New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-08-24
Land Limitation.

The Buffalo Commercial having invited atten /
ton to this subject in spirit of hostility to the
change proposed, the reasons for the Reform are
set forth in the Commercial of the goth by a
pondent whom we recognize unwaverng
Whig and sound lawyer as well as thinker who
has enjoyed unusual opportunities for acquainting
himself with the evils of Land Aggregation. We
make room for half his statement which will be
much more easily msrepresented or denounced
than answered. He says:
The limits Of the soil and the unavoidable necessity
Of resorting II for food create distinction ostw
II and all other subjects of property that seems not 10
have been generally noticed. The most common form
of argument against Limitation OF the amount of land
any shall be permitted 10 buy Of the State IT,
that you might well limit the number 81 ships that he
msy own, OF The amount Of cotton he may spin Blu,
there analogy land and Jrcs subjects of
property except that capital and labor bs invested
oEs well AZ the other There is no limit 10 the ex
tent which cotton cloth can be produced The more
there is made the better There IL evil In permitting
merchant 10 own all the vessels that he can build Ii
IL puerie 20 imagine monop oily that can cover all seas
and tbs puerile TO imagine caprice under whose i'm
pulse mercha ant monarch would dismants the NAVY of
entire world. and stop i,s commerce But there IL
such fact as dense pop ulstion given territory
and there such Tact as ths' the number OF mouths to
be filed 10 quite proportobed the quantity Of food
that be raised TO oil them i, will happen from
q monopoly of cotton spinning, that in some deyli.h
mood the lord OF the loom will withhold bis cloth and
Il
such monopoly 10 impossble-uiterly So not only for
want Of capital but for want of time In the ordinary du
ration OF human lie, TO mature the plan, and then
execute IT, have but 10 look irelsnd Scotland and
England actual monopoes OF land that hare the
effect 10 make provisions scarce and dear
"Whsiever ht may have ace dre personal pro
perry without limit II land is needed by ali produce
food has any one man right 10 keep large tracts OF IL
In state of for his peasure-has be right 10
bold II for pront and keep II unproductve till its
10 snhAnced-hss be right 10 lock up In IL the inherit.
l ha Ill hava Aad-
above all has he right 10 Keep a. range for rabbits
and foxes and ss lodge fer birds
To say thstin the United States alsnd itst on based
the limited quantity OF agricultural soil IL wholly
less. ard for many yesrs b. wholly use.
lees. IA no answer 20 the objections made the
poly OF the sou II the population OF the country
amount Of land that individual may buy, thai the
Cove nment might grant Bat II 10 not The popu-
ls ON of the country destined 10 become dense
that of England or Germsny and more so II we are
wi.s Wa will provide for the future in the and
estsbl.h policy now that will be inevitable then.
| Though need no, spprehend the creation In our
midst of any more great estates On the mschievoos
model Of the Feuds bsrony We have YET seen enough OF
trouble In Ne~-lork arising from grants OF Immense
trscts Of land 10 individuals 10 make Us al wish That
The wilderness had been given except TO the &C
tas settler and the State had never sod TO any one
person more OF iis soil than would sustain family.
These remarks perhaps approach unnecessarily neSr
10 Asrartasisp Il use the word In Ito oppyoorious
sense) For the article 10 the Ccxnerctal Advertiser
seemed TO oe directed TO proposition merely TO re-
siet the sale Of Government lands 10 actual settlers
she IN os OF the capacity OF ordinary farms Reasons
70 'sNos OF THIS policy abundant and have NO
eoeo. tnst vii soon be adopted But why hesitate 10
tsco me ruth The application the principle land
llmAnon 70 The state pretty surs 10 - followed BY
10 sPpaesnsn 10 The citizen And Why not What
harm VII DO We have limited the snount Of real
cstaie mas Saarea ese own To an Abbot of Henry
Vil's time. this Limitation would have been NO, oply
sgrsrisnisn. bat rsnk athssn- We ind hoxsxs, ~,
| il does not bar; Religion. We have r,.rr,~,st ,hs
amount OF real esta,e that our Banks may own I,ors
eject Of the restriction L. that farms cannot De oec,
OF cnpidity powerful mon-yed eorporsrOns the NJ
ICY OF the Law viii Be pronounced wise. We have Tor
bidden wealthy dispose Of their real r,t.,. ~
will 90 a. 10 have IL inahensbls and enmulauye-hs
You'd . certain period.
| We already familiar with ths Idea Of lad
limitation than We think for. Do not lot II us-
What objection Is there ts application % ths farming
dstrcs Of COR State What evil could arise from pro-
hierns any from owaing over tvo hundred and
tfy ssrssi s.w, IN"