log-rolling, but I appeal only to the good sense of the house. Prior to the war and since, the white people of Barnwell District did not think fit to divide that District, and they certainly knew as much then as they know now of their wants. Their status has not actually changed. To bring these questions before the Convention and ask it to hurry them through does seem to smack somewhat of the ridiculous. Some have said the people will pay the expenses of erecting the Court Houses in the new districts. I believe they will at last come back on the State.

Mr. F. J. MOSES. Jr. With the consent of the mover of the resolution, I move to discharge the Special Order to-day, and to make it the Special Order for Tuesday next at one o'clock.

Mr. J. J. WRIGHT. While I am as deeply interested in the question of the division of Pickens District as any other man in the house, I am opposed to any legislation in this body, except such as is required by the exigencies of the time. We have been sent here for a specific purpose, namely, to form a Constitution for South Carolina, and we should leave to the Legislature the settlement of all questions as that which is pending at this moment. I, therefore, hope the resolution will be voted down

at once.

The question being taken on the postponement of the Special Order, it was not agreed to.

Mr. WILLIAM J. McKINLAY. If we are here to legislate at all, I think the majority should be consulted. We do not know whether the majority favor the division of Pickens District. All that we know is, that certain persons are appointed Special Commissioners to select a proper site.

Mr. J. M. ALLEN. We have a petition signed by nearly all the prominent citizens of Pickens District.

Mr. F. L. CARDOZO. I desire to direct the attention of the Convention to one view of this subject not advanced by any gentleman I have heard. It is this: a number of gentlemen have questioned the legality of this Convention to enter into any such matters at all. I regard the Legislature as the only proper body to consider these questions. If we divide Pickens, we shall be inundated with petitions from a dozen or more Districts. Our Constitution may be defeated solely on that ground. Let us keep free from all doubtful questions, the Constitution we frame, so as to make it as unobjectionable as possible. Let us do nothing to incur the opposition or displeasure of any person of this State.

Mr. W. J. WHIPPER. I again move that the Special Order be discharged.

Mr. F. J. MOSES, Jr. I move to amend by discharging the Special

Order and making it the Special Order for Monday next at one o'clock, which was agreed to.

The next Special Order of the day was the petition to General Canby for the stay of all executions on debts contracted prior to the 30th of June, 1865.

Mr. N. G. PARKER moved to amend the resolution by inserting after the words "30th June, 1865," the words, "except wages of laborers or liens on the crops to secure advances made by factors or others."

Mr. PARKER said:

Mr. President: Before the vote is taken upon this resolution, I desire to define my position upon it. I desire to accomplish all that it is possible for this Convention to do, to relieve the people of South Carolina from the terrible distress which they are now suffering, and the danger that threatens them. My sympathies lead me to wish that we, as a Convention, had more power and authority to relieve them than are delegated to us. Resolutions providing various measures of relief have been presented to this Convention, and referred to appropriate Committees. They have not yet been discussed. In due time they will be rereported back to this body, and will be discussed, and, in all probability, some of them, or part of them, will be adopted as a portion of the Constitution of this State.

While, sir, a resolution declaring null and void all contracts where slaves were the consideration, yet remains to be disposed of, shall we refuse to ask General Canby to suspend the collection of debts for a period of three months, and thus set quietly by and see the processes of collection go on daily, when slaves were the consideration ?

If, sir, we contemplate the adoption of the Ordinance just alluded to, and adopt it as a portion of the Constitution of South Carolina, are we willing to let this matter rest until we shall have done so ? It seems to me, sir, that we should be acting like school boys to do so. Perhaps, sir, we shall not adopt any measure whatever of relief, what then? The collections will only have been suspended for three months, provided General Canby complys with our request. It is a short time; no great harm can be done by this act.

But, sir, the desire to defeat the resolution does not seem to stop here. We have a right to presume, sir, that those who oppose this resolution, oppose any measure of relief to the State. If this is the fact, it might as well be fought out now as at any other subsequent time, and if this resolution is lost, give up the attempt to pass any whatever. Contracts for slaves, war debts, homesteads, and all.

In advocating this measure, I am aware that I may be charged by some with possessing more sympathy than judgment; but, sir, I would rather be subjected to that charge than to be accused of a lack of human sympathy. I thank God that the milk of human kindness forms a large part of the material of which I am composed, and my life long devotion to the interests of the down-trodden and oppressed, cannot be questioned. I desire the prosperity of this State, the whole State, not a part of it;

the people of this State, the whole people, not a portion of them, and I undertake to say that no portion of them can prosper at the expense of any other portion.

To relieve the present suffering debtor, in my opinion, is to relieve those also who do not owe debts or own property, but who are dependent upon those persons who do own property, for the employment which. enables them to earn their bread.

I sincerely hope this measure will pass.

Mr. C. C. BOWEN moved to amend the resolution by substituting " all debts contracted previous to 1st of January, 1868, for "30th June, 1865."

Mr. R. B. ELLIOTT moved to amend by inserting "prior to the passage of this Ordinance."

Mr. B. F. WHITTEMORE moved to lay the amendment on the table. The PRESIDENT stated that laying the amendment on the table carried with it the whole subject matter.

Mr. B. F. WHITTEMORE moved to strike out the time and insert up to the reception of this petition by General Canby."

Mr. B. O. DUNCAN. The animus of these amendments are clearly to be seen. It is an attempt of the party that were fillibustering yesterday to kill a measure absolutely essential to the welfare of the people of the State and the success of the party. The basis upon which that resolution was made, was the changed relations since the close of the war, and the changed relations on which funds were based. If we include all debts contracted since the close of the war, we ignore the intent and meaning of the resolution. I am opposed to any amendments upon this question.

Mr. R. C. DELARGE called for the previous question, which was agreed to.

A number of delegates rose to ask for information and the reading of the Ordinance, when Mr. WHITTEMORE moved a reconsideration, which was agreed to.

Mr. T. J. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, the gentlemen who have spoken on this subject have frequently alluded to the impoverished condition of the country; I wish to ask them who brought it about; it was certainly not the poor man, or the loyal man; it was those who claim to have all the wisdom, intelligence and wealth of the country. These are now the very men clamoring for stay laws and homesteads. I venture the assertion right here, and do not believe it can be successfully contradicted, that any man who only pays his debts at the end of the law, was ever known to pay them when he could evade them by taking shelter under the protection of a stay law. I have seen and known the most ruinous con

sequences follow the passage of the stay law of 1861. Parties I know who were deeply in debt at that time, who never did pay or tried to pay, but who were pressed for payment, were suddenly relieved by the passage of that law, and have never since, to my knowledge, paid any of their just obligations, and these very parties, who are now in possession of large tracts of land, are the strongest advocates of stay laws; yet these same parties cry out that they cannot live in this country with colored men, and proclaim a war of races inevitable. The principal and largest debtors in this State are those who staked their all on secession. Many of them could have discharged their obligations during the war, or at its close, from the proceeds of cotton in their possession at that time, and for which they realized between forty and fifty cents per pound, but they do not want to pay, and intend never to do so as long as they have unconstitutional laws under which they may claim protection. The first stay law was passed on the 21st of December, 1861-this was continued in force until the end of the war. By an Act of the General Assembly, passed December 21st, 1865, the stay law was again continued in force for one year longer. This was followed by the celebrated stay law of General Sickles, known as Order No. 10, which expires on the 11th of April, 1868, as yet nearly three months off. The United States Government not having passed any stay law, a creditor in this State can sell and transfer his claims to a citizen of another State, and this latter party can immediately institute an action in the United States Court against the debtor.

"no

This creates a distinction between the citizens of the several States, constituting this great and glorious republic. The stay law, too, is in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States, which says, State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contract.' A stay law, therefore, is not only unconstitutional, but in my opinion, calculated to unsettle business, and keep our people in a constant state of confusion and turmoil. I for one am willing to see the property of the country, if necessary, change hands, and if lands are sold cheap, so much the better for working men. It will enable poor men to provide themselves with a home, and identify each one more closely with the soil. I am in favor of a liberal homestead law which can injure no one. If, for instance, a man owns one hundred acres of land, I would exempt forty acres for a homestead. He then has sixty upon which he may obtain credit, or so to speak, he may bunk upon it. Forty acres I consider sufficient to support a family, however large it may be. But would it be right and proper for this Convention, or a future Legislature, to exempt from levy and sale the balance of the one hundred acres on which a person may have obtained credit, and thus destroy the right of the credi

tor, besides impairing the obligations of contracts. The Court of Errors, the highest judicial tribunal in this State, wherein was assembled the intelligence, wisdom and learning of the whole bench, decided with but one dissenting voice, that stay laws are unconstitutional and in direct conflict with the Constitution of the State and the Constitution of the United States. Under the reconstruction laws of Congress, passed March 2d, 1867, I contend we bave no right to pass any law or resolution of the character proposed. The men asking relief, with but few exceptions, are those who do not recognize the validity of the Reconstruction Acts of Congress, and who refused to vote at the election for delegates to this Convention. Some of them call this Convention a menagerie, a collection of wild animals. Is this menagerie to protect their property at the expense of the loyal citizens, and the working men of the country, or are we to obey the laws which recognize no such measures? The resolution before us only asks a stay of three months, and what does that mean? They will then bring it up before the Legislature and ask for it to be extended until fall, to allow the crop to be made and gathered, and then the price of cotton not being high enough to suit their views, they will clamor for its continuance, and there will be no end to it. A stay law has been in operation for more than six years, and gentlemen ask for more time. I see no disposition on the part of the creditors of this State to oppress the debtors, where they are making the least effort to di: charge their obligations. Stay laws are the legitimate offspring of secession and rebellion, and are we, who claim to be loyal, to continue to foster and cherish that offspring? Let them take the fate of their alma mater. In what I have said, there may have been some expressions which would appear harsh to some of my unreconstructed friends, but I can truly say I entertain no unkind feelings to any opponent for his political opinions.

Mr. R. H. CAIN. This question is one that certainly affects the poor man as well as the rich. I did not intend to obtrude my thoughts upon the Convention were it not I believe that at this stage of our proceedings, when bills or propositions fraught with so much interest to the country and the State are brought up, there should be a frank expression of the views of the members. I am in favor of relief, but I wish to review the modus operandi, in which it is to be given. The rich man has suffered greatly in the breaking up of all the relations that have heretofore existed, but I think the poor man has suffered a great deal more. I have several reasons which I propose to give, to show why I am opposed to the passage of the resolution introduced by the member from Sumter, (Mr. F. J. MOSES, Jr.) My first reason for opposing the