landlords has been an indirect means of arousing the hatred and hostility of those who have been recipients of it. The demand, that the landlord should prove a title in the premises, or fail in enforcing the conditions of the lease, claims attention rather from its novelty, and the natural consequences of it, should it be granted, than from any principles of justice, demanding its adoption. The leases provide, without an exception, so far as we are aware, that if the rent remains unpaid for a certain number of days beyond the time of payment, the lessor may at any time thereafter prosecute for its recovery, or re-enter upon the premises and distrain and sell. Conditions are also inserted, that the tenant shall pay all taxes, shall not commit waste, shall not work mines or possess himself of minerals, and shall not use, except permitted, kills and creeks of water. And there is a general clause, that if the covenants and conditions are not performed, the lessor may re-enter and determine the occupancy of his lessee. These conditions present a great objection to a law like the one demanded, and suggest the important question, whether a tenantwhether any one is morally and legally bound by the terms of his own contract. The tenant, by placing his hand and seal to those conditions, has voluntarily consented to abide by them; and demanding to be released from them, he virtually asks relief from his own free deeds. But laying aside this question, whether a man is bound by his own agreements, let us take another view of this strange demand. The tenant seeks not only to dispute the title of his landlord, and that he should show it good as between himself and his tenant, but also that he should legally establish it, as against the world. And what would be the consequence of such a requirement? Deprived of availing himself of his right by possession, and of the ratification of his title by the state government, the landlord, if he fails to legally prove every document however ancient, in the chain of his claim, becomes dispossessed of his possessions. The state does not claim them, for she has recognized a title in him, and none other than the tenant contests it. He demands that he shall be permitted to occupy rent free, unless the landlord can make a perfect title. He fails in some one step. Some link in the chain, perfect two or three generations since, is found faulty, and thereby the tenant virtually becomes the owner. Having entered under a title, which was a protection against all the world except one person, being in possession under that title, he asks to be held the owner, unless that one shall show a perfect title as against every other person. Surely this demand of proving title amounts to but this-a transfer, by a kind of agrarian legerdemain, of one man's property to another. But would not a law so framed as to give the tenant the right to demand such proof from the landlord, before the enforcement of the conditions of the lease, be in fact no law, because conflicting with the clause of the Constitution of the United States, relative to impairing the obligation of contracts? It has been holden by the Supreme Court of the United States, that a state law, making any deviation from the terms of a contract, imposing any conditions not expressed in it, or dispensing with any express ed therein, was unconstitutional; and this doctrine being correct, as it undoubtedly is, a law such as we have mentioned, acting so palpably in opposition to almost every condition of a contract, would also be held unconstitutional. Neither can such a law be justi. fied on the ground that the leases are detrimental and injurious to the prosperity of the state. Every law designed to compel a man to part with his property, whether it takes it away from him by force, or places around it such restrictions as make the possession undesirable, is and must be radically wrong, for it violates one of the fundamental principles of society and correct law-the preservation of private property. It matters not by how much sophistry it may be supported, nor on what pretexts it may be enacted. Having such an object, either directly or indirectly in view, the same objection applies, that it does not protect a man in the possession of what he has. Neither can such a law be sustained, because some of the conditions of the leases may seem de grading, and unworthy of freemen. All law, we know, frowns upon immoral contracts, and such as are contrary to public policy; and universal common law declares them void. But no one would think of extending the application of such a principle to those contracts, which are merely detrimental to public interest, or unpleasant to a part of the community. Such a construction would seem forced and unnatural. The request, relative to the abolishment of the right of distress, stands upon much the same principle, and is similar to the demand last considered. Like other conditions it is inserted in the contract, acknowledged by those knowing its nature and tendency. It exists as much from the free will of the lessee as from that of the lessor. It is urged however that it is but a remedy-a way to collect the rent, and that we can legislate in regard to remedies, though we may not impair a contract. This we admit, when we can as it were detach the one from the other, and by our laws affect only the former. But we should bear in mind a principle equally well settled, "that there is a great distinction between such laws as affect the remedy merely, and such as affect the contract through the remedy." The spirit of the constitutional provis. ion is to be our guide, and we can not shield ourselves from it by retreating to the technicalities of contract and remedy. A remedy given by contract, becomes of itself a contract, beyond the reach of law. A remedy given by law may perhaps be changed or modified; but even then it is a question, whether a contract entered into should not be construed in accordance with the laws existing at the time of its formation, rather than by those since passed and changing entirely the remedy. With how much greater reason may we doubt, whether a remedy, given by contract and not by law, can be influenced or modified. If our views in regard to the constitutionality of such laws are correct, only evil would result from their enactment. The landlord might be compelled to let judgment press against him here, but the Supreme Court of the nation would protect him. In addition to present grievances, the tenants would bring other onerous burdens upon themselves, heavy costs, the result of laws of their own asking. But to go beyond the Constitution of our country, and assert that the evil owes its existence to a fiction of law which originated centuries ago, is useless-is the hight of folly. It is nonsense to assert, at this late day, that the greatest interest any one can have in real property is a life estate for his own life; that every law recognizing a greater interest is wrong, because untrue to nature; and that we are not bound to obey or sustain any laws growing out of or recognizing such a right. A sophistical argument might per haps be raised on such a principle; but to seek to overthrow those polit ical axioms, under which the whole civilized world have acted, and property has been held and occupied, is aiming to upturn the foundations of society. But passing by these complaints, which in our opinion are brought forward as a pretext, let us see what is the real cause of so much excitement. Having observed its rise and progress-having been surrounded by it in its different appearances, and having mingled somewhat with itwe are compelled to believe, that most of the grievances complained of are the result of a disordered fancy, encouraged by the misguided, by dishonest demagogues, and by inflammatory agrarian papers. The quarter sales have been a prolific source of murmuring, and an inexhaustible theme for the assays of itinerant orators; yet judged and estimated by facts, they dwindle comparatively to nothing. They exist in the leases, we admit ; but for many years, on some of the manors, they have been released for a sum equal to but a small part of the actual quarter value of the premises, or for a trifling addition to the yearly rent, while in others they have not been enforced. In many cases, all reservations and conditions have been offered to be released, on payment of back rent. In the Hardenburg patent, no quarter sales exist, and frequently no reservations. The lease of Mr. Earle, at the selling of whose property for arrear of rent, the under sheriff was murdered, was only conditioned for the payment of thirty two dollars yearly, without any reservations whatever. Such facts present these "hard conditions" in a different light. Another great complaint has been, that the reservations were intended to make serfs and slaves of freemen; and so frequently has it been asserted, that many seem to think, honestly we would fain believe, that freedom is not theirs, and never can be, while a leasehold estate contin ues. The degradation of the tenants has been dwelt upon, until they feel sunken in public estimation, and suffer perhaps as keenly under ima. ginary evils as they would under real. But what are facts in this par. ticular? Did any one ever imagine, that he who rented a farm or house, enjoyed fewer political rights, or was less a freeman, than if he owned the one or the other? It may be more gratifying to own the farm we till and the house which shelters us; but common sense forbids the idea that we are less respected, because circumstances prevent such a pleas ure. Else it must be true, that respect and worth are measured, not by the man, but by his property,— an assumption, the basis of a monied aristocracy, than which none can be more degrading. If mere indebtedness is a badge of, and in itself constitutes slavery, then how few are freemen. The principle, not the kind of indebtedness produ ces this state, if produced at all; and the hirer of money, or the debtor to kindness or personal assistance, becomes alike a serf. The chains which bind men, may be gilded or repulsive; but they are the fetters of dependence. Such a doctrine is not more false than ridiculous. And these tenants, "slaves and serfs," as they call themselves, have they no ambition for the things of this life? Are the natural feelings. of humanity deadened, because they hire a farm to cultivate? We grant that in leasehold townships, the lands are not generally as highly cultivated, or the moral tone of society as correct, as where the occupant is the owner of the fee; but the cause of this we rather ascribe to the fact, that the less energetic gather there, because a nominal sum secures them a home from year to year, than because there is any thing in the leasehold system which weighs down the energies of man. Far be it from us to make any defense of this system. We would it had never exist ed in our country, or that it had, at the time of the formation of our Constitution, shared the same fate as the rights of primogeniture and entail; and having been recognized, we would it could now be removed from among us, no more to trouble or favor us with its presence. We profess no sympathy for it, but a dislike to all its shapes and combinations. Neither regarding it such an evil as it is asserted to be, nor believing that it originated in a false or strained principle of right, we wish some other kind of tenure could be substituted for it; and to any just and honorable and legal means, which may be adopted to bring about such a result, we shall ever and cordially give our support. But we know not how that end can be obtained, save by conciliatory and frank compromise. By a wise provision of the Constitution of our government, the present leases are placed beyond the reach of law. The original parties or their representatives alone can modify them. But we can not see why such an outcry should be raised about degradation, ambition broken, or the tenants made serfs and bondmen. Such charges evidence an unnatural, unhealthy feeling-a feeling which prompts us to view every unpleasant and crossing circumstance of our condition, in its worst possible light, and encourages us in fault finding with things beyond our control, lead ing us to believe the world is united in a confederation to oppress and degrade us. That such a feeling exists among the tenantry, and has shown itself under such phases as to produce alarm and consternation, is evident to all who are conversant with the events of the day. Though this feeling has now become a sort of monomania, it perhaps originated from good motives, a desire to remove in a quiet way the conditions incorporated in their contracts. But the flame has been kindled, in person and through the press, by agrarians and demagogues, who regard revolutions as useful, progressive steps toward what they call perfect equality, another name for unbridled anarchy. That society and government are but contrivances of the rich to oppress the poor-that an equal division of property is just, and that no one should possess more land than in person he can occupydoctrines such as these, popular with those classes whose condition no change can render worse, and attractive to the ignorant, discontented population which always exists, have been advocated, and rooted in the minds of those who are already disturbed; and lest the flame should die away, appeals, skillfully contri ved with cunning sophistry, have been sent forth by world-conventions, and working men's associa tions, composed of free thinkers and free actors, moved by such men as Owen and Fourier. What may be the end of this deep seated excitement, we of course are unable to determine. So far as it may tend toward the removal of the relation of landlord and tenant, we shall rejoice, though deprecating the means made use of. But unless some bounds are set to the extreme liberty of the press-unless the people can be restrained from lawless acts-unless the law can retain its majesty, and her ministers be sustained-we very much fear that the time will be long delayed which shall witness the abolition of this peculiar relation. A desire for the dawning of this day, prevents us from upholding the course adopted by the so called anti-renters. When we know that they have connected with them large numbers of disguis ed and armed men-a fact now ren. dered indisputable; when we perceive that they disregard the rights of private citizens, endangering their lives, abusing, beating, tarring and feathering; when we hear them threaten the officers of the law; when we see them gather by hun dreds, and in disguise, to resist the execution of legal process, and be hold them shoot down one, because a ministerial agent of the law; and when we see their organs sustaining and excusing the hellish deed, by denying that he was engaged in his lawful duty, and that those who kill ed him are murderers ;-we can not but believe that such measures will tend to make the issue to be, between an adherence to law on the one hand, and anarchy on the other, rather than an issue between leasehold estates and a desire for their extinction. Such acts force us to withdraw the sympathy we should otherwise extend. And we know we speak the feelings of many in asserting, that these radical measures have done very much toward stifling the sympathy which once existed. As long as no leagued, lawdefying bands existed, tacitly at least recognized by general associations, and the tenants stated their wrongs like men who felt that they were suffering, but were determined to remain obedient citizens, so long almost every one gave them ready sympathy. The public ear is ever open to catch the faintest murmurings of the sufferer, and in a democratic government, where "goodness of intention" peculiarly resides, remedies are eagerly sought. But the sympathy of the people is as easily deadened, when the petitioner for it, by clamorous, harsh demands, and illegal measures, shows himself unworthy. Accordingly we find many arrayed against the anti-renters, not because they are supporters of the leasehold system, but because they are driven from coöperation by the measures pursued. This excitement however, the cause and history of which we have slightly sketched, has other features, for which we should withhold from it our support and try to withstand it. As startling events in its career, we have noticed that private individuals have been abused-that officers have been compelled to surrender their legal processes-have been tarred and feathered-have been impris oned, and threatened with death; while another has been murdered at mid-day, breathing his latest breath amid the cruel taunts of those who killed him.* In these and many other instances, the restraint of law has been thrown off, her majesty insulted and her power rudely trampled in the dust. Dreadful as are such results, under whatever circumstances developed, they have an importance attached to them beyond the events connected with their production. They tend toward the establishment of a most dangerous precedent, and one which must prove, if successful, ruinous to our healthful liberty as a nation. In a country like our own, where we possess the inestimable privilege of being governed by laws of our own making, any wild ebullition of popular feeling and passion is calculated to excite fear, and awaken some slight distrust in our great political principles. But when we see the passions of the multitude raised so high, and become so uncontrolable, as to openly put at defiance the law and her ministers, our fear is changed to dread; and we tremble, lest the populace once aware that it can place the law in subjection, should be led to make similar attempts to remedy every grievance, whether real or fanciful, until actual anarchy should be the result. Every new attempt is more to be dreaded than the one preceding, inasmuch as each succeeding trial lessens the respect which all are bound to show toward the existing laws, and weakens the feeling of obedience toward them. And upon this respect for laws and a ready obedience to them, rest democratic |