But I must indulge myself on this topic no longer, lest it seduce me from my main design.
Closely connected with Agriculture is the subject of leases. Though not so important in the United States, as in other countries, because the body of tenantry is smaller here, yet it is not undeserving of attention. The leases generally in use, are for a short term, with a reservation, by way of rent, of a certain share of the produce of the land. This system is liable to two great objections. The shortness of the tenure, precludes all hope of improvement of the soil, and the mode of payment, (the rendering a share of the crop,) holds out inducements to fraud, which few tenants are able to resist. When the landlord lives upon the estate, he has some chance of checking the tenant, by obtaining an accurate knowledge of the amount of the crop; and if he is liberal, he may have something done in the way of improvement. But where he lives at a distance, the probability is, that the estate will go to ruin, while he receives but a small part of his due. The objections to long leases, for rents in money, are, that if the landlord parts with the possession for a long time, he may be injured by a bad tenant; that he precludes himself from the chance of a sale, if a good price should be offered, and that the great fluctuations in the price of grain, make it impossible to fix a rent in money, without danger to both parties. Where a man has it in view to sell his estate, he may be right, in making a short lease; that case forms an exception to the general rule. But where he means to keep it, the objection is removed; then, as to fluctuation of price, the matter might be easily managed, by reserving a rent of a certain quantity of grain, giving the tenant an election to pay the market price, in money, which might be more convenient than delivering the grain. That point being settled, a lease for a longer term, fixing the rotation in which the fields should be cultivated, with other proper covenants, would leave the landlord sufficiently protected, while it gave the tenant encouragement to meliorate the soil for his own interest. At the end of such a lease, the value of the estate would be increased, and the rent might be raised. With great deference I submit these remarks to gentlemen of the city, who have farms at some distance, or even in the neighbourhood, which are intended as a provision for their families.
One thing more remains, which I cannot in conscience pass by, and in which, perhaps the Society may find means to do some good. Can no method be devised, to check the inordinate use of spirituous liquors? This shocking habit, strikes at the root of agriculture, by robbing it of the labour necessary for its support. It would be a waste of time, to enumerate the ills which flow from this disgraceful vice, because they are obvious to everyone. Perhaps a small addition to the wages, would induce labourers to forego the use of this poisonous liquid; or they might consent to take as a substitute, beer, or cider, or some other harmless drink. The subject deserves the deepest consideration, and I cannot help hoping, that when societies shall be organized in the several counties, a plan may be formed, which being acted upon at once, throughout the state, may greatly lessen, if not eradicate the evil.
I have endeavoured, gentlemen, to obey your commands, in hopes that my example may call forth the efforts of others, better qualified to do justice to the subject.
[Law Case.]
The following opinion delivered by JACOB RUSH, President of the Court of Common Pleas of the City and County of Philadelphia, will be found particularly interesting by persons residing in the Country, and who may be exposed to controversies about line fences, and their repairs. The examination of the provisions of the act of Assembly, and of the principles of law on the points involved in the case will be interesting and useful to every Lawyer.
| Overseers of the Poor of Byberry, vs. F.I. | Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Certiorari. |
A Certiorari issued out of this Court, directed to Joshua Jones and Elisha Gordon, Esquires, requiring them to transmit certain proceedings had before them under the fence law of 1700, in which John T. Townshend and Israel Walton, Overseers of the poor of Byberry are the complainants, and F. I. the defendant.