6. If the State interferes with his freedom of action, and causes him any material, moral, or sentimental injury, it must properly compensate him.
7. To take away the enjoyment, control, and management of his land is a very tangible infringement of rights, and one for which compensation must be given.
8. To fix a rent is to deprive the landlord of the advantages of competition, and affects him financially.
9. It would reduce him to the position of a mere mortgagee, but without the security and certainty of payment.
10. To deprive him of his power of eviction, is to take away a privilege, a necessity.
11. The tenant’s claim to a “right” in the soil is not founded on any tangible or real historical basis.
The abuse of eviction or raisings of rent is rare; the use is necessary and justifiable.
12. There is little or no abuse of the power of arbitrary eviction; and even when rent is not paid, the landlords, as a class, are lenient. It is occasionally necessary for the good of the estate to evict (compensation for “disturbance” being paid) in order to consolidate holdings.
13. Eviction is seldom enforced, except in the case of bad and wasteful tenants; good and improving tenants are never evicted. Therefore, any diminution in the power of eviction would be disastrous to the prosperity of the country by retaining on the land worthless tenants.