New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-05-06
The Land Question.

The Land Question
Fran he Commercial Adcefisp. May
II will be remembered that what proposed
10 discuss with The Tribune the prOpnety OF allow
ing tenant under lease when sued for rent 20 dis
pue the title of the landlordoi authorizing the Court
10 presume Notwithstanding the tenants admission in the
that landlords title Is deiectve-snd of throw
ing uoon the landlord the burden of proving hs title.
F,on this subject we have wandered sway-follOw-
inc peYlorce the lead OF The Tnbune-to one alto.
esihsr different wit the expedency OF limiting pro-
pretorshp OF unimpTOyed or Wild land, including the
expedcncy OF allowing lsndless men to occupy and IN
prove = certain limited portion without charge
We use the word expedency with a purpose. We
hold this question 10 be one OF eXpediency merey-not
of Justice or natural right fit put upon the ground
of positive right deny The 1ribunes whole position
deny that there any reason in justice or equity why
any citizen should notbe allowed TO buy as much OF the
unoccupied land he has means 10 pay Tor. But noe 40
not deng that on The ground Of oPcdieacy simPV mgM
be eI 10 Hn s possession Of such land or 70 make such
land accessible oy actual souls or ~ permit actual SET
tiers hare ertaiq quantity without charge On the
score of expedency conceive these 10 be fairly open
Questions there something 10 be said both sides
and by object to any mans holding aud eX
pressing his opinions or convictions on either II Inc
Tribune had declared itself heretofore. as distinctly a.
il has in the passages quoted above, should
have undertaken to dispute with il ON this part Of the
general subject
But the admission contained in the last sentence OF
the il of value than even the precision on
this point, which have ~ last obtained from The
Tribune Actual possession the LABOR OF his own hands
by the proprietor IL no longer insisted on az conc
ton 10 ownership. The owner OF piece OF wild land
may be broker merchant or q " NafiRR m0ney In
any way he thinks proper only he will set some hired
men IT work upon the land THIS Is excellent; wecon
graduate friend upon his arrival at conclusion SO
satisfactory and sccordant with common sense. We
take IL granted that the nonresident owner consid
erng that he pays the wages OF bis hired men, Is 10 re-
ceye the proceeds of their labor the aDdthe money
for which they sell the wheat corn, hay cheese butter,
tc that the land Is inside 20 yield.
Now will The Tribune be kind enough to tell us what
difference there s in principle between this case and the
ot "A laas I'm resident
puts In possession OF his land sets him AT work
upon and allows him 90 pay himself for his labor by
taking % his all the procceds-yieding 10 the
owner small per ceniage thereon under the name OF
rent In other the resident owner puts
in possession sets him NJ work upon the land pays
him a and takes all the proceeds 10 him
self Where il the difference in principle And why
Ia the under lease held up for sympathy ss an op
pressed l.u-ed Impoverished individual detrsudcd OF
his rights while the hired man, set at work upon the
land is accounted TO be IN very proper and lauds
BILE condition
We suppose The Tribune has contemplated the mat.
ter in this aspect and will longer contend that pos
session of land under lease any special rights
privileges advantages in favor OF the tenant
This is great point gained and we can now leave this
branch OF the subject giving attention exclusively 10
those presented in the remaining portion of The Tr
Dunes article. We like to do one thing at time.
Remarks on The A6oUe.
Who shall say that Discussion is of no avail
Here is the eldest most earnest. most respected
of our Conservative Journals virtually admitting
the expediency of Land Limitation and the Free
dom OF Public Lands We do not disregard the
Commercials hesitations and qualifications butwe
say that what it does clearly admit and imply is
worth far more than the time aud space given to
this discussion.
I'VE do not know whence the Commercial has
imbibed the notion that we consider tenant ne
cessarly an oppressed, detrsuded individual We
have been tenants very steadily these fifteen years
OF So aud have never considered the circumstance
hardship nor a grievance Nor have we dispu-
ted the right of man to the property created by
labor hired and paid for by him, any more than to
that created Immediately by his own hands And
and as to the condition of the Hired cultvator OF
land, which the Commercial supposes us to regard
so complscently, think it all right provided he
has a free and fair choice 20 subdue and cultivate
portion of wild land for himself or to work anoth.
er mans land or such terms as are offered him
We think the State should guarantee him this
choice so long as there are any wild, unused lands
within its borders and if he has tins choice we
can discern no hardship in his case. But on
coming into the world he finds 1t all appropriated
to others, and is virtually told that he can only
work produce aud enjoy ON condition that he viii
agree to give some one else large share Of the
products OF his labor then we think his case hard
one
As to the case Of Perpetual Lesseholds or Man
ors. while we utterly condemn and deplore the
policy which created them, we affirm aud main
tain the rights OF the Landlords as by law estab-
E,hed An we ask is that they shall really and
evidently be the Landlords. Joe Duggins says,
MIR Van Rensselaer, my grandfather took this
farm, then patch Of rugged wilderness, OF yours
on lease. being assured that the lessor owned 1t
our family have done sll the work on tive have
made the farm, erected the buildings and fences,
paid the taxes worked the roads. &c. aud We
have paid your family the stipulated cent these
hundred years Now | am informed : believe
that your grandfather had no raid 'Ae this land
which he assumed to lease, and l wish you 70
satisfy a legal tribunal that he had before | pay
any more rent -" No. won't legally replies
the Landlord the lease is all sufficient you shall
pay me and mine the stipulated ren. forever. no
matter whether we ever owned the land or not "
II does seem 70 as that this is wrons ani that the
State ought 70 provide some OF riehting il
and since the Commercial insists that the tensu. NAY
Etgate his presusnpsive lsndo-is tide indirectly
we cannot see Why he should not be allowed - 20
il directly Bot we are not tenacious as 10 whetber
he shall be required 4 sprove the landlords title
FIRST or shs lsiter 20 establish T. We shall be
atis6ed with any legel provision which allows The