The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1846-03-23
The Anti-Rsnt o.usstion /.

The Antl-Hent Question.
We have received the report of the minority
Of the committee to whom was referred that por
ton Of the Governors message relating to lease
hold estates 1t was written by the Hon. Joshua A
Spencer.
The following is synopsis OF the report -
After some preliminary reading, &c, we come
to that part wherein is detailed the measures prayed
tor by the tenants. These are
Frsy That in all prosecutions upon these leases the
tenants shall be at liberty to deny the validity OF the
original title under which the grant or lease was made
recover 10 establish validity Of the title under which
he claimed hold such land at the time Of giving the
lease and 10 relieve the tenants from estoppelor
sumption of title in the landlord In consequence Of hsv
| ing taken the lease or held possession under it.
Secondly. To abolish the remedy oy distress for the
Thirdly. To tax the rent or income growing out Of
these leases, and all leases having over few years to
FourtHiy Tha. the State by the exercise Of the
Of eineni dsmon. shall take Whatever interest the pro
then sell such interest 10 til. tenants In fee simple dis
charged Of all reservations.
In answer the nrst Of these the Committee say, that
sounder morality than that tenant who takes lease OF
his landlord and enters into possession under shall
be heard to dispute question the title and pos
session he thus takes until after he surrendsrs such
possession he is not satisfied with his landlords title,
he has only surrender the session he thus took
and he at full liberty. without any embarrassment be.
and try the "nques in the courts when and where he
If A rent his house to B. for year At one hundred
dollars and he should refuse at the expiration Of the
who would doubt that would be most extraordinary
of title In A. when he 10 sued either for the rent
the possession But may be said that It 10 only in
Be- Changed So ndss Sn hsS taken Ii! lease
for nty years. entered into possession and remained ell
that term undisturbed and the title unquesioned would
nj In hat ho ~.
would the rule of evidence which the tenants now ask
such lapse Of years On the contrary, it not the
very where this rule is important give
pose after muniments Of title may be lost
This rule is BY alone applicable Of
landlord and tenant. prevails universally II A. give
an executory contract for conveyance Of land in
future, and he goes into possession, in suit brought
upon It to recover the purchase money OF in an eject
men to the possession after failure to pay the
So, too, A. takes mortgage Of B. on land In his pos
session, and Is afterwards foreclosed and the prem
brought against cannot deny his title or show title
in stranger The possession Of the tenant the pos
o es M ana n al case. where AZ
when the premises occupied by his tenant 10 equal
~ as available to him, 10 bis own personal occupation
ensnt run: with the land and though the tile may have
passed through twenty men in as many years. the pos
against all the world beside, much he had him
self occupied during the whole period.
regard TO prOpr0ty OF aDouohlng dlstfees Ior
rent the committee Say that they satisfied that the
abolishment of this remedy can have influence upon
leases where it Is made part of the contract But they
will orbear to enter upon the discussion Of this prolific
point in this already extended report, and will content
themselves by reference to the Governors Message,
and to Mr. Duer report, Assem- Doc No. al, OF lS40
in both Of which documents the suggestion il discussed
with great ability.
The next question IT, the propriety of taxing the rent
or income sprngng out OF leases having more than ten
or fifteen years to run.
In answer this. the Committee say that from the
pertinent Of the legislation which In the year 1888
sprung out Of great commotion which agatsd the
tiers the lands Of the Holland Land Company they
are apprehensve that the proposed legislation would
be equally injurious to the tenants But they will not
farther extend their remarks this question, in
the hope that the Committee Finance may take il in
charge.
The only remaining question proposed to be consider
cd by the COMMITTEES was, whether the State can,
ought to exercise its power Of eminent domain for the
relief OF these tenants in the proposed In
ply they say i is obvious that this is question emf
nenty proper to be submitted to the committee the
Judiciary especially far the question of power is
concerned On the point of expedency it is difficult to
perceive how the tenant is to be benefited by the
sure.
In conclusion. the Committee say-ft Is obvious from
what has been submitted that is their opinion the Le
gisature have not the power to grant any substantial
relief to these tenants.