American citizen. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1864-1890, 1877-11-24
The Agricultural Lien Law.

part OF many farmers 10 nave the
Agricultural Lien Law repealed.
They urge, in general terms, that it
is the cause Of the present prostra-
ton of the farming interest and
consequent depression of al other
interests of the State. When asked
in what particular way it is so de-
structive of the farming interests,
if is answered that it places labor
beyond the control of the intelligent
farmer that its tendency is to place
a premium upon ignorance, and to
drive intelligent and educated men
into other callings; that under its
protection the lands of the country
are subjected to such a wasting syS-
TEN of tillage that vast areas are
fast becoming worthless. If SUCH
is the working of the law, of course
it must aud will be repealed. But
it is a subj ct that needs serious con-
sideration, and no hasty action
SuOulu OO lbNcH' Aud1 IAO O' ITO
complained of do exist, cannot be
denied, but that they can fairly be
charged to the law ia question is
not SO very clear. The law certainly
cannot be the cause of evils that
were in existence before its enact-
ment, and these are all OF much
older date. LABOR has been uurelia-
BILE and beyond any control ever
since the enforcement of the Pros
clamation of Emancipation Since
then the state of affairs has been
| the result OF natural laws. The
scarcity of labor has enabled the
ignorant laborer to make his own
terms aud to rebel against all con-
trOl-nothing more natural than for
him to do so. Tue poverty, and it
may be added, the greed, of the
landowner aud farmer has forced
him to submit. Thus the cultivation
and management of the land has
ignorant freedman. One after an
other the former proprietors have
nearly all become bankrupt, or so
crippled financially that they are
not able to provide the necessary
subsistence and comforts for the
labor they would employ, and the
thriftless iaboreF is not able to pro :.
vide for himself. How then are the
necessary supplies to be furnished
without the capital of the merchant?
Under our present allcotton system
of farming and the straltened fnan-
cial condition of the farmer, there is
no other way. And shall not pros
lection be given 10 the merchant as
we'll as TO the other parties to the
business 1t is to this part of the
law that objection is made. The
land owner is protected, absolutely,
in his rents; the laGOrer, very right
", is protected IN the proceeds of
his labor, whether wages Oh interest
in CROP, and the merchant is equally
entitled to the favOrs of the law.
But, it is said, that the merchant
should be protected through the
farmer, and should not have direct
interest ID the crop of the laborer
that so long as the laborer can dIaw
supplies upon future crop he will
set up for himself and cannot be
induce d to come under the direction
and management of educated and
practical farmers. But bow is the
legislator to be guided in making
these distinctions among men? Who
is the farmer and who the labOrer?
These questions cannot be answered.
If the law is simply repealed, and
and no adequate protection left to
the capital of the merchant, that
capital may be Withdrawn it doubt
less would be Withdrawn, and that
would be calamity far greater than
any that exists under the present
law. Our prosperity is not to be
found in continued legislation
making and unmak;ng laws. We
need capital and labor. Let both be
protected, or they will not come to
us. The labor we have is as easily
obtained and is no more unreliable
than before the enactment OF the
Lien Law. Farmers of means have
no more difficulty in commanding a
fair proportion Of the labor of the
country, and likewise farmers who
have the confidence of the merchant
find as little difficulty in negotiating
for both capital and Labor.
Our usually correct contemporary
of the Vicksburg CONNER, iat makes
notable mistake i'll saying that
NJ C:~.. Gill .,ou9;O0o RI ho pros