Democratic Sentinel, Volume 3, Number 46, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 December 1879 — LAND TENURE. [ARTICLE]

LAND TENURE.

Tlie American System Compared to En gland’s—Wliy American Farmers Are Bet ter Off Than Those of Other Nations. Dr. George B. LoriDg, member o Congress from Massachusetts, delivt red an exceedingly interesting and valuable address before the Great Dairy Fair recently held in New York city. Hissubject was “ The American Problem of Landholding.” He said the question of land tenure was of fundamental importance, one upon whose solution, in a satisfactory manner, depended the very existence of agriculture as an industry to be cheiished and developed by free, enlightened, ambitions people. The tenant farmers of Great Britain, the peasantry of Bnssia, the farmers of Germany, c&MmaU landholders of France, and the agricultural citizens of the United States, he said, all represented one industry. Yet how widely they differed in everything that goes to make up man’s condition as an intelligent being and a member in some form of the state and of society. The great question now occupying the minds of those interested in the welfare of civilized men was, how the comfort, prosperity, and intelligence of the agricultural population could be best subserved. The American people went further than other nations, and inquired how could the American farmer with a farm of small dimensions discharge his duty to the State as a voter and tax-payer, and gratify his desires with regard to the education of his family and the comfort and culture of his home from the iocome he could derive from cultivating the land. That was the American problem to day. The prosperity of agriculture had manifestly kept pace with the prosperity of every other industry here, and he bejieved personal effort was well rewarded, and that the small farmer would find even from the slow and reduced local markets a compensation nearly as great as when his expenses were greater and labor higher than now. He was aware that great discouragement had fallen upon that class of farmers, in whose hands rested the system of agriculture which must prevail as our country increases in population. Yet the condition of farmers here was looked upon as so satisfactory in every point of view as to attract the attention of foreign statesmen. The American system of landholding -they recognized as the foundation of great popular content. Accompanied as it is by social and civil opportunities, surrounded by free institutions, attended by the school and the meeting-house, it constituted the foundation on which rested great mental activity, dignity, enterprise and ambition. So great was the agricultural prosperity here that, with taxable lauded possessions, higher wages and increased social requirements, the American farmer could compete in the world’s grain markets even with those who were furnished free land and- whose necessities were small. The skill of the American farmer, supplied with the most effective machinery, was the object of admiration and imitation, and his well-organized home was looked upon as a raodei. The place filled by the American farmer was so important and honorable that other nations inquired how it had been obtained. He compared the social condition of American farmers with farmers of other countries. It was to the division and subdivision of the land, as well as to their devotion to the institutions of learning and religion, and their determination to secure social and civil rights, that our farmers owed their success in establishing a free Government. Our system of landholding had attracted the attention of the English statesmen Bright and Gladstone, and had been discussed in the famous controversy between Lords Berconsfield and Hartington. The English Parliament Commission, now here, would do well to study our system of landholding, and report on it accurately. The agricultural interests of England would find more relief in this system than any yet proposed The question of the capacity of this system to support a great rural population on American soil was the American problem to-day. Tenant farming iu England had failed; peasant-farming in France offered no temptations. Would our own system of citizen-proprietoi-ship continue to prosper? He saw no reason to doubt that the ingenious application of labor to a small homestead would meet with ample reward. Methods, advantageous localities, markets might have changed, but not the opportunities for success. Agricultural education and societies were to be encouraged by every means. In closing, Dr. Loring urged a constant spirit of inquiry and respect for every form of agricultural education, accurate knowledge being the best legacy they could transmit to their successors as the citizen proprietors of the American soil.