Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

fv7 " The Press and Banner. ABBEVILLE, S. O. Wednesday, May 4, 1887. Deatla of Orvillc T. Calhoun. OrvllleT. Calhoun. Ksq., member of the Ab bevllle Bar, died In Columbia, Monday morning, May 2,1887, aged 39 years. Mr. Calhoun had been in Charleston attending the unveiling of the monument erected to .4k?liiiornliihO(] I'lnsniiin me memory m ? > John C. Calhoun, and had returned as lar as Columbia on his way home when he stopped at the capital and there died. The news of his death was a shock to the people of this community, and the event cast a shadow over a large circle of friends and assoclates, who were strongly attached to him, and by whom he was held in high esteem. Mr. Calhouu was distinguished forhissocls1 qualities as well as for his faithfulness to friends and fidelity to any cause which he espoused. He was of a positive tharacter, and his position on ail important subjects were never concealed from friend or foe. He was generous and brave; and while always demanding due deference from others, he never failed to accord that courtesy and affability ^ which marked him as the kindly gentleman In deportment as well as In principle. Mr. Calhoun's death Is a peculiarly sad onea He leaves a young wife to whom he was de Voted WILD all nis mmu uou iicun, iiiuuii aged mother is grief-stricken indeed. Bat little more than a year ago, he was happily married to Mies Sallle CJlbert of this county, who is so well known to our people. Yesterday she followed a devoted husband to the grave. Mr. Calhoun always took an active part in county politics, and always took a decided tand on all questions before the people. For a long lime he was treasurer of the Abbeville Democratic club, aud several times he served the people acceptably in State Xominatiug Conventions. He was a member of the Abbeville Literary Society, and of the Masonic Fraternity, of which organizations be was a zealous and useful member, always contributing his full share to their seccess and to the 'pleasure of bU associates. A delegation from the Abbeville Bar, conjr' elating of Messrs. L. W. Perrln, J. W. Thomson, F. B. Gary, W. C. Benet, W. C. McGowan, S. C. Cason and D. L Mabry went to Hodges to meet the corpse, while the Masons as a body, and many citizens assembled at the depot before the arrival of the train. The body was taken to the late residence of the deceased, on Main Street. Kind friends watched over him, and yesterday at 1 o'clock, Mr. Hanckel conducted the funeral services, and he was burled in the Episcopal Cemetary. StThe Judicial Monstronlty. We copy into these columns tho Judicial monstrosity emanating from a divided Supreme Court In the Rush case, which decision Violates every sense of Justice, overrides the Constitution, and puts an unsupportable construction on the meaning of an Act of the Legislature. The people of the State must seek in some way to be relieved of the grievous wrong wblcb has been Inflicted at the fountain head to which we have heretofore looked for a fair and Impartial Judgment. If these learned Judges who assume to set their own opinions against ninety per cent, of the Bar and a solid Circuit Bench cannot be induced to reconsider their unjust decision in the Rush case, then the Legislature should come to the relief of the people. Hon. Edward McCrady, Jr., of Charleston 1 n the Newt and Courier of yesterday, suggest s as a remedy that the number of Supreme Judges be Increased, and, among other things, says: "Judge Hudson hears this case on the circuit and decides it in oneway. The ease goes to the Supreme Court, and there Judge McGowan concurs with Judge Hudson, but Judges Simpson and MclTer differ with Judges MeGowan and Hudson: and thereupon we.have two Judges overruled by tivo Judges. Such a decision decides the case In hand, but It cannot settle the law, because on its face It shows an even division of legal opinion. For, I take It, It Is no disparagement of any member of the Supreme Bench to say that Judge Hudson as a lawyer is not his inferior." This is putting the case strongly. Besides this, the invitation to make comparison between the ability of McGowanand Hudson, and Simpson and Mclver is ns significant as It is gentle. The Abbeville Bar is almost a unit in the ? belief that the Judgment of the Court In the Rush case is erroneous. If our supreme Judges continue to override the law in reference to granting bail to murderers of every degree, and then add to their past usefulness In destroying public confl. In roforanoo /* nrnnortv ( UVViOIVU AM ?ViV*V*>W VV VJ/V. which is violative of law, and ruinous to the business interests of the eountry, the people are Id a lamentable fix. When the people loos confidence in the Courts, who can foretell the end ? Tbe Demand for Factories?On Paper. Much has been Raid of late about the neccs slty for the establishment of factories of all sorts, from frultrcannlng to cotton mills and National banks. A friend recently suggested that there is a greater need, and one within the range iof possibility, and that is, prosperous farms. If we could have the same energy Infused into the larms, and the satnc amount of constant and systematic intelligent labor applied to our farms that is required to make the factories, cotton mills, and banks a success, the country would prosper beyond any reasonable expectation. What good will enure to you, my friend, if capitalists building magnificent factories, if ye stand here idle all the day. How is it with you? Are you applying all your energies to make the farm a success? We need successful farmers. They -. _ are not to be found among the llencrs, who spend one day in tbe week with their teams going to town to buy the corn, atdouble price, which they should raise at home. It Is selfi dom found among that class of men who go to the mule dealers and buy Western mules, Instead of raising them. Tbe prosperous man is seldom found without a pasture and some * good cattle. The trouble about the all-cotton plan, is, that people begin to work on the crop In March and finish early in November?with c a month's rest after laying by. We need profitable employment for the whole year We need pastures in which our stock may graze. The XewM and Courier. The Issue of the Neu ? and Courier on the next day after the unveiling of the Culhoun monument was the finest specimen of newspaper enterprise that we have seen. The . speech of Mr. Lamar was given at length, together with a full description of the doings of the day, without encroaching on the usual space of the paper. The paper for that day was twelve pages. Besides the editorial comment, and telegraphic news, the country correspondence was uncommonly full. In addition to the usual variety of other mat. i ters, the decision of the Supremo Court In the Rush cash appeared. The Ken-sand Courier has Issued many numbers ot the paper which have been marvels of enterprise but, for typographic skill and newspaper enterprise, none have surpassed the Calhoun edition. Solicitor Orr will Decline Re-Election. 'Tho a%w> D/imm/?%' fttllxr nnrtnnrc with the Greenville Hews in tho fotlowing sentiment : "Sincere regret will be caused throughout this district by the announcement that Solicitor Orr will decline to be a candidate for reelection. His place will be very haid to 1111 even from the array of eloquent and learned lawyers the Beveral counties boast of. We cannot hope to find a better man; the troublo \ will be to get one bo good. Insurance companies are declining Chicago risks for fear of Anarchists. Sri How Low Knlnrie* nnd Long Terut,. Work in Abbeville. In response to a letter of inquiry from the! Observer, tlie school Commissioner of Abl>o-| viile County gives some very interesting facts.1 It should l?o remembered thai salaries paid to > teachers from the public /un<l in that county } are 820,81*>and S10 per month for the respective grades. This, of course, does not prevent the patrons from paying as much more as they please: but it secures a public school term | of six months or more. The Oteiw'i inquiries were as to whether j there\v;is any difliculty In securing competent teachers for the schools; whether the I plan works as well as with high salaries: and i as to the length of the term. We quote from the reply: "In answer to your tlrst question, I am pleased to say that I have no trouble in procuring competent teachers. The salary Is most commonly supplemented readily. " Jnd. As to whether the plan works as well as with high salaries: I am constrained to think that there is no doubt of it, from the fact that schools are open a longer term and the pupils received more benetlt and the patrons invariably express themselves pleased a ? Uliu nttkinucu. In answer to your 3d question: My experience heretofore has been that the schools will run from six to seven and eight months according to the number of schools and grades of teachers in the different school dist ricts. "The plan of low salaries, considering the Insufficiency of the Public School Fund and the Increasing or lengthening of the school term, has been my policy in my former terms of office: and I am fully convinced that It Is the only one we can adopt In order to benefit the whole people, and advance the cause of education under Hie present circumstances.? Newberry Observer. The popularity of School Commissioner Cowan's administration isabundantiy proven at his re-election, when the questions of salaries and school terms were prominent before the people. If the Observer will pursue this subject it will secure longer school terms without impairing the usefulness of any teacher. Every boy and girl in Newberry county will receive benefit from the Observer's work. The agitation of the question in Abbeville has brought the pay of teachcr down from SIO to S20 a month, and has doubled the school term. The pay of teachers will yet be reduced In Abbeville county to a sum sufficient to keep the schools open for ten months. The people will demand it, and they can have it, if they want it.?Press and Banner. TRUE SOUTHRON AND PATRIOT. Memorial on the Life and Character or Hon. D. Wyntt Aiken, by Rev. D. E. Frlersou, D. D.? or Anderson. S. C. The family, the friends and the country, monrn over the death of Col. D. Wyatt Aiken our late Congressman who died on the 6th day of April, at the age of 59 years. A wide spread constituency and tho whole country gather around the sacred precincts of a family's grief, and seek to express a corresponding appreciation. Our Congressional Chieftain has laid down his arms, but not In defeat or surrender. He fought the campaign of the statesman to the uttermost border of the time and territory which Providence had assigned him, and only laid down bis arms when he had finished the work which had been gi ven him to do. He laid down the arms of an earnest and powerful eloquence, of a clear, direct and forcible logic; or an honest, Independent and patriotic conviction. We have heard him beneath the shade of the forest, and before the masses of the people, when he would fling aside all circumlocution, all flowers of diction, and with a simple, incisive and powerful Anglo-Saxon he made every man understand him. We have read the speeches that rang in the Congressioual halls, and tho same current of irresistible logic ran through thetn. We heard him In the ecclesiastical counsels of his brethren, and then, too. he always stood the advocate of a manly ana righteous policy. As a statesman he conducted a life-long campaign that was no less honorable to his heart than to his head. He disdained the arts and the arms of the partisan, the trick ster ana ine peuyiogger, imu uici cvcij opposing policy with the argument of an independent and honest man. And if these arguments were tlie smooth sling stones selected from the brook of a pure Anglo-Saxon, woe to the pompous Qollath who confronted him. With yet higher satisfaction we remember the noble generosity which forbore to attack with the satire or the innuendo. He fought, not men, but measures, and no ungenerous Insinuations could draw him down from that high and honorable platform of argument, iuto the lower plane of political gymnasts. While he was a true Southern man, lie was ever the advocate of those broad national policies which involved tho more enduring interests of the South, and declined the lora! popularity which a mere sectional interest might liave won for him. He would not Involve his constltucnoy and his beloved south In a peurile antagonism to the Union, or make her untrue to her pledges of Federal loyalty. He, therefore occasionally encountered an adverse gale of criticism ; but it passed by him as the idle wind which he rogarded not. Time and events have vindicated his wisdom and his patriotism. The great statesman nas now, also, laid down his trust, and we are free to say that the unanimous plaudit of his constituency and of the whole nation Is, "Well done, good and faithful servant." Tho great Presbyter has now, also, laid down his trust,and were the sense of his colleagues in any council of the church now voiced, it would be the unanimous plaudit, "Well done! good and faithful servant." It was with pride that we listened to him speaking in behalf of truth and righteousness. He loved the church, he loved her gates, he loved her ministry, and from his high position be could and did administer to them a welltimed counsel. Who will take up now the fallen trident of him that sleeps and remind us of our official responsibilities? Who among the Ruling Elders of the Presbyterian church will lift up the mantle of the departed Ruler, and discharge the duty of the friend and mentor? In every department of duty, in the church, the state, or the nation, whether as (statesman, citizen, or Christian, whether as ruler In his family or Ruler lu the house of God, as husband, neighbor, father, he was found faithful. "How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!" "The bow that turned not back," and "the sword that returned not empty." The church of God is afflicted when her strong men have departed, and in the ioss of our brother calls for leaders in the ruling office to conduct her march. Our friend sleepeth till his time hath come. For all sleep bath an awakening; and he sleepeth only to awake on that mornicc when the songs of a Jubilant creation shall greet the ears of the slumbering dead; the morning whose rising sun shall gild the mountain tops of a reconstructed world and spread an inextinguishable splendor over a "new heaven and a new earth." The G. C. & N. Railroad. Cheater Bulletin. Gen. Hoke was in onr town for a short lime last Saturday. He gave an exceedingly gratifying account ot the r-rescnt prospects of the proposed road of which he is the head. He stated that the WrightBrothers had taken the contract for grading the roadbed from Chester to the North Carolina line. He further stated that these brothers began on last Saturday the erection of shanties for their employees, and would begin this week the good work of grading. They will first grade the line from the North Carolina line to the Catawba river, and then from the river to this place. They expect to complete their contract by November 1st. General Hoke also stated that the contract for the grading of the roadbed from the North Carolina lino to Monroe had been given out, though the papers were not formally signed. The terms had been agreed upon and the contractors would begin work without delay. The President expects to complete the roadbed, lay the iron, equip the road and have it in running order from Chester to Monroe by the 1st of next January. Though the expression has been used before in numberless connections, ho is without any manner of doubt tho right man in the right place. Chester greatly rejoices in the cortaintv of the construction of the O. C. & N. Railroad. She will be incalcnlablv bono tited by the increase of her railroad fccilities. The hopes of our town are also centered on the construction of the Chester and Camden lino. As that road would bo a feeder to the South Carolina Railroad and a benefit to Charleston, will not the people of that grand old city give us a helping hand? In helping us they will help themselves. Not as Rig as the Funeral. [Barnwell People.] The unveiling of the Calhoun monument in Charleston on Tuesday was witnessed by an immense concourse of people, but the old timers said it was not nearly so big a thing as the great statesman's funeral "before the war." Mr. Lamar's speech was audible to very few of those present but the day passed off delightfully and successfully, and the whole Jenkins is in the Seventh Heaven of do- , light because of the presonce of Mr. Cleveland's clerks. A JUDICIAL MONSTROSITY. A JUDGMENT WHICH IS UNWORTHY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUHH CAROLINA. All the Eight Circuit Judges, and Ninety Per Cent of the Lawers of the State, are Believed to Hold that the Supreme Court Has Trampled on the Law and Overruled the Constitution Itself. Arc Our Courts to Bocoinc tlic Safe Refuge for Tlioso Person* who Seek lo Avoid the Payment of aaVUV0? . Tlie Aultinnn nml Tnjlor Company, Plaintiffs, Respondents, vs. J. X. Rush find Eugenia J. Rusli, Defendants Apppllant!). Opinion?Simpson, C. J. The facts of tills case, as stated In the decree of his. Honor, Judge Hudson, who heard It, are substantially as follows: The action was found upon two notes, given by J. N. Rush and his wife, Eueeuia, for the purchase money of a Steam engine. The notes were secured by a mortgage upon a tract of land, the separate estate oftho wife, which mortgage was executed by the wife, her husband Joining therein. The object of tbe action was to foreclose the mortgage. Two defences were set up. First, a breach of contract, and a counter claim for damages, growing out of said alleged breach. Second, the non-liability or Mrs. Rush on the notes and mortgages, she boing a married woman. The Master to whom the case was referred reported that there was no breach of the contract, In which his Honor concurred. He also reported that Mrs. Rush was liable both by tbe terms of the statute and because the contract was for the benefit of her separate estate. His monor did not concur In the latter branch of this position, to wit: that the contract was for her benefit of her separate estate, but he sustained the Master in the first branch, holding and decreeing that the liability of the wife was fixed by the mortgage, at least to the extent of the value of the land embraced therein, should so much be necessary to pay the debt, and he ordered a foreclosure, &c? ?Sc. He also allowed a fee of 850 to plaintiffs' attorney, to be paid out of the proceeds of the sale. The appeal of the defendants allegos orror, in that his Honor sussained the findings of the Master, that there was no breach of the contract, nor damages resulting therefrom, supporting their counter claim. Second, because his Honor held Mrs. Rush liable, under lier mortgage, 10 tne extern 01 me vaiuu01 me land, If so much wns necessary. And third, that he allowed a fee of $60, out of the proceeds of the land, to plaintiffs' attorney. The first question Is a question of fact, in which the Master and the Judge concurred. We have examined the evidence, and we do not find such a want of support to this finding as would warrant, us to rcvorso It. We must, therefore, regard the fact thus found as established. And we sustain the law applied to said finding. This disposes of the counter claim, &c. The main question in tho ease is as to the liability of Mrs. Rush on her mortgage, or rather tho liability of her separate estate for a debt contracted by her husband, to which slip, however, was a party, and to secure which she executed the mortgage in question, although said debt was not contracted for the benefit of said separate eslate. This brings up squarely the question whether a married woman can mortgage her separate estate for a debt not contracted for Its benefit. The debt In fact being debt of another party, in this Instance, that of her husband. Or whether, being herself limited to contracts "as to her separate estate," she Is not also confined in the execution of mortgages to that limit, to wit, to contracts, "as to her separate estate." The Circuit Judge held that the notes sued on were nullities as to Mi's. Hush, the fact having been established that they were not elven for the benefit of her estate. The holding was no doubt correct, tinder tho principle of the recent case of Habenicht vs. Kawls it Willhalf, Mss. We must start out then with the proposition that Mrs. Rush is not liable In any way upon the notes used on. That thoy were void as to her. for the reason that she had no power to make lliem, she being at. the time a. mar rieu wuriiun, aim mu nun.-.-*, uui ucum w?.dence of a contract "as to her separaie estate." So the clear question is, as stated, whether a married woman can mortgage her separate estate to secure such notes. It will bo conceded, without argument, that a married woman has no such power at common law. Ii follows, then, that if she has such power, It must be found conferred upon her by one or both of the twoothor sources of all of our law, except the common law, to wit: the Constitution ol 1SG3, and the statutes enacted in accordance therewith. The boundary, therefore, of the question Is the Constitution,and the Act of Assembly, upon the rights of married women, to which we will now address ourselves. There Is but one section In the Constitution on this subject, which is as follows: "The real and personal property of a married woman, held at the time of her marriage, or that which she may thereafter acquire, either by gilt, grant, inheritance, devise or otherwise, shall not ho subject to 1-ivy and <ale for her hnsbrnd's debts, but. shall be held as her separaie property, and may be bequeathed, devised or alienated by her the same as if she were unmarried." Article 14, Section 8. In considering this question it must be borne in mind all the time, and It may be well to repeat It here, that before the adoption or tne uonsuuuion 01 jw? ana me acin pulsed since on this subject, that a married woman in this Stato was absol utely devoid of all power In the premises, except in trust estates where certain power might be conferred, but generally she was powerless as to all contracts, mortgages, conveyances, deeds and all such papers. Such being the fact, it follows that she is still powerless, except so for as her rights In this regard have been enlarged by the Constitution or the Acts, which enlargement must bo pointed out, ami to which she must be confined. Now thogcnerel l ight to make a mortgage of her separate estate to secure even her own debt, much less the debt of her husband or of any other person, certainly cannot be claimed under the section of the Constitution referred to above. That section lias but three purposes, (neither of which embraces the power in question,) to wit: First, to declare the property or the wife, however acquired,"to be her separate estate; second, to protect this property from levy and sale for her husband's delfts; and third, to confer upon the wife the power to bequeath, devise or alienate said property. It Is true that by It her common law disability has been removed to some extent, to wit: to the extent of allowing her to bequeath, devise and to alienate her separate estate, and this she is authorized to do as fully as If she were .1 clnrrlo Hvim'iii hut nnllilnir mni'A! hot* <lissl bility as to all elso remains as before, so far as the constitutional provisions affect hor, tiie prime and essential object of which seems to nave been to protect the property of the wife from debts and contracts of the husband, and to obviate the necessity of a trustee to tills end. This was, no doubt, the motive and foundation of the section, and this was ac compllshed in its first brauch, and then follows the power to bequeath, devise and alienate, which was a necessary incident to the enjoyment of the legal ownership of the property with which the wife had now been Invested. Giving a lien, however, on real estate by a mortgage is neither a bequest, a devise or nn alienation. (Warren vs. Raymond, 17 S. C., 198, I'jO,) and yet this is all the power conferred by the Constitution. And, besides, if such lien Is intended to secure the payment of a debt ol the husband, it would defeat the main and most important purpose of tiiesectlon, to wit: the exemption of her property from his debts. Wc conclude, therefore,that the mortgage of Mrs. Rush finds no support in Article XIV, Section s of the Constitution. Let us next examine tlie Act of Assembly on this subject, to wit: Sections 2,03.">, 2,036 and 2,037 of the General Statutes. Section 2,03.j, and the first part of Section 2,0V), contain nothing more than the provisions, nearly verbatim of the Constitution supra, and, therefore, they need no further consideration here. The latter part of Section 2,03<> provides for the disposition of the estates of married woman dying intestate, which Is not involved here; then follows, a provision: "That, all deeds, mortgages and legal instruments of whatever kind shall becxecuted by iierin the same manner, ami have the same b-gal force and elieel as If she were unmarried. Tills provision is earnestly claimed as furnishing the right to mortgage, it being contended that the power to do so is here conferred. This proposition w ill be considered below. Section 2,0.77 provides: "That a married woman shall have the right to purchase any snecics of lironert v In hi?r own name, ard to ' take proper legal conveyances therefor, ami to contract- and be contracted with, as to her separate property, in the same manner as if ; she were unmarried." Tlieso sections of the (tcnenil statutes were taken from tho Act of 1670, XIV Statutes, 5fc25, entitled "An Act to carry Into etfect tho provisions of tiie Constitution in relation to the 1 rights of married women," being sections 1, 2 and 3 of tiiat Act. To ascertain their true in- i tent and meaning they must lie construed to- i Eetherandns a whole. At the timo of the 1 passage of this Act, 1870, the words, "as to her i separate estate," immodiatety following the words, "to bo contracted with," In Section i '/,0;!7, wore not incorporated. They have since I (18S2) boon inserted by amendment, taut before i the execution of tho mortgage herein. Without those words, supposing the Goner- i al Assembly could invest a married woman I with power beyond that conferred by the 1 Constitution. (Seo F.elzcr &. Hodgcrs vs. I Campbell, 15 S. C., 5!K),) there is no doubt but ? that Section 3 of the Act of 1870 invested her I with all the powers of a femme sole, complete- f ly annulling all the disabilities or marriage at t which she was a cestui que trusf the trust deed ;ivlng her such power. All of these cases, however, wero decided )efore the amendment of 1882 to the Act of 870 by which the Important words: "As to ler separate cstute" were inserted, and wheu here was no doubt, these words being absent, ,hat a married woman by the force and efl'ect )f the Act had all the powers of a femme sole is to making contracts. Of course, then, she ?ould become surety for her husband or for my one else, or she could execute a mortgage >r any other paper that a femme sole could ixecute. common ]nw, and mnkln? lier absolutely free \ and competent to make any contract c r to ex- ? ecute any kind of a paper, deed or mortgage thata/impso/e could make. And Section 2, I now Section, 2,030 General Statutes, recoguiz- 1 lng her right in this ronpcct as then ccnfcrred i in Section 8, now 2,037 General Statu ten, (with t those important words omitted,) provided In t Its clause, as stated above, to wit: That all < deeds, niortcages and legal paperB tlmt she might, execute should be executed in the same ( manner, and should have the same legal :!brce i and effect as if sno wero udmarrled. Wj do < notconcelve, however, that this recogn tion < was the conferring of an independent power to execute a mortgage or other paper. In uddl- ' tion to the power conferred in Section 3 oi the | Act, hut we think it was a mere declaration ' thnt such papers, deeds, mortgages as she < could legally make under the general provl- 1 sions of the Act should be made as other peo- | pie made them, that is, in the manner as to < form. &c., Ac., and whep so made they should i have Ac., and, therefore, instead of lookir g to i this section to ascertain what papers she can make, we must look to the Constitution and i to Section 2.037, where her powers are express- j Iy conferred. In other words. Section 2,017 of the General Statutes and Section 8 o' the i Constitution arc tho sections, which confer i the powers, and Section 2,080 declares the j manner in which said powers shall be exe- ; cuted. at least as to the execution of the pa- i pel's therein mentioned. 1 Now the Act of 1870, In Section 3, conferring i as It did upon married women full powdr to i contract and be contracted with, on any and i onfall matters, no doubt this power carried with it the power to secure the performance i of her contracts by a mortgage or her proper- < ty, hence the necessity of Section 2 describing the manner of execution, and If this case i hud arisen before the amendment mentioned, when the powers of the wife wore unlimi ted, i doubtless the Judgment below would be held correct. But It has occurred since, and the i Act, as it now reuds, must bo applied to it; i and in making the application we are not to know that said words wero at any time absont or omitted. i As the section now reads, it must be admitted that no power to contract or be contracted i with except "as ti her separate estate" Is conferred upon a tnurried woman. That is the language of the section, and there is no am blgulty about it, ana more oginguumiumuu- , al power conferred elsewhere, the exercise of any other must be Illegal. Now 11 Is admitted, or at least the Judge has fouud as a matter of fact, and there Is no enceptlon to said finding, that the noi.es sued on here were not contracts "as to the eeparate cstato" of Mrs. Rush, so that the concl asloa Is inevitable, and the Circuit Judge has 30 held, that they must be expunged from the case. This leaves nothing but tho mortgage as to her. Can it be construed and held a contract "as to her separate estate?" If not. cc.n It. be enforced In face of the fact that she can make no other kind of contract? First, Is a mortgage a contract In the sense of the Act ? A contract Is on agreement founded upon a legal consideration, to do, or not to do, .ic., 1 &c. A mortcaee is tho imposition of a lien on certain property mentioned, given to secure a 1 contract, but it is something Independent of the contract Itself, and Is collateral thereto. It Is a means cousented to. by which the contract to which itjls collateral may be enforced. Doubtless, os we have said, the power to make 1 acoutract carrics with It the power to execute a mortgage to secure It, but where there Is no power to make the contract to be secured, whence coiner.li the power to secure it by a mortgage? If It exists atall It must be found elsewhere than in Scctton 2,u:t7. because, as we have seen, that confines the wife entirely to contracts, "as to her separate estate." It Is contended that It is found In the last clause of 1 2,u:;t>, quoted above, so that the question comes 1 hack again, does this clause coDfer such power ? We have already given our understanding of tho intent of this clause, to wit: that it 1 was no'hlng more titan to prescribe the manner of the execution of the papers, whlcti a wife could make under the other provisions 1 of tho Act, die., Ac. To support this view we 1 may say it can hardly be supposed that the 1 (ionerai Assembly intended to confer povrer on a married woman to make a mortgage of her eRtate tosecure u contract, which contract 1 It had decliucd to permit her to make. THIS is the exact case claimed here. It is conceded that the notos given by Mrs. Hush arc nullities as to her. on the ground that not having been made "as to her separate estate," she was without power to give them. They are, therefore, confessedly utterly void as 10 her, and yet it is claimed that 1 "she has made her estate liable to pay them by 1 her mortgage. There may bo, in some^respects, a difference 1 between one being liable personally on a contract, and certain of his property being mp.de liablo thereby?the difference between a con- ' tract in personam and a contract in rem. liut that difference cannot be interposed here to support the Judgment below. The scheme of 1 the married woman Act was chiefly?we may 1 say almost entirely?to protect her property, and to consecrate It to her U6e, especially 1 against the debts of her husband. \vc can- ( not, therefore, suppose that it was Intended to limit her power to contract personally, as 1 to her separate estate, and then give her the ' power to mortgage unlimited iy said estate, not only for her own debt, but for the debt of any one else, and whether contracted "as to 1 her separate estate or not," yet such would be ] the result of the position contended for. It 1 seems to us that before we could reach such a ( conclusion bearing such fruit, we should And 1 some language expressly conferring this re- l markable, inconsistent power, instead of rely- 1 lllg Oil a inert} nnuruucu 'tmnu uuui g,v;uvii?i terms like those In Section 2,030. ?Ylf this be the true doctrine, we would have the strange Inconsistency of a married wc- i man having no power to make any contract herself, except "as to lier separate estate," (Section 2,03V,) and yet having the power to pledge her whole estate by mortgage to secure 1 the contract of another, mado without reference to snld estate?thus sowing the seeds ol inevitable destruction In the very echcrac which the married woman's Act was Intend- ' ed to establish?the protection of her property, and its dedication, as it were, to her use, free from the debts and contracts of her husband. Let the doctrime contended for be the law, and the scheme of the Act Is gone; because It Is ' well kuown h$w willingly a confiding wife will execute any paper desired by her bus- | band, especially If thero be hope to Bave him , from wreak or financial ruin. But admit that a mortgage is a contract in 1 the sense of the Act, was it a contract here 1 "ns to the separate estate" of Mrs. Hush? 1 True, it embraces her separate estate, but did it have reference thereto in the sense of the ] Act? The only reference it had was to en- 1 cumber it wltli a lien for the contract of an- ' other, is such a reference included in the ' meaning of the words ,-as to her separate ' estate?'r Was it Intended by restricting a married woman to contracts "as to her sepa- ] rate estate" to Includeevery and all contracts that might in any way a fleet or bear upon said estate? If so, she had this power In iull 1 before these words were inserted in 1882, as 1 we have seen abovo.. as the section stood ] originally she had all the powers of a femme 1 note. She could make a contract of any kind, ] and her separate property was liable, like the 1 property ot any other debtor, to be reached ' by action and Judgment, and she could mort- \ gage it, as she pleased. Why then insert the 1 suggested words? It must have been because ' the Legislature saw the danger to her, In this * broad power, and with the view to shield her 1 from It, and doubtless to prevent her from do- I Ing the very thing attempted here, she was I confined by the amendment to contracts in- * tended to benetlt her estate, or at least hnv- ' ing some direct reference to It, independent j of any other contract to which it might be 1 attempted to ba pledged as a collateral. Vnu> tlm mnrhmiw tiorfi Is nnt a contract of ' this kind; It was not intended in itself to secure any benefit or Improvment to the separate estate, or fo effect it in any way In the sense of the act. Nor was it Intended to secure a contract made for that purpose. On the contrary, it was intended to secure the purchase money of a steam engine, bought by her husband, and, according to the facts found, having no reference whatever to the separate estate of Mrs, Rush. It Is not our province to suggest what the law should ho, either in this or 111 any other matter, und this we have not attempted here. Our duty Is to declare what the law is in Ihe case before us, and to tills we have confined ourselves, reaching the conclusion In so far as It depends upon the construction of the Constitution ana the Act of 1870, that the Judgment below must bo reversed. There Is now nothing lert but to show that our decided cases are not in conflict with the conclusion reached, which we think will appear from a short reference thereto. The cases In our reports touching tills subject are Wltsell t-s. Charleston, 7 N. C., SS; Uoss vs. hinder, 12 8. 592; l'elzer, Roilgers & Co. vs. Campbell, 15, S. C., 587; Wlttc vs. Wolf, 16 S.C./iiK!; Hall vs. Cllukscales, 15 S. C., 001: and the litle case of Ilabenlcht vs. Hau ls & Wllhalf. Mss. to bn In 21th B. U. In Wltsell vs. Charleston the contest was over certain City stock, personal property, and the main question involved was, whether a married woman, Mrs. Witsell, had power to alienate her stock under Article XIV, Section K. of the Constitution in which she had rm equitable estate at the tlmo of the adoption {; o 1 the Constitution. The Court held, under " the facts of that ease, unil (he character of the j trust, that she could, and incidentally having ' the power to alienate, she could pledge it for c her husband's debts. In ltoss vs. Llnder nothing was deckled, except. that a wife could bind herself by con- * tract. In Pelzer A Uogers vs. Campbell, a , married woman signed the notes of her son J as surety. The Court held that she could do J; so under the Act of 1S70, and further, that } there was nothing In the'Comtitution of ltUS which prevents the Legislature from giving a ' married woman rights and powers in addi- JLlon to those conferred by that instrument, as ? was done 111 the Act of 1870, to the extent of ' making her nfeunne itnlr, as to contracts genoral ly, Jtc. The Constitution having giv- " sn iter no other power but to bequeath, dovise V And alienate her separate estate. , In Cllnkseales vs. Hall, it was held that h l inaried woman might be sued at law upon a personal contract cntcrod into as surety for J' lier liusband. : In Witte and Wolf, the Court held that, a ^ married woman nnij contract. as surety for'" lier husband, and thereby tnuke herself and i " tier separate estate liable for the payment of j 11 Lhe debts, and also that under the Act of 1S701 " the could mortgage a tract, of land conveyed j V 10 her after the passage of that Act, * * j*| itid tliat, Indepently of the Constitution and 0 lie Act of 1870, she could mortgagoa tract of we come next to iiaoenicnt vs. uawis ana Wllhalf. This Is a recent decision, and slnca the amendment of 1882. It was a case In which Mrs. Agnews, a married woman, eniorsed certain notes made by Rawls and Wllhalf, In discharge of a lien which the payee of said notes held on a stock of goods af Raw Is and Wllhalf. The question In the case was, could she bs made liable on her eniorsoment? This Court held that while before the amendment, 1832, to the Act of 1870, and In accordance the cases mentioned above, bad the Indorsement been made then, she would have been responsible, yet that now, ind since the amendment. she could not be lield liable, as that amendment limited her power exclusively to contracts, the object of which was to affect directly her separate estate, as contradistinguished from a contract with an Intention merely to bind said separate estate. Mr. Justice Mclver, closing a most carefully considered opinion for the Court in these words: "If, therefore, a wife should sign a note as aurety for ber husband, or, Indeed, for any other person, and should declare in the note, In express terms, her intention to bind her Beparate estate, that would not make the contract valid as to her, unless It was made to appear that the contract, though, executed by her as surety, was designed to benefit ber separate property, or In some way related to or concerning such property." This case, we think. Is conclusive of the question. We have not referred to cases decided tn other States, for the reason that the question Involved Is malniy statutory. And as the Rtatutes of the different States differ materially In their provisions, the cases construing them elsewhere could give us no aid here. It is the Judgment of this Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed, and that the case be remanded, with leave to the plaintiff to apply below for Judgment against the defendant, J. N. Rush, for the amount due on the note. I concur. Henry Mclver, A. J. Filed April 20,1887. Messrs. Graydon & Graydon for appellants. Messrs. Porrin <fc C'othran, Sheppara Brothers for respondents. Dissenting Opinion by McGowan, A. J. T ?A?nnt /mnnttw In 4 1% I a In/lnrmonf T om on much dissatisfied with it ?hat I had intended to express my views upon the subject at some length, but I find myself under such circumstances as not to be able to do It at this time. Considerlug, however, its great Importance, I cannot consent to let it pass without indicating at least the heads of my objections. It seems to me that the opinion proceeds upon the mistaken view of going back to tbe common law as the basis of construction instead of to the Constitution of 18G8, which, as I conceive, was Intended to supersede the old common law doctrine as to the rights of married women, which as to property, substantially merged the existence or the wile into that of her husband, and to substitute therefor a fundamental constltlonal provision giving to married women civil existence not only as to the power of acquiring and holding property In ner own right, but also as to the corresponding power to dispose of It. The power to hold the fee, as a rule, carries with it the Inherent right to the jus disponendi; and when it was considered wise to make a great change as to the power of acquiring it was not unnatural that there should come with It a corresponding chanec as to tbe power of disposal. One being thclogical sequence of the other, otherwise the power to receive and hold, without the power of disposal, would have In it something of that element which made the mortmain laws so objectionable. The provision of the Constitution is as follow : vThe real and personal property of a woman, held at the time of her marriage, or that which she may thereafter acquire, either by gift, grant, inheritance, devlso, or otherwise, shall not-be sublect to levy and sale for Ler husband's debts, out shall be held as her separate property, and may be bequeathed, devised or alienated by her, the same as if she were unmarried," &c. I would ask If there is any one whose mind is unbiassed by long familiarity with the common law doctrine, who can read this provision as a whole without being perfectly satisfied that the purpose was three-told ; first, to supersede the common law by endowing a married woman with the power to acquire and hold property in her own right; second, to protect that property irom, not her own, but her husband's debts; and third, to give her the general power ol ilsposal thereof, "the same as If she were unmarried." The words -'bequeath or devise," onabllng her to dispose of her property at her rieath. and the word "alienate" to dispose ol It during her life. It It uot plain that the grant of the power to acquire and "alienate" property gave at the same time the power to contract, so far, at least, as was nccessary to the act of acquiring ar of alienating? It Is not allowable to assume that a constitutional provision would glvo a power without giving also the means accessary to execute It. As it seems to me, ihe power to purchase and alienate necessarily carrics the power to make a contract in respect to the property. In my Judgment, the power of a married woman to contract In reSpect to her separate estate was not given to her by any Act of the Legislature, but by the Constitution 1 tselr, which gave her the express powers to acquire, hold in her own name, and to "alienate" It, and all power* necessary In executing th?"se expressly given. This was certainly the contemporaneous construction. In 1870 the Legislature passed tho "Act to carry Into effect the provisions ol the Constitution in relation to the rights of married women," which, after repeating the very words of the Constitution, then, in order to make the matter more clear and full, proceeded as follows: "A married woman shall have power to bequeath, devise or convey her separate property in the same manner and to I,he same extent as if she were unmarried, * " * and all deeds, mortgages and legal Instruments of whatever kind shall be executed by her in the same manner and have the same legal force and effect as If she were unmarried. A married woman shall have the right to purchase any species of property in lior own name and to talce proper legal conveyance therefor, and to contract and be contracted with the same manner as If the were unmarried," Ac. In giving interpretation to this Act In the ?a.se of Pelzer, Rodgers & Co. vs. Campbell & Tact that the terms of tho Act arc more full than those of the Constitution, said: "It Is plain that tluse apparent additions were noihlng more than stilting fully and particularly what was properly inferable from the powers given in the Constitution to devise, bequeath or alienate." So as to the third section: Can It be fairly, and with entire jonfldence, affirmed that the powers expressly given In the Constitution to acquire property by gift, grant. Inheritance, devise or jtherwlse, do not Include and authorize the subordinate powers specified by the Act to purchase property In her owh name, and take proper legal conveyances therefor, and to ;ontract and be contracted? It Is asked, irlth some force, how could she purchase or :onvey without the power to contract? It is nslsted that tho particulars of the Act are lothlng more than the tilling up of the genjral outline indicated by tlie Constitution, fcc., pane 5!)2. See also the case of Wltsell vs. Charleston, 7 S. C., 88. The Constitution gives to a married woman the express power to "alienate" her separate ;state. What does that mean? The word 'alienate" does not express any particular form of transfer, but is a general term and unbraces all the forms of transfer known to it'e law, on the principle that the whole lull tides all its parts. "To alienate is to pass property from one >erson to another." (1 L. and li. Law Diet, inder title "Alienate.") Does It not include i sale for consideration, or a gift without coniideration, or a deed of conveyance absolute >r conditional, for life or for years? And If ;o, why not a mortgage as slated in the exJlanatory Act? Suppose there was here no tatutary or constitutional "separate estate," )Ui one creaieo iiuuer me oiu iniun.jr uwuiuo >y u deed of settlement inter paries, and the dentlcul words of the Constitution, "belueath, dovlse or alienate," were used In alelng the powers, would not the broad and [onoral term "alienate" give the cestui que rust In equity the right to charge the estate vltli a mortgage? (.'an there be a doubt upon he subject? As Mr. Bishop says: "Out of he power which a femme covert has to dispose >f her separate estate, or of the Income there>f, whether the power proceeds from express vords In the deed of settlement, or from the {obstruction of the Court, where the settlenent Is silent respecting it. ({rows the lesser >ower, which is Included in tho other, to hurgc the estate with a specific debt or engagement. Tins general doctrine is univerml in our American Courts, that tills lesser >ower exists whereverlllie greater docs." Ac. Bishop on tho L. of M. \V\, Section 370, and mses in Notes. Again, at Suction 872, the same author says: Jt is but reiterating in another form of rords what has already been laid down, to ay that if a married woman lias the authorly to convey her separate estate she can liereforc pledge or charge it with a debt or ngngement whenever she employs express eiins, or those which necessarily carry with hem this intent. What will constitute a hurge upon tho estate !'is,". in the (language f Harris J? In a New York case, "simply a ule of evidence. All agree that when a wife ins expressly charged tiie payment of a debt pon her separate estate, whether it be her i\v 11 debt or the debt of another, such charge < valid and will be enforced." Yale vs. Jedercr, IS N. Y., 1MB and notes. It is true .Mr. Bishop is not of our own tatc, but he is certainly a respectable authorLy, ami after a very careful perusal of his ro;k. 1 think I can venture toatllrm that the bovcquotations contain that which Ik uuouhtedly good equity in England, and I tilnk also of overy other .State of the Union, nd I should be sorry Indeed to si-e south arollna alone repudiate a doctrine which Is u sensible, Just and equitable and so well Blabllshed everywhere else. Hut it Is said It has been decided in this \ State that a mortgage Is not an alienation, i Warren vs. Raymond, 17 B.C., 173,and Simmons vs. Brycc, 10 S, 0. True enough, It has been often held, and properly held, that until the mortgager Is out of possession a mortgage Is not a complete alienation in the sense of the statute of W. and M., so as to place the ' property conveyed or "aliened" beyond the reach of creditors of the ancestor. But surely it cannot be necessary to show that that case has not the remotest analogy to thin, nor anything whatever to do with a question as to what is embraced within the broad and general terra a married woman, I suppose that the power to "alienate" would cover and erabraco the lease ol the premises for a month or a year, but it would not be assuredly on the mound that the lease was a perfect alienation but because, in reference to a power, the fho looaof Tt IfiimnnfifllnlA til entertain the idea for a moment that the power to "alienate" gives tho right to exercise no control of the property, short of a complete and absolute alienation. It is as certain as unything can be that down to 1880, when the case of Pelzer. Rodgers <fc Co. was decided, the law lu this State was perfectly well settled, both by the Legislature and the Courts, that a married woman had the right not only to charge lier separate estate by a mortguge executed for that purpose, but to bind herself by general personal engagements, without any reference to her separate estate. See Wolf vs. Witte, and other cases cited by the Chldf Justice. But in 1SS2, on the passage of the General Statutes through the Legislature, the Act of 1870, above quoted, was amended by Inserting in the fourth line of the third section, after the words "contracted with," the simple phrase "as to her separate esLate!" so that the section now reads: "A married woman shall have the right to purchase any species of property In her own name, and to take proper legal conveyances therefor, and to contract and be contracted with-as toother separate property In tbs same manner as if she were unmarried." See Sec. 8,087, General Statutes. And It Is now contended that these five words Inserted in the Act changed fundamentally the powers of a murriod woman, and that she cannot now charge her separate estate by giving a mortgage of it for the debt of another. As it seems to me, tbjs is a grave error, arising for the most part out of the miafoiron viou ihiit th? tiowers of a. married woman did not originate in the Constitution, but were created by tbe express power to contract given in the Act of the Legislature, which was amended as before stated. This view, as It seems to me, causing much more Importance to be attached to the short amendment than It Is entitled to, I suppose ltis my fault, but I confess that I am unable to understand tbe process by which the conclusion about to be announced Is reached. First. The little amendment does not purport to repeal anything; all that It claims to do lstoameod the Act of 1870, so as to limit the power to contract, therein given ln'genersl terms, to the separate estate of the married woman. Even that purpose was not In terms declared, but this Court has held in the recent case of Habenlcht vs. Rawls, that limiting the power of contract to the separate estate, was a negation of the power except as to such estate; that Is to say. It repealed by Implication the power given by that Act (not by the Constitution) to make such general personal contracts as might be sued at law. It must not be overlooked that there la a great difference between such general power In a married woman and her contracts with express reference to and charged upon her separate estate. Second. Bat I deny most positively that the little amendment, potential as it is claimed to be, had any effect whatever upon the powers which were given by the Constitution and involved In the great power to "alienate" generally, as we have hereinbefore endeavored to show. The amendment of the Act or 1870 was nothing more than an Act of the Legislature, and did not and, of course, could not repeal any right given by tbe Constitution. If It had attempted to do so tbe uffort would have been futllo and vain, and.lt it. hn.fi in terms renealed the whole of the Act of 1870, including the declaration in it that a married woman could charge ber separate eatate with a mortgage, most surely that would not have affected the Constitution itself. All tha rights and powers given by the Constitution are as Intact to-day as If the little amend* ment had never beeu made. Third. 1 have not the least Idea, however, that the Legislature, in making the amendment, ever dreamed of the very large effect, now about to be given to it. The Act, after the amendment was Incorporated, reads as follows: "A married woman shall have power to bequeath, devise or convey ber separate property in the same manner and to the same extent as if she were unmarried, and all deeds, mortgages and legal Instruments, of whatever kind, shall be executed by her In the same manner and have the same legal force and effect as if she were unmarried * A married woman shall have the right to purchase any species of property in her own name, and to take proper legal conveyances therefor, and to contract and be contrcted with as to her separate estate in the same manner as If she were unmarried," Ac. Would It not be most extraordinary if the words in the third section, "as to her separate estate," should be held to destroy most of the other provisions In the same Act? Itlsone of the rules of construction that we must assume that every part of the Act wa isntended to have some meaning. It is a judicious habit ot Courts 1 o seek for some construction by which every part of the statute may be given Its proper effcct. In my Judgmeut such construction Is at hand here. A construction which harmonizes all parts of the Act is not Inconsistent with the Constitution?Is In exact accordance with the words used, and, as I believe, also with the intention of the lawmakers. The words " as to her separate es Uite" were munuesuy lueeriea ior uie puryuuc of nmklug an exception to a propoied llmitai Jon upon the power to contract, and therefore they do not intimate any change of the law to the extent of the exception; that is to say, ru to her separate estute\ as to that tbe law . stands entirely untouched by the amendment. Then is it not obviously the proper con?truolion that tbe framers of the amendment intended to leave entirely unaffected tbe powers of a married woman as to her separate estate, but to take from her the power to make personal and general contracts, without any reference to her separate estate, such as notes, 1 bonds, endorsements, guarantees, 4c., which latter power being given by the Act of 1870, was repealable 7 Keeping in view that the object was to repeal so much of tbe Act of 1870 as gave tbe power to contract generally, and not to limit (which the Legislature could not) any power to contract arising out of the OonstUtUion, the words used were appropriate, aud are lutelllglble. What is the ordinary phase, "as to"? Is there any one living who, upon being asked tbe queHtlon, would not on the instant answer that it moans "with respect to," "in reference to ""concerning,""about"? Accordingly we And that the dictionaries (Webster and Worcester) declare the definition to be "with respect to." That being the cause, what warrent is there for making the phrase "as to" mean "in consideration of," or "for the benefit of? If such be the proper construction, the provision Is ciearly unconstitutional, us underia(r(.?nr*/\ maHHU ?xr (th a matter nlrPftdv fixed by that instrument. But it is manliest, as it seems to me, that such is not the proper meaning of the phrase. To describe the property specifically and declare the purpose answers fully the definition ''with respect to." If a married womau should convey her estate lor any purpose whatever, would that not be "In respect to it?" If she should give It away, would that not be "with reference" to it? And If she should charge it, describing it clearly, by mortgage or otherwise, who can say that that wonld not be "in reference to" that part of her separate estate? I confess I cannot soe the necessity of straining a meaning Into the phrase which the words do not require, and especially as i>uch construction makes an Act of the Legislature In effect repeal a provision of the Constitution* On the other hand, the natural construction Is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, gives effect to all the different parts of the Act, and makes the law as a whole consistent and symmetrical?taking from a married woman the right to contract ?n the air, that Is, to make general personal engagements given to her by the Act of 1870; but leaving her. as the Constitution endowed her, with the power "to alienate ," that is to say, to sell, convey, give, lease, mortgage or charge in any other way her separate estate at her own will and pleasure "as If she were unraarHod " Tho Constitution. In my Judgment, cave her ttiese rights, and no mere Act of the Legislature can take them away from lier. The Constitution added largely to her power of taking aud holding property In her own right, and I have never been able to see why It should be regarded so dangerous when, at the same time, It Increases her control over the very thing given. Hut wise or unwl?e, politic or impolitic, the Constitution gave her thoso rights, and I know ofno authority, short of a constitutional provision that can take them away from her. With an earnestness, increased perhaps by witnessing the struggle to get back to the old chaos and confusion "in respect to" the rights of married women, I repeat the closing remark oftheoplulon in the case of Pel zer, Rodgers & Co. vs. Campbell & Co.: "In the language of Chancellor ward law, we hope It may never be considered improper for the wife to contribute, by all lawful means, to the success of her nusuanu's enrorpriseK. m iuuu> oiaes > , Is both politic and dutiful that such power should be exercised." j I am clearly of opinion that the ruling of Judgo Hudson wus right and should be , affirmed. SI,000 dollars worth of School Claims want- ] ed. Will give goods at closo cash prices, or , will take them at 7 per ceut. oflf lace value. . W. E. Hell. 4-13 lluy spectacles from H. D. Itcese. He has all sorts. 4-13 r White Goods! lean suit you In anything ' In white goods you will need for summer: ' White robes, white flouncing. W. E. Bell. 4-13 German millet seed! For sale by W.Joel Smith <fc Son. 4-13 c Before buying a silk dress It will pay you to examine our stock, black aud colored. A few t patterns summer silks to close at less than S'ew York cost R. M. Haddon it Co. 4-13 Nolingham lace aud scrim curtains. TlvoII drapery and curtains at K. M. Haddon & 1 Cos. 4-13 Figured batiste, yard wide, beautiful pat 1 ternB at 12 l-3o, at tt. M. Haddou <S Co's, 4-1 \ CAMBRID&E'S FERTILE HILLS I K] KATE FOWLER'8 PURLING RILL - WIL- |M SON'S MEANDERING RIVULET. H A May Day Without a Plctaic?Glorl* 9 ous Religious Revival ? Doctor* fl Expected to Tarn Hog Drovers? I "KMt End" and the City Father* B go on a Dog-Killing Festival?An I Ailment Which Temporarily D?? H troys Beanty? Farmers Determin* I ed to Provide not Only for Their H Households, bat for Their Cattle, H too ? The Sons of Temperance Gaining Ground?Call to Prayer. H Ninety-Six, 8. C., May 8,1887. fl For once oar people have pasned the first day of May without some sort of festivity. It H is a burning shame. No holiday, no picnic, H no "queen o' the May," not even a fishing B| party. B We imagine old Charleston was in all her B glory Inst week, filled to overflowing with people from all parts of the State, yet Mae ty - Six wan not represented. Our people must be excused. For two weeks nearly every man, M woman and child In the community has been H attending one of the best reliKious meetings ever held here. Religious enthusiasm bus permeated nearly every household, and they ?* had but little time to look after worldly enJoyraenta. The Rev. Q. H. Carter of Green wood, preached one of his best sermons at the Baptin^ church In this place last Wednesday night. Four persons were added to the church. Kaffir corn has been planted extensively In onrcommunlty, and will be cheap next year, still we advise every one who can to plant some. H. J. KInard's Is headquarters for furniture, sewing machines and sewing machine attachments. Call and see him. Dr. Taggart, witb the Board of Healtb. has been malting the grand rounds, and we hope our town will be put in flretrclass sanitary condition. Don't stop, Doctor, until every suggestion and recommendation Is carried out. The council and citizens will back you. Run every hog out of town. The street committee are entitled to the thanks of every citizen. They are doing their full duty and understand their business. The many friends of Mr. Thomas Duckett will be glnd to know that he is up again. Mr. Quattlebaum has bought ana sent to Augusta another lot of fine milch cows. Mr. Henry Hill, of Johnston's, formerly of this place, was In town last week. Dr. W. A. Llmbecker, who has been on anextended visit to Augusta and Aiken, has returned. The charming Miss Annie Wofford, of Woodruff) who has been visiting Mrs. A. 8. Osborne, nan returned to her home ranch to the regret of some of onr handsome young beaux. Mr. J. D. Beacham and wife, of Greenwood township, were down last week visiting friends and attending the meeting. The Rev. Mr. Woods, colporteur of Cokesbury District Methodist church, preached at Lebanon last Sunday. r The many friends of Mr. "W. F. Roderick regret to hear of the death of his wife which occurred on the 23d nltlrao. Mr. Roderick htw the sympathy of the whole community. Mrs. Roderick was sister to Mrs. W. L. Fouche of our town. - Ji Wardens Anderson and Wilson, assisted by "East End," killed a mad dog one day last week. * - % Miss Dorn.who has been visiting her ooasln Mrs. Wm. Johnson for several weeks, has returned to her home in Edgefield county. Col. Alex. Stuart, of Greenville, S. was In town last Thursday oa business. There are several cases of roseola In town. There Is no harm In It except for the time It destroys beauty; so the girls had better look out. More clover hay Is and can be made In the vicinity of Ninety-Six than any other part of South Carolina, and still hay is selling for 81.15 per hundred. We hope the Board of Health will not bo content until tbey get rid of their own hogs and then force everybody else to go and ao likewise. Our Lodge of Sons of Temperance is on the increase?new members coming in at every meeting. Will soon have one hundred. Furmer Smith is ahead. His neighbors do say that he has the best prospect for a crop they have seen. We are glad to hear that the Abbeville RU fles acquitted themselves with so much honor on tbelr recent trip to "the City by the Sea." We predicted this when we heard that McGo wan. Smith and Lytbgoe were in charge. Mr. W. H. Fowler's fine stallion "Sensa- , tion," which was afflicted with pleurasy from a kick has entirely recovered. Mr. E. s. Addison has some of the finest Berkshire pigs In Edgefield county. All eligible to registration. j Mr. Wyatt Aiken was In town last Saturday and bought some kafflr corn and SpaolBb plnders. His head Is level. The merchants of our town have agreed to . > close their stores at 6 o'clock. The farmers of our section are determined not to be left behind another year as far as feed is concerned. Tbey are planting a variety of crops, such as orange and amber cane. kafflr and dora corn, german millet, besides a larger acreage of Indian corn. These are all profitable croon, and the farmer who falls to ' "provide for his household" as well as food for Ills milk cows and bensts of burden Is worse than an infidel. Bountiful producers will build un our country, and sole consum- * 6rs will tear It down. me rvev. n. v,. ouiurt prcuciiBu twu cawti- ? lent sermons here on last Sabbath. He also administered the ordinance of baptism to live persons. Judge J. J. Norton spent last Sabbath In oar town, visiting his brother-in-law Mayor m Watson. The Rev. Mr. Probst's remnrks la the Presbyterian church on last Sunday evening were very appropriate Indeed. The Rev. w. P. Meadors filled his regular appointment in the Methodist pulpit at 3 p. m., and preached one of the best sermons we have heard for a long time. Mr*. L, M. Moore, who has been speeding some time at Rome, Ga., has returned. Seven new members were added to the Lodge of Sons of Temperance on last Thursday evening. Mr. Lclicn, the evangelist, who has been confined to his bed at the parsonage in this place for eight or ten days is up again. He will rest awhile before entering upon his labora. He has done a great deal or good hero and the Christian people of our place will remember him. A purse of over 8100 was raised and presented to film. Our old friend Col. Thomas C. Lipscomb, who has been quite sick, we are glad to say is much better and will soon bo out. We Irust the good people with one accord will go to work and reorganize the union prayer meeting. We had almost learned to look upon tbisasonflof the "landmarks" of Ninety-Six. For twenty odd years it was kept up and wus a subject of remark at every conference association and presbytery In the land. About two years ago It was discontinued, something got wrong. We will not say who was to blame, but we will charge ltsel nsnness, inuepeiiuenuaui ut luwnanuiic^, Ninety-six has lost ground ever since. So now lets go to work and reorganize It. EAST END. ZION'S HOLY HILL. Peas Upon the Trencher ? Ladies Adorucd with two Millinery Stores ?Fine Wheat and Oats?Beautiful Oh n relies in the Prospective?Orderly and Well Bchavod Trade. Mt. Carmel, May 2 18S7. Sunday was a beautiful day. aud was well spent by our people attending Sabbath School in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian church at 10 o'clock, and services by the pastor at 11:300 o'clock A.M. Services In the afternoon by Mr. Lindsay of Delaware who preached a most excellent sermon. Sunday Hail n?.r> o'clock : so vou see we had quite a succession of religious services. Mr. P. C. Martin who lives near Trotters Shoals on Savannah River says he has the finest wheat and oats he lias had for years. This Is eucouraging, let us hearjfroin the fanners everywhere. Mrs. M. C. Parker has returned from market with a beautiful line of millinery. Our town is very quiet In the way of trade. OurHighSchool Is In a fiourinhlngcondltion. The trustees of Zoar church have purchased from Mrf. Morrah a lot, a beautiful situation upon which they hope soon to erect a handsome church. This is a good step in the right direction. Let all put their shoulder to the wheel aud the Methodists will, soon liave a church In town. Mr. M. C. Cirahara Is off for Wllllngtou where he Is painting Dr. Llnk.s new store. Mr. Graham knows exactly how to handle the brush. Mrs. Boykln has returned from Edgefield, where she speut a pleasant time. Mrs. L. T. Paschal Is opening a fine stock of millinery and ladles goods In the store receuty occuplcd by Mr. T. P. Paschal. Our ladies ,vlll now adorn themselves with lovely bonnets and hats?two millinery stores iu our own. Mt. Carmel will be a city some day. W? are glad to see worK commenced on?o Tiore on the Presbyterian church, and wo iope they will soou have a nice church to vorship In. Peoplo should leave their dogs at home, vhen they go to church, as they are a milsnice, and tend to distract the attention of a iongrecatlon. Mr. J. L. Wells Is feasting on green peashe first we have heard of In this section. M. Ruchltig Iu black, white, cream and colored. V. E. Bell. 4-1.1 Lawns, calicoes, bulesite DeOrgandles, and tyrat stripes for ladies aud misses dresses. V. E. Bell. 4-13 - .-tat