New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-04-22
az q

49, ~ which has actually occurred Mr. Hough.
tstoe was Ia possession Of farm which he hired OF
Mr. Livingston. He moved out and gave possession "
the owner Two brothers By the name OF Finkle moo
g.. no oaS ~ possession. and having learned IN ue
Nsv York Trbuoe thst the night 20 hFe I'VE Suo'e
DE InoCne) IL older stronger more ssered than zoe
,sb, 81 an, individual 10 r.tau uncuvsed or TO ex.
&C. his price for liberty 10 cultivate Ins AFORESAID
fsrnc ,ook pnss@ssOn OF IT, and susoed al ar. Living
sson Cor bis prstensions Mr. l., IKE is"IoVing ana
law .bdpx citizen tested his eism, and actually but
4, we think iojudiciousy did do what The Tribune de
uands He went hack aud proved his title. He was
net bound 10 ths but probably made hi. concession
10 crafty The Tribune and the Fnkles The court de
eided that Mr. L.s title good, and ordered the
sheriff 70 remove the fnkles from the premises
II II pure blockheadism and impudent auds-
city OF assertion are TO settle this question concern
ing the Laud Laws, we may as well give itup at
once. Here is the Express talking Of Mr.. Living
ston's concession to crafty The Tribune and the
Finkies," when every intelligent man must know
that there was DO concession about 1t. Fiake 'e0s
not L;ringston's tenanf-there was no lease TO
plead in bar OF an investigation OF title-Fnke was
no tenant at all bu, lsupposing the farm to be Liv'
ingston'sl q naked trespasser and liable 10 be
elected az such Bot he who undertakes 10 eject
holder az a trespasser must prooe himself the own
er-there is no taking for granted about it-no
grace or concession in proving title. But the
peaceful, well meaning tenant who has taken
patch OF wilderness and made farm Of il, and who
at length finds or suspects that the man OF whom he
leased had no valid title to the land can be pitched
neck AM heels out OF the house he has built and
which no other man hes paid one dollar for without
ceremony All that need be proved is bis sigma
ture 10 the lesse-and very rarely Is ne gratified
with the concession " of an offer from the ejecter
to prove title Can It be wise ard just IN the Law
to give better chance TO wiliul trespassers than
to peaceful mprovers under lease at length dis
covered or suspected to have been imposed fraud
ulenuy1
Tile inherent Right of Man to Land for bis
own irp provenient and cultivation do most ear
nestly maintain but not cny mans right to the I'M
provements made upon any particular land by some
one else either directly or By proxy. Nature does
not provide land cleared, fenced and built upon
consequently confers on no man indefeasible
right 70 zach land. But unoccupied, unimproved
land is the direct bounty of Providence to the
whole human family. as clearly as the rain and the
sunshine, and ought ever to have been preserved
from monopoly and speculation for the free use,
10 limited quantities of those who should from time
to time see fit to improve and cultivate it. The
errors Of the past cannot be recalled; but they
surely may be avoided for the future All that we
desire with regard to improred lands is the adoption
Of the principle Of limitation. so that one man may
not hereafter acquire aninordinae proportion OF the
soil from which all must be subslsted with that Of
Homestead Exemption, to prevent those who have
little from being stripped of their all These mes-
surss will take nothing from any man-they are
emoentiy in the good sense conservative. sni 4"
look with confidence for their early and enduring
trumph-As to the Couriers objection that they
interfere with Individual liberty it has little
weight with The liberty to sell poison and get
drunk upon ito exact usury--to perpetrste de-
baucheries-to buy foreign fabrics whenever
ehea per than home made, though lndustrys starved
thereby-to mortgage the humble home OF aiamily
by future Indebtedness and various other sorts OF
Liberty we incline to hold subordinate to the gen
sral good which they threaten or subvert. Others
Apourse, have different view. Let us discuss
differences calmly and candidly and good must
Iult
The Commercial advertiser also discusses our
former observations on this subject, but in a spirit
and temper so different from those of the Express
and Courier that we heartily welcome our new an
tagonis, into the arena, and cherish hope that he
or we will leave it wiser than we entered After
three unessential paragraphs. he proceeds
awe suppose The Tribune will not controvert our
position that with regard to land possession may be in
and the right Of possession in another. What
The Tribune insiss upon understand to be that the
man having possession shall also be permitted to show
his right Of possession says Let all disputed land
titles be lig sted the titles TO other property -
Nov all this Is permitted to "litigste disputed land
title" 10 Of the easiest things In the world The
tenant II he thinks he has title may out bis writ
OF ejeciment o: other process and though "ejectmen
may absurd, when the only person be literally
elected 10 himsel the law Is accommodating that 1t
VIII provide action expressly to meet this difficulty,
and allow him 20 proceed against imaginary uespss
ser the venerable John Doe or Richard Roe of legal
hbtoTy"
80 il would seem that this horrible Agrarian
Anti Rentism of The Tribune, which so skaters
the nerves Of the Courier and Express, is in sub.
stance no innovation at ALL but the old well settled
British Common Law The tenant IS permitted
(ssys the Commercially to dispute the title of his
alleged landlord-the difference is one OF form only
True the law wont allow him to plead in bar of
action for Rent thai, the claimant is not the true
owner of the premises but then the law is so
accommodating that it manufactures hat.ful of
hes expressly to enable him to do circuitously that
which it iorbids his doing directly He can't plead
against ssepnen ' an Rensselaer, or 4. j. Living
sson ake frsA that he does not believe they are
justly owners OF the land and wants them to show
how they came to be such but he may fabrcate
q lot OF lies about John Doe Richard Roe being
uajustly in possession of the house which he well
knows no man ever possessed bat himself and thus
legally get at the question of title And is it only
TO prop up this miserable dollhouse cf fiction az anst
our demand for the naked truth that the CONNER.
cisl plunges into this controversy
But the Editor proceeds to say;
"Bst cannot suppose The Tribune ignorant Of this
!, raa know that tar . litgston 10 concerned, the
Lag already sives the tensn, abundant opportunity aud
raeans When therefore. "let sll disputd land
sites be litgsted" means great deal intends
10 cay. Estsbsh this principle in favor Of the
that be- being In possession sns be presumed have
Alsc the right OF possession
Now this is directly in the teeth Of what the
Editor had said in the preceding paragraph. he
there "understsnds" us to urge only that the man
having possession shall also be permitted 10 st0r
ais right of possession" now he turns round and
rays we mean that che being in possession
,hsl be presumed 70 hare tis r,gA; Of possession -
which 10 a horse Of very different color Whether
x.<.ni1 ha mora inst suavr the the