New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-12-13

vantage to sell the agricultural land 70 actual cul
tivators IN the first instance, he would have no
power TO prevent their monopoly afterward, for
there must be no faint of Land Reform about
the plan. Even II we should convert M. W hit.
ney to the doctrine, Congress has guarded against
his putting it III practice, so he would have no al
tentative but to pursue the present system that
is to encourage land monopoly in Europe BY keep
Ing it up here and by that means making ms many
lacklanders rs possible, in order to increase their
competition, and get their labor Mt the cheapest
rates Certainly. then. it would be Mr. Whttney'S
interest to have dense population, for the denser
the population the higher the price of lands the
higher the price Of lands the higher the rents and
the higher the rents the lower the wages as orr
experience in civilization has abundantly de-
moustrated. AS the populations of our Atlantic
States have become more dense, | have not heard
that the mpetitionforlabor among Corkonians
and Z" landowner" has become less savage or
their wages much higher.
Mr. d. whips the devil OF a Land Reformer
which his fancy has pictured, around the stump Of
land Monopoly. by arguing thar the Whitney
scheme only sells the :" increased value of the
land given to it by the Railroad wheat, which
would now be worth but thirty or forty cents
hushel, would then bring dollar, and so on
Rather bad encouragement, that, for the laborefs
who are to live on the wheat If Mr.. d. saw
Land Reform MS see it. he would not anticipate
the transit of single bushel Of wheat over this
Railroad to Europe. f lrope can, and ought to,
and would, with Land Reform there, which would
speedily follow Land Reform here, produce every
bushel of wheat needed in that quarter. Even
Great Britain has II acres of land for every fam
lily, which is equivalent to q twenty acre farm for
every farmer and a sufficient lot for every man
of every other occupation; and. according to their
best political economists, sufficient land, properly
cultivated and apportioned, for four times the
present population OF that country. lt IS only by
robbing the people OF their right to the sod, and
4l,,,rf RI tOO orn
ton, to the workshops and factories that an arti.
fetal scarcity of grain Is created IN Europe and
if Land Monopoly were abolished here, our farm
ers would be enabled to supply all their mechanI-
cal wants by furnishing food to our own mechan-
les. What they now pay for the rent and pur-
chase OF land would far more than make up tor
the grain they are now compelled 20 send to fu.
rope. The only legitimate commerce between
two countries is in productions peculiar to the
soil and climate of either If, in either of two
countries rightly governed, with free land and
free trade, the people should not be able to raise
provisions enough to support them, the othef nav
ing surplus of land, instead oil importing pro-
visions, they ought to export themselves now
they are compelled to do So not through the
scarcity otland, but through the barbarous mono
poly oft
am glad to notice in Mr. Whtneys scheme,
as delineated by Mr. D. one highly Praseworthy
feature that it viii have dividends nor
interest to pay on capital, but only lis repairs or
current expenses :" but dissent from the asser-
ton that this principle cannot be applied II any
other scheme than this be adopted This prncl-
pie is applied in the construction OF almost all our
common roads, and of some of our plank roads
and, in my opinion, ought to be applied to every
road of every description. Any other principle IS
inconsistent with the freedom OF the soil, and an
ticipate the time when on this principle all our
present roads shall be resumed by the people
A complete review of Mr. Whtneys scheme,
as developed by himself in his pamphlet-(hc re-
pudiates Mr.. Breese's Senate Report in its favor,
rs also, believe, does Mr.. Breese since he be-
came conversant with l. and REFORM would give
ground for many points OF opposition to 1t more
than have stated; butthe two grounds OF oolec-
ton on which have laid the most stress ought
alone think, to be sufficient, not only to defeat
it. but to consgn it to obyion first that it pro-
poses to make the landless people do great ma
tional work entirely at their own expense, and
secondly that it is stumbling block in the way
of the Freedom of the Public Lands.
How any L and Reformer could fall in with such
4 plan surpasseth my comprehension. can only
conjecture that he must see IN 1t tendency to the
realization of favorite theory, that civilization
must wear itself out before true state of society
can be brought about and that its last stride must
be to the Pacific The contemplation OF such
remote result would be terrible to those who be-
lieve that we need only the Legitimate application
Of the principles of the Declaration of Independ-
ence to give competence to ali and place US on the
high road of progression C.ll.E.
Reply.
Before proceeding to discuss the argu-
ments of our friend and correspondent, let
us say that there is one thing in his remarks
which, did we think it true, would cause
US sincere modification. We refer to the
passage in which he attributes to any OBJ
servations which may appear in these
columns an influence apart from their in
herent reason and business. The journalist
whose labors merely establish him as an
authority with his readers, causing them to
defer to his mere dictum, has either achiev
ed an unenviable success or miserable
failure, according to the aim he has before
him. For our part, we regard it as the
only legitimate and even the only tolerable
function of public teacher, so to inspire
and inform the minds he addresses that
they shall defer to nothing but demon
strated truth, and repel every influence but
that of good sense and reason. And we
Aatter ourselves that we have not SO far
failed in our purpose as the words OF our
correspondent might be construed to imply.
The essential difference between our cor
respondent and ourselves, at least in respect
to the Pacific Railroad question, is that we
regard that work as matter Of pressing,
instant necessity, while he thinks it may
as well be deferred to a distant period in
the future. We see, too, that Land Re
form measures cannot be got through Con-