouestionably be judicial legislation,
would place the farmers of South Caro-
: lima in worse condition than they were
= in before the repeal Of section 3O5s,
commonly known as the 'lien law" and
!, would add impetus to the clamor OF the
mob for the recall OF the judicial decls-
ions; it is respectfully submitted that IT
will be sad day for the farmers Of
!; South Carolina when q solemn Act of
the Legislature. passed and enacted in
response to solemn demand on the
part OF the farmers of this State, is
limited in its effect and operation by
judicial construction.
Yours truly.