New-York daily tribune., 1844-08-27

reached US, controverting the views set forth IN
our article Of last Friday i've place to the fol
lowing as the abest and most abusive ofour course
We may make room Tor some OF the others here
after.
To The Editor Of The Tribune
1t is but seldom that have seen in your valuable
paper an article full OF mlsstatements us to facts
and so mischevous in It's scope and tendency, the
Editorial article in The Tribune Of the 23d inst OF
the troubles in kensselaerwyck, protesting TO remark
on the hippant illusions 10 those dIihcutes IN
the other CITY Journals.
AS your object purported to be a correct statement
OF the affair, shall make no apology for pointing
out the following mistakes in facts:
1st. You state that the original grant IRON the
Dutch Government was without consideration.
. I'd. That the estate is held on strictly ieudal
tenure.
Sd. That the PATRON is unable to ALLEVIATE the fee
simple from his descendants.
Neither of these assertions is true.
Why the first made, | nm unwilling 10 sug-
gest, or even to surmise.
If the title esute, that hns been ia the peace
able possession Of the propretors for two centuries,
is TO be questioned because no consideration was
given: if the recognition OF this title by the Engs
Government upon the transfer OF the province t.
England, and by the American Government alter the
Revolution, does not impart 10 il stability wherc
can find any good title or right OF property
What becomes OF the titles OF all the furns on the
those on the opposite shore! They rest upon the
same basis, and, if the Rensselaer, tile fail, their IT,
ties must also be abrogated.
In fact, however, there n good and valid con-
sideration-he same that nearly all the early titles
in the United States rest upon viz: the nroduc-
ton of settlers into the new settlement. This was
done, and the property thus acquired has been pre-
served by the family ever since. Such suggestions
and doubts, therefore, are utterly without support,
and ought never TO appear in any communication ln-
teHded 10 inform the public mind.
Neither is the tenure strictly feuda in the unia-
yerabe conveyed by that term, nor the fee IN
alienable. The land is held in fee, like any other
property, and may be sold or conveyed by the land
lord to any person, without reservation condition.
IL only differs from other lands n the fact that most
of il is leased to the occupants-some for life, and
others so long the tenants perform the covenants
on their part; :; the latter being known Us perpetual
lenses. These leased farms ARE, of course, subjecl
to the rents reserved by the lease, which is the on,
title Of the occupant. This is his only right or e1-
cuse for occupying the land OF MIR. Van Rensselaer,
He never bought paid for the land. He hired ii
Instead ofpayng the price OF the land, he agreed to
give an annual rent. This amounts TO 10 bushels
Of wheat for 100 acres, which, with fowls and the
use Of team for one day, and which has been al
ways paid in money, amounts, at s. per bushcl foi
wheat to $l2 per lOO acres, II cents an acre oi
land which, as wild land, is worth from $40 to SIS
per This rent, equivalent 10 81 per acre pur
chase money, one would deem avery moderate price
for the land.
In some leases, but not in all, there are clauses
prohibiting sale Of the lease TO others, except be
6rst offered to the landlord at quarter less than
the price which it would bring. This restriction
70 undertaking is very common in leases, and was
intended to prevent the tenant from parting with his
farm some unsuitable person. This is the quar-
tersalc provision which you alluded to as so iniquI-
but statement OF the terms upon which saIes
are and always have been allowed IN the Manor
would convince the public that this provision has
never given any just cause OF complaint.
Supposng that Mr. Van Rensselaer,, instead OF
giving perpetual leases, had merely leased his land
from year to year ct fixed rent, or on shares :
would not the public have been shocked a, propo.
ston TO take his property from him at appraised
valuation to be distributed among the occupants?-
In what does the proposition in your paper differ
from that1 ltmust never be ostsgh ht Of that this land
is his and not the occupants: that they are there
by virtue Of Contracts, which, 10 be binding, must
be performed well on their parts as on his, and
that any proposition to relieve them from their
nants and to allow them 10 retain the land, is not
only dishonest, but is beyond the power o! the State
Government, being expressly prohibited by the
federal constitution
Such is their object, and the only course for the
sound and honest portion of the community 10 pur-
sue, il TO array itself AT once against men who aim
nothing short Of robbery iseasy 10 advise the
owners To come forward with ndgnanimonS Of.
fer to compromise nth the tenants"
What do you mean by that phrase DO YOU re-
quire them to give up their property Such re
linquishment would be base surrender of the
Righs OF Property to violence and illegal combina-
tons, iTaught with the most disastrous consequence
TO the character of the State. The Reputation o..
the State Debt would not be hall discredahle or
injurious the reputation of the Government as an
ayowal that the ghts o' Property could not be
preserved because they contcted with The interests
or prejudices OF majority of any particular To-
cality.
You, indeed, say that such is not your advice; You
only 60 for compromise, and recommend that an
appraisement should be made of the quil-rents and
that the tenants should pay for the at thcI
actual value. This is your proposition. Are YOU
not aware that any tenant has been at liberty do
that at any time I This does not suit them. The,
seek to despoil the proprietors of their property
and they care little whether that be effected bv omen
repudistion through Commissioners who from
the instant of their appointment would he besieced
by host OF occupants, and who might easily be in.
fuenced BY the popular feeling that could be tx
cited against single proprietor.
Such designs should not and cannot find favor
with any rght-minded men; and felt great surprise
when read your article setting forth the alleged
grounds Of their discomfort
When such pretcnsions are urged as the Manor
occupants set up the Government cannot stop
TO argue Itmust enforce submission. They strik,
at the very existence of the rights OF property and
the supremacy Of the law, and 10 pailiate OF ex-
cuse, or even TO csner with the assemslage O.
masked Indians combining TO prevent the service OF
legal process, is but little less than 10 encourage
rebellion, and rebellion excited, not IN the holy
cause Of freedom, bat for the sordid purpose o.
plumber and robbery An AMERICAN.
Remarks on the Abore.
We are happy to accept the corrections of our
correspondent, SO far as they are corrections. As
to the tenure being strictly feudal,' VIC appre.
hend the difference is rather verbal one, except
so far as is implied in the next sentence Ii the
Pstroons have absolute power fo ALLEVIATE the fee
simple of the leased lands composing the Manor,
Con which point we stated before that we were
not fully informed) then the main obstacle TO an
anicable settlement of the existing difficulties is
entirely obviated. The Van Rensselaers and
their tenants can adjust the whole matter with
out legislative or legal interference. We sin
cerely hope that they ,oil do SO, and to this end