The Morning herald., 1877-10-20
WILMINGTON, Del. Oct. 20, 1877
LAND MONOPOLY.

It is mistake to suppo'e that American
civilization is essentially different from tha
of England and of Europe; or that it il
not rapidly tending to similar results, 0
making the rich richer, and the poor poorer
The abolition of primogeniture has retard
ed shat tendency aud postponed its consum
nation; but it cannot prevent, in the moi
distant future, the approach of state q
things. in the older and more wealthy and
populous States, similar TO that which ap-
pals the we'll to do classes of England, and
threatens social cataclysm.
Mr.. Jefferson relates that he, Chancellor
Wythe and Edmund Pendleton were con-
stituted committee or commission, by
the Legislature, shortly after the Declara-
ton of Independence, to revise the laws Of
Virginia. He favored the total abolition
of primogeniture, and the placing all the
children on footing of equality as to the
right of inheritance. Mr.. Pendleton inA
sisted on adhering to the old, time-honored
English law of giving the whole landed
estate to the oldest son. Mr.. Wythe dis
sented from the latter proposition, but was
less radical in his ideas than Jefferson, and
proposed the medium policy of the Jewish
Theocracy, as established by Moses, which
was TO give the eldest son double portion,
and divide the remainder of the estate be-
tween the other sons. Jefferson replied, ii
it can be shown that the oldest son can do
twice as much work and eat twice as much
as his y ounger brothers, Ishall be willing
to give him double portion; but not on
other conditions. This treuchant logic,
lacked by the popular sympatbies, carried
the day, and primogeniture was abolished.
But the consequences of this simple act of
sweeping away fragrant invssion of the
rule of equity in the law of inheritance.
has not had the effect expectcd from it by
Jefferson and other Republicans, of pre-,
venting an absorption of real estate by the
wealthy classes 10 the extent anticipated
This unhappy result is observable in the
most populous and wealthy districts. As
an illustration, Massachusetts, in 1850,
when the population was 9!,5l4, contained |
$4,000 farms, with SO acres each on the
average. In 1870, when the population
had increased 10 l ,457 ,351, there were only
26,50O farms, with an average of l03 acres
each. 1t thus appears that with fifty per
cent. more population, there were 1869
fewer farms at the latter date than at the
former; and that these farms averaged
four acres more than those of 1850.
Rhode Island had few more farms in
1850, than in 1870. New Ham pshire de-
clined in the number Of farms from 1861
to 1870, but this is less difficult OF expla- !
nation, as there we a dimnution of the
population amounting to nearly 5000 souls
New York increased very little in the mum.
b.r Of farms from 1860 to 1870, while there |
was an augmentation of the population by |
half million. In the more populous dis |
tricts there was doubtless the same tendency
to land monopoly IS we have pointed out
in New England.
The abolition of primogeniture was,
therefore, not Of itself sufficient to prevent
the evil; and American statesmen will at
ne distant day be confronted with the per-
lis which now stare Englishmen in the
face. 1t will be long before its effects will
be seen in the West and South; but be-
ginning in New England, the system Of /
land monopoly will gradually extend itself !
over the county, and tend to widen the
gulf which separates the rich fron the
poor.