The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1847-02-20
From the Ohio Statesman.
Land Reform,

lature has presented to that body me-
mortal signed by large number of the
citizens of New York city, setting forth
shat under the existing laws, the land
is passing out Of the hands of the cultl.
vators into those Of capitalists, as In
Europe and that increasing dependence
degradation and misery must be the lot
of the cultivators until the system is
changed
The petitioners propose the enact
ment of law which shall limit the
quantity of land which any individual
may hereafter hold, to one hundred and
sixty acres, and also exempling the
homestead of each family from aliena-
ton for any future debt or liability with
out the joint consent Of the husband
and wife. They further insist that the
public lands of the United States shall
be cut up into small farms and lots for
the free and exclusive use of actual
settlers. ....
The people of New York have expe-
rienced the evils Of land monopoly and
appear determined 10 correct them and
prevent their perpeluation. The pro-
position here made are certainly cacu
lated to effect their object. The limit
alton Of the amount which any individ-
ual shall hold will prevent the monopo-
ly and will doubtless be productive Of
good. But is the arbitrary limitation
of one hundred and sixty acres right
and polite? 1T must be remembered
that much more land is required for one
purpose than another that land is not
all equally productive. Besides one
hundred and sixty acres in the neigh
borhood Of large city is much more
profitable than the same quantity Of
land in the interior at distance from
market. No one could object to a
limitation Of this kind which operated
equally and which Disseminated be-
tween the profit and productiveness of
land, its distance from ready market.
The proposition to render the home
stead InaienabIe appears TO be liable
to more serious objection. Is it not
calculated to increase the very evil
which it was designed 10 remedy?-
Would it not create perpetual here
ditary landed aristocracy similar in
many respects to that mighty system
which the northern nations erected on
the ruins Of the Roman Empire, known
rs the feudal system from which Great
Britain derived her present law of dis
tribution and descents. The pro oposi-
ton Of these memorIalsts is to make
the homestead inalienabe for any fu-
ture debt or liability. Would not the
abolition of all collection laws more ei-
fectually secure the object proposed.-
There are severa reasons for regarding
the last proposition more iavorbly than
the first. First, II would more elTectu-
ally secure the object proposed. Sec
ondly because these laws appear to be
constructed on the prilieip pie Of oppres-
sing the poor, and exempting the rich
of holding the individual responsible
to the very letter Of his promise taking
his person to the Jail and rendering ev-
cry particle of the property which he
has accumulated or which he may there
after accumulate, to the last hour of his
life, liable for his debts and OF limiting
the liability of corporation to the a.
mount of capital stock-grinding the
poor isolated unprotected individual to
the dust but giving the rich and power
ful corporation unlimited license to
swindle with Impunlty.
That this proposition is not new but
has been subject OF reflection with
the wsest men of our nation will be
evident from the following remarks Of
DIR. Franklin made in conversation
with John Baynes, in 1888:
"He Or Franklin) mentioned one instance to
show how unnecessary such compulsory means
| Imprisonment for debt) were and he seemed to
thnk that it would be better if there were no legal
means Of compelling the payment of fdebts ri GER
tain magnitude. In the interval between the Dec
laration of Independence and the formation of the
| code -of laws in America there was no method of
compelling payment of debts; yet notwithstanding
this, the debts were paid as regularly as ever; and
ifany man had refused to pay a just debt because
he was not legally compelled he burst not have
shown his face in the street."
The proposition Of the New York me-
morialiss TO divide the public lands Of
the United States into small lots and
farms and to limit the number ofacres
which any individual may purchase car
certainly meet with no opposi,on.--
Some measure is needed to protect our
people against the unjust exactions of
reckless Spectators and greedy capital
lists who annually engross millions Of
acres of the choicest lands, and ;nme-
diately raise the price upon the hardy
emigrant who buys With the intention
lofsettling and '.aproviug the country.