The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1916-12-13

al lien law in 1902, the farmers OF
South Carolina have been in aa worse
condition with respect to this matter
than they were before, and clear
understanding of present conditions
and the judicial decisions upon the
subject will show the necessity OF the
aforesaid proposed bills or amend
ments. Under Section 3059, Code
of Laws 1902, a merchant, for IN
stance, could acquire a lien super
ior to the unwritten lien of the land
lord for advances; but even a lien
acquired under Section 3059 OF the
Code of Laws 1902, was limited to
advances expended during the year
in making the crop, and such a lien
had to be indexed and reduced to
writing. .
Section 3059 of the Code of Laws
1902, provided for what was then
commonly known as the so-called
agricultural lien law and this section
was repealed on the 4th day OF March
1909, when the daily newspapers
and pretended friends of the farmers
with one acclaim announced the free
dom of the individual framer.. But a
review of the decisions Of the South
Carolina Supreme Court since the 4th
day of March, 1909, will show that
the farmers of South Carolina were
woefully deceived, and that the white
farmers of South Carolina are today
more at the mercy of the negro farm
hand than ever before in the history
Of the State.
South Carolina is an agricultural
community and the prosperity of all
vocations, depends, to q very large
extent, on the condition Of the crops
and the condition of the crops ir
South Carolina depends to greater
extent on negro labor. Now, in ordel
to control this negro labor, ever since
the Civil War, the white farmer il
South Carolina has had lien fol
I advances made to farm hand, with
out writing of any kind, and eve
since the freedom Of the slave, tn
Supreme Court of South Carolina ha
sustained the validity Of this unwrit
ten lien for advances, as can be seel
, from study of the decisions in tn
matter of State VS.. Elmore, 6S S. c.
las, and Nexsen VS.. Ward, Sc s. c.
, 1913.
j However, the Supreme Court o
South Carolina, in the matter o
: Cantey v. McClary- Broadway Co., q
: S. c., 80, has limited to some exten
the aforesaid unwritten lien Of tn
, farmer, by holding that the farme
could not assert said unwritten iel
for advances against a third party
/ without compliance with Sectio'
3 4165 of the Civil Code of Sout
, Carolina 1912.
8 During the 1916 session Of tn
, Legislature, Senator DuRant, at m
, request introduced the aforesai
? bills or amendments, in order that tn
, white farmer of South Carolina Nigh
have complete control of his negr
: labor, and in order to put a sto
forever to the negro farm hand civ
) ing innumerable chattel mortgage!
, which at the end of the year, th
= white farmer must pay off, in orde
3 to get a farm hand for the next yea1
, With the view of showing the fail
: ness and necessity Of this propose
legislation in behalf Of the whit
5 farmer, let me illustrate:
For instance, John Doe and Rich
= ard Roe are good bookkeepers an
| bank clerks and each get good ga
ary from their respective banks. E
r ther of these distinguished gentle
men could owe every merchant in hi
= home town and decline to pay thei
: obligations and there is no process o
E law by which the salary Of either o
5 them could be attached; and this
true, for the simple reason, that tn
members of the Legislature protec