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.

p ' i /BL" 1 111 --J?g" ^ m Clje messenger. M. Ti. BONFIAM.Jr., ( Editors and J AS. S. 1'EKllIN, f Pkoprif.torb. TUESDAY. March 30 1886. . A PLEA FOIL THE RENTERS. The system of renting tho farms of ^our county is radically wrong and creates .dissatisfaction on the one hand and exhaustion of the lands on the other. Many of our citizens find it necessary to rent from year to year and indeed many of the owners of farms prefer to let out their lands. This being the case some plan should be adopted that would work to the mutual benefit of both lesser and lessee. As matters now stand the renter enters into a contract for one year and at the end of it, pulls up and .Reeks another home, not home but rather a shelter. This is most disastrous, both pecuniarily and morally tothercnand injurious to the lands cultivated under this system. The rent under tho . one year plan is too high, consequently the eiiort ot the tenant is directed more ' towards getting out of the land a full crop, than to the preservation of the Boil. He feels no interest in improving the soil, but is necessarily forced to extract its power to produce rather than to ,.add to its quality. He exhausts and .does not build up. But, with all this ,e4Tort, he finds that he barely conies out even and he becomes dissatisfied and thinks a change ma}' promote his interest. The renter then goes from one place to another year After j-ear, and his condition is not imnroved. His stock is V poor, his farm tools worn out, his household comforts most meagre, and general dilapidation exists. Worse perhaps than all. his family form 110 attachment for home and soon become divided. They cannot attend school regularly and have no stated place to go to church, ' ' and surely there is nothing that tends So to conserve and preserve the morals .of our country as the regular and systematic attendance of divine worship. V , . These arc some of the effects upon the renter. The owner of the land is also injured :in his property especially by the one year system. His tenant has no incentive to build up his land, nor to improve .the house? or places under his care. Ditches are not properly opened and the ~ : 1 t Aftim wvci uu\>ui|; miu ui;u?nnt?5? 111 Til ft11y capes almost useless. And year by year -he finds bis property growing loss in value and his rents proportionally re.duced. The system is wrong and there should -be a general chance. Lot the lease sj*siom of three or five years be adopted * \ and the rents .mad? lowor because of the iinnrovement that will follow and of the ccrtainity attending their collection. It is better to pet lower rent and know that it will certainly bo paid yonr after year than have the promise of a high rent with a probability of losing it. Of /purse, the right to remain for the whoV jterjtn would depend upon the pnymeut > . ;of each year's rent. Who can doubt the effect of such a plan ? Lessor and lessee would be benefitted. Thore would be an' incentive on the part of jthe one to pay promptly because he had nt least a temporary abiding plaep. and a'ro to improve the land worked by him. ' v .On the other hand the owner of th*> Jand seeing that he had tenantry, could afford to reduce his rents and find that lie was more than repai:l in the increased value of his lands. Let this plan be tried. ;We present to our readers thin week an able and interesting essay delivered by Col. O. T. Calhoun before the Abbe- i .ville Literary Club, on the night of i March 26th. The club met at the resi- 1 /Jence of Col. E. B. Gary. ' K The essayist selected a very "live" ' j>n4 polling question and has treated jtintb much discretion and decision. ? We know of no question that, has been, ; and continues to he of so much interest ' ns that of the repeal of the lien law. { .jWe suggest to the farmer's convention iwhicV^P'about io meet that this is a ' matter to which they may profitable do- ' vntomuch discussion. Since tUey are \ principally interested in the retention up- t on the statute books, of this law anc^ i thevavious amendments, or the repeal 1 thereaf, it behooves them after mature v deliberation to say what legislation is v desirable in the premises, ami to take d steps to secure the same. All this is i true, Jikewise of the Homestead law (l Tho remarks of the guests preKent at t the meeting together with the fine essa3' ? make interesting reading. V _____ ' We are sure our neighbor of the Prexa ? and Banner last week, did not mean to x J_ ?til. ill aw mo iiiw lAio tuiui vvci^- iv I ill lilt* r School^Commissioner and tho trustees of White,/Hall townnhip. It is in no sense of the word a fight of'ours, noi t do we propose to be drawn into it. A ii sense of justice, however, compels ? '? to say that these officials aro good am: true men and we do not believe they ^ are oapable of sd degrading tboir m.ui t 5&jhood, as to do otherwise than fWbir n>p- a science and sense of right would dictate Nor do vo cast any reflections upon the ^ petitioners. Their efforts to secure n r fcbool are praiseworthy, but we believe i k:: they will gracefully yield to the inevit *bfe and cast no a*p<?rfiions upon tlu fepfflicials who have honestly discharges their unpleasant duties. d _y mmmmmmmammaimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmammman THE LITERARY" CLUB, j i ADDRESS OF COL. OUVILLE T. CAL- I HOUNON THE HOMESTEAD AND LIEN LAWS. i 1 The Fruitful Source of nil our Ills-Shall they be Repealed ?--Interesting; \ Discussion. ? t i No laws on our Statue books, have boon so i much discussed, and caused so much legishi- v tion, us the two which fortn the subject of litis t essay ; and it is with diJlidclice, that 1 pre- i sunie to {rive my views of them, csnrehillv-1 < tlii: lien law. This law lias occupied tile attention of all classes of our people, for i years past, and has been much discussed in the press, in the halls of our Legislature and upon the hustings. Yet all this discussion ? has wrought but little change in the minds of ~ nor people. Anions farmers, there are many t who demand its repeal, while on the other hand, the merchants and the laboring classes, as a rule, think it a good law, and our Legis- j lators, like our people, are divided, and are at a loss to know what to do with it. In 1877, the law was repealed, but imme- j diatelv there went up such a howl, that it was () re-enacted by the same Legislature that, repealed it, and is still on our Statue books, though many have thought, that each succeed ing Legislature would abolish it. . The law as lust passed, gave to the mer- j" chant the preference, but since then many jj chauges have been made, all tending to render it less objectionable to the farmer; but I can ' safely say that, as it stands to-day, there are more objections to it, by both merchant and n farmer than ever before, in fact it seems to ^ be one of those laws, that will not admit of a compromise. It must be repealed, or let r alone, and the question is shall we repeal it ? If not, then the best plan would be to change it to what it was before our last Legislature interfered With it, for as it then stood, our p farmers were amply protected, without their i: rights.being too much trampled upon. Hut t the change left the merchant so much at the v mercy of the landlord and laborer that they v have been compelled to unite for common pro- ti tection, and by refusing credit, have forced t the landlord to waive his right, and allow the ii merchant, to stand in his shoes, and to-day a the merchants occupy* about the same position they did under the law, as first pass- ii ed. >i NOT A PARTISAN. In discussing these important laws, I shall not do so, as a partisan ot the merchant, or , tarnii*!*- fill* I ..?? 4 1- * --* 1 i (i 111 hi<j menu ot Until, w think the success of one, is to be as much tiesired as that of the other. ^ It. is true that the farmer is the souce of all wealth, and must be Sully protected urn!or our j( laws, but he cannot succeed without the nier- j (j chant, nor the merchant without him. Tlii-n j, if they are so necessary, one to tlie!^ other, they should look uuon every question j that effects them, from a purely business i ' point* By so doing, each wouid help the I j other, and both would grow prosperous tiigcth- ! er. Unfortunately, however, our people arc j n easily led astray by howling demagogues, ; p who under the clonk of friendship tor the ; u dear people, keei? themselves in oilicc by h working on their prejudices and arraying one j tl class against another. I have chosen these laws as the subject of p this essay, because thev are so dependent, t< one upon the other, that they must stand or a fall together. .A fid after much thought I have concluded that they are the stumbling blocks | b in the way of our urospority and should be a repealed. i l< SUTLOOK3. |" Theprincipal security in South Caroliun is :s real estate, which to a great extent is made ? valueless as a security bj- tke homestead law, thus depriving our people of a basis of credit, ; ^ and thereby keeping capital out of the Slate, i j, and thowing us upon" the tender mercies of : (), local Shy locks. This is so, for all political economist will tell you that money follows security, and the ; better the security the lower the rate of in- j ri leri-st. Now land being about the only tl security the farmers of this State have upon \ m which to borrow money and the homestead | w being an incumIterance thereby lowering its tl value as a security, it must t'oliow that this | ti lnvv l*ao l- A 1 - < <?* iiiiiuii 10 no witii tlu* high lii rase of .interest we have been paying. ai TDK UOMK8TEAD I.AW. V I' It has been suid that the hemestead law lias U1 done more to impoverish Jvuith Carolina tliiin the ravages of the late war, and if we (j, will but examine the question closely we will see that this speech is not extravagant. c? Just to think think that money for years past aJ. could be borrowed in New York for from three '( , to six per cent, per annum, when we have t;1 been paying from ten to twentv percent Let ^ i;ny one make the calculation of what the ja excess of interest we have paid has cost this ,j( Htate in the last eighteen ysars and he will Bee thai the value of our negroes set free |IC by the result of the late war amounts to less. 1 don't mean money actually borrowed, but tu the additional cost to the consumer growing out of tin* scarcity of money, but this is only one, out of many ways, in which the homestead law works an injury. It encour- at< iig<? extravagance unl idleness and lowers an the morals. be Let a man understand that what he owes, is good for his debts, and he will buy lees and lai work harder to pay for what he hm-a wi..i~ on the* other hand, if he can claim ihe home- co stead he will run greater risks in buying and coi work less to pay what he owes, because he i'oi thinks tl.a-if his crops prove insuUicient to tin pav bia debts, he can riouge behind the home- tri stead, and avoid paying his debts; but let him is understand that all his property can be void sli o satisfy his creditors, and my word for it < se will slinn debt as lie would fire, be will rise a y iarly and work late, and all of this w?ll bring coi tiin wealth and happiness. ts I have sam (hat the homestead law has h wli end-ncy to lower morals, and If so, then it coi mould be repealed, for poor human nature is ha laturally prone to travel the crooked paths of as ife, and when it can do so under the suction fai if law, the temptation is too great to bo re- rer istud. uii How many men in this County could get 'J redit if tbey proclaimed beforehand that they bri ntended to'claim the bonist.?ad, when called tro ipon to pay their debts ? We all know thai bo here are very few. When men want credit, hey promise to pay for what they buy or bor- A ow and nine out of ten would be much insult - j d, if told they would claim the homestead ox vhen called upon to meet their obligations. Hut, alas, when (he euil day comes, these f(f 'cry men will say : "The law gives us a hometead, and.though we did not intend to claim ina t when we contracted our deb s, yet vce must ,,.fl io so to protect our families. ^ In short the law gives them the right auil .en hey claim the homestead to avoid the uay nenr <>t their ctebje, and thereby lose their g',"j! ;uod names, and aro consigned to povert y for " I he balance of their days, tor all know thut to i man wittf a slain upon his reputation, the \ oad to fortune is hard to travel. rni, L OOOD NAME WORTH f.OltK TIIA.S A riOMB- :>f ' HTZI.U. ""1C ay* A pond name ia worth more to a ninti th??:> :u t ift*en hundred doiinrs. Oontbiue v?i?h i? ;><? * . iiith and energy, and a run-n'c:iri soon mi.k? un f'ei.ri hundred doilar.s, but once lost i? >s k.v ar:J to regit in. A man may railv nod natch up hi* oharac- , 1t>r? hot a dishonorable deed ouco ro/nmit tci : >!< rill be r< mbere?5 as (oug ;is ho lives,and s>imc- r.on imo?, will affect his children even 'o the third for nd fourth generations. Th< Ah i have said the homestead law ha* n aoi cndency to lead our people from the path ol >wi loral rectitude and in ndditiou to this undei iwi ecent decisions of the Supreme Conrt it doe* mm ot ufford that protection which was contem- in x luted hy tho Constitution. con The Constitution evidently intended to giv ;efl! each head of a family a home (that is on. imj uousand doilum in real estate and Ave huu- cull red dollars in pertooat property) which for< should be exempt from "attachment and sale gro tnd cr any mesne or final process issued (ncl rom any court," and which the head of the the amily could not sell or mortgage. Hut under l?ib< i recent decision of our Supreme Court a ly s louistead can he sold or mortgaged before eas >r after it is laid off, which, in effect, is about gro lie same us repealing it, for under t iiia decis- yea on a person claiming the homestead, though ore] le may avoid the payment of debts then the re ?sinir. will in the end lose his homestead, gun W'tiiMi a person claims the hnnestcad lie tug >roc!a;ms to thv* world that he will avoid the 'it"* lavment of his debts, and (litis forenamed, no W me will credit him wilhout security, and as ttevi lie Supreme Court, lias decided that a inort- but j.i/e < !' the homestead is good, it is natural sup] os%ttj>po<e that when credit is asked, a niort- >he ra;;e will iv-ipitrod, :i'i i we all know that teliti vhen a ma:: mortgages; his proper!--' for pup- late liehe places himself entirely at I lie mercy pay if the me"C'ias?J. it mutters nyt what prices who ire asked tVir what he buys, he must pay what B s demanded. "egi CoNSlUXKD TO I'OVKUTY?NO RKCISIT. i, lie cannot say u yon ?!?> not let me h.ivo tjlu roods cheaper 1 will go elsewhere, for no c'n- i)0?; >r merchant will sell to him and the result is ailll hat. the homestead is sold to pay the snort- t rage debt, ami the poor wretch, will go forth irllr( ilto the world without honor or home and. as st|.e have said, consigned to poverty for the rent if his lite. ~ ' ' ["? So wo run ro:i'lily sec Mint the homes'ead *j<( nw,under the decision nltnv e mentioned is HO|j, if no benefit but has a tendency to lo.ver com uorals. As far as i am able (<? learn, tbe cbeif ob- CBKI ection among us to tin? repeal of tho home- Ai lead law is the fear that debts, contracted thai lefore its repeal could be collect cd out of the too! mmcstcad. This could not lie, as our con- acte t'tutio'.i prohibits ex />ost J'uofo laws, and u d herefore if the law was repealed the home- undi tend would serve its n basis of credit. and the j nr landed property bring a better security. And 'apitalists would seek to invest their money the I ritb us and competition would soon lower the who ate of interest. it ui COMPETITION Wtl.l. FOI.I.OW ltKPKAI.. ^ori One of the greatest benefits that would L'jyJ row out of the repeal of the homestead law s competition in trade. What a mail owned |()Se hen would be good for his debts, and this ronld give him credit with siiiv merchant j101J yhicii would, enable him to buy from the | iierchant who would sell the cheapest and jj?n? lie merchants bciuj: more certain of receiv- ' ng pav tor their goods, could a (lord to sell at !'. less profit. Another benefit that would follow the re- ,| cal of this law, is that capitalists, being no ' tngcr able to demand a high rale of interest t. nr the us.' ol their money, would sei 1c invent- , ' (tents in land, for as long as they can get a j j ^ , ettcr return for their money by lauding it i { linn by investments in lands of course, .tiiey j \mi ill loan their money a.-, it is an easier and i VC(j,, afer way to make money ; but let the rate ol'f _ ill Mm lirmi ?rlil itiiu-n l<. - ?" - -i 1 '' ? ~ ~ Of ?I II |#C-| UMIl. I (j * el* annual ami you will iiiul capitalists souk- | i;r i11v* stmeiits in lauds and Ilius cro.itin^r a > * . ' e.iund for thein, their value would bo jjrent- j e c, v increased, and thus we can point to the | a U ouiesteud law as one of the causes ot the low ^Ul" rice of our lands. 101,1 XOTlilE rook man's !,AW. The homestead law has been called tlie poor inn's law. a protection to the widow nnu or- . hau. This is a mistake lor whatever the lotive was in pnrf.shijj this law, it certainly as a tendency to oppress the pour and lielp j:> rich. j ",en 1 have already shown that it stifles coin- I."?0' ctition in trade, ami keeps up the rate of in- j : rest and if is the pour and not the rich who ; '?l 11 ro affected thereby. j shou The rich can jio to New York with their i umis and other securities and borrow m.m-.-y thou 1 about four per Cent per annum and loan it rect j us lor from ten to twenty par cent per annul but the poor have only their little tracts I land, whlca, iiieuaibcred with the homestead ] an*d 1 valueless in New York as a security. The ; both lonicd men are hoi forceil to trade n itli any par i 'or 11 cuiar merchant and therefore can buy v.here i his p ar^aius aic to be found, while mi the other lowei and tli-jpoor cannot force thia competition 1 his d rtiuji to the homestead law. j ft eat THE KICIl man'S LAW. ! )VH!l ' To show further that this law benetits the j ag^j, ch, it is only necessary to refer to the fact COrn wit anions its strongest supporters may be j stead umbered tue capitalists of Charleston, and little hyisthisso? sSimply because it keeps up flrmii le rate of interest ami necessitates ioe e >11- | eissioi littaiioii ot ttie lien law, which forces tiic ?i?ir iruii:i" into Uk- hands ??i" liio retail inerciiaiit, claim iu lik1 retail merchant into the hands of ; ,m. n le factors, and the factors into the h?uds of | l0 8U| to mmiied sharks and iu the end all ui tiiem ' whiel e paid by the farmer. I procc As an evidence of truth of my statement J cjain intllie capiiuli.?ts ot' Charleston are sii|>- t tlio o triers of toe homestead law, ii is only uec- ' 'fhen isary to call attention to the iaci, what an | morti Ivoeale it has in the (Jharleatoii i\'c-tcs u/ni I auj i ntritr the well known organ ol'the capi- ] jf ||e lists of that city. If the inonied men of witlui liartcstoii are sucn friemisof the homestead stead w you may be quite sure that it is not a poor ait.. , an s law . much 1 here are many other objections to the wus c imcslead law, which 1 have not time to Comu I'll!tun, ami will now proceed lo briefly dis- l>eiiet ss the liuii law. TUB LIEN I.AW. WOrSt Some of the objections raised to the home- with i u'ad law are also objections-to the lien law, d therefore in mentioning them, it will not necessary to discuss them at length. was* ti I have already shown how the homestead e ' ,v slilles competition iu trade, and auy one u'.e. ' n see lit a glance that the lien law also kilis Jr"! in?>?.til it>n and places the small farmers .me<? mplctcly at the mercy of the uu-rciianrs, ,1,ou' any person of common H.'nse must k.iow nJ?ul at wueii a lien is given the person must allzal ide alone with the merchant to whom the u?*n ,n" j given and tlie result 1 have aliva.lv null. ^ll'o, i?ne id' the objections to this law is that to '*'>1:101 real extent u renders tin: lai;or of tlic !lo,nj iintry indcpciident of (lie land owners, and I" ,u t oe mam prop to I he tenantry s Voieni, !*c"s icn is fast riiiiiniiig our country, 'there ,tuas nld be no objeelion to this syst. ui, it We aPtfj,t* (1 good white men 10 rem our land to, bul li,eli?* a tenant, all must admit that the negro is a a*,>u.il lure, and it i.> to bjiu that our winds are i>e 'j1'* iteil, and right here the lien law is a.nnii sa" ai mischief. meicti lobe made valuable the negro must be ,a >ught immediately under t ie i ye and c. u- V 1 of the owner nf the soil and this will hard to do, until we repeal ilu lien law. th^'v h I MULE AND AN OX THE ItASIK OF CREDIT. lllollgi ks long as the n^gro can keep a mule or main, he can get credit and find some person to ^jr>" it him land, and not looking to the owners the soil for his subsistence he cannot he it rolled by I hem. Since there is im truer thongl xim than that a power over man's subsis- was gi co is a power over his will. Thai t 'he principal obj cuous I > the negro, as a <t part ant, is his natural laziness, want of anibi- enjoyn i and carelessness in cultivating the largely L homes WOKN OUT I,ANBS?WASTED FOUF3TS. "OU* . nnuDi t VehoT but to loot: around ii* and se^ how Uiin to oh land has boon worn out <ind how much its pro rar liiH* forests have been clcurod, to ;it jierver c condemn him as a tenant. Under this it can 1 lem, oor lands arc planted year aftei veur .dcad ' !Ion, which, added to ond oul'ivnti-: ri, .rnieh i n rendci'B ih-.ui too poor iO y?'ii '.;?, p!'a.-\ k??pi \v I fve-.h lanU must bec!en:v>d. Th ? o-nti i p?r? in .if uur forests is a serious n.niter. A:- iaw, h* <.'y there is scarcity of timber and i't ^imc >. Jehu fes, lire wood. A ad besides <hi. . w.? ;u\ ity or i \ '.hat to cicar the t\>rc?fc causes d rough:?. in rega nadne.i r.nd sickness. The bo?t remedy i* undt these ?v\!s would b& to rep :?* the ;i ' i.vv. extst* ne^ro, no longer jiblc 10 obtain credit land, b n the merchant'*, must look to the land- the um urs for his subsistence and the land- .-teemed iers, no longer able to rent their lands, tine, as Rt hire bi|n and feeling a natural interest 'lever < vhat belonsr to them and being able to a man trol the labor will pu t a stop to this care- uiude tl i mode of cultivation and our land will be at flrst iroved and brought ap to a high state of t^at tis .ivation and histead of cte&ring up o(ir politic. ;st? tnuch of our lands will bo allowed to peal or \ \V up. The negro nt? longer left to bin own iuutious, under the eve and contraet of white man, will be vastly improved as a ?rer, and the result of nil this can be easieeii. Under the tenantry system, u is Y to see that the labor 01 the country is wing more ai d uiore inellicicnt year by r. The time, that should begiven to their is, is occupied gadding over llie country, women Willi their knitting, the men with and dog, and the children playing or aettlie farce of going to school. All sub ly in difl'erenceto consequenccs. r? hear 011 all sides that the country will L'r prosper until we raise our ow 11 supplier; it is utterly useless to talk of raising |>lics until the lien law is repealed anil imaniry system abolished. The negro Lilt being without ambition to accumuproperty, only c.ires to make enough to his lien and to do so, plumed nearly his !? crop in eot ton. m lei this system be broken up and the ro be brought under the control of the I owners and you will see a change, iding between the negro and the merchant, land-owners feeling the additional ressibility, will be urgod lo renewed energy the i egro stimulaied by the presence ol' white man, our tiehis would blossom as a Icii, and you wouid no longer see the els 01 our towns lillod with wagons haulto our fanners supplies raised in a couuivlictt: no negro tenaiury exists. ? prove t.iis fuel it is only necessary to ee those farm.; worked by the owner, and pare them to those rented to negroes. I)IT TOO KASY?K 11.1.8 UONOK ASIl l'HIOK. ;iother ureal objection to the lien law is, under it, eredil is loo easily ob.aiued and ittle attention paid to the personal eliarr of those denieoding it. In other words, i ur I he lien law, credit is extended more j jr ttie authority given by the law, then : ^ood eharacierof the persons askn.g it. j tiie cdocl of tiiis is bad. It kills out j lioiioi* and priue of the ciiucu. A negro, | is known to have no honor, is givvu ered- J mder a lien and a man who has always it; a ?oik1 nauie and paid his debts, goes to Same merchant' for credit and he must! a iicii, and the good man lituis himself in ; same boat with the dislioiiesl neuro must j his pride and as his good cnaracter does , irivo him some advutitagc over his less >rable feltowmeii, he will in Hie end have reuard for character, i his very want of i. grow ing out ol the lien law, is one ol the cipai reason so many m our merchants ,k. Under it they extend credit lo tiin.se out honor, ana these men having no aeier to lose, or property to be sold, make eir object to uuy "?ll they can and pay as ; as possible. Malty only rent luruis basis of credit and spend most ol their' loaling about and using all ol their latin raising supplies for tiie merchants. 1 yet our merchants have gone biimliy on, bv veur. won vine i li ?" >? > - al of tliis law and looking no further than I act tluu it gave tlioin a security, aud js coinjioiiti' ii. 1 urn glad to see, liowiliat ih eyes of uiaiiv liave been opened the only tliinj; thai stands in the way of nig the consent of all to its repeal, is the I'Steild UlW. i 'lite Dis MB. W. C. BKNKT I lie had not mueh to say on the subject. ! i it as Sam Jones' opiniou that those who nod the homestead and were agents for wives uud hoarded with thcin, were des1 to u climate of warmer temperature than lattitude. That he agreed with the essaynd thought the homestead and lieu laws Id be repealed. UK. A. W. SMITH glit that the essayist had taken the corview * I MK. 8. c. CASON that in his opinion the homestead law was demoralizing ond unjust. It was wrong man to be able to claim the exemption ot ropeny from honest debt contracted. It red the sense one's obligation to pay ebts A debtor could not claim honieI against the purchase money?this it ihought the law making power to bo litabic, yet he could have liis exemption ist a debt contracted for the meat and and clotues used m enjoying the home- ' 1, without which a homestead would be of line. There is no justice in such disination ajrainst creditors. Under the dc- , us of the Supreme Court a creditor may iiiu for rent and the renter could not i homestead exempt ion ; it he put hisdebl L-iit, however, into judgment, and sought II the same property under I he jud^m.-n., i4ie could Lave sold uinler his distress j idurc, he will be met hv a successful I, lot' homestead. This on tiic ground that j ne was a process and the other was not. t was no justice in this. A man could j raire his li Jinesiead fur h lr>-.n-. <?r . could be sold to pay t lie money loaned ; | i had given a note f<?r ths same money, I 1 iut a mortgage, lie could claim his home- j 1 Such distinction could not be made on moral ground. It was notorious that more was set oft'to the debtor than he entitled to. lie would often select as his lissioner some one whe had claimed the j it, or was a debtor and expected to claim suelii, and then a bad law was made j 1 It should be repealed and the hen law I ' it. I] MR. I-. W. PEKR1N < i favpr of the homestead and lien laws. | ought that if a man made an honest fail- < is property as n homestead should be eld from the creditors and the debtor ai- \ to have a home for his family. That ' mse of the homestead law was uo argu- ' against it and was caused bv the di-n.nr ion of Hie times. Did not tliink it was ' ly wrong for a man to claim home.itcad, ? le creditor knew when dealing with Ins : r dial .lie latter had the ri>rht to claim his Head and therotore there was no imposille thought the lioh law was necessary ;protecti?> i ot' a certain class '>1' onr cit- a ivno could not get credit without it. Th.^t ' cheap security uud was such .is iihordeu ' y relief. That it cenld no< be said that <J u law uad brougtit about such bail result*- ' > attributed to it. It was a law iiiat tii. <' could t.ike advantage 01 or not, i-.s the* i and was not forced on them. That a ' iintat Prosperity stated to him that tin i ,w was not much in vogiu t lure ; ta.n ji onl.v charged their customers ten per ibove casti price and issued to tii-jin tne..< s t which was the sane as ca:jh. i n.i <i ad succeeded Weil there. > he essayis ht this fact was hii argument m his i.ivVIr. Purlin thought both laws should reTustcn agreed with Mr. I'errin. p JtTDUK MCtlOWAN ll it the intention of the homestead la?\ ^ >nd, but that it had been fearfully abused he government thought that the citizen, of the State, should be protected in the (1 neitof his home lead, as contributing f to the wo II fa re of the State. Tii C| tea l is not an estate but a mere exomp- y The creditor ran only collect his debt by (| ion of the law. because lh? law allow* ,j .to so. li"ti:.?l?w \v;l!ih?'5>1tJ from In. ce.-s, he su<>uid not c-inplaiu. ft is .i ,j 8ion of the law to 8'iy it. can be sold, yei ,v ji>. ii .snouoi civ Koj.i mi uci as :i ho mo- jt -the roof troc. That h?> was noi verv .. ir. favor of llur hontcfjli-ad law ; that, if p, itiun r lie. si' was i.. K-. luf ,.'| ort+.d i- .vr> int i" i at'1,. - t t Ii-- I n said hir could "it s ~,i ; > hoit f, !>.<; ii?:l itv, ! tied opinion in ;t*g uM to iu n.it- .iii lot. Tuat his mi'ud had i>ftuD flbkngy.t I id roil. Th' law *vaf. nn nnomah , as :rto.ok to utortjfHgti thai wltioh had it" .00. T'lat it was tioithcr Sea nor dry v\ nt ;t thing in ihu air?a sonriytjiiiig in (I. icli vo.ed wrmb of tiiu-. Tii-- country li< I 10 on.- yfarb?'hi;i i in thi- provision i tho State was in its tin.nice , v. hit-li h?. 01 sould understand. Under tlw lien law :: actually-aty up hi* vi^tua.# heforo be ? iu?in. (l.angb'*r.) The l:-m la<v wan ci intt-n/' ?) as a huruano law. and any law '<-> good and kind was*{oni*rallv right atiu d?i Xhnre bad l?eftVi.uiat\ v cfiort# at **?;, of change, and perhaps it would be wol ui to repeal it 011 some j^ood year when there was a ?ood crop made. Hit. W. 11. I?AKKK11. stilted that he did not aj^ree with the essayist in his views on the so'ijoi streated by him. As to the matter of homestead, he agreed very much wi'.li Mr. I'errin and .hi(|^> Mctiowan who had preceded him. lie was aloe, ther i*: favor of a reasonable homestead. it w.i* a homium prnvis.on tor tlie V.usuiv of unfortunate dehiors?was intended to be antl should be a roof-tree or home, ami ineapabii' of alienation or any disposition wlneh would detent the intent ion and spirit ??f the Constit uiion. lie was snrp: ise'l nt the st?t? im nts of members that tlie hoinestea i and tien lnws were incidental und to some eXietit s <lop:::tu< nt Upon each other. The faet was the\ were c;ia<:>'ed entirely independent of each other. At one t ime thel e had e.vi -t<vi ..11 exempt ion V)| personal property to a small amount. w5u>? ?i?. * was Tin lien law, ami air a in the lien law wa* enacted in tSGOwhen there was in> homestead provision existing. The ho icstead law was the creature of tin.1 political revolution in the State, lie regretteil that the court had loll itself constrained to hold that the homestead could be mortgaged. The statute declared that no waiver. however solemn, should de. feat."the homest ad, but the < ourt held that the right could In? defeated by mortgage. He regretted the still later decision of lSatik vs. Harbin, lie did not believe in the application in such cases of thc.equitablc doctrine as to two funds, lie did not agree also in the allegation that 'lie homestead provision encourHgrd dishonesty or disregard of pecuniary obligations. The creditor was not misled ; lie knew the legal rigid to homestead existed, :m>i lie assumed the risk of losing his debt, witn his eyes open. He thought it the duty of the head oi a family, who was unfortunate to claim the homestead, and that only the direst necessity justified a mortgage of it, which would defeat wont was intended to be a pr vision for his family. As to the lien law de did net agree with the essay i.-t that it was the fruitful source of woes unnumbered and of all the embarassiuent of the agricultural interests. It had been perpetuated because the people were not prepared to dj> without it. lie held diftcreni views from the essayist also, as lo woman's rights of properly. lie was u thorough woman's rights man as to her separate property. MR. W. 11. HAKCKKI. said he did not believe in any body repudiating their debts : that the JSrate itself set the example, when it repudiated the debt 0*1 the Stale ilouse and made the holders of the bonds take titty cents 011 ehe dollar; t e stream could not .i?u htgher than the source. If the laws wiflo bad the people who lived under them would not have a correct idea of their obligations. MR. W. A. LKE said that he had 'listened to the essay with pleasure aud protit but foil constrained to uiffer from liie essayist as to both of his positions. lie was in favor b .in of the homestead and tiie lieu laws. The I'act that tne homestead orovisiiin ii.ift 1. 1 ' - , ......... mvcii iu\;urp)rmcu illio II1C laws of every State in ihe Union, lie tlioii^iir wus in itselt a sii ong argument iu its favor. Tile unfortunate debtor was 110 longer regarded as a criminal,an.1 even in the late bankrupt law of the Utiiteu l.iies $500 was reserved to him from the wreck of his property. Even in South Carolina, before the war, in the days of "cow and calf" exemption, it was strongly urged lo exempt by hu\ one or two slaves to each citizen. lln?t this been done, rlie result of the war would probably not have been changed, hue we would probably iu>. have been charged with making a "rich man's ward a poor luau's light." Hy a iioniesteau law he thuu^lit the debtor was bciieii'ed and no injury was done to the creditor. The creditor acted with his eyes open, and after exteuding credit could not blame tlic debtor for making use of the provision which was made by law in his favor. As to enhancing ttie rate of interest und other evils of the tune, lie thought it was an argument, of pot: hoc rrtjo, propter hoc. As to the amount of the homestead, he thought 5>150U little enough ; not more than enough to pay the wages and board of a good laborer, lie thought that in the matter of disposing *>f the homestead, the law lo be consistent, siiould not only prohibit a waiver, but prohibit the right of mortgage, which was to all intents the exercise of the./M? dixpuntndi. With llicsu rest fictions, he thought the homestead exemption should continue only uutil the youngest child became 01 age. As to the lion law. all the objections urged, he though:, applied to the whole credit system. The li'.-n law mav in some respects, be a novelty in legislation, yet after ail it is only j mailing more eliective a provision which alrcady existed : the ritrlit to mortgage the future increase of stock, and the products et* our iabt.r. Tiie arguments for the repeal of the law savored too much of class legislation in favoring the rich against the laborer. MH. 11. P. DEBKl"II l> said he was in favor of the homestead law but tbought it ought to be so restricted and limitL-d as not to be abused. He had not definitely made up his mind in regard to the lien law. MB. W. V. CAI.UOVN said that in the oulset hu would state that he found great fault with our government both National and Statu in the tendency which they now hud of interforring wish the private tti'.iirs of individuals. Matters that should be left to the citizen, were being bandied by I lie government, in such matters as the Blair educational bill, homestead and lien law. The* ircro^atives of our law making leaders only extended t< '-ttie welfare" of our citizens, as regards thepiot ection of their life, liberty and nosp-.rity. The citizen should not be taught o rely ii|hiu the government for his credit and he education of his children. As to the Homestead law he was unable at he present; time to express any definite (pinions, ut at the same time be thought hoiiuh that it had its advantages as well a/, is i a draw backs. Tite lien law he thought was a complete 'ailure. This law h.'d been na.-Hfd in t m<i irtdcr it, corn crib; and meat h u-ea had !i->appiai ad. He w.u decidedly of the opinion tilt could not be Huccosfully carried in without the farm r would raise hiss supplies V home consumption ai home. Very few ii our f rm rs now did this. Abwlsh tiii.i la? and the right of the lurnwr t.> no imago his crops and lioine supplies would ;e r-isod by him ..nd his financial condition int upon a sound basis, indcpcndi-nt of the iTi liai t an 1 the lien b?w As matters now ..ml 1 he farmer w as a slave to this law and ( s individual! y uos'ruyed. The citizen 011 iti not look to the government for support ut ne should support the government for the ( ro.ee inn given htm in the peaccuble onjoj - , lent of liberty and property, liefore the ( .tssape of the lien law our farmers raised lieir own supplies at home and had no need f it, but since its passage things had been radually growing worse. This plainly showil that when you interfered with the selfidiance of the individual you did him a arm. 1 Why should the State give the farmer ; redit in {-reference fo any oht? r c as? of me 1? J /hy should it give tlie merehaut a lien upon ' le crop of tl>e fnrmeP in preference t<i the (1 :t<-i a. d .. 1.1W 1 . Alt classes of men r if'?ild ii on the same boat. The repeal of s ie li ti law h- hail n > uoi.bt would have a ^ iHMusoiiK- eiien mum tno country and while ' ini^ht pincl^ (be farmer lor a while in the v id would bo greatly to his benefit and make s in an iudfcj eudi'iit- man vhich ho cannot now f ii fn Io bo; n ms. <?. o. BRAM.I:Y o lid. the :? if'jo i'I has bo is iv no ably and esbfius- p V tli.S<T.- S :tl lli.lt nothing IH it*St t-. be: Jj iM. tlowtivrr ;.a t * ? ry t?ne is givixg; ex?>r. s- a (iti to ihitir i.p-nion I Mil! say o "it.ii rofi'rcui'c to 'tic; '"no homestead iaw, i ink, Mint being imbedded in the Cmiritit-.i:>r? 'ti? a tl.xiiy and thereforo will notdi?cu?a . if u w? re fin original prop aition whether noi we should have such a Jaw, I would iv,- .v iiiet.iititf to aay, as I have vorydooided e ws on lh\: flabject. As to the lieu law I 1 ; tcnH i .'in in tavor of it, because I think ft .i condition of tho country imperatively I1 injan fi nuch Iaw. It furnished a basis credit to th'>ac who would oiherwiso b? **' table to.obtain credit. No ono is forced to C wivjurmrsra i c/. t cne?a?n>j?rtjt?'A:?' - too.-wsuvr*:*! tiiko advantage i.f it if he docs u??t. wish to do so. I believe thai, to some extent nt least, every nun y is the architect of his own fortune and it' you give :> man a rhancj and lie does not sueeeeu Ii?;he f.ult i.> in himself. The lien law sin.';.;, "'.-. a every man u chance. If the lien Isiv.- i; repealed, then the land ewtier wi:) iia\ >.- ? uuike the advauces. It >s .? lament aha- !'a>"t that the condition of I lie couniry is mr.-h, that a great many farmers wounl ke u:i:>hle < > nnike the advance without mortgaging their lands. Thus it would force many men to stake all upon the uncertainity of a single crop. I think the last Legislature made a mistake j in their amendment to the lien law. This I amendment should he repealed and let the j law stand us it was before. There has been j so much tampering with this law that it is so I unsettled that no one not even the courts can ! kv'opupwith it. It is like the vhwso m ValeidtI scope?ever changing. Let the next legialnI tore repeal the recent amendment und pursue i a course of masterly inactivity, so the uier[ chants, the farmers and laborers, and lastly ( the lawyers and indices nnn Irm.w ? ?>? 1 ? is. Mil. i.. w. Hiiirn said I Imvc listened with great interest to the essay and the discussions which have followed. I hardly know on which side of this impoi taut issue my convictions arc. When thi essayist finished reading his paper 1 thought I agreed fully with what he had said and a? each person concluded their remarks 1 could see no reason why I should differ from the views they entertained. I do not agree with those who think all of our present depression in business and the general poverty of our conn r\ is due to the operation of thj lien law. Upon investigation, and mature deliberation, | the fault will be found more in our people themselves than in any particular law on our Statute book. 1 object most strcuususly to the present status the lien law, for by legislation and judicial interpretation the law lias been rendered inellicient and useless for the object for which it was originally intended. The lien law is almost a necessity as long as the homestead law remains in force and 1 disagiee with Mr. Parker when he says the two are in no way dependent on each other. The essayist has very properly discussed the two together. Th-1 homestead law virtually retires from credit $l.r>t)0 of property of all men who have the gooil fortune to be worth that much. The majority of our citizens are not so fortm.a e and unless they n o"tgage what little J they have they would be unable to obtain , credit. The lien law comes in right here and J gives an opportunity for credit to the poorer classes of our people wit hout compelling them to mortgage what little they have. Of courso when 1 say lien law, I mean an efficient law, one that will insure the security it is intended t<> uive. As loug as the homestead law stands let us have an etllcieut lieu law, but if th? homestead Uuv is repealed, if the merchant : and others feel when they sell goods or ad| vance money, lliev will be able to collect their accounts and that the law favors the collection I of all just demands against their debtors, and ! that the law will not allow a man to hide his ! propt riy behind the homestead act, then the merchant feeling that there is safety in his business will be able to sell his goods at reduced rates and not at the unnatural credit prices of io-dav. forced uimn lii?? of the great risk lie runs. MK. E. !?. OAKY said that- lie was neither in favor of the lien nor homstead laws, that, the lien law disorganized labor and put many in possesion of land i who should not occupy that, position. It was a maxim of political economy that the owners of the soil govern the county, and possession of the soil was near akin to ownership. lie did not see why a man should have his property I as a homestead and l?ave his debts uii' ~ ; paid. Let tliere be justice before generosity, i * j DR. V. V. GARY. | Experience will confirm the assertion that I the enactment of the lien law has added so j little to the material wealth and i nrosperitv of the State as to he appreciable. >o douut it would have been repealed long ago. hut for the fact, that the politicians were afraid. It was never contemplated to make it a permanent law, but simply to tide over the U:ss:s of t.ho short crop of 1805 My objection to (lie law is that it partaken of the nature of class e^islation and boss;sm. It is a well known fact that those who give liens are compelled to plant the gren'er pirt of the crop in eoiton. The conse^tiencv has been that our St it<- lias been u'lijipeiien to relv up-.n <? lurr >'t.;tes tor the hay, meat and hrer.d that should hp raised at home. This drains the counirv of all money, thereby entailing povort v and preventing any improvement 111 mrricu'tnre. It i=? impossible to farm succcssftfUy without capital, and to secure it from the merchant, *\ho i-i turn pecure it from the factor, who iu turn gets it. from the banks, entails too much cost. If Congress would amend the National Hanking Ad so that mon?'V could bo borrowed upon real estate n real benefit would he conferred upon our people. The lien system has altno *t put i: stop to diversified farming. It reminds me of a gambler who risks his all upon one card and loses. Another objection to the law is that it makes the party taking the lien a preferred creditor. There ar*? other debts just as important, that ought to be paid. Another objection is it encourages thriftless farmiuy. which entails a positive losa to the wiiolf State. As to the homstend law, we favor that law. It prevents the buying up of our hi mesteads by capitalists ami speculators. It preserves the homogenty of our ( e ?pic, mukes us one, so soldife I our ii.lluence is felt th.ougout tho Uvited Sttaes. l,et the law remain as a monument to oir humanity for the women and children of those no unfortunate as to bo stdd out Who nre Ear mors i Tito agitMion of the farmers' mnvcmcnt hns p 'iiscd tlie question* to be raised as to who is a farmer ond who is entitled to participate in the deliberation of the farmers' meetings. Is a man who rents land and gives a lien a farmer, or only men who nwn and oporati- (!..'ir own farms ? Is a farmer who is interested in merchandizing entitled to a hearing ? or is a merchant who rnnn a farm of his own to he considered a fanner? Is a farmer who is also a preacher to bo recopni*pd and a lawver who runs a farm to be ignored ? Whore i* the linne to be drawn and who is to draw the line 1 We see these and other questions raised tn different papers, and we ivould be clad for Mr. Tillman or sotue one >lse to throw Home 1'ght on them.?AndersonJournal. Only n Living. It is often said as a rroat objection to farmnc that a n.an can only get. a living out of it. Vnd what eb<e do tho great majoritv of men n other vocations accomplish but get a bare iving? It is estimated that ninety-nine men >ut of a hundred fail in business, and we tever could see how the one that did not fail tood up against the load, as all tIte rest must we him. Tho truth of thn matter is that an" i<V?o" the wi ole tl>e rr.oat ind?pender t . ray .?<; !> a bare living that we bavo eon. Wheu a nuo owns snmo of tho soil, a ew cows, hogs an'! hens, he can be nick a few nonths without being pitched neck and heelfl ut of th 1 city lemrocrt. or forced 4o go totho harit-abta fuel soviet v for a ton of cosl. The rivations of poverty voay be found on a. farm ut the indignities and humiliation of poverty re f.uin.i ai.ne in tho city.? Timt* and I)*tn? cruf. IJncklcn'a Arnica Sake. The beat naive in the world for fnta, Bruias, Sores. Ulcer*, Shit Rheum' Fever Sores* 'etter, Chapped Hands, Chilblains, Corns, nd all Skin Ernptions, snd positively cure* ilt'H, or no ?>ay require^. It is misrsnteed 1 jiive perfect, satisfaction, trr money refundi. Price 25 cents per box.. For sale by othran A Pertin. 114 * ' V'-' j 'v ' ** ' x'*