"I presume the anti-renters will endeavor to get some amendment of the Constitution, by which they may become owners of the fee of the lands they hold under leases without compensation. This, if done directly, would impair the obligation of contracts, and would be declared void by the Supreme Court of the U. S. It will, therefore, probably be attempted indirectly--by burdening leased lands with disabilities and exactions, which will make them of little or no value to landlords. "In regard to leases forever, it is possible that there may be a proposition to convert them into allodial tenures by giving to lessees the right to redeem them by paying to the lessors a principal sum, which will yield the rent in the annual interest. This would be to introduce a condition not in the contract. I would not object to it on any other ground if the sum paid were sufficient to yield the rent at an interest of four per cent., which is considered a fair rate on agricultural lands. For instance, if the annual rent on a farm or lot leased forever were $70, the principal sum to be paid should be $1750. If only $1000 were paid--a principal sum, which at legal rate (7 pr. ct.) interest yields the rent--the landlord would be put to the trouble of reinvesting on less durable and safe security. "In regard to leases for years or for lives, the convention should not interfere. It may, if it choose, declare that hereafter no leases for lives shall be given. The Constitution has already declared that there shall be no leases of agricultural lands for more than twelve years; and this is a bad restriction for tenants. But leases for lives are in the process of rapid extinction, and they are not renewed now. My father-in-law, Mr. Morgan, gave a large number of such leases sixty years ago. Some of them are still in existence, although they were only for three lives, which in England are considered equivalent to 21 years. We are selling on liberal terms to the lessees or their representatives. There should be no interference with such tenures, unless it be to prohibit them in future. Every man on Mr. Morgan's land who has used it in a farmer-like manner has grown rich. Only the idle or improvident, and now and then an unlucky fellow, have failed to make money. The lands were leased for the interest of less than $3 per acre. They have for thirty or forty years been worth treble and quadruple that price, and the tenants have reaped all the benefit of the advance. Now to interfere in any way with the reversionary interest of the lessor would be the grossest injustice to him. Of course it would be a violation of the contract, which we should resist; and it would do an incalculable injury to a commercial State like New York, whose vitality depends so much on the inviolability of its faith and the security of property of all kinds.