The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-12-03

seems to be the formidable difficulty. But we
must look at the other side of the question. If
the tenant is to be viewed merely as one of two
parties to the rent contract, in what other light
are we to view the landlordl He, too, is only
one or the contracting parties; he has had the fix
ing OF the terms of contract long enough. Is it
quite clear that tenants are to be blamed if they
claim to have their turn now9
Question-But does that argument not ignore
the fact that tenants are setting aside contracts
already In existence2
Answer-In the view of the case / am now
contemplating there are practically no old con-
tracts. Even these have taken the form of
statutory tenancies under the land act of 1881,
with judicial rents not at present ia possession,
to use tenchical phrase
Qnestion-Do you maintain that there are
necessarily no contracts of tenantry valid and
binding in Ireland2
AnSwer-This is how would state nv views
of the case: 1t is admitted on all hands, prac-
tically all over Ireland that reductions and large
reductions, are to be made in rents: even in ju-
dlcial rents The question is as to the amount
OF those reductions. Whatever inconvenience
there may be in having this question decided by
the tenants, must maintain there is just the
same inconvenence-in0eed, / see in one
way much greater lnconvenence-in having 1t
decided by landlords. The landlord, like the
tenant, now Is merely one of the two contract
ing parties, neither more nor less Within the
last six or seven months two proposals have been
made ov friends of our Irish tenants, the adop-
tion OF either of which by Parliament would
have saved us, or rather, l should have said
saved the government of this country from the
responsibility of the present deploraDle state of
affairs If Gladstone's land purchase bill of the
present year-or Parnell's subsequent proposal
for relief of'tenant-had been accepted. the fix
ing of fair reductions and fair rents would not
now be in the hands of tenants. 1t would be in
the hands of the constituted courts of the
realm The present rough -andready way
has had to be substituted for formal judicial
procedure. Blame surely does not lie at the
doors of the Irish tenants, or theis Parliament
ary representatives and political men, who did
their best i'll every possible way to have the mat
ter referred for settlement to the courts. Until
1870 the laws of this country recognized but one
ownership in the soil, and that, as matter Of
course, was the ownership of the landlords.
While that state continued, tenants, in their
holding out for a reduction of rent, undoubtedly
should have been regarded as keeping possession
OF that which was the legal property of another.
But. upon whatever grounds, there would have
been uniform state of things for requiring him
TO surrender the property, If be found it impossi
BILE to comply with the conditions under which
he held it The case now stands in
wholly different light as a result of the
land laws of 1870 and 1881, for now, beyond all
question, the system of land tenure in landlord
IS system of dual ownership 1t is no longer
system OF landlord ownership exclusively. The
tenant,-as well as the landlord, is now recog-
nized by the law as having his ownership The
present government have, in fact, proclaimed it
as their policy TO get this tide Of dual ownership
in land; SO they recognize it's existence As to
abolishng it, that can have but one meaning,
viz: the adoption of Michael Davit.'s pro-
cramme of the abolition of landlordism in Ire.
land-for we have only two classes of legal own
ers in soil, landlords and tenants. We.may safely
assume it is not the part OF the ministerial poll
cy to get rid of tenants or tleast of all tenants
while there are tenants. There is no way but
one of putting an end to dual ownership of land,
that is by putting an end to landlordism