New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1846-02-11

Our late articles on MS 5uoJect nave ciiN''oN
comments--nainly adverse-from several OF our
respected contemporaries We proceed 10 consider
them:
From the Goshen (Oronse Coz Democrat.
PUBLIC LASDs-The Tribune Of Saturday comes out
fully in favor Of the clique known as National Reform
era and sdvises that the public lands soud no longer
be sold but be given in farms OF about 100 each 10
any person who has no land be for his improvement,
and long be pleases but not conterrng upon
him the right cell except 10 person VINO l5 landes
If the plan should be adopted should soon have the
whole contents OF European poorho empied down
upon fertile West. These lands are now go cheap
tina, they within the reach of almost every one VINO
possesses any Industry and economy and 10 give tneti
10 persona OF opposite character would be poor pom
cy Besides it would be injustice TO the land holders IN
other paris of the country These LANDS are source Oh
and help 10 relieve other ianos rei tas'ion
for the suopor. OF government The cheap rate at Wncn
they are sold and the increasing faces Tor access 10
them have materially reduced the prce OF land IN near,
Is all the States and reason why they snoud
be disposed OF in such way as 10 renoer them siii!
more Oppressive upon other parts Of the country.
u The question of admitting Aliens fresh from
Europe to an equal participation in the Public Lands
of the Union is 10 be considered by ITSELF though
the idea has no terrors for If the whole contents
of European Poor Houses are to be empted down
on us am uhere, we certainly prefer that they
should be planted on our Public Lands rather than
in onr Cities and Villages, to say nothing OF our
Aims Houses. There are very many persons IN our
CITY in regard TO whom our Corporation would have
made money by long since buying and presenting
each quarter section Of Public Lands, on condition
that they would go and live upon it. Some have
doubtless cost the city the price OF three sections
each There is little danger that the Europeans who
come among US will HE away too rapidly to the Pub
lie Lands quite otherwise Our own iaoorers can
beat them at subduing wild lands, and are more
averse to the drudgery OF cities
That the price of Public Lands is quite low, we
have always insisted; but who ever urged the tact
that Flour and Meat are cheap as reason tor re-
fosnp relief to the destitute? The men who most
need lands have not the 5000 which quarter sec
ton costs even at this low price. Why not allow
them chance TO earn bread for themselves rather
than support them by public or private charity?
The Revenue from Public Lands is not material
and its value TO the Treasury is greatly modified by
its capricious and uncertain character w hen the
receipts from Customs are abundant and the Treas
urv overlooking. then the Lands yield most; when
the Duties dwinde and the Treasury is IN collapse
then the Lands Weld little or nothing. We believe
wisely adjusted Protective and Revenue Iarii'
as the present substantially is, will yield all the
Revenue the Government ouEhl 10 sPeHu "iiio"'
aid from the Public Lands
The idea that Landholders generally would be in
jured by the change proposed is,we are confident de-
lusive Ut not of course pretended that their lands
would be rendered less productivity The fact that no
more land was 10 be sold would operate in their IA
vor. Now they must bear up against an unlimited
supply TO be had in any quantity for ten shiIlinss
per acre. with constant prospect that this price will
be reduced by Graduation TO t'co shiings or nothing
at ALL But establish the principle that no more Pub
lie Land shall be sold, and while the Poor would
flock TO the National Domain, the wealthy and fore
handed would prefer TO buy where they could get
as much as they pleased What man worth even
$4,000 influenced by the current ideas on this sub
iect would take up 100 acres on the prescribed con-
dtions, when he could buy where be pleased and
sell where and to whom he pleased much larger
tract for 81 900 to $1,000? No. the Land Reform
will not destroy the market value of Lands owned
by individuals it might in some cases even In
;t