llllllIIllIIITlllliIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllIIIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllIIIllllIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!

 

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS

BULLETIN NO. 278 April 1921

FARM TENANTRY IN THE
UNITED STATES

BY

WILLIAM BENNETT BIZZELL

President of the Agricultural and Mechanical
College of Texas.

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE RE-
QUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF
PHILOSOPHY IN THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL
SCIENCE IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.

TITlllllllITIllllIllllllllHIIllllllllllIllIlllllllllIllllITIIIIIITIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllIIIIIIIIIlIIllllllllllIIIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIIIIIIIlllllilIIIIIIllIllIIlllllllllllllIll!IIlllllllIIllllllIIlllllllIllllllllllllllllllllllllllll "I

IllIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllNllllllllllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllIllllllllIllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllIlllll||l|IlllllllllllllllllllllIIIll!llllllllllllIllIllllllIIIIIIllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllIllllllIllIlllllllllllllllIllllIlllIliIlillllliIllllllIIllIlilllIIllllllllillillllllllllllll

El

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PARTI.

The Historic and Economic Background of Farm Tenantry in the

CHAPTER

I.
II.

III.
IV.
V.

VI.
VII.
VIII.

United States.

PAGE
The Genesis of Farm Tenantry : : : : : 13
The Historical Background of Farm Tenantry in the United
States : : : : : : : : 29
The Physiocratic Conception of Farm Tenantry : : 43
Adams Smith’s Views on Farm Tenantry : : : 50
The Views of the Early Classical Economists on Farm Ten-
antry : : : : : : : : : : 58
John Stuart Mill’s Views on Farm Tenantry : : : 65
The Economics of Farm Rent : : : : : 80
Practical Aspects of Farm Rent : : : : : 95

PARTIL

An Analysis of the Economic Aspects of Farm Tenantry in the

IX.
X.

XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.

United States.

The Problem of Farm Tenantry in the United States
The Increase and Distribution of Farm Tenants in the Ilnited

107

States : . . . . 117
The Farm Tenant’s Labor lnconwe : : : 128
The Influence of Land Values on Farm Tenantry : 146
The Influence of Crop Production on Farm Tenantry . 162
The Influence of the Size of Farms on Farm Tenantry : 175
The Lease Contract Between Landlord and Tenant ' 187
Social Justice in the Provisions of the Lease Contract : 197
Methods of Financing Tenant Farm Operations 211

PARTIH.

An Analysis of the Social Aspects of Farm Tenantry in the

XVIII.
XIX.
XX.
XXI.
XXII.
XXIII.

United States.

Social Factors Contributing to Farm Tenantry 225
The Influence of Immigration on Farm Tenantry 238
The Negro Farm Tenant : : : : : 257
The Housing of Farm Tenants : : 273
The Intellectual Interests of Farm Tenants : 288
The Religious Interests of Farm Tenants : 298

PARTIV.

Social and Economic Factors in the Solution of the Farm Tenan-

XXIV.
XXV.
XXVI.

XXVII.
XXVIII.
XXIX.
XXX.

try Problem in the United States.

The Place of Tenantry in an Ideal System of Land Tenure 309
Land Nationalization and Farm Tenantry : : : 320
Taxation of Land Values as a Means of Promoting Farm
Ownership : : : : : : : : : 337
Rural Credit as an Aid to the Tenant Farmer 352
Land Settlement Policies and Farm Tenantry : : 363
Other Land Reforms Relating to Farm Tenantry : 371
Summary and Conclusio : : : : ' 381
Bibliography : : : 394
Index : : : 405

DIRECTOR’S FOREWORD.

This is the first publication of note, dealing with rural eco-
nomic social problems, to be issued by this Station. The Director
believes that the general Welfare of Texas is best conserved when
the Work of the specialists in the physical and biological sciences
is supplemented, and, in fact, properly guided, by research and
instruction in the social sciences, includingagricultural econom-
ics and rural sociology. He believes, further, that the people will
be in better position to demand, and have enacted, suitable rural
economic and social legislation, after they have arrived at an
understanding of the nature and scope of these problems.

In order, therefore, to better serve the agriculture of Texas
as an industry, and the people as a Whole in their relations to
rural problems, this Station is conducting fair and accurate
scientific researches into the fields of farm and ranch economics
and rural sociology, and is publishing its findings for the good of
the people of the State.

The Director takes pleasure in presenting “Land Tenantry,”
which is the result of several years’ reflection and inquiry on the
part of President W. B. Bizzell, as the type of information pre-
requisite to an understanding and a solution of the tenant prob-
lems of Texas.

Signed,
B. YOUNGBLOOD,
Director.

April 30, 1921.

PREFACE.

The problems of rural life are attracting increasing atten-
tion. Opinions differ widely as to the causes and remedies for
existing conditions in the open country. But the fact remains
that all is not well with our basic industry and the living condi-
tions of those identified with it. The census figures of 1920 show
that for ,the first time in the history of this country the urban
population now exceeds the rural population by approximately
four million people. Just a century ago more than eighty-seven
per cent. of the population of the Nation was classed as rura1.The
continuous change in the ratio of rural to city dwellers is not
without significance. For, after all, this situation implies a sim-
ilar change in the ratio of production to consumption. After mak-
ing due allowance for increase in man-power efficiency due to the
use of labor-saving machinery and scientific methods of cultiva-
tion, the fact remains that the present tendency in the shift of
the population from agriculture to commerce and industry must
eventually result in under-production of agricultural products.

The equilibrium between population elements and resources
has not been reached in this country. We are in the midst of a
period of transition. The evidence of this is to be found in the
rapidly increasing prices of agricultural and grazing lands and a
corresponding increase in farm tenantry. Press summaries of
census figures for 1920 show that tenantry continues to increase
in many agricultural section of the country. Typical agricul-
tural counties in the South and West show abnormal increases in
farm tenantry in recent years. The Fourteenth Census also
shows that the total number of farms in the United States only
increased 88,496 or 1.4% during the period from 1910 to 1920.
Twenty-five, or more than one-half the total number of states,
actually have now fewer farms than were reported in 1910. This
fact may be accounted for in two ways. It may indicate that
the high price of land has resulted in the consolidation of farm
areas under capitalistic management where cultivation is in the
hands of tenants or laborers; or, it may indicate that the number
and area of abandoned farms have increased within the ten-year
period. There is reason to believe that both factors enter into
the explanation. It is also obvious that extensive rather than

7

8 Farm Tenantry in the Zlnited States.

intensive methods of cultivation are still the prevailing system of
cultivation. The forces tending to establish equilibrium between
vocational groups and resources cannot be properly adjusted until
the full effect of intensive cultivation has been experienced.

Considerable diversity of views exists with reference to the
significance of all these influences. For example, a writer in a
recent issue of a widely read agricultural paper contends that
farm tenantry in thiscountry is perfectly normal and that the
absentee landl.ord is a very much abused person. On the other
hand, many students of rural economic and social problems con-
tend that there is no place for farm tenantry in a sound system
of rural economy. The Writer finds it impossible to agree with
either view. That many farm tenants are thrifty and successful
farmers, and that many landlords are just and considerate of
the welfare of their tenants is well known to the writer. But it
is believed that the prevailing system of farm tenantry as prac-
ticed in this country does not contribute, on the whole, to an
efficient system of production or wholesome and normal living
in the open country. But it is the deliberate conclusion of the
Writer that there is a place for farm tenantry in our land tenure
policy. However, much needs to be done to make farm tenantry
a normal process of production and to secure to the tenant farmer
reasonable assurance that he may expect to acquire a farm home
after a few years of conscientious effort. ‘

It should be explained that considerable time has elapsed
between the writing of the first and last chapters of this book.
The fact is, the world war has intervened. Prices of agricul-
tural commodities and likewise agricultural incomes were greatly
disturbed by war conditions. Therefore, it has not been deemed
advisable to rely upon abnormal prices and correspondingly high
agricultural incomes as a basis for conclusions. It is believed
that the statistical data collected before the war are more re-
liable than that of the war period.

The material for this volume has been drawn from many
sources. Questionnaires have been sent out and data have been
collected from many sections of the country. Many letters have
been written and received from specialists in the field of rural
economics and sociology. Farm demonstration agents through-
out the country have cheerfully supplied much first-hand infor-

Preface 9

mation. Rural surveys, farm management studies, first-hand
investigations and unpublished reports made by my own asso-
ciates who have kindly made their material accessible to me, and
all available books and official reports have been fully drawn up-
on for authoritative information.

While assuming all responsibility for errors of judgment or
other mistakes, the author wishes to acknowledge his sincere ap-
preciation to everyone Who has in any Way assisted in the prepar-
ation of this volume.

W. B. B.
College Station, Texas,
May 1, 1921.

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]

 % :7 The Historic 3ndQEcdnomic Ba¢ikgP01:1I!*$1_   

 ;  Tenantry in‘  j
~ V ' v',¢1~-_S,tates,  i“ A ‘ '

CHAPTER I.
THE GENESIS OF FARM TENANTRY.

Those who seek a solution of the agricultural problems of to-
day will often find it profitable to review the historical back-
ground and the social development out of which these problems
arose. The nearer the student can approach to the sources of
those conditions out of which our agrarian problems have arisen
and the more systematically he can trace the steps in the tran-
sitional stages, the safer will be his conclusions and the surer will
be his deductions. The farm tenantry problem in the United
States is no exception to this rule, for it had its source in the so-
cial structure that developed in Western Europe during the Mid-
dle Ages. In its fragmentary beginnings it might be traced to
sources even more remote}

The history of rural life may be said to have begun with the
conflict of two elements of society——those who possess power
through the control of the land and those who were controlled as
a result of this power. The struggle between these groups began
in very early times, and in one form or another it has persisted
until the present. Sometimes the struggle has assumed the
form of conflict and violence, at others it has been characterized
by the smouldering discontent that grows out of the conscious-
ness of social inequalities and unequal opportunities. The peas-
ants revolt in England against the land-owning class during the
fourteenth century, is one of several illustrations of the more vi-
olent expressions that have resulted from unsatisfactory rural
conditions. While this is an exceptional manifestation, the
struggle has gone on between land owners and farm tenants with
varying degrees of intensity throughout the history of Western
Europe. More than one political upheaval can be traced to the
discontent of farm laborers and tenants and the unequal burdens
that have been placed upon them.

Genesis Traceable to Feudal Organization.

For all practical purposes, we may seek the source of farm
tenantry in the feudal organization. Farm tenantry is essen-

lFor example, in The Code of Hammurabi (Khammurabi), the oldest code of laws now
in existence, ante-dating both the laws of Moses and Manu, several sections are given to
defining the relative shares of produce, under different conditions, that are to be ap-
propriated by the owner of land and the cultivator.

13

.14 l Farm Tenantry in the United States

tiallg a feudal product. The student of sociology finds many
feudal survivals in the present-day social organization. Farm
tenantry is one of the most obvious of these. The organization of
the manorial estate during the period immediately following the
death of Charlemagne,gives us a picture of farm tenantry in evo-
lution} The origin, antiquity, and extent of manors previous to
the Norman Conquest is an unsettled question of history. See-
bohmz traces the origin of the feudal manor to the Roman villa.
There was undoubtedly some similarity in the organization of the
manor and the Roman villa. But a study of the descriptions of
the Roman villa in the works of Cato3 and Varrot does not reveal
the complexity of rural society or the existence of the same
form of organization as that found in the descriptions of the man-
orial estates of the Middle Ages?’ There is nothing to indicate
anything analogous to our farm tenantry situation in the Roman
villa. Prothero explainsthe organization of a manor as follows:

“The land comprised in a thirteenth century manor
was generally divided into four main portions, and,
speaking generally, was cultivated on cooperative prin-
ciples; the demesne of ‘Board’ land, reserved for the
lord’s personal use, surrounding the manor house, and
forming the smaller portion of the whole; the free land,
occupied by the freemen holding by military service, or
by some form of fixed rent in money or in kind; the un-
free land, occupied by various classes of bondmen, hold-
ing by produce-rents and labor services, which varied
with the custom of the manor; the common pastures and
untilled wastes on which the tenants of the manor and
the occupiers of certain cottages, in virtue of their
holdings, fed their livestock. The right of pasture must
be clearly distinguished from those rights, which, at
certain seasons of the year, were exercised by the asso-
ciated partners over the cultivated arable and meadow
lands of the village farm. Thus the lord’s demesne,
using the word in its narrower sense, might be kept in
hand, or let on lease to free or unfree tenants, or thrown
into the village farm, or dealt with as to portions in each
of these three ways. But Whether the land was treated
as a compact whole, like a modern home-farm, or
whether the landlord, as a shareholder in the village

1Ernerton‘s Mediaeval Europe, page 480.

2The English Village Community, Chapter 8.

3de Agricultura

4Rerum Rusticarum Libri Tres.

5Compare Roman Farm Management by A Virginia Farmer, Book III, Chapter 11, p.
273, with Protherds English Farming—Past and Present, Chapter 1-

The Genesis of Farm Tenantry 15

association, allowed it to be cut up into strips and inter-
mixed with other holdings, the demesne was mainly cul-
tivated by the labor services of the unfree peasantry.
The rest of the land of the manor, forming the larger
portion of the cultivated area, was farmed by village
partners, whose rent chiefly consisted in the labour,
more or less definite in amount, which they were
obliged to perform on the lord’s demesne.

“In this method of cultivating a manorial estate,
there are many contrasts with the modern system. The
three-fold division of the agricultural interests into land-
lord, tenant farmer, and wage-earner labourer was prac-
tically unknown?“ .

Labor Elements on the Manorial Estate.

Prothero’s description of the manorial organization may be
regarded as typical. The chief economic features of every manor
were essentially alike. The gradual transformation that took
place through successive centuries that resulted in the emer-
gence of a farm tenantry class, in the modern conception of the
term, is one of the most interesting developments in economic
history. A brief description of the labor elements on a manor-
ial estate will be given before tracing the influences that re-
sulted in the disintegration of the manorial organization and the
appearance of the modern type of farm organization.

The land of a manor was cultivated by two general classes
of tenants: (1) free tenants, (2) villein tenants. Seebohm
makes the interesting observation that “in the Domesday Survey
for the greater part of England there is no mention of free ten-
ants, whether ‘liberi homines’ or ‘libere tenentesl” But he
calls attention to the fact that “throughout those counties of
England most completely under Danish influence there were
plenty of liberi homines and of the allied class of sochmasoni, but
nowhere else.” It would appear, therefore, that in those sec-
tions of England far removed from Danish or Norman influences,
the demesne lands were not let out previously to the Domes-
day Survey to permanent free-holding tenants.

The three classes of tenants in villenage actually mentioned
in the Survey are: (1) Villani, (2) bordarrifi and (3)

10p. Cit, page 7. See also Ashley's History and Theory, Vol. 1, Chapter 1.

‘ZThis word is probably derived from the Saxon "Board”, meaning a cottage. The term
is not very common in the literature of the period, but it does appear occasionaly in
the ‘Liber Niger’ of Peterborough Abbey.

16 Farm Tenantry in the United States

servi.‘ _ The Servi comprised a relatively small portion of the
Whole population of England (approximately 9 per cent.) and
were most numerous in the southwest of England. They
were less numerous in the Danish sections and were absent alto-
gether injYorkshire, Lincolnshire, and bordering districts. They
could hardly be classed as tenants in villenage as they seemed to
have held no land.

The real tenants in villenage were confined almost ex-
clusively to the two other classes, viz: the villani and the bor-
darii or cottagers. The latter were rather uniformly scattered
over the whole country. These cottiers, as a rule, possessed no
oxen, and for this reason they were usually allotted relatively
small acreage in the open fields. They, therefore, occupied a po-
sition inferior to that of the villani proper. The villani at the
date of the survey were the most important and typical tenants
in villenage. They were also more numerous at that date than the
cottiers. They embraced 38 per cent. of the population, while the
cottiers numbered only about 32 per cent? The land holdings of
the villani consisted of hides (120 to 240 acres), half-hides, or
virgates (20 to 40 acres), and bovates (10 to 20 acres), allotted
on the basis of the number of oxen that were available for
plowing on the demesne land of the lord. The normal holiiing
was the virgate, comprising on the average about 3O acres, in
scattered acre or half-acre strips.

These holdings of the villani were transferifecl loy the lord
from one generation of serfsvto another in unbroken regularity
to a single successor, which was either the oldest or the young-
est son according to the prevailing custom on each manor.
“They possessed all the unity and individuality of an entailed
estate, and were sometimes known apparently for generations
by the family name of holders.“ But the reason for this custom
was not the preservation of family integrity, but of the ser-
vices due the lord of the manor for the use of the land.

The sources of the several classes and their social trans-
formation are difficult to trace and to analyze. It is still a ques-

1Seebohm, Op. Cit" Chapter 3, page 89.
2Ibid, Chapter 3, page 90.
3Ibid, Chapter 2, page 77.

The Genesis of Fair/m Tenant/m; 17

tion of dispute Whether the early social history of England be-
gan with the population of freemen or a population of serfs}
Seebohm maintains that the English manor had its origin in
servitude and that the mass of the people had slowly passed from
servile conditions through serfdom into freedom. Perhaps this
is the most satisfactory explanation of this intricate problem.
At any rate, it is aside from the purpose of this discussion to re-
view the argument pro and con with reference to the origin of
the manor. Besides, the literature relating to both sides of the
controversy is available to anyone who wishes to pursue this
question further.

Assuming the correctness of Seebohm’s theory, his ex-
planation of the sources of the elements in the manorial organi-
zation is rather satisfactory. “The community in serfdom on a
lord’s estate was both by Saxon and Continental usage recruited
from above and below.” Freemen, by voluntary agreement
with the lord, could become serfs and receive the lord’s protec-
tion. On the other hand, by the donation of oxen to a slave by
the lord, which enabled the slave to have a part in the plowing,
he could rise out of slavery into serfdom. This dual process
seems to have been going on continuously. It offers, at least,
a partial explanation of the grades of serfdom. However, the
sources seem to indicate that a distinction was made between

the man who voluntarily became the holder of a yard-land by.

his own surrender or by willing submission to semi-servile ten-
ure, and the man who rose to the class of serfdom from the
status of slavery.

Different processes, however, tended to simplify greatly
the manorial organization by actually reducing the number of
classes on manorial estates. Ashley says, “When we com-
pare the comparative simplicity of Domesday Book, in which,
over the greater part of England, villeins, cotters or bordars,
and slaves make up the whole of the population, with the elabor-
ate division into six, eight or even ten classes in the custumals
of the later part of the thirteenth century, the changes seem
bewildering in their complexity and variety. But it will be found
that most of them may be grouped under four heads: (1) the

1See the writing of Mitchell Kemble, George von Maurer, George Hanssen, Nasse, Vino-
gradoif and Sir Henry Maine, especially his Village Communities in the East and West
(3rd edition, 1876), for discussions of the theory of the free village community. The
opposing view is well illustrated in the writings of Seebohm.

20p. Cit, Chapter 10, page 405.

18 Farm Tenantry in the United States

growth of a large class of free tenants; (2) the commutation of
the Week-Work for pecuniary payments; (3) the commutation of
the boon-days and other special services; and (4) the appearance
of a class of men dependent wholly or in part on' the Wages they
received for agricultural labour.“

It seems desirable at this point to discuss the nature of ser-
vices and rentals that the several classes on the manorial estates
were required to render or to pay before proceeding with the
discussion of the influences that transformed these several
classes into farm tenants of the modern type.

The Manorial Services and Rentals.

The nature of the land rental Went through an evolution on
the manorial estates by virtue of changing social, economic, and
political conditions. The relationship of lord and oassal origi-
nated in this unstable condition of society. An organization had
to be devised that possessed sufficient strength to preserve life
and give security to property. In the beginning the vassal was
expected to fight for his lord when necessity required. The vas-
sal also needed protection. Out of the mutual necessities of the
situation came the cohesiveness that made the system secure.
But as society became more stable the rental for land assumed a
new form. Thatcher and Schwill make the following comment
on this point:

“The rents due from the vassal were of various
kinds. Generally a certain sum was due for the land,
another for the house, sometimes another for the fire
(chimney), and ordinarily a small tax for each head of
stock (cattle, sheep, hogs, etc.). Of course the lord
received a certain share of all that was produced on the
soil, of the Wheat, hay, wine, chickens, stock, honey,
beeswax, and in fact, of everything. A charge was also
made for the privilege of pasturing the stock in the for-
ests or fields of the lord, for obtaining firewood from
his forests, and for fishing in the streams which were
regarded as his property. The peasants were forbid-
den to sell their grain for a certain length of time af-
ter the harvest, or their wine after the vintage, in
order that the lord might have a temporary monopoly
in these articles. They were compelled to bake their

lAn Introduction to English Economic History and Theory,
Volume I, Chapter 1, page 20 '

The Genesis of Farm Tenantry 19

bread in his oven, grind their corn at his mill, and press
their grapes in his Winepress, for all of which a suit-
able toll in kind was charged. The lord could also

» seize the grain, Wine and other produce of his tenant,
paying him what he chose, either in cash or at the end
of a certain time, The tenant was required to labor
also for his 10rd a certain number of days in the year.
He must till his fields, care for his crops, make his wine,
furnish horses and Wagons on demand, haul his Wood
for the fires in the house, stones for building purposes,
keep his castle and other buildings in repair, build de-
fences, repair the roads and bridges, and render a
multitude of other services.“

Montague Fordham classifies services and rentals under the
manorial system as follows:

“For their holdings the peasants, whether free or
bond, rendered various agricultural services or rents.
These services and rents fall under three main head-
ings: (1) Week-work, an obligation which compelled
the peasant to Work a certain number of days per
Week on the lord’s land. (2) Boon-work, which com-
pelled him to undertake special work, as, for example,
carting corn to market for the lord. (3) ‘Gafol’ a trib-
ute in cash or kind, such as a hearth penny per year,
or a dozen eggs at Easter, or corn or honey, or young
stock, fish or fowls. Bondsmen had also sometimes to
pay, in addition, taxes at the lord’s direction.”

The nature of the services and payments that were required
by the lord is of great significance ‘as indicating the relative
freedom of those who rendered the service or made the pay-
ment. The boon-work, for example, was a more restricted ser-
vice than week-work, and indicated a relatively greater degree
of freedom. The payments in money or kind, to which the
word “gafol” was applied, indicates not only a different method
of payment but a larger degree of independence. The fact that
these distinct services and payments are clearly differentiated on
the manor in the early Saxon period, gives great Weight to the
theory of Seebohm and others that free village communities,
similar to the German “Mark”, did not exist in England.

1_General History of Europe, page 114.
2A Short History of English Rural Life, Chapter 3, page 43. Cp. Seeb0hm’s:
The English Village Community, Chapter 2, pages 58, 59, 60, 67, 78 and '79.

20 Farm Tenomtry in the United States

The transition implied by these changes in manorial prac-
tice marks tlie course of social development during the Middle
Ages. The manorial system organized human labor by “using
the working man (1) as a chattel at will, (2) as a subordinate
whose duties are fixed by custom, (3) as a free agent bound by
contract. These landmarks probably indicate molecular changes
in the structure of society scarcely less important than
those political and intellectual revolutions which are usually
taken as the turning points of ancient medieval, and modern his-
tory.”1 It is this thought that causes Vinogradoif to say in an-
other connection that “one of the greatest movements in the so-
cial life of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries is the move-
ment towards the commutation of services for money rent.“

It is the opinion of Professor Ashley that the practice of
commutation began before the Conquestfi but the process was
greatly accelerated after this event as a result of the greater
security, cheaper labor, and increasing population which the
Norman rule brought to England. “Hired troups took the place of
feudal levies,” says Vinogradoff, “kings easily renounced the mil-
itary service of their tenants and took scutages which gave them
the means of keeping submissive and well-drilled soldiers. The
same process took place all through the country on the land of
secular and ecclesiastical lords. They all preferred taking money
which is so readily spent and so easy to keep, which may trans-
form itself equally well into gorgeous pageants and into capital
for carrying on work, instead of exacting old-fashioned unwieldy
ploughings and reapings or equally clumsy rents in kind.“

The peasants were glad to be relieved of the customary ser-
vices. The old system necessarily involved many annoying ex-
actions and inconveniences. The change in policy gave to the
peasants greater personal freedom and economic advantage.
The transformation, therefore, was mutually satisfactory.

But we must not confuse this system of commutation with
economic rent of a later period. The basis of payment Was radi-
cally different. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the pay-
ments depended upon the relation in which the occupier stood to

IVinogradofFs Villainage in England, Chapter 1, page 43.
20p. Cit, Chapter 6, page 179.

30p. Cit, Part 1, Chapter 1, page 22.

40p. Cit, Chapter 6, page 181.

The Genesis of Farm Tenantry . 21

his lord. These occupiers were not tenants in the modern sense
of the word. They were, in reality, land owners and their hold-
ings descended to their children. But ownership did not carry
with it the right to dispose of their holdings or to move at will
from the manorial estate. It is easy to see that this is a radically
different thing from the system of tenant farming as we know
it today. Payment in kind or money instead of services did not
transform the practice on the manorial estate into economic
rent as interpreted by our modern economists.

Transition from Status to Contract.

The transition from status to contract, from commutation of
labor service for money payments to the modern system of rent-
ing land, has been the direct result of famine and pestilence and
other influences that disturbed the farm labor situation. Fam-

ine resulted from the bad harvest of 1314. This was followed by .

the Black Death that swept over Europe from the East from
1348 to 1350. These influences produced rapid disorganization
on the manorial estates. The old feudal system, which was or-
ganized on the basis of status and sanctioned by tradition, rap-
idly gained fluidity through increased freedom of movement. As
a result, farm labor competition developed and free contractual
rights began to appear.

It was at this stage and under these conditions that leases
were provided as a method of establishing contractual relations
between landlord and tenant. The number and variety of farm
leases developed rapidly. “Leases that were first applied to the
demesne”, says Johnson, “were subsequently extended to the

_ lands on the common field. These leases wereusually those

known by the name of ‘stock and land lease’, a system under
which the landlord supplied the implements and the stock as well
as the land, the tenant paying a certain share of the produce in
return.“

In these particulars this type of lease was similar to those
we often see today. But there were important differences be-
tween the leases of that period and those used at the present
time. For example, the duration of the lease was in marked con-
trast to modern practices. They were sometimes drawn for a

1The Disappearance of the Small Land Owner, Ford Lectures, 1909, page 19.

22 Farm Tenantry "in the United States

fixed number of years, sometimes for life, sometimes for a suc-
cession of lives, and sometimes at will. In this respect all types
of leases were superior to the short term lease that is almost uni-
versally used in this country, with the possible exception of the
lease at will, which sometimes resulted in hardships to the ten-
ant when the lease was held by an unscrupulous and selfish
landlord.

The fourteenth century was characterized in England by
much disorder and rapid change. All of these changes produced
more or less effect on rural conditions. The gradual develop-
ment of sheep farming modified the economics of agriculture.
The system and policy of enclosures had its beginning in this
situation. Larger acreage could now be cultivated profitably with
fewer tenants and farm laborers. The relation between
landlords and tenants -was greatly modified by this system.

The hardships that were experienced by the changes in
economic conditions resulted in the rapid development of self-
consciousness in the minds of the tenant class. The number of
social reformers multiplied rapidly and their influence began
to be felt. Notable among these in the latter half of the four-
teenth century was John Ball. He was a priest who raised his
voice in the interest of the landless man. His social agitations
began immediately after the great plague. An oft quoted sen-
tence illustrates the burden of his message:

“They (the lords) have pleasure and fine houses;
We (the peasants) have pain and labor, the wind and
rain in the fields; and yet it is of us and our toil that
these men hold their state.”

He thought that the fruits of labor belonged to the pro-
ducers and should go to them rather than to the lords whose
control of manorial estates he would have destroyed. Perhaps
the voice of this man was the first to be raised in the interest of
agrarian socialism. This doctrine was preached through the
south of England as opportunity presented on the country side
and by the roadside to eagerly listening peasants, who were
keenly sensative to the hardships and inequalities that existed
at the time.

Another voice that was raised in the interest of this class
was William Langland, a popular poet of his day, who voiced

The Genesis of Farm Tenantry 23

the feeling of the peasant for social justice in lines that have
been frequently quoted:

“O’er tax thou no tenant, save truth will assent!
And though thou amerce them let mercy be taxer!”

The peasant’s revolt in 1381 was the result of rural social
and economic inequalities and the privations that they produced.
This revolt resulted in setting aside old customs that had prevail-
ed through generations and the establishment of a better econom-
ic system. The practice came into general use of permitting the
peasant to pay a definite money rent for his land. It should be
clearly understood that the peasants had not assumed the posi-
tion of modern lease-hold tenants.‘ The rents paid did not repre-
sent the economic value of the land, or attempt to approximate
it. The money rent was based on the approximate value of old
compulsory services or obligations which sustained the ideals of
the social feudal order. Previously to the beginning of the fif-
teenth century there Were many contrasts between rural organ-
ization on a manorial estate and the modern system. In the
earlier stages of development of the manorial estate, the land
owners and tenant laborers possessed the land and lived on the
land. Their interests were common interests. Their points of view
were not very dissimilar. But in the evolution of the system
two tendencies developed. (1) The laborer’s tenure of the land
was gradually relaxed. (2) The tenant farmer emerged between
the landlord and the agrarian laborer. It is not until about the
beginning of the fifteenth century that we begin to see in Eng-
land the three-fold organization of agricultural interests into
landlord, tenant, and farm laborer as we know them today. It is
Well to keep in mind that when we speak of tenants as a factor
in this old manorial system, we are speaking of a different eco-
nomic unit from that which we know today.

The Effect of Enclosures on the Tenant Farmer.

The status of the tenant farmer from the fifteenth to the
nineteenth century in England is largely determined by the in-
fiuences of the system of enclosures to which reference has been
made. Changes in agricultural production, especially that of
sheep raising, and industrial development were responsible for

24 Farm Tenantry in the United States

this policy. The system of enclosures is described by Montague
Fordham as follows:

“As used in rural history the word ‘enclosure’
indicates the enclosing of the land within new pas-
tures, when any part of an estate is converted from
property subject to common control or common use
to private ownership; it contains two items: the
fencing in of the land and the withdrawing of it from
common use.”1

If the contemporary literature and legislation can be relied
upon to indicate the rural situation subsequent to the middle of
the fifteenth century, we are compelled to conclude that the ef-
fects of the enclosures resulted in social dislocation and serious
distress to the rural classes. '

The enclosures of this period were for the most part that
of the common open field and not of the waste or commons, and
the land so enclosed was used for sheep pastures rather than for

a tillable purposes. This is the policy that received most of the de-

nunciation of the contemporary writers and social reformers.

“Surely,” says Sir Thomas Moore, “they may make men as soon v

believe that there is no sun in the firmament as that .
decay of tillage will not follow enclosure in our inland countries.”
In the Utopia Moore says:

“Therefore, that one covetous and insatiable cor-
morant may compass about and enclose many thou-
sand acres of ground together with one pale or hedge,
the husbandmen be thrust out of their own, or by vio-
lent oppression they be put beside it, or by covin and
fraud they be so wearied that they be compelled to sell
all by one means, therefore, or another, either by hook
or crook, they must needs depart away, poor, silly,
wretched souls, men, women, husbands, wives, father-
less children, widows, woeful mothers with their young
babies, and their whole household, small in substance
and much in number, as husbandry requireth many
hands . . . ' . and when they have wandered about
till that (the little they have got by sale of their
goods) be spent, what can they then else do but steal,

10p. Cit., page 67.
2Sc1-ipture Words Against Enclosure, page 6.

The Genesis of Farm Tenantry 25

and then, justly, pardy, be hanged or go about beg-
ging.”1

Latimer denounced the policy of enclosures in one of his
sermons as follows:

“Where there were once a great many house-
holders and inhabitants there is now but a shepherd
and his dog.”

The literature of the period is full of passages expressing
similar protests against the evils produced by this policy. As
the number and extent of the enclosures continued, the smaller
owners were gradually reduced to tenants, and the tenants were
often dispossesssed of the lands they cultivated. It is easy to
imagine the grave consequences that resulted from such a radi-
cal reorganization of rural economy. It is not surprising that
protest after protest is heard from ministers and social reform-

ers of the day.
The nature of the grievances caused by the policy of en-
closures is carefully summarized by Mr. Arthus H. Johnson as

follows :

“To appreciate the nature of the grievances caused
by this process of enclosure, we must clearly grasp the

character of the offenses complained of. And here let
it once more be noted that we are dealing chiefly with
the commonable or open field, not with the enclosure
of the waste or common.

“The offences then were (1) engrossing or ac-
quiring difierent holdings not necessarily contiguous
or in the same manor; (2) consolidating, that is joining
two or more holdings or strips on the common field;
(3) decaying houses, which would be natural of con-
solidating, and also might be done with regard to cot-
tagers’ houses who had no land on the open field, and
only a small plot, if any, on the demesne and some right
of pasture on the waste; (4) putting down ploughs; (5)
converting areable land to pasture; (6) emparking
for purposes of keeping deer or warrens of conies, and

! 713

such ‘vaine commodities .

1Robins0n’s Translation, page 41.

ZSermon VII, page 101. It is interesting to observe that a similar protest was raised
centuries before by the prophet Isaiah in the following language: “Woe unto them that
join house to house, that annex field to field, and ye are left to dwell alone in the midst
of the 1and." Isa. 5, 8. See the writer's Social Teachings of the Jewish Prophets,
Chapter 7, page 91. a
30p. Cit., page 54.

26 Farm Tenantry in the United States

While the evil effects of the system of enclosure were very
obviously harmful to a class of agricultural workers, it should be
observed in passing that the policy marked a necessary transi-
tion in the agricultural development of England. It was in-
evitable that the old manorial system should break down under
the weight of the industrial and economic conditions that were
beginning to appear in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Enclosures were the means adopted of advancing from primitive
to a more scientific and profitable system of agriculture. The
enclosing of the strips on the common field ultimately broke up
the manorial economy, which had become a handicap to agricul-
tural production. Consolidation resulted in more systematic pro-
duction and more diversified farming. Hasbach, however, con-
tends that the real motive for enclosure was not the desire to in-
crease production, but that it was fostered for purely financial rea-
sons} By enclosing the waste and renting the land, the income
to the landlord would be substantially increased. By consoli-
dating the farms after enclosure, it was found less expensive to
collect rents from a few large tenants than from many smaller
ones. There can be no doubt that economic considerations were
the predominating motives in the policy relating to enclosures.
But the effects were beneficial in increasing production. Arthur
Young in his Northern Tom", advised the landlords to increase
rents as a means of stimulating tenants to greater endeavor. “If
you would have vigorous culture, throw fifteen or twenty (small)
farms into one as soon as the present occupiers die off.” This was
characteristic of much of the rural economic reasoning in the lat-
ter part of the eighteenth century. J ustification for higher rents
and larger acreage to a single renter was urged on the ground that
it would stimulate the tenant to increase his skill and energies as
a means of meeting his obligations, which, indirectly, resulted
in increased production. It is not without significance that the
same argument is used in the present day in j ustification of pre-
vailing rents of land on American improved farms.

By 1820 the processes of enclosure had become so general
that rural England had become a country of landlords who owned
the land and the tenant farmers who cultivated it. Here and there

 

lDie Englishen Laxndarbeiter, page 39.

ZNm-thern Tour. Vol 2, page 84. It is interesting to contrast the views of Young with
those of William Cobbett in his Rural Rides (1825-1832) who severely condemns the
landowner for rural life conditions. He bitterly declares that “the baseness of the
Engiish land-owner surpasses that of any other men that ever lived in the world.

The Genesis of Form Tencmtry ’ 27

an old manorial estate persisted under its primitive organization,
but these estates had ceased to be typical in any part of England.
Generally, the rural population adjusted themselves to the new
order of things. The new system was accomplished by the grad-
ual adoption of a farm lease that prescribed a fixed rental for the
land and outlined the conditions under which the land was to be
cultivated. The subsequent history of farm tenantry in England
has been merely a variation in rent prices and conditions of cul-
tivation. Important adjustments have been made from time to
time between landlords and tenants, but in recent times England
has been remarkably free from serious conflicts of interests be-
tween the two classes. “Farmers and landlords,” says Fordham,
“the modern representatives of the two classes that were almost
at war in the fourteenth century, generally stand together in
the nineteenth?“

The Agricultural Holdings Act.

But inequalities between landlord and tenant have persisted
down to the present day Fortunately, England has appreciated
the importance of adjusting the relationship between landlord
and tenant as a means of maintaining agricultural production.
The nation has realized that the landless class was at a disad-
vantage in negotiating with the landlord on the basis of free com-
petition. As early as 1875, parliament passed what has been
known as the Agricultural Holdings Act, which marks an epoch
in the history of rural economy. The original act proved to be
ineffective, but it attempted to protect the interest of the tenant
in certain improvements he had made on the land. The new act
of 1908 is much more comprehensive and effective. The scope
is indicated by J. T. Jackson, a barrister-at-law, in his volume on
“The Agricultural Holdings Act”,2 as follows:

1. Compensation for: (a) Unexhausted improve-
ments. (b) Unreasonable disturbance. (c) Damage
' by game. (d) In case of a tenancy under a mortgagor.
2. Fixtures and their removal.
3. Landlord’s remedies for breach of covenant,
including the law of distress.
4. Determination ‘of tenancy by notice to quit.
5. Freedom of cropping and disposal of produce.

10p. Cit., page 135.
2 page 6.

28 Farm Tenantry in the United States

6. Miscellaneous matters: (a) Landlord’s right
to view the holding. (b) Resuming possession of the
whole. (c) Penal rents. (d) Record of the holding.
(e) Market gardens.

7. Arbitration and the procedure in assessing
compensation.

Conclusion.

The present organization of rural economy in England
may be traced to the feudal system of the Middle Ages. Farm
tenantry as practiced in England today is an evolution of the old

manorial type of agriculture. Every nation has devised some
system by which land ownership has been concentrated in the
hands of the few. The process has advanced only a few steps
when the power that ownership of land bestowed, enabled the
landlords to secure the passage of legislation that made their
titles secure and increased their opportunity for acquiring larger
possessions. The feudal system was fostered with this end in

_ view. Counter-legislati.on is the late fruit of a landlord system

that has been secured through social pressure and wide-spread
discontent caused by hardships and oppressions from those who
control the land. The history of land tenure in many countries
is largely an account of conflict of interests between the class
that owns the land and the class that cultivates it. The history
of English rural life gives us one of the best illustrations of this
conflict -under varying conditions resulting from war, disease,
famine, and political agitation.

The English government in recent times has manifested a

commendable attitude and intelligence toward this situation.
Other countries can well afford to profit by English legislation

that has been passed in the interest of the tenantry class as a
means of giving it a better chance to negotiate on_ equal terms
with those who own the land. An effort will be made in the follow-
ing chapters to describe the means by which tenantry has develop-
ed in the United States. The influence of rural conditions in Eng-
land in the seventeenth century on American colonial policy will

be traced for the purpose of indicating its influence on the early
land policy of the United States.

CHAPTER II.

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF FARM
TENANTRY IN THE UNITED STATES.

English colonization in America began With the granting
of the Royal Charter, April 10, 1606, to two English com-
panies—the Plymouth and the London companies. Both
grants bestowed rights to occupy and to settle the regions in-
definitely known as Virginia. The first colony of emigrants,
consisting of one hundred and twenty people, arrived at Ches-
peak Bay. on May 3, 1607, and selected a location on the James
River, which they called Jamestown. For the next half cen-
tury (1603-1660), the English were very active in the estab-
lishment and development of their colonial possessions in Amer-
ica.

The preceding chapter has briefly outlined some of the
rural conditions in England during this period. The era of
English colonial settlement in America was almost exactly con-
temporaneous with the period from the accession of James I
to the Restoration. The policy of inclosures had begun un-
der the Tudor sovereigns in the fifteenth century. It had gone
on with increasing rapidity to the time of Queen Elizabeth
(1558-1603). When James I ascended the throne, the suffering
and the discontent of the agricultural population of England
were very general. But the policy of consolidating estates
went on without interruption. Social pressure and financial
need were the influences that compelled the small owners to
sell their farms, and tenants were subjected to harder and less
advantageous conditions. The period may be characterized
by two tendencies: (1) In the first place, many of the poor-
est and some of the middle class farmers were driven from the

soil; (2) and in the second place, the land was rapidly chang-.

ing hands under the impulse of more profitable farming meth-
ods and the increase in the number of farm crops.

But there began to appear certain tendencies in England
at this period that were destined to have an influence both
directly and indirectly on colonial life in America. The more
prosperous merchants and successful professional men of the
cities began to purchase land. “Competitive rents, competitive
prices, competitive wages”, says Johnson, “were coming in,
and the modern capitalist had already appeared; men who

29

30 Farm Tenantry in the United States

treated land as an investment and agriculture as a source of
profit. The English squire had taken the place of the medi-
aeval baron. The successful manufacturer, merchant, and the
lawyer were forcing their way into the land market and fast
rising into the position of the squire. Hence an intense land
hunger was a characteristic feature of the Tudor and early
Stuart times.“

The effects of this movement on agriculture were incal-
culable. Thought and initiative were brought to the aid of
agricultural production. New crops were introduced, improved
methods were applied, and improvement of agricultural
implements was devised to make cultivation more effective and
efficient.

It was during these remarkable agarian changes that
American colonization developed. The system of inclosures
had dispossessed many tenants at a time when land-owner-
ship was holding out its greatest promise to the rural popu-
lation. The possibility of acquiring land almost for the ask-
ing in a new country of boundless possibilities, was a compell-
ing appeal to the landless class just at the time that English
colonial policies were developing. “The desire to own land”,
says Professor Bassett, “was the impelling consideration of
most of the early migration to America.“

It was natural to expect that an attempt would be made
to establish the manorial land system of England in the new
country. History reveals the fact that the feudal plan of or-
ganization was uppermost in the minds of the holders of col-
onial grants. This plan was transplanted in Virginia, but it had
to give way before the impelling force of the land-hungry
immigrant. “Nothing short of actual ownership in the soil”,
says Miss Coman, “suffered to attract and hold immigrants.”
The London company in the beginning adopted the policy of
retaining the ownership of the land and providing for its cul-
tivation by farm laborers or tenants. Sir Thomas Dale, true
to his feudal conceptions, assigned to each new-comer a three-
acre garden lot and twelve acres of forest land. All the cul-
tivators were mere tenants at will. The system aroused in-
tense opposition. It became necessary to recall Governor

lThe Disappearance of the Small Landowner, page 75.

2A Short History of the United States, Chapter '7, page 135.
3Industr1at History of the United States, Chapter 2, page 32.

The Historical Background of Farm Tenantry 31

Dale and give to the colonists larger powers of control of their
own affairs.

It is not without significance that the first representative
body that ever assembled upon the Western continent at-
tempted to liberalize the land policy of the country by de-
stroying its feudal characteristics and by establishing in its
place an agrarian organization that would make home-owner-
ship the basis of social organization. The House of Burgesses
in its first session (1619) legalized the title to the lands oc-
cupied and tilled by each colonist, and provided that each
shareholder in the stock company be allotted one hund-
red acres of land for each share he held in the company}
Some of the stock holders under this provision of the statute
came into possession of great tracts of land by virtue of the
amount of stock held. John Martin and his associates, for
example, acquired eighty thousand acres in this way? A
unique method of acquiring additional land was through a
system known as “head right.” Each shareholder who pro-

vided funds for transporting an able bodied man or woman

was awarded one hundred acres of land. This opportunity
of increasing land possessions was soon extended to all resi-
dents of the colony and soon became the usual method of ac-
quiring land or increasing the acreage already possessed. The
plan worked admirably for land was abundant and labor
scarce. By the close of the seventeenth century, the size of
a Virginia estate was approximately seven hundred acres, and
the total area under cultivation was approximately equal to
the total area of cultivated land in England?‘ Thus we see
the beginning of a system of land tenure developing in the
South that required a system of cultivation that would include
the employment of farm laborers and some form of farm ten-
antry.
Land Policy of New England.

The system of land tenure in New England was strikingly
different from that of Virginia. There were several reasons
for this. In the first place, the motive that led to the settle-
ment of this section was essentially different from that of Vir-
ginia. In the second place, the conditions o1 soil and climate

lSee Coman’s Op. Cit. '
2Bruce’s Economic History of Virginia, V01. 1, pages 502-506.
3Bruce’s Op. Cit., Vol. 1, page 519.

32 Farm Tenantry in the United States

made a different policy necessary. Plymouth colony was a
co-operative enterprise. Each member of the colony was
credited with a share in the venture. Every man, woman, and
child received a share of stock and twenty acres of land when
the first distribution was made} The original colonists who
settled in Salem received a house and lot, ten acres of farm
land, the right of pasturage on the basis of the number of cat-
tle possessed? The promoters of Massachusetts Bay colony
adopted the Virginia principle of “head right.” The colonist
was entitled to fifty acres for each person transported into the
colony. However, this policy did not result in the building
up of large estates as in Virginia. The reasons are obvious.
Arable lands were limited. The severity of the climate as
well as soil conditions did not encourage agriculture on a large
scale. The Massachusetts Bay company extended its land
policy to all the settlements made by it. But the size of allot-
ments varied in the different towns, depending on local con-
ditions and the number of proprietors who were to share in the
land allotments. The Massachusetts plan spread to Rhode
Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. This land policy
resulted in New England’s becoming a land of small farmers
where each possessed his land in fee simple and each farm was
cultivated by its owner. The far-reaching effect of this sound
beginning has largely eliminated the problem of farm ten-
antry in this section of the country. Farm tenantry is not a
serious problem in New England at the present day.

New York, like Virginia, adopted the feudal system of
land tenure in the beginning. The Dutch West Indian com-
pany by a Charter of Privileges assigned great tracts of land
to Dutch “patroons”. The “patroons” established a land
system similar to the manorial system of Western Europe.
Many of the great estates established by them were continued
under English rule. Some of the royal governors bestowed
tracts of thousands of acres upon favored friends or associates.
“The manorial system, however, was restricted to the Valley
of the Hudson,” says Professor Bogart, “and the large estates
of from fifty thousand to even a million acres lay, in the large
part, uncultivated until they were broken up into small hold-
ings.”3 As in Virginia, serious protests were raised against
fiiohris of Captain John Smith, pages 782-784,

ZAdams’ Villa-ye Communities 0f Cape Ann and Salem, page 20.
3Economic History of the United States, Chapter 3, page 49.

The Historical Background of Farm Tenantry 33

the system that had caused the colonists t0 leave their native
country. One protest is expressed as follows: “The gran-
tees themselves are not, nor never were in a capacity to im-
prove such large tracts, and other people will not become their
vassals or tenants, for one great reason for people (the better
sort especially) leaving their native country, was to avoid the
dependence of landlords, and to enjoy lands in fee to descend
to their posterity that their children may reap the benefit of
their labor and industry?“ The settling of the province
was retarded by this system. “Immigrants deliberately chose
New England instead of New York as a place of settlement
where land might be acquired in fee simple and on terms of
equality with their neighbors.” The effect of these influen-
ces began to be felt in time. We are told by Weeden that
“when by the treaty of Fort Stanwix (1766) the Mohawk Val-
ley was purchased of the Iroquois Confederacy, land offices
were opened and farms were made over in fee simple to actual
settlers on the easy condition that five acres out of fifty should
be cleared within three years?

Both the royal and proprietary colonies possessed all the
possibilities of an unendurable tenantry situation. This was
particularly true of the proprietorship, which was the com-
monest form of colonial grant. “The proprietorship”, says
Muzzey, “was a sort of middle theory between the royal pro-
vince and the self-governing colonies!“ The colonial pro-
prietors, by the terms of their agents, held their respective pos-
sessions as manorial estates. Their motives were economic
gain resulting from commercial enterprise. Under the au-
thority of their grants they could sell or lease land on such
conditions as best suited their purpose. William Penn adopt-
ed the policy of selling land for a reasonable sum in five-thous-
and-acre tracts and reserving a quit-rent of one shilling per
one hundred acres. He also offered bonuses for each servant
and five hundred acres for each family transported and lo-
cated on the land? These terms offered opportunities for the
acquisition of large estates and opened the way for a system
of land cultivation by peasants and farm tenants. The con-

lDocumeritary History of New York, Vol. 1, page 377,
ZWeederVs American Husbandry, Vol. 1, page 192,
3Weeden’s Op. Cit., Vol. 2, pages 15-17.

4American History, Chapter 2, page 53.

50sgood’s American Colonies, Vol. 2, Part 3, Chapter 2.

34 Farm Tenomtry in the United States

ditions of soil and climate were not favorable to a feudal or-
ganization of this kind in Pennsylvania. Here, as in New
England, the necessities of the situation, resulted in a fee sim-
ple ownership of small farms carved out of the large estates.
The plan of land settlement in Pennsylvania was as follows:
A group of settlers would buy jointly a large tract of land and
then sub-divide it into small farms on a basis of mutual agree-
ment. In this way there were established communities of

_ English, Welch, and German farmers, each of whom became

an actual owner of the farm he cultivated.

The proprietors of East and West Jersey also resorted to
a system of land bonuses as a means of attracting settlers.
Every man who possessed a musket and supply of ammuni-
tion and provisions sufficient to meet his needs for six months
was given one hundred and fifty acres of land. For each wo-
man seventy-five acres were allotted. One hundred and fifty acres
were allotted for each servant or slave imported. The attractive-
ness of this" offer drew settlers from the large estates of New
York. “What man,” Wrote the Earl of Bellmont, “will be such a
fool as to become a base tenant . . . . . when for crossing
Hudson’s river that man can for a song purchase a good free hold
in the Jerseys ?”1 The estates of New Jersey under this plan never
became large. Ownership of small farms prevailed over large
proprietary estates owned by landlords and cultivated by tenants

As a general proposition the proprietorship of New York,
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey failed to develop a feudal land
system in this country. The conditions of soil and climate
Were largely responsible for this failure. But in the South,
where physical conditions were different, the feudal type met
with better success. In Maryland, for example, where the
same plan was followed in land allotments as that adopted by
the proprietors to the North, exactly the opposite land tenure
system developed. The bonus system gave to each proprietor
who brought over a number of laborers a liberal donation of
land. “The intention of the proprietors”, says Miss Coman,
“was to create manors after the mediaeval type. Each ad-
venturer sublet his lands to the man whom he brought over,
and these, like feudal tenants, paid rent in money or produce
and presented themselves at the call of the lord of the manor

lDocumentary Colonial History of New York, Vol. 4, page 791.

The Historical Background of Farm Tenantry 35

fully equipped with inuskets, powder and bullets for services
against Indians. Sixty such manors of three thousand acres
each were established by 167 6.”1 Maryland more completely re-
produced the old manorial system of Western Europe than did
any other American colony. The proprietors of Carolina (1668)
and Georgia (17 32) adopted a different policy from that of Mary-
land with reference to the system of land tenures. In both of
these colonies an effort was made to prevent the development of
manorial estates of a feudal type. The intention in each case
was to parcel out the land to settlers in tracts commensurate
with the settler’s ability to cultivate the land by his own efforts.
But again soil and climate were controlling forces in the develop-
ment of the land system. Experience soon taught the settler that

there was economy in cultivation on a large scale. The vast

tracts of fertile soil and the large yields of staple crops of cotton,
Wheat, rice, and tobacco encouraged an organized system of pro-
duction. The proprietors had to yield to local demands to apply
the Virginia plan of larrd settlement. Land accession by “head
right” made large estates easy to acquire. Two processes op-
erated against the original plan,--the combination of small farms
into larger estates, on the one hand, and on the other, the addition
of contiguous land on the basis of the principle of “head right.”_

So we find that both royal and proprietary colonies south of
the Mason and Dixon line alike ultimately came to the manorial
system, even when established from different motives and orig-
inally organized on a different basis. The problem of a farm
labor supply was partially supplied by the admission of slaves,
and gradually the landlord acquired vast estates of cultivated
land operated by an overseer and cultivated by slaves and free
farm laborers. Previously to the Civil War, the question of farm
tenantry did not enter into the farm labor situation. But free-
dom of the slaves left these estates dependent upon a new type
of rural organization. Farm tenantry was the natural and log-
ical method that Was to follow the passing of land cultivation by
slaves.

In passing it should be observed that the English law of
primogeniture and the application of the principle of entail were
adopted practically throughout the American colonies. This law
was strictly followed in New York and the Southern Colonies

10p. Cit., Chapter 2, page 37.

36 Farm Tenantry in the United States

in the interest of preserving the large estates, while in ‘New

England the application of these laws was modified by local con-

ditions} However, it should be observed that the law of primo-
geniture was not the controlling factor in the preservation of
the large estates. No doubt the laws of primogeniture and entail
were established for the purpose of preserving the larger estates
in England, but they have not been effective in accomplishing this
purpose in this country. Economic and social conditions have
played a larger part in determining agrarian organization than
arbitrary laws of this character.

Influence of the Revolution on Land Tenure.

The colonial land policy as outlined continued with varying
details in organization until the Revolution. It was natural to
expect that the revolutionary spirit against England would pro-
duce marked changes in the social structure of colonial organi-
zation. We would naturally expect that the first attack would
be made on the legalistic and political systems adopted on the
basis of English custom. Therefore, we are not surprised that
one of the effects of the Revolution was to sweep away all traces
of a feudal land tenure based on the law of primogeniture?

The new nation promptly took steps to validate property
rights by declaring that the disposition of land up to that time
would be recognized and laws were passed to that effect. The
unapportioned land passed into the control of the national gov-
ernment and constituted the vast public domain of the United
States. The social consequences of this national policy have
never been completely or adequately appraised by any American
writer. Henry George has more nearly expressed the signif-
icance of, the importance of our public lands and the consequence
of our land policy than any other American writer.

“This public domain,” he says, “has been the transmuting
force which has turned the thriftless, unambitious European
peasant into the self-reliant Western farmer; it has given a con-
sciousness of freedom even to the dweller in crowded cities, and
has been a well-spring of hope even to those who have never
thought of taking refuge upon it. The child of the people, as

gogardEconomic History of the United States, page 50.
2Bogard, Op. Cit., page 48; also Cyclopedia of American Agriculture, edited by L. H.
Bailey. Vol. 4, page 17, article by J. L. Coulter on The Ownership of Land.

The Historical Background of Farm Tenantry 37

he grows to manhood in Europe, finds all the best seats at the
banquet of life marked ‘taken’, and must struggle with his fel-
lows for the crumbs that fall, Without one chance in a thousand
of forcing or sneaking his way to a seat. In the American,
whatever his condition, there has always been the consciousness
that the public domain lay behind him; and the knowledge of this
fact, acting and reacting, has penetrated our whole national life,
giving to it generosity and independence, elasticity and ambition.
All that we are proud of in the American character; all that
makes our conditions and institutions better than those of
older countries, we may trace to the fact that land has been cheap
in the United States, because new soil has been open to the emi-
grant.“

The Land Policy of the United States.

The land policy of the United States has presented one of
the most complex problems connected with our national develop-
ment. From the beginnning it has perplexed our statesmen and
been responsible for many difficult problems of administration.
Nationality was threatened in the very beginning by this prob-
lem. Colonial charters had given seven of the states that composed
the Union a claim upon Western lands. These were Massachu-
setts, Connecticut, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Georgia. The possibility that these states might be able to
dominate the Union through the power of wealth that would be
acquired through the vast landed areas caused some of the states
to hesitate to enter the Union. Maryland, for example, declined
to accept the Articles of Confederation unless these states would
agree to relinquish their claim to these Western lands. Finally,
these seven states agreed to surrender their claim to the land
beyond the Alleghanies, and Maryland signed the agreement on
March 1, 1781. By 1786 the legal transfer of all these claims of
the states had been made and the policy agreed upon that as
rapidly as this vast region was settled it would be divided into
states and incorporated into the Union?

The statesmen of the day began almost immediately after
the formation of the Union to work out a land settlement policy.

Ilirogress and Poverty, V01 2, page 388, edition of 1898, published by Doubleday and

McClure Company.
2Bassett’s A Short History of the United States, Chapter 10, page 232.

38 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Jefferson, when a member of Congress, was the chairman of a
committee appointed to prepare such a plan. The report of this
committee, known as the Ordinance of 1784, designated the num-
ber of states to be formed from the regions west of the Alle-
ghanies and outlined a system of laws for the government of
these territories pending their admission into the Union. The
Ordinance of 1787 modified the previous ordinance to some ex-
tent, and Congress adopted it as a law that should be applied to
the government of these territories.

Previously to the adoption of the ordinance of 1787,
Congress formulated a plan for the sale of the western lands.
It provided that the territory should be laid out in townships
six miles square consisting of thirty-six sections in a township.
Each sixteenth section was reserved to the territory as a land en-
dowment for the support of the public schools. The plan pre-
sented many advantages, and it was generally followed in the
West.

Alexander Hamilton had an unusually clear conception of the
proper use and settlement of our vast public domain. His plan
was formulated in a public statement as follows:

“In the formation of a plan for the disposition
of the vacant lands of the United States there appear
to be two leading objects of consideration: One,
the facility of advantageous sales, according to the
probable course of purchase; the other, the accommo-

dation of individuals now inhabiting the western
country, or who may hereafter emigrate thither,
the former, as an operation of finance, claims pri-
mary attention; the latter is important, as it relates
to the satisfaction of the inhabitants of the western
country. It is desirable, and does not appear im-
practicable, to conciliate both. Purchasers may be
contemplated in three classes: Moneyed individuals

and companies who will buy to sell again; associa-
tions of persons who intend to make settlements
themselves; single persons or families now resident
in the western country or who may emigrate thither

hereafter. The two first will be frequently blended,
and will always want considerable tracts. The last
will generally purchase small quantities. Hence a
plan for the sale of the western lands, while it may
have due regard for the last, should be calculated

The Historical Background of Farm Tenantry 39

to obtain all the advantages which may be derived
from the two first classes.”1

The land policy of the American government was expressed
in many congressional acts between 1785 and 1862. The states-
men of the first two decades of our national history worked on
the public lands “as an asset to be cashed at once for payment
of current expenses of government and extinguishment of the
national debt.” At the same time the problem of national fin-
ance was paramount to all social considerations. The foreign
debt, due to the war, was very large considering the national
wealth of the country at the time, and this had been greatly in-
creased by the Federal government assuming‘ the debts of the
various states when the Union was formed. This situation
caused Congress to overlook the necessity of providing proper
safeguards in the sale of public lands in the interest of home
ownership. The various acts of Congress clearly indicate that
the main consideration was to secure as much available cash as
possible to supply the needs resulting from government obliga-
tions.

The haste of Congress’ to dispose of land for cash led to its
sale in large tracts. The ordinance of May 20, 1785, authorized
the sale of Western lands consisting of as much as a whole town-
ship of thirty-two sections of six hundred and forty acres each.
The price was as low as one dollar per acre. A subsequent Act
(May 18, 1796) increased the maximum price to two dollars and
restricted the acreage to a maximum of eight sections of six
hundred and forty acres each. Under the provisions of these
Acts, one million four hundred and eighty four thousand and
forty-seven acres of the public domain were sold, for which the
government received $1,201,725.68?

The public land policy was modified with the beginning of
the nineteenth century. The preemption system, which gave
preference in the sale of land to actual settlers and encouraged
them by making sales at a minimum price, began with an act of
Congress in 1801. Sixteen special acts relating to this policy
were passed within the first forty years of the nineteenth cen-
tury. In 1841 an act was passed which, with minor modifica-

lQuoted by J. L. Coulter in Cyclopedia of American Agriculture, V01. 4, page 176.

2See Dewey's Financial History of the United States, pages 92-96.

3See Cylopedia of American Agriculture, Vol. 4, page 177, article by Coulter on Land
O’Zl;1l€7‘8hl1) and Tenancy.

40 Farm Tena-ntry in the United States

tions, continued in force until 1891. Under the provisions of this
act settlers were permitted to take up as much as one hundred
and sixty acres and not less than forty acres. Public sales of the
land were not authorized until after settlers were given an op-
portunity to make purchases. The law provided that the pur-
chaser was required to reside on the tract, cultivate a certain
part of it, and provide certain improvements in consideration of
the preferential advantages in the way of choice selections.

The act of 1841 Was the forerunner of the Homestead Act
of 1862, which consumated the policy of public land for bona fide
settlers. This act Was the result of the agitation of the Free-Soil
Democrats, who declared “that the public lands of the United
States belonged to the people and should not be sold to individ-
uals, or granted to corporations, but should be held as a sacred
trust for the benefit of the people and should be granted in lim-
ited quantities free of cost to landless settlers.” This act Was
more definite in provision than the previous acts relating to land
settlement. The act enabled the landless man to acquire title to a
quarter section of land on condition of his maintaining residence

thereon continuously for a period of five years and cultivating

and improving a portion of it.

The Wisdom of this policy is self-evident to those who have
studied the effects of our land policy. It was necessary for officials
to think in terms of internal development before this policy could
be formulated into law. None of the party platforms of the great
political parties during the first half of the nineteenth century
raised the issue of public lands for the landless man. The early
political platform announcements relating to this subject turned
on the importance of the sale of the land as a means of raising
revenue for governmental purposes. But since the Civil War both
of the great parties and some of the minor parties have adopted
the principle that “the public domain should be held sacred to
actual settlers.“ Similar language is used in other platforms of
both the parties since that time.

The Effect of Our Land Policy on Farm Tenantry.

The student who has the patience to trace historically our
colonial development and the land policy adopted by the Federal

lSee the Liberal Republican Platform of 1872.

The Historical Background 0f Farm Tenantry 41

government, is compelled to see that in certain sections of the
country agrarian problems of great importance were certain to
arise. In the beginning, the vast undeveloped regions seemed
to offer the promise of landed possessions for all who wntald seek
them. But for this very reason social and legislative
policies were developed Without taking into account this aspect
of our national life. The effect that these policies have produced
is well summarized by Henry George, the ablest critic of our land
policy. In an address delivered in 1871, he says: “The best com-
mentary upon our national land policy is the fact . . . . that
of the 447,000,000 acres disposed of by the government not 100,
000,000 acres have passed directly into the hands of cultivators.
If we add to this amount the lands which have been granted, but
not delivered, we have an aggregate of 650,000,000 acres dis-
posed of, to but 100,000,000 acres directly to cultivators—that is
to say, six-tenths of the land has been put into the hands of peo-
ple who do not want to use it themselves, but to make a profit,
(that is, to exact a tax) from those who desire to use it.”1

As we naturally expect, Henry George explains the failure
of the policy of preemption and homestead laws on the grounds
of our defective revenue system. “We are not only putting large
bodies of our own new lands in the hands of the few; but we are
doing our best to keep them there and to cause the absorption of
small farms into large estates. The whole pressure of our rev-
enue system, national and state, tends to the concentration of
wealth and the monopolization of land.” The explanation is
probably not as simple as Henry George thought. Land specu-
lation and the large special grants that were made by the Federal
government were other important factors that made permanent
development difficult. Both the land policy as represented by
legislation and the methods of administration tended to dis-
courage bona fide settlement and home ownership.

As we look back through the pages of our national history, it
is now easy to see that social forces were operating here, just as
they did in England, to promote the concentration of land. As
population became denser and wealth accumulated, the advan-
tages of land ownership became more apparent. The possibilities

lOur Lind and Land Policy, Vol. 9, page 11, Doubleday and McClure edition of Henry

Georgds Works.
20p. Cit, Volume 9, page 95.

" 

42

of a land tenantry situation were first foreseen in New England,
Where farm tenantry has never become as serious a problem as.
in other parts of the country. A writer in the North American
Review, in 1859, comments on this situation as follows:

Farm Tenantry "in the United States

“Our farms in older States instead of being divid-
ed and subdivided as they ought to be, are growing
larger and more unwieldy. The tendency of the
times is unquestionably towards immense estates,
each with a manorial mansion in the center and a
dependent tenantry crouching in the shadow.”

By 1870 the effects of the conditions referred to began to

become apparent to thoughtful observers in almost every sec-
tion of the country. Henry George rightfully pointed out that

“the custom of renting land is unmistakably gaining ground.”
This, in itself, Was not an alarming condition; but, connected with

absentee landlordism, the problem at that time began to present
a serious aspect. The rapidity with which farm tenantry has in-
creased at the expense of permanent agricultural development
will be outlined in succeeding chapters.

CHAPTER III.

THE PHYSIOCRATIC CONCEPTION OF
FARM TENANTRY.

Political economy has accepted the problems of agricul-

ture as a part of the content of the science since its beginning
in the eighteenth century. The Mercantilists ignored agricul-

ture, but they did not attempt to outline a system of economic

science} Beginning with the Physiocrats in the latter part of the
eighteenth century, economists have constantly recognized agri-

cultural production as an aspect of economic science. The
stages and history of production have been described and the ex-
act position of agriculture in the economic life of mankind has
been carefully determined? Production has meant different
things to different schools of economics. But all have recog-
nized agricultural production as essential and fundamental. In
the analyses of the factors of economic production, expressed or
implied, recognition has been given to the relation of landlord
and tenant.

The Physiocrats may be considered the real founders of the
first system of political economy. They were certainly the first
to grasp the conception of a unified science of society?’ In their
economic analysis, the Physiocrates regarded the raw material
produced as the only true production. The manufacturers mere-
ly transformed the material that Was extracted from the earth,

and commerce did nothing more than transport the raw material
or the manufactured articles from one to anotheri The Physio-

crats classified all producers of raw material under the head of the
“productive classes” and they designated those engaged in man-
ufacture, commerce, and craftsmanship as “sterile” classes. Th-e
Marquis of Marabeau, the forerunner of Quesnay, appreciated
the importance of maintaining an efficient rural farm organi-
zation as a means of increased food production. He insisted that
the small cultivator should be encouraged, and the idle consumer
should be viewed with reprobation. He saw the dangers of an
absentee landlord system. “Great land owners should live upon

1Conrad, J. Politische Oekonomie, Vol 1, page 354.

2The stages in the history of production in the order of their historical development are:
(1) the hunting and fishing stage; (2) the pastorial stage; (3) the agricultural
stage; (4) the handicraft stage; (5) the industrial stage. See Ely and Wickar’s
Elementary Principles of Economics, page 22.

3Gide and Rist’s History of Economic Doctrines, Book 1, page 2.

'4Ingram’s A History of Political Economy, page 62.

43

44 Farm Tenantry in the United States

their estates and stimulate their development-mot lead an ab-
sentee life of pleasure in the metropolis?"

Mirabeau was certainly the first economist to see the peril of
this system, and his observation was remarkable for his time.
Itshould be observed, however, that he was concerned with only
two aspects of the problem. (1) In the first place, increased food
production was the supreme need of France at that time. War
and the expulsion of the protestants had greatly reduced the pop-
ulation. Mirabeau understood in a general way what Malthus

was to formulate into a doctrine at a later date—that popula- -

tion tended to increase more rapidly than the available food
supply would sustain. That this thought Was in Mirabeau’s mind
is indicated in his book L’ Ami des H ommes, Whose sub-title was
Traite de la Population. It should be observed that he had de-
rived his conception of the relation of population to food produc-
tion from Cantillion. (2) In the second place, the age was char-
acterized by the existence of a large parasitic leisure class that
was tending constantly to increase. The rural population was
gradually being depleted as a result of the movement of the rural
population into the cities. There was an imperative need, there-
fore, to maintain the agricultural population on the farms as a
means of safeguarding and increasing the food production of the
nation. Mirabeau, it should be observed, was not thinking of a
problem of social justice as it related to the elements in the rural
population, but he was rather developing’ his economic doctrine
from the viewpoint of consumption. It is necessary to remember
this fact in order to prevent giving too large a significance to the
implications of production that appear in the literature of the
Physiocrats.

Francois Quesnay, the greatest of the Physiocrats, was pro-
foundly influenced by the views of Mirabeau. His first economic
Writing Was in the form of two articles contributed to the
Encyclopedie of Diderot—one on “Fermiers” (1756), the other on
“Grains” (1757). In the first of these articles a careful compar-
ison is made of the relative advantages and disadvantages of us-
ing horses and oxen in farming. After a brief introduction on
the importance of agriculture to the nation, he begins his argu-
ment with a general statement that “Les terres sont commune-
ment cultivees pa?" des fermiers avec des chevaiix, on par des

1Higg’s The Physiocrats, page 21.

The Physiocratic Conception of Farm Tenantry 45

metayers avec des boufs.”1 He proceeds to show‘that fern/tiers
who cultivate the land with horses have the advantage and that
they are more prosperous than the metayers? Quesnay shows
that France was suffering great loss in production due to the
fact that under the metayer system the share of the tenant was
too poor to purchase horses as a substitute for oxen? He did
not seem to be concerned about the problem of poverty as it af-
fected this class, but their producing ability was a matter of seri-
ous concern to him.

That Quesnay was not influenced by any conception of the
relation of the landlord to the tenant, is also revealed in his at-
titude toward large and small farm acreage. He thought that
grande culture was preferable to petite culture. He had in
mind a farm system with a large acreage in the hands of one
landlord in which larger capital could be used in carrying on the
farming enterprise. It is obvious that such a plan would neces-
sarily have greatly increased farm tenantry and greatly decreas-
ed the number of landed proprietors. In his article on “grains” he
makes an argument for large farms cultivated by metayers under
the management of an entrepreneur. Quesnay gives figures to
show the losses sustained due to poor farm equipment and a small
farm system.‘

The article on “grains” represents a more profound and sci- A

entificdiscussion of agricultural economics than his fermiers.
But much of the contents relates to aspects of agriculture not

germane to this discussion.

In December 1795, Quesnay printed his Tableau Oeconomique.
He has here summarized in brief form the views of several of
the members of the school, especially the Esai of Cantillion. This
analyse is a direct contribution to the subject of farm tenantry
as it was practiced in France at the time. He begins his dis-
cussion with the classification of the citizens of the nation. “La
nation est reduite a trots classes de citoyens: la classe produc-

1“The lands are usually cultivated by farmers with horses, or by the metayers with oxen.”
Quesnay’s Oeuvres cconomique et philosophiques, page .

2The Metayer was a. share tenant who received stock, tools, and seed from the landlord.
The Metayer system was common in England and Continental Europe during the time

of Quesnay. However, it had almost ceased to exist in England by the time of Adam '

Smith.
30p. Cit., page 177. _ _
40p. Cit, page 206; Cp. H1gg’s Op. Cm, page 30.

46 - Farm Tenautry in the United States

tive, la classeldes proprietaries et la classe sterile} He then
defines each class. By the “productive” class he has in mind
the metayers---those who cultivate the land and pay therefor
an annual rent to the landlord and Who, by their efforts, enrich
the nation. The class of proprietors or landlords includes the
sovereign, the owner of the land, and the tithe-owner. ‘Cette
classe subsiste par le reuenu ou produit uet de la culture, que
lui est page auuullemeut par la classe productive.” All those
who do not belong t0 one or the other of these classes are assign-
ed to the classe sterile. While there are serious defects and inaccu-
racies in this broad classification, it should be. observed that it
served the purpose of emphasizing the importance of agricul-
tural production as an essential industry.

Quesnay no where raises the question of social justice be-
tween landlord and tenant. He assumes the status of each class
as being good for society. His only thought was that of a
relationship that would yield the maximum production. He im-
plies that an economic motive is essential to make this possible.
He traces the productive problem of France to an insufficiency

i of capital. France has boundless natural resources, but the pro-

ductive capital is insufficient to develop it. The source of capital
is agricultural production. If surplus derived from this source
is consumed in non-productive endeavor and not applied to better
agricultural equipment, the nation is doomed to sterilty. On
this assumption Quesnay proceeds to discuss the distributive
process between the three classes. It is evident to him that lux-
ury and extravagance were absorbing much of the nation’s in-
come that should go back into future production. He attempts
to impress this fact upon the minds of the people by designing a
chart or table showing the prevailing distributive processes.
This is the very core of the Tableau Oecouomique and the essence
of his doctrine of net product.

1“The nation is reduced to three classes of citizens; the productive class, the landlord
class and the unproductive class”. Op. Cit., page 305.

2“That class lives 0n the income from the net product of cultivation, that is paid an-
nually by the productive class”. Op. Cit, page 308.

The Physiocratie Conception 0f Farm Tenantry v 47

Quesnay arranged his table in three parallel columns as fol-
lows :1

Classe Productive Classe Classe Sterile
Des Proprietaries

Under each of these classifications he shows how the income
is distributed.

Extravagant claims have been made by the admirers of
Quesnay concerning the value of his chart. Its value, however,
consists largely in the fact that it is a concise presentation of the
most definite contribution that the Physiocrats made to political
theory.

Produit Net.

This relates to the prodnit net, or net profit, theory that was
advocated by this school of economic thinkers. Quesnay follows
his table with a rather full discussion of this subject. He assumes
that agriculture yields a prodnit net, or net profit, over and above
the cost of production. In the table he attempts to show
hypothetically what becomes of this net product year by year.
He assumes that the net profit on production is one hundred per
cent. In other words, on the basis of 300 livres of capital under
normal conditions the returns in product will amount to 600
livres. The landlord receives 200 livres, of which one-half is
spent in agricultural produce and one-half in other expenses
(dispenses steriles). Considering the distributive process from
the middle table (Classe des proprietaries), one-half the total.

goes to the left and is again applied to agriculture as a means
of producing another rent, while the other goes to the right and

is consumed in some form of luxuries, such as manufactured
goods, housing, clothing, etc. This process is supposed to go on
indefinitely.

This theory of the prodnit net has given the Phys-
iocrats their best claim to respect as economists. Not that the

‘ application of the theory to agriculture is sound, but the impor-

tance of the recognition of large returns to agricultural endeavor

has been a valuable incentive as a means of encouraging produc-
tion. The influence of this theory on rent will be discussed in an-

10p. Cit., page 310.

48 . Farm Tenantry in the United States

other connection. The influence of this theory was Widespread in
France and it was constantly being emphasized by the members
of the school. Dupont de Nemours, for example, declared that “the
prosperity of mankind is bound up with a maximum net pro-
duct.”1i The Physiocrats, of course, were mistaken in contending
that this net product was confined to agriculture alone. We
know now that manufacturing and commerce have continually
yielded a larger net return on the capital invested than agricul-
ture, but we must remember that at the time the Physiocrats
lived "manufacturing and commerce had not developed to that ex-
tent that it was possible for them to evaluate the returns on cap-
ital in such enterprise. Gide and Rist offer the following ex-
planations as to how the Physiocrats happened to make this
error:

“Their luxurious lives would have been impossible
if the earth did not yield something over and above
the amount consumed by the peasant. It is curious
that the Physiocrats, while they regarded the arti-
sans as nothing better than servants who depended for
their very existence upon the agriculturalists, failed
to recognise the equally complete dependence of the
worthless proprietor upon his tenants. If there had
existed instead a class of business men living in ease
and luxury, and drawing their dividends, it is quite
possible that the Physiocrats would have concluded
that there was a net product in industrial enter-
prise.”

The Physiocrats deserve the respect of the students of
rural economics. They did not always determine accurately the
economic facts relating to agricultural production, but they
were thinking constructively about very essential problems. The
distinction between agriculture and industry was not found
in the theory of the Physiocrats, but they determined the lines
of approach to important economic theories that were later to
be formulated into scientific conclusions. Adams Smith and
Ricardo were greatly indebted to them for important theories
that have stood the test of time. The former developed his
social economics relating to landlord and tenant and approach-

lOrigine d’une Science Nouvelle, page 846.
20p. C-it., page 16.

The Physiocratic Conception 0f Farm Tenantry 49

ed a sound theory of rent, While the latter made his most definite
contribution to economics in his theory of rent through a study
of the “net product.” “Let us remember”, says Gide and Rist,
“that despite some glaring mistakes, agriculture has never lost
the pre-eminence which they gave it.”1 It is Worthy of note,
in conclusion, that the Physiocrats were more nearly the found-
ers of the science of rural economics than that of general eco-
nomics. They have not yet received due credit for their con-
tribution to a permanent agricultural productive system and to
rural social organization as a means of making this system ef-
fective.

 

10p. Cit., page 17.

CHAPTER IV.

ADAM SMITH’S VIEWS ON FARM
TENANTRY.

Adam Smith has been recognized as the logical succes-
sor tothe Physiocrats. He had traveled in France in 1764-66
and had become acquainted With several members of this
school of economic thinkers. While credit has been given to
the Physiocrats for systematizing the study of economics,
Adam Smith has received the credit for raising this study to
the dignity of a science and establishing a new school of eco-
nomic thought. The Wealth of Nations appeared in 1776.
The advancement that this volume makes over its French
predecessors is well summarized by Gide and Rist as follows:

“Smith has been successful in borrowing from his prede-
cessors all their more important ideas and welding them into

a more general system . . . . . . A true social and eco-
nomic philosophy was substituted for their fragmentary stu-

dies, and an entirely new value given to their contribution.
Taken out of their isolation, they help to illustrate his general
theory, becoming themselves illuminated in the process.“ No
better illustration of this point can be found than in that part
of the Wealth of Nations in which Smith discusses the relation
of distribution to rural farm organization.

Some writers have attempted to present Smith as the
prophet of the approaching industrialism rather than the
successor of the proponents of the “natural order.” Depont
de Nemours was responsible for the name given to the French
school of economists. Physiocracy meant to him “the rule of
nature.” But we should recall that the Industrial Revolution
had scarcely had its beginning when Smith wrote his monu-
mental work. The Wealth 0f Nations is based primarily on
agrarian economics rather than industrial economics, and Smith’s
point of view is not widely different from that of his French
predecessors. Like them, he emphasized the importance of
production. The introduction to the Wealth of Nations re-
veals a deep concern for the improvement of the productive
processes. Chapter I of Book II on the division of labor has

 

lHistory of Economic Doctrine, page 52. C . S 1' ’ . ' ' ' -
introduction to the Everyman Library editign frlilllgnvi/ezllhlmfiltfiillidlilé? pomt m hm

50

Adam Smithis Views 51

this same object in view and only differs from Phys-
iocratic literature in the angle of approach. Like his
predecessors, he saw the relation of production to consumption
and it is quite obvious that he saw it more clearly.

Adam Smith discusses the economics of farm tenantry in
his chapter on “The Discouragement of Agriculture?“ This
chapter may appropriately be compared to the Tableau
Oeconomique of Quesnay, although, of course, the approach
and the illustrative material are quite different, but both au-
thors were thinking of the same problem and thinking of
it in terms of the same effects. However," it must be admitted
that the relation of landlord to tenant was more accurately
described by Smith, and the interest of the tenant was more
sympathetically considered. As We have seen, landlordism
was far less a problem in France than in England. Its char-
acteristics were also very different. France,'even before the
Revolution, had been a country of small proprietors. On the
other hand, landlordism was the accepted order of things in

England and tenantry of a certain type was the prevailing

method of cultivation. This contrast in conditions is respon-
sible for the different treatment of the subject of farm tenan-
try by these two representative thinkers of their respective
schools. ~

Smith begins with an historical statement of the origin
of the greater estates in Europe. a He describes the confusion
and unsettled conditions resulting from the invasion of the
Germanic and Scythian nations. He explains, how, in the
midst of these conditions, the chiefs acquired and usurped the
greater part of the lands. Even the uncultivated lands were
appropriated. To preserve the integrity of these estates, the
law of primogeniture was promulgated. He says, “This orig-
inal engrossing of uncultivated lands, though great, might
have been but a transitory evil. They might soon have been
divided again, and broke into small parcels either by succes-
sion or by alienation. The law of primogeniture hindered them
from being divided by succession: the introduction of entails
prevented their being broke into small parcels by alienation.”

1Book S, Chapter 2, Everyman Library edition.
20p. CZL, Book 3, Chapter 2, page 341.

52 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Smith explains the departure from the Roman law of
descent, where no distinction was made between male and
female in the inheritance of land, on the grounds that “when
land was considered as a means, not of subsistence merely, but
of power and protection, it was better that it should descend
undivided to one,” But he hastens to explain that “laws
frequently continue in force long after the conditions which.
first gave occasion to them and which could alone render them
reasonable are no more.“ This is true of the laws of primogeni-
ture and entail. He declares that “in the present state of
Europe when small, as well as great estates, derived their
security from the laws of their country, nothing can be more
completely absurd. They (laws of primogeniture and entail)
are founded upon the most absurd of all suppositions, the
supposition that every successive generation of men have not
an equal right to the earth and to all that it possesses; but
that the property of the present generation should be re-
strained and regulated according to the fancy of those who
died, perhaps, four hundred years ago.” This very sig-
nificant statement was probably the first authoritative
attack made upon the legal restriction that had grown up in
Europe, as a means of preserving landed estates. Whatever

may have been the original justification for such enactments, -

the time had come when the people preferred an equitable and
just system of land distribution. While Smith’s voice was not
heard very far, it should be recognized that he had lifted it in a
worthy cause, and, historically, those of us who can look back
and see what Wisdom he was giving expression to should give
him recognition for his efforts even if those efforts were in
vain.

A modern view of the situation is implied in Smith’s criti-
cism of the landlord. “It seldom happens,” says he, “that a
great proprietor is a great improver.” He explains this on
two grounds. (1) In the first place, during the disorderly
times all the energies of the landlord were consumed in de-
fending his territories, and he had no time to think of improv-
ing his estates; (2) in the second place, when law and order
were established, the landlord had usually lost both his

10p. Citj, Book 3, Chapter 2, page 342. '
20p. Cit., Book 3, Chapter 2, page 343.

Adam Smith/s Views 53

incentive and requisite abilities in this regard. The effects
of this situation are best described in the words of Smith as
follows:

“To improve land with profit, like all other
commercial projects, requires an exact attention to
small savings and small gains, of which a man born
to a great fortune, even though naturally frugal, is
very seldom capable. The situation of such a per-
son naturally disposes him to attend rather to orna-
ment which pleases his fancy than to profit which
he has so little occasion. The elegance of his dress,
of his equipage, of his house, and household furni-
ture, are objects which from his infancy he has been
accustomed to have some anxiety about. The turn of
mind which this habit naturally forms follows him
when he comes to think of the improvement of land.
He embellishes perhaps four or five hundred acres in
the neighborhood of his house, at ten times the ex-
pense which the land is worth after all his improve-
ments; and finds that if he was to improve his whole
estate in the same manner, and he has little taste for
any other, he would be a bankrupt before he had
finished the tenth part of it. There still remain in
both parts of the United Kingdom some great estates
which have continued without interruption in the
hands of the same family since the times of feudal
anarchy. Compare the present condition of those
estates with the possession of the small proprietors
in their neighborhood, and you will require no other
argument to convince you how unfavorable such ex-
tensive property is to improvement?"

There is not to be found in any recent literature relating
to farm tenantry a more accurate statement of the evils con-
nected with absentee landlordism. These expressions are
especially applicable to the plantation system of the United
States, where feudal forms still persist after the legal restric-
tions have passed away.

Smith follows his criticisms of the landed proprietors
with a discussion of the other aspect of the problem. He goes
minutely into the relative advantages of land cultivation by
slaves, metayers, and ordinary tenants. Cultivation by slaves
is regarded as the least satisfactory. Experience demonstrates

10p. Cit., Book 3, Chapter 2, page 344.

54 Farm Tenantry in the United States

that work done by slaves, though it costs only the mere main-
tenance, in the end, is the most expensive of all. A person
who has no hope of acquirng property has no incentive to
work. Slave labor on farms is the result of love of power over
others rather than the expectation of economic gain that
such a system of cultivation provides.

The matayer system, according to Smith, is the successor
of cultivation by slaves. This system is a species of tenantry.
He explains it as follows: “The proprietor furnished them
with the seed, cattle, and instruments of husbandry, the whole
stock, in short, necessary for cultivating the farm. The pro-
duce was divided equally between the proprietor and the
farmer, after setting aside what was judged necessary for
keeping up the stock, which was restored to the proprietor
when the farmer either quitted, or was turned out of the
farm.”1 There is one essential difference between cultivation
by slaves and metayers: “Such tenants, being freemen, are
capable of acquiring property, and having a certain propor-
tion of the produce of the land, they have a plain interest that
the whole produce should be as great as possible in order that
their own proportion may be so.” This consideration insured
a better system of cultivation and increased production over
that conducted by slaves.

The most serious defect of the metayer system, which is
applicable to any system of share tenantry, is described by
Smith as follows:

“It could never, however, be the interest even
of this last species of cultivation to lay out, in the
further improvement of the land, any part of the
little stock which they might save from their own
share of the produce, because the lord, who laid out
nothing, was to get one-half of whatever it produced.
The tithe, which is but a tenth of the produce, is
found to be a very great hindrance to improve-
ment. A tax, therefore, which amounted to one-half
must have been an effectual bar to it. It might be
the interest of a metayer to make the and produce
as much as could be brought out of it by means of
the stock furnished by the proprietor; but it could
never be his interest to mix any part of his own with

10p. Cit., Book 3, Chapter 2, page 346.
20p. Cit. Book 3, Chapter 2, page 346.

Adam Smith? Views 55

it. In France, where five parts out of six of the
Whole kingdom are said to be still occupied by this
species of cultivators, the proprietors complain that
their metayer take every opportunity of employing
the master’s cattle rather in carriage than in culti-
vation; because in the one case they get the whole
profits to themselves, in the other they share them
with their landlord. This species of tenants still
subsist in some parts of Scotland. They are called
steel-bow tenants. Those ancient English tenants,
who are said by Chief Baron Gilbert and Doctor
Blackstone to have been rather bailiffs of the land-
lord than farmers properly so called, were probably
of the same kind.”1

This species of tenantry was gradually succeeded by the
tenant lease system, which Smith regarded as defective, but
a great improvement on the metayer system. Under the lease
system the farmers cultivated the land with their own stock
and provided their own seed and implements. A definite
fixed rent was paid to the landlord. The lease for years en-
abled and encouraged the tenant to make certain improve-
ments on the farm. He was usually inclined to do this for
he had a reasonable expectation that he would receive full
benefit therefrom before the expiration of his lease.

The advantages of a long lease policy were fully under-
stood by Smith. It was the only plan that encouraged the
tenant to take a personal interest in the land he cultivated and
to provide improvements at his own expense. Under English
law a lease for life entitled the lessee to vote for a member of
parliament. This political recognition was helpful in negotia-
tions with the landlord. Smith regarded the long lease as a
great social achievement, and he took pride in the establish-
ment of this policy in Great Britain. “The law which secures
the longest leases against successors of every kind is, so far
as I know,” says he, “peculiar to Great Britain.” It
is worthy of observation that both in Great Britain and con-
tinental Europe it was necessary to protect tenants by law
against heirs and purchasers. The tenants’ rights Were still
insecure when a change of ownership occurred. The pro-
prietor of the land whose political power gave him great in-
fluence was constantly trying to restrict the rights of tenants.

10p. Cit., Book 3, Chapter 2, page 347.

56 Farm Tenantry in the United States

The method adopted to accomplish this purpose was through
the restriction in the number of years of the lease. That this
was a shortsighted policy was very clearly foreseen by Adam
Smith. Every tendency to reduce the number of years of a
leasehold correspondingly decreased the incentive to provide
farm improvements at the expense of the tenant. The effects
of this are interestingly described by Smith as follows:
“Avarice and injustice are always shortsighted, and they did
not forsee how much this regulation must obstruct improve-
ments, and thereby hurt, in the long run, the real interests
of the landlord.“
This last statement is typical of Smith’s “general sociolog'-
ical way of looking at society,” to quote a phrase of Albion W.
Small? The discussion of farm tenantry in the Wealth of
Nations is the best illustration of Smith’s interest in distribu-
tive justice. Professor Small was not mistaken in asserting"
that “whatever the influence of Adam Smith’s work may have
been, one cannot study his philosophy as a whole, even in the
figment of it that has come down to us, without being certain
that his basic propositions were clearly and positively the
human rather than the capitalistic principles.“ His deep
concern about human relations is illustrated in the following
passage connected with the subject under discussion.
l
“Under all these discouragements, little im-
provement could be expected from the occupiers of
land. That order of people, with all the liberty and
security which law can give, must always Improve
under great disadvantages. The farmer, compared
with the proprietor, is as a merchant who trades
with borrowed money compared with one who
trades with his own. The stock of both may improve,
but that of the one, with only equal good conduct,
must always improve more slowly than that of the
other, on account of the large share of the profits
which is consumed by the interest of the loan. The
land cultivated by the farmer must, in the same
manner, with only equal good conduct, be improved
more slowly than those cultivated by the proprietor,
on-account of the large share of the produce which
is consumed in the rent, and which, had the farmer

10p. Cit. Book 3. Chapter 2, page 349.

2Adam Smith and Modern Sociology, Chapter I, page 1.
30p. Cit, Chapter I, page 2.

Adam Smithfis Views 57

been proprietor, he might have employed in the fur-
ther improvement of the land. The station of a
farmer besides is, from the nature of things, inferior
to that of a proprietor.“

It seems unfortunate that so little attention has been paid

to Smith’s discussion of this problem. Professor Small

seems to have been the only social scientist that has adequate-
ly emphasized the sociological content of Smith’s WOFlLZ Per-
haps his most enduring contribution to social science will be
found to be his discussion of human relationship rather than the
validity of his economic theories. In his discussion of the
relation of landlord and tenant, he has Worked out with admir-
able precision the importance of adjusting social relationships

not only as a means of improving social conditions, but as the
best arrangement in the interest of better economic enter-

prise.’

10p. Cit., Book 3, Chapter 2. page 350.

20p. Cit” Chapter 5, page 186.

CHAPTER V.

THE VIEWS OF THE EARLY CLASSICAL ECO-
NOMISTS ON FARM TENANTRY.

Economic thinking was destined to take a new turn about
the beginning of the nineteenth century. The rapid develop-
ment of the industrial revolution gradually changed the em-
phasis of economics from production to distribution. The Phys-
iocrats and Adam Smith were impressed with the importance of
agricultural production, but, beginning with the publication of
Le Traite d’ Economic gaolitiquc by J. B. Say in 1803, the em-
phasis began to be laid on the economic aspects of manufac-
turing and commerce. In discussing, for example, Des difiew
entcs sortes d’ industrie, Say speaks of industrie agricolc, show-
ing that he is thinking in terms of production as an industrial
enterprise} He devotes the first book in his Traite to produc-
tion (Dc la Production dc Richcsses), but he is thinking of pro-
duction in a larger sense than that given to the term by the
Physiocrats. Even in discussing the advantages of production,
he does not emphasize farm production. The relationship of
landlord (proprictare) to tenant (fermicr) is only referrerl to
incidentally in connection with proceeds derived from agricul-
tural production? Book II of the Trait/c is devoted to distri-
bution, and Chapter Nine of this book presents Say’s theory of
rent, which, of course, implies the economic relationship of land-
lord to tenant. But it discusses the subject without reference
to the human elements in the problem. He refers to the politi-
cal rise of the tenant in England, which is clearly traceable to in-
formation acquired from the Wealth of Nations. In contrast
with the English system, he closes his chapter with an explana-
tion of the mctayer system and refers to its feudal origin. This
is as near as Say comes to the social aspects of farm tenantry.

Turning again to England, the economists who succeeded
Adam Smith did not attempt to evaluate the sociological con-
cepts that Smith originated. As Small says,

“To speak figuratively, then, the apostolic succes-
sion in social philosophy from Adam Smith is through
the sociologists rather than the economists. The soc-
iologists have kept alive the vital spark of Smith’s
moral philosophy. They have contended for a view

lTraite d’ Economic Politique (2nd edition, 1814) Chapter 2, page 8.
20p. Cit., Volume 2, page 468.
58

The Views of the Early Classical Economists 59

of life in terms of persons rather than in terms of
technology. That it, they have put persons in the cen-
ter of their picture of life, and have assigned a subor-
dinate place to the theory of those technical activities
which deal with the material products of persons. The
economists are the separatists and hierarchy, in ex-
aggregating the importance of a technology ’till it has
overbalanced, in social doctrine, the end to which it is
normally tributary?“

This is particularly true of Malthus, Ricardo, and James
Mill. They excluded social relationships from the field of polit-
ical economy. The subject of “rent” was carefully treated as
one of the aspects of distribution. But the early economists of
the nineteenth century ignored the question of social justice be-
tween the renter and his landlord. The classical economists
were dominated by the idea thateconomic laws were nearly as
immutable as physical laws. This caused them to approach the
content of political economy from the standpoint of an abstract
science. This point of approach caused them to feel that noth-
ing could be done to ameliorate social conditions. There could
be no escape from the consequences of economic law.

Views of Malthus.

Malthus approached nearest to the social phase of the ques-
tion in his Essay on the Principle of Population, which first
appeared in 1798 and rapidly passed through several revised
editions. He discusses the influence of the agricultural system
of the various countries and calls attention to the evil effects
of a system Where lords own and control large tracts of terri-
tory? In another connection he lays down a principle to guide
in the adjustment of the mutual interests of landlord and tenant
as a means of maintaining the population. “With a view to
the individual interest, either of a landlord or farmer, no labour-
er can ever be employed on the soil who does not produce more
than the value of his wages; and if these wages be not on an
average sufficient to maintain a wife, and rear two children to
the age of marriage, it is evident that both the population and
produce must come to a stand. Consequently, at the most ex-

lAdam Smith and Modem Sociology, Chapter I, page 4.
2Essay on the Principle of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society,
Chapter 8, page 79.

60 Farm Tenantry in the United States

treme practical limit of population, the state of the land must
be such as to enable the last employed labourers to produce the
maintenance of as many, probably, as four persons?“

In his Principles of Political Economy (1820) Malthus de-

votes nearly one hundred pages to the rent of land? This dis-
cussion shows clearly that he is thinking entirely from the land-

lord’s point of view. He shows his concern for the landlord in
discussing “The causes which may mislead the landlord in let-
ting his lands, to the injury of both himself and the country.”
His deep concern for the landlords’ interest is expressed in the
following passage with reference to the competitive rental of
land:

“In the first place, he may be induced, by the im-
mediate prospect of an exorbitant rent, offered by farm-
ers bidding against each other, to let his land to a
tenant without sufiicient capital to cultivate it in the
best way, and make the necessary improvements upon
it. This is undoubtedly "a most short-shighted policy,
the bad effects of which have been strongly noticed by
the most intelligent land-surveyors in the evidence
brought before parliament; and have been particularly
remarkable in Ireland, where the imprudence of the
landlords in this respect, combined perhaps with some
real difficulty in finding substantial tenants, has ag-
gravated the discontents of the country, and thrown
the most serious obstacles in the way of an improved
system of cultivation. The consequence of this error
is the certain loss of all that future source of rent to
the landlord, and wealth to the country, which arises
from the good farming of substantial tenants.“

Malthus also seems to feel that the landlord might be too
generous to the tenant. He warns the landlord against the error
of giving a whole part of the rents to the tenants when there is
a temporary depression in the price of farm products.

“There is no just reason to believe, that if, in the present
state of this country, the landlords were to give the whole of
their rents to their tenants, corn would be in any marked de-
gree cheaper - - - - - - - - The effect of transferring all rents
to tenants, would be turning them into landlords, and tempting

10p. Cit., Book 10, Chapter 3, page 92. It should be observed that he is thinking only
of the influence of this situation on the problem of population. He did not have in
mind the social relationship involved in the problem.

2Chapter 3, pages 136-217.

3Principles of Political Economy, (2nd edition), Chapter 3, page 190.

The Views of the Early Classical Economists 61

them to cultivate their farms under the superintendence of care-
less and uninterested bailiffs, instead of the vigilant eye of a
master, who is deterred from carelessness by the fear of ruin,
and stimulated to exertion by the hope of competence. The most
numerous instances of successful industry, and Well-directed
knowledge, have been found among those who have paid a fair
rent for their lands; who have embarked the Whole of their cap-
ital in their undertaking; and who feel it their duty to watch
over it with unceasing care, and add to it. whenever it is possi-
ble.”1

It would appear that Malthus was fearful that turning
tenants into landlords would be harmful to the country. He
seems to have totally ignored the discussion of this subject by
Adam Smith. It is hardly possible that at the time Malthus was
insisting on the landlords’ exacting full rents from their tenants
that he was unaware that the distressing conditions existing
among tenants were making it necessary for landlords to re-
duce their rents in the interest of rural welfare? In speak-
ing of these conditions at that time Prothero says: “Rural con-
ditions were deplorable. Even as late as 1833, it was stated
that, in spite of rent reduction, which in Sussex amounted to 53
per cent.; there was scarcely- a solvent tenant in the Wealds of
Sussex and Kent, and that many farmers, having lost all they
had, were seeking work upon the roads.”

Malthus felt called upon to defend the landlord against
the charge that was current at the time that his interests were
in conflict with those of society. He thought that the interest
of the landlord was not only not in conflict with the interests of
the state, ‘but, on the other hand, that there was the strictest
union between them. The only exception being in the case of im-
portations. He thought that in this respect the landlord could
not be separated from other producers?

The Impersonal View of Ricardo.

Ricardo was a contemporary of Malthus. Both were prin-
cipally concerned with the economics of distribution. But the

10p. Cit., Chapter 3, page 191.

2See Protherds English Farming—Past and Present, Chapter 15, 0n “Agricultural De-
pression and the Poor Law, 1813-37”.

30p. Cit., page 324.

40p. Cit., Chapter 3, page 206, Cp. Haney’s History of Economic Thought, Chapter 11,
page 204.

62 Farm Tenantry in the United States

contribution of Ricardo to economic theory is a more substantial
product than that of Malthus. His theory of rent is his most
important contribution to economic doctrine. Conditions in
England at the time made the subject of rent a burning ques-
tion of the day. Every writer on political economy during the
first half of the nineteenth century felt called upon to discuss
it at great length. None saw more clearly “That three
fold hierarchy which consisted of a worker toiling for a daily
wage in the employ of a capitalist farmer who draws his profits
towered over by a landlord in receipt of rents” than did Ricardo.
But none saw this situation more abstractly than he. He scarce-
ly refers to the relationship of landlord and tenant in any con-
nection. In his entire treatment of the theory of rent, no ref-
erence is made to the human elements in the problem.

Ricardo was concerned about stripping political economy of
all surplus content. He did not agree with Smith or the Physi-
ocrats with reference to the scope of economics. “One of his
great services lay in the fact that more than any predecessor
he separated political economy from other branches of knowl-
edge, and from ethics and jurisprudence, in particular.“

Ethical Viewpoint of Sismondi.

The successors to Ricardo carried the abstract method to
such an extreme that no social content was left. We must look
again to France to find a writer who appreciated the human ele-
ments in the economic problems of his day. We find him in the
person of Jean Charles Leonard Simonde de Sismondi, who was
born in Geneva, Switzerland, three years before the publication
of the Wealth of Nati0ns»(1776). He was the first constructive
critic of the classical economists. He sharply takes issue with
Ricardo for his abstract method and unsupported generalities.
He thought better of Smith and Say because they were more
concrete. He restored to the content of economics the ethical
aspects that had disappeared under the abstract reasoning of
the English economists of the early nineteenth century. Haney,
in contrasting Sismondi with the classical economists, says:
“In his outlook and purpose Sismondi differs from the Classical
School. He was a reformer. Ethical considerations played a

 

1Haney’s History of Economic Thought, Chapter 12, page 234.

The Views of the Early Classical Economists 63

large part in his thought; and to him economics was largely an
art. He aimed to put economics upon a new basis; the econom-
ists had taught how to increase national wealth ; he would teach
how to increase national happiness, and to this end Would point

out the advantages of government intervention to regulate the-

progress of wealth.“

Sismondi was primarily interested in agriculture. He re-
fers in several places to the beauty and attractiveness of his
farm, and his first economic publication was the “Tableau de
l’ Agriculture.” His chief contribution to economics was his
Nouveaux Principles d’ Econoniie Politique ou de la Richesse
dons ses rapper-ts aoec la Population, which was published in
1819. His last important work on Etudes sur la Economie
Politique (1837-38) expressed his protest against the abnormal
influences of the industrial movement on economic theory.

Much of Sismondfs social reflections appear to be incidental
to the general theme he is developing. For example, in discuss-
ing the probable effects of repealing the English corn laws, he
refers to the relative cost of production of corn in England and
some of the other corn-producing countries. He takes occas-
ion to contrast unfavorably the conditions of the English tenant
with the cultivator in other countries. He says it would be

difficult for England to compete with such a country as Poland ‘

or Russia, where the only price paid by the landlord proprietor for
production is “a few hundred lashes judiciously bestowed upon
the pheasants.” This is typical of Sismondi’s method. Social
conditions were to be taken into consideration in arriving at con-
clusions relating to economic theory?

Sismondi recognized the growing conflict between public
and private interests. He was the first economist clearly to
recognize this tendency. He believed the state should adjust
production to consumption demands. He advocated govern-
mental action as a means of restoring or maintaining social jus-
tice between classes and securing adequate facilities for distri-
bution. He saw the harmful possibilities of large-scale pro-
duction. As a means of maintaining equality of opportunity, he
advocated small-scale manufacturing, and consistently with this

llbid, Chapter 19, page 304.
ZNouveaux; Principles, Volume 1, page 257.
3Ibid, Volume 2, page 268.

64 Farm Tenantry in the United States

view, he advocated a system of agriculture based on peasant
proprietorshipf With the exception of Adam Smith, he was the
greatest advocate of a farm system that would safeguard the
nation against indifferent landlordism. His whole discussion of
peasant proprietorship was determined by-this point of view.
While he had much to say on this subject, two illustrations will
suffice to make this point clear. In his argument for peasant
proprietorship, he contends that the system offers the maximum
of contentment for the producers of the country. He says:
“When we traverse nearly the whole of Switzerland and several
provinces of France, Italy, and Germany, We need not inquire in
looking at any piece of land, to see if it belongs to a peasant pro-
prietor or to a farmer. The intelligent care, the enjoyments
provided for the laborers, the adornment which the country has
received from his hands, are clear indications of the former.”

In discussing the economic relationship of landlord and
tenant, he very clearly reveals the nature of his sympathies in
his condemnation of the landlord who attempts to demand more
produce (he has in mind here the metayer system) than equity
justifies. “The landlord who attempts to depart from usage,”
says he, “who exacted more than his neighbor, who took for
the basis of the agreement anything but the equal division of
the crops, would render himself so odious, he would be so sure
of obtaining a metayer who was an honest man, that the con-
tract of all the metayers may be considered as indentical, at
least in each province, and never gives rise to any competition
among peasants in search of employment, or any offer to culti-
vate the soil on cheaper terms than one another.“

These examples are sufficient to illustrate the humanizing
aspects of Sismondi’s political economy. It is unfortunate that.
his influence on economic thought has not been greater than it
has. It did exert a great influence on John Stewart Mill, refer-
ence to which will be made in the succeeding chapter.

TIbid, Volume 2, page 661.
2Ibid, Chapter 3, page 87.
3Etudes sur Economie politique, 6 me essais De la Condition de Cultivateurs en Toscane-

CHAPTER VI.

JOHN STUART MILL’S VIEWS ON
FARM TENANTRY.

John Stuart Mill Wrote his Principles of Political Economy
during a transition period in economic thought. The first edi-
tion of this great work appeared in 1848. Classical economics
received its best interpretation at his hands. At the same time
he contributed a substantial product that was destined to assist
in undermining the doctrines of the English classical school.
His effort to apply the economic doctrines of Malthus, Ricardo,
and his father, James Mill, to the changing World situation of
which hewas a part, caused him to fall into some inconsistencies
that are quite apparent. g

Mill was greatly influenced in his thinking by Comte’s con-
ception of society. Comte had severely condemned the doc-
trines of the classical economists. He regarded their treatment
ofyalae, utility, and production as sterile and unprofitable. Mill
had been taught by his father to respect the views of the Eng-
lish economists on these subjects, and he Was confronted with
the impossible task of reconciling the economic conception of
Ricardian economics With the unified conception of social phe-
nomenon as taught by Comte. The influence of Comte is evi-
dent in the “Preface” to the first edition of the Principles of
Political Economy. In commenting on the Wealth of Nations,
he says: “The most characteristic quality of that Work, and
the one in which it most differs from some others which have
equalled or even surpassed it as mere expositions of the general
principles of the subject, is that it invariably associates the
principles with their applications. This of itself implies a much
wider range of ideas and of topics than are included in Political
Economy, considered as a branch of abstract speculation. For
practical purposes, Political Economy is inseparably intertwined
with many other branches of social philosophy. Except on
matters of mere detail, there are perhaps no practical questions,
even among those which approach nearest to the character of
purely economical questions, which admit of being decided on
economical premises alone.”1

The admirable statement of Professor Haney as to the place

lPage 27 of Preface, Principles of Political Economy.
- 65

66 Farm Tenantry in the United States

filled by Mill’s Principles, gives a fitting introduction to the so-
cial application to the subject of farm tenantry:

“Ricardo had developed a certain side of Adam
Smith’s political economy, carrying it to its logical con-
clusion. Malthus added his theory of population; Sen-
ior his abstinence theory; and several writers contrib-
uted refinements at this or that point. There was still
room, however, for one who should be broad enough
to survey the Whole field and fuse these various ele-
ments into a systematic body of doctrine. In fact,
there was need for a restatement of the classical eco-
nomics; a restatement which would take into consider-
ation the criticisms of the old system, and current con-
ditions; one that would at least begin to realize the in-
sufficiency of the existing political economy in relation
to the problems of modern society, and so prepare the
Way for a new economics. This was the work of John
Stuart l\lill.”1 i

Mill makes plain the insufficiency of existing economics in
his “Preliminary Remarks.” The interaction of economic in-
fiuences and social forces is clearly indicated in the third para-
graph as follows:

“Every one has a notion, sufficiently correct for
common purposes, of What is meant by wealth. The
enquiries which relate to it are in no danger of being
confounded with those relating to any other of the
great human interests. All know that it is one thing
to be rich, another thing to be enlightened, brave, or
humane; that the questions how a nation is made
wealthy, and how it is made free, or virtuous or eminent
in literature, in the fine arts, in arms, or in policy, are
totally distinct enquiries. Those things, indeed, are
all indirectly connected, and react upon one another.

A people has sometimes become free, because it had
first grown wealthy; or wealthy, because it had first
become free. The creed and laws of a people act pow-
erfully upon their economical condition; and this
again, by its influence on their mental development and
social relations, reacts upon their creed and laws.”
Mill then proceeds to illustrate this interaction by specific
references. He traces the steps of industrial evolution through
the successive steps and evaluates the effects of each. In dis-

cussing the characteristics of agriculture, he faces the problem

1Hmey’s History of Economic Thought, Chapter 21, page 344.
ZIbId, Ashley Edition, page 1.

John Stewart Millls l7iews 67

of the agency of production. The position of the agricultural
producer is presented by Mill as one of disadvantage and un-
equal opportunity. After explaining how agricultural surplus
is secured, he says: “The surplus, too, whether small or great,
is usually torn from the producers, either by the government
to which they are subject, or by the individuals, who by super-
ior forces, or by availing themselves of religious or traditional
feeling of subordination, have established themselves as lords
of the soil.”1 The injustice of the government toward produc-
ers is described in the succeeding paragraph in more detail:

“The government, in those countries, though vary-
ing in its qualities according to the accidents of per-
sonal character, seldom leaves much to the cultivators
beyond mere necessaries, and often strips them so bare
even of these, that it finds itself obliged, after taking
all they have, to lend part of it back to those from
whom it has been taken, in order to provide them with
seed, and enable them to support life until another
harvest.”

Mill, of course, was here thinking of the practice in oriental
nations, but the illustrations used in succeeding paragraphs in-
dicate that in other forms the same policies have been followed
by the govenments of Europe. He undoubtedly knew that the
Physiocrats had complained of the existence of similar condi-
tions in France. '

If the producers should by chance escape the unjust sys-
tem of taxation, he was confronted by the capitalist upon whom
he was compelled to rely for financial support. The process is
quite simple:

“The money dealers lend to the unfortunate culti-
vators, when ruined by bad seasons or fiscal exactions,
the means of supporting life and continuing their cul-
tivation, and are repaid with enormous interest at the
next harvest; or, on a larger scale, they lend to the
government, or to those to whom it has granted a por-
tion of the revenue, and are indemnified by assignments
on the revenue collectors, or by having certain dis-
tricts put into their possession, that they may pay
themselves from the revenues; to enable them to do

 

llbid, page 12.
2Ibid, page 12.

68 Farm Tenantry "in the United States

which, a great portion of the powers of government
are usually made over simultaneously, to be exercised
by them until either the districts are redeemed, or
their receipts have liquidated the debt.”1

After this historical recital of conditions in oriental coun-
tries, Mill turned to the conditions of agricultural production in
ancient Europe, where he finds conditions generally better than

a in oriental countries. He traces these conditions to the advan-

tages of small town-communities where the rent was equally
divided or assigned in graduated allotments. Under this sys-
tem “the whole produce of the soil belonged, without deduction,
to the family which cultivated it. So long as the progress of
events permitted this disposition of property to last, the state
of society was, for the majority of the free cultivators, prob-
ably not an undesirable one; and under it, in some cases, the
advance of mankind in intellectual culture was extraordinarily
rapid and brilliant?”

It is at this point that we begin to see the influence of Mal-
thus on Mill. He realizes the advantages of the situation he
describes, but he hastens to explain that it could not continue.
The increase of population under these conditions created ab-
normal demand for land, which made wars inevitable. Small
communities found it necessary to join with larger communities
as a means of defense. Inequalities arose simultaneously with
the process of empire building. Rome illustrated what happen-
ed in connection with land tenure. “The Roman empire ulti-
mately became covered with the vast landed possessions of a
comparatively few families, for whose luxuries, and still more,
for whose ostentation the most costly presents were raised,
while the cultivators of the soil were slaves or small tenants in
a nearly servile condition.” Under the influence of this social
process, European society became composed, in unequal numbers,
of landed proprietors and actual tillers of the soil. Thus grew
up the system of landlord and tenant that existed in England at
the time of Mill. He realized, however, that important differ-
ences existed in the different countries. “In some the land
owners were a class in themselves, almost entirely separated

llbid, page 14.
2Ibid, page 14.
sIbid, page 16.

John Stuart Mill’s Views 69

from the class engaged in industry; in others, the proprietor of
the land is almost universally its cultivator, owning the plow
and often himself holding it. When the proprietor himself does
not cultivate, there is sometimes, between him and the labourer,
an intermediate agency, that of the farmer who advances the
subsistence of the labourers, supplies the instruments of pro-
duction, and receives, after paying a rent to the landowner, all
the produce: in other cases, the landlord, his paid agents, and
the laborers, are the only sharersf"

While all of this discussion by Mill in his “Preliminary Re-
marks” is largely historical rather than economic, two tendencies
appear. (1) In the first place, Mill clearly reveals his interest in
the welfare of the producer. He indicates that he believes the
cultivator of the land should receive profitable returns from the
efforts expended. This will appear more obvious when We ex-
amine his economics of this situation. (2) In the second place,
there is implied in this historical setting Mill’s belief in the inter-
relation of the economic and social problems effecting national
welfare. His social philosophy is so closely interwoven in his
economic exposition that it is often useless to attempt to ex-
tricate his economic doctrine from his social views. This, too,
will reappear in the examination of the particular aspects of
farm tenantry that Mill discusses in Book II of his Principles.

Private Property in Land.

Book II of Mill’s Principles is devoted to distribution. He
begins with a discussion of property. He announces that in ac-
cepting the principle of private ownership we must assume that
in the beginning it was not accompanied by inequalities and in-
justices which obstruct its beneficial use.

“Every full grown man or woman, we must sup-
pose, would be secured in the unfettered use and dis-
posal of his or her bodily and mental faculties; and the
instruments of production, the land and tools, would
be divided fairly among them, so that all might start,
in respect to outward appliances, on equal terms. It
is possible also to conceive that in this original appor-

llbid, page 20.

7 0 Farm Tenantry in the United States

tionment, compensation might be made for the injuries
of nature, and the balance redressed by assigning to
the less robust members of the community advantages
in the distribution, sufficient to put them on a par with
the rest. But the division, once made, would not again
be interfered with; individuals would be left to their
own exertions and to the ordinary chances, for making
an advantageous use of what was assigned to them?“

The other alternative for this economic system of private
property is communism, which is described by Mill. After re-
viewing the communistic schemes rather sympathetically, Mill
returns to it in Chapter two of Book II when he discusses the
theory of private property. He defines the institution of private
property and describes the principles of inheritance. This leads
him to an important and fundamental question. On what grounds
is the exclusive ownership of property defensible? He thinks the
answer is to be found in the recognition of the essential principle
that all persons shall possess exclusively what they produce by
their labor and accumulate by their abstinence. But how can this

be applied to land where productive power is derived from na- .

ture rather than industry? Mill reminds us that “though the
land is not the product of industry most of its valuable qualities
arepz Labor is as necessary here as in "industry. Therefore,
“the use of the land in agriculture must indeed, for the time be-
ing, be of necessity exclusive; the same person who has ploughed
and sown must be permitted to reap?“ This conclusion seems
very simple and very obvious. But Mill’s general analytical
powers and logical methods carry him deeper into the question.
These reasons seem sufficient justification to Mill from an eco-
nomic standpoint, to give validity to private property in
land. But he hastens to declare that “They are only valid, in so
far as the proprietor of the land is its improver. Whenever, in
any country, the proprietor, generally speaking, ceases to be the
improver, political economy has nothing to say in defense of
landed property as there established. In no sound theory of
private property was it ever contemplated that the proprietor
of land should be merely a sinecurist quartered on it.””* This is

llbid, Book 2, Chapter 1, page 202.
2Ibid, Book 2, Chapter 2, page 230
3Ibid, Book 2, Chapter 2, page 230.
4Ibid, Book 2, Chapter 2, page 231.

J 01m Stuart M'ill’s Views 71

a very remarkable and significant statement. This view had not
been previously expressed by any economic thinker. Clearly
Mill here makes the principle of private property in land de-
pendent on its proper use as a social asset. This doctrine has de-
served Wider recognition in the land policies relating to tenure,
both in England and the United States. It certainly deserves
recognition and acceptance as a guiding principle in the farm
tenantry situation that confronts us at the present time.

That Mill had in mind a concrete situation is evident from
the use he makes of this doctrine. He tells us that in Great
Britain the landed proprietor is not infrequently an improver of
the land. But he hastens to explain that it is not generally so.
He charges that the landlord in most cases rents his land on such

‘conditions that it cannot be improved by the tenant. In the

southern part of England, leases are not used, Which makes im-
provement impossible except by capital supplied by the land-
lord. As a result of this condition, the south of England is very
backward in agricultural improvement compared With the north
of England and with Scotland, Where a better system prevails.
Some landlords are not financially able to provide improvements.
But “were they ever so much inclined,” says Mill, “those alone can
persistently do it, Who have seriously studied the principles of sci-
entific agriculture, and great landlords have seldom seriously
studied anything?”

An intelligent leasing system is urged by Mill as a means of
relieving this situation and supplying a justification for prop-
erty in land. The landlords “might at least hold out inducements
to the farmers to do What they will not or cannot do themselves;
but even in granting leases, it is in England a general complaint
(1848) that they tie up their tenants by covenants grounded on
the practices of an obsolete and exploded agriculture; while most
of them, by withholding leases altogether, and giving the farmer
no guarantee of possession beyond a single harvest, keep the
land on a footing little more favorable to improvement than in
the time of our barbarous ancestors.” If this is not done, the
conditions that justify economically the existence of private
property in land cease to exist. Even the argument for the

llbid, Book 2, Chapter 2, page 232.
Qlbid, Book 2, Chapter 2, page 232.

72 Farm Tenantry "in the United States

sacredness of property cannot be appropriately applied to such
a situation with reference to land.

“When the ‘sacredness of property’ is talked of,
it should always be remembered, that any such sacred-
ness does not belong in the same degree to landed prop-
erty. N0 man made the land. It is the original in-
heritance of the whole species. Its appropriation is
wholly a question of» general expediency. When pri-
vate property in land is not expedient, it is unjust. It
is no hardship to anyone to be excluded from what
others have produced: they were not bound to produce
it for his use, and he loses nothing by not sharing in
what otherwise would not have existed at all. But it is
some hardship to be born into the world and to find all
nature’s gifts previously engrossed, and no place left
for the newcomer. To reconcile people to this, after
they have once admitted into their minds the idea that
any moral rights belong to them as human beings, it
will always be necessary to convince them that the ex-
clusive appropriation is good for mankind on the
whole, themselves included. But this is what no sane hu-
man being could be persuaded of, if the realization be-
tween the landowner and the cultivator were the same
everywhere as it has been in Ireland.“

It is obvious that Mill is very close to the theory of land
nationalization here. In subsequent paragraphs of the same
chapter, he appears even nearer to the doctrine of socialization
of agricultural lands. This theory will not be pursued further

a in this connection, but subsequent reference will be made to the

views of Mill in discussing the economic remedies for the farm
tenantry situation.

Classes of Tenants.

Mill classifies tenants as follows: (1) Metayers and (2)
Cottiers. The interest that Mill feels in the problem of farm
tenantry is indicated by his rather extended discussion of the
economic situation, which causes him to explain at the close of
his- chapter on this subject that it “has occupied a space almost
disproportionate to the dimensions of this work.” Under a sys-
tem of peasant proprietorship, the “produce of the land and labor

llbid, Book 2, Chapter 2, page 233.

J ohn Stuart Mill’s Views 73

belongs undoubtedly to the laborer.” But under a system of
tenant farming the produce is divided between two classes—the
laborer and the landlord. He explains that it is not a material
circumstance which furnished the stock, or whether each fur-
nishes a determinate proportion of it on an agreed basis. But
the essential difference depends on “Whether the division of the
produce between the two is regulated by custom or by compe-
tition.” It is on this principle that Mill bases his classification
of farm tenants. The metayer system was traceable to custom.
The cottier system was the result of competition.

With this explanation Mill proceeds to define and explain
the metayer system. “The principle of the metayer system
says he, “is thatthe laborer, or peasant, makes his engagement
directly with the land-owner, and pays, not a fixed rent, either in
money or kind, but a certain proportion of the produce, or rather
of What remains of the produce after deducting What is con-
sidered necessary to keep up the stock.“ In __ the case
where the relative shares are a matter of custom, there
are no laws for a political economist to investigate. But the po-
litical economist is concerned, according to Mill’s view, with the
effects of the system on the moral and physical condition of the
tenant, and the effect of the system on his producing efficiency.
Mill thinks the motive to exertion on the part of the metayer is
not so great as that of the peasant proprietor, because the meta,-
yer receives only a share of the produce that his labor provides,
while the peasant proprietor receives all of it. But the metayer has
a much stronger motive than the farm laborer who has no other
interest than that of continued employment. Mill correctly
conceived of the metayer system as a co-partnership between
landlord and tenant. But he did not develop in his discussion
the inequalities in this relationship. However, he refers to the
controlling power of the proprietor to prevent the multiplication
of people beyond the point of reasonable subsistence? it is re-
grettable that Mill did not develop more concretely the theory
that he advanced with reference to the relatively decreased ef-
ficiency of the tenant farmer under the metayer system. The
principle is incontrovertible that the strength of the economic

llbid, Book 2, Chapter 8, page 303.

2Mill is profoundly impressed with the theory of population as advanced by Malthus, and
its influence 0n economic doctrine was costantly appearing and re-appearing in his
economic analyses.

74 Farm Tenantry in the United States

motive is determined by the relative benefits derived from phys-
ical effort. But Mill did not develop this theory further in his
discussion of this subject.

Mill considers at considerable length the conflicting views
of English and French Writers on the relative merits of the
metayer system in Europe. He discusses the objection to the
system on the part of English authorities and quotes at some
length from Arthur Youngl, who declares that the metayer sys-
tem is “a most cruel burden to the proprietor, who is obliged to
run much the hazard of farming in the most dangerous of
all methods, that of trusting his property absolutely in the hands
of people who are generally ignorant, many careless, and some
undoubtedly Wicked.” Mill also quotes from Mc Culloch’s PTlTIr
ciples of Political Economy? where the statement is made that
“Whenever it (the metayer system) has been adopted, it has put
a stop to all improvement, and has reduced the cultivator to
abject poverty.”

On the other side of the question, Mill quoted from Chatte-
auvieux3 and Sismondi‘ with reference to the favorable aspects
of the system. The metayer system of Italy is especially com-
mended as having proved very satisfactory. Mill is very posi-
tively inclined to share the views of the French authorities
rather than those of his English contemporaries. He charges
the English Writers With holding extremely narrow views on the
subject. His own appraisal of the metayer system is Worthy of
reproduction here:

The metayer tenure is not one which We should
be anxious to introduce Where the exigencies of so-
ciety had not naturally given birth to it; but neither
ought We to be eager to abolish it on a mere a priori
view of its disadvantages. If the system in Tuscany
works as well in practice as it is represented to do, with
every appearence of minute knowledge, by so compe-
tent an authority as Sismondi ; if the mode of living of
the people, and the size of farms, have for ages main-
tained and still maintain themselves such as they are
said to be by him, it were to be regretted that a state
of rural well-being so much beyond what is realized in

lTravels, Volume 1, pages 404-405.

2Third Edition, page 471.

3Letters From Italy, translated by Rigby, page 16.

4New Principles of Political Economy, Book 3, Chapter 5.

John Stuart Mill’s Views 75

most European countries, should be put to hazard by an
attempt to introduce, under the guise of agricultural
improvement, a system of money-rents and capitalist
farmers. Even Where the metayers are poor, and the
subdivision great, it is not to be assumed, as of course,
that the change Would be for the better. The enlarge-
ment of farms, and the introduction of what are called
agricultural improvements, usually diminish the num-
ber of laborers employed on the land; and unless the
growth of capital in trade and manufactures affords
an opening for the displaced population, or unless there
are reclaimable Wastes on which they can be located,
competition will so reduce Wages, that they will prob-
ably be worse off as day-laborers than they were as
metayersf

Mill’s reference to the danger of substituting “a system of

money-rents and capitalistic farmers” for metayers, Whose in- l

terest Was only a share of the produce, deserves a Word of ex-
planation. He greatly feared the transiency resulting from the
money-rent system. The French economists had encouraged a
system of peasant proprietorship as a substitute for the metayer
system. As previously indicated, it was believed that the motive
to increase production would be stimulated and gradually the
farmers would become proprietors. But Mill, While conscious
of these agencies, wisely observed that “the benefit would not be
without alloy.” The tenant, in becoming a peasant proprietor
at a quit-rent, would be subject to displacement “at the land-
lord’s will and liable to have his rent raised by competition to any
amount which any unfortunate being in search of subsistence
can be found to offer or promise for it; he would lose all the
features in his condition which preserve it from being deterior-
ated; he would be cast down from his present position of a kind
of half proprietor of the land, and would sink into a cottier
tenant.” Mill’s fears Were not unfounded in this regard, but in
seeing only the alternative between the French metayer system
and a system that placed the tenure of the tenant Wholly in the
hands of the landlord, Mill failed to see an intermediate system
that later developed in England as a result of his own teaching.
The lease system_ that he was discouraging, gave relative per-

llbid, Book 2, Chapter 8, page 316.
zlbid, Book 2, Chapter 8, page 317.

76 Farm ‘Tenantry in the United States

manency to the tenancy and encouraged farm improvements, was
destined larely to offset his objection to a system of money-rents.

In chapters nine and ten Mill discusses cottier tenancy. He
has constantly in mind in this discussion the land-tenure situa-
tion in Ireland. Under the original plan the cottier was a sub-
tenant, who rented a cottage and an acre or two of land from a
peasant proprietor. But by common use the term has come to
apply to all tenants whose rents are determined by competition
rather than by custom. While Mill, with some reservations ap-
proved of the metayer system, he was unsparing in his condem-
nation of a “cottier” system. The condition of the farm laborer
depends on the amount of rent he is required to pay. Under a
system of competition, as we shall see in the chapter following,
rent is regulated by the available supply of land and the demand
for it. The demand is determined by the number of rural popu-
lation, the relative fertility and location with reference to mar-
kets and transportation facilities. The effects of this system,
according to Mill, was “to bring the principle of population to act
directly on the land.” Here again Mill is emphasizing the
doctrines of Malthus with reference to population, but
ignoring the other factors referred to in the preceding sentence.
As land is fixed in quality and population has unlimited
possibilities of increase, unless some natural or artificial checks
are applied, the competition for land must tend to increase con-
stantly. To Mill this presented an almost impossible situation.
He says:

“In such a condition, what can a tenant gain by
any amount of industry or prudence, and what lose by
any recklessness? If the landlord at any time exerted
his full legal rights, the cottier would not be able even
to live. If by extra exertion he doubled the produce of
his bit of land, or if he prudently abstained from pro-
ducing mouths to eat it up, his only gain would be to
have more left to pay to his landlord ; while, if he had
twenty children, they would still be fed first, and the
landlord could only take what was left. Almost alone
amongst mankind the cottier is in this condition, that
he can scarcely be either better or worse off by any act
of his own. If he were industrious or prudent, nobody
but his landlord would gain; if he is lazy or intemper-
ate, it is at his landlord’s expense. A situation more

John Stuart Millis Views 77

devoid of motives t0 either labour or self-command,
imagination itself cannot conceive. The inducements of
free human beings are taken away, and those of a slave
not substituted. He has nothing to hope, and nothing
to fear, except being dispossessed of his holding, and
against this he protects himself by the ultima ratio of
a defensive civil war.”1 ‘

Constructive Proposals to Meet This Situation
Mill set about the task of proposing a remedy for this sit-
uation. Historically, at least, the proposal is of improtance, be-

cause it is the first that was made in the interest of improving»

the condition of the farm tenant and contributing to the solution
of the rural land tenure problem. Between the date of publica-
tion of the first edition of the Principles of Political Economy
(1848) and the appearance of the third edition (1852), the Eng--
lish government had taken cognizance of the farm situation in.
Ireland. The English Parliament attempted to relieve the dis-
tress of the Irish farm tenants by conferring on them a royal
claim to charitable support. Mill was prompt to point out that
the solution of the problem and the improvement of the condi-
tions of the farm tenant depended on a more intelligent land pol-
icy rather than a resort to the practice of a system of govern-
mental charity. He submitted several proposals as possible
solutions.

(1) His first proposal contemplated the abolition of
cottier tenancy through an act of Parliament whereby the land
of Ireland was to be made the property of the tenants, subject to,
a fixed rent to be charged by the government. In other words,
land nationalization was to be applied as a remedy for this sit-
uation. This proposal for the complete socialization of the landi
was very radical, and Mill was called upon to justify his position.
He contended that the policy would be perfectly warrantable if

v by so doing a great public good was accomplished. He thought.

the landlords should be compensated by the government for the
land from which they were expropriated. But he contended that
they should have no choice with reference to surrendering it for
the public good. He slightly modified his general proposition by
contending that not all the land should be taken over by the
government. He thought it would be a mistake to provide. a.
Jlbid, Book 2, Chapter 9, page 323.

78 Farm Tenantry in the United States

system of agriculture consisting entirely of peasant proprietors.
He believed that there was a place for large farms, cultivated
scientifically, with the application of sufficient capital to serve
as demonstrators of the best methods of production. He realized
that peasant farmers could not afford the delay and risk of costly
experiments to secure improved crops and better methods of pro-
duction. Therefore, there was a place for experimental farms,
as we would say today, in the midst of the farms owned and cul-
tivated by the proprietors where they would have the oppor-
tunity to observe soil improvement, systems of crop rotation, the
application of farm machinery to farm production as a means

of increasing crop yield and adopting better methods. It is in-
teresting to observe that in the United States this plan has been
adopted in many states where agricultural experiment stations
have been provided for this very purpose, the difference in pol-
icy being that the state has fostered the farms for these purposes
rather than leaving them to the benevolent intentions of cap-
italist farmers.

(2) Mill’s second proposal was for the utilization of waste
land. He would bestow ownership on those who would reclaim
waste land, and compel the owner to surrender the title. How-
ever, he would require the payment of a fixed quit rent equal to
a modest interest on its value as waste land. It is interesting to
observe that this is not a very dissimilar proposal to that of the
Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Lane, made just after the close of
the war. He recommended to Congress that the waste land be
reclaimed by the government and parcelled out to the soldiers
"who had taken part in the recent war.

(3) Another suggestion of Mill was to encourage individuals
to co-operate in buying land in large tracts for the purpose of
selling it to peasant proprietors in small farms. He felt that by
employing private capital in this way a double purpose would be
served. In the first place, a profitable return on the in-
vestment would accrue to those interested in the enterprise; and
secondly, the social and agricultural economy of Ireland would
be improved by substituting small farm owners for cottter ten-
ants.

 

J ohn Stuart Mill’s Views 7 9
The Influence of Mill.

Mill exerted a Widespread influence on the farm tenantry

' problem in England. Slowly but surely public opinion crystal-

lized about the views he had expressed. It is true that land na-
tionalization did not come about as a result of his teaching, but
it gained a number of notable adherents who have contended for
it until the present day. In a more practical Way results have
been accomplished. The English radical party was attracted by
the thrift of the French peasantry after considering
Mill’s views of them. The various small Holdings Acts that
have been passed in England have been traceable to the in-
fluence exerted by the teaching of Mill.‘ If Mill had accom-
plished no other reform than that of securing a statutory modi-
fication of the common law relating to landlord and tenant, he
would be entitled to a significant place in the esteem of the social
reformer. ~ 

As Mill’s teachings have important bearings on the practi-
cal situation in the United States, reference will be made in sub-
sequent chapters to the views that have been outlined in this

discussion of Mill’s contribution to the subject of farm tenantry.

1Gide and Rist, History of Economic Doctrines, page 372.

CHAPTER v11.
THE ECONOMICS OF FARM RENT.

The subject of farm rent implies a system of agricultural
tenantry. The topic of “rent” has been included in every im-
portant Work on political economy, and in its place in economic
theory has been definitely determined. In the economics of the dis-
tribution of Wealth, rent, interest, and wages are the respective
products of land, capital, and labor. The distribution of these sev-
eral products has become a topic of increasing importance. The
three classes who have shared the benefits are landowners, cap-
italists, and laborers. The conflicting interests that commercial
enterprise has developed among these classes have created the
most acute problems of our civilization. The part of the national
product which represents land goes to the land owner and is
called economic rent or simply rent. The measure of this product
presents a fundamental problem of economics. Economists have
very generally agreed that economic rent is the just share that
the land owner should receive by virtue of ownership. But it
should be observed that from time to time there have been
thoughtful men who have denied that economic rent should ever

'?oe appropriated to individuals who claim ownership of the soil.
In other words, the theory of the socialization of the land, or

land nationalization, has been advocated from time to time by

some of the most thoughtful economic thinkers of the World.

.But as a general thing private ownership in land has been recog-

nized, and the right of the land owner to the private appropria-

tion of economic rent has been generally conceded. But when the

lland owner receives from a tenant a larger share of the produce,

<or the money equivalent, than that represented by the economic
rent of the land, he is receiving a part of the wages of the tenant
or interests on the tenant’s capital invested in farm improve-
ments. This infringement presents a problem of social equity
that deserves consideration and adjustment.

80

The Economics of Farm Rent 81
The Rent Concept.

Agricultural rent is based on the assumption that the re-
wards of farm labor yield a producer’s surplus. The classical
economists and their successors have given the name “rent” to
this producer’s surplus. The technical meaning that has been
given to rent conflicts With the coromonplace usage of the word.
Producer’s surplus is a much more apt phrase, but “rent” has
advantage of brevity and simplicity as Well as common usage by
economic writers.

It is well to observe that “economic rent” is the phrase us-
ually applied to the land owner’s share for the use of land. It is
a more restricted term than the word “rent”. Professor

Taussig says: “In ordinary parlance, rent signifies a sum paid
by one person to another for the loan or lease of any durable
thing, such as a tract of land, a house, a piano.”1 The definition
of rent given by Profesor Seager more nearly conforms to the
line of discussion now under consideration. “Rent is the term
given in economics to the share of income that is assigned or paid

to owners of land, sources of water power, and other gifts of na- '

v2

ture which assist production, for the use of these factors.
This discussion has under consideration economic rent as the
rent of land. The rent of mines, which is included in the dis-
cussion of some of the early economists, Water power, and other
natural resources lies beyond the scope of this discussion.

It is also well to observe that economic rent should not be
confused with commercial rent. The latter term applies to the
payment for a combination of land and improvements. We
think of the phrase when a lump sum is paid for rent of land
and interest on capital. Suppose, for example, $500 were paid
for the use of a residence occupied in the city, or for the use of
a business house. This sum is obviously composed of two ele-
ments. Economic rent is paid for the land and interest is paid
on the cost of the building. The amount paid can be apportioned

lPrinciples of Economics, Volume 2, Chapter 42,- page 56.
2Principles of Economics, Chapter 14, page 230

82 Farm Tenaoitry in the United States

to each on the basis of the separate cost of the land and house.
Likewise the farm tenant pays commercial rent for an improved
farm, for he pays interest on the capital invested in houses,
farm implements, live stock, fertilizer, and feed, and economic
rent on the land. The economist finds it is necessary to dis-
tinguish between the two elements in commercial rent. The
reason is quite obvious. The supply of land is limited in quantity.
But the supply of capital can be increased almost indefinitely.
The ratio, therefore, between economic rent and the interest on
capital is a variable ratio. To confuse them would mean to con-
tribute to the maladjustment of the human elements that cre-
ate both factors and are influenced by them. The subsequent
chapter will discuss the practical aspects of commercial rent in
relation to economic rent.

The Historical Approach to the Theory
of Economic Rent.

The subject of rent has engaged the attention of econo-
mists practically from the beginning of formal, economic dis-
cussion. The Physiocrats recognized that the earth has power
to yield, even under unskilled and unscientific methods of cul-
tivation, a product in excess of the necessary subsistence of the
cultivator himself. Quesnay and his followers designated the
net product after all expenses connected with cultivation had
been deducted, the produit net. This is exactily what has come to
be called “rent” by Ricardo and others of the English school of
economics. Turgot explained the basis of rent very clearly.
Since land returns to the cultivator, not only his subsistence
“but a considerable superfluity, he could with this superfluity,
pay men to cultivate his land; and for men who live on wages,
it was as good to earn them in this business as in any other.
Thus ownership could be separated from labor of cultivation;
and soon it was.“ Turgot, after explaining how inequality in
land ownership developed, proceeds as follows:

“It is natural enough that a rich man should wish
to enjoy his wealth in tranquility, and that instead of
employing his whole time in toilsome labours, he

lReflections on the Formation and the Distribution of Riches (1770), English Trans-
lation in Economic Classics Series, edited by W. J. Ashley, page 21

The Economics 0f Farm Rent 83

should prefer to give a part of his superfluity to peo-
ple who will work for him.

“By this new arrangement the produce of the land
is divided into two parts. The one includes the sub-
sistence and the profits of the husbandman, which are
the reward of his labour and the condition upon which
he undertakes to cultivate the field of the proprietor.
What remains is that independent and disposable part
which the land gives as a pure gift to him who culti-
vates it, over and above his advances and the Wages of
his trouble and this is the portion of the Proprietor, or
the revenue with which _the latter can live without
labour and which he carries where he will.”1

The estimate of the contribution made to this aspect of
economics is interestingly describedby Henry George in a very
familiar passage: '

“In grasping the real meaning and intent of the
net product, or economic rent, there was opened to the
Physiocrats a true system of political economy-—a sys-
tem of harmonious order and beneficent purpose. They
had grasped the key without which no true scientist of
political economy is possible, and from the refusal to ac-
cept which the scholastic economy that has succeeded
Adam Smith is, after nearly a hundred years of culti-
vation, during which it has sunk into the contemptible
position of ‘the dismal science,’ now slipping into con-
fessed incompetency and rejection.”

Adam Smith gave careful consideration to the subject of
rent. He made the mistake in his analysis of contending that
rent is a factor in determining the price of commodities, but on
other aspects of the subject he made important contributions?
He was not mistaken in his conclusion that “the rent of land,
considered as the price paid for the use of land, is naturally a
monopoly price.” Smith’s discussion of rent is directed more to
a discussion of the social aspects of rent than to the economic
theory of rent. He contends, for example, that the rent actually

llbid, page l4. _ _
ZThe Science 0f Polttzcal Economy, page 151. _ _ _ _ _
3This error was pointed out by Ricardo. See his Pmnczples of Polztzcal Economy and

Taxation, Chapter 2 .

84 A Farm Tenantry in the United States

paid by the tenant is not determined by what the landlord has
paid for the rents or invested in the improvements, but what the
farmers can afford to give?

Smith’s reasoning is so pertinent to our present situation
in the United States that it deserves to be quoted in full:

“Rent, considered as the p'rice paid for the use of
land, is naturally the highest which the tenant can af-
ford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land. In
adjusting the terms of the lease, the landlord endeavors
to leave him no greater share of the produce than what
is sufficient to keep up the stock from which he furnish-
es the seed, pays the laborer, and purchases and main-
tains the cattle and other instruments of husbandry,
together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in
the neighborhood. This is evidently the highest the
tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances
of the land. Sometimes, indeed, the liberality, more
frequently the ignorance of the landlord, makes him
accept somewhat less than this portion; and sometimes,
too, though more rarely, the ignorance of the tenant
makes him undertake to pay somewhat more, or to
content himself with somewhat less, than the ordi-
nary profits of farming stock in the neighborhood.
This portion, however, may still be considered as the l
natural rent of land, or the rent for which it is natu-
rally meant that land should for the most part be let.
The rent of land, it may be thought, is frequently no
more than a reasonable profit of interest for the stock
laid out by the landlord upon its improvement. This,
no doubt, may be partially the case upon some occasions;
for it can scarcely ever be more than partly the case.
The landlord demands a rent even for unimproved land,
and the supposed interest or profit upon the expense of
improvement is generally an addition to this original
rent. Those improvements, besides, are not always
made by the stock of the landlord, but sometimes by
that of the tenant. When the lease comes to be re-
newed, however, the landlord commonly demands the
same augmentation of rent, as if they had been all
made by his own.”2

lWealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 11.
2Ibid, Book 1, Chapter 11, pages 153 and 154.

The Economics of Farm Rent 85

It is interesting t0 observe that J. B. Say, Who was greatly
influenced by Adam Smith in his economic thinking, almost
completely ignored the subject of rent in his Le Tmite d’
Economic Politiqne. Say’s Work appeared in 1803. He placed
the emphasis of his treatise on the industrial aspects of econom-
ics rather than on rural economics. While he did not deny the
existence of rent, he treated it only incidentally. The reason
is probably to be found in two conditions that influenced Say’s
thinking. In the first place, the industrial revolution had produced
a profound impression and the economic effects of it were be-

ginning to be felt at the time Say Wrote his treatise. In the sec-
ond place, France had become a land of small proprietors instead
of a land of farm tenants. For this reason rent was not an im-
portant economic topic in France during his day.

Malthus, on the other hand, centered his economic think-
ing around the theory of rent. In 1815, he published his pam-
phlet on “An Inquiry Into the Nature and Progress of Rent.”
He gave the topic important consideration in his Principles of
Political Economy. Ricardo regarded the opinions of Malthus
on the theory of rent of such importance as to devote an entire
chapter of his Principles to a review of his contribution to this
subject} Malthus based his theory of rent on his law of the
pressure of population. Rent is theresult of the earth’s bounty
to supply food for more people than are required to till the soil.
He takes as a starting point the theory of the Physiocrats
and Adam Smith. But he follows his theory to a more definite
conclusion. Rent is a consequence of both physical and economic
laws. Nature supplies an excess, but the increases of popula-
tion creates a constant demand for products in excess of the sup-
ply. Malthus also saw the significance of unequal fertility and
the necessity, of the application of unequal capital. It is this
feature of rent that has especially attracted the attention of
Ricardo.

The Ricardian theory of rent is the economic doctrine most
inseparably associated with the name of this political economist.

lPi-inciples of Economics and Taxation, Chapter 22.

86 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Mill, in his admiration for it, calls it the “pons asinorum of po-
litical economy.” The theory is set forth in the following pass-

age:

“On the first settling of a country in which there
is an abundance of rich and fertile land, a very small
proportion of which is required to be cultivated for the
support of the actual population, or indeed can be cul-
tivated with the capital which the population can com-
mand, there will be no rent; forno one would pay for

the use of land when there was an abundant quantity
not yet appropriated, and, therefore, at the disposal
of whosoever might choose to cultivate it. . . . ,
But, When, in the progress of society, land of the sec-
ond degree of fertility is taken into cultivation, rent
immediately commences on that of the first quality, and
the amount of that rent will depend on the difference
in the quality of these two portions of land.

When land of the third quality is taken into culti-
vation, rent immediately commences on the second,
and it is regulated as before by the difference between
the produce Which they yield with a given quantity
of capital and labour. With every step in the progress
of population, which shall oblige a country to have re-
course to land of a Worse quality, to enable it to raise
its food supply, rent, on all the more fertile land, will
rise.”1

v Rent, then, only appears when the progress of population
calls into cultivation land of an inferior quality or land that is
less advantageously situated with reference to markets and
other conveniences. This is the essence of Ricardo’s theory.
Rent is not the favorable sign that some of his predecessors
seem to attribute to it.‘ It is not an evidence of nature’s abun-
dance; it is rather an expression of the necessity of resorting to
the cultivation of relatively poor land to meet the food require-
mens of an increasing population. There is implied in the Ricard-
ian theory the idea that the landlord profits by the difficulties of

lPrinciples of Political Economy, Chapter 2, pages 34-35.

The Economics of Farm Rent 87

production and the subsistence problems of the population.
Rent increases on the best land and appears on less productive
lands as these problems of food supply become more acute. The
landlord’s interest, therefore, appears to be opposed to the best
interest of society.

The landlord profits by differentiated rent and the applica-
tion of the economic law of dimininshing returns. Ricardo was
not the first to call attention to the law of diminishing returns,
but he was the first to bring this doctrine to bear upon the theory
of rent. It is a significant fact in the theory of rent that if a
certain point has been passed in the cultivation of a unit area of
land, increased application of labor and agricultural equipment
yield less than proportionate returns in products. It is assumed,
of course, that no important change is made in the method of

cultivation. The law of diminishing returns makes it impossible

to distinguish between “extensive” and “intensive” margins of
cultivation. The margin of cultivation is defined by Professor
Taussig as that station in production where only the normal
returns to labor and capital are secured} The margin is said to
be extensive when it is necessary to resort to the cultivation of
poorer lands; and it is said to be intensive when more capital and
labor are applied under less favorable conditions to the culti-
vation of the better lands. In the Ricardian theory of rent, land
margin is the fundamental consideration.

Some are now associating the differential law of rent with
marginal productivity. Professor Carver, for example, calls at-
tention to the fact that the same farm is Worth different sums to
different men. Each acre will yield a larger and better product
when tilled by a skilled, scientific farmer than when cultivated
by a shiftless tenant or an unbusinesslike owner? Therefore,
marginal production, along with the extensive and intensive
margins, is constantly acting and reacting to secure rent for the
landlord in a progressive agricultural country.

lPrinciples of Economics, Book 2, Chapter 42, page 59.
zPrinciples of Rural Economics, Chapter 5, page 301.

88 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Ricardo was not so fortunate in his definition of rent as
he was in the development of the theory. He defines rent as
“that portion of the produce of the earth which is paid to the
landlord for the use of the original and indestructible powers
of the soil.”1 Writers have frequently called attention to the in-
accuracy of this definition. Rent is not paid for the use of the
indestructible powers of the soil. In the first place, there are
no indestructible powers in the soil, and, in the second place, what
is most indestructible in the soil is, for the most part, useless
as a productive agency? .

But, fortunately, Ricardo’s definition did not have a bear-
ing on his theory, which is generally accepted by economists at
the present time. Professor Haney says: “the rent theory
proper stands to this day, the result of nearly a century of crit-
icism, having been a most careful and limited formulation of a
less absolute statement of its unique character.”3

Criticism of Ricardo’s Theory.

Richard Jones, who succeeded Malthus in 1835 as professor

of Political Economy and History at the East India College, at

Haileybury, without seeming to have been influenced by Ricar-
do’s theory of rent, took a different view of the origin of rent.
He wrote, in 1831, a volume on peasant rents, which was part of
an essay on the distribution of wealth and on the sources of
taxation. His position is defined in the following passage:

“We come back then to the proposition that, in
the actual progress of human society, rent has usually
originated in the appropriation of the soil, at a time
when the bulk of the people must cultivate it on such
terms as they can obtain, or starve;‘ and when their
scanty capital of implements, seeds, etc., being utterly
insufficient to secure their maintenance in any other oc-
cupation than that of agriculture, is chained with
themselves to the land by an overpowering necessity.
The necessity, then, which compels them to pay a rent
it need hardly be observed, is wholly independent of any '

10p. Cit., Chapter 2.

2This criticism is elaborated in C0x’s Land Nationalization, Chapter 4, page 65, and
in James E. Thorold Rogers’ The Economic Interpretation of History, Chapter 3, page
48

3Har1ey’s History of Economic Doctrine, Chapter 12, page 224.

The Economics of Farm Rent 89

difference in the quality of the ground they occupy, and
rooald not be removed were the soils all equalized!“

This is quite a modification of the differential idea of rent
as advocated by Malthus. The supposition that land would still
yield a rent were all soils equalized is too impracticable and un-
related to actual conditions to enter into the theory of economic
rent. It is very difficult, however, to conceive what the nature
of rent would be under such a condition or how economic rent
would be determined.

Little significance can be attached to the classification of
rents by Jones into primary or peasant rents and secondary or
farmeris rents. By the former, he means the rent that is re-
garded as a part of the wages of the peasant who tills the soil on
his own responsibility; and by the latter, he means the rent that
is paid to the capitalist land-owner out of the proceeds of the
farm. It is easy to see that Jones thought more largely in terms
of commercial rent than in terms of economic rent. He tells us
that “the form and amount of the rent he (the tenant) pays are
determined by a direct contract between. himself and the pro-
prietor. The provisions of these contracts are influenced some-
times by the laws, and almost always by the long established
usages, of the countries in which they are made. The main ob-
ject in all is to secure a revenue to the proprietors with the least
practicable amount of trouble or risk on their part3’? Jones
divides rents into four great divisions as follows: (1) Labor
Rents; (2) Metayer Rents; (3) Ryot Rents; (4) Cottier Rents.
He tells us that the amount of labor rents is determined “partly
upon the quantity of labor exacted, and partly upon the skill
used in applying it. The proprietor, therefore, may increase the
rent of the land held by his serfs, either by exacting more labor
from them, or by using their labor more efficiently.” Metayer
rents can be increased also from two causes as follows: “From
an increase of the whole produce effected by the greater skill
or industry of the tenant, or from an increase of the landlord’s
proportion of the produce, the amount of the produce itself re-
maining the same.

 

lPeasant Rents, Economic Classics Series. Edited by W. J. Ashley, Section 1, page 8.
2Ibid, Section 2, page 12.
slbid, Section 8, page 52.

90 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Ryot rents, is a term adapted by Jones from the nomen-
clature of agriculture in Asia. They are defined by Jones as the
rents paid by the farm laborer raising his own wages from the
soil directly t0 the sovereign as the landed proprietor. These
rents originated in a complete monopoly exercised by the sover-
eign as the sole proprietor of the soil of his domains. They have
little application to conditions that exist today, but this system

was treated with considerable care by Jones, and had rather large
application to oriental conditions in the early part of the nine-
teenth century. He explains that “the existence and progress
of rents under the Ryot system is in no degree dependent upon
the existence of different qualities of soil, or different returns
to the stock and labor employed on each. The sovereign propri-
etor has the means of enabling a body of laborers to maintain
themselves, who without the machinery of the earth with which
he supplies them, must starve. This would secure him a share
in the produceof their labor, though all the lands were perfectly
equal in quality.“ It is worthy of observation that Jones here is
constantly defending his theory of the origin of rent. Under
the heading of “cottier rents” Jones includes all rents contracted
to be paid in money by peasant tenants who extract their own
maintenance from the soil. He finds several disadvantages in
this system of tenantry. The one most emphasized is that there
does not exist under this system a mutual understanding and in-
terest between landlord and tenant. He thinks, however, that
the peasant has a better chance under this system to climb the
“agricultural ladder” to farm ownership than under any of the
other systems. He takes pains to explain that the existence of
rent under a system of cottier tenantry is in no sense dependent
upon the existence of different qualities of soil or relative con-
venience to markets. But on the other hand, cottier rents may
increase from the same causes that affect other peasant rents.
“First, from an increase of the whole produce, of which increase
the landlord takes the whole or a part. Or, the produce remain-
ing stationary, they may increase from an augmentation of the
landlord’s share, that of the tenant being diminished to the ex-
act amount of the additional rent.”

 

llbid, Section 6, page 92.
2Ibid, Chapter 5, page 139.

The Economics of Fawn Rent 91

It should be observed in passing that Jones appreciated
some of the larger social aspects of the problems of tenant
farming. He was aware of the fact that there was a dfingei‘ un-
der any system of tenant farming that the motive of cultivation
would not be sufficiently great t0 produce the full development
from the soil cultivated. He appreciated the importance of skill
and scientific knowledge and the application of adequate capital
as essential factors in the largest possible production. He was
doubtful that this could be obtained under a system of tenant
farming. He was among the first economic thinkers to con-
sider the ratio between agricultural producers and the non-agri-
cultural population. He understands fully that this ratio must
be determined wholly by the productive powers of the soil and
the economic motive of the producers. While acknowledging
that there have been differences between landlords and tenants,
Jones very Wisely contends that the “interests of the landlords
are indissolubly connected with those of their tenantry and of
the community at large.”1

The intimate relationship between the landlord and
tenant is no where else more wisely treated than in this work
of Richard Jones. A quotation with reference to this topic
is worthy of repetition:

“It is no less the interest of the landlords than
it is that of other classes in the state, that the ruder
and more oppressive forms of his contract with his
tenant should gradually be exchanged for others,
more consistent with the social and political welfare
of the cultivators.

There is no one step in the prosperous career of
a peasant tenantry, of any description, at which the
interests of the landlords are not best promoted by
their prosperity: and that in spite of the admitted
possibility of a stinted gain to the proprietors, found-
ed on the increasing penury of the cultivators.”

Henry Charles Carey was the most important economist
who seriously questioned the Ricardian theory of rents‘ In
his Principles of Political Economy (1837-1840), he seems

llbid, Chapter 6, page 146.

2Ibid._ Chapter 6, _pages 147-148.

3Bast1at and M. Iferoy-Beaulieu, attacked Ricardo’s theory of rent, but their views
are _not of great importance. An analysis and criticism of the theories of these eco-
nomic writers may be found in Frances A. Walker's Land and Its Rent (1883) Chap-
ter 2, pages 57 and 120.

92 Fawn Tenantry in the United States

to accept the views of Ricardo that the best lands are culti-
vated first. But in a later and more substantial work, Princi-
ples 0f Social Science, (1857-1860), he declared that Ricardo’s
theory was universally false. The correct view, as Carey savv
it, was directly the reverse of that propounded by Ricardo.
Instead of the best land being cultivated first, cultivation in-
variably commenced on the poor soils and gradually passed

to the richer ones as wealth accumulated and the pressing",

needs of the population required} He appealed to expe-
rience to prove that men first take up poor soils because they
are light and sandy and, therefore, easier to cultivate with
the usually available implements of agriculture in the
earlier stages of cultivation. The richer lands are found in
the great river valleys where cultivation is more difficult, than
on the high elevations. Agriculture begins on the hills and
elevated slopes, and when these lands become exhausted or
fail to supply an adequate quantity of food due to increased
population, better methods of cultivation are devised and
agriculture is gradually extended to the rich valley lands of the
river systems.

This view attracted some attention for a short time, but
it gradually gave way to the more fundamental theory of
Ricardo, which has long since become the accepted view of
economists.

Mill on Rent.

Carey first announced his theory of rent in The Past, The
Present and The Future in 1848, the year that Mill published
the first edition of his Principles of Political Economy. He
is a representative of the English classical school. Mill de-
votes much of his discussion of rent to a refutation of Carey’s
theory of rent. His argument will not be followed in detail
as the fallacy in Carey’s reasoning is well known to students
of economics. But Carey’s attack had the effect of causing
Mill to bring his keen analytical reasoning to the aid of Ri-
cardo’s theory, which resulted in a very helpful amplification
of the doctrine of rent. Malthus explains the process by which
rent appears, as follows: “Rent is the effect of a monopoly.”
He defends this statement by explaining that “a thing which

1See Preface t0 Principles of Political Economy.

The Economics of Fair/n Rent 93

is limited in quantity, even though its possessors do not act
in concert, is still a monopoly article.”

The process by which rent emerges as a result of the
development of agriculture is clearly indicated in Mill’s dis-
cussion of this topic. His explanation may be summarized as
follows:

(1) The poorest land which can be cultivated as a
means of subsistence is that which will barely replace the
seed, feed for stock, and food for those who till the land.

(2) The next class of land is that which yields a pro-
duct sufficient to replace the seed, feed, and food of the agri-
cultural laborers, a current rate of wages, and, in addition,
a surplus to apply as interest on the capital invested in farm
buildings and equipment, equal to the profit on the same
amount of capital applied to an industrial enterprise.

(3) Themext class of land is that which will produce
a product in excess of all of these. This excess surplus is
designated as rent. The higher grades of land that produce
a larger surplus give the differential rent that varies the land-
owner’s income from this source.

Assuming, then, the existence of rent due to the dif-
ference of these marginal lands, what determines the amount

-' of economic rent? Mill proceeds to answer this question in

the following passage :

If, then, of the land in cultivation, the part.
which yields least return to the labour and capital
employed on it gives only the ordinary profit of
capital, without leaving anything for rent; a stand-
ard is afforded for estimating the amount of rent
which will be yielded by all other land. Any land
yields just as much more than the ordinary profits
of stock, as it yields more than what is returned by
the worst land in cultivation. The surplus is what
the farmer can afford to pay as rent to the landlord;
and since, if he did not so pay it, he would receive
more than the ordinary rate of profit, the competi-
tion of other capitalists, that competition which
eoualizes the profits of different capitals, will en-
able the landlord to appropriate it . The rent, therefore,
which any land ioill yield, is the excess of its produce be-
yond what would be returned t0 the same capital if eni-
ployed on the ivorst land in cilltivationf“

lPrineiples of Political Economy, Chapter 16, page 425.

94 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Thorold Rogers makes the pertinent observation that
“rent is of no interest whatever to any one but the landown-
er.”1 That is probably true in the sense that the land owner
is the only person connected with agricultural production that
profits by the innate fertility of the soil. But the renter, as
well as society, is concerned about competitive returns of
rent where the tenant is often compelled to pay as “rent” the
economic rent plus an uncertain and abnormal interest on
capital outlay. The excess of commercial rent of farm land
over economic rent has caused much of the discontent that
has grown out of this problem. '

Themore conservative economists have defended the land-
lord in his right to collect rent, but they have repeatedly
called attention to abuses that have existed under the various
systems of farm tenantry. It has been difficult to maintain
the ratio of distribution between landlord and tenant on a
basis of fairness to both under a competitive system. Economic
rent must exist wherever lands in cultivation yield different
returns per unit area under similar systems of cultivation.
Contract rent is constantly tending to award to the landlord
a return on his land and investment in farm improvements a
product (or money equivalent) that leaves the net return for
the tenant no more (and sometimes less) than his normal
share on land that yields no rent, regardless of the relative
productivity of the land under cultivation.

This is the essence of the economic problem of farm
tenantry. The tenant is constantly deprived of the benefits
of relative skill, relative advantages of soil and climate, as
well as to the natural benefits that accrue by virtue of acces-
sibility to markets and competitive prices by landlords, who
have the power, under existing laws and customs, of collecting
from the tenant commercial rent in excess of the economic
rent, plus a reasonable return on capital investment. Almost
in every case where this is done, the returns to the renter are
less than a living wage; and if he has an investment in capital
goods, no interest is derived from his investment. The follow-

' ing chapter will discuss the practical aspects of rent in con-

nection with the different systems of farm tenantry as a
means of illustrating how this situation works out in practice.

lThe Economic Interpretation of History, Chapter 8, page 155.

CHAPTER V111.
PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF FARM RENT.

In actual practice the rent contract is rarely based upon the
theory of economic rent as compensation for the use of land. The
reasonable sum which the tenant pays his landlord includes, in
most cases at least, interest on the value of certain capital goods
in the form of improvements, as well as rents, for the use of land.
Separation of the two factors is very difficult in the case of farm
transactions. The only exception is in the case of the rent of
unimproved land for pasture or bare land to cultivate. The pay-
ment under these conditions may approximate pure economic
rent unless competition becomes a controlling factor. But land
that has been improved, with fences, houses, barns, wells and the
like, presents a more complex problem; The so-called “rent” that
is paid for such a place always includes interest on capital goods
and the cost of upkeep.

Two other factors enter into the rent contract in many
cases. The contract often provides that the landlord shall fur-
nish teams, feed for live stock, advances for the family, seed, and
farm implements. In cases of this kind the element of interest
on capital stands out distinct from economic rent, and it can be
clearly determined, if necessary, in any process of analysis.

But the other factor presents a more intricate problem. It
often happens that the landlord is expected to supply the fer-
tilizer, or a part of it, that becomes an essential and inseparable
constituent of the soil. Tile drains and irrigation ditches are
often required under some farm conditions to improve crop
yields. These improvements involve the outlay of capital, but
they become so completely and inseparably identified with the
land and its productivity that separation is impracticable. In the
analysis of the income, then, on improved farm land involving
these elements, the common law principle of fixtures is applied.
Fixtures are divided into (1) real fixtures, which become a part of
the real property and cannot be removed except by mutual agree-
ment; and (2) chattel fixtures, which can be lawfully removed
from the land by the rightful owner. Hopkins helps us in classi-
fying fixtures in the following statement: “The real or chattel
character of the fixture is largely a question of fact. .. . . But the
tendency of modern cases is to make the intention with which a

95 ‘

96 Farm Tenantry in the United States

fixture is annexed the test of its character and treat other things
as evidence of that intention?" The manner in which the fixture
is attached or annexed t0 the soil is one of the means by which
the courts have arrived at the intention with which it was placed
there. Manure, for example, made on the land or applied to it,
has been held to be a part of the real land? There is a difference
between a fixture attached to the land and one that becomes
part of the land. Based on this subtle legal distinction, fertil-
izer, tile drainage, and irrigation ditches become essentially a
part of the soil and contribute directly to its productivity. Hence
the returns derived from their presence are regarded as economi

rent rather than interest on capital goods. ‘

It is relatively easy to separate economic rent from interest
on capital goods in the case of improved city property. The
building site serves no purpose except that of occupational
space. The store or factory building is essentially a part of the
equipment that houses the technical part of the industrial enter-
prise. It is quite easy, under these conditions, to determine the
relative parts of the whole income that should be credited to the
land as ground rent and the part that should be credited to the
interest on capital goods invested in equipment (buildings, ma-
chinery, elevators, etc.), upon it.

It is more important, perhaps, to know what part of the land-
lord’s income from a farming enterprise is economic rent than
to know the part derived from ground rent of city property. No
reliable information is available on this point in the United
States. We know that the principle that determines the amount
of economic rent is a small influence determining the terms of a
contract between landlord and tenant. There is obviously no
controlling relationship between economic and commercial rent.
The latter is determined to some extent by custom and personal

A considerations as well as by competition. “In case the commer-

cial rent is less than the economic rent,” says Profesor Seager,
“a part of the return is retained by the tenant as a gratuitous ad-
dition to his income from the labor and capital he may have in-
vested in his business. On the other hand, if the commercial
rent is too high, the land owner gets not only what the land
is entitled to, but also a part of the return which should go to

1The Law of Real Property, Chapter 1, page 12.
2Perry v. Carr, N. H. 118.

  

Practical Aspects of Farm Rent 97

the land cultivator. In either event the full economic rent is
\_ present as a part of the income shared between those who have
 an interest in the land, either as owner or as user.”1 The evi-
dence is cumulative that in most cases in this country com-
a mercial rent of farm land is sufficiently high and competition
 and custom sufficiently great to give the balance in favor of the
 5 landlord.

Farm Rent under Different Systems of Tenantry.

The difference between economic rent and commercial rent

” is largely determined by the system of tenantry that is prac-
 ticed. There may be said to be two general systems of renting
1- farm land---the crop sharing system and the cash system. The
f former is similar to the so-called metayer system, and as the
f; rent is in the form of produce, there is not much regard paid to
f the economic principles of farm rent. The cash system of farm
 tenantry offers the best opportunity to apply economic prin-
l1 ciples to the tenantry contract. The share system may be sub-
__ divided into two general classes with almost endless variation
; in detail arrangements and agreements between landlord and
 tenant.

1. Half-and-half system (share-croppers). This is the

' metayer system of central Europe applied under modified con-
’ ditions to farm renting in this country. Under this system the
- 4} landlord furnishes the land, houses, and barns, garden plot, farm
. implements, work animals and their feed, seed, and one-half of
 the fertilizer, when any is used. The tenant is entitled to fuel
 wood from the farm, which is cut by the tenant and conveyed
a, to the house by the use of the teams supplied by the landlord.
c The tenant supplies all the necessary labor to cultivate the land
 and one-half of the fertilizer, when any is used. The crop pro-
f, duced is divided equally between the landlord and tenant. If
f cotton is grown, the landlord and tenant usually each pay for
, one-half the cost of ginning, including bagging and ties. The
y» tenant is usually allowed free pasture for his stock, if he has
‘ any, and he is usually encouraged to own a cow and a few hogs.
5 The landlord is compelled to exercise close supervision over his

k lPrinciples of Economics (1917), Chapter 14, page 241.

98 Farm Tenantry in the United States

tenants under this system because of his financial interests in

the enterprise. Tenants, under this system, are often regarded

as farm laborers employed on a deferred payment plan to cul-_»
tivate the land, and the tenant is technically known as “a crop-

per.”1

2. Share rent system. a Under this system the landlord;

provides the land, the buildings, garden plot, and fuel wood, the f
tenant furnishes his own implements, Work stock, and feed, 7
and he supplies all seed and labor. Fertilizer is supplied jointly,
when it is used, each paying for it in proportion to his respective
share in the crop. The rent is paid in the form of a share of 
crop produced. “In the South the conditions of crop sharing
have been so far elaborated that a distinction is frequently made
between difierent crops in determining the share which is to go i.
to the landlord. Thus, in Georgia the landlord receives one-i
fourth of the cotton, one-third of the corn and one-half of the fr
small grain, and in South Carolina, where payment of rent in
kind is said to be passing away, the former practice was to pay f
the landlord one-fourth of the corn and one-fifth of the cotton.”  A
It is the‘ common practice in Texas to base the rent contract on;
What is called the “third and fourth”, which means that the land- a
lord is to receive“ one-third of the grain and one-fourth of the» A
cotton.“ The cost of ginning and bagging and ties is paid for by
each party in proportion to his interest in the products (lint and

seed.)
Modification of the Share System.

The share system of tenantry has many modifications‘ due T“
to bargaining betweenlandlord and tenant. The ability of the
tenant to make an advantageous bargain is largely determined by"
his reputation as a farmer and his financial resources, as well as '1 §
the competition with which he has to contend in renting the land. a

Two types will illustrate these modifications.

(1). Stock-share renting. Under this plan the landlord 
furnishes the land and houses. The tenant supplies all the labor i;

and machinery. They own in common all the live stock; all stock

1A study of the tenant system of farming in the Yazoo-Missississipi Delta by E. A. P.
Boegar and E. A. Goldenweiser, Bulletin No. 337, U. S. Department of Agriculture, _V

page 6. ,~
2Report of the Industrial Commission on Agriculture and Agricultural Labor, Volume 10, I,”

page 16 of the Introduction.

3See Bulletin No. 21 of the University of Texas on Studies in Farm Tenantry in Texas
by Charles B. Austin, Chapter 6, page 8'7. See also summarized statement of this 5;

bulletin in Nourse’s Agricultural Economics, Chapter 11, page 631.

Practical Aspects 0f Farm Rent i 99

are fed out of the feed produced on the farm. It is supposed
that each will supply one-half the capital necessary to carry on
the enterprise, but it usually happens that the landlord advances
all the money necessary to raise the crop and charges the tenant
interest on one-half of the money which is advanced for this
purpose. Under this plan the net receipts are divided equally.
This type of renting is peculiarly adapted to stock-farming, and
by the nature of the live stock factor. For example, in the dairy
regions of Iowa and other sections of the country, the landlord
furnishes the dairy herd. Where horses are raised chiefly for
sale, both landlord and tenant own a half interest in the live
stock. These contracts are further modified in detail in combina-
tion stock farming, such as dairy-hog farming and poultry-
truck farming}

(2). Bushel-rent. This type is most applicable to the
large corn production states of the Middle West, Where the feed-
ing of live stock is an important enterprise. The tenant agrees
to raise corn and sell it to his landlord at a stipulated price. If
the tenant furnishes all the working capital, the landlord pays
more per bushel than if he supplies all or part of the capital. I If
the tenant is allowed to raise any small grain or other crop, he
pays a rental for it of one-half or two-thirds of the product. A
bushel renting system is only desirable when the landlord is a
large cattle feeder and Wants to control the grain supply needed
for feeding during the winter months. The rented farms are
in a central pasture that can be used for grazing in summer and
for feeding during the winter months. The rented farms are
usually grouped about this live stock farm and the supply
of corn is brought in and stored in barns in the fall and fed
to the cattle during the Winter months.

3. Cash-renting system. In this system the tenant agrees
to pay a fixed price per acre or a lump sum for the entire farm.
The landlord assumes no crop risk under this system. The ten-
ant agrees to pay a stipulated rent, regardless of seasonal vari-

ation, and he assumes complete direction of the farm. He fur- ’

nishes, as a rule, all the necessary Working capital. The cash

1See Methods of Renting Land in Iowa, by O. G. Lloyd, Bulletin No. 159, pages 174-178,

Iowa Experiment Station; also reproduced in Nourse’s Agricultural Economics, Chap-
ter 11, page 627.

100 Farm Tenantry in the United States

rent paid per acre varies with the soil fertility, improvement
and proximity to markets. This system of farm rental is in-
creasing in many parts of both the North and the South.

Modifications 0f the Cash Rental system.

As a result of bargaining, cash rent varies to some extent,
but the variation comes largely in the form of conditions of cul-
tivation, as a rule, rather than a lowering of the fixed considera-
ation. The most common modification is the share-cash sys-
tem. In this system a share of the grain is the rental paid for
the grain land, While a fixed cash consideration is paid for hay
and pasture land. The share received by the landlord varies
with the productivity and the conditions and value of the pas-
ture land. The tenant furnishes all Working capital and labor
used on the farm, including the cutting, curing, and baling of the

hay, and looking after the live stock on the pasture. The con-i

tract usually provides that the landlord’s share of the grain
shall be delivered to some convenient center or placed in his
barn at a designated place. “Cotton land is sometimes rented
for a stipulated amount of cotton, a system which has features
both of crop sharing and a fixed rental. Thus in Georgia a ten-
ant pays from five hundred to one thousand pounds of cotton for
as much land as he can work with one mule. In Tennessee about
ten acres of land rent for a bale of cotton. In Louisiana crop-
pers divided the cotton equally with the landlords, who furnished
the mules and theirfeed, while renters pay a stipulated rent,
either in money, in cotton or in cotton per acre.”1

There are implied in these systems of farm tenantry sev-
eral important considerations with reference to the theory of
rent. In the explanation of the Ricardian theory, for purposes of
simplicity, it is assumed that land is perfectly graded in a series
from the best to the poorest. It is also assumed that the relative
location of a particular grade is a simple matter. But in the
practical application of the theory of rent there are many com-
plexities. In the first place, the same piece of land does not
yield the same rent for two successive years, even when culti-
vated in the same way. As a result of varying Weather condi-

lReport of Industrial Commission on Agriculture and Agricultural Labor, Volume 10, page
16 of the Introduction. ~

Practical Aspects of Farm Rent 101

tions, it often happens that a large crop one year is followed by a
small crop the succeeding year, regardless of the farmer’s ef-
forts. Under a system of share tenancy these variations affect
rent by making its exact calculation impossible. In lean years
commercial rent is likely to fall below economic rent and in fat
years it will usually exceed it. The variation in the annual yield
makes it necessary to resort to averages 0f a series of years to
determine the approximate rent of land.

In the second place, the control of the character of
production under the cropping system is an important factor in
the rent of land. In all practices of share renting, the landlord
practically determines the farming policy. A half-and-half sys-
tem and a third-and-fourth system imply a pre-arranged crop-
ping policy. That is to say, the acreage in grain and cotton is
determined by the terms of the contract. This somewhat com-
plicates the rent problem, but it does not modify the principle
underlying the theory of rent. The tendency is to adapt the
crop system to the use that will promise the best economic rents.
If ‘this is not done, it is difficult to calculate the economic rent
from such a system of cultivation. If a similar system is applied
to a large area of various grades of land the problem of compar-
ison with the no-rent land on the margin is relatively easy. As
a general thing this condition does not exist. The same systems,
with minor modifications, are followed with remarkable uni-
formity throughout the same section.

The problem of economic rent becomes more complicated in
the case of diversified farming. Comparison with other pieces
of land can only be made when this policy is followed by averag-
ing the different crops in the rotation through a series of years.
It happens, however, that systematic rotation is rarely followed
under any plan of tenant farming.

The Relative Shares of Landlord and Tenant.

The relative shares of the produce received by landlord and
tenant under the different systems of farm tenantry that have
been outlined have been given some consideration by students of
this problem. In a study of the tenant systems of farming in the
Yazoo-Mississippi Delta, to which reference has been made, E. A.
Boeger and E. A. Goldenweiser reached, after examining 878

102 Farm Tenantry in the United States

records on farms in that section, the following rather definite
conclusions} (1) The share-cropping system is the safest for
the tenant. He has little financial risk, and he is practically
assured of an average farm Wage for his work. But he has very
little opportunity to save anything to apply on the purchase of
a farm, or for other purposes. (2) “The share renter fails more
frequently to make even a bare living, but has a better chance
to make a good income than has the share cropper.” (3) “The
renter runs still greater risk of failure but has the greatest op-
portunity of making a labor income of not less than $1000.”

From the point of view of the landlord, the situation is re-
versed. His situation is described as follows: (1) “He is
assured of a return of between six and seven per cent. on his in-
vestment where the land is operated by cash renters, no matter
what the yield or the tenant’s labor income may be.” (2) Where
the land is worked by share croppers or share renters the land-
lord’s return of interest often falls below six per cent., but when
the yield is good and the tenant makes a good return, the rate
of interest often rises to more than three times th-at
amount. i

In the study referred to the labor income for share-croppers
was found to be $333.00; for share-renters, $398; and for cash-
renters, $478.

This study also seems to show that the landlord can make
more money on the average when he rents his land on some
system of shares. The study shows that the average return of
interest received by the landlord from share-croppers was

13.6% ; from share-renters 11.8% ; and from cash renters 6.6%.'

It will be observed that these authors speak of the “return of
interest.” They evidently include in the phrase, both economic
rent and interest on capital investment. The Industrial Rela-
tions Commission, after an exhaustive study of this subject, also
found that there was considerable evidence to support the theory
that renting land on shares is more profitable to the landlord

than renting for a cash return or a stipulated amount of cot- '

ton?

lThis study was made in 1915. _ _
2See testimony of John W. Eldridge of Hillhouse, Miss., before the Commzsston, Volume

10, page 512.

Practical Aspects of Farm Rent 103

These conclusions are probably in accord with the prac-
tices of tenantry under most existing conditions. The amount

‘of economic rent is given little consideration in the application

of the various systems of farm tenantry. In other words, the
renting of land by landlords is a speculative enterprise in which
the owner assumes varying degrees of financial responsibility,
and he expects to secure returns on his risk as well as on his land
and capital goods. Professor Rogers is correct When he says
that “no human skill can draw the line between a competitive and
a famine rent.”1 This distinguished economist has announced a
doctrine with reference to the subject that needs to be con-
sidered by those confronted with the problem of equitable rent:

“N0 just landlord ever exacts a strictly compet-

itive rent from his tenant, and recent experience proves
that no wise landlord will exact what no just landlord
will. It is the business of a landowner to learn what
rent land will bear, how to adjust it to the market, and
it is no excuse to allege that foolish tenants have of-
fered him rents they could not possibly pay. A sen-
sible banker, if a borrower offers him 15 per cent. for
a loan, could have no better reason than the offer for
declining the advance without a moment’s hesita-
tion.”2

But the failure of the landlord to heed this admonition has
made it necessary for most of the civilized countries of the world
to regulate the contractual relations between the landlord and
tenant as the means of saving the latter from the unjust exac-
tions of the former. ' '

1The Economic Interpretation of History, Chapter 8, page 173.
Zlbid, Chapter 8, page 774. .

PART II.

An Analysis of the Economic Aspects
0f Farm Tenantry in the United
States.

105

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]

CHAPTER IX.

THE PROBLEM OF FARM TENANCY IN
THE UNITED STATES.

The numbers, racial elements, and spacial distribution of pop-
ulation are ever-present problems in national life. Most of the so-
cial and economic legislation of the several states and the Nation
is traceable to the influences of these conditions. A population
area in civilized society is a geographic region of fixed boun-
daries. In the stages of early development, the limited number
of the population creates a problem through inability to utilize
and to develop all of the Nation’s resources. The problem in
this stage of national growth is that of increasing the population
as a means of supplying an adequate labor supply to meet pro-
ductive demands. Our immigration policy in the United States
grew out of this condition. In the early part of the nineteenth
century, there was a large supply of unoccupied land in the
United States and many of our natural resources had not been
developed. Our liberal immigration policy grew out of these con-
ditions. The time has come when all of the unoccupied lands
have been settled and most of the natural resources have been
developed. The Nation as yet cannot be, said to have reached
the stage of over-population. But under present conditions of
productive enterprise, it would appear that we have reached the
point of diminishing returns in many sections of the country.

The Basis of An Immigration Policy.

The immigration policy, therefore, resorted to largely as a
means of increasing the labor supply, can be modified and re-
stricted to some extent without producing harmful results.
“Since 1820”, says Carlton, “nearly thirty millions of Europeans
have come to this country. This stream of human beings is
larger than was the total population of the United States in 1850;
it is almost equal to the number of people dwelling within our
borders when Abraham Lincoln was elected president. During
the year 1910 the number of immigrants coming to our shores,
many of whom were seeking homes and were destined to become
citizens and the parents of future citizens, was greater than the
population of three of the Eastern states: New Hampshire, Ver-

107

108 Farm Tenantry in the United States

mont, Deleware; it exceeded in amount the population of five
young western commonwealths, Idaho, Wyoming, New Mexico,
Arizona and Nevada. In 1910 only twenty-seven states ex-
ceeded in population the number of immigrants who filed past
our immigration officers in one year, 1907. That in-coming
hoard was equal to one-third of the total population reported by
the officials of the first census (1790)”1

The advantages offered by this country and the disadvantages
of their native environment stimulated this immigration move-
ment. These racial elements have naturally created economic
and social problems that from time to time have demanded at-
tention. We have just begun to study one of these problems,
viz: that of the immigrant’s relation to rural Welfare. No ade-
quate study of farm tenantry can be made without a consider-
ation of the foreign groups in our population that have settled
in the open country and small villages. The tendency of those
composing these elements to acquire homes should have an im-
portant influence on our future immigration policy. It is im-
portant to know what elements in our foreign population become
satisfied to become tenants and hired farm laborers, and the rel-
ative rapidity with which the individuals in these various ele-
ments climb the “agricultural ladder” to home ownership.

The third element in this problem is that of the proper dis-
tribution of the population. The flow of the stream of popu-
lation into the cities has been regarded as “the most remarkable
social phenomenon” of recent times. Hayes says: “In 1790 only
3.35 per cent. of the people of the United States lived in cities.
By 1900 a majority of the population in fifteen states was urban
and over two-thirds of the population of eight states. By 1910
the United States had 228 cities of over 25,000 inhabitants, 50
cities of over 100,000, 19 cities of over a quarter of a million,
5 cities of over half a million, 3 cities of over a million, and one
city of nearly five millions. By that date over 28,500,000 peo-
ple in the United States were living in cities of 25,000 or more.
The cities of this country of 100,000 or over, grew in aggregate
population during the twenty years ending 1910 from 11,470,364
to 20,302,138. The rate of increase was greater during the sec-

1Carlt0n’s History and Problems of Organized Labor, page 323.

The Problem of _Farm Tenancy 109

ond than during the first of these two decades and the 178 cities
of between 25,000 and 10,000 showed an even higher percent-
age of increase. Those of over 100,000 and about one-third of
all cities of both classes showed an increase of over 50 per cent.
each in the ten years between 1900 and 1910. There is no rea-
son to doubt that the cities of this country will continue for a
time to grow in some such tremendous proportion as hitherto?"

The census of 1920 shows that 51.4 per cent. of the people of
the United States are residing in cities and incorporated towns of
2,500 people or more, as against 45.8 per cent. ten years ago. In
other words, in 1910 the rural population exceeded the urban pop-
ulation by 7,000,000 people. The urban population exceeded the
rural population in 1920 by approximately 4,000,000 people.

The rapid readjustment of our population is now receiving
serious consideration. There was for a time the fear that the
open country would become depopulated, but a more thorough
analysis of the situation reveals the fact that the shift to the
cities hasnot always been at the expense of the open country.
The instability of our rural population is more complicated than
appeared on the surface when it first began to attract attention.
In addition to the drift to the cities, there have been several other
population movements of significance. The most obvious of
these is the shift from the open country to village communities.
There has also been a noticeable shift from one rural commun-
ity to that of another, and finally, there has been the shift with-
in the same rural community, which has attracted little attention,
and it has produced no serious social consequences. Many of those
who have left the rural sections of the older states have gone
to more productive farms in the West. In many of the Eastern
states immigrants have taken the place of the descendants of
the native population on the farms. A large element in our
city population, however, has come from the country districts
of the Old World. Undoubtedly the world movement of popula-
tion has been from the country to the cities. After all, how-
ever, not more than 20 per cent. of our rural population has con-
tributed to our urban communities, the 80 per cent. that com-
pose the remainder being made up of immigrants. But the in-
stability of rural life and the disposition of the independent land

ilntroduction to the Study of Sociology, page 66.

110 Farm Tenantry in the United States

owner to remove to the towns and villages are important con- -

tributing considerations to the farm tenancy problem.
Increase in Farm Tenantry and Its Cause.

The recognition of farm tenantry as a real problem in the
United States is comparatively recent. Desirable public lands
were available up to a few years ago, and a farm could be ac-
quired for a nominal sum. In many sections of the country,
land under cultivation could be bought at reasonable prices. Un-
der these conditions, only the most thriftless class of farmers
were likely to remain tenants. For a long time, tenant farming
was conducted under relatively satisfactory terms, and the pro-
portion of tenants to resident land owners was not sufficiently
great to attract unfavorable attention. But within the past
generation conditions have completely changed. The public
domain has virtually been exhausted so far as productive farm-
ing land is concerned. The prices of available land for farm-
ing and stock raising have greatly increased in every section of
the country, and the financial system has made it very difficult
for the tenant to acquire ownership in farm lands. Naturally
these conditions have caused the land owner to make contracts
with tenants on increasingly less favorable terms. For example,
under the cropping system, the tenant has been compelled to
give one-half the crop, while the custom a generation ago was
only for one-third of the products ‘produced.

Under these conditions the form of land tenure has been
gradually undergoing a transformation. The percentage of
farms operated by their owners is gradually declining in the
United States as a whole. No statistics relating to farm ten-
antry are available previously to the year 1880. The percentage of
increase in farm tenantry since that date is strikingly shown
from the census data for the last four decades as followszl

Percentage of farms

Year operated by tenants.
1880 25.6

1890 28.4

1900 35.3

1910 37.

lThirteenth Census of the United States, Volume 5, page 102.

The Problem of Farm Tenancy 111

    

, Interpreted in another way, these percentages indicate that
bout one farm in four was operated by a tenant in 1880, while
‘z- 1910 the ratio had increased to about two out of five. From
 formation secured by the author in a questionnaire in the fall of
 917, there is no doubt that the proportion is somewhat higher
,7 fsiow than it was in 1910. “The number of tenant farms increased
_' 30 per cent.”, says Professor Hibbard of the University of Wis—
i onsin, “during the thirty-year period from 1880 to 1910, while
k uring the same time there was an increase of but 34 per cent. in
l he number of farms worked by owners. At these dispropor-
vionate rates of increase, it will take but another three decades
V  result in a larger number of tenants than land-owning far-
 ers, thus making us unmistakably a nation of tenants and
A landlords.“

    

Tenantry a Transition in Farm Operations.

   

Tenantry has been generally regarded as a transition stage
in the progress of the farm operations toward home-ownership.
f‘Climbing the agricultural ladder” is a familiar phrase that is
' iassociated with. this process. W. J. Spillman, associate editor
I if the Farni Journal, describes these rungs as follows: “The
st rung of the agricultural ladder is represented by the, ap-
irenticeship period, while the embryo farmer is learning his
f? rade, usually as a boy on his father’s farm; (2) the hired farm
" _and stands on the second rung; (3) the tenant farmer on the

‘" hird; and (4) the farm owner stands on the fourth or top rung

5.3%» the ladder. We shall, find that many men are able
'4» skip some of the stages above enumerated. There

re also various intermediate stages. Thus the hired man may
. ssume some of the responsibilities of management and receive
‘art or all of his pay as a portion of the proceeds. Under this
rrangement he usually makes a larger income than a mere
ired man, but less than a full tenant. Some men pass from the
, tage of hired man or from that of tenant to the position of

ired manager, but these are relatively few. The stage of own-
 ‘r is usually divisible into two periods, the first being the early
period when there is still a mortgage on the farm. Mortgages
~15. ay, of course, persist indefinitely, but in the later stages of

an.

 

 lFm-m Tenancy in the United States-International Review of Agricultural Economics,
1.1 Volume 76, No. 4, April, 1917.

  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
   
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  

112 Farm Tenantry in the United States

ownership mortgages frequently represent obligations incurr
in extending the holdings of the farmer?“ ’

There are some who deny that farm tenantry should fin
a place in a well ordered system of land tenure. The ad
vocates of this view regard farm tenantry, even under th
most favorable conditions, as detrimental to society and t
agricultural development. Policies of state aid by WhlC§
land can be acquired on long and easy terms have for one o
their objects the elimination of farm tenantry. But as a pra 
tical proposition it is easy to see that no system can be devise
that will completely eliminate farm tenantry. It is best 
recognize it as a transition stage in agricultural developmen '
But that it is a stage in the progress of the farm operato '
toward ownership, and that some agency must be devised
insure the rapid advancement of the farm operators int
ownership, should not be forgotten in considering the far rfi
tenantry situation.

The rate at which the farm tenants climb the “agricul
tural ladder” determines the relative seriousness of this pro i
lem. The fact that the process has been and is being retardev“
presents the fundamental problem in our rural situation to.
day. Not only has the ‘transition process been retarded, bu .
the extent of retardation has continually increased for th
past thirty years. In a study made by the Bureau of Far (i
Management of the U. S. Department of Agriculture in 191
by Professor Spillman and his associates, it was found tha
out of 435 mid-western farm owners the length of the tenan’
stage from thirty-one to forty years ago averaged 4.9_yearsi~
The tenant stage increased in the three successive decade-
to 7.2 years, 9 years, and 11.1 years respectively. A

These figures are illustrative of a process that has bee
going on in many sections of the country. The result is tha,
tenantry has increased out of all reasonable proportions f.’
farm ownership. 

The question naturally arises, Is the United States doom. i
ed to become a nation of absentee landlords and farm tenants a

1See American Economic Review for March, 1919.

The Problem of Farm Tenancy 113

If so, what is the significance of this situation with
reference t0 the social and economic development of rural
life? Private ownership of property and family integrity are
determining influences in the political life of the nation. Rural
Welfare has been peculiarly dependent upon private ownership
of land and family responsibility. Therefore, the shift from the
cultivation of the soil by farm owners to cultivation by tenant
farmers, must profoundly affect the social and financial
welfare, not only of the country but the nation as a whole, as
the interdependence of the two is essential to national prog-
ress. It seems, therefore, safe to conclude that there is a
problem of farm tenantry in the United States. This problem
grows out of two aspects of the question. (1) In the first
place, the relative number of tenants to land owners is a prob-
lem in itself, the number of tenants having become so large as
to affect the stability of rural institutions; and (2) in the
second place, the social and economic effects of a system of
farming such as that conducted by a tenantry class present seri-
ous economic and social consequences.

The Scope of the Problem of Farm Tenantry.

Broadly speaking, the problem of farm tenantry centers
around the following points: (1) the effect of agricultural
production on cultivation of land by a number of tenants out
of due proportion to actual farm owners; (2) the undesira-
bility, from the standpoint of agricultural production, of a
large farm population composed of farm tenants who have
abandoned the hope of acquiring a farm home; (S) the unde-
sirability, from the standpoint of the good of the rural com-
munity, of a large farm population composed of tenants who
are economically and socially indifferent to community better-
ment", QM the ‘inadequacy of farm tenantry as a moral and

religious asset.

Economic writers are generally agreed that man’s eco--
nomic and social efficiency are largely determined by the
degree of interest he has in his work and in his community.
John Stewart Mill uses this fact in his argument in support of the
policy of peasant proprietorship. He quotes Arthur Young as
saying: “Give a man the secure possession of a bleak rock, and

114 Farm Tenantry in the United States

he will turn it into a garden; give him a nine-year’s lease on a gar-
den and he will convert it into a desert.”1

Poor cultivation is almost universally associated with
the system of farm tenantry. When it is recalled that there
are nearly three million farmers in America who rent the
lands they cultivate, compared with slightly over four mil-
ion farmers who own their own farms, it is easy to see what
influence this situation is exerting on our agricultural pro-
duction.

Rented farms, as a rule, are poorly equipped as well as poorly
cultivated. In a survey made in Texas in 1914, it was found
that 92,000 farms had no cows, 124,000 farms had no pigs,
60,000 farms had no chickens, 306,000 farms raised no hay
nor forage crops for cattle, and 369,000 farms raised no sweet
potatoes. Making due allowance for errors in these figures,
they are sufficiently accurate to indicate, in a state where the per
centage of farm tenantry is high, the influence of this system of
cultivation on agricultural production.

The activities of the tenant are determined by a desire
for quick financial returns. The tenant does not usually ex-
pect to continue on one farm very long. He is not interested
in a permanent system of agriculture. Soil improvement, and re-
pairs to fences and houses are regarded as unprofitable by
the tenant who expects to leave the place before he can de-
rive much benefit from efforts expended in this direction.
Therefore, the tenant farmer’s entire time is expended in
producing a money crop with the least financial outlay and
effort. Tenant farming inevitably adapts itself to raising
crops which are most profitable per acre rather than crops
Which are most valuable to the soil. This means that the tenant
is not interested in crop rotation. The entire farm enterprise
is reduced to one of quick returns with the minimum effort,
lwithout regard to scientific methods or better standards of

1v1ng.

Summary 0f Social and Economic Effects of Farm Tenantry.

The social efiects of farm tenantry may be briefly summar-
ized as follows:

1See Principles of Political Economy, (Ashley Edition), Chapter 7, page 282,

The Problem 0f Farm Tenancy 115_

(1) A lower intellectual standard of living and a cor-
responding influence on the moral standards of those who

compose this class.

(2) A decreased interest in education and a neglect
of educational opportunity on the part of the children of
tenants.

(3) A general indifference to the religious motive and
a corresponding neglect of church attendance.

(4) -An increasing difficulty in promoting efficient
rural organizations because of the low educational standards
and the transient habits of a tenant class.

(5) A gradual decline in the effectiveness of political
action due to indifference and ignorance of farm tenants with
reference to governmental policies.

(6) The development of undemocratic tendencies in
American life due to the social disintegration resulting from
class consciousness that has developed between land owner
and the tenant. '

(7) General instability of rural institutions due to the
transient habits of farm tenants, who cherish no sentiments
of attachment for the land they occupy and feel no concern
about the development of the farmstead where they live.

(8) A lowering of aesthetic appreciation because of the
influence of this class on the standards of the entire com-
munity in which they reside.

The economic efiects are none the less apparent and
may be summarized as follows:

(1) Depletion of soil fertility.

(2) Impossibility of maintaining proper rotation of
crops and the application of other scientific methods under a
transient tenantry system.

(3) A general reduction in the average farm income by
virtue of these conditions.

(4) Economic income influences to a large degree stan-

ards of living and cultural opportunities. The average in-
come of the farm tenant is too low to secure these advantages.

, 116 Farm Tenantry in the United States

If these statements fairly indicate the results, the farm ten-
antry situation in the United States merits the most thorough
study of the actual conditions and the wisest possible measures
looking to relief or amelioration of these conditions. Already
some of the facts enumerated are being felt in some sections of
this country. An effort will be made in succeeding chapters to
analyze the present situation with reference to farm tenantry,
and, in the light of the facts presented, to formulate a program
looking to the improvement of the conditions that this study
reveals.

CHAPTER X.

THE INCREASE AND DISTRIBUTION OF FARM
TENANTS IN THE UNITED STATES.

The increase and distribution of the population of the United
States between the cities and country is one of the factors in the
population problem of the United States that has attracted at-
tention in recent years. As stated in a previous connection, the
census of 1910 showed that 45.8 per cent. of the people of the
United States lived in communities of 2,500 or less. The com-
munities of 2,500 or over are designated, for census purposes, as
cities. Urban communities have been growing rapidly since the
last census, and in 1920 more than half of the population live in
cities. The differences between the social, economical, political,
and religious interests are sufficiently differentiated to enable us
to consider these groups independently of each other. The growth
of cities and the acuteness of the problems that a concentrated
population presents has naturally caused a greater number of
studies to be made of the problems of urban communities. We are
familiar with studies of the housing problems in the slums of
the cities, but few people realize that there is a housing problem
in the country, and that slums are by no means unknown in rural
sections. A thorough analysis ofthe rural population from the
standpoint of economic interests, social oportunity, and racial
solidarity is demanding consideration.

The increase and distribution of the rural population with
reference to land ownership and tenantry are fundamental in the
consideration of other aspects of the rural problem. The per-
centage of increase and distribution of farms operated by ten-
ants in the five grand divisions as indicated by the four census
periods in which tenantry has been included, is as follows:

1880 1890 1900 1910

North Atlantic Division . . . .16.0 18.4 20.8 18-.2
South Atlantic Division . . . .36.1 38.5 44.2 45.9
North Central Division . . . . .20.5 33.4 27.9 28.9
South Central Division . . . . .362 38.5 48.6 51.7
Western Division . . . . . . . . . .14.0 12.1 16.6 14.1

These percentages indicate that the increase in tenantry is
not a uniform tendency in every section of the United States.
There is an increase in the South Central, the North Central, and
the South Atlantic groups of states, While the percentages indi-
cate a decrease in the North Atlantic and the Western groups of

117

118 Fairm Tenantry in the United States

states. Between 1890 and 1900, tenantry increased rapidly in
all the groups except the North Central where there was a rather
rapid decline. Since 1900, however, the decline is greater,
twelve of the older states showing a decrease in the percentage
of tenant farms. There was also a decrease in the percentage
of tenantry in several of the Western states, but the cause of this
decrease is very different in the two sections.

According to the thirteenth census of the United Statesl 0.7
per cent. of the farms in Oklahoma, in 1890, were operated by
tenants, but by 1910 the percentage had increased to 54.8. In
Kansas and Nebraska, the percentage of farm tenancy increased
from 16.3 per cent. in 1880 to 36.8 per cent. in 1910. “These are
comparatively new states”, says George E. Putnam of the Uni-
versity of Kansas, “where one would expect to find a high per-
centage of ownership, but the increase in the number of owned
farms in the less fertile portions of the western countries has
not been sufficient to counter-balance the rapid increase in ten-
ancy in the old sections. In states like Iowa and Illinois, well
developed and long settled, the transition from ownership to
tenancy has steadily advanced until at the present time there
are several counties in which more than one-half of the number
of farms under cultivation are operated by tenants.”

The nature of the agricultural products is an important fac-
tor in the tenancy section. Tenancy, for example, reaches its
highest point in the cotton and corn belt. For instance, two-
thirds of all the farms in Georgia are rented. In Alabama,
Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and
Texas less than one-half of the number of tillable farms are op-
erated by their owners. The report of the Commission on In-
dustrial Relations has this to say with reference to the number
of tenants in the cotton and corn growing states of the South-
west: “Tenancy in the Southwestern States is already the pre-
vailing method of cultivation and is increasing at a very rapid
rate. In 1880, Texas had 65,468 tenant families, comprising 37.6
per cent. of all farms in the state. In 1910, tenant farmers had
increased to 219,571, and operated 53 per cent. of all farms in
the state. Reckoning on the same ratio of increase that was
maintained between 1900 and 1910, there should be in Texas in

 

lVolume 5, pages 125-126.
ZSee Humanistic Studies, Volume 2, No. 2; The Land Credit Problem, Chapter 5, p. 73.

   
   
     
  
  
   
   
  
 
 
   
  
 
  

The Increase and Distribution of Farm Tenants 119

l» present year (1915) at least 236,000 tenant farmers. A
a “ore intensive study of the field, however, shows that in eighty-
_io counties of the State Where tenancy is highest, the average
rcentage of tenants will approximate sixty.

, “For Oklahoma We have no adequate census figures so far
e- ck, but at the present time the percentage of farm tenancy in
f3? State is 54.8, and for the 47 counties where the tenancy is
ghest the percentage of tenancy is 68.133“

f A comparison of the increase in tenancy in a number of the
Vuthern States and states of different sections of the country
A given in the following table, taken from an important study of
: rm tenantry made in 1915 by E. V. White and William
. Leonard of the University of Texas:

Growth of Tenancy in the United States?

1880 1890 1900 1910

United States . . . . . . . . . . .25.6 28.4 35.3 37.0

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43.8 52.8 62.4 66.1

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44.9 53.6 59.9 65.6

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . .50.3 55.3 61.1 63.0

Alabama . . . . . . . . .  . . . .46.8 48.6 57.5 60.2

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.2 44.4 58.0 55.3

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.8 54.8

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37.6 41.9 49.7 52.6

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23.8 28.1 34.9 37.8

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26.5 25.0 32.8 33.9

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23.7 25.4 28.6 30.0

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27.3 26.8 30.5 29.9

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29.5 26.9 , 30.7 26.5

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16.5 20.2 23.9 20.8

p A glance at these figures clearly indicates that tenancy was
dost marked in the Southern states when the last census was
 ken. There are other factors besides the nature of crops that
 contributed to this situation in the Southern states, which
' ill be discussed more fully in another connection.

" .The problem of the distribution of tenantry is somewhat
 mplicated by the various equities that the farmer has in the
i nd he cultivates. A more accurate knowledge of the geographic
‘istribution of tenantry may be obtained by a comparison of
he percentage of farms operated under these various forms of
iFinal Report of the Commission on Industrial Relations, pages 127-131.

‘QStudies in Farm Tenantry in Texas, page 12, by Division of Public Welfare, Department of
I Extension, University of Texas, April 10, 1915.

120 Farm Tenantry in the United States

holding land. These have been classified as four in number: '
(1) Tenants who have no equity in the land except that result-
ing from the lease with the owner; (2) part owners, or those.
who own some of the land they cultivate and rent additional
land. Under the census classification of 1880 and 1890 part
owners were classified with owners of farms; (3) managers
are those who direct the farm activities for the farml
owners; and (4) the farm owner who holds land in his own r
right. Managed farms do not constitute a large per cent. in
the classification although in some sections large land owners .
use managers to direct the farm activities of tenants. Based
on this classification the following table summarizes the cen-i

 

sus data for the main geographic divisions:

  
   
    
  

Percentage of Farms Operated Under Various Forms of Ten»
are, United States, 1880-1910‘. a

 

   

Tenants ,3 m E 2% l2’? I278 ‘ti’ {BE r272 E u a

#53 a'=1>%§l*<i‘£ ‘:32 sé as ‘sis 5 

12$ £5 E12 $38 $8.22 seas’ 2.63.

1910 . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 37.0| s.0| 22.3l 27.0 30.6-45.9 50.7 52.8 10.7 17T2

1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . .l 35.3 9.4 25.3 26.3 28.6 44.2 48.1 49.1 12.2 19.7

1890 . . . . . . . . . . . .  28.4 9.3 22.1 22.8 24.0 38.5 38.3 38.6 7.1 14.7

1880 . . . . . . . . . . . .  25.6 8.5 19.2l 20.5 20.5 36.1 36.8 35.2 7.4 16.8
Part Owners . . . . .l l l l' l l l l l

1910 . . . . . . . . . . . .  9.3l 3.1 5.5l 11.7 16.1 6.4 6.9l 7.6l 8.6 10.9.

1900 . . . . . . . . . . . .  7.9‘ 2.9] 4.4| 10.0, 14.5] 4.9‘ 5.0} 5.5 8.3 11.3

Managers . . . . . . . . : - ‘ -

1900 . . . . . . . . . . . .  0.9 2.8l 1.9 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.5 1.6 2.8»

1900 . . . . . . . . . . . .  1.0 2.5 1.7 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.7 3.4 2.9,
Owners proper l .
1910 . . . . . . . . . . . .  52.7 86.1 70.3 60.3 52.3 46.9 42.1 39.1 79.1 69.1
1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.8 85.2 68.5 62.8 55.1 49.9 46.3 44.8 76.1 66.1‘

These statistics supply important information concerning
the numbers of the various kinds of farm operators, but there.
is another important factor that cannot be ignored in a study of: a
the distribution of farm tenantry in the United States, viz: the
size of the farms. It is a well known fact that there is a great;
difference in the size of farms in the different sections of th‘
country, and the different types of tenure is an important fac.
  Agricultural Economics, page 665, and taken from “Tenant Fa

ing in the United States with Special Reference to Illinois", University of Illino'
Studies in the Social Sciences, Volume 5, No. 3, pages 12-18.

The Increase and Distribution 0 f Farm Tenants 121

‘With reference to the size of farms. In the ten year period from
1900 to 1910, there was a decline in the average acreage of all

i farms from 146.2 to 138.1 acres. This tendency is character-
‘ istic throughout the United States wherever a tendency to in-
» crease the size of farms was shown to exist. In general, the farms

operated by tenants are shown to have been less than two-thirds
as large as those operated by the owners. The difference is
not quite so great, however, in the South Central states, where
the tenant farms are between one-third and one-half as large
on the average, as the farms of owners. As an exception to
this tendency, however, in the Northeastern states and in the
Rocky Mountain and Pacific states, the size of tenant farms
was shown to be greater than that of the farms operated by
the owners. When the size of farms is considered in the ques-
tion of the distribution of tenancy, the situation in the South
is not so discouraging, for the tenant farms in the South are rel-
atively small:

The sixteen Southern states comprise one-third of the total
number of states in the country; they also include almost a third
of the total area of the United States. These sixteen states
include almost a third of the area of improved land of the country.
It should be observed that while the average size of Southern
farms is relatively small, the number of farms is proportionately
high, being forty-nine per cent. of the total number of farms in
the United States. The influence of this situation on farm ten-
antry in the South is indicated by the following table:

The percentage of farm acreage operated under various
forms of tenure is shown in the following table:

Number of Owned and of Rented Farms in the South for the
Last Two Decennial Periods.

Owned farms: 1910 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1,554,687

1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,387,094

Per cent. increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12.1

Tenant farms: 1910 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,536,668

1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,231,028

Per cent. increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24.8

122 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Percentage of Farm Acreage Operated Under Various Forms
of Tenure, United States,-1900-19101.

 

l 1 |
. PG ' a
 t  g c
Tenants 3,, '5 t-éién 2's *5 3's 57.. ‘é O
I33 3%§.+=fi ~33 ifilpfi Pb =1 E
'23 fiereeles $5 8.1 as $5 3 la
lDm 2m Se: mo k0 m<fil£flU Ba 2 c.
1910 . . . . . .  28.5 7.81259 30.0 27.0 30.1 27.9 26.7 10.6 19.8

1900 . . . . . . . . . . .  23.3 9.4 28.6 27.3 23.6 30.6 27.4 19.0 9.4 19.5

Part Owners . . . . . .

1910 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.2 4.2 7.4 13.9 23.9 6.3 8.0 13.8 16.7 21.7

1900 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.9 4.2 5.9 11.7 23.7 4.7 5.8 17.7 22.0 19.6
Rented by , 

Owners . . . . . ..
1910 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.4 1.6 2.1 6.2 11.5 2.4 2.7 6.4 8.9‘ 1.1
1900 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.1 1.6 1.6 5.2 11.4 1.8 2.0 8.2 12.5 1.0
Owned by Part
Owners . . . . . ..

1910 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.8 2.6 5.3 7.7 12.4 3.9 5.3 7.4 7.8 20.6
1900 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.8 2.6 4.3 6.5 12.3 2.9 3.8 9.5 9.5 18.6
Owners proper

1910 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52.9 82.5 62.7 4.1 47.0 60.0 52.1 47.9 53.2 43.1
111900 . . . . . . . . . . . .  51.4|| 82.5‘ 62.2] 59.0! 49.4‘ 61.4, 64.8‘ 37.1] 33.0] 42.9

anagers
1910 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.1 5.5 4.0; 2.0 2.1 3.2 2.0| 11.6 18.5 15.4
1800 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.4 3.9 3.3 2.0 3.3 3.3 2.0 26.2 35.6 18.0
ll lessees

1910 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.2 9.4 28.0 6.2 38.5 32.5 30.6 33.1 19.5 20.9
1900 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.4 11.0 30.2 32.5 35.0 32.4 29.4 27.2 21.9! 20.5
All Deed Holders

1910 . . . . . . . . . . .  60.7 85.1 68.0 1.8 59.4 64.3 67.4 55.3 62.0 63.7
1900 . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 59.2 85.1 66.5 65.5 61.7 64.3 68.6 46.6 42.5 61.5

   

Three facts must be kept in mind in connection with these
figures. (1) In the first place, the smaller size of the farms in
the South indicates that there is a greater number of tenants in
proportion to area; (2) the percentages apparently indicate that
tenancy is much more evenly distributed throughout the various
geographic divisions when the percentage is based upon acreage
rather than upon the number of farms; (3) the figures indicate
that the acreage in the East North Central division is almost
equal to that of the South Atlantic division on the basis of the
percentage of tenancy.

Several important conclusions with reference to the relative
figures in the three preceding tables are instructive: (1) The

1See Noursefls Agricultural Economics, page 667.

The Increase and Distribution of Farm Tenants 123

percentage of farm acreage operated under the lease system in
both 1900 and 1910 was smaller than the farm acreage operated
by tenants for the entire United States, and for each of the geo-
graphic divisions. (2) The percentage of farm acreage operated
by managers shows a decrease in all the divisions except the
East North Central and the East South Central, where no change
occurred. As farms operated by managers are usually relatively
large, this decrease would probably indicate a contributing cause
to the increase in tenantry except in one or two divisions where
land legislation caused these large holdings to be cut up and sold
to small farm owners. (3) The table on the percentage of farms
operated clearly shows that owners operated a smaller part of
the land in the Southern States than in any other division of
the country and a correspondingly larger number of tenants are
cultivating land in the South than in other divisions. (4) The per-
centage of farms operated by owners runs high in the Mountain,
Pacific, and New England divisions. In those divisions the per-
centage of farms operated by tenants is relatively low, and the
problem of farm tenantry has not yet been felt. (5) But the per-
centage of farms operated by owners is shown to be declining in
the United States and in all the geographic divisions except the
Mountain, Pacific, and New England divisions.

An examination of the table above with reference to the
percentage of farm acreage modifies the generalizations
of the preceding paragraph. (1) The percentage of farm
acreage operated by owners is relatively high in New England,
the Mid Atlantic, and the East South Central divisions. The per-
centage is comparatively low in the Mountain and Pacific states,
Where the percentage of farms operated is relatively high. (2)
The-percentage of farm acreage operated by owners declined in
all the divisions except the New England and Middle Atlantic,
where no change is shown and the West South Central, the
Mountain, and Pacific divisions. While the various kinds of ten-
ure complicates the situation to some extent, the tendency is to-
ward tenancy and toward a relative increase of both leasing and
the operation of acreage by owners and a corresponding decrease
in the acreage cultivated under the direction of managers.

The consideration of tenantry on the basis of the grand di-

124 Farm Tenantry in the United States

visions used in the census does not fully reveal the actual state of
affairs in a very definite way.

It is interesting to observe that—with the exception of the
Pacific states, four states in the Middle West, and a group of sev-
eral states in New England—an increase is shown in every sec-
tion of the country extending as far south as Virginia. Only two
states show an increase in the Mississippi Valley. This condition
calls for a word of explanation. In the Pacific Coast states there
was an increase in the actual number of tenant farms in each of
these states, but many large tracts of land were broken up into
small farms and sold, and, as a result much new land was thrown
on the market for settlement. This resulted in the number of
farms operated by owners being increased in a much higher ratio
than the farms operated by tenants. Spillman and Goldenweiser
tell us that, “In Colorado the number of farms operated by own-
ers increased 97.6 per cent. while the number operated by tenants
increased 50.3 per cent.” Similar conditions existed in the other
states of the group. The decrease in Missouri, a state Where an
increase in tenantry would be expected, is explained on the
grounds that there was a slight decrease in the total number of
farms, both with reference to those operated by owners and those
operated by tenants. The consistency of this proportion main-
tained the equilibrium of the tenantry situation in that state.
Normally, Louisiana would have shown an increase in the num-
ber of tenants, but the cotton acreage was reduced, due to the
boll weevil, which prevented an increase in tenancy.

Many causes have contributed to the decrease in the number

,_ of tenants in the New England states. Spillman and Golden-

weiser offer the following explanation of this situation:

“If a line be drawn separating those States in the North-
east in which the average increase in the price of farmland dur-
ing the last census period was less than 60 per cent. from the
States in which it was greater than this, it will, with few excep-
tions, divide the States in which percentage of tenantry de-
creased from those in which it increased, the percentage of ten-
antry having decreased where the price of land increased least.
The exceptions are Ohio, where the increase in the price of farm
land was almost exactly 60 per cent., but where tenantry increas-

The Increase and Distribution 0 f Farm Tenants 125

ed slightly, Virginia and West Virginia, in which States land in-
creased more than 60 per cent., in value, while tenantry de-
creased, and Maine, where tenantry decreased, While the price of
lanrl increased 75 per cent. T his increase in the price of farm
land in the State of Maine 1's due to marked zlevelopnvent of cer-
tain types of intensive farming, which of itself does not neces-
sarily have any effect upon the percentage of tenantry. The gen-
eral conclusion seems justified , therefore, that where land is in-
creasing rapidly in value, unless other factors have a prepon-
derating influence, there is a tendency for the percentage of
tenantry to increase, while where land is increasing slowly in
value the percentage of tenantry does not tend to increase.“

Some light has been thrown on this situation from answers
to a questionnaire sent out by the author in the fall of 1916.
For example, C. W. Pugsley, Director of Extension Service, Uni-
versity of Nebraska, says with reference to his state: “One of
the worst features of the tenant problem is that there are not
enough farms to go around. The stock and grain farming in
Eastern Nebraska is increasing in size, and young, energetic men
are crowding the less efficient tenants into some other occupa-
tion. Nebraska showed an increase in the percentage of tenantry
in 1910, but the suggestion here may result in the decrease in
the number at the next census.

Mr. E. Dana Durand, Chief of the Division of Research in
Agricultural Economics, University of Minnesota, writes as fol-
lows: “In the State (Minn.) as a whole 17 per cent. of the farms
were operated by tenants in 1900 and 21 per cent. in 1910. The
percentage exceeds 30 in a good many of the southern counties,
and exceeds 40 in several of them. On the other hand, in the
more northern counties the proportion often falls below 10 per
cent.”

Dean A. L. Hills of the Agricultural College, University of
Vermont, refers to a study made by one of the graduate stu-
dents of his institution and says: “This study covered some
twenty different ideas with reference to labor and ownership.
The county Orleans is a typical Vermont county on the Canadian
border. He found what we all know, that tenantry was not a
material factor in Vermont. The problems of farms occupied
by tenants in the various counties in the State range from 29.8

1See Yearbook of the Department of Agriculture, 1916, page 329.

126 Fawn Tenantry in the United States

in Grandisle county, which is made up of three islands and a
peninsula in Lake Champlain, to 6.5 per cent. in the three North-
east counties of the State.”

Alexander E. Chance, head of the Department of Agri-
cultural Economics, Massachusetts Agricultural College, writes:
“There is very little tenancy in Massachusetts. It has always
been less than ten per cent. of the number of farms and some
times very much less than this. At the present time, the only
new farms are those that occur in the onion and tobacco dis-
tricts of the Connecticut valley. Here a form of share tenancy
—you would call it a-cropper system in Texas—exists .
On the whole, we have not thought it worth while to make any
extended study for publication for the subject of tenancy in
Massachusetts.”

“Only 2 or 3 per cent. of all the farms in this state (Maine)
come under the head of tenancy,” according to the statement of
Dean Leon S. Merrill of the College of Agriculture of the Uni-
versity of Maine.

Dean Edward C. Johnson of the division of Extension, Uni-
versity of Kansas, gives the following tabulation with reference
to the tenantry situation in four counties in his state, which is
the result of a survey made in 1914:

Fawn Tenure Conditions in Kansas in 1914.

TENANTS
3
F; E
g O .52 a
County (+5 ‘@49- =<$ . . i; 2°
w 2e s5? *5 ‘a "es —~
g o: 8 m}? 8 8 w o 5 w; P73
i; Es: E35 e e 3] 5°‘ i?‘ 3%
a. one oqdl.’ Moi-if, <1 >< 2%’ 053 e0
Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . ..] 192] 60.9 ] 17.2 ]39.1] 42] 11.4]$1,613]$11,706

Cowley . . . . . . . . . . ..] 222 60.1 ] 21.4 ]38.7] 40 12.3 1,417] 12,317

Jewell . . . . . . . . . . . ..]140] 56.6 32.0 ]43.4 36 8.0 1,62s|12,044

Pottawatomie . . . . .  70] 64.3 17.9 35.7 36] 8.4 1,184] 12,307

Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.0 22.0 39.3 40] 11.0 1,477] 12,405

   

He accompanies this table with the following pertinent
statement: “The surveys bring out two facts very clearly, viz:
that tenancy is on the increase and that the average age of ten-
ants is in the neighborhood of 39 or 4O years, thus showing the

The Increase and Distribution of Farm Tenants 127

difficulty that renters are experiencing in becoming land owners.”

O. S.- Rayner, the Associate Agronomist of the Experi-
ment Station of the Colorado Agricultural College says: “I am
sorry to say that we have no data available relative to land ten-
antry in this state. For the past two years we have been devot-
ing the summer months to farm management survey work and
at present have records in six dry land and three irrigated coun-
ties. Several times We have tried to run some correlations based
on land tenantry but as yet we have not been able to show any
results. This is largely due to the fact that the country is fairly
new and most of the farms are operated either by straight
owners or by owners who are also renting additional land. In
the dry land section the low value of the land, coupled with the
fact that most of the people are homesteaders, gives us a fairly
uniform condition. They are practically what you would call
farm owners.”

These are some of the views of those interested in rural
economic problems and indicate the tendency with reference to
tenancy in the respective sections referred to in the correspon-
dence on this subject.

Conclusion.

The Fourteenth Census will clearly show that farm tenantry
has continued to increase, especially in the South Atlantic, North
Central, and South Central Divisions. While census figures are
not available, Press Summaries issued by the Bureau of the Cen-
sus show that farm tenantry has increased in many counties in
states as widely separated as Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, and
Tennessee. Conditions created by the war have accelerated the
farm tenantry movement. War conditions have increased the
speculation in farm lands. The land values have rapidly increas-
ed in almost every part of the country. The prevailing high
prices of farm products would, under normal conditions, enable
a relatively large number of tenants to acquire farm homes, but
this influence has been offset by the rapid increase in the price of
farm lands. Under these circumstances, therefore, it is reason-
ably certain that the census figures for 1920 will show a decided
increase in the number and distribution of farm tenants through-
out the nation.

CHAPTER XI.
THE FARM TENANT’S LABOR INCOME.

The income from farm operations is not uniform even under
like systems of tenure or in the same sections Where there is
more or less uniformity in crop production. Great variation ex-
ists also from year to year under changing economic and cli-
matic conditions. But important tendencies are revealed by a
study of the distribution of agricultural income. No adequate
study of farm tenantry can be made that leaves out of account the
share of distribution that is awarded to the tenant farmer under
the various systems of tenancy that are practiced. The tenant
farm~er’s income is the index to his standard of living and it re-
veals his possibilities of ultimately acquiring a farm of his own.
The data that have been brought together in this chapter from
the surveys that have been made should be interpreted in the
light of their influence on the opportunities and possibilities that
they offer to the tenant farmer.

Definition of Terms.

At the outset, it is well to have clearly in mind the meaning
of the economic terms that are used in this discussion. It may
be Well to distinguish between capital and working capital.
Capital is a term applied to the value of all property, such as
land, farm buildings, agricultural implements, live stock, feed,
seed, and available cash for farm operation. Working capital
includes all of these with the exception of the value of land and
permanent improvements.

Agricultural income is the difference between receipts de-
rived from the sale of farm products and the expenses that enter
into the cost of raising these products. It represents what was
earned by the farmer through his own efforts and his capital
investment in the farm enterprise.

Labor income is the amount the tenant earns exclusive of
the help of his capital and represents Wages for manual labor
and the profits on his managerial skill. Capital is usually
charged at the mortgage rate of five and one-half per cent. on
the market price.

“By the agricultural income,’ says Carver, “is meant that
portion of the gross product of the farms which goes, as com-

128

9

The Farm Tenant? Labor Income 129

pensation or income, to those who are directly connected with
them. In other words, it is the total farm value of all products
after deducting the cost of all such factors of production as com-

' mercial fertilizers, tools, machinery, etc., which are not them-

selves produced on farms. More specifically, this agricultural
income includes the Wages of farm labor, the rent of farm land,
the interest on the capital invested in the stock, tools, machinery,
etc., employed on farms, and the profits of farming. It is ob-
vious that the agricultural income includes more at one period
than at another. At one time, for example, all the labor in-
volved in the growing of crops was performed on the farms.
Now a part of it is performed in the shops where farm machin-
ery is made.

“Though it is customary in the United States for the func-
tion of laborer, landowner, capitalist, and manager to be com-
bined in the same person, yet it is possible, even in such cases,
to divide the farmer’s income into four parts just named. The
farmer sometimes hires all his manual labor, frequently a part
of it; and sometimes borrows all his capital, frequently a part of
it. In view of the wide variations of practice in these partic-
ulars, it is simpler and less complicated to divide the whole farm
income into four parts,—wages, rent, interest, and profits—even
when they all go to one and the same person.“

It is a very complicated problem to distribute the farm in-
come on the basis of the elements that enter into production
and between the landlord and the tenant. In Hoard’s Dairyman
for March 31, 1916, under the heading “A Tenant Problem,” a
problem of this kind is stated and a solution submitted that is
both interesting from the standpoint of the solution that is of-
fered and as a means of indicating the intricacies of the prob-
lem. The problem and its answer are as follows:

“A owns a farm of 160 acres with 130 under cul-
tivation and the balance pasture. He keeps 4 to 5
horses to do the work. He also owns 13 mature cows
and machinery enough to do the work. Has a silo and
an up-to-date dairy barn that will accommodate 33 cows
together with cow, bull and calf pens. He owns jointly
with B one bull, 7 two-year-old heifers, two yearling

lPrinciples of Rural Economics, page 289,

130

Farm Tenantry in the United States

heifers, and nine heifer calves. _ A also furnishes grain
for horses, but all other feed shall be owned jointly.

“B is to make all hay, raise enough corn for silo,
and produce other feed for stock; B to have use of A’s
horses to do such work. A farms to grain or other
crops any land not used by B, and uses the same horses.
What would be an equitable division of profits? What
about repair bills, depreciation of machinery, risk and
depreciation of horses and cows not owned jointly?

“The rental problem is too complicated to permit
of an easy or explicit reply. According to the facts
presented it would appear that A was entitled to three-
fifths of the profit from the sale of dairy produce and to
share in like measure the increase in stock. Under this
arrangement A should also bear one-half or three fifths
of the cost of feed purchased. It is quite possible that
conditions are such that A may well afford to grant
B a one-half share instead of two-thirds but this is
largely a personal matter between landlord and tenant
and is to be determined on its merits in each instance.

“In his new book on farm contracts, W. C. Tish-
enor presents a novel and interesting method suggested
by Dr. H. B. Miller of Ohio. ‘The first step,’ Says Dr.
Miller, ‘in determining the basis for an equitable di-
vision is to agree upon the actual money value of what
each puts into the enterprise. Five per cent. is con-
sidered a fair return upon‘the land. The investment in
cows, work horses, and farming utensils should be al-
lowed 10%, and upon the growing young stock there
should be allowed 5 %’.

“In order to show the application of Dr. Miller’s sug-
gestion to the above problem we will assume A’s farm
to be Worth $15,000 and his investment in horses, cows,
and other stock and equipment to be worth $3,500. We
will assume that B’s interest in stock is worth $1,200.
Allow 5% on A’s $15,000 and 10% on his $3,500 and
we find that A should receive $1,100 per year. As in
this instance B’s only investment is in non-productive
young stock, he should receive 5 per cent. on his $1,200,
or $60. However, in addition to money put into the
farm operation, B is also furnishing all the labor to op-
erate the farm. We Will assume that B’s labor is worth
$360 per year, in addition to the use of the house,
garden, milk, etc.; we will assume that his hired help
for the year costs him $480 for wages and board. B
should, therefore, receive $60 plus $360 plus $480, or
a total of $900 per year.

The Farm Tenantfls Labor Income 131

“According to the above basis of computation A
should receive a theoretical income of $1,100 and B a
theoretical income of $900 of a total theoretical in-
come of $2,000. It is, therefore, quite easy to under-
stand that on this basis A should receive 11-20 of the
actual farm income and B should receive 9-30. When
this method of computation is followed, all the cur-
rent farm expenses are paid from the gross income in
the same manner as in the usual system of renting
on shares.

“If the actual net receipts for the year were $2,400,
A would receive 11-20, or $1,320; while B would re-
ceive 9-20, or $1,080. If the net farm income Was only
$1,800, A would then receive the same 11-20, but it
would amount to only $990; and in like manner B would
receive 9-20, or $810.

“The same principle would apply Whatever
amounts were actually invested by either party, and the
actual investment can best be determined "by an inven-
tory agreed upon by both parties at the beginning and
end of each lease term.- Permanent improvements
taxes, etc., should be paid by the owner, the same as
under the usual methods of renting.

“The proposal of Dr. Miller as outlined above
comes more nearly to approximate fairness between
the difierent classes of farming as Well as profiering a
more systematic method of determining a division of
the returns from the farm operation. For instance,
under the old share system the tenant who raised hay
and sold it made more for his lab-or than the tenant who
raised large fields of potatoes, because the latter tenant
was compelled by the necessities of the crop to expend
a greater‘ amount of labor and for this he does not
secure an adequate return. Under the system proposed
by Dr. Miller the labor in both instances would be cap-
italized and the tenant who raises intensive crops that
are liable to increase the general farm income would
receive a more equitable share in the increase due to
the greater amount of labor he has expended.“

The labor income of tenant farmers under this system of
tenure and in typical sections of the country will be summar-
ized from available data taken from reliable sources.

1H0ard’s Dairymzm, Volume 51, No, 10, page 437, for March 31, 1916.

132 Farm Tenantry in the United States
The Tenant’s Labor Income in the Cotton Belt.

In the study of the tenant system of farming in the Yazoo-
Mississippi Delta made by E. A. Boeger and E. A. Goldenweiser

of the Federal Office of Farm Management, important data on

farm labor income have been secured. The Yazoo-Mississippi
Delta is a large area east of the Mississippi River and extending
from just below Memphis on the north to Vicksburg on the
south. It goes without saying, that cotton is the sovereign crop
of this river valley land. It is typically a tenant farming area
of the South.

From eight hundred and seventy-eight records, figures
have been compiled to show the percentage of tenants under the
various systems, making from $100 to $1,000 in labor income for
a year’s work. These percentages are expressed in the follow-
ing table:

Percentage Having a Labor Income of not Less
Angylnt Than Each Specified Amount}
Income All Share Share \ - Cash
Tenants Croppers Renters Renters
$0 98.0 98.9 97.1 l 95.6
$100 94.0 97.1 92.0 90.2
$200 82.0 84.3 77.3 80.8
$300 59.9 56.6 61.9 63.9
$400 36.1 24.6 43.5 a 50.1
$500 22.1 10.1 26.4 37.0
$600 15.0 5.1 19.2 | 28.2
$700 10.6 2.4 12.3 I 21.8
$800 6.7 1.0 7.4 15.1
$900 4.5 0.5 3.7 11.1
$1000 3 5 0.5 3.0 l 8.4

These figures become more intelligible when compared With
the interest returns on the landlord’s capital, as shown in the
following table: _

The Farm Tenrmtis Labor Income 133

Average Rate of Interest on Land1ord’s Invest-
ment on Holdings of Tenants in Each Speci-
fied Labor-Income Group}

Class l
of ‘g
Tenants +2 f: ,___ l 3 3 ' B B s;
m ' (g go l oo: ocn o0: om o i“
=2 2» @1222 aelse 2e a?
11 W, __,____,,.__c__ .___ 41B Q _,_ Dee was wee meow l wee. _2@<C>_
  ------- ~~* 222 22  22;  222 .22: 222
are moppers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Share Renters . . . . . .  11.8 7.1a 8.0 9.2 12.4 13.3‘ 14.8 16.6
Cash Renters . . . . . . . .| 6.6 8.0 5.7 6.8i 6.7 6.41 6.0 7.1

     

“The share-cropping system is the safest for the
tenant. The share cropper is practically assured of av-
erage Wages for his work, but he rarely makes a large
income.

“The share renter fails more frequently t0 make
even a bare living, but has a better chance to make a
good income than has the share cropper.

“The cash renter runs still greater risk of failure
but has the greatest opportunity of making a labor in-
come of not less than $1000.

“The average labor income for share croppers was
$333; for share renters, $398; for cash renters, $478.

“From the point of view of the landlord the sit-
uation is reversed. He is assured of a return of be-
tween six and seven per cent. on his investment when
the land is operated by cash renters no matter what the
yield or the tenant’s labor income may be.

“When the land is worked by the share croppers or
share renters the landlord’s rate of interest often falls
below six per cent. but when the yield is good and the
tenant makes a good return the rate of interest some-
times rises to more than three times that amount.

“It appears on the Whole that the landlord can
make better money on the average, when he rents his
land on some system of shares. The average rate of
interest received by the landlord from share croppers
was 13.6 per cent.; from share renters, 11.8 per cent.;
and from cash renters, 6.6 per cent.

“The holdings of share croppers are considerably
smaller, on the average, than those of share renters or

lBulletiri-No. 337, U. S- Department of Agriculture.

134 ’ Farm Tenantry in the United States

of cash renters, and there are few share croppers hav-
ing as much as twenty-five acres in cotton, While about
one-third of the share renters and of the cash renters
have at least that acreage. The labor income of a ten-
ant increases directly with the increase in cotton acre-
age, but the rate of interest on the landlord’s invest-
ment appears to be but little affected by the size of the
holdings.

“The principal factor in determining the amount of
the tenant’s labor income and the rate of the landlord’s
profits in this region is the yield of cotton to the acre.
The relationship between yield of cotton and labor in-
come, however, is much closer on cash renters’ farms
than on those of share croppers, while the effect of yield
on the landlord’s profits is more important under the
share-cropping or the rent system.

“The tenant’s incentive for securing a good crop is
consequently greater among those Who rent for cash
but, on the other hand, the landlord is more directly in-
terested in the magnitude of yield on the land of his
share croppers.”

An economic study of farming in Sumter County, Georgia,
made by H. M. Dickson and H. W. Hawthorne of the Federal De-
partment of Farm Management, brings out similar data with ref-
erence to the labor income of farm tenants. Sumter County is
strictly in the cotton section and does not differ essentially in
this respect from the Yazoo-Mississippi delta. However, the
conditions of soil and climate are somewhat different, but the
influence of cotton production on labor income is the predomin-
ating consideration. In this particular county, there were found
to be five hundred and thirty-four farm operators. “There were
found to be 299 farmers owning a part of the entire farm oper-
ated; 268 of these farms were owned by white and 31 by colored
farmers; the other 235 farms were operated by tenants, of which
49 were white and 186 colored”1

In this study it has been found that the size of the farm
enterprise has an important bearing on the tenant labor in-
come. The following table and the interpretation that follows
the table explains the influence of this factor:

lAn Economic Study of Farming in Sumter County, Georgia, page 10, Bulletin No. 492

U. S. Department of Agriculture.

The Farm Teuaufs Labor Iuoorne 135

Area, capital, receipts, expenses," and income on farms of dif-
ferent tenures. Sumter County, Ga.

I

       
   

I m q
-  »—1 jg 31) i q) q)
‘E g '13 c“ S  g ~ E E "‘ E
Edsfr-E’: éfi sisfiég
_%-- 1 so fie; e5 no analog sLefi/Hfi
White} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I f |
Owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160] 158 $13,773 $4,097i$2,555 $1,542|$ 853
Owners additional . . . . . .. 38; 168 10,521 4,594 2,796 1,798| 1,272
Owners part rented out . 70f 1394 26,883 6,400 3,963 2,437) 1,093
Tenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49: 85 890 1,572 980 592 547
Colored: _ i
Owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 12]‘ 95 5,984 1,659 977 682 383
Owners additional . . . . . . . 11; 77 3,043 1,646 955 691 539
Owners part rented out . . . 8} 307 15,998 3,107 1,812 1,295 495
Tenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l 186,‘ 59 481 902 566 336 312

 

“The 160 farms operated by white owners, having
an average of 158 acres of tilled land and with an in-
vestment of $13,773, returned an average farm income
of $1,542. Deducting interest on investment the
owners have left, on the average, $853 as labor in-
come. - Deducting from the farm income the value of
the farmer’s labor, these farms show a return of 8 per
cent. on investment.

“There were 38 farms operated by white owners
renting additional land. On the average these men op-
erated 168 acres of tilled land, but owing to 30 per cent.
of the farm area being rented, the average investment
of these men was lower than that of the 160 owners.
The average investment on these farms was $10,521,
with a farm income of $1,798 and a labor income of
$1,272.

“The 70 farms operated by white owners renting
a part of their farming land out were the largest farms
found in this study. These farms averaged 394 tilled
acres, of which 41 per cent. was rented out. The invest-
ment averaged $26,883, labor income $1,093, and in-
terest on investment 7 per cent.

“Forty-nine of the farms were operated by white
tenants. These farms averaged 85 acres of tilled land
and with an average of $890 capital they returned a
farm income of $592 and a labor income of $547. Sev-
eral white tenants were found in this area who owned
small farms, but who, in order to do a larger business,
had leased their own farms and were operating large
rented farms. ‘ v

“It will be noted from this table that in all classes

136 Farm Tenantry in the United States

of tenure the farms operated by colored farmers are
smaller than those operated by white farmers of the
same tenure.

“Thirty-one of the farms were owned by colored
farmers. Of this number 12 were operated as owner
farms, with an average size of 95 tilled acres; average
investment was $5,948; farm income, $682; and labor
income, $383. Eleven of the farms owned by colored
farmers were operated with additional land rented.
These farms averaged 77 tilled acres, of which 26 per
cent. was rented additional.‘ They had an average cap-
ital of $3,043, a farm income of $691, and a labor in-
come of $539.”

“The remaining 8 farms owned by colored farmers
were operated as owners renting out part of their land.
These farms averaged 307 acres of tilled land of which
45 per cent. was rented out. The average capital in-
vested was $15,998, which returned them a farm income
of $1,295 and alabor income of $495.

“The 186 colored tenants, as previously stated,
were operators responsible for the entire operation of
the farm. They farmed on the average of 59 acres, and
with $491 capital realized a farm income of $336 and
a labor income og $312. It is doubtful whether on the
average, these men make any higher profits than the
share croppers, as under the share-cropper system the
profits of the land owner are dependent upon the
quality of the crops grown by the cropper. The most
desirable feature of the tenant system, from the stand-
point of the tenant, is that in the main he is emanci-
pated from the directing authority of the landlord and
tlhulskhas more liberty than the share cropper to do as

e 1 es.”1

A farm management study of cotton farms of Ellis County,
Texas, which is a typical cotton county in that state brought
out some interesting results with reference to labor income. In
this study it was found that every operator with less than $4,000
capital is a tenant, while every one with more than this invested
in the farm enterprise is an owner. It is interesting to observe
from this study that tenants with an average capital of only
$1,200 made nearly as much as owners with $10,000, while tenants
with $2,500 invested made greater incomes than owners with an
investment four times as great. “These figures indicate clearly
that an operator with small capital can make a much better in-
come as a tenant than as an owner.“

lAn Economic Study of Farming in Sumpter County, Georgia, pages 17 and 18. Bulletin
N0. 492, U. S. Department of Agriculture.
2Bulletin 659, page 1'7, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

The Farm Tenant’s Labor Income 137

The following table summarizes the data with reference to
this situation:

Relation of capital invested by farm operator t0 income of the
operators of owner and tenant farms (79 farms,
Ellis County, Texas, 1914) .1

 
   

Owner Farms Tenant Farms
4 w l
Operator’s 5.4 ,,, l <u__ l ,_, m 3 Capital l é
Capital g?  m g1 2 E g B? <fi Average l E m
m -.-< m
§§;?3 $3 35 53 5 §m§;gwi3§
Z y,  . o: Qjq <0 bin-a Zn: o 0r a piry- in u
$516 to $1,966 . . . . . i$ |$ 28 91 $13,453|$1,212 $ 751
$2,015 to $3,237. . . . 14 131 20,798| 2,375 1,157
$4,709 to $13,665. .  15 60 10,112 850 l
$14,203 to $19,548.. 17 89 17,088 1,398 |
$21,106 to $41,360..| 5 141 31,100 2,278 l | I

 

This table shows that for Ellis County a tenant farmer op-
erating with relatively small capital has the advantage over the
land owner with reference to the size of the labor income. This
is not peculiar to this situation. Similar results have been found
wherever farm management surveys have been made. For exam-
ple, similar results are contained in a survey made in Chester
County, Pennsylvania. The following table is quoted as a basis of
comparison with the situation in Ellis County, Texas:

Sizes of owner and tenant farms and amount of income on 502
Farms in Chester County, Pennsylvania?

l Owners Tenants
l w (I)
Amount Capital E é i, gov i? g g0 ‘ gm
ES 39 3§ 33 39; 3§
23 ii is E3 liil is
€$”1”,000'3i1<i1”e§§iiiif; .  19 42.2 1 $ 424
$ 1,001 t0 $ 2,000 . . . . . . . 3 19 5 $ 122 46 94.7 I 640

$ 2,001 to 3 3,000 . . . . . .. 11 21.7 223 34 123.9 | 315

$ 3,001 120 $ 5,000 . . . . . . . 33 37.1 521 19 J 147.3 I 1,574

$ 5,001 t0 $ 7,000 . . . . . . . 60 57.7 819 4 162.8 2,578

3 7,001 to $ 9,000 . . . . . .. 67 71.1 994 2 130.0 1 3,276

$ 9,001 t0 $11,000 . . . . . . . 55 94.2 1,169

$11,001 t0 $14,000 . . . . . . . 66 109.6 1,641

$14,001 m $17,000 . . . . . . . 47 123.4 2,035

CV61‘ $17,000 . . . . . . . . . . . 36 163.0 2,583

iBulletin 659, page 17, U. S. Department of Agriculture.
2Ibid, page 18

138 Farm Tenantry in the United States

In the fourth capital group, ($3,000 to $5,000), it will be
seen that the majority have become owners in spite of the fact
that the average income of owners in this group is only $521.00,
while that of tenants with similar investments is $1,574. Only
six operators with as much capital as $5,000 chose to remain ten-
ants. All farm operators whose capital exceeds $9,000 have
chosen to become home owners instead of tenants. The ques-
tion naturally arises, why do farm tenants choose. to buy farms
when their labor income is larger as tenants, where relatively
small capital is invested? It is rare to find a tenant farmer who
is satisfied to remain a landless farm operator. Land-hunger, in-
dependence of landlord, and other considerations cause the ten-
ant farmer to choose a relatively smaller income in order to se-
cure the compensating advantages of owning a farm.

The Tenant’s Labor Income in the Grain Belt.

Taking another typical section of the country, we find quite
a difference in the amount of the farm tenant’s labor income.
The best study that has been made relates to Iowa, where im-
portant data have been collected and analyzed by Mr. O. G. Lloyd
of the Farm Management Division of the Agricultural Experi-
ment Station of Iowa State College of Agriculture and Mechanic
Arts. He found that profit depends on the amount of capital
employed, on the size of the farm, on the amount of farm ma-
chinery and live stock used per acre, on man-power per acre,
and on the type of farming. The tabulated results with refer-
ence to the size of the business is indicated by the following:

Effect of Size of Business on Tenant’s
‘ Labor Income.

Total Capital No. of Farms Lagsgeifiggme
Less than $20,000 . . . . . . . . . . 17 $ 466
$20,000-$29,999 . . . . . . . . . . . 34 1080
$30,000-$39,999 . . . . . . . . . . . 28 1286
$40,000-$49,999 . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1253

$50,000-$59,999 . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1750
$60,000 and over . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2476

The Farm Tenantfis Labor Income .139

“The records gathered from 144 tenant farms
visited in this investigation show that the largest farm
business produces the highest labor income. That is,
when farms are classified according to size of business
as in table I, it appears that farms with a capital of
$60,000 and over make five times the labor income ob-
tained on farms with less than $20,000 capital, after
all expenses are paid, which includes rent, 51/2 per
cent. interest on the tenant’s capital, and an‘ allowance
for unpaid family labor. All the 114 tenant farms in- »
cluded in this table follow general live stock or grain
farming.“

It is seen from these data that on grain farms operated by
tenants the results are different from those operated in the cot-
ton belt. Lloyd also appraises the influence of tenants and tools
as a factor in the tenant’s labor income with the following
results:

Efiect of Difierent Amounts of Work Horses and Tools on La-
bor Income When Farms Are First Sorted Ac-
cording to Size of Farm.

l "E 1* w
Q a
see of Fem ee l V%121.H.°::i::::;d s s;
<5 s >- 833 as g
2&1” __ _g___vg_____gz_____ w_______g<fim :87 _E1_,»J»-¢__
itoiefifeeeei.   Less than $10 $ 7.43 s 736
15 $10 and over 13.62 1,233
175 to 259 acres. . . . . 23 I Less ‘than $7 5.55 I 1,096
21 z $7 and over 9.91 1,379
260 to 499 acres. . . . . 16 5 Less than $6.50 4.31 1,813
| $6.50 and 0V6] 8.11 1,588

“In each group of farms of the same size those
farms with the more work horses and tools per acre
produced the higher labor income. Comparing the three
groups of farms of different size, the labor income in-
creases directly with the increase in the size of the
farm. It is generally conceded that more work horses
and tools per acre are required on small farms than on
large farms as shown in table II, but it is not gen-

1Bulletin 159 of the Agricultural Experiment Station, Iowa State College on Farm Leases
in Iowa, page 159.

140 Farm Tenantry in the United States

erally recognized that the use of more work horses and
tools per acre is profitable on large as Well as small
farms. .

“One reason for more work horses and tools per
acre being profitable is the greater relative advance in
recent years in rent than in the price of Work horses
and tools. Therefore it is cheaper to use a large amount
of horse and tool labor to each acre of land.”1

.An interesting observation that does not appear elsewhere
in the literature of this subject, is the influence of man-power on
the tenant’s labor income. This is shown in the following
table:

LMAN LABOR PER ACRE.

Effect of Different Amounts of Man Labor on ‘Labor Income
When Farms Are First Sorted According to
Size of Farm}

£1 2 _m
Size of Farms "3 g Man 541:3!‘ per g Sig’ ‘g g g
2E i? t» 
_  ._-.-__ - _-_._______vs L FL A .__.__P:*_

100 to 174 acres . . . . .‘ 12 Less than $4 $3.15 $ 7 2
15 $4 and more 4.97 1,188

175 to 259 acres. . . . 24 Less than $3.50 2.97 1,173
$3.75 and more 4.47 1,302

260 to 499 acres . . . . 16 Less than $3.50 3.91 1,345
$3.50 and more 3.92 1,731

“In each group of farms of the same size, those
farms with the more man labor per acre produced the
larger labor income. Value of man labor includes wages
for hired labor and cost of board and the value of labor
done by the operator and his family.”

Finally, in this study a summary is made of the influence
of the type of farming on the tenant’s labor income with the fol-
lowing results:

lLtoyaVs Farm Leases in Iowa, page 161.

2lbid, page 162.

The Farm Tenants Labor Income 141

TYPE OF FARMING.

Relation Between Type of Farming, Crop Yields and
Labor Income.

s s.

Animal Units* 21w 56 § *5"? 3 s l”
q-i w as o. o o o v =- ‘b’ ‘1’
per100acres ¢g ggpcc v38 28 53g
d E >'E 5° 53 O 2 5% °
. 2a.. <d<D3 nfSJ: W8 9.45
Less than 6.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 5.0 88.1 35 $ 485
6 to 1O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8.1 75.4 43 736
10.1 to 2O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 13.9 45.5 47 1,215
More than 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 27.8 13. 54 1,649

   

*An animal unit is a cow, horse, 5 hogs, 7 sheep or 100 chickens, based
on the amount of feed consumed and the amount of manure produced.

“The live stock farms produce the highest yields of
corn and the largest labor income. The last group of
farms, with five times more animal units per 100 acres
than the first group, produces one-half more corn per
acre and three times the labor income.”

The general conclusion from these data in the study made by
Lloyd is as follows:

“Tenants with the most capital make the largest
labor income and remain on the same farms the longest
period‘ of years.

“The roaming farmer regards a large amount of
capital as a positive hindrance to him, for at moving
time he must either sell as a sacrifice or move at heavy
expense.

“Such a wanderer cannot hope to make a large la-
bor income for he lacks the work animals, tools and
productive live stock for successful farming. He can-
not afford to seed clover or alfalfa or follow a cropping
system which will maintain high yields, for he does not
intend to stay long enough to reap the benefit of such
work. He is a grain farmer who works hard during the
summer but sells all his grain at harvest time and does
very little until the following spring, except trade
horses and do a few chores about the barn.

“One reason for the shifting of tenants who have
small capital is the fact that the majority of them are

1Lloyd’s Farm Leases in Iowa, page 162.
Zlbid, page 163.

142 Farm Tenantry in the United States

young men who wish larger farms as they accumulate
sufficient capital and experience to operate a larger bus-
iness. The stock share method of renting enables the
young tenant without adequate capital and mature ex-
perience to operate a large business from the beginning.
This method will be discussed later in connection with
differentmethods of renting. Briefly the tables just
given show that:

Farms with double the amount of capital produced
double the amount of labor income. .

The advance in the price of land caused ‘owners
to enlarge their farms in order to get the rise in price.

Large farms used labor more efficiently than small
farms and had less per acre, but in each group of farms
of the same size those with the highest labor cost made
the highest labor. income. It is probable that farms in
well improved areas may employ more labor in ‘gentle-
man farming’ than is most economical.

Live stock farms with about four times as many
animal units per acre as grain farms made about four
times the labor income and produced one-half more corn
per acre.

The group of tenants with five times the capital of
the smallest capital group remained on the same farms
nearly three times as long and made more than eight
times the labor income.“

The Tenant’s Labor Income on Truck Farms.

In a study made by Mr. Howard A. Turner in the summer
of 1914 in a truck farming area in Southern New Jersey, he
found that the method of renting in most common use is the
one-half share system, under which the tenant furnishes labor,
teams, stock, and tools, and gives as rent one-half the grain and
one-half the returns from truck and other crops sold, but none
of the receipts from live stock. A few farms rented for cash,
and occasionally one for a share other than one-half. The labor
income on this type of farm shows the same tendencies as those
on cotton and grain farms.

llbid, page 165.

The Farm Tenant’s Labor Income 143

Size of owner and tenant farms and amounts of income 0n 502
farms in Chester County, Pa.

Owners Tenants
' o) A cu u.) A c»
Amount of Capital ‘H w g0 g5 a, a, ‘H m g, g3 go;
° E s4 m $4 s- E ° E a c6 s-4 F!
s: 22:5 ‘:8 as ‘#2:; $8
Z Q1 ,i1i¢:;  EFF  f? V, iii
$1,000 and less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ;$ 19 42.2 $ 424

$1,001 to $2,000. . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . 3 19.5 122 46 94.7 640

$2,001 to $3,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 21.7 223 34 123.9 815

$3,001 m $5,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. s3 37.1 521 19 147.3 1,574

$5,001 to $7,000 . . . . ..-. . . . . . . . .. 60 57.7 s19 4 102.8 2,578

$7,001 to $9,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67 71.1 994 2 136.0 3,276

$9,001 ~to $11,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 94.2 1,169

$11,001 to $14,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 109.6 1,641

$14,000 to 17,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 123.4 2,035

Over $17,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 163.0 2,583

It is interesting to observe that the profit per acre increases
until the ten-year period is reached. In other Words, the tenant
seems to increase in efficiency during the first ten years of his
experience as a tenant farmer. But it is significant that the
profit per acre drops from $5.70 to $3.45 When the period of ten-
ancy is extended from 11 to 15 years. It does not appear from
this study that there is any uniform decrease when the period of
tenancy is extended beyond fifteen years. The avaliable data
on this point are rather limited, but many observations made in-
dicate that the efficiency of the tenant tends to decrease as his
prospects for acquiring a home become less encouraging.

Relation of Labor Income to Period of Tenancy.

Turning to another aspect of this question, it is interesting
to observe that there seems to be a direct relationship between
the period of tenancy and the labor income. In a farm manage-
ment study made by O. R. Johnson and W. E. Foard of the Uni-
versity of Missouri, four townships in West Johnson County,
Missouri, were surveyed and among other data collected was
some information on this topic. The following table summarizes
the results obtained:

lBulletin N0. 411, page 18, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

144 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Relation of Period of Tenancy t0 Profit

Per Acre}

Period of Tenancy éegrfagfi ‘ Pgnfct-‘re
2 years or less  .. 21.6 years [l4 $3.809
3 to 5 years . . . . . . . . 29.7 years ‘ 4.70
6 to 10 years . . . . . . 34.9 years 5.70

11 to 15 years . . . . .. 39.2 years | 3.45
Over 15 years . . . . . . 49.4 years 1 3.80

Based on the facts developed in these tables, three factors
enter into the determination of the farm tenant’s labor income as
follows: ~

If there is over-capitalization, the landlord’s income is either
reduced by the amount of the excess, or the tenant’s labor in-
come is partially diverted to the payment of interest on this
over-capitalization. Exactly the same results follow if the land-
lord pays a higher price for land than its productivity justifies.

The second factor relates to the quality of the business.
By quality is understood (1) land of good productive powers that
will yield reasonable returns on the capital and effort expended,
and (2) live stock that will yield good returns on -the cost of
their feed and the labor expended in their care?

The third factor relates to diversification. The agricul-
tural income is clearly influenced by the system of farming that
is practiced. The extent of the influence of this factor will be
discussed more fully in the next chapter on “Methods of Financ-
ing Tenant Farm Operations.” Diversification increases the
sources of income and gives the farmer greater financial inde-
pendence.

In the economics of farm enterprise, little consideration has
been given to these factors. Capital investment, soil fertility,
the number of animal units, and crop rotation, are inter-related
elements. But they have not been recognized as such, and the
business aspects of farming has suffered as a consequence. The
labor income, therefore, of the farm tenant has been left to
chance.

lLand Tenure, page 101. _ _ .
2See Johnson’s Successful Farm Organization, page 21, Bulletin 142 of the Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of Ohio, (1916) .

The Farm Tenantfis Labor Income 145
Conclusion.

The available data with reference to the labor income of
tenant farmers indicate that many factors enter into the de-
termination of the income. It is equally evident that little ef-
fort has been made to combine those economic factors that tend
to secure adequate farm income for the small and dependent
farmer. Three factors stand out as significant in this problem.
They may be briefly stated as follows : (1) The number of acres
cultivated and the type of crop production must be sufficient to
get the greatest efficiency out of men and implements; (2) there
must be an adequate amount and proper distribution of capital;

and (3) a system of farming must be adopted that yields the '

largest returns on productive labor expended.

It is quite apparent that in many cases the tenant has been
cultivating an acreage too small to yield an adequate labor in-
come. He has not had a man-size job. There has not been
proper adjustment of work stock, tools, and men to the units of
cultivation. It is equally obvious from the available data that
the landlord has not adjusted the capital investment in build-
ings and improvements to the unitsof farm acreage cultivated
by his tenants.

As We naturally expect, the character of crop production
causes a rather wide variation in the amount of the capital in-
vestment and the acreage required to yield a satisfac-
tory income to the landlord on his investment and to the ten-
ant farmer for his labor. For example, the capital in-
vestment is relatively small for truck farms. This is
What We would naturally expect. It is not possible, therefore,
to determine abstractly the amount of capital investment and
the average area of each farm as a means of determining an
adequatefarm income. These elements not only vary with ref-
erence to the different types of farms, but there is considerable
variation in the size of income and the area of each farm in the
same section Where the character of crop production is quite
similar. Experience alone can determine these questions with a
reasonable degree of satisfaction.

CHAPTER XII.

INFLUENCE OF LAND VALUES ON FARM
TENANTRY.

Economists have pointed out the fact that we cannot
measure land supply in terms of value. The increasing price of
farm land merely indicates that farming has become a more
desirable form of investment. The real measure of the benefits
of agricultural lands is its productivity rather than its area.
The social function of land is to produce crops that supply the
needs of mankind. A bushel of wheat will go no further when it

' is worth two dollars than when it sells for only one-half that

amount‘.

The agricultural lands of the nation must largely sup-
ply the food and clothing for the entire population. The con-
stant concern, therefore, of a people is to increase the supply of
farm land as rapidly as the population increases. The only other
alternative, of course, is to offset the difference by intensive cul-
tivation as a means of maintaining the normal increase of pro-
duction required to supply the‘ needs of a growing population.
It is a well known fact that our population has grown rapidly,
while the geographical area of the United States has remained
about the same. No accession has been made to the con-
tinental area of the United States since the Civil War. Much of
our lands have been unoccupied and large sections have remained
in forest and undeveloped prairies. In other words, the wisest
utilization of our land possessions has not been seriously con-
sidered until very recent times. The fundamental question that
enters into this discussion is: Have we added new farms rapidly
enough to keep pace with our increasing population. The fol-
lowing table taken from King’s The Wealth and Income of the
People 0f the United States will help us to answer his question:

146

Influence 0f Land Values 0n Farm Tenantry 147

Land in Farms in the United States.
(Outlying possessions excludedJl

Average of Farm Land per Person
Census Total Acreage my Vnfle  
Year in Farms For Persons L1v- For All Persons
ing on Farms in the U. S.
1850 | 293,560,614 31.17 l 12.66
1860 I 407,212,538 32.13 | 12.95
1870 | 407,735,041 26.43 | 10.58
1880 I 536,081,835 - 24.31 I 10.69
1890 I 623,218,619 25.28 I 9.90
1900 | 838,591,774 28.11 I 11.03
1910 | 878,798,325 27.63 I 9.55

A glance at column four of the above table shows that there
has been a decrease, but it is remarkably small.

The possibility of the land shortage for agricultural pur-
poses and the increasing cost of farm products has stimulated
the demand for land. In many cases the price that is being paid
for farm land is out of all proportion to any prospect for a rea-
sonable return on the investment. The promise that a good
farm will provide an independent living for a family has often
been the determining factor in land purchase, and often this
consideration has out-weighed the investment motive. If the
purchase price of land is considered in the light of the average
price of the annual yield of produce, it Will be seen that, in many
cases, the returns will not net over two or three per cent.

But the purchase price of farm lands at such prices is ob-
viously impossible if the land is to be paid for out of the profits
of the farm enterprise. It is only possible to buy land above in-
vestment prices in cases Where surplus capital, derived from
other sources, is available for the purpose. The competition for
land in recent years has been largely due to the diversion of cap-
ital from industrial to agricultural enterprises. This tendency
has been the result of a decrease in the opportunities of profit-
able investment in industrial establishments and the abnormal
risk that such investments involve. The disposition of Congress
and thelegislatures of the several states to exercise by law an
increasing control over industrial enterprises, has also been a
factor in determining the tendency of capital to secure land as
a profitable investment. The inevitable consequences of this

1Chapter 3, page 23.

148 Farm Tenantry in the United States

movement has been a rise in land values. This situation also ex-
plains the large increase in the number of farms in the last de-
cade and the rapid improvement of farm lands. At the same
time, the landless class without capital is placed in a precarious
position by this movement. It is becoming increasingly diffi-
cult for a farm tenant, who must depend entirely on the savings
from his farm profits with which to purchase his farm home.
This may be assigned as one of the direct causes of the increase
in tenantry in the United States.

An editorial in Wallace’s Farmer, explains this situation as
follows:

“The causes of landlordism are obvious, and with-
in the knowledge of every person who has reached mid-
dle age. The cure is not so obvious; but as the causes
are economic, so will the cure be. There was no land-
lordism in the West when land was cheap, because it
was easy for an industrious man to get a farm of his
own. Some far-seeing capitalists, and some of them
from the Old World, bought up large tracts of land,
evidently intending to found great estates. But the
advance in taxes and the habit of taxing raw land at
the same rate as improved, soon compelled them to sell
or else put it in cultivation. Bonanza farming pros-
pered, and then disappeared from economic causes.
Landlordism has increased rapidly since the days of
prosperity, due, some Republicans claimed, to the elec-
tion of McKinley, but really due to the exhaustion of the
public domain and the advance in the price of farm
products-.

“Then sprang up three classes of landlords: First,
the retired farmer, who was tired, and his Wife more
so, and moved to town, renting his farm. The greater
the advance in the price of land, the more farmers
moved to town. The farmer knew that he was making
more money even while he slept than he ever did work-
ing, and that because of the advance in the price of
land, about l0 per cent. per annum on an average for
the last fifteen years.

“Business men then began to see that there was a
clear four per cent. income by investing in farm lands,
and they began to salt down their profits from business.
Knowing nothing about farming, they rented the farms
they had bought. Then men of a speculative tempera-
ment began to realize the full significance of the ex-
haustion of the public domain, and the prevailing pros-

Influence 0f Land Values on Farm Tenantry 149

perity, and they began to speculate in lands. The
longer the price of land advanced, the more sure they
were that it would continue to advance. These men al-
most invariably rented their lands; and we have three
classes of landlords.“

An attempt will be made to appraise more definitely the re-
lationship between the increased value of farm lands and the
increase in the percentage of farm tenantry. The farm tenant
who seeks to purchase his own farm home and who must depend
on the savings from his personal profits is confronted with one of
three possibilities. (1) In the first place, it may be possible for the
farm tenant to accumulate profits from his individual efforts in
such proportions as to offset the increasing value of farm lands.
This is only possible when he is operating a farm under a liberal
lease and the price, as well as the amount of his product, helps
to make his farming a profitable business. But even under these
conditions, the amount of capital necessary to finance the pur-
chase of a farm may make his period of tenancy longer.

The evidence of this fact is to be seen in the late age that
tenants become home owners. The available data on this point
are not very abundant, but they are sufficiently adequate to sus-
tain the contention that tenants are purchasing farms at a contin-
ually later age in life. Vogt submits statistics supplied by the
United States census for Butler County, " Ohio, to show that
sixty-five per cent of the tenants were thirty-five years of age
or over. There were more than thirty-five per cent. of these who
were over forty-five years of age. The following table shows
the facts:

1Wallace’s Farmer, Volume 41, No. 3, page 76, for January 2, 1916.

150 Farm Tenaiitry in the United States

Farmers Classified According t0 Tenure and Age Groups,
' Butler County, Ohio}

 

Number Per Cent.
Y I
ear Total  OwnersI Tenants Total  OwnersI Tenants
A11 ages  i 228s I 7152520 I 106s” 77100.0 I 100.0 100.0
24 and under. . . 61 I 11 | 50 - 2.7 I  4.7
25 to 34 . . . . .. 402 85 317 17.6 7. 29.7
35 to 44 . . . . .. 576 I "251 I 325 25.1 I 20.6 30.4
45 to 54 . . . . .. 603 I 363 I 240 26.3 29.8 I 22.5
55 to 64 . . . . .. 383 I 282 I 101 16.8 I 23.1 I 9.5
65 and over. . . . 256 I 223 33 11.2 18.2 , 3.0
Unknown . . . . . 7 I 5 I 2 0.3 | 0.4 I 0.2

Vogt calls attention to the fact “that 71.1 per cent. of the
owners are forty-five years of age or over, while but 35 per cent.
of the tenants belong to this group.”

A study made by O. G. Lloyd in the state of Iowa in 1915
supports the statistics in the above table. He says:

“To obtain greater economic independence re-
quired more years of saving before ownership now than
formerly. Hence, the age of ownership today is about
six years later in life than it was twenty-five years ago.
Farmers make their first payment on land now at the
age of 34, while 25 years ago ownership was obtained
at 28 years of age. While ownership is now postponed
to a later period in life, the net worth of the present
owner at the time of purchasing is nearly three and
one-half times the net worth of the purchaser 25 years
ago. So while it requires much larger savings now to
make the first payment on a farm, the tenant accu-
mulates wealth much faster now than he did form-
erly.” I

This point is touched upon by Mr. Charles B. Austin in a
study in Texas. He found the same tendency to exist. In a
personal investigation of thirty men in a typical county in Texas

- the following facts were developed: “Six men who have been

in the county respectively, 10, 12, 20, 5, 18, and 25 years, have
been renting for like periods of time. Thirteen men, including

ilntroduction to Rural Sociology, Chapter 5. page 79.
2I0wa Experiment Station Bulletin No. 159 on Farm Leasesin Iowa, page 171.

Influence 0f Land Values 0n Farm Tenantry 151

the six just named, have an average period of tenancy of over 14
years. The personal opinion of one person who is acquainted
with this country is that this period would not be far Wrong as
an average for the entire country.“

(2) The second possibility is in the case Where the rise of
land values is exactly counterbalanced by the increase in the val-
ue of farm products, or Where a sufficient increase. in production
is secured by scientific cultivation, or for other causes, to in-
crease profits that would maintain this uniformity. If profits
increase exactly in proportion as land values rise, no elfect would
be produced with reference to the tenant’s ability to purchase a
farm home. Farm tenantry under this condition would be nor-
mally maintained.

This situation is a matter only of academic interest for it
could hardly exist except in individual cases. No community or
geographical section could maintain such an equilibrium of eco-
nomic forces. The influences that tend to upset this equilib-

rium are intricate and uncontrollable. An increasing demand
for farm products causes an increase in price. This usually re-
sults in an increase in the agricultural population, who intensify
the competition for land. This causes commercial rent to rise,
which is rarely based on or related to farm profits. These
counter-acting forces constantly tend to upset the balancing in-
fiuences- of land values and adequate profits with which to pur-
chase land.

(3). The third possibility occurs when the rise in land val- l

ues is out of all proportion to the value of farm products. In
this case, the tenant is hopelessly out of the race for the goal of
home ownership. He not only fails to hold his own or finds him-
self merely extending the period of his status as a tenant, but
his situation grows more hopeless each day with reference
to his possibility of acquiring a home. His labor income is barely

lStudies in Farm Tenantry in Texas, Chapter 8, page 125, Bulletin No. 21 of the Uni
versity of Texas.

152 Farm Tenantry in the United States

sufficient to sustain his family in meager circumstances. There
is no opportunity for setting aside a small surplus from year to
year to apply toward the first payment on a farm. The rapid
increase in farm tenantry in many sections of the country is di-
rectly traceable to this condition.

In a very carefully prepared report on land holdings in
Southern California made by the commission selected with spec-
ial reference to their ability to study this question, we obtain
important information on this point:

“In Ventura County the recent enormous rise in the
market price of lima beans might have been expected
to lessen the gap between the price and the productive
value of the land; but with each leap in the price of beans
the price of land has taken a corresponding advance. One
may hear on good authority, in that country, of an owner
refusing $1,000 an acre for the best land. In San Diego
County it is a common saying that no farmer can pos-
sibly pay 5 per cent. interest on deferred payments on
the market price of local farm land and make a living.
In every southern county the seeker of farm land is
confronted with prices which he knows, if he pays them,
involve grave risk to himself in the attempt to get com-
mensurate results from the soil. When he pays these
prices he does so because, for other than strictly eco-
nomic reasons, he has fixed upon some particular locality
for his homestead he is willing to take the gambler’s
chance with a dubious investment.“

The report expresses the view that not only the climate but
also the optimism of California is capitalized and forms a large
element in the price of land. There are no uniform traditional
terms and conditionsof sale. The terms depend rather “upon
the land hunger or financial ability of the purchaser, the need or
the momentary purpose of the seller, or the caprice of either.”
The report observes further that “tenantry is on the increase
and will further increase as the difficulty of securing wage labor
becomes more pronounced. It does not follow, however, that la-
borers become tenants and that tenancy is merely a step toward
independent farm ownership.

1See the Review of the Report on Land Holdings in Southern California in The Survey,
for May 24, 1919, page 310.

Influence of Land Values on Farm Tenantry 153

The farmer who has taken one or more steps toward acquiring
ownership is influenced by the increasing value of land. Most of
the farm homes that are purchased by tenant farmers are fin-
anced by making a small cash payment and giving vendor’s lien
notes for the balance of the stipulated price. The tenant farmer’s
ability to pay ofl’ the mortgage depends on the price of farm pro-
ducts and seasonable years. A fall in prices increases his dif-
ficulty in meeting his obligations. Professor Taylor calls atten-
tion to the fact that:

“When the price of Wheat Went down, about thirty
years ago the price of land in England and in parts of
the United States, Went down more than half. Farmers
who had purchased land and given mortgages often
found their farms worth no more, and sometimes even
less than the face of the mortgage. To pay the interest
was a great burden, and many farmers were forced to
sell, often for little more than enough to pay the mort-
gage. Thus it is seen that while the ultimate result
of rising prices is to make it harder to acquire land-
ownership, the immediate result maybe the opposite,
and again, that while cheap land is conducive to land-
ownership, the immediate effect of a lowering of land
values is to reduce many landowning farmers, who
have encumbered their lands with mortgages as a
means of buying land, to the ranks of the tenant
class?"

There is no doubt that this condition has been a fruitful
source of tenantry. The Tenant Farmer, a radical paper that
was published for a short time in Oklahoma, called attention to
the evidence on this point. Under the heading “How Tenant
Farmers Are Manufactured” attention was called to the notices
of sherifPs sale of land as published in a local paper in a rich
agricultural county of that state. The editor said that “every
time the District Court meets . . . . . mortgages are fore-

lAgricultural Economics, Chapter 12, pages 245 and 246.

154 Farm Tenantry in the U nited States

closed and sherifFs sales confirmed and tenant farmers manu-
factured.” The editor of this paper testified before the Com-
mission on Industrial Relations at Dallas, Texas, in 1915, that
there were 200,000 farmers in Oklahoma, and 104,000 of this
number were farm tenants. Eighty per cent. of the remaining
96,000 were living on farms that were heavily mortgaged. There
is no doubt that many farmers who start on the road to farm
ownership are compelled to turn back to tenantry because of de-
crease in farm products or because of other adverse farm con-
ditions. The increase in the value of farm land means that it

takes larger capital outlay topurchase a farm. This means, to ‘

the average farmer, that he must extend his payments over a
longer period of time. In proportion as this time is extended
and‘ the total capital outlay is increased, the greater are his
chances of losing his farm after having made several payments
upon it. i

It should be observed, however, that the high percentage
of mortgaged farms is not necessarily an indication that there
is a correspondingly high percentage of tenantry traceable to it.
The ‘fact is, there is little relationship between them. Vermont,
for example, shows a high percentage of mortgaged farms, but
the percentage of tenantry in that state is low. The greatest
number of mortgaged farms are found in Massassachusetts, Con-
necticut, and Vermont of the New England States; New York,

“New Jersey, and Pennsylvania in the Middle Atlantic states;

Michigan and Wisconsin in the East North Central group of

states; and Missouri of the West North Central division of
states? The high prices of land largely explains the high per-
centage of mortgaged farms. The economic conditions of farm
life without regard to an abnormally high percentage of mort-
gaged farms, explain the influence of the farm mortgage on ten-
antry. The extent of the influence of the value of farms on the

1See Statistical Atlas of U. S., 1914, page 59.

Influence of Land Values on Farm Tenantry 155

percentage of farms operated by tenants is indicated in the fol-
lowing table, which gives the average value of farm land (ex-
clusive 0f improvements) and the percentages of farms operated
by tenants for each geographical division for 1900 and 1910:

The Value of Farms and the Percentage of Farms Operated by
Tenants in All the Geographical Divisions, in
1900 and 1910.1

Average Value I Percentage of

Division Per Farm Farms Operated

1 .  eeeeeee e Nbylenets,"

e . 1,. a l, 191°, l.,,_1_?.9°_|_1f-?l9_l 11,299 ,_
United States . . . . . .  4,476  2,276 | 37.0 35.2

I l

New England . . . . . . . .1 2,024 l 1,477 I 8.0 9.4

Middle Atlantic . . . . .  3,122 2,512 22.3 25.3

East N. Central . . . . . . 6,437 3,498 27.0 26.3

West N. Central . . . . . .l 9,057 3,670 l 30.9 29.6

South Atlantic . . . . . . .| 1,694 935 l 49.5 44.2

East S. Central . . . . . .| 1,273 784 50.7 48.1

West S. Central . . . . . .! 2,880 1,264 52.8 49.1

Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . .| 6,402 2,803 | 10.7 12.2

Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . .- .l 5,953 5,876 I 17.2 19.7

From the above table it will be seen that for the United
States as a whole farm values have increased and tenantry has
increased. The value of farm land has increased in all geographi-
cal divisions, and in five out of the nine geographical divisions
tenantry shows an increase. The West Southern division that
shows an increase of farm values of more than 100 per cent. in

' the ten year period also shows the‘ largest percentage of increase

in farms operated by tenants in the same period. But in the
East North Central Division, where the increase in farm values
is about the same, the increase in farms operated by tenants is
not so significant. _
That other influences are operating to reduce or eliminate

the factor of farm values on farm tenantry is indicated also in
this table. In the West North Central and Mountain divisions,

lAdopted from Tables 7, page 105, and 31, page 83, Thirteenth Census, Volume 5.

156 Farm Tenantrg in the United States

for example, the average increase in the value of farms in the
ten-year period is shown to be very high, while the percentage
increase in farms operated by tenants in these divisions is shown
to have been only slightly increased for the period. In the New

England division, where a substantial increase in the value of
farm land is shown for the decade, an actual decrease in the
percentage of farms operated by tenants is shown. This does
not mean that the influence of increasing values of farm land was
not operating, but that there were counteracting influences that
determined the situation. There seems to be some relation be-
tween farm values and the percentage of farms operated by ten-
ants when typical states of each geographical division are used
to illustrate these conditions. The following table is designed to
bring out this relationship:

The Average Value Per Farm 0f Selected States in Each Geo-
graphical Division Compared With the Percentage of
Farrns Operated by Tenants in Those States
for 1900 and 1910.1

Percentage of

Typical States in
 Av§:1=§.¥:3“@ Fassrixszised
l 1910 | 1900 | 1910 l 1900
NEW ENGLAND
Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,785 1,384 12.3 14.5
Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,859 2,305 8.1 9.6
MIDDLE ATLANTIC
New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,283 2,431 19.8 23.9
Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,875 2,566 23.3 26.0
EAST NORTH CENTRAL
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,270 5,732 41.5 39.3
Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,148 3,125 13.9 13.5
WEST NORTH CENTRAL
Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,910 5,497 37.9 34.9
Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,450 4,004 38.1 32.8
SOUTH ATLANTIC
South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,523 642 63.1 61.1
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,274 61.6 65.6 59.8
EAST SOUTH CENTRAL
Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,510 899 41.1 40.6
Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926 520 66.2 62.4
WEST SOUTH CENTRAL
Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l 3,413 l 1,383 l 54.7 l 43.8
Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 3,909 1,680 52.6 l 49.7
MOUNTAIN | l
Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l 7,858 3,658 18.1 22.6
Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,590 2.070 l 7.9 8.8
PACIFIC I l
Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,208 2,991 l 15.1 17.8
California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,935 8,691 l 20.6 23.1

lAdapted from Tables 31, pages 82, 88, and 22, pages 122-127 of the Thirteenth Census,
Volume 5.

Influence of Land Values on Farm Tenantry 157 .

The above table reveals some interesting facts. In Illinois,
where there has been an unusual increase in the value of farm
land, farm tenantry is higher than any other Northern state, al-
though the increase in tenantry in the decade does not seem to
have kept pace with the increase in the value of farm land. Farm
tenantry in Wisconsin appears to be low in comparison with Illi-
nois. This is explained by the fact that conditions in the
northern part of the state have neutralized the averages in the
southern part. The low land values and recent settlements in
the northern sections have influenced the averages of the high
land values and the older settlements in the southern part of
the state. Professor Taylor has compared the counties in the
two characteristic sections and he reaches the following con-
clusion: “The percentage of tenancy is high, in the state of
Wisconsin, in the districts which have been longest settled and
where land values are relatively high?“

The relationship holds in Iowa and Nebraska, the great corn

states of the Middle West. Tenantry is high and the value of‘

farm land is correspondingly high. There appears also to be
some relationship between the rapid increase in farm land and
the increase intenantry for the decade.

In the Southern states where the percentage of farms oper-
ated by tenants is very high, comparatively, land values run high.
But there is an apparent correlation between the increase of ten-

antry and the increased value of farm land for the decade. In .

South Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Texas, this relationship
seems to be especially apparent. But land values have not had
so much to do in determining the extent of tenantry as it has in
some other sections. The nature of production, especially that of
cotton, the plantation system and the large number of negroes,
have been determining factors in the situation in the Southern
states.

lAgricultural Economics, Chapter 12, page 250.

158 Farm Tenantry in the United States

But when Vermont and Massachusetts are compared with
states likeiIllinois and Nebraska, it is clearly observed that other
influences also are counteracting the increased value of farm land
in New England. Land values have increased in these typical
New England states while tenantry have actually declined. A
similar exception is apparent in the Mountain and Pacific states.

Increases in the value of farm land has borne some relation
to the principal crops produced. In a study made in the autumn
of 1915 by Mr. George K. Holmes of the U. S. Department of Ag-
riculture, it was found that “the rate of increase for cotton farms
is highest, 48.2 per cent. Second in order are the hay and grain
farms, with an increase of 35 per cent.; the livestock farms in-
creased in value per acre 34.3 per cent., and the farms devoted
principally to sugar are found to have increased 33.2 per cent.
Rice farming follows with an increase of 32.2 per cent. in value
per acre, while close to this is 32.1 per cent. for tobacco farms.
The farms having no special sources of income have an increase
in value per acre amounting to 30.1 per cent., below which are the
fruit farms with an increase of 27.9 per cent., the vegetable
farms with 26.7 per cent., and the lowest of all, the dairy farm,
with an increase of 25.8 per cent.”1 These statistics were based
upon a report obtained from 45,000 state, county, and township
crop correspondents and are presumably based upon valid data.
These percentage figures for the increased value of improved
farms doubtless have been modified to some extent since these

' data were collected. But it is not likely that the relative position

of the farm values with reference to crop production has
changed. It is strikingly apparent that a relationship exists be-
tween the land values as influenced by the character of produc-
tion and the extent of farm tenantry. As We have seen in the
preceding chapters, cotton has been largely a tenant crop. It

166M868 Affecting FllTm Values, pages 511-532, Yearbook, U. S. Department of Agri-
culture for 1905.

Influence of Land Values on Farm Tenrmtry 159

appears that it also stands first in the list of crops causing
greatest increase in land values. The relationship between the
nature of production as influencing the increased price of farm
land and the crop influence on farm tenantry runs about parallel.
In other words, as the percentages of ‘increase in the value of
farms decrease as influenced by crop production, We find that
tenantry is decreased in about the same proportion by the same
kind of crop system. ‘

High land values have usually been regarded as a national
asset. But there is another side to the question that has not had
adequate attention. An editorial in The Farmers’ Open Forum
calls attention to the side of the question that has been little em-
phasized: “Farmers know that if they can sell land for $200
per acre that cost them $20, they will make a handsome profit,

but they often forget that in such a capacity they are not farm-

ers, but mere land speculators. Speculative land has nothing to
do with the productivity of land except that the continuance of
such a system makes for growth of tenancy, the depletion of the
soil and the decline of agriculture as a business.“

The investment feature has taken the place of the produc-
tive aspect of land hunger. “The mere possession of an acre of
improved land has become more valuable to the landlord—throW-
ing out the item of rent entirely—than the sweat of the brow ex-
pended by his tenant farming at the sunshine-and-rain rate,
which has guided our husbandman since his fathers went
west?“ The interests of the landlord and tenant have become in-
creasingly divergent as land speculation has become more at-
tractive to the landlord than the productive rates. The tenant
has become less hopeful of acquiring a farm home and more
reconciled to a meager labor income for his efforts as speculative
land prices have gradually increased beyond his ability to pur-
chase land.

The tenant’s reaction is revealed in his opposition to im-
proved roads, better transportation and communication facilities
and more expensive and permant farm improvements, for all of

lVolume 4, No. 9, page 13, for May, 1919.
2Anderson’s The Farmer of Tomorrow, Chapter 2, page 53.

160 Farm Tenantry in the United States

these represent to him increased values of farm land and a tax
rate that will burden him beyond his ability to bear. He has
seen the tax, value of the average acre of farm land increase from
$15.57 in 1900 to $32.40 per acre in 1910.1 The tenant farmer
knows that the amount of tax on a capital investment in lands
and improvements based on such an increase will make it almost

impossible for him to become a home owner. The same reason-
ing has caused him to oppose local taxes for school purposes.
Farm tenantry, therefore, stands in the path and blocks rural
progress. The farm tenant has been sorely abused for his lack
of thrift, ultra-conservatism and non-progressive tendencies, but
it should be observed that his point of view should be more
thoroughly appreciated and more attention should be paid to the
conditions that cause him to oppose all plans for rural better-
ment.

That a better rural situation has been retarded by this in-
fluence is known to every student of rural problems. No argu-
ment can induce the tenant farmer to lend his influence to rural
community welfare when by doing so he feels that he is increas-
ing the obstacles to his acquiring a farm home. This social
paradox presents a pathetic picture. The situation is well de-
scribed by William Stull a practical and discerning farmer of
Qmaha, Nebraska, as follows: l

“The farms of this country are more heavily mort-
gaged than ever before. In many of our best agricul-
tural states, the majority of men on them are tenants
or hired men with little or no capital, less education
and few aspirations. . . . . This situation is full of
pathos and fraught with dangers—not because farms
are mortgaged, but because those mortgages have, dur-
ing the fruitful years, increased more rapidly than
ever before. . . . . Nor is it because some men are
tenants and others labor for a wage, but because most
of these men labor with little hope of ever acquiring
a competency or a home of their own. This accumula-
tion of property-less people on our farms is a new sit-
uation-a new phase in the economic life of the nation.

lAnderson, Op. Cit., Chapter 2, page 53.

Influence of Land Values on Farm Tenantry 161

How long will this class of people, if they continue in
hopeless toil, turn a deaf ear to the Socialists and the
Bolsheviki, who expatiate on their Wrongs and suggest
a1 division‘ of all property and the levelling of all
c asses.“

This situation presents but two alternatives. The country}

is either approaching a policy of peasant proprietorship similar
to that in France and Italy, where small farms will be cultivated
intensively, or We are approaching a policy of capitalistic farm-
ing of large areas under some system of tenantry. One or the

_ other of these conditions is inevitable unless other controlling

influences are brought to bear upon the situation. It is impos-
sible to tell at this time which policy will prevail or whether
both possibilities will be modified by the influences of other con-
ditions consciously promulgated to prevent concomitant evils
that either scheme would insure. ~

1The Food Crisis and Amercianism.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE INFLUENCE OF CROP PRODUCTION
ON FARM TENANTRY.

Incidental reference was made in the preceding chapter to
the influence of crop production 0n farm tenantry. In this
chapter this situation will be analyzed, and the extent of this
influence will be approximated. Soil and climate are deter-
mining factors in crop production. These factors have an im-
portant bearing also on the type of farm enterprise and, hence,
on the relative size of farms. It is not an accident that cotton is
the predominant crop in the South or wheat of the great prairie
sections of the Middle West. We, therefore, start with the
assumption that the nature of crop production is pre-determined
by physical conditions, and the social organization of the farm
enterprise is largely an adjustment made to conform to the char-
acter of production.

The Influence of Cotton Production on Farm Tenantry.

Capitalistic farming was inevitable in the South from the
beginning of our history. Physical conditions encouraged the
development of large estates. The colonists were granted lands
on terms that made large real estate holdings possible. The soil

was rich and the fields extended in vast fertile tracts. The cli-

mate was also suited to the cultivation of the great staple crop
of tobacco, rice, and cotton. “There is considerable economy,”
says Miss Coman, “in cultivation on a large scale, and the small

farmer was at a disadvantage.“ Lord Baltimore offered each’

colonist a title to one thousand acres for every five settlers that
he brought over from England. In return for this concession, a
quit-rent of only twenty shillings was exacted. We are told that
large grants were awarded when “artificers, workmen and other
useful persons.” were induced to come. over. Each colonist

llndust-rial History of the United States, Chapter 2, page 37.
2Wilhelm’s Local Institutions of Maryland, John Hopkins University Studies, pages 7
to 38.

162

The Influence of Crop Production 163

rented his land to the men who were brought over. Each of
these paid a rent, which usually consisted of a part of the pro-
duce. Thus, as early as 1636, a system of share renting had been
established in the South.

The importation of slaves and their adaptability to farm
conditions in the South caused a complete change in farm organi-
zation. Farm tenantry, that had such a promising beginning,
was set aside and slaves were bought and used as farm labor on
the great plantations.

It was remarkable how naturally cotton raising fitted into
that type of farm labor. It was an easy crop to raise. It could
be grown profitably with ignorant and unskilled labor. The farm
implements used in its cultivation were simple and inexpensive.
Eli Whitney’s cotton gin for removing the lint from the seed
gave a great stimulus to the cultivation of the cotton. A slave
could separate only five or six pounds of lint from the seed per
day, while this machine could separate sixty-five or seventy
pounds, and when horse power was applied, three hundred
pounds or more could be separated from the seed per day. In 1786
a longer staple variety of cotton was introduced frompthe West
Indies and its cultivation in the sea islands off the coast of South
Carolina and Georgia was established. This new variety brought
a great premium in the London market, and the higher price
showed its advantages over the native short fiber cotton. A
productive duty of three cents a pound was laid in 1790, and this
caused an increase in the acreage of cotton to be planted. In
1791, the South produced 9000 bales. In 1800 the South exported
79000 bales of cotton. Cotton farming expanded rapidly.

Thousands of acres were given over to the cultivation of this '

fiber crop. Agriculturally speaking, the South had found itself
and found a labor element peculiarly adapted to the culture of
this crop.

164 Farm Tenantry in the United States

By the compromise provision of the Federal Constitution
the foreign slave trade was forbidden after 1808. This created
some discontent, but interest in agriculture caused many men
and women to purchase land or increase the farm lands already
held by them. This made it necessary for many settlers to move
over and around the Appalachian mountains. Referring to this
movement, William Garrett Brown says: “Across the whole
region there stretched, from east to west, a band of dark, cal-
careous earth adapted as no other inland soil in the world is, to
the culture of cotton. This ‘black belt’, varying in width from a
score or more to one hundred or more of miles, and various val-
leys north and south of it, at once attracted the richer and more
energetic of the immigrants?“ Brown tells us that “the great
mass of the slaves belong to the men who took the black belt and
the richer valleys for their portion.” The sandier and less fer-
tile soils were appropriated by the small farmers. “The plan-
tations,” says Brown, “frequently included thousands of acres
and from the big plantations came the bulk of the cotton crop.”
The simplicity of cotton culture caused capitalistic farming to
thrive in the South. “The supreme attractiveness of cotton was
due,” says Brown, "‘to the readiness with which it could be
turned into money, the simplicity of the methods by which it
was grown and the comparative ease ,with which it could be
marketed?“ As a rule, the large slave owners were cotton plant-
ters. The slaves belonged to a comparatively few. It is author-
itatively stated that less than 30,000 persons, or only seven per-
cent. of the white population who lived in Alabama, owned the
335,000 slaves in that state. “Three-fourths of all the slaves

1The Lower South, Chapter 1, page 25.
2Ibid, Chapter 1, page 34.
3Ibid, Chapter 1, page 36.

The Influence of Crop Production 165

were owned by less than 10,000 men.“ Ingle states that out of
a total of 2,500,000 slaves on the plantations of the South
1,815,000 men, women, and children were on the cotton planta-
tions of the black belt?

The rapid increase in cotton production and the dependence
of the industry on slave labor naturally caused the South to con-
test all arguments for the emancipation of the slaves. Governor
Hammond of South Corolina expressed the accepted View in the
South on the effect of the emancipation of the negroes in the
following statement: .

“The first and most obvious effect would be to
put an end to the cultivationiof our great southern
staple. And this would be equally the result, if we
suppose the emancipated negroes to be in no way
distinguished from the free laborers of other coun-
tries, and that their labor would be equally effec-
tive. In that case, they would soon cease to be labor-
ers for hire, but would scatter themselves over our
unbounded territory, to become independent land
owners themselves. The cultivation of the soil on
an extensive scale can only be carried on where
there are slaves, or in countries superabounding with
free labor. No such operations are carried on in
any portion of our own country where there are not
slaves. Such are carried on in England, where there
is an overflowing population and intense competition
for employment. And our institutions seem suited to
the exigencies of our respective situations. There,
a much greater number of laborers is required at
one season of the year than at another, and the
farmer may enlarge or diminish the quantity of
labor he employs, as circumstances may require.
Here, about the same quantity of labor is required
at every season, and the planter suffers no inconven-
ience from retaining his laborers throughout the
year. Imagine an extensive rice or cotton planta-
tion cultivated by free laborers, who might perhaps
strike for an increase in wages at a season when the
neglect of a few days would insure the destruction
of the whole crop; even if it were possible to secure
laborers at all, what planter would venture to carry
on his operations under such circumstances? I
need hardly say, that these staples cannot be pro-
duced to any extent where the proprietor of the soil
cultivates it with his own hands. He can do little
more than produce the necessary food for himself

and hlS family.“
lBrown, Op. cit" Chapter 1, page 35.
2Southern Sidelights, Chapter 8.
3De Bow’s Industrial Resources of the Southern and Western States, Volume 2, page 235.

166 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Governor Hammond was mistaken in his assertion that
emancipation would put an end to the cultivation of cotton,
but he did not over-estimate the seriousness of the labor prob-
lem with reference to cotton culture that emancipation would
produce. During the twenty years following the Civil War,
the South went through an agricultural revolution. The at-
tempt to adjust the farm labor situation to new conditions
resulted in many experiments and a series of failures before
even a partial solution was found. The attempt to employ
free negro laborers on a cash basis did not prove satisfactory.
The freed men were eager to exercise their choice as to when
they should work and how long they should continue on a
particular farm. Thousands of them left the plantations and
gravitated into the towns. They associated farm labor with
slavery, and they could only be induced to work on the farms
when nothing else could be found to do.

The planters had suffered great financial loss in the war
and ready money to carry on the farm operations was diffi-
cult to secure. They were compelled to postpone the pay-
ment of farm wages until the crops were harvested and sold.
This made it necessary for the planter to furnish rations to

the farm laborers, as they had no other means of subsistence.
The plantation system where cotton was raised could not be
successful under these conditions. In the process of adjust-
ment land owners gradually began to lease their lands on
shares. Land in lots of from forty to eighty acres was rented on
varying conditions, to more reliable negroes. If the landlord fur-
nished seed, a team, usually a mule, farm implements and pro-
visions for the family, he usually received two-thirds of the crop.
If the renter supplied his own provisions, the crop was usually di-
vided equally. If the tenant supplied his own, seed, team, farm
implements, and provisions, he received two-thirds of the produce
for his share. We here see emerging all the elements of a farm
tenantry situation that is familiar throughout the South at the
present time. The landlord exercised close supervision over the
tenant when his capital outlay was large. But reliable tenants

The Influence of Crop Production 167

with some farm equipment, teams, and reasonable financial back- i

ing could rent land at a stipulated rental to be paid in money
or kind. Such tenants were relatively free from landlord
supervision.

Slowly and inevitably farm tenantry suceeded slavery
on the cotton plantations of the South. The reconstruction
of agriculture was a difficult performance, and it required
patience and many hardships to make the “readjustments. It
should be observed that out of these conditions home owner-
ship, to a limited extent, was accelerated. The landlord in
many cases was willing to sell all or a part of his estate.
The difiiculties connected with making the farm labor ad-
justments caused him to be willing to reduce his land hold-
ings. The thrifty negro tenant was able to buy a small farm
on very reasonable terms. Within ten years after the eman-
cipation of the slaves, the negro farmers in Georgia alone had
bought 338,769 acres of farm land} In other Southern states,
the negro farmers were acquiring homes with about the same
rapidity. But the rapid increase of population and demand
for cotton caused tenancy to grow faster than farm owner-
ship. The relation of farm tenantry to cotton production
can be roughly determined by comparing the percentage of
land in cultivation occupied by tenants with the cotton acreage
and the number of bales produced in the ten leading cotton states.

Comparison of Percentage of Tenant Farms With Cotton
Acreage and Production.

Percentage of

States improved lands Cotton

1n farms occu- Acreage Bales
A £1 by tenanfi 199i 1909
Texas . . . . . . . . . . .  40 to 50 I 9,930,179 ’ 2,455,174
Georgia . . . . . . . . . .. 50 to 60 I 4,883,304 1,992,408
Alabama . . . . . . . . ..i 50 to 60 | 3,730,482 l 1,129,527
Mississippi . . . . . . . .  50 to 60 3,400,210 ' 1,127,156
South Carolina . . . . . 50 to 60 2,556,467 | 1,279,866
Arkansas . . . . . . . . . .| 30 to 40 2,153,222 | 776,879
Oklahoma . . . . . . .'. .| 40 to 50 1,976,935 ] 555,742
North Carolina . . . .| 3O to 40 1,274,404 I 665,132

1Du Bois’ Negro Land Holders in Georgia, page 665.

168 Farm Tenantry in the United States

The percentage of the improved farm land operatedby
tenants in 1910 is higher in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
and Mississippi than in the other Southern states. Texas,
Oklahoma, and North Carolina, in the order named, came
next with from forty to fifty per cent. of farms operated by
tenants. The total cotton acreage, of course, varies greatly

in the different Southern states, which is traceable to differ-
ence in area and diversified farming. If these factors could
be removed, the correlation between the percentage of tenant
farms and cotton production would be very close.

Charles William Burkett. Professor of Agriculture,
North Carolina College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts,
discusses this subject in his book on Cotton. The influence
of high prices of cotton on the tenant farm situation is de-
scribed by him as follows:

“Of course, with the coming of higher prices
for cotton} important changes are taking place.
The mortgage and the crop lien, with all except the
hopelessly shiftless class, are disappearing like snow
before a summer sun—unless we except the mort-
gage given by the aspiring tenant in his ambition to
become a land-owner himself.

“As to the future, one must not predict too light-
ly, for it is easy to see that the present high price of
cotton will make itself felt not in one direction only,
but in counter currents

“As one result, more tenants wish to buy lands
for themselves; as another result, land is increasing
in value so that it requires greater savings to buy it.
On the whole, however, it is now relatively easier to
become one’s own landlord, and with high prices the
tenant class is likely to decrease.

“As one result, too, more people are attracted by
the old plantation system; as another result, labor-
ers find it so profitable to work for themselves that
labor is much more expensive than it used to be. But
as the negro works better in groups, the large plan-
tation has at least this advantage in its struggle to
reassert itself.

*Professor Burkett was speaking of the market price before the war when cotton was
ten cents per pound, which was regarded then as a good price.

The Influence of Crop Production 169

“With high prices then, the one sure thing—
whether the proportion of tenants increase or de-
crease, whether the plantation system decline or
fl0urish—is that a larger proportion of white people
will engage in cotton production. If labor can be
had few town occupations are more profitable. And
as for the man who has his own labor, who must
have his own children at work, how much better for
health, safety and comfort, as well as profit, to have
them on the cotton farm instead of in the cotton fac-
tory.

“Already many cotton mills are beginning to
suffer for labor because the tide is turning back to
the farms.“

Influence of Corn Production on
Farm Tenantry.

The United States is the largest corn producing country

in the world? Corn was cultivated on the James River as"

early as 1608. By 1650, corn, to the extent of 600 bushels,
was exported from Savannah, and 1670 the amount exported
from that port exceeded 13,598 bushels?’ Corn now com-
prises more than one-half of the cereal crops of the United
State. Since 1870 nearly twelve per cent. of the total acre-
age of farm land has been planted in corn, which is over
twenty per cent. of the improved farm land of the United
States. -
The relative acreage of farm land devoted to the grow-
ing of corn and the other cereal crops varies widely in the
different states. In those states where soil and climatic con-
ditions are favorable to corn growing, the acreage of improv-
ed land devoted to this purpose is very large. The percent-
age of improved land used for this crop is relatively low-
est in the Pacific states, Northeast states, Mountain states,
and Middle Atlantic states. The highest average is shown
in the South Atlantic, East-south Central, and West-north
Central groups of states.. The ten states that lead in the per-
centage of improved farm land devoted to corn cultivation
are as follows:

lCotton, Chapter 2, pages 40 and 41. '
2See Year Book, U. S. Department of Agriculture, page 533.

3See Bowman’s book on Com, page 2

170

Farm Tenantvy in the United States

1910-1914, Inclusive.

Acreage Devoted to Covn-“Average for Five Years,

1 cu
on
+27: c:
States Improved Corn g g5
Farm Land Acres E3
i nfBF
Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . 28,048,323 1 10,370,800 36.9

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . 1,805,408 \ 659,200 36.5

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . 5,276,016 1,857,400 35.2

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,491,199 2,301,200 33.6

Mississippi . . . . . . . .1 9,008,310 1 2,969,200 1 32.9

Alabama . . . . . . . . . .1 9,693,581 3,092,800 31.9

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . 12,298,017 3,850,600 31.3

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . 10,890,484 3,366,400 30.9
South Carolina . . . . . 6,097,999 1,872,400 30.7
Nebraska . . . . . . . . . .1 24,332,577 1 7,433,300 30.4

These ten states represent sixty-five per cent. of the total
acreage devoted to raising corn in the United States. Illi-
nois has the highest average of farm land in corn and also
the highest total acreage devoted to this crop. Up to the
present time the continuous increase in corn yield has been
largely due to extending the acreage that has been planted
in this cereal. But systematic rotation of crops and intensive
cultivation will probably be the determining factor in the
total increased production in the future.

The total production in the various states is not very
closely related to total acreage devoted to corn. The ten
largest producing states in.the order of their yield in bushels
are as follows:

Production of Corn in the Ten Leading States, 1910-1914 In-
clusiva-Millions of Bashels}

1 Percent of
_ State_fl 1Total Production
Iowa . . . . . . . . . . .1 13.2

Illinois . . . . . . . . . .| 12.7

Missouri . . . . . . . .1 7.1

Indiana . . . . . . . . .1 6.2

Nebraska . . . . . . . . .1 5.1

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . .1 5.0

Texas . . . . . . . . . . .1 4.7

Kansas . . . . . . . . .1 4.4

Kentucky . . . . . . . .1 3.4

Tennessee . . . . . . .1 3.0

1Bowman's book on Com, page 19.

The Influence of Crop Production 171

These ten states produce 64.8 per cent., or nearly two-
thirds of the entire crop.

Another factor deserves to be mentioned before tracing
the significance of these statistics. The average yield of corn
per acre has shown decided variation. The average yield
per acre from 1866 to 1900 showed Vermont at the top with
an average of 35.8 bushels per acre and Florida and South
Carolina at the bottom with a yield of 10.2 bushels per acre.
The ten states having the largest percentage of acreage in
corn land stand as follows in the table: Illinois stands
fortieth (30.8 bushels per acre); Florida, fifteenth (10.2

bushels per acre); Louisiana, forty-fourth (17.1 bushels per

acre) ; Iowa, ninth (32.1 bushels per acre) ; Mississippi, forty-
fifth (52.2 bushels per acre); Alabama, forty-seventh (13
bushels per acre); Georgia, forty-eighth (11.1 bushels per
acre); Tennessee, thirty-eighth (22.3 bushels per acre);
South Carolina, forty-ninth (10.2 bushels per acre); and
Nebraska, eighteenth (29.9 bushels per acre.)1

What is the significance of these facts with reference
to farm tenantry? We have seen that Illinois heads the list
of states both in the percentage of improved farm acreage
devoted to corn production to the total improved farm acre-
age, and also that the total number of acres planted in corn
is larger than that of any other state. It should be observed
that Illinois is in the same census classification with North
(Zarolina and Tennessee with reference to the percentage of
the number of farms operated by tenants. These states show
a percentage of from forty to fifty per cent. of farms oper-
ated by tenants. All ten of the states in the group, except
Florida, show a high percentage of farms operated by ten-
ants. The table showing the production of corn in the lead-
ing states is not so significant. The influence of the total
acreage modifies the tenantry factor to some extent. But

xvith the exception of Illinois the percentage of farms oper-

ated by tenants varies nearly inversely as the percentage of
production of corn in these ten states. In other words, the
states showing a relatively low percentage of total produc-
tion have relatively the highest percentage of farms operated
by tenants.

1Bowman's book on Com, page 19.

172 A Farm Tenantry in the United States

The influence of tenantry 0n the average yield of corn
per acre is significant. Those states and sections where ten-
antry is low show a high average yield of corn per acre. And

inversely, those states and sections Where the percentage of
farms‘ operated by tenants is high, a low average yield of
corn per acre is shown. For example, in New England the
average yield is high; Vermont stands at the top of the table
with an average corn yield per acre of 35.8 bushels. On the
other hand, in South Carolina and the other Southern states
where the average corn yield per acre is very low, the per-
centage of farms operated by tenants is high.

While tenantry has not been so much influenced by corn
production as cotton culture, nevertheless it has been a con-
siderable factor. Corn, like cotton, can be cultivated with
relatively simple, inexpensive farm implements. The har-
vesting of corn does not involve the use of expensive machin-
ery like that required for wheat and other small grain. It
can be cultivated, in a way, with unskilled labor. In the
South, corn and cotton are usually the principal crops. They
constitute a simple crop rotation because they involve the use
of the same or similar farm implements, and the labor factor
is easily correlated in their cultivation. The rotation of
cotton with corn will not maintain soil fertility, but a satis-
factory rotation can be secured in the cotton belt of the South
with a relatively simple rotation. Professor J. O. Morgan,
of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, says:
“A good rotation applicable to the greater part of the cotton
belt is: first year, cotton; second year, corn and cow peas;
third year, winter oats or wheat followed by cow peas as a
catch crop.”1 A four-year rotation can be provided by
simply planting cotton two years in succession, which is de-
sirable as cotton is the essential money crop in this section.
In the N orth-central sections of the country in the great corn
belt extending from Indiana on the east to Nebraska, quite a
different crop rotation is required. Corn is often rotated
with wheat or other small grain crops? This system of ro-
tation tends to increase the size of grain farms and involves
lField CTOIPS for the Cotton Belt, Chapter 9, page 99.

2See C. B. Smith's Rotations in the Corn Belt, in Yearbook, U. S. Department of Agri-
culture for 1911.

The Influence 0f Crop Production 173 '

the use of more expensive machinery. Both of these factors
tend to reduce the extent of farm tenantry. But in those
sections of the country Where corn can be cultivated in a ro-
tation of crops involving simple machinery, tenantry has
proved to be the predominant farm labor situation.

There are two opposing tendencies in farm management
that influence tenantry. Intensive cultivation of small farms
and extensive cultivation where capitalistic methods are em-
ployed and expensive farm machinery is necessary to culti-
vate or harvest the crop. The truck farm is an example of
the former, and the large grain farms of the Middle West il-
lustrate the latter. As We have seen in the preceding chap-
ters, farms are relatively small in New England and the per-
centage of tenants and farms operated by tenants is low. This
section is a truck region, which largely explains the situation.
But in New Jersey and some of the other states a consider-
able number of truck farms are cultivated by tenants} But
their distribution is such as not to intensify the problem of
tenantry or to influence social conditions to any considerable
extent.

Tenant farming has not proved to be profitable in the
semi-arid sections where dry farming has been practiced.

' The size of the farm tends to be large and to depend on

capitalistic methods, and small grain is the predominant crop.
However, William Macdonald does not regard the unusually
large farm necessary to the enterprise. He says: “For
farming under irrigation the small farm unit 40, 80 or 160
acres are the figures to be considered; but a much larger
unit, 160, 320, 640 is essential to the dry-farmers. At any
rate every one should possess twice the amount of land he
proposes to put in crop and at least as much again for stock
pasture. Undoubtedly, a section.—640 acres—-of land would

bring in a more certain livelihood than a smaller holding,

and half that amount, where little or no Water is available
for irrigation, is small enough to make a comfortable liv-
ing in many parts of the semi-arid West.” But the point
of this discussion is that dry farming has usually been as-

1See Bulletin N0. 411, U. S. Department of Agriculture on Systems of Renting Truck
Farms in Southwestern New Jersey, by Howard A. Turner.
2Dry Farming, Chapter 2, pages 55and 56.

174 Fa/rm Tenantry in the United States

sociated with small grain crops that involve more or less
expensive machinery, which has discouraged farm tenantry.

Crop production, therefore, has been an indirect influ-
ence on farm tenantry in the United States. It has exerted its
greatest influence in the cotton belt‘ of the South and in some
of the corn states. The methods of cultivation have been the
influential factor. Complicated systems of rotation, the use
of expensive machinery, and the uncertainty of an annual
crop yield have tended to make any system of farm tenantry
unprofitable. As science is more and more applied to farm
production, it appears evident that tenantry will be discour-
aged.

CHAPTER XIV.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE SIZE OF FARMS
ON FARM TENANTRY.

There are two outstanding aspects of the modern agri-
cultural land problem. The first grows out of the size of
farms; the other out of the tenure of farms. These problems
are usually discussed independently of each other as if they
were unrelated. The fact is that the economic conditions
that determine the average size of farms is an important
factor in farm ownership. An attempt will be made in the

present chapter to appraise the influence of the size of farms

upon farm tenantry. There is an obvious relationship be-
tween tenant farming and the average acreage of farms
under cultivation. Tenant farming tends to increase where the
average acreage per farm is large, and methods of cultivation
relatively simple. This principle is modified and in some cases
by other predominating conditions. These will be referred to in
the development of this discussion.

The land surface of the earth has been estimated to be
approximately 33 billions of acres. The population on the
globe is estimated to be between 1600 and 1700 millions}
That would give an average of 20 acres, or there about, to
each person if land were freely distributed. Probably 10
acres of the 20 may be claimed as tillable, while one-half
the remainder has greater or less value for grazing, timber,
and minerals. It has been estimated that 3 acres of land rea-
sonably well cultivated is ample to support one person. It’
this be correct, a full development of the agriculturaLlands
of the earth would maintain approximately three times the
present population. In the face of these facts, there fis peren-
nial famine conditions reported in many sections of the globe,
and land hunger is growing greater all the time.

The ideal system would be for every farmer to own his
own farm, but no country has ever approached this condition.
We must recognize the existing situation and assume that

1The Americana, Volume 22, page 364.

175

176 Farm Tenantry in the United States

farm tenantry is a natural condition in every system of farm
organization. It needs to be observed that farm tenantry
is not necessarily bad. As a step toward farm ownership, it
occupies a logical and necessary place in our land policy.
Some of the best farmers that we have are tenant farmers.
The French farm tenants, are, as a class, about as prosperous
as the owners. As we have seen from earlier discussions, the
peasant proprietor and farm tenants cultivate small areas
under very favorable conditions. Many English tenants
are prosperous for similar reasons. They cultivate from one
hundred to five hundred acres, paying invariably a cash

rental, and they cultivate the land under conditions that in!

sure reasonable returns on labor “and capital expended.
Tenantry becomes a problem only when it increases out of all
proportions to the increase in home ownership and in the
process tends to reduce the economic motive for better and
more efficient production. Farm tenantry becomes a menace
to progressive society only when the conditions under
which the land is cultivated are such as to tend constantly to
reduce those who cultivate the soil to a class status. This is
What has occurred in this country.

In a previous chapter reference was made to the influ-
ence of enclosures in England upon the farm population. The
system of enclosures began in the fifteenth century and has
continued until the present day. Johnson shows in his
Disappearance 0f the Small Land Owner that a number of
farm owners steadily declined throughout the period, as re-
sult of the system of enclosures}

Prothro, in discussing agriculture during the early years
of the industrial revolution, (1780-1813), does not quite agree

_ with Johnson in his conclusion that the number of land own-

ers steadily declined with the movement of enclosing land.
On the contrary,‘ Prothero contends that “the first effect of
an enclosure was to increase the freeholders, since rights of

lSee Chapter 1.

The Influence of the Size of Farms 177

open arable field occupation and of pasture common were
often replaced by allotments of land in separate ownership.“
Prothero quotes numerous authorities to show that in many
sections of England enclosures did not actually reduce the
number of land owners, and in a few sections the number in-
creased for a time? But even Prothero was compelled to ad-

mit that gradually the effect of enclosures began to be felt
and the number of land owners declined. He contends, how-
ever, in his defense of the system of enclosures, that it un-
doubtedly gave England a better and more profitable agri-
cultural situation. He contends that the reduction in farm
ownership was due to high taxes, rise in poor rates, the
pressure of mortgages ‘contracted for additional purchases,
and the fluctuation of agricultural prices, as well as the en-
closures. These were doubtless contributing Causes. But
as the large land owner was the influential factor in legis-
lation, it may be confidently asserted that these influences
were exerted to make a concentration of land more certain.
Prothero,_himself, declares that the decline in ownership was
especially rapid between the years of 1813 and 1835.

Large vs. Small Farms.

The relative advantages of graude and petite culture
was a popular subject for debate by the classical economists.
John Stewart Mill devotes a chapter to it in his Prin-
ciples of Political Economy, in which he summarizes the
earlier arguments for and against “Production on a Large
and a Small Scale?“ He decides in favor of petite culture
under a system of peasant proprietors, but he excludes from
the argument all other considerations except the relative ad-
vantages of the two systems on production and the efficiency

 

lEnglish Farming Past and Present, Chapter 14, page 292.
2This was especially true after the accession of George III.
3Chapter 9.

4Ibid, Chapter 9, page 154.

178 Farm Tenantry in the United States

of labor. Mill takes the precaution to say that “The work-
ing of petite culture cannot be fairly judged where the small
cultivator is merely a tenant _ _ _ _ _ _ _T0 understand the
subject it must be studied when the cultivator is the proprie-
tor, 0r at least a metayer with a permanent tenure?“

The opposite view has been held in the past, and it has
many advocates today. These believe that farming can never
become a profitable business enterprise unless a system of
large farming is adopted where sufficient capital can be
invested to insure efficient methods of cultivation, systematic
rotation of crops, and necessary expenditure on fertilizer, ter-
racing and drainage to secure intensive cultivation of large
areas free from waste or untillable land. It is held that farm-
ing is a competitive enterprise, and the small farmer cannot
supply the capital investment necessary to make farming
profitable. It is also contended that the small farmer is con-
stantly at a disadvantage with the large farmer when disaster
comes as result of flood or drouth, or a sudden fall in prices
occurs.

It is hardly necessary to observe that there can be no
such thing as a standardized farm acreage. The average size
of farms must be determined by soil, climate, access to mar-

_kets, labor conditions, and numerous other considerations

that will vary the farm unit as a profitable enterprise

But it should be observed that the influence of these fac-
tors has not always determined the size of farms in the past.
In a previous discussion the land policy of the United States
was reviewed from the standpoint of its influence on home
ownership. It was seen that the preemption system and

the various homestead acts were designed to encourage the _

purchase of the public domain for agricultural purposes
rather than for mere speculation. It was probably inevitable
that large acreage should become the private possessions of
the few. Land was cheap and the agricultural demands in
all accesible markets relatively small during the first half
century of our national history. Those who settled on public
landsfor agricultural purposes usually appropriated mQre
than they could actually cultivate. This caused the average

 

1Ibid, Chapter 9, page 149.

The Influence of the Size of Farms 179

farm acreage in certain sections to be abnormally large when
there was no economic justification for it.

The effect of this situation is seen from the statistics.
The average acreage in the farms of the United States declin-
ed from 203 acres in 1850 to 194 acres in 1860.1 This general
reduction was undoubtedly traceable to the fact that a large
number of settlers took up the smallest allotment of land al-
lowable under the prevailing land laws. In the Southern
states of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Missouri, there was an increase in the average acreage of
the farms. In this section there were no public lands that
were open to settlement. This increase was due to the nature
of the crop production, as cotton and sugar plantations had
developed rapidly during the I period preceding the Civil War.
There were few farms in any other section, except the South
and California, where the farms exceeded one thousand acres.
The average size of the farms in ten Southern states in 1850
was 273 acres. This average greatly increased by 1860. But
capitalistic farming was widely practiced in some sections. In
the rich alluvial valley of the Mississippi and other river sys-
tems, cotton plantations often exceeded 10,000 acres. The
relatively small average reported was due to the fact
that on the less fertile soils of the upland regions, which were
poorly adapted to capitalistic methods of cultivation, small
farms were the prevailing type.

The average size of the farms in the South declined after
the Civil War. The reorganization of agricultural labor and
the beginning of more scientific methods of cultivation were
largely responsible for the change during this period. The
substitution of free labor for slave labor made plantation
farming difficult. In the readjustment, many of the large
plantations were cut up into smaller farms between 1860 and
1880. Between 1880 and 1900 the average size of farms was
influenced by two other factors. (1) In the first place,
the proportion of the total population engaged in manufac-
ture and commerce began to exceed the population that fol-
lowed agriculture as a pursuit. Previously to 1880 agriculture
was the leading occupation of the people and the principal

1See Bogartfs Economic History of the United States, Chapter 19, page 284.

180 Farm Tenantry in the United States

source of wealth of the United States. The "proportion
of the population engaged in agriculture has declined from
44.3 per cent. in 1880 to 37.7 per cent. in 1900. (2) In the
second place, the average size of farms has been influenced
by a great expansion of the farm area of the United States.

Over 345' million acres, an increase of over 60 per cent., was _

added to the farm acreage in the thirty-year period between
1880 and 1910. But it should be observed that i1; 1910 only
about one-fourth of the total area of land (1,903.3 millions of
acres) was improved farm land. Much of the farm acreage
classified as agricultural land is in the arid and semi-arid
sections of the country and adapted only to grazing. The
immense farm acreage, according to the census o1’ 1910, was
divided into 6,300,000 farms. In the thirty-year period between
1880 and 1910 the number of farms increased by approxi-
mately 2,300,000 or about 60 per cent. Professor Bogart ob-
serx-"es that “the agricultural population was much better pro-
vided with separate farms at the end of this period than at
the beginning. Between 1850 and 1900 the proportion of
frzrms to the rural population increased from 1 farm to every
14 persons to 1 farm for every 9 persons.“

The following tables shows the changes in the average
size of farms in acres at each decennial period since 1850:

The Average Size of Farms—Aeres.2

l1910l1900 1890l 1880| 1870! 1860 1850
United States . . . . . . . . . . . .l138.0|146.2 137 l 134 l 153 l 199 230

New England . . . . . . . . . . . .l104.4l107.1 l l l l

Middle Atlantic . . . . . . . .  92.2l 92.4 95 l 98  104 l 108 113

E. N. Central . . . . . . . . . . . . |105.0|102.4 l l l l

W. N. Central . . . . . . . . . . . .l209.6|189.5 133 I 122 l 124 l 140 143

South Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . .| 93.3|108.4 134 l157 l 241 l 353 376

E. S. Central . . . . . . . . . . . . .l 78.2| 89.9 l | | |

W. S. Central . . . . . . . . . . . .l179.4l233.8 144 l 151 l 194 l 321 291

Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |324.5l457_.9 l I | l

Pacific . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . ..|270.3l334.8 l 324 I 313_l336 | 367 695

This table shows for the United States as a whole a ten-
(lency toward a smaller sized farm with the exception of 1890
and 1900, when there is a slight increase indicated. The ten-
dency toward a smaller sized farm was universal for the United
States and all subdivisions between 1850 and 1880. From

lEconomic History of the United States, Chapter 22, page 329.
2Vogt’s Introduction to Rural Sociology, page 65

The Influence of the Size 0f Farms 181

1880 to 1890', an increase in the size of farms is shown for the
whole United States, and for the subdivisions the increase and
decrease about offset each other. From 1900 to 1910, a de-
crease is indicated for the United States as whole and for
each subdivision except the East North Central and the West
North Central. The lowest average size of farms, as we would nat-
urally expect, is found in the older sections of the country.
The average size of farms for the five divisions east of the
Mississippi is smaller than for the divisions west of this river.
The individual states showing the largest average size of
farms, are Nevada, Wyoming, and Montana. The large cattle
and sheep ranches classed as farms account for this result.
North and South Dakota show the next highest average.
which is traceable to the fact that land in these states was
usually acquired under homestead or other land settlement
acts, in which each settler received from 320 to 640 acres
each. The large wheat fields have also contributed to the
size of farms in these states. It should be observed that the
farms in this group of states are operated as a rule by farm
laborers rather than tenants. This is due both to the nature
of the agricultural enterprise and the character of crop pro-
duction.

The census report shows that in 1910 more than two-
thirds of the farms of the United States (68.7%) were be-
tween 20 and 175 acreas in area. Of the total number of farms,
23.8% comprised an acreage of from 100 to 174 acres. The
influence of our land system is seen here for the quarter-sec-
tion farms come under this group. The following table taken
from the 1910 census gives important data on the relative size
of farms in the United States:

182 Farm Tenantry "in the United States

Comparison of the Number 0f Farms in the United States by
Acreage Groups for 1910.1

Farms
Size Group Number  Increase
g 1910  1900 ] Number]Percent.
éliw7Uniited States. Q . . . . . . 6,361,502i’z5:7737,372|7z6274,i370["1097

Under 20 acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 839,166 673,870] 165,296] 24.5

20 to 49 acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1,414,376 1,257,496] 156,880 12.5

5O to 99 acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1,438,069 . 1,366,038] 72,031 5.3

100 to 174 acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,516,286 1.422,262| 94,024 6.6

175 to 499 acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978,175 868,020] 110,155 12.7

500 t0 999 acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125,295 102,526 22,769] 22.2
50,135 47,160 2,975] 6.3

1,000 acres and over . . . . . . . . . . .

The census reports show that the small farms are the most
numerous in the Southern states. This is correct only in a very
superficial sense. For census purposes, farms operated by
tenants are classified as independent farms. The fact is, that
many large farms in the South are cultivated in blocks
of from 20 to 80 acres by “croppers” and tenants. The
close supervision of all the tenants on a large plantation by
the landlord really makes the Whole plantation a single agri-
cultural unit. It is difficult to find a principle that can be
accurately applied in the classification of farms by unit acre-
age because of the complications of tenure. There are many
farms for which a cash rental is paid that may be
appropriately classified as independent farm units, but the
number is relatively small in comparison with other systems
of farm tenantry in the South. If this classification were
made with reference to the distribution of the average size
of farms in the South, the census figures would show a very
different result. The inaccuracy of the census figures for
Southern conditions is revealed in a comparison that is made
of the average acreage per farm in the various geographi-
cal sections of the country:

lThirteenth Census, Volume 5, Table 1, page 257,

The Influence of the Size of Farms 183

Average Acreage Per Farm.

   

 
 

All Farm Land Improved Land
Divisi?“ of Increase* Increase*
399111911 1910 1900 ~—~—- 1910 1900 -.*—
Amt.‘ Pct. Amt. l Pct. .
United States . . . . . . . . . 138.1 146.2 ——8.1 ——5.5 75.2 72.2\ 3.0 4.2
New England . . . . . . . . . 104.4 107.1 —2.7 ——2.5 38.4 42.4| ——4.0 -—9.4
Middle Atlantic . . . . . .  92.2 92.4 -—0.2 —O.2 62.6 63.4 —— .8 ——1.3
East North Central. . . . . 105.0 102.4 2.6 2.5 79.2 76.3 2.9 3.8
West North Central . . . . 209.6 189.5 20.1 10.6 148.0 127.9 20.1 15.7
South Atlantic . . . . . . . . 93.3 108.4 -—15.1 -—-13.9 43.6 47.9 —4.3 ——9.0
East South Central . . . . 78.2 89.9 —-11.7 —13.0 42.2 44.5 -— .3 ——5.2
West South Central . . . . 179.3 233.8 —54.5 —23.3 61.8 52.7 9.1 17.3
Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . 324.5 457.9 —133.4 —29.1 86.8 82.9 , 3.9l 4.7

Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . | 270.3 334.8 —64.5 -19.3 116.1 132.5 ——16.4\-—12.4

The North . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.0 133.2} 9.8, 7.4 100.3 90.9 9.4~ 10.3

The South . . . . . . . . . . . . 114.4 138.2 —23.8 —-17.2 48.6 48.1 0.5 1.0

The West . . . . .' . . . . . . .1 296.91 386.1\-s9.2|_23.1|101.71111.s)-10.1 _9.0
East of Mississippi . . . .  93.0’ 99.8 —6.8 —6.8 55.4 57.6 —2.2 -—3.8
West of Mississippi . . . . 211.3 229.0 —17.7 —7.7 107.4 98.4 9.0 9.1

*A minus sign (—) denotes decrease}

The smallest average‘ size of farms in the South- was re-
ported for Mississippi (67.6 acres), followed by South Caro-
lina (76.6 acres), Alabama (78.9 acres), Texas (88.1
acres) and Oklahoma (61.2 acres). These are the states of
the South Where the system of farm tenantry generally re-
quires the largest supervision on the part of the landlord.
Croppers and other share tenants occupy the farm, and the
landlord, or his superintendent, exercises complete supervi-
sion over the entire farm cultivated by them. The entire farm
is thought of as the farm unit and in the several subdivisions
cultivated by the tenants. These facts enter into an appraisal
of the influence of the size of farms and the extent of tenan-
try.

Comparison of Improved and Unimproved Land.

The average size of all farm land in comparison with
the average acreage of the improved land deserves consider-
ation. The table, reproduced above presents the comparison
in convenient form. The average improved acreage per farm
has a more definite relationship to farm tenantry than the
average acreage per farm of all farm land. Farm tenantry
is essentially related to improved farms. The rank of the

 

liThirteenth Census, Volume 5, Table 1, paage 37.

184 Farm Tenantry in the UnitedJStates

groups of states is changed considerably when the average
acreage of improved farms is substituted for the average farm
acreage based on the total acreage. For example, the West
North Central division with an average of 148 acres per farm
ranks first on the basis of improved acreage per farm. The
Pacific division with 116.1 acres and the Mountain with 86.6
acres also rank high. The New England division represented
the lowest average improved acres per farm (38.4) with the
East South Central division (42.2), and the South Atlantic
division (43.6) with only a slight increase of average of im-
proved acreage per farm. Nevada (279.7 acres), North Da-
kota (275.1 acres), and South Dakota (203.8 acres) are the
states that reported the highest improved acreage per farm.
The states having the lowest improved acreage per farm were
Massachusetts (31.5) and Mississippi (32.8).

The causes that bring Massachusetts and Mississippi into
the same classification with reference to the average of the
improved acreage per farm are traceable to very differnt
sources. The cause of the low average in Massachusetts is due to
the prevalence of small truck, poultry, and dairy farming.
The system of tenant farming in Mississippi, where cotton is
the predominant crop, gives that state its rank. In every
case the average of improved acreage per farm is either de-
termined by its system of farm cultivation or the character
of its production. In general, truck farming brings the unit
down. The cultivation of cotton, cane, rice, and wheat has
a decided tendency to increase the size of the farm unit.
Stock farming and a combination of stock and grain farm--
ing have the same effect.

The average size of farms in the United States has been
largely determined by considerations of economic efficiency.
As we have seen, our national land policy that has arbitrarily
determined land settlement units, had an influence in modi-
fying the application of this principle, but with the passing
of the public domain, we may expect to see economic consid-
eration more and more exert an influence with reference to
this situation. The relatively large freedom of movement
in the United States in comparison with other countries makes
this influence more certain. Consequently, efforts are

The Influence of the Size of Farms 185

going on in every section of the country to adjust the
average size of the farm unit t0 a better production and a
more satisfactory economic situation. For this reason, the
small farm unit that prevails in the East and in the sections
surrounding the large cities is the natural consequence of
freedom of choice on the part of agricultural Workers, and is also
a result of a more favorable economic situation. In the
South the farm labor situation and the predominance of cot-
ton as the staple crop, has evolved a peculiar system of cul-
tivation. The dry farming sections of the West require large
units because the land must lie fallow part of the time and
the cultivation must be done with the minimum of machinery.
There is a large area in the upper Mississippi valley region
that is in the process of adjusting itself to cultivation by farm
machinery, which will modify to some extent the present plan
of culitvation.

It has been seen that the average size of farms is not a
determining factor with reference to farm tenantry. The
policy of enclosure in England, as We have seen, had a ten-
dency to increase tenancy. This has only been partially true
in the United States where similarly large areas have been
owned or controlled by one individual or a group of individ-
uals. In the South tenantry has increased on the large plan-
tations. But two factors have contributed to the system of
cultivation. (1) In the first place, the nature of crop pro-
duction has been the most important factor; (2) and in the
second place, due to the nature of the crop cultivated, farm
tenantry proved to be preferable to cultivation by farm la-
borers. In other sections of the country, capitalistic farming
has resorted to the use of farm labor instead of a system
of farm tenantry. This is especially true in the dry farming
and great grain sections of the country. Both systems pre-
sent their social and economic problems. “A tenant svstem
may be bad enough,” says Vogt, “but it can scarcely offer a
more dangerous outlook than a wage-earning class in the
country, even though from the operator’s point of view 
farm with a permanent hired hand is more profitable.“ As-
suming a type of crop production, therefore, favorable to a

llntroduction to Rural Sociology, Chapter 5, page 67.

186 Farm Tenemtry in the United States

tenantry system, we may look with concern upon capitalistic
farm enterprise. There is a tendency in many sections of tlzie
country toward centralization of ownership of large farms.
The Industrial Relations Commission reports that the farms of
one thousand acres or over comprise 19 per rent. of the total
farm area of the United States. And these farms are owned
by less than one per cent. of the total farm owners} It is
asserted that “one-half of the farm lands in Texas are includ-
ed in 2.7 per cent. of the farms.” There is a decided ten-
dency for persons living in cities to invest their surplus Wealth
in farm lands. This process will be accelerated if tenant
farmers are available to cultivate the lands purchased at a
price that will justify the investment of surplus capital. This
will insure, not only a system of farm tenantry, but it will be
associated with absentee landlordism. It is inevitable that
the rapid increase of farm tenantry will come with a corre-
sponding increase in the average size of farms unless a different
system of cultivation can be devised in the interest of better
production and more economic methods of cultivation.

1See Final Repart, page 30.
2Bullet1n N0. 35, page 148, (1915), published by the University of Texas.

CHAPTER XV.

THE LEASE CONTRACT BETWEEN LAND-
LORD AND TENANT.

The lease is the technical designation of the formal docu-
ment that expresses the contractural agreement between
landlord and tenant. Its provisions determine the relative
advantages and obligations on the part of the landlord and
tenant with reference to the farm enterprise. Serious at-
tention is now being given both to the form and substance of
the lease contract. The wording of a lease is a relatively
simple matter. As in all legal documents, the thing striven
for is an accurate expression of the intention of the parties.
The significant thing grows out of the effects of the pro-
visions of the lease upon the economio and social welfare
of those who are parties to it. This study is not concerned
primarily with the legal aspects of farm contracts between
landlord and tenant. Practically all of the problems of
the farm leaseare social and economic rather than legal.
It is important, therefore, to study the farm lease contract
from the standpoint of farm economics.

It is rather remarkable that the farm lease has not be-
come standardized. The widespread practice of‘ tenantry
throughout the country has made the lease contract the most
familiar legal document that we see. It would naturally
be assumed that itslform and its provisions would have long
since become uniformly established. But such is not the
case. While there are many printed lease forms, scarcely any
two are alike. The manner of leasing farms continues to be
very unsystematic, but loose methods have persisted in the
face of improved business practices in all other industries.
The provisions of the lease contract often ignore the more
scientific methods of agricultural production and the use of
improved machinery in cultivation. The practice of using
old lease forms under modern conditions of agriculture, has
caused many things to be ,implied in the contractual
relationship between landlord and tenant. These old forms,

187

188 Farm Tenantry in the United States

based largely upon custom, have made it difficult to apply the
principles of farm management and rural economics to the farm
contract.

Much of the conflict between landlord and tenant has
grown out of mere verbal agreements, which ‘have taken the
place of written contracts or supplemented old lease forms
that continue to be used. This situation has caused the par-
ties to these agreements often to forget or to deny their con-
tractual obligations. It is not surprising that out of such a
situation disagreement, personal antagonism, and law suits
have arisen between landlord, and tenant. The fact is, that
oral agreements or written leases expressed in vague and in-
definite terms, have been more responsible for the conflicts
between landlords and tenants than the unreasonable terms
of these contracts.

Relation of the Lease Contract to the Farm
Tenantry Problem.

The provisions of the farm lease go to the heart of the
farm tenantry problem. Tichenor says: “The farm tenancy

problem is to find a system or systems of tenancy which will

be satisfactory to both parties, which will conserve and im-
prove the productivity of the soil, return to the landlord a
fair interest on his investment, and also something for him to
lay by for an investment in a farm of his own later on.”1 This
is a fair explanation of the problem of farm tenantry, and
Tichenor’s statement of it clearly indicates the principle that
should guide in the formation of the lease contract. In other
words, every lease contract should safeguard the productivity
of the soil, attempt to secure for the landlord a fair interest
on his investment, safeguard a good standard of living
for the tenant and his family, and give the tenant an oppor-
tunity to acquire a surplus out of which he might provide a
farm home of his own in due time. '

Professor O. G. Lloyd lays down the following principle

governing leases:

lFarm Contracts Between Landlord and Tenant, Chapter 1, page 4.

The Lease Contract Between Landlord and Tenant 189

“A satisfactory lease from the farm manage-
ment viewpoint is one which calls for profitable
farming and a fair division of the farm returns be-
tween the landlord and the tenant. Farms with the
best organization are the most profitable. A fair
division of the returns between the landlord and the
tenant includes a measure of all that each receives
from the farm.“

This sounds rather axiomatic and simple. But when it

comes to making the application of the principle underlying
a satisfactory lease to concrete problems of farm enterprise,
difiiculties arise at once. The formulation of every lease
contract presents two difficult questions. (1) What is a
fair division of the returns between the landlord and tenant‘?
(2) Which method of renting land will produce the most
satisfactory results to both of the contractual parties? The
difficulty in answering the first question, grows out of the
many complexities and variations of the farm enterprise.
The difliculties connected with the answer to the second ques-
tion, result from the complicated methods of cultivation and
the endless problems that every farm presents.

Principle of Farm Leasing.

It has been difiicult to formulate a principle that will
guide in determining the ratio of the division of the farm pro-
ducts between landlord and tenant. ‘It will probably be gen-
erally accepted, however, that the parties to the farm enter-
prise should be compensated to the extent of: (Dremuner-
ation for all labor—manual and managerial; (2) reimburse-
ment in full for all funds paid out for operating expenses—
feed, seed, fertilizer, and similar expenses; (3) interest on
capital investment at a reasonable commercial rate on land,
improvements, implements, and stock; (4) interest on all money
advanced for operating expenses; (5) depreciation of the farm-
stead.

Care must be exercised to use only correct data in work-
ing out concrete problems of this kind. Due allowance must
be made for over-capitalization of land and’ over valuation
of labor?

lFarm Leases in Iowa, page 4, Bulletin No. 159, Agricultural Experiment Station, Iowa
State College of Agricultural and Mechanic Arts.

ZThe application of these principles is carefully worked out in several hypothetical cases
by R. L. Adams in an article on “A Working Basis for Leasing” in the Country
Gentlemen for December 3, 1916, see Volume 81, No. 49.

190 Farm Tenantry in the United States

i Sir Richard Paget attacks this problem in an interesting
way in an address on “The Division of Capital in Agriculture
Between Landlord and. Tenant,” quoted in the Agricultural Ga-
zette for July, 1915. He says:

“I arrived at a system which is based on the as-
sumption that in the average case it would be fair
that the farmer should have as much of the profits
in respect to his skill and management (apart from
any working capital he may invest) as the landlord
gets in respect to the use of his land and buildings,
and that whoever puts in the working capital should
get a further share of the profits in respect to this
investment.

“To put this scheme of partnership into prac-
tice, the first thing is to value the land and build-
ings. This amount is credited to the landlord as
part of the capital put in by him into the partner-
ship. The next step is to secure an equal return to
the farmer in respect to his skill and management.
This is done by crediting him with an equal capital sum
in the books of the partnership. The third and last
step is to credit whoever puts in the cash’(working)
capital-—-be it the farmer only, the landlord and
farmer, the landlord only, or even be it an outside
capitalist, with the actual amounts of such working
capital invested. These three items taken together
form the total capital of the partnership, and the
profits are divided between the partners in propor-
tionl to the number of shares held by them respec-

1ve y.”1

Ed H. Webster has the same principle in mind in the fol-
lowing statement: '

“The only true division seems to be on the basis
of the capital invested. But you say the tenant has
no capital except his teams and implements. Here is
where we have a wrong conception of the tenant’s
value on the farm. We wish to propose a plan
that will place the tenant or partner in his true po-
sition in relation to the business in which he is en-
gaged and ask the criticism of farm management in-_
vestigators, landlords, tenants, and farmers, gener-
ally, on the plan.

1Hoard’s Dairyman, Volume 52, N0. 9, page 279.

The Lease Contract Between Landlord and Tenant 191

“In order to make an equitable adjustment, not
subject to arbitrary additions 0r subtractions design-
ed t0 cover up inequalities, we took this proposition
as a fundamental starting point; the real property,
that is the land and buildings, will in the great
majority of cases be a fair offset to the managing
partner’s (tenant’s) time. Apply this on large farms
or small ones, on high-priced land or on cheap land,
and it will come about as close as anything can to
making an equitable arrangement.

“Let either side or both sides furnish the per-
sonal property and cash. Credit their respective
accounts with the value furnished. Pay all operat-
ing expenses of the farm from the gross receipts and
divide the proceeds according to the amount of cap-
ital furnished by each. The depreciation of the
real estate and the personal property is to be paid
as part of the running expenses of the farm. The
landlord will pay the taxes and interest on any en-
cumbrance on the real estate from his share of the
profits after the division has been made.“

The Lease Contract in Relation to the
Method of Renting.

The systems of renting land have been described in prev-
ious chapters. For the purpose of this discussion all methods
of renting may be grouped under two systems: (1) Rent-
for cash and (2) renting on shares. There are endless
varieties and combinations of cash and share systems of rent-
ing land. The complications in the lease contract grow out
of these variations. Cash rent for land, or cash rent for land
and stock is very simple. The landlord, by the provisions of
the lease, receives a lump sum for the use, of his land and
necessary improvements. Some lease contracts of this kind
provide varying amounts for grain land, fruit land, and pas-
ture. The lease contract is not complicated even 1n bushel
renting: It does not differ essentially from cash rent. The
lease contract becomes more complicated and more difficult
under systems of share renting. This is due to the fact that
the relative shares of the produce vary widely between land-
lord and tenant, and these shares vary widely with reference

1H0ard’s Dairyman, Volume 52, N0. 9, pare 279.

192 Farm Tenantry in the United States

to the different crops raised on the same farm and“ under the
same management. The relative shares vary with the con-
tribution each party is supposed to make to the farm enter-
prise. Under this system of share tenantry, the tenant re-
ceives two-thirds, one-half, two-fifths, or one-third of the crop.
These are the fractional divisions of staple crops that are
usually found in the lease contract, although in exceptional
cases other fractional divisions may be provided. The ratios

‘of division depend, of course, upon the relative capital invest-

ment and labor contribution. When the landlord furnishes
land, teams, and implements—everything except labor--his
proportion of the produce is relatively large, usually two-
thirds of the hay and grain. In the South, where cotton and
corn are the principal crop, the landlord usually receives one-
third of the grain and one-fourth of the cotton. Where com-
petition for land is rather great, there has been a tendency on
the part of the landlord to exact a share of the produce out
of proportion to the interest on his capital investment. In
Texas and some of the other states, the shares of the crop
which the landlord and tenant shall receive are now regulat-
ed by statute} i

The principal objection to the share system 1s that it
usually ignores economic principles and honest finance. In
other words, the division of the crops agreed upon bears no
definite relation to the capital investment or labor expended.
For example, the share of hay that the tenant receives may
be in excess of the value of his labor contribution, while, on
the other hand, the share of the grain received by the land-
lord may represent a value larger than a reasonable interest
on the land investment. Custom and competition have often
been determining factors in the share lease contract. Under
their influence the landlord has often been enabled to exact
more than a reasonable share of the produce that has been
cultivated and harvested by his tenant. The share lease con-
tract is to be always thought of as a partnership, but in too
many cases it has been a partnership of very unequal finan-
cial returns. -

lGeneral Laws of the State of Texas. Passed by the Thirty-Fourth Legislature, Chap-
ter 38, pages 76 and 78.

The Lease Contract Between Landlord and Tenant .193
The Miller System 0f Leasing.

To safeguard an equitable distribution of the farrri pro-
duce between the landlord and tenant Dr. H. P. Miller,pAgri-
culturist of the Portage County (Ohio) Improvement Associa-
tion, devised an interesting leasing system. It is based upon :1
ratio of the actual money value of what each party puts into
the farm enterprise. Dr. Miller gives an explanation of his
system in the Ohio Farmer for November 21, 1914, in answer
to the following inquiry: '

“What would be a fair-terms’ division of the income on
a two hundred acre dairy farm, the landlord to furnish every-
thing?” The following is the reply: f

“This gives an opportunity for a discussion of
a rational tenancy system. Tenancy contracts 1n
America have not generally been based on a careful,
analysis of the elements involved. The two main
elements are the capital of the landowner and the
labor contributed by the tenant.

“Custom. Both landlord and tenant usually
approach the consideration of a contract withthe
assumption that the tenant must receive eitherfone-
half or a third and begin to figure what each should
furnish. And instead of employing the only ac-
curate basis for the comparison of values which we
have, they usually appeal to ‘custom’. ‘Custom’.
should no more be relied upon to determine the terms
of a lease in any specific instance than it should to
determine the price of a farm.

“Elements of Value to a Tenant. It will read-
ily be recognized that one farm in a township may
be well worth twice as much as another of the same
area. Location as to a school, town, railway and im-
proved roads; the buildings, the shape and contour
of tillable fields, their location as to buildings, the
natural productivity of the land, its present state of
fertility, the size of the farm and proportion of till-
able land, the carrying capacity of the pastures, the
water supply and the condition of the fences; all’ of
these things enter into the determination of the ren-
tal value of the land, even more than its sale value,
because some of them may ultimately change for the
better. The tenant can consider only present fac-
tors. ‘

194

Farm Tenantry in the United States

“Ratio. It seems to have entered the minds
of either landlords or tenants that it is just as easy
to make the share to each any other per cent. as 5O
or 33 1-3, and that the rational thing for each to do
is to put into the partnership whatever he has to put
in and to share in proportion to what he invests,
whether that 50, 40 or 37 1-2 per cent.

“Basis of Division. For want of more ac-
curate system, we measure values in dollars. The
first step in determinng the basis for an equitable
division is to agree upon the annual money value
of what each puts into the enterprise. All of the
elements enumerated above should be considered in
determining the cash rental value of the farm.
Five per cent. is considered a fair return upon land.
The investment in cows, work horses, and farming
utensils should be allowed ten per cent. and five
per cent. upon young growing stock.

“Illustration. Suppose it is agreed between
landlord and tenant that the land is worth $5,000
and the equipment in detail invoice $4,000. Five
per cent. on the $15,00 is $750 and ten per cent.
on the $4,000 is $400. The landlord should then
have $1,150 per year. We will now suppose it is
agreed the tenant is to keep one regular hand and
has a boy able to do one-third a man’s work. The
hand will cost, with board, $450. We will. say the
tenant himself should have $300 besides the use of
house, garden, fruit, milk for family and use of
horse for family driving. The boy we will estimate
will contribute labor worth $100. This makes $850
estimated due the tenant. If the wife or daughters
milk or make butter, they should be paid. Stated
in percentages, the tenant should have 42 1-2 per
cent. of the net returns. That is, all running expen-
ses, as fertilizer, feeds, salt, machinery and harness
repairs, and cost of milk delivery, if any, should be
paid before the division is made.

“If the net income should happen to be just
$2,000 each party would get exactly what he expect-
ed. If the season should be unusually favorable,
crops better than the average, and prices high, the
net income might reach $3,000. The landlord should
then have 57 1-2 per cent. and the tenant 42 1-2 per
cent of the extra $1,000. 0n the other hand, ad-
verse conditions might reduce the normal income.
The landlord would then have to be satisfied with

The Lease Contract Between Landlord and Tenant 195

less than five per cent. on his land investment and
the tenant with less than $300 for his labor.

“The same principle will apply where the ten-
ant furnishes any part of the equipment. He should
be allowed the same per cent. on his investment in
stock or tools, Whatever it may be, as the landlord
for what he contributes.

“Inventory. A careful inventory ‘should be
made of what each puts into the enterprise. A
great deal of trouble can be avoided by accuracy
and a definite understanding over details. It should
be agreed upon as to howmuch poultry is to be kept
and how the income from it is to be shared; what
proportion of the fruit the tenant is to have for family
use and What repairs to buildings and fences the tenant
is to make. Permanent improvements should be con-
sidered as increasing the landlord’s investment, and
changing his proportion unless the tenant contributes
labor toward their installation. So, too, public im-
provements, as the building of roads, which increase
the taxes upon the land and increase its value to the
tenant, should increase the proportionate return to
the land oWner.”1

This system of leasing deserves more consideration than
it has received. It certainly is based on sound economic prin-
ciples.

The Duration of the Lease Contract.

The period of the lease contract is an important factor in
the farm tenantry problem. The usual term is for one year or
from year to year. However, the practice of making the lease
contract for a period of from three to five years is increas-
ing. In some cases, the lease provides that the contract is
understood to be continuous unless due notice to discontinue is
served by one or the other of the parties.

“It is generally believed that the annual lease contract has
been responsible for the frequent moving of the tenant from
one farm to another. But investigations have not supported
this conclusion. Investigations made on the dairy farms in
Wisconsin and Illinois, show that tenants remain longer on
the same farm under an annual lease. In a number of cases

1Tichen0r’s Farm Contracts Between Landlord and Tenant, pages 203-206.

£196 Farm Tenantry in the United States

reported, there are leaseholds which have descended from
father to son, the present tenants having been born 0n the
farms that were previously operated by their fathers} But
it should be observed that these are rather exceptional cases.
The shift of tenants from one farm to another under the an-
nual renewable lease, varies in different sections of the coun-
try with the character of the tenant and nature of farm pro-
duct. In the Southern states conditions have been a great deal
less stable than in the grain states of the Middle West.

_The evils usually attributed to the short lease system are
soil depletion, injury to farm buildings and equipment, and
general neglect of the premises. The extent of these evils
depends very largely upon the intention of the tenant with
reference to remaining on the farm a long or a short time. If
the landlord feels that his tenure is insecure, the tendency
to neglect soil fertility and to abuse the property is increased.
There is no doubt that a leasing system of longer duration
would have a tendency to reduce the evils that are now so pre-
valent under the present system.

The lease contract should conform in its provisions to
sound economic principles and reflect a wholesome social sit--

.uation. The agreement between landlord and tenant has

been too much regarded as a private arrangement with no
social or economic consequences to any one except the parties
that have entered into it. An effort is being made to formu-
late the lease on the basis of its larger significance. The in-
fluence of the lease contract on the problem of farm tenantry

"has not been adequately appreciated. A study of the condi-
tions imposed in many lease contracts reveals the source of the

real problem of farm tenantry. In the succeeding chapter
two lease contracts will be contrasted for the purpose of illus-
trating the far-reaching effects of this legal relationship.

Tgee Wilc0x’s Lease Contracts Used in Renting Farms on Shares, page 3, Bulletin No.
650, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

CHAPTER XVI.

THE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THE PROVISIONS
OF THE LEASE CONTRACT.

._<

In the preceding chapter an attempt was made to present
the larger and more significant problems relating to a lease con-
tract. The influence of rural economic principles and methods
of determining an equitable division of the agricultural income
were considered. In the present chapter, a closer study will be
made of the effects and influences of lease contracts as we act-
ually find them.

The Essentials of a Valid Lease Contract.

Legally every lease contract must possess three requisites
on which there is mutual agreement. (1) There must be a
definite agreement between the parties as to the extent and
bounds of the property leased. (2) The lease must set forth
definitely the terms agreed upon. (3) The price of rental and
the time and manner of payment must be agreed upon and set
forth definitely? i

The Principal Provisions of the Lease.

While the terms and conditions of various farm lease con-
tracts vary greatly, there are a few principal provisions that ap-
pear in all leases with such uniformity as to make them essen-
tial parts of every contractual relation of this kind. They are
as follows: a

(1) A provision with reference to the land and permanent
improvements thereon that are furnished by the landlord.

(2) The labor (manual or managerial) to be furnished by
the tenant. l

(3) Inventory of the working capital that is supplied by
each party.

(4) The share of the agricultural income each party is to
receive, the amount of rent the tenant is to pay and the condi-
tions of such payment. "

(5) Restrictive provisions relating to such topics as soil
management, the cropping system to be followed, the amount

lSee 16 Colo. 415; 26 Pac. 780; 68 Pac. 715.

197

198 Farm Tenantry in the United States

and the kind of live stock to be maintained and the utilization
of grain and forage crops.

(6) Nature and extent of repairs to be made on farm im-
plements and permanent improvements.

(7) Length of the lease contract.

(8) Special privileges accorded to the tenant, such as the
designation of a garden plot and the keeping of cows, poultry,
and hogs. The extent of the use of supplies, including fuel.

(9) Extent of supervision of the farm enterprise by the
owner or his agent}

The effects of these several provisions of the lease contract
upon the welfare of tenant farmers vary between wide limits.
Some of them affect him only in a general way, while others have
endless possibilities for lowering his standard of living and plac-
ing burdens upon him almost beyond endurance. For example,
the first provision is general and the consequence resulting from
its application are not keenly felt. Perhaps the greatest hard-
ships that have been experienced by tenant farmers result from

- the application of the provisions in number five and number eight.

Social Justice in a Standard Lease Contract.

The following lease contract is one that has been widely
followed and in very general use througout the South. This
particular lease was made between a prominent landlord and a
tenant farmer in Refugio County, Texas:

“STATE OF TEXAS, County of Refugio.

THIS CONTRACT OF LEASE made by and be-
tween __________ __, landlord, and ____________ __, of
said county and state, tenant, witnesseth:

1. Landlord does hereby lease and let unto tenant
that certain tract or parcel of land situated in said
county and state, consisting of 150 acres together with
all buildings thereon situate and known and designated
as Farm No. 4, by landlord and being a portion of the
lands of said landlord in said county.”

There is nothing in section 1 that necessarily operates to
the injury of the tenant. Under a system of keen competition
the landlord has the opportunity of leasing unproductive lands

1See Tichen0r’s Farm Contracts Between Landlord and Tenant, Chapter 3, page 10.

The Social Justice In the Provisions 199

in acreage tracts that may be detrimental to the interests of the
tenant farmer. But this situation has not produced serious re-
sults. As observed in the preceding chapter, it is important to
both parties to provide sufficient acreage to make the farm en-
terprise remunerative to both parties. O. R. Johnson contends
that at least 120 acres and not more than 500 acres are neces-

sary for maximum efficiency. He thinks that under average

conditions between 200 and 400 acres.are required to produce
adequate financial returns to landlord and tenant}

“(2) The term of this lease shall be for the crop
season of 1914, beginning the first day of November,
1913, and expiring when the crops grown thereon are
harvested as hereinafter provided, but not later than
November 1st the following year.”

This, or a similar provision, is contained in most of the
printed forms. On its face, it contains all the possibilities for
producing a shifting class of farm tenants. Emphasis is laid
on the expiration of the lease and by the provisions of this sec-
tion the contract expires “when the crops grown thereon are
harvested as hereafter provided but not later than November
1st the following year.” The lease containing this provision
cannot rightfully be called an annual lease contract. It does not
run for the period of one year and does not contain the reason-
able privilege of renewal upon brief notice, if mutually satis-
factory. The effect, therefore, from such a provision as this, is
a continual shift of tenants from one farm to another with the
attendant economic losses that result from this practice and
general neglect of protection to farm property and soil improve-
ment that comes with a more permanent tenure.

“(3) Tenant contracts and agrees to thoroughly
prepare the ground; plant, cultivate, and harvest all
crops to be grown on said premises, all at the expense
of the tenant, and at the time and in the manner des-
ignated by landlord or agent. And further binds and
obligates himself and guarantees to plant and cultivate
the entirety of said leased premises, in the manner and
with the crops desinated by landlord or agent, except
such land, if any, as may be fenced off and specifically
designated by landlord or agent as a pasture.”

lSuccessful Farm Orgamizatin, page 25, Bulletin 142 of the Agricultural Experiment
Station, College of Agriculture, University of Missouri.

200 Farm Tenantry in the United States

It would be difficult to formulate a more exacting provision
than that contained in this section. The tenant agrees under
this paragraph to prepare thoroughly the ground, plant, culti-
vate, and harvest all crops at his own expense. There is noth-
ing objectionable in this sentence. It is naturally contempla-
ted that this is a fundamental consideration that grows out of this
kind of an agreement. But it goes further and provides that all
this shall be done “at thejime and in the manner designated by
the landlord.” Tlie tenant here obligates himself to plant the
crop designated by the landlord and to plant it in the manner pre-
scribed by him at the time he orders it done.

It should be observed, however, that there is considerable
variation in the Wording of this provision under the different
systems of tenure. Under a “cropper” system where the entire
financial responsibility is incurred by the land owner, it is neces-
sary to restrict the activities of the tenant very closely. But,
unfortunately, this restriction is provided in lease contracts un-
der various share lease contracts where the financial responsi-
bility of the tenant makes him a real partner in the business.
Under these conditions there is no justification for such com-
plete control over the farm enterprise as that contained in this
provision.

“(4). He further agrees that one-fourth of the
leased premises shall be planted in such feed crops
and other crops as may be selected by landlord or agent,
and the remaining four-fifths to be planted in cotton,
and any and all seed used in planting any and all crops
are to be selected in accordance with the direction of
landlord or agent and at the expense of the tenant.”

This provision has been disastrous to the financial interests
of the tenant farmer. It has retarded the progress of rota-
tion and diversification of crops. The tenant is primarily inter-
ested in crops that will supply him with food for his.family
throughout many months of the year and that will be a source of
money income to meet his expenses for staple articles of food and
clothing for his family. Clearly, this provision in any lease con-
tract between landlord and tenant represents antagonistic in-
terests. Wherever it occurs, it has the general effect ofreduc-
ing the standard of living of the tenant farmer and his family,

The Social Justice In the Provisions 201

and compels him to depend upon the landlord or credit merchant
for supplies. No share or cash renter should ever consent to
any such restrictive provision in the lease he makes with his
landlord, and no honest landlord will insist upon incorporating
such a provision in the lease.

“(5) At any time during the season should the
tenant fail to have said farm" and crops in such a state
of cultivation as is required by landlord or agent, then
landlord or agent shall have the right at his option
to employ such additional labor as is necessary for
the proper cultivation and harvesting of such crops,
extra cost to be charged to tenant as an advance and
paid by tenant to landlord out of tenant’s share of said
crops. But this paragraph shall not impair the rights
of landlord under paragraph 10 hereof, but the right
therein given, whenever occasion demands, may be ex-
ercised by landlord irrespective of the option given
landlord herein.”

This paragraph is objectionable from every standpoint. It
gives the landlord complete control over the farm enterprise.
He has the right at his option and Without the consent of thje
tenant “to employ such additional labor as is necessary for the
proper cultivation and harvesting of such crops, extra cost t0
be charged to the tenant as an advance and paid by tenant to
landlord out of tenant’s share of said crops”. It is possible
under the provisions of this section for the landlord to supply
extra labor at a cost that would completely consume the entire
agricultural income of the tenant. It is possible for an unjust
landlord to keep a tenant in abject poverty as long as it is pos-

sible for him to remain on his farm. Those familiar with the

situation know that when the tenant becomes involved in obli-

_ gations with his landlord that he cannot meet, that he finds it

difficult ‘to rent land from another land owner. This is the
means by which the tenant farmer often acquires the reputa-
tion for thriftlessness and poor ability as a farm manager. Such
a reputation is almost fatal to a tenant farmer.

“(6) The consideration to be paid by the tenant
" to the landlord for this lease is one-third of all corn and
feed crops and other crops, one-fourth of all cotton and

202 Farm Tenantry in the United States

products grown or raised on said premises, being pay-
able when the crops are harvested, 0r in case of sale of
any such products of such land, then at the time of such
sales, which shall be made at the direction of the land-
lord. Provided, however, that before tenant shall re-
ceive any portion of such crops, products or proceeds
of the sales thereof, tenant shall first settle with land-
lord in full out of tenant’s portion of said crops, and
products for all indebtedness due by tenant to land-
lord to tenant and all indebtedness due by tenant to
any other parties for which landlord may have in any
way become responsible, and such latter indebtedness
for all purposes of this instrument is here declared to
be an advance by landlord to tenant.”

The principle underlying the ratio of division of farm pro-
ducts between landlord and tenant was discussed in the pre-
ceding chapter. There is nothing to indicate that the division
in this paragraph is unfair to either party. There is one clause,
however, that appears in most of the lease contracts that has
been very deterimental to tenant farming. It states that “all
advances made by the landlord to the tenant” shall be paid for
before the tenant shall receive any portion of the crops. In a
preceding chapter on “Methods of Financing the Tenant Farmer”
the consequences of this policy of the landlord’s makingadvances
to the tenant were discussed. Evidence was produced to show
that such “advances” are almost always made at prices very
much above the local cash prices that prevail in the trade cen-
ter of the territory. Evidence is abundant to show that under
the effects of this provision it happens that when the “advances

_ made by the landlord” have been paid for there is no product

left from which the tenant can derive funds for the support of
his family. It happens in many cases that the tenant finds
himself, almost immediately after the harvest season is over,
confronted with the dire necessity of making another contract
for the subsequent year in order to secure credit for necessary
supplies for himself and family.

“(7) Tenant agrees to harvest the crops at his
own expense at the time and in the manner fixed or
directed by landlord and to deliver the one-third share
of the corn and feed crops and other crops of landlord
at the barn or barns provided and designated by land-

The Social Justice In the Provisions 203

10rd for that purpose and to deliver all cotton grown
upon said premises at whatever gin the landlord 0r
agent may designate, all without cost or expense t0 the
landlord. When cotton is baled it shall be sold under
the direction 0f landlord, the total expense of ginning
and bailing to be first deducted and the net proceeds
divided between tenant and landlord, three-fourths to
tenant and one-fourth to landlord and tenant and
landlord shall own the seed and divide the proceeds of
the sale thereof in the same proportion. Provided,
however, that before the tenant shall be entitled to re
ceive any of such proceeds, he shall first make the settle-
ment hereinafter provided in the mortgage clause of
this instrument, and further, should tenant use any of
the feed crops on said land in feeding any character
of livestock, then he shall account to landlord for his
portion thereof so used.”

This paragraph simply means that the tenant must take
the cotton to the landlord’s gin and sell to the landlord or to a
cotton firm designated by him. The tenant has no discretion
with reference to the place his cotton shall be ginned or to whom

it shall be sold. At his own expense, he shall take the cotton
to the landlord even if the gin selected is at a greater distance
than some other gin equally well equipped where equally satis-
factory prices for ginning prevail.

“(8) No sublease may be made by tenant, nor
shall any sale or assignment, pledge or mortgage of
any interest in any of the crops, to be grown or raised
on said premises, be made without the written consent
of the landlord and any attempt to do so, may, at the op-
tion of the landlord cancel and annul this lease.”

There is no freedom of contract growing out of this pro-
vision. The tenant cannot borrow from any one on his crop.
He must be satisfied with the “advances” of his landlord. The
tenant must get “the written consent” of the landlord to make
contracts with other parties. The penalty for violating this
restriction is the cancellation of the lease. This would mean,
of course, that the tenant might find himself in the midst of
the crop season deprived of a source of income on which his
family depended for bread. This particular paragraph is more
objectionable than any other that appears in this lease form.

204 Farm Tenantry in the United States

While it appears in many printed leases, it is doubtful if there is
to be found any other legal document expressing a contractual
relationship that is so onesided and unfair.

Section 9 provides that the tenant shall remove all stumps
on the leased premises and shall prevent the growth of obnoxious
weeds and grasses. The tenant is also required to prevent live
stock, running at large upon any portion of the cultivated lands.

“10. The landlord reserves the right to enter
upon said leased lands or any portion thereof, through
his agents or employees, for the purposes of making
inspection or examinations, exercising supervision, di-
rection to tenant or control, or making further improve-
ments or alterations, and for any other purpose.”

The landlord’s right to enter upon the premises of his leas-
ed lands for the purpose of inspection cannot be questioned. The
provision, however, goes very far when it gives the landlord the.
undisputed right of “making further improvements or alter-
ations and for any other purposes.” Two objections can be
raised to this part of the provision. (1) The landlord’s right
to make any “alterations” that he "sees fit might be carried to
the point of resulting in great inconvenience to the tenant and
interference with his farm operations. (2) The phrase “for
any other purpose” is one of those indefinite generalities so
often contained in lease contracts that result in conflict be-
tween the landlord and tenant. Under such a provision the land-
lord could do anything. No lease contract should contain any“
such indefinite and far-reaching provision.

“(11). If for any cause Whatever the tenant shall
fail or refuse to comply with this contract in any of
its particulars, or to comply with the directions of land-
lord or agent in regard to the same as hereby author-
ized, then the landlord or agent is hereby expressly au-
thorized and empowered to take charge of said prem-
ises and to cultivate same or harvest the crops thereon
free from all claims thereto by tenant, and such fail-
ure, from whatever cause, or refusal of tenant to com-
ply herewith shall be an absolute waiver upon his part
of all claims to any interest whatever in the crops
grown upon said premises, and such interest thereto-
fore held by tenant shall be taken and held by land-
lord as his liquidated damages occasioned by the breach

The Social Justice In the Provisions 205

of this contract by the tenant. And this right is given to
the landlord regardless of the stage of the cultivation of
said lands or the growth of crops on same.”

This paragraph is similar to paragraph 5 and is subject to
the same objections. It places the tenant absolutely at the
mercy of his landlord. Under the provisions of this paragraph,
if the tenant should fail to “comply with the directions of the
landlord,” the landlord can step in and dispossess the tenant and
take charge of the crop “regardless of the stage of the culti-
vation of said lands or the growth of crops on same.” A dis-
honest and unjust landlord, under this provision, could give un-
reasonable directions that the tenant could not afiord to comply
with, and even if the crop were ready to harvest, the landlord
could appropriate the entire crop, have it gathered, and make no
distribution to the tenant for his labor income.

“(12) ’ And in consideration of the sum of One
Dollar cash to tenant in hand paid by landlord, the re-
ceipt of which tenant hereby acknowledges, tenant has
and by these presents does grant, sell, convey and mort-
gage to landlord, ________ __, and assigns, tenant’s en-
tire crop of cotton and corn and other produce to be
planted and grown by tenant and those in his employ
during the period of time above provided and on the
above mentioned farm.”

“To have and to hold the same unto landlord,__
_______________ __ and assigns forever.”

This paragraph requires no comment. It simply means
that for a fictitious consideration, the receipt of which the ten-
ant acknowledges, the crop produced by his hands is conveyed
to the landlord before a plow" is started or a seed planted. It
should be observed, however, that the following paragraph
slightly modifies the effects of the mortgage referred to in par-
agraph 12, but the modification is again restricted in the; latter
part of the following paragraph. The landlord is here given
the right to dispose of the products of the farm in such a way
at such a price as he may see fit without the consent of the tenant.

“Now should tenant fully comply with his under- 4
takings in every respect herein assumed, ‘and fairly 

206

SOUS.

Farm Tenantry in the United States

and equitably divide said crops in the proportions here-
in provided, and repay to landlord all indebtedness due
by tenant to landlord, and pay all indebtness due any
other party by tenant for which landlord may have in
any way become responsible, and settle with landlord for
all advances made by landlord to tenant and settle with
landlord for all damages done by tenant to landlord’s
property, then this conveyance shall become null and
void, otherwise to remain in full force an effect. And
upon any such failure by tenant in any of the partic-
ulars above enumerated, landlord or his agent shall
have the right to take possession of said mortgaged
property and sell the same at public or private sale,
as he shall see fit, without notice, for the amounts due
as specified above, and the expenses of such sale. The
landlord is further authorized to deduct the amount
due for such indebtedness from any sale or sales made
of crops.”

“It is expressly stipulated and provided that none
of the provisions of the laws of Texas relative to land-
lord and tenant are hereby waived, but same are made
a part of this lease contract, and the provisions of
same are made cumulative hereto.

“Witness our hands in duplicate originals, this
1st day of Nov., A. D. 19--.

____________________ __Landlord and Mortgagee

____________________ __Tenant and Mortgagor.”

A Model Lease?

In contrast with the lease outlined above, a lease free from‘
the objections criticised will be briefly analyzed. The first para-
graph gives the description of the land in the usual way.

“Length of Tenure—-To have and to hold the said
premises unto said second party from the first day of
March, 191__, at 12 m., to the first day of March, 191__,
at 12 m., being a term of one year, with the privilege
of renewal for each succeeding year.”

It will be observed that the lease continues for the full year
and that provision of renewal is made for each succeeding year.

 

1The names of the landlord, his manager and the tenant are withheld for obvious rea-
I-Iowever, this is not an exceptional lease contract. The fact is, it is a printed

lease form and is called a Standard Lease Contract.

2This Model Lease appears in full in Wallace's Farmer, Volume 41, No. 8, page 336 for

February 25, 1916.

The Social Justice In the Provisions 207

“Plans of Farming Business—This leasing ar-
rangement is known as a stock-share plan. The parties
to this contract shall be partners, and will cooperate fully
according to the terms of this lease in order that each
may receive the largest returns consistent with» a prac-
tical system of cropping and soil management, which
shall maintain and even increase the fertility of the
land, with the purpose that this farm shall not de-
crease in productiveness and value.”

It will be observed that this contract is referred to as a part-
nership- This lease explains definitely the type of farming that
shall be followed, and the shares of each are indicated as follows:

“Lessor—The first party will furnish the above
farm, including the improvements thereon, and shall
pay all taxes and insurance. on said property. He
shall furnish material needed for repairs and improve-
ments, and shall build new, permanent fences and make
other permanent improvements as required. He shall
furnish all phosphate and limestone fertilizer re-
quired on said farm. He shall pay stallion service fees
on mares owned by lessee: colts to be owned in com.
mon. e

“Lessee—-The second party shall furnish all horses
(not to exceed ____ __), harness, implements, farm ma-
chinery, and labor necessary to do all work required
to properly conduct this farming business, as described
in this agreement. He shall make all repairs and im-
provements where skilled labor is not required, except
as herein specified. He shall haul, from____ source of
supply, all material for repairing buildings and fences,
which may be needed in the operation of said farm.
He shall haul from ____ __ railroad station or ____ _..
source of supply, and spread on the land, limestone,
phosphate and other fertilizers purchased by lessor
for use on said farm. He shall endeavor to ____ __
market all produce from the farm free of cost to les-
sor. Lessee agrees to operate said farm in a work-
manlike manner, and to do the necessary work in good
season, and to properly care for the crops and live
stock, preventing all unnecessary waste or loss or dam-
age to lessor’s property. He further agrees that he
will not burn corn stalks, straw or other vegetable
matter grown upon said farm, but that all this ma-
terial shall be spread upon the land as manure.”

1208 Farm Tenantry in the United States

These provisionsare free from ambiguity and vague gen-
eralities. It is‘ specifically stated what each is to fur-
nish in connection with this farm enterprise. The lease defi-
nitely states that “the lessee may have potatoes, and garden
truck, and such fruits as the farm affords, milk, poultry, and
eggs for family use only.”

A paragraph is devoted to a description of what shall be
furnished by the landlord and tenant. This includes all seed
grain, grass seed, live stock other than horses, and feed. “They

"shall furnish binder twine and all fuel for tank heater, threshing,
corn shredding, silage cutting, hay bailing, corn shelling, clover
‘hulling, and pay machine bills for the same.” This sentence

is a sample of several that appear in the paragraph with ref-
erence to what both parties shall furnish jointly and illustrates
the accuracy and the complete details that are incorporated in
this lease form. ’

“Live St0ck—Both lessor and lessee shall own in
common, each an undivided one-half, all live stock, ex-
cepting as hereinbefore provided for, owned and pro-
duced upon said farm, and such of said stock as the
parties shall "agree upon shall be sold at such time
as may be satisfactory to both.”

'It is to be observed that the live stock shall be owned in
common and the live stock increase shall be sold only by mu-
tual agreement. This is quite in contrast with the provisions.
of the lease quoted above.

“Sale of Crop or St0clc—Whenever any cattle,
hogs, grain, corn or hay, or any other product of said
farm, shall be sold, the proceeds shall be equally di-
vided between the parties, or if agreed upon, it may
again be invested in other live stock, grain, or material,
for the common use and benefit of the parties.”

When the crop is produced, it is divided between the parties
on a definite basis, or “if agreed upon, it may again be invested
in other stock, grain, or material for the common use and ben-
efit [of the parties.” Observe that in every case mutual agree-
ment is necessary before any action can be taken affecting the
interests of either -party. Then follows definite provisions re-

The Social Justice In the Provisions 209

quiring the tenant to destroy noxious weeks and provides for the
care of the premises by him. '

“Surrender of Possession—That in case he shall,
from any cause, neglect, refuse, or be unable to properly

prepare said land, sow, plant, harvest, or care for any
and all crops to be raised on said land, said lessor, his
agents, heirs, or assigns, may at their option, upon
twenty-four hours’ notice to lessee, enter upon said
premises and take possession thereof, and of the crops
growing or being grown thereon, and properly care for
the same, and the proceeds remaining after payment
of rents, cost and expense and damages, shall go to
lessee; that he will surrender the stubble land, for the
purpose of plowing, in the fall preceding the termina-
tion of this lease, as soon as the crop has been removed
from the same; that he will surrender possession of said
premises at the end of the term, or sooner termination
thereof, and if immediate possession be not given-that
he will pay lessor, or assigns, the sum of $10 for each
and every day possession is thus withheld, as damages
for non-surrender.”

Contrast this with the similar provision in the lease quoted

A above. Observe that the landlord has the legal right to take po-
_ session of his property should the tenant “neglect, refuse, or be

unable properly to prepare” the land; but also, observe that the

t financial interest of the tenant is taken care of by compelling the
landlord to pay to the tenant any “profits remaining after pay-

ment of the rents, cost, expense, and damages.”

“Lessee’s Rewards for Farm Improvements-It is
understood and agreed by both parties that the
lessee’s reward for all farm improvements which he is
required to make according to the term of this con-
tract, shall come in the increased yields and greater
returns which should result, and which will be shared
by lessee if he continues to operate said farm.”

This provision does not appear in the standard lease form

previously quoted. But it should appear in every lease

where the contract is regarded as a partnership of equal parties
who are equally interested in the results of the farm enterprise.

210 Farm Tenantry in the United States

“Liability of Each Party—Neither party shall
have the right to bind the other by any contract out-
side the scope of this agreement, or by any purchases
made within the scope of this agreement, except with
the consent of the other, unless hereinbefore provided
for.” .

This is much more liberal than the corresponding para-
graph in the lease quoted above. There is no effort here on the
part of the landlord to restrict the contractual relations of the
tenant “outside the scope of this agreement.”

This lease form also provides that in case of a disagree-
ment about the division of the property or the farm products,
“then each shall select an arbitrator. They jointly shall select
the third and the three shall make such division of said property
as to them shall seem equitable.” This offers an opportunity
for both parties to secure justice without resort to courts. It is
a well known fact that the tenant is rarely able to employ a law-
yer to defend his claims against an unjust landlord.

Conclusion.

The two lease forms that have been briefly analyzed repre-
sent the opposing tendencies in the contractual relationship be-
tween landlord and tenant. Happily, there is a disposition on
the part of the public to insist on a lease contract that will in-
sure social justice to both parties. Landlords are coming to see
that, after all, it is good business policy to make the lease agree-
ment a real partnership where the interests of each party are
carefully safeguarded. The tenant who operates under a fair
lease contract usually cultivates the land more efficiently, pro-
tects farm implements and stock better, and manifests an inter-
est in maintaining the fertility of the soil. Just the opposite
effect is usually observed Where the tenant operates under a lease
contract that he knows leaves him at the mercy of his landlord
and gives him no protection. Many of the problems growing out
of the relationship of landlord and tenant, will find solution in a
lease contract that is equally fair to both parties affected by its
provisions.

CHAPTER XVII.

METHODS OF FINANCING TENANT
FARM OPERATIONS.

The data presented in a preceding chapter indicate
that the labor income of the tenant farmer in most cases gives
promise of ability to purchase a farm home. Certainly we
would not expect to find tenantry so extensive and increas-
ing with such rapidity if we based our conclusion entirely on
the available data with reference to the agricultural income
from tenant farms. The tenant’s ability- to acquire a farm
depends not only on his labor income, but also upon his source
of credit and the conditions under which it is secured. In
fact, the problem of farm tenantry is largely the product of
credit conditions rather than the unprofitable results of
farm operations. Every student of rural problems is familiar
with the distressing conditions under which the tenant secures
the working capital with which he conducts his farm opera-
tions. The practice of financing tenant farming has devel-
oped into a vicious system. An attempt will be made to in-
dicate some of the aspects of this system as practiced in those
sections of the country where farm tenantry has become a social
and economic menace.

Influence 0f the One Crop System.

Studies that have been made of credit practices of tenant
farming show conclusively that one-crop farming is the cause
of high priced credit. It is a well known fact that prior to
1916, in the South all credit merchants and bankers based

credit exclusively on cotton. Working backward to the pe-

riod immediately following the war between the North and
the South, the Southern agricultural practices prevailing for
the past fifty years find their origin in the conditions that
confronted the Southern farmer when he returned from the
war. His only source of credit was the cotton crop he intend-
ed to plant. He could not base credit on any other crop, for
cotton was then the only recognized money crop. Out of
this situation, came the crop mortgage, which has been the pre-
vailing means by which the farmer received credit in the
211

212 Farm Tenantry in the United States

spring to make the crop with which to pay the debt in the
fall. This system was followed from year to year until it be-
came a habit of business enterprise. Through the years, the
mind of the debtor farmer and that of the credit banker or
merchant became alike fixed upon the single thought of ob-
taining credit to carry on farm operations and paying off farm
obligations in this one way. Both parties to this contractual
relationship lost sight of the principles of farm economics
and the real basis of credit values.

The following dialogue represents the usual crop mort-
gage negotiation between the tenant and the credit merchant or
banker:

Tenant: “I would like for you to ‘run’ me this year.”

Creditor: “How much cotton are you going to plant?”

Tenant: “The same as last year.”

Creditor: “I will advance so many dollars.”

This is so typical as to be almost a formula for negotiat-
ing credit for farm operations in the South.

What Texas Farmers Pay For Credit.

A study made of farming credit in Texas by Mr. Walton
Peteet of the Extension Service of the Agricultural and Me-
chanical College of Texas in 1917, revealed the fact that the
price paid by the average Texas farmer for credit with which
to grow a crop was unbelievably high? “Credit varies,” ac-
cording to the information acquired by Mr. Peteet, “from ten
per cent. to more than sixty per cent. according to the stand-
ing of the debtor, his system of farming, geographical location,

and competition among lenders. It is highest in the small.

farm districts of East Texas and lowest in the cattle and wheat
regions of West Texas. It varies widely, however, in each 1:’
these regions. The trucker and dairy farmer of East Texas
pay less for credit than the all-cotton farmer, and the all-
wheat farmer of the West pays more than the farmer-stock-
man of the same region. The maximum price is paid by the
all-cotton tenant farmer who gives a mortgage on his live-
stock and growing crop for security, and the minimum price is

1See Fzjrl-ming Credit in Texas, Bulletin N0. B-34, of the Extension Service of the Agri-
cultural and Mechanical College of Texas.

Methods of Financing Tenant Farm Operations 213

paid by the land owner who practices diversification and bor-
rows from banks on his own unsecured note. Competition be--
tween banks and credit merchants and between cash stores
and credit stores for the farmer’s business is a regulating
factor of prime importance.“

Difierences Between Cash and Credit Prices.

Mr. Peteet made a comparison of cash and credit prices
in several typical East Texas counties. This is an Important
agricultural section of the state, where soil and climatic condi-
tions make possible a great varietyof crops including cotton,
corn, and horticultural products. Throughout this sec-
tion of the state, the crop mortgage credit system is the usual
method of financing the tenant farmer and the dependent land
owner . He found that by comparing the prices paid by nine-
teen typical farmers in one representative East Texas county
who traded on credit with the cash prices paid in the local
town market, the prices of eleven staple articles of food and
feed were 55.3 per cent. higher than cash prices. The max-
imum credit price of these eleven articles was found to be
89.6 per cent. higher than the cash prices and the minimum
credit price was 33.6 per cent. higher. The following table
typically represents the price paid for various articles by
credit purchasers and the cash quotation in the trade center of
the county where these data were obtained:

214 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Comparison of Cash and Credit Prices in a Typical
East Texas County?

Flour | w
w - CL -
5 all) o U)
é 2 5-5 5 a; 25] 6 >53
529535832“ QEO§Q>3§
Q P‘ V1
Record fig 059g g0“ 3g g"? fig g; g» '3 Qwg
Number an: ma: m8 mm .43 2m ggako 3 2+1! 3m
3 . . . . . . . $ $2.50 10 $ $ $ |$ $

6 . . . . . . . 3.00 12 .17 1.75 1.50 2.50 .50

7 . . . . . . . 2.50 8 .20 1.25 1.50 2.60 .80

11 . . . . . . . 2.50 12 .18 1.10 1.25 2.50

12 . . . . . . . 2.50 12. .18 1.75 1.10 1.25

14 . . . . . . . 2.50 11 .20 1.75 1.10 1.50 2.50 .50

15 . . . . . . . 2.25

16 . . . . . . . 2.50 10 25 1.95

17 . . . . . . . 2.25 12 18 1.90 .85 1.35 .75

18 . . . . . . . 2.25 10 20 1.80 1.10 1.25 .90

19 . . . . . . . 2.50 10 20 1.80 1.10 1.35 .90

24 . . . . . . . 1.50

27 . . . . . . . 2.50 3.00 .20 2.00 1.50 1.50 2.75 .65

28 . . . . . . . 2.50 12 .20 1.50 1.35 2.60 2.50 .65

29 . . . . . . . 2.90 10 .22 2.00 1.50 2.50

30 . . . . . . . 2.50 12 1.75 1.00 1.25 2.25

31 . . . . . . . 2.50 10 20. 1.00 1.35 2.50 2.25

32 . . . . . . . 2.50 10 .20 2.00 .125 1.35

33 . . . . . . . 2.50 10 .20 1.35 2.50 '

Average . . . . ..] 2.44] 2.60] 10.7] .199] 1.98] 1.154] 1.347] 2.52 2.375] .70
Cash Price ....| 1.70] 1.90] 14 | .145] 1.00] .75 ] .95 ] 1.75] 1.40 ] .40
Excess . . . . . ..]43.5 ]36.8 ] 21 ]3'7. ]98. ]53.8 ]41.8 ]38.2 ] .75 ]

Data from other counties in this section show that there is
great disparagment between cash and credit prices.

Influence of Bank Loans on Credit Prices.

It should be observed that these extreme differences in
cash and credit prices prevail in those sections where credit
is obtained largely through merchants orlandlords instead of
through banks. Mr. Peteet found that whenever bank credit
instead of store credit prevailed there was a relatively
smaller difference between cash and credit prices. The rapid
multiplication of national and state banks with their aggres-
sive competition with the credit store, has slowly brought about
an increase in the volume of bank credit business with the

1Pe_teet’s Farming Credit in Texas, page 5.
2Ib1d, page 7.

Methods of Financing Tenant Farm Operations 215

farmers. Store credit with its economic abuses is gradually dis-
appearing. The country store in may section of the country is
gradually disappearing because of bank competition. The ten-
ant farmer has learned that it is generally more economical to
borrow money at the bank and pay cash for supplies than to de-
pend upon the credit merchant or the landlord to finance the
farm operation.

Interest Rate on Farm Loans.

It is not to be inferred that interest rates on bank loans
have been low. Mr. Peteet found that in the section of the State
where his survey was made that:

“Interest rates on bank loans for crop making

purposes vary from 1O per cent. per annum to more
than 60 per cent. Minimum rates are on large
loans to farmers of undoubted solvency. Maximum
rates are paid by small farmers on loans of small
amounts with short maturity.

“The general level of interest rates corresponds
with the general level of credit prices to farmers,
and is highest in districts of small farms in East
Texas, and lowest in the North Central tier of coun-
ties, where the store credit system has almost dis-
appeared. -

“There is a marked variation between the rates
charged by small banks in country towns and large
banks in more populous trading centers.

“Much difficulty was encountered in ascertain-
ing from farmers the rate of interest charged on
crop loans. In many instances they did not know
the rate. In others they confused the discount rate
with the rate per annum. Thus, in a certain corn-
munity where bankers frankly admitted that they
added 10 per cent. of the amount borrowed to the
face of the note regardless of maturity, many farm-
ers would say they were paying ‘ten per cent.’

“It is a noteworthy fact that, as a general rule,
in the strictly agricultural regions of the, State, the
cost of bank loans for crop making purposes it not
affected by the time for which the money is borrow-
ed. In other words, a farmer who borrows $100
February 1, payable October 1, pays the same gross
amount of interest as his neighbor who borrows a

216 Farm Tenantry "in the United States

like amount March 1, or April 1. The current prac-
tice in all but a few sections is to add from 10'per
cent. to 13 per cent. to the face of all notes having
a maturity of more than three months, and in some
counties this percentage is added to notes of 30 to
60 days maturity. A minor variation of this custom
is to deduct 10 per cent. or more of the face of the
note; thus, a borrower who executes a note for $100.
will receive $90 in cash.”1

It is naturally to be expected that the merchant will charge
more for goods when sold on credit that when sold for cash.
It is also to be expected that rates of interest will vary under
every condition that effects the risk of credit. Personal char-
acter, business ability, thrift, methods and character of farm-
ing, size of the loan, and many other factors enter into the in-
terest rate. But the uniformly high rate of interest on short
time farm loans indicates that as a rule farm credit is too high.

In a study of the factors affecting interest rates and other
charges on short term farm loans made by C. W. Thompson,
specialist in Rural Organization of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture, in 1916, it was found that interest rates and other
charges paid on short time loans by farmers varied widely
in different section of the United States? Extra charges“ are
shown to be especially high in the Southern states and in the
Rocky Mountain states. ‘The extra charges are usually the
result of evading the legal interest rate. The grain states of
the West, including North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebras-
ka, and the Southern states of Oklahoma and Texas, show the
highest interest rates on short term farm loans. A compara-
tive study of interest rates and extra charges shows clearly
that tenantry and the one-crop system are determining factors

in this situation. However, in some states the influence of

these is neutralized by other predominant economic condi-
tions.

10p. cit" page 11.

2Bu1letin No. 409, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

3By “Extra Charges,” is meant the commission that is charged for negotia-
ting the loan. This is not an important factor and is more generaly resorted to in
short term loans for farm operations.

Methods of Financing Tenant Farm Operations 217

Factors Affecting Interest Rates and Other Charges
on Short-Term Farm Loans.

In the study made by Mr. C. W. Thompson, it is shown
that the interest rate and other charges made on short term
farm loansare influenced by the following:

(1) Distance from financial centers.

(2) Integrity 0f the farm borrower.

(3) Financial ability and business habits.

(4) Methods and character of farming.

(5) Size of the loan?

Exactly the same conditions influence the interest rate
that the tenant farmer is required to pay. The banker bases
farm credit on the degree of risk. Many tenants do not pos-
sess the habits of thrift and business discernment that make
them a good financial risk. The banker and creditor feel com-
pelled to resort to high averages of interest rates to make
farm loans safe. The uncertainty of crop production due to
weather conditions has also influenced interest rates in the
agricultural sections of the country. The chattei mortgage
is the product of these conditions. In many of our agricultural
states chattel mortgages are made in January and February
for the year or until the crop has been harvested and sold.
The loan is usually made for a sufficient sum to supply the
family with food and clothing and for the running expenses
of the farm enterprise. In most cases the credit merchant
or banker feels the necessity of keeping the amount as small
as possible. These chattel mortgages are often surprisingly
small. Mr. Charles B. Austin found that one mercantile firm
in Texas during one year’ held 254 chattel mortgages. The
sum total of these 254 mortgages was $18,292. This is an
average of $72.02 per mortgage? _ »

Two very detrimental factors grow out of this situation.
(1) In the first place, the farmer is ‘compelled to pledgeper-
sonal property for a loan. The debt, therefore, is incurred for
running expenses, which means that the sum secured on loan
is used for consumptive as well as productive purposes. This

lBulletin No. 409, U. S. Department of Agriculture, pages 6 to 9 inclusive.

33W“ “Studies in Farm Tenantry in Texas”, Bulletin N0. 21 of the University of Texas,
(1915), Chapter 3, page 49.

218 Farm Tenantry in the United States

is where the farmer’s loan often differs from that of the com-
mercial loan. The latter borrows for productive purposes
alone. He, therefore, secures his loan at a lower rate, and the
loan is based on a different character of collateral. (2) In
the second place, the conditions under which the tenant farmer
secures his loan compel the creditor to restrict the amount as
much as possible in the interest of safety. The result is that
the tenant’s standard of living is low. His family is often un-
dernourished. Illness that often adds a burden of medical
and doctor’s bills and other unusual expenditures is prevalent.
The labor and farm income is often consumed in meeting
obligations growing out of misfortune and unforseen circum-
stances. These conditions and their effects are too well
known to need elaboration.

In the admirable study made by Mr. Austin, he quoted
statements from a few tenants with reference to this situation.
These statements are so typical of hundreds that are familiar to
the author that they are quoted as the best expressions of the
tenant’s viewpoint with reference to this credit system:

“The bankers charge from 12 1-2 to 15 cents on
loans, and some of them do not run over 8 months;
but if you borrow you will pay interest for 12
months. Some will say, ‘Why don’t you make them
pay for usury?’ But say, friend, first you can't
get a county attorney to take hold of it, and if you
could, and did make them pay, you would never
borrow any more in this county from a banker.’

“It is almost impossible to build up a permanent

_ school in a rented school district. Your school will
overflow one or two years, then fall far below par
one, two or three years in this community. After
the landlord gets his rent and the merchant his sup-
ply account, there is nothing left for the doctor,
nothing to build schools nor churches.

“Renters, as a rule, failed to pay out this year.
Merchants have collected less than 50 per cent. of
this account, and carried over about 20 per cent.
last year. Our leading banker estimates the reduc-
tion in cotton acreage at 25 per cent. for 1915.

“So you see we have to pay usury now to the
merchants. First, they won’t pay us enough for our
stuff so that we can get out of debt, and they keep
us buying on time with such an extortionate price

Methods of Financing Tenant Farm Operations 219

that the tenant is in debt from one year to another;
never out of debt for a bare existence.

“Let me say that the ‘Cash Bonus’ is not what is
the matter with the tenant farmer today, but it is the
fact that he is the victim of high interest and unrea-
sonable large profit, as Well as high rent. He is
forced to do just What the landlord says do.

“Since answering your questions as brieflly and
plain as I can, I wish to add a few Words in regard
to, and facts concerning, the tenant situation. First,
We are in a deplorable condition. Three-fifths of
us Will never pay our store accounts. I have talked
to merchants, and they all tell me they will never
collect more than 60 per cent. of what they Pave let
out.”1

It should be observed that many changes have come in
the credit situation of tenant farmers within the last few years.
Students of rural economics, intelligent bankers, and business
men have been studiously seeking a better method and a bet-
ter system for financing farm operations.

A system of diversified farming is fundamental in over-
coming the bad financial system for the tenant farmer. When
the farmer has something to sell in the open market Weekly,
he is in position to secure ready. cash to carry on much of the
farm enterprise. He at least has the advantage of not seeking
the loan for consumptive purposes. The sale of eggs, butter,
and vegetables gives to the tenant a constant income that not
only offsets a part of his farm loan but gives him also, partial
control of market prices. In other words, he has something
upon which to live if the merchant attempts to charge an un-
reasonable price for his food products.

As previously indicated, the merchant and the banker
have often prevented diversification by making a single crop
the basis of credit. It has been a very difficult process to
overcome this harmful and uneconomic system. To remedy
this situation Mr. R. L. Bennett of Paris, Texas, worked out a
rate sheet to be used as a basis for securing farm loans. He
secured its adoption by many bankers in Texas. This rate
sheet used by the bankers in passing on the credit risk of
farmer, and in a modified form has been adopted by the Federal

1Ibid, 5g... s2.

220 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Reserve Bank of Dallas andwidely used in Texas, may be des-
cribed as follows:

(1) The rate sheet contains a formal application for
credit and states the amount. This is followed by a state-
ment of the farmer’s business assets and liabilities. Under the
heading “Property Owned by Undersigned” are included cash
on hand and in banks, notes and accounts due, agricultural
commodities including grain, cotton, and other farm products;

live stock, machinery and tools; real estate and improvements.
On the opposite under “Debts Due By Undersigned,” are
included notes and accounts due, mortgages on live stock, and
mortgages on liens on real estate.

(2) On the reverse side of this sheet under “List of Real
Estate and Improvements Owned With Incumbrances There-
on” is a tabulated statement of location and acreage, improve-
ments, valuation, mortgages and liens. Under the heading
of “live stock” are listed the number and value of horses,
mules, cattle, hogs, poultry, sheep, and goats. Under “Machin-
ery and Tools” are contained the number and cost of wagons,
cultivators, and other farm machinery. The lower half of the
back of this rate sheet under “Statement of Farming Opera-
tions or Cropping System” contains blanks for information about
the farm, acres in the farm and in cutivation, name of the
owner, and the amount of rent to be paid. Then follows a tab-
ulation of the number of acres to be planted in the various
kinds of farm crops with a statement of the probable number
of farm animals that may be marketed during the year.‘

The principle that guides in this business negotiation is
stated by Bennett as follows:

“Safe farming for liquidating a loan, is had
when not exceeding 50 per cent. of the cultivated
land of the farm is planted in one crop, or, when
sufficient acres of the farm, as shown by a crop rate
sheet, are planted in food and feed crops, including
the necessary poultry, milk, cows, and hogs, to sup-
ply the family and stock on the farm with food and
feed, and to maintain the soil, and the balance of the
cultivated land planted in crops for market, or for
feeding stock for market.”

lBulletm No. B-28, pages 5 and 6, Rate Sheet Essential in Long and Short Time Farm.
Loans, by R. L. Bennett, published by Extension Service of the A. and M. College
of Texas.

2Ibid, page 4.

Methods of Financing Tenant Fawn Operations 221

This represents one of the means of securing a better sys-
tem of safe farming as well as a more intelligent basis of
economic credit. Its influence has been felt in two direc-
tions. The farmer has been encouraged to diversify his crops,
on the one hand, and the credit agency has secured a safer risk
on his loan, on the other.

The relation of credit to income determines the net finan-
cial benefits that accrue to the farmer. A large labor income
will not produce results in the way of home ownership if this
income is absorbed by high interest rates and other abnormal
expenditures. No normal business enterprise could have pos-
sibly prospered under the economic system that has been ap-
plied to farming in the past. No business has been so profit-
able that it could have withstood the interest rates and the
credt charges that have been forced upon the small farmer.
While improvement has been made in recent years, much
needs yet to be done before farming will be placed upon a
sound financial basis. Agencies are at Work on this import-
ant problem. It is reasonably certain that improvement will
continue until farming will be established upon as sound eco-
nomic principles as that already applied to commercial enter-
prise.

PART III.

An Analysis of the Social Aspects of Farm
Tenantry in the United States.

CHAPTER XVIII.

SOCIAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING T
FARM TENANTRY. - ’

The social influences that retard the movement toward
farm ownership must be accounted for in an analysis of the
social and economic conditions created by this rural situation.

The remarkable growth of tenantry in recent years is due to p

conditions that need to be understood. Farm tenantry is rapidly
producing a menacing situation, and by no process of rea-
soning can it be regarded with complacency. A social diag-
nosis is a prerequisite to a correct application of remedies.

The factors that enter into the social analysis vary from the
very definite and obvious to the remote and intangible. Some
are so interrelated as to depend on each other as a contribu-
ting cause of farm tenantry. Some are economic and some are
social. In many cases, the social causes are traceable to economic
conditions. The less tangible of these factors will be briefly dis-
cussed in this chapter, and in chapters that follow the more spe-
cific factors responsible for the present farm tenantry situation
will be analyzed. But the general and less specific need to be dis-
cussed as a preliminary approach to the larger social influences
that have made farm tenantry a real problem in our rural ciziliza-
tion.

The Unequal Bargaining Influence of
Landlord and Tenant.

1. The obsolete political doctrine of laissez fairs has
prevailed in the open country long after it has yielded to an
intelligent system of social control in the cities. The conser-
vatism of our rural population has retarded the application
of regulations of the relationship of landlord and tenant by
society. It has been assumed that it is nobody’s business
whether a man chooses to cultivate his own land or prefers to
rent it to another. If the owner is satisfied, no other person
has a right to raise an objection or to offer a criticism. Can-
not the farmer use his land as he pleases? Is not the tenant
a free agent, capable of continuing on the farm he cultivates,

225

226 Farm Tenantry in the United States

or moving to another as he chooses? Why not everybody,
then, leave these matters to the free choice of the farmer and
his tenant? This is the old laissez faire doctrine applied to
the contractual reationship between landord and tenant, and
it has persisted even to this day. We are reminded that in
the history of the labor movement at one period this argument
was advanced in opposition to the organization of labor as :1.
means of increasing the bargaining power of laborers with
capitalists. But the tenant farmer in many sections of our
country today is passing through the transition stages similar
to that through which organized labor passed. With the
growth of tenantry the unequal bargaining power between land-
lords and tenants has become more obvious, and the economic
probems created by this inequality have become more press-
mg.

We still await the application of remedial measures such
as have come to every other country. The doctrine of laissez
faire practiced in rural communities must ultimately force
society to interfere in the interest of the tenant farmer. Pre-
vious reference has been made to cottier tenancy in Ireland,
where this’ political doctrine prevailed for a long time, and
the landlord did as he pleased in his contractual relations
with his tenants. He chose to be an absentee landlord; he
chose to collect a commercial rent so high as to reduce the
labor income of his tenant below a subsistence wage and to
spend his surplus income from this source in luxurious living
in England or continental Europe. The farm land of Ireland
was fast becoming sterile, and the peasant tenants a class of
impoverished farm laborers. The British government finally‘,
after half a century of Wrestling with this situation, was com-
pelled to apply remedial legislation to the problem. The
English parliament compelled the landlords to sell their farm
holdings, to the state at a price determined by parliament, and
in turn the government sold the land to the tenants on sixt -
eight and one-half years time at three and one-half per cent.
interest.

This was the substitute for the doctrine of laissez faire

in the rural sections of Ireland. In many other countries a
similar policy has had to be applied as a substitute for the

Social Factors Contributing t0 Farm Tenantry 227

eighteenth century individualism, out of which this doctrine
originated. We have accepted and applied the doctrine in
this country that where the bargaining powers between two
mutually interested groups of our population become unequal,
it is the duty of the government to restore equality of con-
tractual relations by legislation. It is inevitable that we
must extend this doctrine to the relationship of landlord and

tenant.

The landlords have not yet realized that they are retard-
ing the development of a better rural situation by their sys-
tem of tenantry. Or, it might be more accurate to say, that
the system of tenantry that landlords uaconsciously apply is
responsible for the situation. But whatever be the correct
statement of the case, home ownership is being retarded in this
country by the unequal ability of the tenant to contract with
his landlord on a basis of social justice to both parties. Just
in proportion as this inequality exists and develops will the
landless class increase at the expense of profitable agriculture
and wholesome rural living.

It is inevitable, therefore, that the landlord cannot be
permitted to do as he pleases in his contractual relations with
his tenant, unless he pleases to have his land cultivated in the
interest of the public good and in harmony with the social
doctrine of distributive justice.

The Thriftless Tenant.

2. A second cause in this category is the absence of
thrift on the part of many tenant farmers. Men differ wide-
ly in natural aptitudes. Some possess initiative and energy;
others are phlegmatic and lazy. There is a class of tenants,
and their number is relatively large, that are indifferent

to advancement social, moral, or economical. This class is‘

reconciled to live with meager comforts and in a squalid en-
vironment. A tenant of this class is described by Mr. Charles
S. Atkins, himself a tenant of quite a different type, in con-
trasting the thrifty with the thriftless tenant as follows:

“Now there are two classes of those tenants. One
class grows very little, for the standard of their liv-

228 Farm Tenantry in the United States

ing is very low. He cares very little for the standard
maintained in his household. He gets along and gives
his family very little schooling advantage. I know
what I am talking about because I have a neighbor to-
day who has five sons, the same as I have, and out
of those five sons, not one passed the third grade in
school. The oldest son, who is going out to do for
himself today, cannot write his own name-—and is a
young man of twenty-five years old..”1

This class exists in many rural communities. In some

communities the social standards that prevail are determined
by this element of the rural population. The thriftless ten-
ant presents the most serious problem connected with our rural
situation because remedial measures are difficult to apply
to members of this class. ’

Some study has been given to this aspect of the farm ten-
antry problem. In a study made in several rich counties of
North Texas in 1916 by F. B. Clark, Professor of Economics
in the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, it is
found that not one tenant failed to express a desire to own
a home, but when asked what he thought of the tenant's
chance of ultimately owning a home in his section, his answer
clearly indicated that few expected to become homeowners. In

estimating the percentage of tenants who would ultimately,

acquire homes under conditions existing then and for that im-
mediate" section, the estimate ranged from three per cent. to
ten per cent. The concensus of opinion was that the percent-
age of tenants who acquired homes would continue to decrease
from year to year under existing conditions. In this particular
investigation, there were some tenants who thought conditions
were all right and contended that a thrifty tenant could ulti-
mately acquire a farm. But by far the predominating senti-
ment was that there are serious obstacles, not only in the way
of thrifty tenants becoming land owners, but that these difii-
culties are of such a nature as to discourage thrift among the
tenants. A summary of these obstacles as given in the un-
published report of Professor Clark is as follows:

(1) “Many tenants were thoroughly discouraged about

IThe proceedings of the National Conference on Marketing and Farm Credits, held at
Chicago from November 29 to December 2, 1915, page 433.

Social Factors Contributing to Farm Tenantry 229

home ownership because of the high price of land. The opin-

ion was ‘almost unanimously expressed that if a man had to
pay the prices charged for the land from the yield of the soil
it could not be done. The estimate, both by landlord and
tenant-and, in fact, some to whose benefit the high price land
accrued—agreed that in most places the land values were
twice too high. But their statements were qualified by tho
assertion that if the prices of farm products remained where
they were now (1916) the price of land is not too high} But
everybody appreciated the fact that this was an abnormal
year. Coupled with the high price of land is the fact that
much land is held in large estates and is not available at any
price. On these estates are found the very worst conditions.
One farmer pointed across the road to an immense estate of
a thousand acres or more and said: ‘The owner of that land,
although in other respects a good man, is a curse to the com~
munity. The nature of his tenants is reacted upon by their
living conditions and the result is we have no respectable

c neighbors.’

(2) “The second observation that is very common was
that the landlord made such great exactions upon his tenants
as to discourage thrift and profitable agriculture. It was
believed by the tenants in that section that there were some
landlords who do not make unfair exactions, but it was tho
opinion that these are in the very small minority. Some of
the exactions that were complained of are as follows:

“The refusal of the landlord to pay for necessary improve-
ments under a share-renting system. This has two aspects.
In the first place, no encouragement is held out to the tenant
to make the home he occupies more comfortable; in the sec~
0nd place, the tenant is practically required to terrace and
ditch his land without any kind of recompense. The tenants
complained also that they were required by the landlord to
sell the cotton that they produced, at a time when the price
was low, to the landlord, who reaped the benefit of a rise in
prices. On the rich black land farms the tenant complained
that he was denied a garden plot for the raising of vegetables
for family use. In some instances the tenant was refused

lFarm land in the section referred to ranges from about $50 per acre in the sandy sec-

, tions to approximately $200 per acre on the black land areas.

230 Farm Tenantry in the United States

permission to own any live stock of any kind. These exactions
usually were made only in case of the so-called share-crop-
pers, but even those working under the system of third and
fourth basis, were sometimes not allowed garden plots and
other concessions. Complaint was also made that strict sup-
ervision of the tenant’s planting was a discouragement to initi-
ative and thrift. The tenant was compelled to plant exactly
what the landlord-required and work it according to his direc-
tions. Although this is the natural result of the share sys-
tem of farm tenantry, which really makes the tenant farmer
a hired man depending on a share of the crop for his wage,
nevertheless, it has a tendency to reduce the tenant to a state
of servility.” The whole effect of this situation, according to
Professor Clark’s observation, was to deaden the initiative of
the tenant and completely discourage him in any aspirations
for home ownership. _

3. The third factor in the incidental cause of farm
tenantry may be designated as unforseen misfortune. The
“hard luck” story is often heard by the investigator in this
field. There is no justification for disparaging the influence
of ill health, for example, as a factor in this situation. A few
definite studies have been made on the subject of rural health.
“It is commonly supposed”, says Ogden, “that good health is
the invariable accompaniment of country life; that children
who are brought up in the country are always rosy-cheeked,
chubby, and, except for occasional colds, free from disease;
that adults, both men and women, are strong to labor, like
the oxen of the Psalmist, and that grandfathers and grand-
mothers are so common and so able-bodied that in practically

every farmhouse the daily chores are assigned to these aged
exponents of strong constitutions and healthy lives. If, hovr-
ever, we are honest in our observations, or have lived on a farm
in our younger days, or have our eyes open when visiting in
the country, we will remember, one by one, certain facts
which will persistently suggest that, after all, life on the farm
may not be such a spring of health as we have been led to be-
lieve. We will remember the frequency of funerals. especi-
ally in the winter, and the few families in which all the child-
ren have reached maturity. We will remember the worn-out
bodies of men and women, bent and aged while yet in middle
life.”1

lOgdexfs Rural Hygiene, page 1.

Social Factors Contributing to Farm Tenantry 231

During the summer of 1915, the» New York State
Department of Health made a survey of health condi-
tions in five townships and two villages of Albany county. The
area surveyed was classified as (1) the remote rural, and (2)
the accessible rural. In the remote rural districts data were
received from 5,187 families or 91.2 per cent. of the total pop-
ulation. In the accessible districts 11,372 families were re-
corded, or 93.6 per cent. of the population. The following
tabulation shows the comparison of health conditions in the
two districts:

Health Conditions, New York State}

l Remote l Accessible
l Num. l Pct. l Num. l Pct.
Persons admitted to be ill . . . . . . . . . . . . 582 11.2 l 660 5.8
Number in bed or in hospital . . . . . . . . . 32 5.5 48 7.0
Number under medical care . . . . . . . . . . 168 l 196 .
Number ill with preventable disease or l
curable with early treatment . . . . . . . 460 79.0 l 544 l 82.4
Number whose illness was preventable l l
or curable who did not have medical l l
treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 51.0 | 391 59.2
Number persons ill with preventable or l l
curable illness who have been ill for l l
years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 329 49.8

Dr. Paul L. Vogt in commenting on this particular survey
says: “The fact that almost twice as large a proportion of
those living in the remote districts were ill as those
living the more accessible sections, indicates in the words
of the Report, that ‘the more remote the rural district, and
the greater the difliculty of access, the greater is the need of
disseminating knowledge of measures for preserving health’ ”Z
The causes of the relative amount of illness in the remote
districts are well known, and they have been carefully de-
scribed by authors dealing with various aspects of the rural
problem? While the data based upon actual studies are inade-
quate, it may be assumed that, relatively speaking, the con-
*Vogt's Introduction to Rural Sociology, page 156.
2V0gt’s Op. Cit., page 156.

SSee Gillett’s Constructive Rural Sociology, Chapter 2; Vogt’s Op. Cit., Chapter 8; Og-
den’s Rural Hygiene.

232 Farm Tenantry in the United States

clusions reached as a result of the survey made in Albany
County, New York, are typical of conditions in many parts of
the country. It is certainly true in the South that illness has
been more prevalent in the open country than in towns and
cities located in the same sections. As farm tenantry is also
more generally restricted to the remote rural sections, it is
the natural consequence that the largest part of the illness
falls upon the tenant class.

The expense of doctors’ bills and medicine, "there-
fore, has been an important factor in the tenantry prob-
lem. This kind of misfortune has fallen with a heavy hand
upon many struggling farm tenants whose aspirations for
ownership of the land they cultivated were destroyed by un-
expected and continuous illness, as a result of causes that
they could not understand, that involved them in obligations
that they could not meet; and slowly but surely the own-
ership of a home became an impossibility.

The tenant’s labor income is normally a subsistence wage,
and any unforeseen expenditure drives him into debt. The
significance of these conditions can be appreciated only by
those who have come into intimate contact with rural com-
munity life. But the evidence is abundant that in a large num-
ber of cases farm ownership has been made possible
through financial hardships resulting from illness.

We have come to regard certain diseases as essentially
rural. The most important of these are pellagra, malaria,
typhoid, and hook worm. The causes of some of there dis-
eases are not well known. Pellagra has usually been regard.-
ed as a result of malnutrition; hook worm is probably trace-
able to unsanitary conditions existing about the farmstead ;
malaria has prevailed widely in the plantation sections of the
river valleys which have not been sufficiently drained to safe-
guard the farm home from the infestation of the mosquito.
While the causes of malaria are now well known to scientists
and the intelligent element of our population, many farmers
are totally ignorant of these causes, and even where the facts
are known, in many cases, houses are not screened and sanitary
conveniences are not applied because of poverty. Pellagra and

Social Factors Contributing to Farm Tenantry 233

hook worm have prevailed throughout many sections of the
South. In fact, it is a matter of Widespread recognition that
all of these diseases are most prevalent in those sections Where
farm tenantry is the commonly accepted method of land cul-
tivation. In some of the sections where these diseases are
most prevalent, farm tenantry is abnormally high, in some
cases, averaging as much as 97 per cent. of the farm popula-
tion. It is easy to see the effects of these rural diseases upon
the great plantation systems in the river valleys and among
the negro farming sections of the South.

The labor income is affected by this situation in three de-
finite Ways: (1) In the first place, the cost of professional
medical attention and drugs is a serious drain upon the labor
income. (2, In the second place, the loss of time, due to ill-
ness, from actual labor on the farm is often an important fac-
tor in reducing production. This is especially noticeable
Where the farm enterprise is carried on by _a large family, all,
or most of Whom, engage in labor on the farm. (3) In the
third place, is is a Well known fact that pellagra and hook
worm, especially, tend to reduce vitality and thereby destroy
the energy necessary for persistent effort. No adequate ap-
praisal has been made, or perhaps it is not possibly to make an
accurate estimate of the influences of the common diseases so
prevalent in the rural sections of the South, of the loss in eco-
nomic returns as a result of preventable diseases. But it needs
only to be referred to, to impress those familiar with
the situation with the great influence that illness has had .in
creating a real tenantry problem.

There are other causes, such as accidents and other
kindsof misfortune, that have played a part in creating this
problem, but they are perhaps negligible in comparison with
illness.

Ignorance as a Factor in Farm Tenantry.

4. The influence of ignorance is a contributing cause of
farm tenantry. This fact is also well known to the student
of rural problems. It has a more or less direct bearing upon
all other influences that act and interact upon this situation.

234 Farm Tenantry in the United States

The first impression that the investigator gets when he comes
in contact with the problem of farm tenantry, is that the great
masses of tenant farmers are woefully ignorant—ignorant of
their legal rights; ignorant of their possibilities; ignorant of
their social and political responsibilities. An editorial in the
Progressive Farmer on “More Agricultural Knowledge Need-
ed by Both Landlord and Tenants,” sets forth in a very interest-
ing manner, the influence of the farm tenantry situation. After
referring to the seriousness of the situation, the editorial pro-
ceeds as follows:

“It is probable that any material change in our
present tenant system will come slowly, and until ten-
ants become more intelligent a high type of tenant agri-
culture seems impossible. The ignorant negro tenant,
Whether he pays a cash rental per acre or is a share-
cropper, will not do good farming, unless an intelligent
landlord maintains a close and direct supervision of his
operations. This, the average landlord is not able nor
willing to do; hence, there is not much prospect of im-
provement in our tenant farming. Any great improve-
ment is impossible until the tenant becomes sufficiently
intelligent to do better farming, or until the owner is
able and willing to introduce and maintain a satis-
factory system of farming and to give such supervision
of it as may be necessary.

“Our tenants are largely ignorant negroes, but
there is no good to come from denying the undoubted
fact that our landlords are about as deficient as land-
lords as are the tenants. Most landlords are not will-
ing to provide the buildings, fences, etc., necessary for
good farming, and knowing the inability of the aver-
age negro tenant to pay rent with any other crop than
cotton, the landlord is naturally unwilling to encourage
any other kind of farming.“

The writer of this editorial is not mistaken about the in-
fluence of ignorance on the whole farm tenantry situation.
While he is thinking primarily of conditions in the South, his
editorial has a much wider application. Throughout the na-
tion, ignorance is retarding the movement for farm ownership.
All the agencies now engaged in the task of rural education—
agricultural colleges, the U. S. Department of Agriculture,

 

lProgressive Farmer, Volume 39, No. 32, page 1025, for September 9, 1916.

Social Factors Contributing to Farm Tenantry 235

agricultural experiment stations, agricultural extension activ-
ities, agricultural high schools fostered by the states, or by the
states through Federal aid, and farmers’ organizations of an
educational nature—have not yet suceeded in overcoming the
widespread ignorance throughout the rural sections. There
are many farmers in every section who are ignorant of
the use of farm machinery, and the best construction and
arrangement of farm buildings. They are often ignorant of
labor saving devices about the farmstead, and they have little
understanding of the importance of sanitary devices and their
influence upon health. All of these considerations lie at the
basis of better economic and living conditions. The passion
for home ownership is largely determined by an intelligent
comprehension of What is involved in good farming, comfor-
table homes, and attractive environment. “The more one con-
siders the whole question”, says President Henry Smith
Pritchett, “the more fully one is persuaded that the problem
of teaching the boy on the farm, training him into a successful
agent for a new scientific business of farming and making him
a factor in the conservation of resources, is inextricably con-
nected with the larger problem of the betterment of social and
economic conditions of rural life.”1 A

Ignorance is not a measurable quality. Its influence on
production cannot be determined directly by statistical meth-
ods, but its social significance is well understood and its extent
is fairly Well determined in this country. Its significance as
a contributing cause to the problems of rural life must be con-
sidered in any program of social betterment that may be de-
vised for rural conditions.

Individualism as a Factor in Farm Tenantry.

5. Failure to provide and to promote agencies of coop-
eration has contributed to farm tenantry as well as to other
problems of rural life. There is really no system of farm
tenantry in the United States that encourages the organiza-
tion of farm tenants for co-operative enterprises. In fact,

lFourth Annual Report of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teach-
ing, page 106.

236 Farm Tenantry in the United States

under many systems of farm tenantry in practice in this couir-
try, there is discouragement of any kind of co-operative effort.
Some of the systems that are practiced make organization for
co-operative purposes impossible. It is doubtful if the landlord,
as a rule, encourages such a movement among tenants.

The tenant himself is responsible in a large measure for
the individualism that he practices. The shifting of tenants
from one community to another makes organization difficult.
The uncertainty of his tenure causes the tenant to feel that
it is useless to spend his energies in organizing for specific
purposes. The short-term lease and the uncertanty of contin-
uance on the same farm for more than a year has caused the
tenant to assume an indifferent attitude toward all co-opera-
tive efforts to organize with his neighbor for mutual economic
and social purposes. He simply feels that even to attempt
it would be wasteful and unprofitable.

But whatever the cause, the failure of the tenant to or-
ganize has decreased his ability to purchase a farm and con-
tributed to his indifference to the benefits of home ownership.
Clarence Poel has well summarized the benefits of rural co-
operation. Rural organization offers opportunities for co-
operative buying, production, joint ownership of agricutural
manufacturing enterprises, marketing, and finance. Dr. Poe
discusses the social and economic importance of these as a
means of increasing the farmer’s labor income and contribut-
ing to his contentment. The influence of rural co-operation
in Ireland, in England, and in Denmark is well known to the
student of rural problems.

The specialist in rural organization tells us that home
ownership is an essential factor in rural organization. Home
ownership does make co-operation easier, for the reasons that
have been referred to . But what about the reverse of this
situation? Can co-operation be secured as a stimulus to home
ownership? There is obviously a reciprocal relationship b0-
tween these two aspects of the situation. The permanence of
tenure is the essential factor contributing to rural organiza-
tion. If this could be secured, home ownership would come
largely through the influences of rural organization. Isola-
tion and individualism are the usual reasons assigned for the
farmers’ failure to organize for co-operative purposes.’ But

1-1-1-010 Farmers Co-operate and Double Profits, pages 7 to 17.
2See Butterfield's Chapters in Rural ProgresmChapter 1.

Social Factors Contributing to Farm Tenantry 237

the problem involves other elements. It might be possible to
overcome partially these influences and still fail to secure co-
operative efforts under our present system of tenant farming.

It is not contended in this discussion that all farmers, in-
cluding tenant farmers, are handicapped by the factors
discussed above. It is well known that there are many tenant
farmers, as well as others, who possess adequate intelligence to
carry on the enterprises of the farm with skill and success. But
no one would contend that there are not large numbers of farm-
ers, largely the tenant class, to whom this description will apply.

The significance of these five factors upon farm tenantry lies
at the basis of the specific causes that will be discussed in the
next four chapters. These subsequent discussions would hardly
be intelligible without the recognition of the influences that have
been described in the present chapter.

CHAPTER XIX.

THE INFLUENCE OF IMMIGRATION ON
FARM TENANTRY.

 

The status of the immigrant races is an important factor
in the study of farm tenantry. At a time in our history When
probably important modifications is contemplated in government-
al policies with reference to immigration, it is well to consider the
influences of immigration upon the important problem of ag-
ricultural production, especially with reference to the land
tenure aspect of it. The value of the immigrant to the country as
a producing agent depends upon three considerations. (1) The
distribution of immigrants throughout the agricultural sections;
(2) the degree of skill and scientific knowledge possessed by them;
and, (3) their status with reference to the ownership of land.
The inter-relation of these questions makes it necessary to dis-
cuss each of them with reference to the others.

The question of the distrbution of immigrants was neg-
lected for a long time, but attention is being given to the problem
which has resulted from the segregation of foreigners in the
crowded quarters of the large cities and the failure of the social
workers to make much headway in assimulating the alien popu-
lation under these conditions.

The Commissioner of Immigration in his report for 1908,
in discussing the labor situation, called attention to the condi-
tion in the cities as “the congested places in the industrial
body which checked the free circulation of labor.” In a later
report, however, he expressed the opinion that the aliens were
becoming better distributed than in earlier periods. But as the
conditions were still very unsatisfactory, the Immigration
Act of 1907 included a section providing for the establishment
of a division for information. In the report of the Commiss-
ioner General on Immigration in 1908, he interprets this pro-
vision as follows: “It is first to bring about a distribution of
immigrants arriving in this country, thus preventing, as far as
possible, the congestion in our larger Atlantic seaport cities
that have attracted the immigration of recent years; and sec--
0nd, to supply information to all of our workers, whether na-

238

The Influence 0f Int-migration on Farm Tenantry 239

tive, foreign born, or alien, so that they may be constantly ad-
vised in respect “to every part of this country as to What kind
of labor may be in demand, the conditions surrounding it, the
rate of wages, and the cost of living in the respective local-
ities.”1

While according to this construction of the law. natives as
well as foreigners are included, yet the work of the division has
been largely directed toward sending unemployed aliens into the
farm districts. The results accomplished have been of doubtful
value. Several defects in the plan are obvious. In the first
place, the distribution of the slum population of cities through-
out the rural sections will not accomplish its purpose as an
agency of production unless some preliminary opportunity is
given to teach these immigrants something about American
methods of agriculture. This is especially true of our foreign
population coming from Southern Europe, Who are not pre-
pared by previous training or possessed of temperamental qual-
ities that will enable them to pursue agriculture with profit. In
the second place, to transplant a slum population from the city
tenaments to a rural district would merely cause the establish-
ment of rural colonies of foreigners, and nothing would be gained
in the Way of political or social advantages for the country as a
whole.

The skill and knowledge of the agricultural elements of
our foreign population depend entirely on the vocations fol-
lowed before they came to this country. The problem of
wise distribution, therefore, of our alien population depends
upon adequate information concerning the conditions and vo-
cations of these people previous to their immigration to
America.

The older immigrant race groups came largely from
Northern Europe. They included the Germans, Norwegians,
Swedes, and Danes, all of whom came from the rural sections
of their respective countries and immediately established ag-
ricultural colonies in this country. In most cases they were more
skilled in agricultural knowledge and experience than the na-
tive Americans around them. They acquired large land hold-
ings and became very successful and prosperous farmers.

lReport of 1908, page 223.

240 Farm Tenantry in the United States

This has not been true of the recent immigrants who have
come in large numbers from southeastern- and southern
Europe. They are unskilled and untrained in agricultural
pursuits, and they have not as yet demonstrated their ability
as producers, althou-gh they have formed many agricultural
colonies and are gradually acquiring modern agricultural infor-
mation. The Immigration Commission investigated recently
nearly every important settlement of immigrant groups that have
settled East of the Mississippi River. Studies were made also of
immigrant agricultural groups in Texas, Arkansas, and Southern
Missouri. The investigation included Poles, Slovaks, Bohemians,
northern and southern Italians, Portugese, and a few other less
significant groups, such as German, Swiss, and the Japa-
nese. For purposes of this investigation immigrant groups
were divided into two classes. First, those who were more or
less permanently identified with the land as farmers, and sec-
ond; seasonal farm laborers, who drifted from the cities to this
or that section to assist in harvesting some particular crop.

It is interesting to observe that while nearly two-thirds
of the Italians from southern Italy and approximatelyone-
fourth from northern Italy were farmers in their native land,
a very limited number of them are following agriculture in

this country. As the Italians have constituted a large per

cent. of immigration since 1900, it is obvious that agricultural
development has not been stimulated to any large degree by
recent immigration. However, there are large farming coni-
munities of Italians in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Texas. The largest agri-
cultural colony in the South, numbering approximately two
thousand persons, is at Bryan, Texas. At Sunnyside, Arkansas,
there is also an unusually large Italian farm community. As
a rule, the Italian is thrifty and saves his money. He begins
as a farm laborer, but as rapidly as possible climbs the agricul-
tural ladder, soon becoming a tenant farmer and later on
acquiring ownership of the land he cultivates. We are told
by Jinks and Lauck that “at Sunnyside, the immigrants gener-
ally rent farms, while at Knobview and Tontitown, Arkansas,
it is their ambition to be independent land owners. As 1n

The Influence of Immigration on Farm Tenantry 241

other parts of the country, the Italians in the South have small
farms, requiring little capital and little outlay for machinery.“

The Poles have not contributed a substantial element to
agriculture. The Immigration Commission, in their investiga-
tion, found settlements of them in the undeveloped farm reg-
ions of the West, assisting the owners in the settlements of large
tracts, and on the abandoned farms in certain sections of the
East, notably in the Connecticut valley. “Up the Connecti-
cut river valley of New England”, says Archibald McClure,
“there recently have appeared thousands of Polish farmers,
reclaiming the land left by the old Puritan stock, who have
sought easier fields of agricultural conquest farther West.
Good farmers-as they are, these Polish peasants seem able to
make a living in the Long Island truck farms; or in the warm
climate of Texas, where, with the Bohemians, they have set-
tled down in large numbers; or out in the newly claimed‘ lands
of Washington, where they have many prosperous-looking ten-
acre tracts.” Their love for the ownership of property has
rapidly transformed them from seasonal laborers into farm
owners. They have readily adapted themselves to specialized
types of agriculture in different sections of the country. For
example, they have been very successful in potato culture in
Porage County, Wisconsin, and in cotton farming in Texas.
They have also been successful in raising onions and tobacco
in the East. Their success as farmers cannot be determined
by the extent to which they have become home owners. In
the Connecticut valley, they are mostly tenants because the
high price of land has made it impossible for them to purchase
their own homes. There are still many Polish tenants in cer-
tain section of Texas, where land values are relatively high and
where the producing crop, usually cotton, has not been suffi-
ciently remunerative in the past to enable them to buy land.
But in Illinois and Indiana, where land is high but the crops
produced have yielded a relatively high price, they have rapid-
ly been transformed from renters to owners.

Like the Bohemians, the Slovaks have entered upon farm-
ing as a vocation in various parts of the country, including Vir-
ginia, Texas, and Arkansas. The Slovaks come from Hungary

lThe Immigration Problem, page 86.
ZLeadership of the New America, page 69.

242 Flarm Tenantry in the United States

and, like many of their people, they were peasant farmers at
home. According to the 1910 census, there were about 285,000
of these people in the United States. The Slovaks, unlike the
Bohemians, are largely illiterate and are less skilled in farm-
ing than the Bohemians. However, as they are naturally a
farming people, they are adapting themselves to farm condi-
tions in this country. At Slovaktown, near Stuttgart, in Ar-
kansas, there is a colony of fifty or sixty farm families. The
colony is about fifteen years old, but it has grown very little in
recent years. The comparatively small number of Slovak
farmers creates no economic rural problem, and they have ex-
erted no influence on the tenantry problem in the sections
where they have located.

Bohemian immigration has contributed a rather substan-
tial el-ement to the farming population of the United States.
There are between 500,000 and 700,000 of these people in the
United States, and about one-third of them are engaged in
agricultural pursuits. They have settled in Nebraska, Iowa,
Wisconsin, and Texas. A colony of Bohemians settled in Fay-
ette County, Texas, previously to the Civil War. McLennan
County, Texas, has a colony of more than four hundred fam-
ilies. Almost one-half of the farming population of Kewau-
nee County, Wisconsin, was Boehmian in 1890, while in cer-
tain sections of Nebraska the Bohemians shared about equally
with the Scandinavians in directing all the farm operations.
Most of the Bohemian farmers in Texas are located in the cot-
ton growing sections of the state, but they were quick to diver-
sify their crop production sufficiently to meet their own food
and feed requirements. In every section they rapidly be-
came farm owners. They have met most difficulty in con-
necticut, where, having bought old homesteads, and- lack
ing scientific knowledge, they have not been able to made
the most out of the worn out soil. But the Bohemian farmer
may be ignored as a factor in the farm tenantry problem in
the United States, for he rapidly climbs the agricultural lad-
der to farm ownership, and his farm soon becomes a model for
his neighbors.

_ The three-most prominent elements in recent immigra-
tion are the Italians, Poles, and Jews, but the latter have not

The Influence of Immigration on Farm Tenantry 243 l

contributed materially to agricultural pursuits. The report
of the Jewish Agricultural and Industrial Aid Society of New
York, is authority for the statement that in 1909 there were
approximately 3,040 Hebrew farmers in thirty-six states.
Three-fourths of this number were located in New York, New
Jersey, and various parts of New England. Jewish farmers
are not numerically important in any other section of the Unit-
ed States, except in North Dakota.

Great efforts are being made through social organiza-
tions to assist the Jewish immigrants who come to this coun-
try. The Baron de Hirsch Fund, which was incorporated in
1891, is designed to encourage Jewish agriculture. Archibald
McClure is authority for the statement that “More than two
million dollars has been loaned to 3,151 farmers by the Jewish
Agricultural and Industrial Aid Society in its work of promot-
ing agricultural colonies in the United States.“ Many of the
farm colonies established through social effort have failed, the
exceptions being the colonies in New Jersey. It seems now to
be permanently established and reasonably successful. Jenks
and Lauck commenting on the Hebrew as a farmer make this
observation: “The Hebrew is not adapted by training or tra-
dition to be a pioneer farmer and in general his attempts at
agriculture are unsatisfactory. The crops, tillage, the qual-
ity and quantity of produce are not as satisfactory as in most
colonies of other races. The farm income is not large. The

largest gross income noted was in the tobacco farms of the

colony at Ellington, Connecticut, which has been established
only a few years. The largest net incomes are probably de-
rived from the Vineland, New Jersey, farms. The difficulty in
making Hebrew farm colonies succeed has been recognized
by the Jewish Agricultural and Industrial Aid Society, which
has now established an experimental farm on Long Island for
future rural colonists. To succeed, Jewish farmers must have
some capital and improved land. They must settle in groups
large enough to maintain a synagogue. Those most apt to suc-
ceed have been either farmers abroad or experienced in this
country before becoming permanent farmers. Country life,
however, has benefited the individual. Hebrew farmers live
better than Poles or Italians of the same length of residence

lLeadev-ship of the New America, page 169.

244 Farm Tenantry in the United States

here. They show, also, a greater desire for comforts. They
become citizens sooner than most races from Southeastern
Europe, and take a more intelligent interest in politics and
civic questions. In many districts they have demanded bet-
ter schools. Assimilation is retarded by religious traditions
and rural segregation, but the Hebrew landowners are quick-
ly Americanized, and soon appreciate representative govern-
ment, democratic institutions, and an educated electorate.
There was no colony investigated by the Immigration Commis-
sion whose members voted less as a unit than those where
rural Hebrews formed a large part of the electorate?"

It is obvious from this discussion that the Jewish farmer
has not become a social problem in rural communities. It is
likely that his importance will increase, due to the agencies
that are promoting Jewish agriculture, but perhaps the phil-
anthropic efforts that will accompany these social efforts will
prevent the Hebrew farmer from ever becoming a rural economic

’ problem.

The largest farm element in our foreign population has
come from Germany. According to the 1910 census, there
were 221,800 German farmers in this country. “No other for-
eign element,” according to Ross, “is so generally distributed
over the United States as the Germans.” Their skill, industry,
and thrift have made them also uniformly successful, not only
in agriculture but in the other pursuits which they have fol-
lowed. They have brought with them their traditional love
for home ownership and willingness to settle down and de-
velop the land they occupy. No where in the United States
has farm tenantry become a problem where Germans cul-
tivate the soil. Professor Ross has admirably characterized
the German farmer in the following statement: “Thanks

partly to good farming and frugal living, and partly to the

un-American practice of working their women in the fields,
the German farmers made money, bought choice acres from
under their neighbor’s feet, and so kept other nationalities
on the move. This is the reason why a German settles
on fat soil and why in time the best land in the region is likely
to come into German hands. Unlike the restless American,

11l‘he Immigration Problem, page 91.
2The Old World in the New, page 47.

The Influence of Immigration on Farm Tenantry 245

with his ears ever pricked to hail of distant opportunity, tne
phlegmatic German identifies himself with his farm, and
feels a pride in keeping it in the family generation after gen-
eration. Taking fewer chances in the lottery of life than
his enterprising Scotch-Irish or limber-minded Yankee neigh-
bor, he has drawn from it fewer big prizes, but also fewer
blanks.“ '

An entirely different type of immigrant is that represent-
ed by the Chinese and the Japanese. Numerous problems have
grown out of the immigration of these oriental people to the
United States. It is well to note two points of general interest
with reference to Chinese immigration. (1) In the first place,
the number of Chinese in the country and the number that
are being admitted are gradually on the decline. Between
1890 and 1910, the number of Chinese in the United States
decreased from over one hundred thousand to seventy-one
thousand five hundred and thirty-one. Four thousand Chi-
nese immigrants was the maximum number admitted to this
country in any one year of the nineteenth century. (2) In
the second place, the Chinese immingrants are largely localized
--the large majority being in California and other Pacific
Coast states.

The Chinese have been very successful in certain types of
farming. Truck farming has been developed to a high degree by
them in Southern California, but the number of Chinese farmers

is gradually decreasing in this country and does not present a-

problem for serious consideration.

The Japanese population in the United States, which is large-
ly confined to the Pacific Coast states, is slightly less than
100,000?

The most conspiciuous fact about the Japanese in America
is the unusually large percentage engaged in agriculture.
“The most noteworthy feature,” says McClure, “about the
presence of the Japanese as workers in this country, is the
great proportion of their numbers engaged in farm work.
Aside from the few thousands employed in the mines of Wy-
oming and California, as track workers on all the great rail-
roads of the far West, and in the lumber camps and mills of

1The Old World in the New, pages 52 and 53.
2See Millis’, H. A. The Japanese Problem in the United States, page 1; McClure, Archi-
bald, The Leadership of the New America, page 230.

246 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Washington and Oregon, those who are not in the city centres
as business men, domestic servants or students are largely
farmers. Of 71,299 adult males, the Japanese American for

‘1913 estimated the number of farmers and farm laborers at»

31,496—-more than twice as many as were engaged in any
other line of work, and nearly one-half of the total. This
gives to the Japanese a distinct characteristic, unique among
most of the immigrant people of our land. They are out in
the country on the farms where it is felt that it would be well
if our European immigrants could also be.”1

The explantion of this fact is to be found, perhaps, in the
home conditions from which most of the Japanese come. The
vast majority of our Japanese immigration belong to the
farming or laboring class in their native country. They come
prepared to use their energy and apply their skill under new
conditions. No other foreign element in our population has
brought to the farms of this country so much knowledge of
scientific farming. They are familiar with methods of irri-
gation and possess a limited knowledge of the rotation of
crops, which they readily learn to apply to farm conditions
in this country. This has given the Japanese farmer an un-
usual advantage over our native population in some respects.

Professor H. A._Millis explains the strong tendency of the
Japanese to engage in agriculture in this country as follows:
“In Japan the farmer has been ranked higher than his fel-
low man engaged in trade or industry. Because of the meager-
ness of natural resources and the necessity of the most care-
ful husbandry, the agricultural arts, in so far as labor and
scientific application are concerned, have been highly de-
veloped. So, here in-the adopted country, agriculture has
carried with it station in life and has given opportunity for
the application of the best-developed arts possessed by the
race.”

_The Japanese have become a rather important factor in
agriculture 1n Idaho. Utah, and Colorado. in connection with
the sugar beet industry. In those states, farm tenantry in con-
nection with the Japanese has become a problem. In Colorado,
the Japanese are almost all tenant farmers with one year leases
according to Millisfi

lLeadership of the New _America, page 232.
ZT/te Japanese Problem m the United States, page 80.
3Ibzd, page 85.

The Influence of Immigration on Farm Tenantry 247

“Most of the tenants,” says he, “now provide most of the
equipment needed. Nearly all are growing crops requiring
intensive cultivation and a moderate amount of irrigation.
While farmers grow the same crops to a very considerable
extent, though the Japanese have come to be known as the
chief growers of cabbage and tomatoes for the canneries.
Their land is well tilled and they are regarded as good farm-
ers. Here and there several adjacent farms are tenanted
by Japanese; in other cases their farms are widely scattered.
In some cases the tenant has only a part of the farm, as, for
example, those that are devoted to the production of beets. He
then ordinarily occupies a house built for the hired help or
a tenant. This is frequently, if not usually, a fairly substantial

cottage . _ _ _ _ _ _ In numerous cases, however, the Japanese
tenant leases an entire farm, and, if so, he ordinarily occupies
the regular farm house . _ _ _ _ _ _ The Japanese families have

replaced white families to a certain extent.”1 This condition
of tenant farming is probably typical of the other states in
that immediate section where beet sugar and vegetable farm-
ing are predominant.

Tenant farming among the Japanese is an important
factor in the agricultural situation in Washington. In 1910,
according to the census figures, 316 farms of 9.412 acres were
leased by the Japanese? Professor Millis is responsible for
the statement that in 1913 the number of farms leased was
about 560, the acreage having increased to 16,000 or 17,0OO.3
It seems that Japanese own no land in the state of Washing-
ton. This is explained by the fact that there is a clause in the
state constitution which prevents aliens from acquiring land
ownership unless they have certified to their intention to be-
come citizens of the United States.

The Japanese constitute a very substantial element of the
farmers in California. A bulletin issued in 1914 by the cen-
sus bureau‘ is authority for the statement that of a total of
2,502 farms, comprising 147,259 acres in the state of California,
the Japanese controlled in 1910, 1,816 of these farms, embrac-
ing 99,254 acres. In other words, approximately 73 per cent.

1The Japanese Problem in the United States, page 85.
2Census Bulletin 127, page 44.

3The Japanese Problem in the United States, page 89.
4Bulletin 127.

248 Farm Tenantry in the United States

of the farmers and 63 per cent. of the farm lands are controll-
ed and operated by Japanese either as owners or tenants. In-
Lenswe agriculture is the type of farming mostly practiced by
Japanese in California. Their agricultural activities are largely
devoted to the growing of vegetables, including potatoes and sugar
beets, and such fruits as berries and grapes. Most of the farms
held by Japanese are small—many of them containing less than
five acres. The average size of the 1,816 Japanese farms reported
by the census was only 54.7 acres} The branches of agri-
culture followed by the Japanese in California involve tedious
processes and much individual hand work. The tendency of
the white man to avoid this kind of agricultural production
has given the Japanese almost a monopoly in the culture of
most of these crops.

The Japanese have been important factors in the land tenure
problem in California. The land tends to pass into the pos-
session of those best ‘qualified by temperament and previous
experience to meet the labor need of that type of production.
It has been easy for the Japanese to pass from farm laborers
to share tenancy where the land owners supplied teams and
equipment. Cash tenancy, however, has gone along parallel
t0 share tenancy in certain Japanese communities in Cali-
fornia. “Most of the tenant farming,” says Millis, “by Jap-
anese in the localities specializing in the growing of grapes
and deciduous fruits has grown out of the fact that the Jap-
anese work under a ‘boss’ and occupy a dominant place in
the labor supply required for taking care of crops. As some
leased their land and secured an advantage in the labor mar-
ket, there was the more reason for others to do so.”

As the Japanese ire-directed the agricultural production
of California into intensive farming and developed a new type
of crop production, the unit area of production increased and
the tenant was able to pay high rents. Under this process,
the owner found it more profitable to lease his land than to
farm it himself. This situation is clearly explained by Pro-
fessor Millis as follows: “That they could afford» to pay rela-
tively high rents is explained, in part, where a new type of
farming was introduced by the Japanese, by the fact that their

 

1M‘llis’ Th J P bl ' h '
zlblid’ pagee lfipanses r0 em m t e Umted States, page 137._

The Influence of Immigration on Farm Tenantry 249

crops would bear a higher rent than those which had been
grown. When land worth a few dollars per acre for growing
hay is turned to the production of strawberries, it may be
worth $20.00, $25.00 or even $30.00 per acre. If turned to
the production of beans or potatoes, or other vegetables, it is
worth more to the tenant that when used for the production of
general crops. But the relatively high rents paid are not to be
explained entirely in this way. Five years ago the writer was

‘present when a young American sought to lease a ranch from

an agent at Stockton. It was wanted for growing potatoes.
He first offered to pay $10.00 and finally $12.00 per acre,
one half down, the remainder when the crop was harvested,
but his offer was declined because a Japanese had already offered
$15.00, a Chinese $16.00 for it for growing the same crop.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Instances came to my attention along the Lower
Sacramento where Japanese had replaced Italians as tenants
by giving a larger share of their crop. Similar instances were
found in some other places. With time, the difference in rents
would-be tenants are willing to pay have diminished, but it
has not yet disappeared. It obtains to some extent about
Fresno, for example, in the leasing of producing vineyards.
Of course other considerations than the share of the crop
by the Jewish Agricultural and Industrial Aid Society, which
enter into a share lease but in genera-l it may be said that
there in 1914 the general rule was for the Japanese tenant to
‘take forty and give sixty’ per cent., while other tenants and
landowners ‘shared alike.’ That the Japanese have been will-
ing to pay relatively high rents for agricultural land has, how-
ever, never been in dispute, so that further detail need not be
added. Some regard it as meritorious, others as objectionable.
Other things being equal, it is well to have land devoted to those
crops which will bear the highest rent. The points we are
interested in here, however, is that the strongest competitor
for land is the one who will pay the highest rent.”1

Three questions arise with reference to the Japanese as
a tenant farmer in California. (1) What influences has he
had upon land and production? (2) What has been the irr-
fluences upon the landlord? (3) Has the system worked out
to the interest of the Japanese farmers themselves? There

lMillis’ The Japanses Problem in the United States, page 141.

250 ‘ Farm Tenantry in the United States

is no doubt that the Japanese farmer has proved to be a great
asset in agricultural production in California. His methods
of intensive cultivation and his influence on diversifed farm-
ing has greatly increased the agricultural and horticultural
production. The complaint that the Japanese rob the land of
fertility has some justification, but the nature of the agricul-
tural production compels some attention to soil improvement,
and for that reason the Japanese tenant has not “skinned”
the land as some would have us believe. The general opinion
is that the Japanese haveshown more interest than is usualiv
found among tenants in the care of the farmstead and the
conservation of soil properties.

As under all other conditions of tenant farming, absentee
landlordism has grown out of the Japanese tenant situation
in California. The high rents that the Japanese have been
willing to pay have enhanced land values, and the owners in
many instances have moved to the near-by towns and cities.
But it is rather interesting to observe that the number of
tenants in California in 1910 was 20.6 per cent., while in 1900
it was 23.1 per cent. This is in contrast with the conditions in
the United States as a whole, the percentage of tenants having
increased from 35.3 in 1900 to 37 per cent. in 1910. It ought
to be said, perhaps, that absentee. landlordism has not
been so serious a problem in California as in some other sec-
tions of the country. In many cases the land owners continue
to live with their families on the farms, all, or a part, of which
they have leased to Japanese. The most serious social effect
is to be observed on the other side of the question. In com-
munities where Japanese farmers have settled, relatively few
white persons are settling. This has greatly retarded the
development of a small land-holding class, and, of course, tends
to perpetuate tenancy.

Little consideration has been given to the influences of
rent prices on the Japanese themselves for obvious reasons.
There is no doubt that landlords in some cases have exacted too
much rent from the Japanese. This is the inevitable consequence
of land competition and profitable agriculture. This much may
be said, however, in justification of the system from the Jap-
anese standpoint, they are as a rule, living under better con-

The Influence of Immigration on Farm Tenantry 251

 ditions and enjoying more comforts than they experienced in
j their native country. They have been able to farm without
Timuch capital and probably in no other vocation could they
“have succeeded as unskilled laborers so well as they have as
 tenant farmers. In other words, it would appear that the Jap-
ganese tenant farm situation in California is not to be con-
demned on the grounds that it has created in itself a serious
social situation. There is no indication that Japanese tenants
’ill advance to land ownership in California in any large
umbers, but in their present situation they will probably
‘prosper in a more substantial way than any other tenant farm
felement in the country.

 
  
   
   
   
  
 
    
    
  
   
   
  
 
  
  
  

Geographic Distribution of Farm Tenants.

v A better perspective is given to the influence of immigra-
i ion upon farm tenantry by indicating their distribution
fhroughout the United States. The follwing tablel _taken
om the Census Abstract shows this situation:
i Nativity of Farm Operators: 1910.

3|

 

 

This table reveals several interesting facts. (1) It will
"observed that only 10.5 per cent. of the farm operators of
l nation are foreign born. (2) The largest percentage of

_ ract Thirteenth Census, Table 1, page 206.

Per cent. of all

Per cent. of Farm Oper- Per cent. of
Farm Owners ators Farm Tenants‘

F’: if 5i

q E "a? E "s? E a‘;

.3 a g .3 w g .3 =<= g

l o

Qrnvdgzom  0m ‘gnu; églwm £23m é“

Z8 as “$33 as “g-EB s8 w;

» Ln o h o o
‘ted States . . . . . . . . .. 75.0] 10.5 14.5 80.1 13.8 6.1 66.2 5.0 28.8
‘w England . . . . . . . . .. 85.3 14.5 0.2 85.6 14.2 0.2 82.6 17.1 0.3
dle Atlantic . . . . . . .. 89.5 10.1 0.4 89.1 10.5 0.4 91.1 8.4 0.5
p,‘ t North Central . . . . . 82.7 16.7 0.5 79.9 19.7 0.5 90.3 9.1 0.6
 ~= North Central . 74.8 24.3 0.9 70.4 28.6 1.0 84.4 14.9 0.7
nth Atlantic . . . . . . . .. 67.4 0.6 32.0 81.8 1.0 17.2 50.2 0.2 49.6
v: South Central . . . . . 68.3 0.5 31.2 87.7 0.8 11.5 49.5 0.2 50.4
g South Central . . . . . 73.4 4.4 22.2 81.0 5.9 13.1 66.6 3.1 30.4
 tain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.5 17.1 4.4 78.0 17.2 4.8 81.7 16.7 1.7
"fic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.8 27.7 2.5 69.9 28.7 1.4 67.9 24.1 8.0

252 Farm Tenantry m the United States

the foreign born are found in the Pacific division, where the Chi-'

nese and Japanese compose the large element of the foreign popu-
lation, and in the West North Central, and the East North Cen-

tral divisions. (3) In the South Atlantic and East South Cen-.

tral divisions the foreign-born element is negligible.

According to the census of 19102, Minnesota and North
Dakotahave the largest percentage of foreign farm operators, 
which amounts to more than one-half of the farming element . ,_

in the state.

The United States census for 1910 presents an interesting i
table with reference to the status of foreign-born farmers as l,

to the land tenure. This table is as follows:

Farm Tenure by Nativity

 

 
 

Per cent of Per cent of Negro and

Native White Foreign-Born other Non-

Farm White Farm white Farm

Operators Operators Operators

(l! :3 l0 g 1 m g

£3 *5 an fi *5 b0 i3 +5 b0

Division g g g g g g E g g

Q) Q) CD

o a 2 o e1 2 o a 2

United States . . . . . . . . ..‘| 66.3) 32.7 1.0? 81.4} 17.6: 1.0 26.2. 73.6! 0.
New England . . . . . . . .. 89.6 7.7 2.7 87.2 9.3 3.5 79.2 15.2 5.
Middle Atlantic . . . . . . ..| 75.4 22.7 1.9] 79.0 18.6 2.4 72.1 24.2 3.
East North Central . . . . . 69.5 29.5 1.0‘ 84.6 14.7 0.7 68.4 30.3 1.
gVest Norith Central  64.3 34.8 0.9 80.7 18.9 0.4 74.7 24.5 0.
outh At antic . . . . . . . .. 64.8 34.2 1.0 84.9 11.7 3.4 28.7 71.1 0.
East South Central . . . . . 62.9 36.7 0.4 81.1 17.8 1.2 18.1 81.9 0.
“Vgest South Central  . 51.6 47.8 0.6 62.7 36.8 0.5 27.6 72.3 0
ountain . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.1 11.2 1.7 88.3 10.4 1.3 95.6 4.1 0
Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80.1| 16.8 3.1! 83.1 15.0_ 1.9 43.8 54.5 1

It is interesting to observe the comparison between the
native white farm operators and the foreign-born white opera-
tors with reference to land tenure. It will be observed from
the above table that while 66.3 per cent. of the native white

Per cent of . i:

Lubahwwoocoqmw
a 1.1.0" w F -. '.

farm operators in the United States are classified as owners, .

81.4 per cent. of the foreign-born white farmers own their
own fargis. In every geographic division of the United States,
with the exception of New England, the percentage of tenant-
operated farms is greater for the native white than for the

ZThirteenth Census, page 296.

  

l merican Statistical Association,

The Influence 0f Immigration on Farm Teuantry 253

foreign white population. Professor Gillette, commenting on this
fact, says: “It Would seem that the nation need have no fear that
immigrants who settle on farms will fall into tenantry. It
should rather fear that native farmers be eliminated by for-
eigners, though that fear may be ungroundedf" Before ac-
cepting this conclusion, however, it may be desirable to study
the question from the standpoint of the aggregate foreign pop-
ulation engaged in agriculture. In a very careful statistical

‘i study made by Professor Gillette and Mr. George R. Davis

and incorporated in an article entitled “Measures of Rural Mi-
gration and Other Factors of Urban Increase ‘in the United
States,” the following statistics are given:

Number of Persons Engaged in Agriculture

   

Males Females Both Sexes
\ "a =1; "6
l p 45 , L‘ +§ I p 43 |
cu 5 :3 w 5 w F: 5 m
l ,_ e 8 a g 3 § a = B 8 a g
{Q E H O-r-n ~ a H Q2 a g O-v-I
<9 5 q; |—< 4a 5 q; Z ‘c; 5 Q) p-a t;
Cmlntry F?‘ Z $1173 n. Z 0- w a. Z F“? c.
United States 191010,582,039 35.2 1,806,584] 22.4 12,388,623 32.5
1900 9,272,315 39.0 977,336 18.4 10,249,651 35.3
1890 7,787,539 41.4 594,385 17.3 8,466,363 37.2
|1880 7,068,658 47.9 594,385 22.5 7,663,043 44.1

Volume 14, 1914-15.

254 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Percentage of Total Rural and Urban Population of the United
States, Classified by Nativity.

Rural Urban
tivit n e ra hi
Na Ygiviffinfig p c 1910 1900 1890 1910 1900 1890
1
Native Parentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 8 73.0 77.* 33.9 37.8 43.6

Middle Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 0 70.6 71.3 34.4 35.8 35.8

East North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.4 64.9 64.3 41.7 38.8 36.8

West North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58.5 57.5 59.3 51.2 47.8 45.6

South Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2 60.8 59.9 54.2 50.0 45.9

West South Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 7 64.4 61.4 58.4 47.4 41.7

Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.8 52.9 50.4 51.9 47.2 47.6

Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.8 54.8 54.6 46.9 40.6 36.8

Total, United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 54.1 63.2 63.3] 41.9] 40.2 39.7
Foreign or Mixed Parentage
New England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.0 14.9 11.5 34.2 31.6 26.6

Middle Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.6 16.6 15.5 33 6 34.8 33.3

East North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.4 23.0 21.3 33.0 35.8 33.2

West North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . 27.4 26.7 22.6 28.2 30.4 27.5

South Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 1.4 1.4 10.1 12.2 13.0

East South Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.2 1.4 9 5 13.2 14.8

West South Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 5.5 4.3 12.1 16.9 18.9

Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2 24.1 21.2 27.3 30.2 25.0

Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.4. 23.4 196 27.2 31.4 28.2

Total, United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l 13 3 13.6 12 4 29.01 30 9 28 7
Foreign Born
New England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6 11.5 10.4 30.7 29.3 28.6

Middle Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.9 11.2 11.7 29.5 26.8 28.7

East North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 11.1 13.2 22.8 22.9 27.5

West North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.6 13.9 15.8 16.3 17.0 21.8

South Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 0.8 0.8 6.2 6.5 8.3

East South Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.5 0.7 3.7 5.0 7.6

West South Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 3.1 3.2 7.0 8.8 12.3

Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.7 15.9 18.6 18.3 19.9 24.0

Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4 16.5 18.7 22.2 23.1 28.0

Total, United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 7 51 7 5| s.7| 22 6| 22.2] 24.8
Colored : l
New England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6’ 0.6 0.5 1.2 1.3 1.2

Middle Atlantic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.5 1.6 1.5 2.5 2.6 2.2

East North Central’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 1.0 1.2 2.5 2.5 2.5

West North Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 1.9 2.3 4.3 4.8 5.1

South Atlantic . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.3 37.0 37.9 29.5 31.3 32.8

East South Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.4 44.0 32.9 32.4 34.2 33.5

West South Central . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8 27.0 31.1 22.5 2619 27.1

Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 7.1 9.8 2.5 2.7 3.4

Pacific . . . ,_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 5.3 7.1 3.7 4.9 7.0

Total, United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] 15.1\ 15.7| 15.6\ 6.5! 6.7| 6.8

 
  
  
   
   
   
 
   
    
   
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
   

The Influence 0f Immigration 0n Farm Tenlantry 255

Changes in the Rural and Urban Population in 1910 and‘1900
Compared With 1890. (1890—1910).

 
 

_ Foreign _ l
Natlve or mixed Forelgn
Parentage Parentage Born Colored Total
l
' l
Census Year and T: E "<3 ii T: E T6 a E T6 E
Grand Division S 5-4 E" s-t g 5-4 § L H § s4
F11 i3 O5 i3 Di i3 Dd 1 i3 D5 i3
1 1910
7 New England . . . . . 86.7 119.0 142.4 19 . 11.6.1 164.6 11 .1 156.3 96.3 153.2
Middle Atlantic . . . . 97.8 179.9 118.2 18 . 123.7 192.0 10 . 220.4 104.1 187.1

1- West North Central. 115.5 188.5 142.3 17 . 94.0 125.4 7 . 143.0 117.2 167.8
l South Atlantic . . . . . 132.6 211.2 128.8 13 . 166.9 134.0 11 . 160.6 127.7 178.9
a East South Central . 126.0 238.0 85.0 124.4 74.2 92.7 116.0 185.8 121.8 192.6
i West South Central 197.3 382.8 211.3 174.1 164.2 155.4 129.5 228.0 169.6 173.4

6 7 8 4

8 6 9 0 _
. East North Central . 106.4 218.8 108.1 187.7 79.4 156.4 88.7 186.9 108.0 188.7
1 6 6 6
9 7 9 0

Mountain . . . . . . . . . 225.4 290.8 197.0 290.9 165.2 202.7 106.1 195.0 196.4 166.4
1 Pacific - - - - - - - - - - - 16.111 311119 llq-QEE 1.519.154 19311.57} 115i? 297-1
.Total, United States|124.3 197.8|181.s|189.5 106.4|1_Z1_.Ql1}§2{1QL5E12EYI18L6

 1900
I New England . . . . . 92.7 109.0 127.5 148.8 108.6 128.4 120.8 138.8 98.5 125.5
i Middle Atlantic . . . . 99.0 137.7 107.4 143.6 96.1 127.9 108.1 163.1 100.1 137.4

gEast North Central . 105.5 149.1 112.8 152.7-~ 87.7 117.9 93.5 145.4 104.6 141.6
’West North Central 108.2 133.8 132.4 141.0 98.7 99.5 91.1 120.0 111.7 127.6
 South Atlantic . . . . 116.8 140.8 120.9 120.9 106.1 102.1]112.6|123.1|115.2 129.2
}East South Central 114.8 149.5 105.2 123.5 83.0 91.8 114.4 141.0 114.3 138.4
iwest South Central 142.8 167.9 171.7 131.4 132.3 105.8 118.0 145.8 136.0 147.7
Mountain . . . . . . . . . 138.7 151.1 150.2 183.5 113.1 126.2 94.9 121.7 132.0 152.2
"Pacific . . . . . . . . . . . 119.7 154.6|142.6 155611052 1153i 87.3 98.7 119.1 140.0

iTotal, United States. 1112.2|187.2|I22T9|146.0\ “97.8l121.1|112.8|1s4.4.112.4|185.5

Taken from American Statistical Association——Quarterly Publication.
The Agricultural Element in the Population.

a. A summary of the above tables shows the following:
Y(1) The total number of persons engaged in agriculture has
l greatly increased in the four decades since 1880, but the per-
. licentage with reference to all occupations has shown a decided
idecline. This is due, of course, to the fact that the number of
occupations in industrial activities have multiplied greatly
. hile the number choosing agriculture has increased but
ittle. (2) The percentage of foreign-born farmers has in-
‘reased very slowly in the country as a whole since 1890, and
A e total percentage of increase is not sufficiently great to se-
"iously affect the land tenure problem. (3) The increase in
I e different geographic divisions has been far from uniform.
' several of the divisions there has been actually a decline
v the percentage of the rural population.

256 Farm Tenantry in the United States
Conclusion.

It would appear, therefore, that Professor Gillette is cor-
rect in his conclusion that immigration has not intensified the

problem of land tenure. There is no element in our foreign ,

population, with the possible exception of the Japanese, that
presents any serious problem of tenantry whatever. On the

whole, they seem to pass through the stages of farm laborer_

and tenantry to land ownership with reasonable rapidity, and
this is almost as true of one foreign element as another, with
the exception of the Chinese and Japanese, as has been shown.
In different sections of the country, there is here and there a
community of farmers that have met difficulties in acquiring
land, but this seems to be due in all cases to the geographic
and economic conditions rather than to any real racial attribute.

The rural immigrant problem is due rather to the disinclina-
tion of recent immigrants to settle in the open country
than to their attitude toward land tenure. This is very
clearly indicated in the study by Professor Gillette and Mr.
Davies. This fact is rather surprising when we recall that
most of these immigrants came from rural regions and were
either farm. laborers or small farm owners. This will create
a problem that will demand consideration in the future. But

lit will be greatly simplified by the fact that the prob-

lem of land tenure is not likely to accompany the re-direction
of the vocational activities of the immigrant who settles in
our country. a

 

CHAPTER XX.
THE NEGRO FARM TENANT.

The farm tenantry situation cannot be understood With-
out a knowledge of the facts connected with negro farm tenantry
, in the South. The present chapter will attempt to present the
 available statistics and other important facts with reference to
' the extent and the influence of the negro tenant on the general

 

' problem of farm tenantry.

The Negro on Southern Farms.

Approximately 77.5 per cent. of the population of the South
About 40 per cent. of all persons engaged in agricul-
In Mississippi, South

is rural.

tural pursuits in the South are negroes.

Carolina, and Louisiana, the number of negroes engaged in farm-
ing is about 60 to 70 per cent. of all farmers in those states.
Alabama and Georgia come next with from 53 to 56 per cent.

of negro farmers in the total}

The importance of the negro farmer in the South can best be
appreciated by a comparison of the statistics of the number of

negroes on farms in 1900 and 1910?

Number of Negroes on Farms.

T l i l Per cent.
State 1910 1900 Increase Increase
Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 353,906 279,480 I 74,426 26.6

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 177,491 117,571 59,920 51.0

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  70,697 43,245 27,452 63.5

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411,086 I 277,970 133,116 47.9

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 211,873 I 189,969 21,868 11.5

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,551 27,193 6,358 23,4

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472,594 337,940 134,654 39.8

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . 226,525 160,194 66,331 41.4

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,259 30,402 3,857 12.7

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . 351,927 267,326 84,601 31.6

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109,848 90,337 19,511 21.6

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217,930 145,555 72,375 49.7

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,730 103,521 24,209 23.4

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . 2,450 2,116 334 15.8

While Florida, Arkansas, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina,
and Mississippi show the largest increase in the number of ne-

1Bulletin No. 33 (1916), Bureau of Education, Department of Interior, on Negro Educa-

tion, Volume 1, Chapter 7, page 98
2Ibid.

257

258 Farm Tenantry in the United States

   
  
 
   
  
   

gro farmers during -the ten-year period, there was a substanti 
increase in all the Southern states. The statistics show that =-»
number of negro farmers during that period increased =§_
rapidly than the number of white farmers in all the states ex '-
cept Louisiana, Virginia, and Alabama. i.

A study of the occupation tables of the U. S. Census als
shows that the negro is preeminently a farmer. There art
5,192,535 negroes engaged in vocational pursuits and 2,893,380
or 55 per cent. of this number, are engaged in cultivating th
soil. Between 1900 and 1910 the number of negro farmers in
the United Statesincreased 705,226, or 25.9 per cent. The
number of farms operated by each agricultural group in 1910
and 1900 is as followszl

Number 0f Negro Farmers.

Increase Per cent.

1900 1910 . 1900-1910 Increase
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 893,370 746,715 146,655 16.4
Owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218,972 187,797 31,175 14.2
Tenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672,964 557,174 115,790 17.2
Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,434 1,744 310 17.8

This table clearly indicates that the negro has been and is’
an important factor in agricultural production in the South. It.
is a matter of significance that he has been climbing the “agri-
cultural ladder” with unusual rapidity since the close of the _
Civil War. But the percentage of increase in tenantry has con-
tinued to be somewhat greater than the percentage of increase
in ownership.

A comparison of the acreage owned and rented by negroes in '
each of the Southern states is as follows :2

lBulletin-No. 33, Chapter 7, page 100, U. S. Bureau of Education.
2Ibid, Chapter 7, page 103.

The N egro Farm Tenant 259
M Farm Acreage
State Total I Owned Rented
Total . . . . . . . . . . I 42,259,247 15,691,478 26,567,769

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . I 5,073,953 1,466,719 3,607,234

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . .I 2,647,230 1,204,114 1,443,116

Delaware . . . . . . . . . .I 54,578 13,615 40,963

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . I 758,731 458,443 300,288

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . I 7,064,500 1,349,503 5,714,997

Kentucky . . . . . . . . .  436,459 255,363 181,096

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . 2,103,345 834,695 1,268,650

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . ' 345,156 122,039 223,117

Mississippi . . . . . . . I 6,420,549 - 1,227,194 4,193,355
North Carolina . . . . . 3,166,812 1,197,396 1,969,496
Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . I 2,270,416 1,599,655 670,761
South Carolina . . . . .I 3,898,022 1,098,044 2,799,978
Tennessee . . . . . . . . .| 1,588,396 I 590,676 997,720
Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . I 4,188,979 1,866,742 2,322,237
Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . 2,208,235 1,381,223 827,012
West Virginia . . . . . .i 33,886 25,957 I 7,929

These figures indicate that the negro farmer is largely a

renter.
to every acre owned.

In a number of the Southern states, two acres are rented

Checking this comparison with the value of farm property
owned and rented by the negro in the South, we find the follow-

 

ingzl
_ Value of Farm Property
State
Total I Owned I Rented
Total . . . . . . . . . . . .I $1,104,496,687 $346,829,258 $757,667,329

I , Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96,856,685 22,506,427 74,350,258

; Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86,871,173 27,139,889 59,731,284

 Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,184,474 686,322 1,498,152

KFIorida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,622,184 8,779,585 5,842,599

TGeorgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156,988,269 25,679,922 131,308,347

p. Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,519,312 8,908,927 8,610,385

‘Loulsiana . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,834,314 16,494,075 36,340,239

I Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,953,278 4,879,716 6,073,562

.,_' rMississippi . . . . . . . . . . . 186,458,876 44,417,423 142,041,453

l North Carolina . . . . . . .. 80,804,831 27,44 ,410 53,356,421
" 58,674,493 40,59 ,030 18,084,463
117,281,487 27,340,950 89,940,537

53,181,362 16,411,350 36,770,012

figTexas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111,736,262 39,873,225 71,863,037
fill/irginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,266,983 34,774,150 18,492,833
1,262,704 898,957 363,747

ggiwest Virginia . . . . . . . . .
T.

a.
=2:
.)\

'5‘
3
Si»

g These figures show that there is a great excess in the value
 farm property rented by negro farmers over the value of farm
igiiiproperty owned by them.
'j,!Bulletin No. 33, Chapter 7, page 103, U. S. Bureau of Education.

260

Fa/rm Tenantry in the Unzted States

Comparison of White and Negro Farmers.

The real significance of this situation is best seen by a com?‘
parison of the principal statistics of agriculture for negro an 1
for White farmers. The accompanying table presents this co

parison in 1910 and in 1900 for the United States as a Wh0l€I2 _ 

Farms 1910 and 1900 

Plercentage 

- ncrease* 
1910 1900-1910 

w J

<1’ w 6 1 m‘;

E3 i. 3% Ti» ‘i. 

u: as q) w: m a m m 

   
hOn mop mo? @031
Number of Farms . . . . . . . . . 893,370 5,440,619 19.6 9.5
Acreage, total . . . . . . . . . . .. 42,279,510 832,166,202 10.6 4.4
Per Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.3 153.0 152',
Improved acreage, total . . . . 27,845,190 449,418,265 19.2 15.215;
Per Farm . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.2 86.2 f
Tenure:
Owners and part owners . 218,972 3,707,501 16.6 7.6‘
Tenants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672,964 1,676,558 20.8 14.4"
Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,434 56,560 --17.8 -1.2 
Value: j
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,141,792,526 $39,712,214,845 128.4 99.6
Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 756,158,264 27,615,515,334 133.2 117.3
Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166,559,439 6,148,876,853 131.6 76.7 j
Implements and machinery. 34,178,052 1,277,407,744 81.2 68.4 "
Live Stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184,896,771 4,720,414,914 117.7 58.6 '
Value per farm . . . . . . . . . . . 1,280.75 7,299.21 91.3 82.3  
Value per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.01 47.72 106.9

*A minus sign §—) denotes decrease.

2Bulletin 129, Bureau of Census,

in the Uniter States".

Department of Commerce, pages 36 to 39, on “Negroes

91.1 _;

mmnl-  '

A tenants is less than one-half
c“ United States.

'the percentage of negro farm tenants

. of these divisions.
-? comparisons are made for typical states in each of the three geo-
' graphical divisions.
y cent. of all farms are operated by tenants, 80.3 per cent. of all
. farms were operated by negroes, While only 34.3 per cent. were

The Negro Farm Tenant 261

This table shows that the number of farms operated by

A negroes in the United States is relatively small When compared
i with the number operated by Whites.

But the number of negro
he total number of tenants in the

A comparison of the percentages of White and negro ten-

A ants in the South with the percentage of all farms operated by

tenants, reveals the fact that negro farm tenancy is peculiarly

a a Southern problem?

Comparison of the Percentages of White and Negro Tenancy in
the South With Percentage of All Farms
Operated by Tenants?

?ercentage of all Percentage of all Percentage of all
Farms operated by farms operated by farms operated by
tenants. whitetenants negro tenants

United States . . . . . . 37.0 30.8 73.6
A South Atlantic . . . . . 45.9 52.4 69.3
x East South Central. . 50.7 36.6 81.9
' West South Central.. 52.8 47.2 72.3
Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . 65.6 50.0 87.1

A Alabama . . . . . . . . . . 60.2 42.6 84.5

Mississippi . . . . . . . . 66.1 38.2 84.7

Louisiana . . . . . . . . .. 55.3 34.3 80.3

i Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.6 49.2 69.5

In all four of the geographic divisions of the South,
is relatively high
in comparison with the percentage of White farm tenants in
these divisions. The percentages are high also in comparison
with the percentages of all farms operated by tenants in each
A similar situation is seen to exist when the

In Louisiana, for example, where 55.3 per

operated by White farm tenants.

llThirteenth Census, Volume 5, Tables 17 and 28.

262 Farm Tenantry in the United States

A further comparison develops another aspect of this situa-
tion. The average acreage of farms operated by white and
negro tenants shows the relative sizes of farms operated by
each group:

Comparison of Average Acreage per Farm Operated by White
and Negro Tenants?

Average Acreage per i Average Acreage per
_ _ _ Farm Operated by White; Farm Operated by ‘Ne--
Dlvlsmn ‘Tenants  rrro tenants

U it d St t . . . . . . . 118.9 40.0
Sdldth Atlgniisltl . . .  75.4 l 46.9
East South Central. . 52.6 I 33.7
West South Central. . 113.7 l 37.8

The census tables do not present the data for the several
Southern states on this point, but it is a well known fact that
the average acreage per farm that is cultivated by negroes is
smaller than the average acreage cultivated by the white farm
tenant. Correspondingly, the average value per farm operated
by the negro tenant Will be relatively smaller than the average
value of farms operated by white tenants? It is very apparent
that the farm unit cultivated by the negro farm tenant has not
been financially profitable.

Conditions That Determine Negro Tenant Farming
In the South.

While the statistical data give us a basis of comparison and
present the extent of negro farm tenantry, they do not reveal the
nature of the problem that is created and the effects it has
produced. The actual conditions can best be understood by a
brief review of the agrarian problem out of which farm tenantry
in the South has developed.

Conditions in the South at the close of the Civil War pro-
duced a radical change in the labor situation. The adjustment
of available labor to the soil Was an acute problem. Economic
conditions made it necessary to devise neyv methods of financing
farm operations. The methods were largely the result ofuthe

lThirteenth Census, Volume 5, Table 27.

‘See detailed comparison of these facts in an article by Henry Garnett on Farm Ten-
ure in the United States” in Volume 30, (1909), page 171 of the American Acad-
emy Annals.

The Negro Farm Tenant 263

limited amount of available money that could be used for cap-
ital investment. Three systems were evolved immediately fol-
lowing the close of the Civil War, viz: (1) The standing-wage
system; (2) the wage-earning system; (3) share-cropping. All
three systems existed at the same time, and in many cases all
three systems were practiced on the same plantation. The
standing-wage system got its name because “hands” contracted
to work for a period of months, usually during the cropping sea-
son, and the wages paid were in a lump sum at the end of the
period. Rations were issued weekly or monthly, or board was pro-
vided. There were two objects of this system; (1) In the first
place, by this planthe landlord was able to hold labor to the soil
until the crop was planted, cultivated, and harvested. (2) In
the second place, the farm owners could pay the wages to his
farm hands after the sale of his crop when he had available
money. This system has gradually disappeared.

The share-cropping and the wage-earning systems have per-
sisted until the present time. “No system,” says Thomas J. Ed-
wards, “seems to have a more permanent effect than what is

" known today as the share-cropping system. For many years

after the Civil War, work on shares had a very different meaning
from that which it bears today. Crops were cultivated for one-

 fifth, one-fourth, two-fifths, and one-third. In most cases, when

the cropper worked for any fractional part below one-third, he
received apart ration. Dividing crops into smaller fractional
parts than one-half, was at that time considered very reason-
able by those who had served years in bondage without pay and
whose demands for education and better methods of living had
no likeness in comparison to what they are today. It has been
less than a decade since the wants of each individual farmer
and his family have so increased and the competition between
landlords in holding labor upon their plantations has grown so

p, keen that the fractional part gradually increased, until now
t5 working on shares means generally all over the Southland, that
 at harvesting time that crop will be halved between landlord
 and cropper.”1 -

l, lThe Tenant System and Some Changes Since Emancipation, American Academy An-

nals, Volume 49, (1913), page 39.

    
   
  
  
  
   
  
  

264 Farm Tenantry in thelUnited States

Share-croppers. and renters existed in the early years fol‘
lowing the Civil War, but renting was less common than sharp
cropping because renting required some capital and few of the
landless class possessed it. The emancipated negroes in larg‘
numbers were compelled to farm on the share-cropping plan b 
cause they had not been able to acquire the ownership of a mule,
the necessary feed, a wagon, and other farm implements that th
landlord required as a condition to renting his land. Croppers
were anxious to become renters because they desired a“ larger;
control over their farm operations. Landlords were generally} _,
not opposed to this change, because their financial responsibility’ ‘
was reduced and they were freed from the close supervision that; __
the cropper required. This was one point that the landless manly? p _
and the landlord had in common. The ability of the negro farmer
gradually to change his status to that of ownership is traceablef. l
to this situation. “Three different methods,” says Ray Stannard,
Baker, “are pursuedby the landlord in getting his land culti-
vated. First, the better class of tenants rent the land for f;
cash, a ‘standing rent’ of some $3 an acre, though in many places";
in Mississippi it ranges as high as $6 and $8 an acre. Second, 
a share-cropping rental, in which the landlord and the tenant .»,.
divide the cotton and corn produced. Third, the ordinary wage it
system; that is, the landlord hires workers at so much a month 
and puts in his own crop. All three of these methods are usually 
employed on the larger plantation!"

Condition of the Negro Tenant. _
Baker describes the condition of the negro farm tenant as a
he found him on a Southern farm as follows:

“Most of the tenants, especially the Negroes, are
very poor, and wholly dependent upon the landlord.
Many Negro families possess practically nothing of
their own, save their ragged clothing, and a few dol-
lars’ worth of household furniture, cooking utensils
and a gun. The landlord must, therefore, supply them
not only with enough to live on while they are making
their crop, but with the entire farming outfit. Let us

» say that a Negro comes in November to rent a one-
mule farm from the landlord for the coming year.

“What have you got?” asks the landlord.
“N othin’, boss,” he is quite likely to say.
“The ‘boss’ furnishes him with a cabin to live in

lRay Stannard Baker’s “Following the Color Line”, Chapter 4, page 74.

 

The Negro Farm Tenant 265

—which goes with the land rented—a mule, a plough,
possibly a one-horse waggon and a few tools. He is
often given a few dollars in cash near Christmas time
which (ordinarily) he immediately spends—wastes.
He is then allowed to draw upon the plantation supply
store for a regular amount of corn to feed his mule, and
meat, bread, and tobacco, and some clothing for his
family. The cost of the entire outfit and supplies for
a year is in the neighborhood of $300, upon which the
tenant pays interest at form 1O to 30 per cent. from
the time of signing the contract in November, although
most of the supplies are not taken out until the next
summer. Besides this interest the planter also makes
a profit on all groceries and other necessities furnished
by his supply store. Having made his contract the
Negro goes to work with his whole family and keeps at
it until the next fall when the cotton is all picked and
ginned. Then he comes in for his ‘settlement’—a great
time of year. The settlements were going forward
while I was in the black belt. The Negro is credited
with the amount of cotton he brings in and he is
charged with all the supplies he has had, and interest,
together with the rent of his thirty acres of land. If
the season has been good and he has been industrious,
he will often have a nice profit in cash, but sometimes
he not only does not come out even, but closes his year
actually deeper in debt to the landlord.“

In another connection, Baker discusses the housing and liv-
ing conditions of the negro farmer. He says:

“Life for the tenants is often not a pleasant thing
to contemplate. I spent much time driving about the
great plantations and went into many of the cabins.
Usually they were very poor, of logs or shacks, some-
times only one room, sometimes a room and a sort of
lean-to. At one side there was a fireplace, often two
beds opposite, with a few broken chairs or boxes, and
a table. Sometimes the cabin was set up on posts and
had a floor, sometimes it was on the ground and had
no floor at all. The people are usually densely ignor-
ant and superstitious; the preachers they follow are
often the worst sort of characters, dishonest, and im-
moral; the schools, if there are any, are practically
worthless. The whole family works from sunrise to
sunset in the fields. Even children of six and seven
years old will drop seed or carry water.”

 

10p. Cit, Chapter 4, pages 74 and 75.
2Ibid, Chapter 5, page 100.

266 Farm Tenantry in the United States

There may be those who are inclined to contend that these f:
are exaggerated statements of the conditions of the negro farm
tenant in the South. It should be frankly admitted that these p;

descriptions represent rather the Worse aspects of the situation.

 

Nevertheless, it is a matter of common knowledge that the con- 5

ditions described in these quotations do exist in many sections of
the rural South.

Baker takes occasion to contrast tenantry conditions in
the South and in the North. He analyzes this situation as fol-
lows:

“Tenantry in the South is a very different thing
from what it is in the North. In the North, a man who
rents a farm is nearly as free to do as he pleases as if he
were the owner. But in the South, the present tenant
system is much nearer the condition that prevailed in
slavery times than it is to the present Northern ten-
ant system. This grows naturally out of slavery; the
white man had learned to operate big plantations with
ignorant help; and the Negro on his part had no train-
ing for any other system. The white man was the na-
tural master and the Negro the natural dependent and
a mere Emancipation Proclamation did not at once
change the spirit of the relationship.

“Today a white overseer rides on every large plan-
tation and he or the owner himself looks after and dis-
ciplines the tenants. The tenant is in debt to him (in
some cases reaching a veritable condition of debt
slavery of peonage) and he must see that the crop is
made. Hence he watches the work of every Negro
(and indeed that of the white tenants as well) sees
that the land is properly fertilized, and that the dikes
(to prevent washing) are kept up, that the cotton is
properly chopped (thinned) and regularly cultivated.
Some of the greater land-owners employ assistant over-
seers_or “riders”, who are constantly traveling from
farm to farm.“

It should be observed that the difference herein described
is largely traceable to the influence of the negro tenant farmer
and the organization of farm operations on the plantation basis.

10p. Cit., Chapter 4, page 76.

The Negro Farm TeInant 267

Difficulties 0f the Landlord.

It has not been possible for the landlord in the South profit-

ably to conduct his farm operations with negro farm tenants

' without resorting to different methods from those practiced where

the farm tenant was more intelligent, more industrious, and

more dependable. Close supervision by the landlord has been

made necessary by the irresponsibility of many of the negro

tenants. Baker very interestingly describes some of the land-
Ylord’s difficulties with his negro tenants as follows:

   
 
 
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  

“Saturday afternoon (or ’evnin’), as they say in the
South, the negro goes to town or visits his friends.
Often he spends all day Sunday driving about the
country and his mule comes back so worn out that it
cannot be used on Monday. There are often furious re-
ligious revivals which break into the work, to say
nothing of ‘frolics’ and fish suppers at which the Ne-
groes often remain all night long. Many of them are
careless with their tools, wasteful of supplies, irre-
sponsible in their promises. One planter told me how he
had built neat fences around the homes of his Negroes,
and fixed up their houses to encourage thrift and give
them more comfort, only to have the fences and even
parts of the houses used for firewood.

“Toward fall, if the season had been bad, and the
crop of cotton short, so short that a Negro knows that
he will not be able to ‘pay out’ and have anything left
for himself, he will sometimes desert the plantation
entirely, leaving the cotton unpicked and a large debt to
the landlord. If he attempts that, however, he must
get entirely away, else the planter will chase him down
and bring him back to his work. Illiterate, without
discipline or training, with little ambition and much
indolence a large proportion of Negro tenants are
looked after and driven like children or slaves. I say
‘a large proportion’—but there are thousands of in-
dustrious Negro landowners and tenants who are
rapidly getting ahead)“

This description does not exaggerate the difficulties that
_ he landlord has experienced with many negro tenants. They
re often found to be irresponsible and unreliable. Thriftless-

_ ollowgg the Color Li-ne, Chapter 4, page 76.

268 Farm Tenantry in the United States

ness and inefficiency are common characteristics. The planters
of the South have found it necessary to deal with the negro
farm laborer and tenant in a very exacting manner. The plan-
tation system in the South has been feudal in its nature. Just as
there were good and bad barons, so there have been good and
bad landlords with every gradation between these extremes in
the South since the Civil War. The ignorance of the negro and
his financial dependence have made it a temptation for an unjust

landlord to take advantage of him. Baker uses strong words '

in describing the result:

“When the Negro tenant takes up land or hires out
to the landlord, he ordinarily signs a contract, or if he
cannot sign (about half the Negro tenants of the black
belt are wholly illiterate) he makes his mark. He often
has no way of knowing, certainly, what is in the con-
tract, though the arrangement is usually clearly un-
derstood, and he must depend on the landlord to keep
both the rent and the supply-store accounts. In other
words, he is wholly at the planter’s mercy—a tempta-
tion as dangerous for the landlord as the possibilities
which it presents are for the tenant. It is so easy
to make large profits by charging immense interest
percentages or outrageous prices for supplies to tenants
who are too ignorant or weak to protect themselves,
that the stories of the oppressive landlord in the South
are scarcely surprising. It is easy, when the tenant
brings in his cotton in the fall not only to underweigh
it, but to credit it at the lowest prices of the week;
and this dealing of the strong with the Weak is not
Southern, it is human. Such a system has encouraged
dishonesty, and Wastefulness; it has made many land-
lords cruel and greedy, it has increased the helpless-
ness, hopelessness and shiftlessness of the Negro. In
many cases it has meant downright degeneration, not
only to the Negro, but to the white man. These are
strong words, but no one can travel in the black belt

10p. Cit., Chapter 4, page 77.

The Negro Farm Tenant 269

 

, without seeing enough to convince him of the terrible
 consequences growing out of these relationships.“

V, It must be admitted that there is much truth in this severe

 indictment. But those familiar with actual conditions in the

i South can recall many examples where the landlord has dealt
generously with his» negro tenants and safeguarded their inter-
ests as he has his own.

Transition From Tenantry to Farm Ownership.

All things considered, the negro farmer has made the trans-
ition from tenantry to farm ownership rather rapidly. In the
South in 1900 there were 2,620,391 farms of which 1,870,721, or
71.1 per cent. were occupied by whites and 740,670, or 28.3 per
cent. by negroes. The total number of farms in the South in-
creased to 3,097,547 by 1910, and of this number 2,207,406, or
71.3 per cent., were cultivated by white farmers, and 890,141, or
28.7 per cent., by negro farmers. Of the total acreage, 88 per
cent. was operated by white farmers, while only 12 per cent.
was cultivated by negroes. White farmers cultivated 87.6 per
cent. of the value of farm property, while negroes occupied 12.4
per cent?

The progress that the negro tenant has made to owner-
ship is best seen perhaps by tracing the increase in a typical
Southern state. At the close of the Civil War, negroes in
Georgia owned only about 10,000 acres of land valued at $22,500.
By 1876 they had increased the amount to 457,635 acres, the
taxable value of which was $1,234,104. During the next ten
years, from 1876 to 1886, they had increased their holdings
to 802,939 acres, the assessed valuation being $2,508,198. By 1896
negroes owned 1,043,846 acres of land valued at $4,234,848?

While the increase has not been so great since 1896, the
negro has continued to buy land. “Using all the statistics at
hand,” says Booger T. Washington, “it is safe to say that negro
farmers own in the Southern states not less than 30,000 square
miles of land. This is an amount of teritory nearly equal to

10p. Cit., Chapter 5, page 94.
ZThirteenth Census, Vol, 5, Table 19. Cp. Garnettfs “Farm Tenure in the United
States,” American Annuals, Vol. 33 (1909) p. 655.
3Booker T. Washington's “The Story of the Negro,” Vol. 2, Ch. 2, p. 41.

270 Farm Tenantry in the United States

five New England states, Vermont, New Hampshire, ‘Massa-l
It is difficult 

chusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island

 

al-aéefj, -' 

43%

for one who has not lived in the South and who has not closely l

studied the life of the negro on the Southern iarms and plan-
tations to clearly understand the actual progress that the figure
I have referred to stand for.”1 '
It may be asked, why the transition from tenantry to
ownership decreased in the last two decades? Mr. Thomas
Nelson Page attempts to answer this question as follows:

“A comparison of the rural colored population will
show that possibly over ninety per cent. of the prop-
erty now owned by the Negroes has been accumulated
by those who were either trained in slavery or grew
up immediately after the war, so that they received
the beneficial effects of the habits of industry in which
their race was at that time trained.”

This is probably not an adequate answer. The negro farm
tenant is experiencing the same handicaps that have retarded
farm ownership for the white tenant farmer. But it is a well
known fact that the negro farm tenant has not possessed the
intelligence, the energy, and thrift necessary t0 enable him to
overcome other difficulties in the way of acquiring a farm home.

Negro Migration to the Northern States.

A new and unexpected situation has complicated the negro
farm problem in the South. For a number of years there has
been an increasing migration of negroes from Southern farms
and cities to the commercial centers of the North. In 1816-17,
this exodus reached such proportions as to attract wide-spread
attention and cause serious alarm to the agricultural interests
of the South. The number of negroes who migrated in that
year cannot be determined accurately. However, the available
data indicate that the number ran into the thousands. The
Commissioner of Commerce and Labor in Georgia estimated the
number from his state at 50,000. The Commissioner of Agri-
culture in Georgia gives 90,000 as a conservative number. The

10p._cit_., v01. 2, Ch. 2, p. 4v.
2The Negroes, The Southerner's Problem, Ch. 3, p. 76.

The Negro Farm Tenant 271

negro insurance companies in Mississippi, Which keep in close
touch with the movement among colored people, estimated that
at least 100,000 negroes left that state. In Texas, Louisiana,
Arkansas, and Oklahoma, the number of negroes migrating was
much smaller than from other Southern states.

It is difficult to determine what proportion of the negroes
who migrated came from farms. But from the causes that

' have been assigned for the exodus by all those who have studied

the question, it is clearly evident that the rural sections have

. suffered most from this migration. “It seems quite clear,” says

W. T. B. Williams, “that the exodus had its main start and re-
ceived its largest numbers in those sections which suffered most
from the boll Weevil, and the floods, and in those Where the gen-
eral treatment of the negro has been at its Worst.”1 T. J. Woofter,
Jr., in describing the migration from Georgia, compares it to
the exodus to the Western states in 1866, 1867, and 1868. He
says: “Discontent With the Whole plantation system which
still ‘prevails on some southern farms Wae intensified by 10W
wages in 1914 and 1915, and the appearance of the boll W6€V1l.”2
Tipton Ray Snavely, in reporting the causes for Alabama and
North Carolina, finds the underlying cause to be “the transition
from the old system of cotton planting to stock raising and the
diversification of crops.” It is apparent from this investigation
made under the direction of the U. S. Bureau of Labor that the
uncertainty of crop production and the discontent With farm
conditions have caused thousands of negro tenants to migrate
to the Northern states Where Wages Were higher. The effect
of this shift is certain to produce important economic results..
The ultimateeffects cannot be accurately forecast. But already
a shortage of farm labor has resulted. Farm Wages have in-
creased; tenant competition for land has become less intense;
landlords have already been compelled to resort to power-driven
machinery as a means of offsetting the loss of man-power on the
farm.

The negro farm tenant has been a problem in the past be-
cause of his influence on standards of efficiency and his inabil-
ity to apply scientific methods to production. His standards

lNegro Migration in 1916-1917, _page 73, Bulletin of the U. S. Bureau of Labor (1919).

» 2Ibid, page 76
3Ibid, page 60.

‘cured for him on the farm. -

 
  
  
  
  
  
   

272 Farm Tenantry in the United States

of living have also lowered the standards for his white neighbo p
Ineificiency has not been peculiar to him. But it now app;
that his change of vocation from agriculture to industrial p l
suits means inevitably the creation of a new problem of agric E
tural adjustment. The nature, difficulty, and extent of this pro
lem can only be determined by world demands "for farm product’
and the resourcefulness of our agricultural leaders. 
Southern negro farmer must certainly be considered in the Y»
justment of this problem. His opportunity for farm ownershl

must be increased and a better standard ofp living must be 

 

‘#:£®ls?@.'$=‘t§<“,“?"" " ‘

gradually find solution in normal ways.
position forget the fact that custom and habits of mind often
determine the standard of living.

5 towns.

CHAPTER XXI.
THE HOUSING OF FARM TENANTS.

The economic problems growing out of the farm tenantry
situation have been so pressing that the purely social
aspects have received relatively little attention. The hous-
ing of farm tenants is one of those purely social situations
that has not been included in the numerous farm manage-
rnent surveys that have been made. Rural housing as a soc-
ial problem has been generally regarded as dependent upon
the economic situation. It has been assumed that when meth-
ods were devised for increasing the agricultural income above
the subsistence standard that the housing situation would
Those who take this

An adequate income of
course is fundamental, but in addition to securing a better
economic situation something else needs to be done in the Way
of social reform and aesthetic appreciation to secure better
living conditions on the farm. For this reason, it is impera-
tively necessary that we know the actual situation with refer-
ence to the conditions under which the farm tenant and his
family live and that a social program be devised to improve

living conditions on the farm.

To most of us, the housing problem immediately suggests
over-crowded sections or slum districts in our great cities.

Few people are aware that over-crowding is also a problem of

the country and that slum districts actually exist in commun-

=ities remote from railways and highly organized city com-

munities. Vogt explains the reason for this as follows:

“American rural experience with the tenantry problem is so
- new that few concrete lessons of the effects of tenantry on
housing conditions can be found?"

Be that as it may, the
housing situation in the country presents the same general
characteristics that are found in the city. Comparatively,

‘rural housing exhibits the same differences and the same rel-

‘ative comforts that are found to exist in the residences of the
There are many dwellings on the farms that are well

llntroduction to Rural Sociology, chaDf/el‘ 25, 5886 34-

274 Farm Tenantry in the United States

built and possess the same conveniences, such as lights, heat-
ing, and running water, that are t0 be found in city homes.

l But at the other extreme there are to be found in almost every

rural community single houses or small groups of houses
which exhibit many of the characteristics of the city slums.
Fortunately, the rural slum has one advantage over its city
counterpart-there is plenty of sunshine and fresh air. But
aside from these, the other characteristics exist, viz., unendur-
able filth, primitive sanitary facilities, over-crowding, and, in
some cases, indecent promiscuityf" Every student of rural
problems is familiar with the fact that rural communities dif-
fer greatly in standards of living, morals, health and sanita-
tion, and general intelligence. It is not unusual to ‘find com-
munities only a few miles apart that differ as widely in these
characteristics as city communities separated only by one or
two city blocks. The expert observer c.an usually determine
the relative standards of two rural communities by merely
observing the houses in which the people live.

Contrast Between Housing Conditions of
Owner and Tenant.

The contrast between the housing condition of farm
owners and farm tenants is very marked in every section of
the country. Vogt, in his Introduction to Rural Sociology,‘
gives the data contained in a survey of housing conditions in
Ohio made by a student of the University of Ohio. These
data were collected from two hundred rural homes, located in
twenty-one different counties of the state. Comparisons and
contrasts were made of the heating, lighting and ventilating
systems, location and source of water supply and laundry
facilities. As we should expect to find, in every case less
adequate systems and fewer conveniences were found in ten-
ant houses than in owners’ homes in the same locality. Vogt
summarizes his conclusion from these data as follows: “Hous-
ing conditions are bad for country people generally but they
are very much worse for the tenant than for the owner. When
one realizes the difficulties in the way of securing adequate

lSee Rural Housing, by Elmer S. Forbes, American Academy Annuals, Vol. 51 (1914) page
110. '
ZChapter 5, page 86-89.

 
 

 

; 3 slaw}; é 

 


’l’
y


a

The Housing of Farm Tenants 275

housing for the tenant class he cannot see a very bright pros-
pect for a healthful and attractive home environment for the
future farming population if present tendencies toward in-
crease of tenantry continue?“ It should be observed that in
the study made in Ohio the housing conditions of both owner
and tenants are much better than those to be found in other
sections of the country, especially in the Southern states. Some
light is thrown on the housing of tenant farmers as a result of
an investigation made by the Industrial Commission on Ag-
riculture and Labor? Mr. Joseph P. Ager, Master of the
State Grange of Maryland, a prominent farmer anddairy-
man of his state, in answer to the request that he “describe
the tenant house” gave the following answer:

A. “Usually small, perhaps three rooms; about
the general size of that.

Q. Of what are they constructed? A. Usu-
ally frame, lath, and plaster; quite a comfortable

house, but small.

Q. What appurtenances go with the houses?
A. Generally a garden spot, perhaps a quarter of
an acre of ground. That is more than most of them
will cultivate.“

In his testimony before the Industrial Commission, Honor-
able J. W. Stockwell, Secretary of the Massachusetts State Board

‘of Agriculture, described the farm tenant house as generally

good.“

The evidence with reference to the South was In rather
marked contrast to conditions described in Massachusetts and
other Northern and Eastern states. For example, Mr. Harry

-Hammond, Civil War veteran, a former Professor of Natural

Sciences in the University of Georgia and for many years a
cotton planter, gave the following testimony:

“What is the character of the tenant
houses? A. The negro prefers to live by himself.
He wants an isolated house. They have a front
room 18 to 20, with 2 shed rooms 10 to 15, for bed-
rooms. That is the usual form of tenant houses.

Q.

10p. Cit., Chapter 5, page 90.

 zReport of Industrial Commission, Vol. 10, page 104.
‘ = Slbid, page 885.

 

276 Farm Tenantry in the United States

There is no question that the houses have not suffi-
cient rooms in them, very frequently, to separate the
different members of the family, but I think every-
body is improving in that respect very much. The
houses are certainly more comfortable than they
have been since slavery times. Immediately after
the war any sort of house was put up. In fact, a
hand would come to you and would be v"lling to
build his house if you would let him have u. certain
piece of land. He would build on the land and live
in his house. A miserable cabin it Would be, but
recently he has done better than that. The building
has been undertaken by employers themselves, and
they build substantial houses. Of course, they are
not places of style; it is not necessary that they
should be.

Q. Are they frame houses or log houses?
A. Frame houses; log houses have gone out en-
tirely. In coming through South Carolina to Wash-
ington the other day I did not see but one log house
from the car window all the way through; the log
cabin is disappearing. '

Q. Are they built with floors and with cellars?
A. Yes; the dirt floor has disappeared entirely.
That has not been in common use during my life-
time. Generally speaking, all the houses have
been floored for the last 60 years or more.

Q. Do they have cellars also? A. No;
they have instead any number of outhouses, little
outhouses that they put up themselves—barns and
things of that sort.

Q. Are the houses provided with glass Win-
dows? A. They are getting to be; they Were not
formerly, in the neighborhood of which I spoke. All
of the people did not have glass windows there. All
the houses had board shutters and no glass in my
early days. It is only in recent time, I may say during
fifties and sixties, that they commenced to put in
glass.“

These general conditions reported in the older Southern.
states Were found to exist in Texas in a survey made by Dr.
F. B. Clark, Professor of Economics in the Agricultural and
Mechanical College of Texas in 1916. Professor Clark made

10p. Cit. page 821.

The Housing of Farm Tenants 277

a tour of several of the most prosperous black land counties
of North Texas. His observation on this point was as fol-
lows:

“The tenant houses are everywhere in bad re-
pair. Almost no thought of sanitation, much less
beauty, has entered the minds of these people. The
landlord will usually say that it is useless to fix
good quarters for the tenants for they will not take
care of them; and the tenant will say that it is use-
less to ask for good quarters for the landlord will not
listen. There is mutual distrust and neither gets
what he thinks that he deserves. But the fact re-
mains that the tenants as a class have not been given
a chance. If one has not been provided with things
worth taking care of you can hardly blame him for
not taking care of the things with which he has
been provided.“

In the section visited by Professor Clark there are few
negro tenants. The agricultural income from farm opera-
tions in this section of Texas is rather adequate. Professor
Clark was of the opinion, after a careful analysis of the situa-
tion, that living conditions were as much a result of a lack of
aesthetic appreciation as of economic causes. He refers to
the fact that there are “some owners who possess abundance
of Wealth and yet they live in poor houses with few conveniences.
And again there are numerous tenants who possess nice incomes
Without knowing how to enjoy them. We must remember, how-
ever, that one may too hastily condemn an owner for not bettering
his living conditions, for if the truth were known he might be
found not to be an owner at all but laboring under a heavy
mortgage likely to be foreclosed at any time. Yet we do find
owners free from mortgages living in squalor. But the cause
of this in most cases is not social but individual. The man
may be a drunkard, he may simply lack pride, or the family
may never have overcome the habits of the rural laborer or
tenant. It is generally recognized, in spite of certain handi-
caps, that it is only through some form of ownership that we
can ever hope to produce a healthy and attractive rural life. The
tenant innately opposed to bettering the conditions of‘ another

 

lUnpublished Study on “The Texas Farm Tena/nt.”

278 Farm Tenantry in the United States

  
    
     
   
    
  

man's place. This is characteristically true of the tenan I
general, and unquestionably a direct result of the system
_ tenantry as it exists in Texas?" 

Rental 0f Tenant Houses.

In the Northern states it is often the custom to chargei:
rental for the tenant houses, but this policy does not previ
to an appreciable extent in the South. In some instances, t‘
days work each month is required as a rental for the 
occupied by the tenant. On the plantations of the South, i
is the custom to supply the house free of rent and from on ‘ '
half to two acres of land go with the house for garden E 
chicken yard? The fact is, the character of the house -l__ a 
plied is rarely of sufficient value to justify the charge of rent.)
If an element of rent enters at all into the assignment of a
house, it is probably contemplated that the rent is included
in the amount of produce to be received by thelandlord, or‘
the amount of cash rent is regarded as of sufficient amount to>1f
include the rent of the farm house. '

Tenant’s Care 0f the House.

Much has been said about the tenant’s neglect of the Y,
house he occupies. This is often assigned as the reason why 
the landowner cannot afford to supply the tenant with-a bet- i,
ter house. There is no doubt that many tenants and their 
families do not take reasonable care of the house they occupy. I
But there is some evidence to support the opposite view. For l‘
example, J. H. Hale, a practical farmer of Ft. Valley, Geor-
gia, testified before the Industrial Commission that his ten-
ants did take fairly good care of his tenant houses. He fur-
ther commented as follows: “Tenant houses have mostly
been unpainted. Two years ago I told them (tenants) that if
they would keep them painted we would furnish the material
if they would do the work; and it was very much to their de-
light, and they are now keeping them painted, and we are
furnishing material and the other expenses, and they rather

 

lUnpublished Study on “The Texas Farm Tenant” (1916).
2See testimony of J. H. Hale before Industrial Commission, Report, Vol. 5, page, 379.

  
   
   
  
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
    
   
 
 
  
   
  
  
   
  
  
  

The Housing 0f Farm Tenants 279

1 t ke a pride in painting them.” It has been observed that
 the landlord provides houses of reasonable comfort
_  hat as a rule the tenant takes some pride in keeping the house
 good condition. But houses that are unattractive, and do
ti» offer reasonable comfort are usually neglected by the ten-
nt. But this is to be expected. We find human nature ex-
‘ ing itself here exactly as we find it in many other things.

Over-Crowding in Rural Houses.

 It is hard for us to believe that real over-crowding exists
3;: the rural districts. But this is very obvious to any one who
- l}: studied closely the rural housing situation. The houses
 cupied by tenants are usually very small. In many cases
 consist of two rooms with a back shed room that is used
lth for a kitchen and dining room. The negro tenant farm
ouse often does not possess even glass windows. Light and_
Ventilation is received through an opening that is protected
4 om rain by a small door on hinges. It is not exceptional for
om five to ten people to be housed in a building of this kind.
Farvey B. Bashore gives the experience of a nurse from one
~ the state dispensaries in Pennsylvania who “came across a
Jrtain farm house where five people were accustomed to
ving in one not very large bed room which had only one
R» window and even that was nailed shut; one of these five
d in insipient tuberculosis.“ The same author calls atten-
n to a “mountain home-—a typical one—a bed room, which
v _ the loft with a floor surface of fifteen feet square, which is
bitually used by eight people; three sleep in one bed, two
t another, two more in still another, and the mother, who is a
bercular, sleeps on the cot in the corner. One would hard-
believe it possible that such over-crowding exists, yet there
_ many cases like this among these mountain people.” These
.ditions are less common in Pennsylvania, however, than

cticed.
I These conditions produce the usual results of ill health

. Cit" page 384.

‘y are in the Southern states where tenantry is so largely

  
   
  
  
   
  
   

280 Farm Tenantry in the United States

and immorality that we hear so much about in the ov_
crowded sections of our great cities. The negro farm ten‘
is peculiarly the victim of this situation. Immorality amo_
negroes is widespread, and it has been difficult for this r‘
to make normal progress under the conditions in which th
live. i 5'

Professor Ogden has wisely called attention in his b0.‘
on Rural Hygiene to the importance of the location of ru '
houses and their proper construction with reference to healt
fulness. Most of the agricultural colleges of the county haY
worked out house plans for tenant houses. These plans a
designed with reference to economy of construction and co r i
fort; health and modern conveniences are carefully consid‘
ed. But, unfortunately, few land owners have made use
the available information relating to a better rural housin
situation. k

 

lOuercv-owded and Defective Housing in the Rural Districts, page 35.
Zlbzd, page 36
lRm-al Hygiene, Chapter l, pagel.

The Housing of Farm Tenants 281
Rural Housing- in England.

It may be profitable by Way of comparison to direct at-
' tention to what is being done with reference~to rural housing
in another country. Rural housing of tenants has received
serious consideration in the countries of Europe. England, for
aexample, where approximately 30,000 people are said to own
g the land cultivated by more than 30,000,000 has been con-
. fronted with a rural housing problem. This is to be expected
7 in a country of large estates cultivated by tenants under the
a general direction of absentee landlords. Laws Were passed
f as early as 1487 ,1 directing the landlords to improve the liv-
 ing conditions of tenants. Before the end of the fifteenth
i century, laws Were passed making it the duty of justices to
 administer the rural housing laws? A more comprehensive
 rural housing act was passed in 1589,?’ which provided (1)
l that no one was to build a cottage or convert a building into
a cottage for workers on land Without allotting to it four acres
1 of land and (2) that two families were not to occupy one cot-
, tage. This act continued in force until 1775, When it was suc-

ceeded by other acts that more completely met the needs of
 a new situation. ~

 "WW ,1“ . >\

   
 
 
  
  
  
  
  

A. The literature relating to English rural life presents here
3; and there a picture of the housing conditions of farm tenants.
Vogt quotes from Mr. H. Rider Haggard’s “Rural England,”
in which a description is given of a number of farm tenant
houses:

“No. 1. Thatched, built of cracked and ancient
stud Work, contained one bedroom, one sitting
room, and a lean-to scullery. The bedroom in
the roof which Was stopped with rags to keep out
the rain, was approached by a step-ladder, the WO-

1Fee 4 Henry VII, Chapter 19.

n:
‘:1
Q
u
a
8‘
3
P‘
‘i
b"
m
‘.1
<+
m
>1
~l

,1 3Montague Fordham’s.A Short History of English Rural Life, Chapter 8, page 109.

282 Farm Tentmtry in the United States

man who led me there crawling on her hands and
knees into the apartment Where she slept with a
daughter of a neighbor - - - - - This girl’s previous
bedroom had been shared with her father, a wid-
ower, in the next cottage. I should add that she
was grown up.

“No. 2. A row of cottages of small size. Until
Miss Cochrane induced a neighboring landowner to
grant a strip of land at the back, upon which the
necessary outbuildings and conveniences now stand,
these buildings were confined between the main road
and a large open ditch upon the edge of which their
back walls were built. Into this ditch ran all the
sewage and other refuse. They were known as the '
‘Eltisley death-trap’, and their back windows could
not be opened because of the stench.

“No. 3. A small two-roomed cottage. Seven
children were reared in the bedroom, and at one
time four children slept there for a period of three
months while the parents lay sick in bed. It was
impossible to wash the floor, as the water ran be-
tween the boards into the sitting room below.

“No. 4. (then empty). Two rooms and no out-
house or pantry - - - - - - At the floor line at (the
upstairs room) was 17 ft. by 9 ft., but as the roof
sloped the space above was not so large. The win-
dow was 24 in. by 18 in. In this room eight children
were reared with their parents. In the sister cot-
tage adjoining, also two-roomed, lived seven child-
ren and their parents, making for the four rooms a
total of nineteen, whose water supply was a filthy
hole in the garden.“

E. N. Bennett says the conditions of farm cottages
in England are “uncomfortable and unsanitary.” He tells
us “Old cottages decay until they are abandoned, no more are

1Vol. 2, page 65.

The Housing of Farm Tenants 283

built to take their places and so in many parishes there is a
positive dearth of dwelling houses.” This author explains the
exodus from the country to the city on this ground. “The
Whole social system,” says he, “of rural England seems to form,
indeed, unconsciously as it were and unintentionally, one vast
conspiracy for expelling the people from the country.“

Rural Housing Reforms in England.’

The Rural Housing and Sanitation Association was form-
ed in England in 1900 for the purpose of improving rural housing
conditions. This organization made little headway for a
time, but in 1909 it had gained sufficient influence in parlia-
ment to secure legislation based upon its program of reform.
This statute is known as “The Housing and Town Planning
Act” and by its provisions Rural Councils are given authority
to apply for public loans with which to build rural cottages.
While these Rural Councils were rather slow to act at first,
the number of cottages built under this plan has been increas-
ing rapidly isrecent years? There is a very interesting ar-
ticle by Hugh Aronson on Rural Housing in the Contemporary]
Review for May, 1912.3 This article presents an interesting
illustration of the administration of the Burn’s Housing and
Town Planning Act by giving the details of an investigation
made by a Rural Council of the needs for new cottages. This
investigation also reveals the conditions in Hertfordshire.
Another writer has declared that “in Hertfordshire a state-

g ment that at least one-third of the rural cottages are unfit for
Z human habitation has never been disputed; probably it is be-
t cause it is below the mark; and yet, the powers that be are
moving so slowly toward improvement that the knowledge
l of their existence seldom extends beyond their own commit-
. tees.“ One is prepared to accept this statement after read.-
j ing the following account of these conditions:

‘ lProblcms of Villag/e Life, page 73.
i 2€ee Constance Cochranes article on “Rural Housing and State Grants,” in Conntemporary
. Review’. Vol. 101 (191?) page 29.11.

-°-Contemp'\rary Review for May 1912, Vol. 101, page 709-13.
i 4Fred Ballard on Rural Housing in Contemporary Review, Vol. 99 (1911), page 445.

284

Farm Tenantry in the United States

“The first Witness called was an aged gentle-
man resident in the village; he said the cottages are
‘as bad as bad can be _ - - - - - I would not put my
pigs into ‘some of them’.~ He was asked if any of
them were overcrowded; he replied, ‘some of them
- - - - - - it leads t0 everything immoral; it appears
t0 me that unless something is done it will destroy
the manhood of England. Some dozen men and
Women were then examined, all of whom asserted
that cottages were badly needed. The following is
an extract from some of the evidence.

“One Witness said he had lived in the village
seventy-five years, and being asked if any cottages
had been pulled down, replied: ‘About thirty and
over’. He Was then asked if he could remember
any cottages being built, to which he replied: ‘Yes,
about eight’. Another was asked: ‘Do they ("the
inhabitants) think there ought to be more houses
at Chipperfield?’ ‘They do, only they are afraid
to speak’. Another was asked how many appli-
cants there were for a cottage he had vacated. ‘About
a dozen’, he replied. An agent was examined as to
how many years the present occupier of a certain
cottage had to wait for it. ‘About two and a-half
years’, was the answer. A man who had been tak-
ing charge of his employer’s farm, said that he had
paid rent for his unoccupied cottage for fourteen
months so as to retain it, and when asked if any-
one occupied it Whilst he was at the farm, said: ‘We
did not give them the chance’. So this man, earn-
ing about sixteen shillings a week, actually paid five
pounds rather than run the risk of not getting a cot-
tage when he left the farm. A woman, on being
asked if she had to walk four miles every day to and
from her work, said, ‘Yes.’ ‘What did you have to
do when it rained’? was another question. ‘I have
to dish the water out of the window all day long
and put clean curtains up’; she was further asked:
‘Do you remember two gentlemen coming around?’
She answered, Yes’. ‘Did they come to look at your
cottage?’ ‘They came to look at it, but I could
not let them go over it because the landlord had
just been round and said I should have to go out if
I did, and there was nowhere else to go to’. Over-
crowding was admitted, and it was not denied that
the rents of the tumble-down cottages had increas-
ed from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. in recent years!"

 

lContemporary Review, Vol. 101, page 710.

The Housing of Farm Tenants 285

Conditions of rural housing in England have been de-
scribed at some length for the purpose of showing what has
happened under an absentee landlord system. It is also easy
to see from the references to these conditions how difficult it
 is to secure the effective administration of reform measures
l even after they have been enacted into law. A similar situa-
i2 tion is likely to exist in any country where housing is provided
 for a land-occupying population by an absentee-land-owner-
 ship class. It is important to consider our present situation
{in the United States in the light of these conditions to see to
a lwhat extent we have gone and what can be done to prevent
i just such conditions as have been described.

 

Standards in Rural Housing.

 The time has come when we should follow the example
 of England and other European countries and consider ser-
iously the problem of rural housing for our tenant farmers.
 While most of our people, especially in the South, are more
 or less familiar with the needs for housing reform, few have
felt the responsibility of assuming leadership in a campaign
_ for the accomplishment of this purpose. Now and then, a
voice is raised “urging appropriate legislation that will correct
‘q the evils of our inadequate and unsanitary housing situation.
I f But it has not been heard by those responsible for making and
,  executing our laws.
i There is a tendency on the part of tenant farmers them-
selves to take the initiative in the matter of housing re-
jform. The Renters Union that was ‘organized in September
1909 in McClain County, Oklahoma, set up the following standards
for rural housing: -

 
 
  
  
  
  
  

“(a) We demand that the landlords of this
state shall provide their tenants with a house in
which to live which shall consist of not less than
two rooms and a lean-to. The said two rooms
shall not be less than 14 feet square, with a ceiling
not less than 8 1-2 feet high. The said room shall
be plastered and have a lumber floor. ' .

“The lean-to shall not be less than 8 by 2O
feet and built substantially to exclude the elements.

286 Farm Tenantry in the United States

It shall be partitioned, one-half into a kitchen and
one-half into a porch, which said porch shall be
screened in. There shall be at least four windows
to said building and two of the lean-to, which said
windows shall consist of two sashes t0 each window
and so constructed that the sashes can be raised
and lowered. The doors to said building and all
of the windows to said building shall be screened
with wire and in a manner to exclude the flies and
mosquitoes. There shall also be built to said build-
ing a front porch at least 16 by 6 feet, which may
be roofed with boards and batten.

“(b) We further demand that a stable be pro-
vided for three horses, and also a shed of reasonable
size in which to store implements. We also demand
ficllilicken coop not less than 10 by 12 feet and 6 feet

1g .

“(c) We also demand that the well on the
premises shall be curbed and so fixed as to prevent
the surface water from getting into it.”1

There is much in the rural housing acts of England and

 

other countries that would help us to formulate our rural -
house policies. But it should be frankly admitted that many l.

departures from European practice would be necessary in for- 
mulating an adequate policy for our own country. There is a
vast difference in rural conditions in this county and in a coun- i?’
try like England. Anderson has pointed out one of these dif- 
ferences in the following language: “There is now a strik- f
ing difference between America and Europe in rural life. In 1“
Europe the country people are more generally gathered in vil- Y
lages; in America more of them are scattered over the whole 

face of the country, dwelling on their farms.” This in itself 
makes our rural housing problem different from that in Eng- a

land, and perhaps this ‘fact also makes the formulation of a l

housing program more difficult. But this is not the only dif-
ference. The character of agricultural production, the differ-
ence in systems of cultivation, the methods of renting land, and
the shift of the agricultural population are all factors that
need to be considered in the formulation of an adequate rural
housing policy for tenant farmers.

lRepor-t of Industrial Relations, Vol. 10, page 9067.
2The Country Town, Chapter 15, page 244.

The Housing of Farm Tenants 287

But the conditions demand that something be done. We
cannot ignore the 10W standards of living and the social prob-
lems created in many sections Without serious consequences to
four national Welfare. It is imperative that a rural housing
program be formulated and adequate legislation be secured to
‘raise the standard of living of these who live on rented farms.

   
  
 
   
 

CHAPTER X-XII.

THE INTELLECTUAL INTERESTS OF
FARM TENANTS.

Every observer of rural community life is familiar with
the differences in the intellectual interests of a community
where home ownership is the prevailing type of tenure in con-
trast to the intellectual interests that are found to prevail in
a community where tenantry is the prevailing type of tenure.
As a general thing, the intellectual interests of the farm owners
is broader and more intense than that of his tenant neighbor.
That there are prominent exceptions to this generalization only
helps to give assurance of the correctness of this statement. The
relative intellectual interests of the two groups are usually re-
flected in the character of the homes occupied by each, and the
general conditions that prevail about them.

The rural sociologist has found a fairly accurate way to
measure the relative intellectual interests of different groups of
people. The nature of the social activities that are practiced,
the number and kind of books and magazines that are read,
the musical instruments that are found in the homes, and the po-
litical societies and religious organizations with which the mem-
bers of the group are affiliated, are characteristic means of deter-
mining the breadth and nature of the intellectual interests of
the group.

While the rural life studies that have been made that in-
clude data of this kind are relatively small, nevertheless a suf-
ficient number of surveys have been made in typical sections
of the country to render definitely the establishment of the gen-
eralization contained in the introductory paragraph of this
Chapter. .

In one of the Ohio Rural Life Surveysl made under the gen-
eral direction of the Department of Church and Coutry Life of
theBoard of Home Missions of the Presbyterian Church, U. S.
A., a comparison was made of the number and kind of periodicals
taken with the following results:

1“S0uthucste1"n Ohio,” from Ohio Rural Life Survey, published by Board of Home Missions
of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., page 89.

 The Intellectual Interests of Farm Tenants 2899

s‘
 Number of Periodicals reported, Owners’ and Tenants’ Families,
Southwestern Ohio.

   
   
   
 
  
 
  
 
  
   
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
   

 

\ Owners Tenants

N b T k" ' M“-
um er a mg __ Number l Per cent. Number l Per cent.
Total . . . . . . . . . . . .  271 100.0 l 193 l 100.0

1 paper only . . . . . . . . 43 15.9 l 50 25.9

2 papers . . . . . . . . . . . 59 21.8 57 l 29.5

3-5 papers . . . . . . . . . 119 43.9 71 l 36.8

6 or more . . . . . . . . . ., 50 18.4 15 I 7.8

_: Of the owners, 43.9 per cent. take from 3 to 5 papers, while
 but 36 per cent. of the tenants take this number. Sixty-two per
1 cent. of the owners take 3 or more papers, while but 43 per cent.
of the tenants take this number. Of the tenants 24.9 per cent.
take but one paper as against 15.9 per cent. of the owners}

l The nature of the intellectual interests is more accurately re-
vealed in this survey in the tabulation of the kinds of papers
taken. ~

Kinds of Papers Taken, Owners and Tenants, Southwestern Ohio

Owners ‘(273 considered) Tenants (203 considered)

"Kind of Papers

l’ Taken. Number l Per cent. Number l Per cent.
Agriculture . . . . . . . . 158 57.9 87 u 42.8
‘Religious . . . . . . . . . . 36 13.2 1O 4.9

=-.News . . . . . . .- . . . . . . 259 94.9 ‘182 | 89.7

 

omen’s Magazines . 74 27.1 44 21.7
Cheap Advertising . . 39 14.3 24 11.8
‘Standard Magazines . 37 13.6 9 4.4

l The owners report 94.9 per cent. taking newspapers, while
a he tenants report 89.7. Neither group is conspicuous for the
_ lnumber of religious papers taken or for the number of standard
agazines. The owners group report 57.9 per cent. taking ag-
cultural periodicals, while the tenant group report but 42.8
Cr cent. Women’s magazines are reported as 27 .1 per cent. for
 e owners and 21.7 per cent. for the tenants?
i, In an unpublished farm management survey made by S. A.
cMillan, Professor of Farm Management in the Agricultural
l.‘ Mechanical College of Texas, the relative interest of farm
ers and tenants was indicated as follows:
 “Fifty owners and thirty-nine renters in Brazos County,
exas, reported as follows:

Vogt's “Introduction to Rural Sociolgy," Chapter 5, page 91.
bid, Chapter 5, page 92.

290 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Number of owners who held or had held some local
public office 11 or 22 per cent.

Number of renters who held or had held some local pub-
lic oifice, 4 or 10 per cent.

Number of owners who are members of lodges or se-
cret societies, 18 or 36 per cent.

Number of renters who are members of lodges or se-
cret societies, 11 or 28 per cent.

Number of owners who take one or more newspapers,
34 or 68 per cent.

Number of renters who take one or more newspapers,
21 or 54 per cent.

Average number of‘ books found in the homes of
owners, 14.

Average number of books found in the homes of
renters, 8.

Some musical instrument was found in one out of
every two homes of the owners. l

Only one musical instrument out of every nine homes
was found in the case of tenants.

Some Educational Advantages.

Some interesting data bearing on this topic are revealed in
the study made by O. R. Johnson and W. E. Foard of the Uni-
versity of Missouri. This study shows that for the state of
Missouri about one-third of the children of the owners finished
the rural school, while only one-fourth of the children of part
owners, and one-eighth of the children of tenants, ever accom-
plished this task. The results shown by this study are as

follows:
Land Tenure and Education of Children.

l

l .

l l

1 w w .3 J5’

. $4 ,

l as 4-2 1 é

l, a s s A 5
Ah A A9. M? l P‘

Per cent. of children completing district school . . . . . . .  32.7 25.6 12.7

Per cent. of above completing high school . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.7 13.0 17.9

Per cent.- attending college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 3.6 3.0

Per cent. of children not at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.9 26.8 15.8

Per cent. of above on farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.0 53.6 56.6

 

 

   
  
    
  
    
  
   
 
  
   
  
   
   
 
   
   
   
 
   
    

The Intellectual Interests of Farm Tenants 291

g_  One child in everylthree‘ from the families of landowners

 here shown to have completed a rural school education, While
' l4 one in eight of the tenants’ has this advantage. Turning
w the class of children that have high school education, this
 shows “that of those who complete the fural school, one-
Ith of both owners’ and tenants’ children complete the high
 hool. This would mean that out of every one hundred owners’
ildren, thirty-three would have finished the rural school, and
 of this thirty-three would have finished the high school. For
e part owners, twenty-five would have finished the rural school
ju three would have finished the high school, for the tenants’
g irteen would have finished the rural school and two would have
; ished the high school. Of those children in the various classes
 ishing high school, nine per cent. of. the owners’ children, three
'_ d six-tenths per cent. of the part owners’, and three per cent.
 the tenants’ children attend college.” In a general way, this
lows that the tenant’s children are not having the educational
[vantages that are given to children of men who own land.
 is seems to be an important and fundamental criticism of the
girability of tenant classes in the make-up of our rural society.

g Another point in this connection, which is of interest, is the
' t that out of one-third of owners’ children who are not at
g ggme, sixty-three per cent. are on farms; of one-fourth the part
 ‘rs’ children who are not at home, one-half are on farms; of
A In one-sixth of the tenants’ children that are not at home, one-
 are on farms. In other words, more owners’ children have
_ ’_ rted out for themselves than have those of part owners and
l: nts, but a greater proportion of owners’ children have chosen
 culture as a profession and have probably been started by
 u help from their fathers.‘

g These authors summarize the data for this situation as fol-
s:

'ersity of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin ~No. 121 on Land Tenure,
 e 81. ‘ '

292 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Education 0 f Operators.

a 2 3
a p 2 fi
s s s 6
O f-‘uO E4
Rural School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 84.4 80.5 88.7
High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 9.1 6.2
College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 10.5 5.1

_ The education of farm operators is shown in the table above.‘
This shows a much smaller percentage of tenants receiving high-
er education and a somewhat larger percentage of them getting i,

no further than rural schools}

The effect of farm tenantry on educational facilities is Well 1i
brought out in “A Study of Rural Schools In Travis County, 
Texas,” by E. E. Davis, Department of Extension, Division of 
School Interests. In this study it is found “that 63.1 per cent. of T
all the families in the section of Travis County that was surveyed 
were tenants, and in some communities the rate of farm tenancy 
to the total population exceeded 8O per cent. In the area included '
in this survey, 35.2 per cent. of the 511 white families do not own i
their homes, 78.4 per cent. of the 390 negro families were found I;
to be farm tenants, and less than 2 per cent. of approximately 230 l-
Mexican families were reported as owning their homes free of j

debt.”

“A high percentage of farm tenants,” says Davis, “is not I j,
conducive to good schools. It is not natural to expect the aver- f;
age farm tenant t0 have the community interests that he would 1

if he were permanently located on land of his own. But a no less

serious menace to the prosperity of the public schools in some-

of the tenant districts in sight of the dome of the Capitol at
Austin, is the absentee landlord who is opposed to local school
taxes. Diligent inquiry was made, and in this area of 200 square
miles and more than 13,000 population, only one absentee land-
lord was reported as actively encouraging his tenants to vote for a
school tax?

lBulletin» No. 121, page 82, University of Missouri.
2Bulletin No. 67, page 7, (1916), University of Texas.

The Intellectual Interests of Farm Tenants 293

A trustee who was reported as a representative citizen of
more than average intelligence is reported by Mr. Davis to have
said in answer t0 an inquiry concerning the poor conditions of the
school:

“You want to know what makes our school one of the sor-
riest in Travis County. I can tell you that in about fifteen words.
This community is owned and controlled by about three men who
do not live here. They keep their tenants in fear of them. Two
years ago when we were circulating a petition for a tax election
Mr. A. came out and said to his tenants: ‘You vote a tax on me
and I will see that you pay for it. I will raise the rent on the last
one of you.’ Mr. B. came out and said to his tenants, ‘Gentlemen,
you may vote a tax on me if you choose, but you can prepare to
move next year if you do.’ Their bluffs carried. That was the
last of the proposed school tax. You have found our school in a
deplorable condition, and I see no hope of any improvement.“

In another study in Texas made by E. V. White on Farm
Tenancy and the Public Schools, it is shown “that the schools and
the factors that contribute for good schools are retarded in sec-
tions where a high percentage of tenancy obtains is evident from
the tables given below.” Table I shows a few vitally important
school statistics for the school year 1912-13 for counties of the
State where the percentage of farm tenancy is comparatively low.
Table II shows the same items for the same school year for coun-
ties where tenancy is high. In selecting the counties, an en-
deavor was made to select those that were typical of the sec-
tions which they represent. The counties were also distributed
over the entire State. In other words, a consideration of all
the counties would present approximately the same results as are
presented in the few counties selected.

 lBulletin 67, University of Texas, page 9.

 

294 Fawn Tenantry in the United States

TABLE I.
Counties Having a Low Percentage of Farm Tenants.

5 é é <5 8 gs vb
' E l   E 2i é“ ii 
“a '    m“ 
Name of ‘:3  535M131. ~55 :63“)
County iriifi <33 $33.5 ci§f3§ c32§ c3335
Hansford . . . . . . . . . . .1 16 $ 32.00 122 100 89 63

Galveston . . . . . . . . . . 18 48.50 164 100 83 45

Garza . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 *582.00 132 86 T132 70

Gillespie . . . . . . . . . . . 22 25.70 137 21 62 49

Jasper . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 16.80 135 95 $104 59

Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 57.00 149 96 86 52

Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . 30 43.40 210 100 82 33

Hale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 34.95 160 100 96 59

Marion . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 10.65 130 33 - 91 54

Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 18.80 110 69 89 61

Mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 9.65 102 67 97 65
Average for entire
group . . . . . . . . . . . 32.55 135 75 89 52
*Evident1y due to a large county fund.
{Evidently due to rapid settling of the country.
TABLE II.
Counties Having a High Percentage of Farm Tenants.
S é ' é é = L é é
.8 3’ 5 5 "a u: Q  Egg
"a  _ 35 “a E s is s 3 “a “'5
. P‘ . > w - >~ '
Q F5 Q C3 Q fl O U U <9
Name Of $.42 2,. gimp 55E 13533 3&2:
County fife‘; J53 <1“6.E n.5,! 0432 ans-firs
Wharton . . . . . . . . . . .~ 60 $11.52 137 85 75 48

Fort Bend . . . . . . . . . . 61 8.82 144 76 75 48

Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 17.90 111 78 83 47

Wilbarger . . . . . . . . . . 61 32.80 114 100 96 48

Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 19.28 126 15 86 50

Haskell . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 25.10 113 100 89 53

Bell’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 17.25 111 61 84 52

Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 12.95 100 90 85 56

Frio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 20.00 144 87 45 31

Grayson . . . . . . . . . . . 63 20.93 130 75 89 41

Red River . . . . . . . . . . 63 8.85 109 59 73 48

Milam . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 11.05 115 51 82 47

McLennan . . . . . . . . . . 64 9.45 107 35 80 55

Lamar . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 9.32 107 51 86 52

Falls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 10.73 115 54 73 56

Hunt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 13.67 104 92 86 56

Ellis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 13.71 114 65 76 44

Robertson . . . . . . . . . . 70 7.83 122 35 94 49
Average for entire
Group . . . . . . . . . . . 13.76 117 64 81 47

The Intellectual Interests of Farm Tenants 295

Possibly some factors other than tenancy enter into the re-
sults indicated. It remains true, however,'that the counties hav-
ing a low percentage of farm tenancy have certain uniform con-
ditions which vary from certain uniform conditions in counties
having a high percentage of tenancyfl

Education and Land Ownership.

Poor school facilities, as revealed by such a study as that just
referred to, not only restrict the intellectual interests of a farm
population, but have a direct influence on the possibilities of
acquiring a farm home. This is very carefully brought out in a
study made by Eugene Merritt and K. L. Hatch in Wis-
consin in 1916, based on data secured from 315 farmers.
The following results were obtained: The numbers given are the
averages for the crop. The study was made by the questionnaire
method, and the questions and answers are indicated as follows :2

“Does the quality of his education affect the time necessary
for the farmer to acquire free title to his land? For this study
the farmers were arranged in two classes as follows:

Class 1.—Those who had a high school education or better.

Class 2.—-Those who had a common school education only.

Each of these classes were again sub-divided into three
groups:

1.—Those who had always worked on farms when not in
school until they began farming on their own account.

2.—Those who never worked on farms until they began

"farming on their own account.

3.—Those who had worked both on farms and at other oc-

= - cupations before beginning on their own account.

It was found that a much larger proportion of the high school
class had never worked on farms or had worked at both farming

 for themselves than of the common school class.

By what processes had these farmers acquired free title to

i‘ their land?

1.--The largest number of both classes had started with

i mortgages on their farms.

a 1See Bulletin No. 21 of the University of Texas on Studies in Farm Tenantry, in Texas,

 

Chapter 9, pages 41 and 42.
ZResearch Bulletin No. 40 of the University of Wisconsin on Some Economic Facts Which
BResearch Bulletin No. 40 of the University of 42 and 43.

296 Farm Tenantry in the United States

2.—The second largest number of both classes had begun as
tenants and then acquired ownership through mortgage.

3.—-(a) Among the high school class the third group in im-
portance were those who had been tenants but whose farms had
never been mortgaged.

(b) Among the common school class the third group
in importance had neither been tenants nor had their farms ever
been mortgaged.

At what age had these men begun farming on their own
account?

1.—-Those who had never followed any other occupation
than farming began farming at an earlier age than either of the
other two groups.

2.—Those who had a high school education began farming
over one year later than those who had only a common school
education.

3. It took the man with a common school education who
had engaged only in farming 10 years to obtain possession of a
clear title.

4.—It took the man with a high school education slightly
over seven years to obtain a clear title to his farm. This ad-
vantage over the common school group may have been due, how-
ever, to superior opportunity or financial advantage.

5. Those who had never farmed began farming on their
own account between 8 and 9 years later than those who had
always farmed with the result that they owned their farms free
from 5 to 8 years later in life than those who devoted them-
selves entirely to farming.

6.—Those with a common school education began farming at
approximately 26 years of age.

7 .—Those with a high school education began farming at
the age of 27. '

8.—-Those with a common school education owned their
farms free at 36 years.

9.—-Those with a high school education owned their farms
free at between 34 and 35 years of age.

a By comparison of the above observations it is noted that the
men with a high school education began farming on their own
account one year later but owned their farms free from debt

The Intellectual Interests 0f Farm Tenants 297

over one year earlier in life. These data apparently indicate that
a high school education is a good investment for the farmer and
that it pays the boy who intends ultimately t0 be a farmer t0
stick by the farm rather than to engage in other occupations.”

Conclusion.

These studies are sufficient to indicate that a high per-
centage of farm tenantry has a definite relationship to poor rural
schools. The reasons are quite obvious. The relative tran-
ciency of farm tenants results in little interest being manifested
in improving school facilities. The indifference of absentee land-
lords is a natural consequence of an interest only in the financial
returns from the land they lease for cultivation.

The limited intellectual interest of the farm tenant is also
largely explained by inadequate rural school facilities. There is
very little _to stimulate intellectual interests in communities
where these conditions prevail. Where there are poor schools,
there are usually few lodges, social and literary clubs, churches,
and other institutions that foster and develop the intellectual in-
terests of the people. It is not surprising, therefore, that all the
studies that have been made, reveal the fact that in those commu-
nities where farm tenantry is high, the number and extent of the
intellectual interests are 10W. The relative increase in the in-
tellectual interests to be found in any rural community is, rough-
ly speaking, in proportion to the number of home owners to the

 farm tenants.

CHAPTER XXIII.

THE RELIGIOUS INTERESTS OF
FARM TENANTS.

It has been said that “of all men the farmer is naturally
the most religious.“ “Yet”, says this writer, “there are_from
5O to 60 per cent. 0f the country people on the prairies and in
the uplands the nation over, who have no church connection, and
send for the preacher only for the solemnization of marriages
and the burial of the dead.”

Wherever rural church surveys have been made, it has
been found that rural churches are on the decline. This does
not mean that every rural church is declining, but there is to
be found in every section where surveys have been made many
churches that have lost or are losing their vital hold upon
the people. This general tendency is as characteristic of the
rural landowner as it is of the tenant farmer and the farm
laborer. It is a significant fact, however, that there is a vast
difference in the degree or religious interests manifested by
these several rural groups.

The test of the religious interests of any man or group of
men can only be measured by the active support of the church
of his choice and the interest that it fosters. It is well to em-
phasize in this connection that no indictment is being made of
the religious intentions of any man belonging to either of the
groups that compose our rural population. The writer is
familiar with a number of men who are farm tenants, who
manifest more interest in the religious welfare of their respec-
tive communities than many of their land owning neighbors.
But all the information that is available from surveys and care-
ful observation clearly indicate that the farm tenant group is
manifesting less interest in the church and its enterprises than
farm owners who are similarly situated with reference to
churches and Sunday schools.

Farm Tenantry and the Church in Ohio.

In the Ohio Rural Life Survey made under the direction

- .--¢q-q

1Henry Wallace on Description of An Ideal Rural Civihzation, in Rural Church Message
Chapter 2. page 22. '
2Ibid, page 23.

298

The Religious Interests of Farm Tenants 299

of the Department of Church and Country Life of the Board
of Home Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A.,
the data obtained clearly reveal that the church is not exert-
ing so great influence on the tenant farmer as on the farm
owner. The following tablel taken from the survey in South-
western Ohio illustrates this point:

Membership in Church and Lodge Compared

 

Owners Tenants Total
l
. I .
k 4-7 g 4-7 g 43
s § .2 § s I é
. a H E 5-4 E $4
,-,.T_Y.1i.*.=i°_f1‘€*?§f%_*?€f.%.**}.P .  1  s: é a‘: é l- 
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 193 100.0 136 100.0 329 100.0
Belonging both to church and to
lodge or club . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 26.9 30 22.1 82 24.9
Belonging to lodge or club but not
to church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 7.8 21 15.4 36 10.9
Belonging to church but not to
lodge or club . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 65.3 A85 62.5 211 64.2

This table shows that a comparatively small number of
either tenants or owners who belong to organizations of any
kind belong to lodge or club alone. Less than 25 per cent.
belong both to church and lodge or club, while a total of 64.2
per cent. belong to church but do not belong to lodge 0r club.
These percentages apply only to those who are reported as
having affiliations with organizations of _some kind or other
and do not apply to the total number of persons concerning
whom data were obtained. The figures show that a large
proportion of owners belong to both lodge and church and that
the large proportion of those belonging to lodge but not to
church is to be found among the tenants. The percentage of
those of both groups belonging to church but not to lodge is
about the same} A

In the survey of the _four counties in Northwestern Ohio
where 33.6 per cent. of the farmers are tenants and 65.6 per
cent. are owners, it was found that only 13.4 per cent. of the

tenants were on the church rolls, while there were 86.6 per -

cent. of the owners who maintained church affiliations. The
comparisons for each county are as follows:

1Table 43 page 87 and 88.

300 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Church Members

   

Farmers
Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. Per cent.
Cmmty Owners Tenants, c .mQv2§.@r,L_ flillQlalLliL
Allen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.1 29.9 95.5 14.5
Defiance . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.3 27.7 I 92.3 
Hancock . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.0 38.0 86.1 6- -
Feneca . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.4 38.6 81.5 15.5
All four counties . . . . .| 65.6 - 33.6 I 86-6 | 13-4

The general conclusion with reference to the tenant farm-
ers’ church afiiliation in Ohio and the reasons for the situation
are summarized in the final rural life survey on the “Church
Growth and Decline in Ohio” as follows:

“In this State throughout the better farming sections ten~
antry on the farms has increased rapidly. The renter follows
the good land. Through the counties in the Miami Valley
from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the farms are operated by
tenants, and in all other sections of the State where farming
is relatively prosperous tenant farmers are now a considerable
proportion of the population of the rural districts. It is no
reflection upon the tenant farmer to say that the church has
not yet learned how to reach him. The proportion of tenants
to owners in the church membership is seldom as high as the
proportion in the total farming population. Butler County’
is an instance of this. Here 41 per cent. of the operating
farmers on the land are tenants, but only 22 per cent. of the
operating farmers on the church roll are tenants. -A similar
condition prevails throughout the State. The church has a
slighter hold upon the renter, and it makes slower progress
with him than with the land holder. One reason for this ap-
pears when we study the question of the stability of the farm-
ing population. A house-to-house canvass of three townships
in Butler and Preble counties showed that while the average
term of occupancy for any given farm is for the farm owner
approximately 15 years, for the tenant farmer it is but 4.5 years.
There are sections, of course, in which the tenant farmer is
relatively a permanentresident. In general he belongs to the

_ shifting element in the population, and for that reason he is

not a real part of any given community and is less inclined to
support its institutions. To have an ever-increasing propor-
tion of the population members of a class upon whom the

t grqrgfxrw f1»  ~s<v~w

Y souri on Land Tenure}
“ day ‘School attendance and Church contributions of owners,
Y part owners, and tenants reveals the following data: ‘

The Religious Interests of Fawn Tenants 301
church has as yet no hold, means that the influence of the
church must be exerted within ever narrowing limits. p
“The question of farm income is also of importance here.
Careful studies were made of the income of farmers in cer-
tain representative sections of the State. These studies show~
ed that there is a large proportion of the farming population
Without an adequate income. After paying out necessary
living expenses they have nothing left for the support of social
institutions. An institution like the church must be sup-
ported out of the community's profits. Where any consider-
able proportion of the population have no profits, or where the
profits are diminishing, its position will becomecontinuously
a more perilous one. Doubtless these outward conditions have
been among the causes which have occasioned the decline of

 the farmer’_s church.”

That this situation in Ohio is ‘not exceptional is indicated
by a study of the data obtained in the survey made in Mis-
The comparison of Church and Sun-

179

 

t 272 l 21s Parts I .

i _ ___ Owners Owners Tenants?
T Church— I l '

a Per cent. attendance . . . . . . 40.7 44.4 ‘ 29.6

5 Sunday School . . . . . . . . . . . . . _

 Per cent. attendance . . . . .| 30.5 39.1 \ ‘ 18.5

l, Church contributions per farm

_ per year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $11.62 $11.00 I $4.47

g1 Ditto per person on farm . . 2.90 2.44 1.00

This table shows that the percentage of Church and Sun-

.‘ day School attendance of tenant farmers is much below the
~A percentage of farm owners and part owners.
tions of farmers per year show that tenants pay less than half of
A the sums contributed by each of the other two groups.

The contribu-

In the voluminous writings ‘on the country church,the full

‘significance of the influence of farm tenantry has not been

i adequately appraised.
 given due significance to the problems of farm tenantry as

Few writers on the rural church have

g 1University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 121 on Land Temwe».

302 a Farm Tenantry in the United States

one of the causes of rural church decline.

An exception, 1

however, to this general observation is found in an article by i’

Willis Ray Wilson, whose discussions of this relationship in 

the Northwestern Christian Advocate, reveals the actual situ-
ation very clearly; Dr. _Wilson finds the principal cause of
rural church decline in the indifference of absentee landlords,
and the system of short leases that contrbute to a shifting pop-
ulation. He says:

“Comparatively few retired farmers who have moved to
the towns or cities ever feel under any obligation to support
the church of the community in which their farm is located,
and from which they derive an annual income. The excuse
of many retired farmers is that they give all they are able to
the church where they reside.
ment of the school tax in the community where their land is
located as well as in the community to which they have re-
tired. And it is certainly true that they are under a moral
obligation to support the church of the community in which
their land is located as well as the church in the community in
which they live, even if it means giving less to the church
where they reside. Of course, this proposition will not be
popular in many quarters, but, nevertheless, it is only fair.

“The tenant must be of very strong religious tendencies,
who will take much interest in the church of ‘the community
‘in which he is a tenant farmer so long as he feels that his resi-
idence there is secure for only one year. He certainly will not
feel toward the church as he would knowing that he was to
remain a term of years.”1

The relationship of rural church prosperity to land ten-
ure deserves more careful consideration than it has received
in the past. There is no solution of the rural church problem to be
found separate and apart from a consideration of the relation of
the farmer to the land that he cultivates, because the size and
composition of the rural community, the average agricultural
income, and the stability of the constituent elements in the
population are largely determined by the interest of those who
till the soil.

lSee summary of this paper in Current Opinion, V01. 59, No. 6, page 407, for December
1916.

 

Yet the law compels the pay-

The Religious Interests of Farm Tenants 303

 
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  

_ “The prosperity of the rural church,” says Henry Wal-
lace, “has in all ages and in all countries been determined
largely by the tenure by which farmers hold their lands. A.
lprosperous country church means a relatively large rural
‘population-large enough to support a minister, to push the
work of the church vigorously, to impress its ideals of life and
character on the community, and t0 do its part in extending
 e gospel to outside sections and to foreign lands.
p “It requires, second, that farming be on an economic
sis; that is, that farmers are making money. For the church
-_~ always and everywhere supported, not by capital, but by
Qrofits; and if the farmer is not making a comfortable living
gjr is sinking his capital, he does not have the means of sup-
orting the church. And if he does not have the means, his
 to support the church will be ineffective.
._ “In the third place, the prosperous rural church requires
y reasonably stable population. So much of the ‘Christian life
‘es in Christian relations with neighbors, with employees,
oith employers, with the Whole community life, that a roving
farm population cannot, even if it would, develop Christian
 aces or impress itself favorably on a community of unbo-
fevers. The farm owner who has moved to town and is rent-
g his land cannot be expected to be a real, vital force in the
g i’ ral church. Nor can the tenant who has a one-year lease,

 whose tenure is uncertain, be expected to cultivate the
‘ f; hristian graces by intimate fellowship with his neighbors and
a ]ociates or fellow church-members; in other words, to take
lot in the community and become a part of it.”1
A In another connection in this same discussion, Wallace
’ i tes this situation as follows:
 “Tenancy is not in itself an evil, but uncertainity of ten~
 e and short leases are evils that vex humanity. We cannot
_pect to see a prosperous ruralchurch until the tenant cam
ake some arrangement with his landlord by which he can.
V y on the same farm indefinitely, take root in the commun-
 become an active member of the church, and make of his
,ildren real members of the Sunday School and rural
hool.””

l- pfler on Land Tenure and the Rural Church, in the Church and Country Life, page 232
 23s.
 page 238.

304 Farm Tenantry iii the United States
The View Point of the Tenant Farmer.

‘Most of those who have made surveys relating to rural
church problems have had in mind the service function of the
church as it relates to rural social betterment. Emphasis has
been laid on the responsibility of the church to reach the sev-
eral elements in the rural population and stimulate their in-
terest in the work of the church of their respective com-
munities. The failure of churches to accomplish their purposes
in rural communities, has been tractd to a poorly trained min-
istry, inadequate equipment, and a narrow vision of the churclfs
opportunity.

' An analysis of the situation reveals the fact that the rural
church is confronted with real difficulty. The farm tenant has

a point of view that has not been well understood. His own _

reasons deserve consideration in the formulation of a rural
church program. In a survey made in Brazos County, Texas,
the county in which the Agricultural and Mechanical College

is located, the question was asked those tenant farmers who '

reported as to why they did not attend Sunday School and Church.
The answers may be summarized as follows:

(1) “It is too far.”

(2) “The roads are too bad.”

(3) “We, (my family) have nothing appropriate to xvear.”

There are other miscellaneous reasons assigned.

But, after all, these reasons are more or less superficial. The
fact is, that underlying these causes, are the more fundamental
ones of a sense of detachment from the community and an in-
difference to the institutions of the community, because of the
conditions of tenure and financial limitations. l

Conclusion.

If the interests of the tenant farmer in religion is to be
measured by his church and Sunday School attendance re-
cords, it does not present a very hopeful outlook for religious
development in some sections of the country. Rural churches
are everywhere on the decline in those sections of the country
where the percentage of farm tenantry in proportion to home

The Religious Interests of Farm Tenants 305

_ ownership is high. There will be no solution to the rural

church problem in these sectionsuntil some plan is devised t»
make home owners of many tenant farmers, or to secure to him a
more enduring tenure. These two causes never fail to develop in-
diiference to religious interests. *

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]

PART IV.

Social and Economic Factors in the Solution
of the Farm Tenantry Problem in
the United States.

307

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]

  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

CHAPTER XXIV.

THE PLACE OF TENANTRY IN AN IDEAL SYSTEM
OF FARM TENANTRY.

It is not to be inferred from the previous discussions that farm
tenantry has no place in our system of agricultural development.
“A strange misconception,” says Richard T. Ely, “in regard to

tenancy is current, and this has led, on the one hand, to unduly
= alarming prognostications, and, on the other hand, to proposed
remedies which would produce ten times as much evil as they
-' would cure. It has been even suggested that tenancy should be
destroyed root and branch, but, if it were possible t“ succeed in
i this proposed destruction, the results wouldmean serious dis-
aster and, indeed, widespread economic ruin. Tenancy may be a

g good, and it may be an evil; as we find it in the United States, it
is partly a good and partly an evil. We cannot exercise any
sound judgment in regard to tenancy, unless we have some
standard of measurement-in other words, unless we have in
our minds an ideal which it is desirableito approach.“

It has been assumed in the past that there could be only
two ultimate land tenure policies—a system that would final-
ly lead to complete ownership by those who tilled the soil,
or a system that would result in the reduction of farm tenantry
to a social status based upon capitalistic farm enterprise. Peas-
ant proprietorship as it is found in France, Italy, andother
‘countries represents the former land tenure policy, and tenantry
as it is practiced in England is typical of the other policy. Land
nationalization has been proposed as a means of avoiding the
‘social and economic problems resulting from either of these sys-
tems. But it should be observed that the collective ownership
of land would simply mean that the entire agricultural popula-
tion had become farm tenants and the state had become the
landlord.

1See Supplement to the American. Economic Review, March, 1919, and reproduced in
' Papers on Tenancy, Bulletin N0. 2, page 39 of the publications of the American Asso-
. ciation for Agricultural Legislation.

310 Farm Tenantry in the United States

In a previous chapter‘ reference is made to Mill’s summary 

of the arguments for and against the adoption of one or the
other of these policies. Mill was strongly in favor of the method
of small proprietorships. He quotes Arthur Young as saying

that “give a man the secure possession of a bleak rock, and he J
will turn it into a garden; give him a nine year’s lease on a gar-

den, and he will turn it into a desert.”

Mill laid great stress on the stimulus that ownership gave,

to productive effort. He calls attention to the statement of a
Swiss statistical writer that peasant proprietorship resulted in
“almost superhuman industry.” He was also of the decided
opinion that a system of peasant proprietorship resulted in a
higher degree of intelligence, and the moral virtues of prudence,
temperance, and self-control were more in evidence than could
be found in the tenants under an absentee-landlord system."

Mill’s opposition was largely due to the metayer system
as practiced in England. He quotes Arthur Young as saying
that “there is no word to be said in favor of this practice and a
thousand arguments that might be used against it.“ He thought
better of a tenantry system based upon a money rent, because
of the increasing interest that a money-rent lease gave to the
tenant in the results of his efiorts. After quoting Sismondi on
the advantages of the metayer system as practiced in Italy, Mill
closes the argument as follows:

“I look upon the rural economy of Italy as simply so much
additional evidence in favor of small occupation with perma-
nent tenure. It is an example of what can be accomplished by
those two elements, even under the disadvantage of the pecu-
liar nature of the metayer contract, in which the motives to
exertion on the part of the tenant are only half as strong as if
he farmed the land on the same footing of perpetuity as a
money-rent, either fixed, or varying according to some rule
which would leave to the tenant the whole benefit of his own ex-
ertions.”5

 

lChapter 6. '

2Pr_mwples of Political Economy, Chapter 7, page 282, Ashley addition.
3Ib1d, Chapter '7, pages 286 and 288.
élbid, Chapter 7, page 306.

5Ibid, Chapter 8, page 316.

 

 

 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
  

The Place of Tenantry in an Ideal System 311

._. A more recent English authority has presented some of the
i difficulties connected with the establishment of a land tenure
 policy in England based upon peasant proprietory rights. The
author referred to is Edwin A. Pratt, who is an authority on
 Rural Economics in England. He may be said to represent an
l; intermediate view with regard to this policy. Pratt says that
fwith the exception of a number of politicians, land reformers,
} and public authorities, there are certain antagonistic influences
" to an increase in the number of allotments and small holders in
x England. He refers to the opposition of the great land-owning
., class particularly as being opposed to peasant proprietorship.
7, He voices the general difficulty in a plan to promote this type of
- agriculture, because of the economic difficulties as follows:
p “In the case of a person of independent means, or of a pro-
fessional man having no enterprise of his own in which to in-
fl vest his savings, surplus money might well be put into such
“j land; but the position is different with an agriculturalist whose
 limited supply of capital represents the primary essential for
l; the successful management of his business, and who really can-
l’ not, as a rule, afford to introduce into business and-consider-
ation that may be purely sentimental. As a peasant proprietor,
 he is dependent entirely on his own capital. As a tenant, he is
working, to a certain extent, with the capital of his landlord,
lfpaying, through his rent, in part, only a low rate of interest
l ;.thereon.”1
g Pratt presents a strong argument for tenancy under a sys-
.. -tem of regulation that will produce sympathetic cooperation be-
.tween the landlord and tenant. “With security of tenure and
“arantee of compensation for improvements, they (tenants)
» ight well be content, from an economic standpoint. It is true
they would not have the sentimental satisfaction of calling
ehemselves landed proprietors. On the other hand, they would
e able to keep the whole of their bit of money for the purchase
f stock, implements, seeds, and other necessities for the profit-
‘ ble development of the holding, and the combination with which
 ey, started would be most useful in enabling them to efiect

"The Transition in Agriculture, (1906), Chapter 19, page 251.

312 Farm Tenantry in the United States

economies in this direction. None of their capital would be
buried in the land at the moment it was most wanted!“

Pratt seems to think that a system of land tenure that pro-
vides for both small proprietors’ rights in the land cultivated

. and tenancy so regulated as to protect the interest of the tenant

is the best for the country.

The system of farm tenantry as practiced in Great Britain
has had its defenders. “The greatest system of farming in the
wrorld,” says Professor W. O. Hedrick, “measured by the test of
endurance, is the tenant system. In England all but four or
five per cent. of the farmers are tenants, yet English farming
has given us our leading types of live stock, our best farm prac-
tices, such as marling, drainage, rotations, etc., . . . . The
test of a system of agriculture is the character of its profes-
sional representatives; and without doubt the British farmer,
though a tenant, ranks high among farmers everywhere.”

There is a theory being advanced at the present time,that
the system of farm tenure practiced in any country must follow

‘the tendency of industry. Those who hold this view contend

that the organization of industrial enterprise makes it neces-
sary that capitalistic farming conform to organization in
industry. The decreasing man-power on the farm makes nec-
essary an increase in the use of machinery. In the process of
this readjustment an increasing amount of capital will be nec-
essary to finance the farm operation. In time it will be inevit-
able that the small proprietor must give way to a large land-

owner or a land corporation that can finance the farm opera- V

tions. The extremes of climatic conditions to which crops are
constantly subjectsd and a decreasing margin of profit on the
salable product of the farm, makes it necessary that the unit of
cultivation be sufficiently large to finance the operations on the
basis of several years’ average production, rather than to de-
pend upon a year to year plan of financing the undertaking. If
this theory is valid, tenantry must increase and in time assume a
a definite status in rural social organization.

lThe Transition in Agriculture, (1906) Chapter 20, page 263. ‘
2James B. Morman’s The Place of Agriculture in Reconstruction, (1919), Chapter 10,
page 266.

   
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  

The Place of Tenantry in an Ideal System 313

5. There is little evidence to support this theory in the farm
j lractice of today. There are capitalistic farm enterprises of gi-
antic proportions in certain parts of the country, but it should
_  observed that there is a tendency for the average size of the

. arm unit to decrease rather than to increase. There seems to be
'ttle causal connection between capitalistic enterprise in in-
ustry and in farming. l It is obvious, of course, that the cost of
{i ancing farm operations has increased. This is due to two
uses—the rapid increase in the use of farm machinery, and a
etter quality of live stock on the farm.

A system of peasant proprietorship, such as we find in the
uropean countries, seems as undesirable as the other alterna-
tive of a system of farm tenantry that has assumed the form of
inflexible social structure, such as that existing in England
oday. The United States needs to maintain a more flexible
lystem of land tenure than that represented by either of the
Wypes referred to. American farm life conditions, at least for
‘veral generations, offer this possibility if wise policies are put
 to operation and social organization is effected to maintain it.

, There are in the United States about 6,360,000 farms. Ap-
roximately 2,600,000 tenants and 2,500,00 laborers are engaged
t‘. cultivating these farms. These figuresshow at a glance that
.  here are almost 5,000,000 farmers in the United States that are

 ndless. It is not to be expected that any system of govern-
‘dental aid or social effort can make landowners of all of this vast
umber of our population that are engaged in farm production.
' he landless population of the nation differs widely in intelli-
 initiative, thrift, and energy. The best that can be done
“to provide agencies that will give every man who possesses the
j. bition and energy, and who desires a farm home, to be con-
ious that the possibilities are within his reach, if he wisely
l ects his efforts and conserves his resources.

   

Classification of Farm Tenants.

». We might group the 2,600,000 tenants roughly into four
‘neral classes with reference to home-ownership motive:

314 Farm Tenantry in the United States

(1) The first class is composed of those who possess unusual
aptitude for successful farming. These are usually young and
vigorous farmers, who rapidly climb the “agricultural ladder”
to farm ownership under normal farm life conditions.

(2) The second class is composed of those who possess energy
and a knowledge of farm production, but who are deficient in man-
agerial skill. Those belonging to this group are good farmers
when directed by some one who has the ability to make the farm
pay. They do better as tenants. It is, therefore, best for farm-
ers who are deficient in managerial skill to look to farm tenantry
as the goal of their efforts, rather than attempt to become farm
owners.

(3) The third class is composed of those who possess the
qualities that would enable them to succeed in acquiring a farm
home of their own, but who prefer to use their capital for other
purposes. Farmers of this type usually invest their surplus in-
come in live stock, bank stock, and city property, believing that
this policy is better than buying land at high prices when the in-
come on the investment is relatively small. The number of farm
tenants belonging to this group is almost negligible. Those who
say there is really no tenantry problem usually have in mind
tenants of this kind.

(4) The fourth class consists of the incompetent farm ten-
ants. This type is well known to every observer of rural condi-
tions. The members of this class are thriftless, lazy, ignorant,
and indifferent. They present the most serious aspect of the farm
tenantry problem.

It is, of course, impossibleto estimate with any degree of '

accuracy the number belonging to this class that might, through
proper educational facilities, health safe-guards, and social stim-

.ulus develop capacity for larger usefulness and better social and

economic standing. Dean John L. Coulter, Dean of the College of
Agriculture, and Director of the West Virginia Agricultural Ex-
periment Station, thinks there are something like 500,000 tenants
belonging to this class.‘ It is not known on what basis Dean
Coulter arrives at this’ figure, but it is probable the number is
larger, rather than smaller than this figure.

 

lSee proceedings of the National Conference on Marketing and Farm Credits, 1915), page
354.

The Place of Tenomtry in an Ideal System 315

Assuming that there is a place for the farm tenant in our
system of land tenure, we are still confronted with the relative
number that is desirable in the interest of adequate production
and a wholesome rural social situation. The elements that enter
into this problem are clearly presented in the following quotation
from Professor Richard T. Ely:

2
4
s
5-?
t.
e
é
=; i
,

  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  

. “The amount of tenancy desirable for those who fare best
 as permanent tenants will differ in different parts of the
1 country. The number depends in part upon the kind of agri-
 culture pursued, upon various conditions of time and place, and
i upon the economic stratification and racial composition of the
} population. Where there are wide differences in the capacity of
~ various economic classes, tenancy will naturally have a large
place, especially if the lower strata are somewhat deficient in
1 economic qualities. The negroes of our South furnish an illus-
§ tration. In some cases ownership of land by negroes‘ leads to idle-
 ness, and in other places to wasteful methods of cultivation. We
. have no statistical data that enable us to tell how large a propor-
tion of the negroes would thrive best under he system of good
5: landlordship. Perhaps it would not be possible to tell without more
* careful experimentation. If We should set out to do the very
" best we could for them, calling into cooperation with us their
-1 wisest leaders, I am inclined to think that at present at least
g  one-half of the negroes would thrive best as tenants under wise
ifl direction, and probably more than one-half, taking "the country
" j as a whole.“

 There are two dangers to be guarded against in the read-
 justment of the social status of the farm population. In the
f first place, there are many farm owners who, to their own detri-
 ment, retire too early. In their anxiety to move to the town or
l1 city, the impelling motive usually being to educate their children,
 they leave the farm before their financial condition justifies
_ " such a step. The result is that they are compelled to make sac-
rifices in their new environment that involve the lowering of
 their standards of living. In the second place, there are many
it farm tenants who, in their aspirations for farm ownership, ac-

lBulletin No. 2, page 41 of the Publications of the American Association for Agricultural
f Legislation.

316 Farm Tenantry in the United States

quire an equity in the farm home and assume obligations that
are out of proportion to their prospects of a labor income. In
their efforts to meet their obligations, they are often confronted
by the dilema of either having to make too great a sacrifice of
the physical comforts of their wives and children, or in their ef-
forts to maintain a reasonable standard of living, the amount ex-
pended on living expenses makes it impossible to meet the obliga-
tion incurred in paying for the home. The ultimate effect is
either than the standard of living is lowered below that of reason-
able comfort or that the mortgage is foreclosed and the farmer
reverts to the status of a tenant. It rarely happens that a farmer
who passes through the latter experience ever again ventures up-
on the enterprise of attempting to buy another home.

It was to be expected that in a new country like this there
would be an increase in farm tenantry. The number will, no doubt,
increase with the number of farms. The problem grows out of
the abnormal increase that results in an undue proportion of farm
tenants to farm laborers and farm owners who cultivate their own
farms. The cause of this undue proportion in the past has re-
sulted from an irrational system of leasing farms, and the increas-
ing difficulties of acquiring ownership through land speculation.
These questions will require constant consideration both by the
Nation and the several states.

The Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. David F. Houston, in his
annual report for 1918, presents the problem of the relation of
tenantry to farm ownership as follows:

“It is particularly vital that, by every feasible means, the
processes of acquiring ownership of farms be encouraged and
hastened. This process is real in spite of appearances to the
contrary. It has been too generally assumed and represented
that tenancy has increased at the expense of ownership and
that we are witnessing agricultural deterioration in this direc-
tion. Tenancy does present aspects which should cause great
concern, but its bright sides have not been sufficiently consider-
ed. The situation does not warrant a pessimistic conclusion.
In the 30 years from 1880 to 1910 the number of farms in the
United States increased from 4,009,000 to 6,362,000; the num-
ber of those owned from 2,984,000 to 4,007,000, a gain of 1,023,-
000, or 34.8 per cent. and the number operated by tenants from

The Place of Tenamtry in an Ideal System 317

1,025,000 to 2,355,000, a gain of 1,330,000, or 129.9 per cent.
But in 1910, five-eighths of the farms and 68 per cent. of the
acreage of all land in farms were operated by owners and 65
per cent. of the improved land. The number of farms increased
faster than the agricultural population. The only class not op-
erating farms who could take them up were the younger men,
and it is largely from them that the class of tenants has been
recruited.

“In a recent study of the cases of 9,000 farmers, mainly in
the Middle Western States lying in the Mississippi Valley, it
was found that more than 90 per cent. were brought up on
farms; that 31 1-2 per cent. remained on their fathers’ farms

i until they became owners and 27 per cent. until they became
 tenants, then owners; that 13 1-2 per cent. passed from wage
 earners to ownership, skipping the tenant stage; and that 18
per cent. wer first farm boys, then wage earners, later tenants,
and finally owners. It is stated, on the basis of census statis-
tics, that 76 per cent. of the farmers under 25 years of age are
tenants, while the percentage fall with age, so that among those

older sections of the country (except in the South, which has a
g large negro population), that is, in the New England and Middle
 Atlantic States, the tenant farmers formed a smaller proportion
in 1910 than in 1900. This is also the case with the Rocky
Mountain and Pacific divisions, where there has been a relative
abundance of lands. The conditions, on the whole, therefore,
are not in the direction of deterioration but of improvement.
The process has been one of emergence of wage laborers and
sons of farmers first to tenancy and then to ownership.

“The relative steps that have been taken to promote bet-
ter credit terms for farmers will have a tendency to hasten this
process. The operation of the farm loan system, through ar-
rangements by which those who have sold lands take a second
mortgage subordinate to the first mortgage of the farm land
banks, carrying a relatively low rate of interest, will have a
beneficial influence. If further developments can be made
' through the application of the principle of cooperation, espe-
cially in the formation of personal credit unions, the conditions
k ‘will be more favorable. In the meantime special attention and

‘saw. b1?',~7:vw*wz4““‘“r€ '9 l’

 
 
 
 
 
 
  

55 years old and above only 20 per cent. are tenants. In the-

318 Farm Tenantry in the United States

study should be given to the terms of tenancy, including the 
lease contract, with a view to increase the interest both of the '
landlord and of the tenant in soil improvement and to make *

sure that there is an equitable division of the income.”
Conclusion.

All that society can do is to provide aid in the process of
climbing the “agricultural ladder” to farm ownership. Re-
tardation of the process is detrimental to the welfare of the
nation.

If every man who tills the soil in the United States today
were to be given ownership of the land he cultivates, it would
not necessarily make the country any better off than it is now.
It is easy to conceive that such a situation would retard rather
than promote production. Thousands of those farmers who are
deficient in managerial skill would lose the intelligent direction
of those who have made their farming enterprise successful.
Many others would be handicapped because of inadequate cap-
ial with which to finance the farm enterprise. It should be
recognized, therefore, that there is a place for tenantry in our
system of agriculture.

“It is just as natural”, says James B. Morgan, “to expect
some men to work as farm hands or tenant farmers “as it is to
look upon day-wage industrial workers or the piece hands in
factories as a usual condition of modern industrial life. All
city workers cannot be factory owners, nor should we expect
all rural workers to be farm owners.“

But we have a right to expect the state and national govern-
ments, by appropriate and sane legislation, to give men of energy
and aptitude, the opportunity to become farm owners. It is
equally to be expected that adequate protection will be given to the
legal rights of the farm tenant who may not reasonably expect to
acquire possession of the land he cultivates. A rational system
ofleasing should be required as a means of promoting social
justice in the relationship of landlord to the farm tenant. Such a
program of distributive justice would not be complete unless so-
ciety establishes adequate agencies for developing fully the in-
herent aptitudes and qualities of every man who cultivates the

lThe Place of Agriculture in Reconstruction, Chapter 10, page 253.

The Place of Tenantry in an Ideal System 319

 
  
   
  

‘boil, as a means of revealing his capacity for directing his own
fiforts in the productive process. .

 ' It remains to be indicated what progress has been made and
that policies have been adopted as a means of readjusting the
iumbers in the farm tenantry group in a wise system of agri-
s ture. Attention will be directed briefly to the more signifi-
l”: t social movements and legislative programs that thus far
ave had this for theirobj ect. -

CHAPTER XXV.

LAND NATIONALIZATION AND FARM
TENANTRY.

The nationalization of land has been proposed by some
as a solution of the land tenure problem. A brief examina-
tions of this proposal in so far as it bears upon the problem of
farm tenantry will be briefly considered.

Advocates of land nationalization contend that the sub-
stitution of national for private ownership of land would stim-
ulate production and secure social justice for the land opera-
tor. According to the land nationalization theory, privaizc
ownership in land is unsuited to modern conditions. It is.
contended, therefore, that the title to all land should be fixed
in the community and utilization directed by the state. The
state would, under this system, become the universal land-
lord, and the cultivators would become tenants either on lease or
at will.

The Land Nationalization Movement is associated with
such names as Gossenf Walrasf John Stewart Mill, and Alfred
Russell Wallace. Bastiat in France, and Carey in America, were
both interested in the theory of land nationalization about the
same time that Gossen’s book appeared in Germany. The ap-

' proach to the formulation of all the theories of land nationaliza-

tion has been through the economic aspects of land utilization
and the definition and distribution of capital. The nature of land
has presented serious obstacles to economic thinkers. The identi-
fication of land as capital is still a question of debate among econ-
omistsfi

 

lSee Erztwickelung der Gesetze Des Mertschlinchen Verkehrs, (1853).

2La. Theorie Generale de la, Societe, (1876).

3See an illustration of this argument in Turner's Introduction to Economics, (1919).
Chapter 21, in his argument that land is capital, which is an attempt to answer the
opposite view expressed in Davenportfs Economics of Enterprise, Chapter II.

320

Land Nationalization and Farm Tenantry 321

  
  
 
  
 
  
   
 
 
   
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
     
   
  

Argument for Land Naturalization.

a The justification for land nationalization may be sum-
arized from the views of several writers who have advocated
ome system of nationalization as follows:

 (1) Historical. One argument for this theory is based
Iron the historical views held by some that private owner?
"'1 in land was preceded by a universal system of cultivation
i’ common. “All land in the beginning was common,” says
‘i urer “and belonged to all; that is to say, to the people”!
and was held in common,” says M. Violet “before it bee
Ine private property in the hands of a family or an individ-
vl.”’ “The arable land was cultivated in common.” says
l. de Laveleye “private property grew up afterwards out of
“is ancient ownership.“ This writer thinks that communism in
id was universal in primitive society, and that the system has
ntinued to prevail in many countries. But he does not think it
Ictical to revert to communism in land in the case of the older.
d well developed societies, but he is strongly of the opinion that
 knowledge of primitive forms of property may be suggestive
“formulating land policies for new colonies that have large teré
 ries at their disposal.‘ Fustel de Coulanges denies that com.-
A nism in land as a universal practice in primitive societies has
 historically proved.“ It is aside from the purpose of this
jcussion to enter into the arguments with reference to this
ttion. It is sufficient to say that modern advocates of land
fonalization have begun with the historical theory of primitive
munism in land.

) von Maurer’s Einleitung zur Geschichte der Mark-Hof-‘Dorf-und Staatverfassuny
f , page 93.

iolet, in the Bibliotheque de l’ Ecole des Chartes, (1872),_pag_e 503.

1 de Faveleyefls De la propriete etses for-mes primitives (1874) Chapter 1,

lgreface to the original addition to M. De Laveleve’s Work by G. R. L. Marriott.
7' Origin of Property (1891), page 149, translation by Margaret Ashley.

322 Farm Tenantry in the United States

(2) Legal. The second argument is based on the source
and validity of title to property in land. The proprietor of any
article gains legal possession by original or derived title.
Every derived title is traceable back through a series of titles
to some original title. The most familiar derived titles are
contract, inheritance, and prescription. The original title
is based upon first occupancy or labor. The justification for
private property in land is generally based on a title derived
through first occupancy. “If this title be not valid every de-
rived title is worthless.“ Henry George attacks the theory
of first occupancy in the following passage:

“Priority of occupation give exclusive and perpetual title
to the surface of a globe in which, in the order of nature,
countless generations succeed each other! _ _ _ Has the first
comer at a banquet the right to turn back all the chairs, and
claim that none of the other guests shall partake of the food
provided, except as they make terms with him? Does the
first man who presents a ticket at the door of a theatre, and
passes in, acquire by his priority the right to shut the doors
and have the performance go on for him alone? _ _'_ _ And
to this manifest absurdity does the recognition of the individ-
ual right to land come when carried to its ultimate that arr;
human being, could he concentrate in himself the individual
rights to the land of any country, could expel therefrom all
the rest of the inhabitants; and could he concentrate the in-
dividual rights to the Whole surface of the globe, he alone of
all the teeming population of the earth would have the right
to live.” This analysis is sufficient to illustrate the legal argu-
ment for and against land nationalization.

(3 Economic. Henry George attacks the right of private
property in the land on the grounds of economic justice of labor
effort rather than on the legal grounds of original or derived title.
“There can be to the ownership of anything no rightful title

' which is not derived from the title of the producer, and does not

rest upon the natural right of the man to himself. There can be
no other rightful title, because (1) There is no other natural right

1See John A. Ryan's Distributive Justice, Chapter 3, page 21.
ZProgress and Poverty, book vii, chapter 1.

Land Nationalization and Farm Tenantry 323

from which any other title can be derived, and (2) because the

recognition of any other title is inconsistent with anddestructive
a of this} Therefore, nature acknowledges no ownership or con-
. trol in man save as the result of exertion.” This passage is a
 brief summary of the arguments on which the theory of land
F) nationalization has been based.

é The Land Nationalization Movement.

 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

p iMost of the opponents of private property in land today

are either socialists or disciples of Henry George. The form-
1 er contended for the socialization of land as a logical step in
 the program of collective ownership of the agencies of pro-
i duction. The followers of Henry George approach this theory
 from the doctrine of the single tax. The appropriation for
i public uses of all economic rent is their justification for the
 taxation of land valuation.

, The land Nationalization Society was founded 1n England
 in 1881 as a result of the presentation of the theory by Alfred
t; Russel Wallace, in his book on Land Nationalization; Its
Necessity and Its Aims. This distinguished scientist and so-
icial reformer, a contemporary of both Charles Darwin and
lgHenry George, preferred to confiscate the land by means of
Itaxation of land values. The followers of Wallace advocated
5the direct purchase of the land by the Government. l

_ The Society did not make much headway for a time.
Practical politicians were afraid of inflated prices of land
iwhen an offer of purchase was made by the State Representa-
tives, which would result in a correspondingly high tax rate.

lilProgress and Poverty, book vii, chapter 1.

4324

Farm Tenantry in the United States,

But the influence of the advocates of land natlOljlalization he-
gan to be felt when the principle of taxing land values was
recognized in England. The English law provided that the
price fixed on land for taxing purposes might he taken as

the value for which the state could purchase it, if desired The.

problem was to secure a tax rendering value that correspond.
ed to the actual value of the land. The principle of the tax-
ation of land values has been recognized in several forms

in recent legislation in England, and the advocates of land 

nationalization have multiplied rapidly}

An association was formed in Australia as early as 1872
under the name of the Land Tenure Reform League of Vic-
toria. - The object of which was to induce the state to cease
selling public land and to grant leases only. This organiza-
tion has exerted great influence on land policies in the states
of Australia.

Programs of Land Nationalization.

Advocates of land nationalization have not agreed in de-
tail with reference to the program on which to construct a
policy of this kind. The one announced by Alfred Russel Wal-
lace is probably as typical as it will be possible to find. His
program is summarized as follows:

“(1) In the first place, it is clear that landlordism must
be replaced by occupying ownership. No less radical reform

_will get rid of the widespread evils of our present system.

“(2) Arrangements must be made by which the tenure
of the holder of land must be secure and permanent, and noth-
ing must be permitted to interfere with his free use of the land,
or his certainty of reaping all the fruits of any labour or out-
lay he may bestow upon it.

“(3) Arrangements must be made by which every Brit-
ish subject may secure a portion of land for personal occupa-
tion at its fair agricultural value.

44(4)

All suitable tracts of unenclosed and Waste lands

See Bliss’ The New Era of Social Reform, article on “Land Nationalization,” page 698.

 

Land Nationalization and Farm Tenantry 325

must (under certain limitations) be open to cultivation by oc-
cupying owners.

“ (5) The freest sale and transfer of every holder’s in-
terest in his land must be secured.

“ (6) In order that these conditions be rendered perma-
nent, sub-letting must be absolutely prohibited, and mort-
gages strictly limited.“

Wallace agrees with Fraude, JohniStewart Mill, Henry

D George, and Professor F. W. Newman, Whom -he quotes, that

 

land belongs to the people and its ownership by private indi-
vidual should not be the same as that of other property.
“A person must own land only so long as he occupies it per-
sonally; that is he must be a perpetual holder of the land, not
its absolute owner; and this implies some superior of Whom he
holds.”2 '

The direct influence of Henry George is revealed in a
discussion of the owner’s absolute property right in the im--
provements that are made by the operator on the land:

“All enclosed or cultivated land has its value made up
of two distinct portions, easily separable and affording a basis
for an important division of ownership. These portions are—-
firstly, the inherent value, and, secondly, the improvements
or additions added to the inherent value by the labour or
outlay of the owners or occupiers. The important difference
of these two portions of value is, that the one can be maintain-
ed, increased, or destroyed by the energy or the neglect of the

holder of the land; the other—-the inherent value—-cannot‘

(except in rare cases) be so destroyed or even deteriorated;
for it depends on such natural conditions as geological forma-
tion, natural drainage, climate, aspect, surface, and subsoil
-or on such general facts and conditions as density of pop-

lLand Nationalization; Its Necessity and Its Aims (1882), Chapter 8, page 192.
Zlbid, Chapter S, page 193.

326 _ Farm Tenantry in the United States

ulation, vicinity of towns, ports, railroads, or public highways,
none of which were created or are capable of being much al-
tered by the individual action of~ the landholder. This por-
tion of the value of the land, therefore, may conveniently be-
come the property of the State, which may be remunerated
for its use by payment of a perpetual quit-rent. The other por-
tion which is that created by the exertions of the landholder-
or his predecessors——consisting of buildings, fences, drains,
gettes, private roads, plantations, etc., etc.,-should always be

the property of the tenant and holder of the land, and it may. l

conveniently be termed the tenant-right, because its posses--
sion will constitute him a tenant of the State, and because it is

that portion of the value of landed property which must al-

ways belong to the tenant, while the land or soil itself remains
in the possession of the supreme lord of the soil, the State.“

Wallace was not unmindful of the difficulty in arriving at -

an equitable valuation of land. He thought that it would re-
quire five or ten years after the passage of the Act providing
for nationalization before land values could be determined
on an equitable and a stabilized basis. The guiding principle
in determining the value of all land would be the annual rent
value of it. This estimated annual value would necessarily be
divided into two proportions,-—the future tenant-right (the form-
er landlord’s portion), and the other inherent value. In

the latter portion, Wallace would include the value given the a

land by the community and that acquired through cultivation
in previous years. He thought this would be a comparatively
easy task, but subsequent writers have pointed out some of the
difficulties that would be encountered in the appraisal under
this plan?

Wallace was opposed to any plan of acquiring public
ownership that would result in the confiscation of the land.
He emphasized the importance of compensating existing own-
ers or their expectant heirs by the State.

 

lProgress and Poverty, Chapter 8, page 194.
2See for example Mallock’s Property and Progress (1884), pages 103 to 113

nwinfiianalilnk

Land Nationalization and Farm Tenantry 327

The problems of administration of this scheme were not
overlooked. His outline as to how tenants may become oc-
cupying owners is presented as follows:

“Having thus shown how the owner would be compensat-
ed for the land itself, we proceed to show how the tenant-right
would be dealt with and what would be the position of the
purchasers of the tenant-right.

“The land having been acquired by the State, every exist-

ing tenant, at the date the Act came into operation, would be
entitled to continue in the occupation of his house, his farm,
or his land of any description, as a holder under the State, on
payment of thefixed quit-rent; but to constitute him such a
State tenant, he must first purchase or otherwise acquire the
tenant-right. He will be enabled to do this, either by pur-
chasing it from the landlord under a private arrangement, or,
if an agreement as to its value cannot be arrived at, thenthe

' official valuer or a “land court,” similar to those which ad-

minister the Irish Land Bill, may be called in to determine the
fair value. As soon as this is paid by the tenant, he becomes
the absolute owner of the tenant-right and as such the holder
of the land under the State in perpetuity, so long as the quit-
rent is paid. The tenant-right, which thus carries with it the
right to the land (subject to the quit-rent), will be as freer--
ly saleable as any other property; it will be capable of being
sub-divided, and sold, or bequeathed in portions, and thus the
holder of land will, for all beneficial uses, be as much the real
owner as if it were a freehold. a '

“As Nationalization is proposed in order (among other
things) to prevent any one being ejected from his house or
farm against his will, and as some tenants would not be able
to provide the sum necessary to purchase the tenant-right, pro-
vision must be made (either by authorized Loan Societies or
by municipal authorities) for the advance of the sum required,
to be repaid by a terminable rental extending over periods of,
say, from 14 to 40 years.“

10p.  Chapter 8, page 202.

328 Farm, Tenantry in the United States

In another connection, Wallace comments on the difficulties
of administration in answer to a criticism that in “State man-
agement there is a minimum of private interest with a dan-
ger of maximum of jobbery” as follows:

“All this is perfectly true if the State were to acquire the
whole of a landed estate (including the tenant-right), and
were to let it out and manage it as an existing landlord does;
but it is totally untrue as regards the present scheme, in which
no management whatever is required or is possible, any more
than the State manages house property because it collects a
land-tax from each householder.“

Wallace comments on his sixth and final generalization
by saying that every operative owner under this plan would
have the absolute free use of his land with only onevessen-
tial restriction—he could not sublet it. The reason for this
restriction is obvious. If subletting were allowed, landlord-
ism .would appear again under another name, and the sub-
tenants would soon be subjected to the injurious influences
and unequal advantages that land nationalization had at-
tempted to abolish. .

The program and possibilities of agriculture under a sys-
tem of land nationalization is described by the Countess of
Warwick as follows: '

“Under the rule of the Great State, the landlord and the
small and large private farmers will no longer exist. The
State will own the land, and it will not make itself ridiculous
by letting it out in petty patches, to be farmed on the scale
that one would run a village general-shop. It will, on the
contrary, be divided up into convenient tracts, of a size de-
termined by the nature of the soil and the kind of produce to
be grown; and these will be worked as State farms under the
control of a director and assistants, who are highly trained in
the latest science and art of their department of knowledge.
Farming will be a profession of the same rank as medicine,
public administration, and education. The ideal of these
agriculturalists will be to produce as much wealth per acre
as the soil is capable of yielding. The farm-workers, likewise,

10p. Cit., Chapter 8, page 207.

Land Nationalization and Farm Tenantry 329

will be specially trained in their duties by a course of appren-
ticeship on the land. The idea of getting good farming out
of untrained farmers and unskilled laborers will be thought
of as a comical tradition of the past.”1

Policies of Land Nationalization.

There are numerous historical examples of land national-
ization. Most of these may be regarded as temporary ex-
pedients that have developed in the evolution of modern
states. A familiar example of this land policy in evolution is
that of England immediately following the Norman Conquest.
The Norman Conquest resulted in all the land of the King-
dom becoming vested in the Crown. All the great estates of
the lords were then granted as fiefs by theSovereign on con-
dition that the landed proprietors should render military or
other service proportionally to the extent and population on
their estates. But in time these great landlords acquired
sufficient land to contest the title of the Sovereign in the land.
The ultimate effect was the open denial of any such title and
the final recognition of private ownership in the land. It is
easy to see now that the actual system of land tenure and all
existing rights of property in land in England today had its
origin in the feudal system that developed out of the Nor-
man Conquest, and that the policy of nationalization of land
was only a transition period in the development of the more
permanent system of private ownership.

We have, however, a more recent example of this pro-
cess in the case of Great Britain’s Control overlndia. M. de

"Laveleye has described the policy of land nationalization as

practiced by England in the case of India? When England ac-
quired control of India, the Mussulman principle of the state's
proprietorship in the land was universally accepted. In the
five great divisions of this vast Empire, the English devised an

"administrative system for collectng the revenue from the

land. In three of the Provinces an intermediate agency be-
tween the tenant and the government was established for this

lSocialism and the Great State, by Henry G. Wells and others (1912), Chapter 2, page 55.
2See Ibid, Chapter 24, page 310.

‘under a policy of

330 Farm Tenantry in the United States

purpose. In Bengal, a superior class called the Zemindam
were retained under the direction of the English Government
to collect the revenues from the cultivators of the land. In
the Central Provinces, the revenue was collected by farmers
at a price fixed by State officials. In the Provinces of Ma-
dras and Bombay, there was no intermediate agency between
the cultivators and the government. The right of each tenant

was clearly defined, and the portion of the produce, varying _

With the nature of the crop, 0r a sum of money, was assessed on
a basis of thirty-year leases.

The historical literature of India contains many refer-
ences to the controversy as to the nature of the revenue de-
Writers on the subject have failed to
agree whether this revenue should be called rent or merely a tax.
“It is a curious fact,” says Professor E. Washburn Hopkins, “that

the British have not been able to decide whether they are drawing
a tax or rent from the Hindo farmer. Some, like Mr. Chesney,
say that the land has always belonged to the Crown, and the
farmer pays rent for his land. Others, like Mr. Baden-Powell,
and Lord Salisbury, prefer to regard the revenue as a tax.”1

rived from this source.

Sir Thomas H. Holdisch says, “as regards the chief sup-
port of Indian finance, the land revenue, Sir John Strachey
quotes Fawcett and Mill in support of his opinion that the rent
of land cannot be regarded as atax on the people when claim-
ed by government, any more than it would represent a tax if
paid to any private landlord; and he shows that the share of
the rent claimed by Government has decreased enormously
under British rule.” '

The difference of opinion on this
authorities grows out of the more fundamental question as to
the meaning of the land policy. If the revenue is to be regard~
ed as a rent on the land, then the state is merely the landlord
land nationalization. On the other hand,

llndia; Old and New (1902), Chapter on “Land Tenure in India,” page 207.
Zlndia, (1905), Chapter 9, page 265. *

point among English I

 


:3
3
.~ w:
Q?

Land Nationalization and Farm Tenantry 331

if the revenue is a tax, private ownership in land is implied.

If the theory of Sir Henry Maine, with reference to the
ancient village community in India is accepted and the Mo-

hammedan policy that regards the Sovereign as the owner of the _

soil, is recognized, it is clear that England in assuming govern-
mental direction over India, based its authority on a policy of
land nationalization. But there is increasing evidence that
British policy in India has come more and more to recognize the
principle of private ownership in land. The British Govern-

’ ment has steadily reduced the land income. The ancient na-
tive rulers recognized no private property in land and felt free
to appropriate all of the surplus profit after the expense of
cultivation had been paid. The gradual reduction of the revenue
collected by the British Government, seems to indicate that the in-
come is a tax rather than rent on the land.

Public ownership of land has been recognized in the

' communist government of Hungary and Soviet Russia. As

 the socialization of land in these countries represent the lat-
 est and most ambitious program that has been undertaken in
i recent times, a brief outline of these policies will be present-
 ed.

 
   
 
 
 
 
    
  

- The socialization of land in Hungary runs counter to well
.4 established traditions. The older peasant farmers clung
i’ tenaciously to the idea of private property in land. The
 feudal Latifundia had long been accepted as the rural land
_l policy of Hungary. The former government had proposed to
[- break up these vast estates and partition the out as
T small farms on the basis of the land tenure system of France
land Italy. Before the social revolution, Count Karolyi’s estate
¥ad been partitioned in this way. But the socialists realized
I hat under this plan the number of land owners would be in-
j reased, and the principle of the private ownership would gain
U great number of new adherents. Efforts to prevent this pro-
 -- going on partly account for the revolution that resulted in a
rogram of land socialization.

332 Farm Tenantry in the United States

The plan worked out by the Commissioner of Agriculture of
Hungary is as follows: On each estate, consisting of more than
200 acres, the farmers are organized into an association. The
only condition of membership is the obligation to work at least
120.days each year——a movement intended to lure the owners of
small uneconomic holdings into one of these guilds.

The maintenance of the farmers is to be made first
charge upon the produce of the communal farm. Each family
is to receive a ration of grain, meat, dairy products, and vege-

tables on the basis of its numbers. The surplus produce is ‘

then to be brought by the District Central Agricultural Associa-
tion, which is, in its turn, subordinate to a county association.
These county associations are authorizedto purchase seed,
fertilizers, and farm machinery for the farm society units. They
are also charged with the responsibility for the sale of pro-
duce to the town population. The county associations are obli-
gated to spend half of each year’s surplus on improvements,
a term which includes farm dwellings of reasonable comfort
and provided with conveniences that will insure reasonable
comfort and health. The remaining half of the surplus is dis-
tributed in time-wages to the working members of the several
farm units. The attitude of the farmers’ themselves toward

this program is summarized by H. N. Brailsford from an in-
timate first-hand study of the situation as follows:

“They care nothing for the theory or ideals of Socialism,
but they are attracted by the promises of the leaders. At
present they are disposed to work heartily and will give the
experiment a chance. If these promises are kept, if they see
new and healthy cottages built, if they get what they never
had before, free medical attendance and well-organized
schools, if they see that the former gains of the absentee
capitalist landlord are flowing into their own pockets, they
will remain firm supporters of the system.“

1599 the English “Nation”, Vol. 25, No. 5 for Saturday, May 3, 1919,

Land Nationalization and Farm Tenantry 333

   
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  

, In Russia “The Fundamental Law of the Association of
 nd” Went into effect in September, 1918, replacing the
 rlier and briefer Land Decree of November 7, 1917.

This land law provides for abolishing “all property rights
‘i: the land, treasures of the earth, waters, forests, and funda-
ental resources within the boundary of the Russian Soviet
epublic,” and vests these resources in “the entire laboring
Vopulation without any compensation, open or secret, to the
rmer owners.”

i The right to use the land is assigned to those who tiII
by their own labor. The apportionment of land is under
5| jurisdiction of the villages, county, provincial, regional,
nd Federal land departments. The order of assignment as
 reed under Division 1, Article 10, of the Land Law is
f follows: ‘

_, “The land departments of the local and central Soviets
ire thus entrusted with the equitable apportionment of the
ind among the Working agricultural population, and with
A e productive utilization of the natural resources. They also
ave the following duties:

“ a “(1) Creating favorable conditions for the development
f the productive forces of the country by increasing the fer-
ity of the land, improving agricultural technique, and, fin-
 y, raising the standard of agricultural knowledge among
e laboring population.

“(2) Creating a surplus of lands of agricultural

p, “(3) Developing various branches of agricultural industry,
if. h as gardening, cattle-breeding, dairying, etc.

l; “(4) Accelerating the transition from the old unproduc-
'l_ e system of field cultivation to the new productive one (un-
‘I1 various climates), by a proper distribution of the labor-
 population in various parts of the country.

j. “(5) Developing collective homesteads in agriculture
preference to individual homesteads) as the most profit-
e system of saving labor and material, with a view to pass-
‘; on to socialism.”

v, The law contemplates standards of agricultural produc-
fi and consumption on a basis of an agricultural census and

334 Farm Tenant-Ty in the United States

a topographic survey. A definite plan is outlined for deter-
mining the labor capacity of the arrangements in the agricul-
tural population. The utilization of land is carefully co-0r-
dinated with the man-power units of productive effort. The
law clearly outlines the uses to which land can be assigned
as follows:

“Obtaining Rights to the Use of Land.”

Land may be obtained:
(a) For educational purposes.
1. Social usefulness.
(b) For agricultural purposes.
1. Personal labor.
(c) For building purposes.
1. Social buildings.
2. Dwellings.
3. The necessity of conducting a working home-
stead.
(d) For the purpose of constructing ways of com-
munication.
1. Public necessity}

With these recent attempts at the socialization of land,‘ ,

renewed interest has been manifested in the policy of land na-
tionalization. It is too early to appraise the results in Russia

and Hungary, but interest in public ownership is every where v

increasing. It is likely that public ownership and private own-

ership has already found a secure place in the land policies of »

most countries. There is every reason to believe that for a
greater portion of the land, better results can be derived
through private ownership than through public ownership.
But there are strong arguments in favor of public ownership
of a portion of the land in most countries. In fact, public own-
ership has already found a secure place in the land policies of
most nations. The leasing of portions of the public domain for
grazing and other purposes is an application of the principle
of land nationalization. It is being more generally conceded
that forest lands can be better utilized and administered when
publically owned. The sentiment isgrowing also for the

 

1See Decrees and Constitution of Soviet Russia,

reprinted in pamphlet form by The Na-
tion (1919).

 

Land Nationalization and Farm Tenantry 335

  
 
 
 
   
  
  
    
   
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  

tnationalization of mines. The public press of England has
recently quoted Premier Lloyd George as proposing that a
referendum of the 20,000,000 electors of Great Britain be tak-
il en on the question of the nationalization of coal mines.

 We find the application of public ownership being ap-
jplied in connection with some of the German cities. Fran-
‘ford-on-the-Main and Ulm on the Danube own considerable areas
ijof land. Frankford and Heidelberg owned large forests near
ihese cities. i

i It is inconceivable that old and well established nations
will undertake to establish a policy of land nationalization.
 his would involve denial of private ownership in land. Pri-
._ ate ownership has yielded such large rents and stimulated such
a nusual endeavor,that it is inconceivable that any nation that has
iibuilt its material progress on this foundation would undertake
such a radical change as that contemplated by the advocates
q land nationalization. " g .
.' Professor Taussig has very clearly presented the merits of
 is policy in its true light in the following language:

33 “There is something attractive in the proposal that the
"mmunity should never part with its title to the land, but
ould lease it only—-lease it, doubtless, for long terms, in such
“anner as to give tenants free scope for improvements and no
 ‘ducement to impoverish the soil, and yet to bring back to
e community in the end the gradually increasing increment
 economic rent. If a country had started from the outset
5 this plan, and if its government were rigidly honest, high-
Q intelligent, and excellently administered, this mode of
naging its patrimony would be preferable to private owner-
,'p. But no country has started on this plan; or if it has
ne so (the historians are uncertain as to the extent to which
"e Germanic races began with a system of true communal
nership), long centuries of private ownership have follow-
i The spur of ownership was historically indispensable for
 advance of the agricultural arts. It is conceivable that
‘ere a civilized community, equipped with the accumulated
erience of centures, takes possession of new land—as in
i United States, Canada, Australia-it might retain in pub-
ownership the fee of the land, parting only with long

‘336 Farm Tenantry in the United States

up leaseholds. But it is precisely the fee which the pioneer gen-
Aeration covets. The thought of the conservation or the inter-
ests of coming generations rarely presents, itself to them; or,

if it does, they think of their own direct descendants only, not
of the indiscriminate mass of the later population. Hence all

communities, whether they have moved slowly through a long

historical development or have begun at once on the plane
of advanced civilization, have rested their industrial organi-
zation on private ownership of land. Land, then has been
bought and sold for centuries on the supposition that the prop-

Ierty rights which have existed from time immemorial will be

maintained indefinitely into the future. To destroy all these

acquired rights is -not indeed unthinkable; but it would in-
fvolve a reconstruction of the Whole framework of society. It
presents the problem of socialism, not that of the appropri 1-

tion of the unearned increment.“

It is also unthinkable that a land policy built on a univer-
sal system of land tenantry with a national government as
landlord, would solve the social and economic problems of ru-
ral welfare. There is no reason to believe, and certainly no
evidence to support, a theory that tenancy under the admin-

istration of government officials would be more desirable than r

that under private ownership. It is possible that the prob-
lems would be more difficult, and the evils that the system

‘developed would more than ofiset the advantages. Tenancy p
-would doubtless find a place in the utilization of land under a 

system of public ownership. It would be natural to expect 

-.nati0ns, states, and cities to seek to gain an income from pub- i
flicly owned lands. Any other policy would make tenants a "

favored class. Therefore, the theory of land nationalization

‘does not offer much promise of solving the problem of land

tenancy.

lPrinezd-J-l-e-as of Economics (1911), Volume 2, Chapter 42, page 74.

 

CHAPTER XXVI.

TAXATION OF LAND VALUES AS A MEANS
OF PROMOTING FARM OWERNSHIP.

The essential aim of the various forms of taxation that have
been devised is to supply revenue to support the projects of gov-
ernment. The use of a policy of taxation as a means of social re-
form may be said to be a secondary object, and of very recent or-
igin. Systems of public revenue are constantly undergoing rapid
modification. The sources of taxes today are quite different from
those of a generation or two ago. Policies of taxation are deter-
mined, in a large measure, by the nature and extent of govern-
mental obligations and by the ideals of justice that social con-
ditions reveal. Economic and social conditions are constantly
enteracting upon each other to produce changes in the social
order. The theories of taxation, as Well as the forms of taxa-
tion, undergo changes as the result of the enteraction of these
influences. The final result has been that taxation has taken
on, in some of its forms, a double function—viz—a source of
revenue and a means of accomplishing some social reform}

This double object of taxation has sometimes been regard-
ed as a conflict in principle. Some have held that social reform
should be accomplished by other means than taxation. It is
urged that to attempt the dual purpose Will either result in a
violation of the principle of equitable distribution of taxation
and secure reform at the expense of a special group, or fail to ac-
complish the reform intended through inadequate means. That
this alleged conflict does not actually exist in theory, has been
pointed out by Professor Seligman in the following language:

 

1It is foreign to the topic under consideration to enter into a discussion of the general theory
of taxation._ A thorough discussion o_f the subJect o_f_taxation may be found in such vol-
umes as Seligman's Essays m Taxation, revised edition (1915); Henry C. _A§lams, The
. .Sc'ie'nce of Finance (1899) ; C. F. Bastableh Public Finance (1903) ; and similar works.

337 _

338 Farm Tenantry in the United States

“We say alleged conflict, because in reality there is, from a
deeper point of view, no such conflictat all. It is sometimes
asserted that the fiscal object of taxation is simply t0 secure
revenue, While the social object is to effect some desirable change
in social relations. This antithesis rests upon a failure to ob-
serve that finance, like economics, is a social science, and that
even from the narrow political point of view of the relation be-
tween the government and the citizen, the government cannot
derive any revenue—that is, cannot take any part of the social
income-—Without inevitably affecting social relations. The fact
that the government has in mind solely the fiscal aim of secur-
ing revenue does not alter the social consequences of the partic-
ular revenue system. In modern times social conditions are in-
fluenced to a large extent by changes in Wealth. Every tax
necessarily affects the wealth of individuals, and=if We could in
all cases trace the final consequences of even a “purely fiscal”
tax, all kinds of unforseen results, social as Well as fiscal, or pier-
haps better, social because fiscal, Would disclose themselves.“

Professor Seligman is doubtless right in his assertion that
every tax, if followed to its ultimate consequences, would show
that it has produced social consequences. But this is a different
matter from the taxation method that is provided for the specific
purpose of producing social reform. The aim of this discussion is
to consider the methods of taxation that have been seriously pro-
posed for the specific object of improving the social situation. An
attempt will be made to appraise the efficacy of such methods
to accomplish this object.

There are two methods of taxing land values——the single
tax and the graduated land tax—that have had social reform
for their object. It may me said that the single tax as advo-
cated by Henry George had for its primary-object the confis-

cation of rent and ultimately the establishment of a policy of

 

lEssays in Taxation, revised edition, Chapter 9, page 316.

  ‘w wvs1~i¢

Taxation of Land Values 339

land naturalization. But the Georgian School of Economics has
not been unmindful that if this object could not be accomplished,
at least through the application of this taxing policy, land re-
form might be effected. The specific object of the graduated land
tax has been the discouragement of large land holdings and abso-
lute landlordism.

The Taxation of Land Values.

The distinction between a tax on land value and a single
tax is clearly brought out in the following quotation from Yetta
Scheftel: '

“In distigushing between the tax on land value and the
Single Tax, we are comparing a tax reform with a social philos-
ophy. The Single Taxers are not interested in the tax as an
adequate source of local revenue under existing conditions; they
would employ the tax as the weapon with which to clear the
way to their Utopia, the essence of which is an ideal society
based on an equality of opportunity. The important, ultimate
object of the Single Taxers of the Georgian type is the nation-
alization of the land; the method by which they propose to at-

tain this object is through a one hundred per cent. tax on the
value of land. In addition, these theorists claim that, with the

» enormous income from the public domain in the hands of society,

the imposition of other taxes will be superfluous. In short, the
one hundred per cent. tax on land value, and the abolition of all
other taxes, that is, the institution of the Single Tax, is merely

I the machinery necessary in the realization of their Utopian so-

n1

ciety.

While this author is correct as to the object of the single
tax, it must not be inferred that a single tax is not one of the
applications of the taxing principle to land values. Carver
says: “One of the most persistent misinterpretations of the

lChapter 1, page 16, “The Taxation of Land Values.”

340 Farm Tenantry in the United States

single tax is that of assuming that it means a tax to be raised
on real estate rather than on land values. Land values is de-
fined as the value of the land itself irrespective of all improve-
ments, such as ditching, draining, fencing, the planting of trees,
and the erection of buildings. In short, everything done on the
land itself to improve the value of an estate is classed as an im-
provement and, under the single tax, would be exempt from tax-
ation. This leaves nothing except the location value and the
fertility value to be taxed.“

Henry George's interest in the single tax originated in his
observation of unearned increment in vacant city property and
the unwise policy of administration of our public lands. The
concentration of land ownership in the hands of comparatively
few holders attracted his attention. Land speculation in the
early days of statehood in California made a deep impression
upon the mind of Henry George. The charge was made by him
in 1873 that the large land owners of California were “dogs in the
manger who will not use the land themselves or let anybody else
use it.”

Land Monopoly in the United States.

The extent to which land in the United States is monopo-
lized can be illustrated by a few figures. The Original Public
Domain consisted of 1,835,017,692 acres of land exclusive of
Alaska. Out of this vast total 741,702,365 acres have already
been “appropriated” and 132,441,774 acres “reserved.” In 1899,
591,343,953 acres were supposed to be “vacant.” These figures
are without obvious significance until we go a little further in
the analysis.

The Northern Pacific Railroad has grasped 57,920,000 acres
of land on its lines and an additional acreage of 42,500,000 on its
branch roads—a total of 102,000,000 acres.

According to a bulletin of the Department of Commerce and
Labor, Bureau of Corporations, on the Lumber Indutsry, Part
I on Standing Timber, and published January 20, 1913, it is shown

 

lSee Principles of Political Economy (1919), Chapter 48, page 563.
2See San Francisco Post, April 7, 1873.

Taxation 0f Land Values 341

that today, out of 17,000,000 acres of land granted nearly 50
years ago to several then distinct corporations, as much as
13,888,000 (or about 80 per cent.) is still retained in a single
ownership. This same Government report on standing timber is
authority for the statement that sixteen men hold 47,800 acres,

 and that three railroads hold enough to give every adult male
i 15 acres in the nine states where their lands are located. In
 the upper peninsula of Michigan 45 per cent. of the land is held
 by thirty-two persons. One-third of the entire state of Florida
 is held by fifty-two timber lords. In the southwestern part of
 the state of Washington, 40 per cent. of the timber land is own-
a ed by*two holders. In the western part of Oregon, five individ-
g4 ‘uals own 36 per cent. of the timber lands. In northwestern Cali-

 

fornia six individuals own 70 per cent. of these lands.

One-twentieth of the entire land area of the United States
is owned by 1,694 proprietors of timber lands, that is, they own
105,600,000 acres. Sixteen individuals of the 1,694 own 47,800,-
000 acres. A few instances of individual landholding will also
illustrate land monopolization in this country. In the south-
western part of the state of Washington, two persons own 40
per cent. of the timber lands. A landholding syndicate in Texas
owns lands valued at $3,000,000. The Taft Ranch in this state
includes 80,000 acres valued at $2,000,000. James W. Wads-
worth, known as “the baron of Geneseo County,” owns 29 miles
from Rochester to Geneseo, in New York State. A British land
company owns 300,000 acres in Kansas. Lady Gordon and asso-
ciates own 2,000,000 acres in Mississippi}

Farm Land Monopoly.

The actual problem of farm ownership as related to land
monopoly is best shown from the following statistical data com-
piled from the 1910 census:

“In 1910, there were in this country 878,798,325 acres in
farm lands, divided as follows:

1See Single Tax Year Book, by Miller (1917) Page 276-

342 Farm Tenantry in the United States

In farms under 2O acres, 8,793,820 acres, 1 per cent.

In farms of 20 to 49 acres, 45,378,499 acres, 5 per cent.

In farms of 50 to 99 acres, 103,120,868 acres, 11.7 per cent.

In farms of 100 to 174 acres, 205,480,585 acres, 23.4 per
cent.

In farms of 175 to 499 acres, 265,289,069 acres 30.2 per
cent.

In farms of 500 to 999 acres, 83,653,487 acres, 9.5 per cent.

In farms of 1000 acres or over, 167,082,047 acres, 19.0 per

cent.
Henry George realized from his knowledge of this general

situation that the rapid growth of farm tenantry was inevitable,

in this country. In the Chapter on the American Farmer in his
book on Social Problems (1898) he says:

“Further than this, all the tendencies of the time are to
the extinction of the typical American farmer--the man who
cultivates his own acres with his own hands. This movement
has only recently begun, but ‘it is going on, and must go on, un-
der present conditions, with increasing rapidity.“

He closes this discussion with the following statement:

“The fact is, that the typical American farmer, the culti-
vator of a small farm of which he is the owner, is the product
of conditions under which labor is dear and land is cheap. As
these conditions change, labor becoming cheap and land becom-
ing dear, he must pass away as he has passed away in England.

“It has already become impossible in our older States for a
man starting with nothing to become by his labor the owner of
a farm. As the public domain disappears this will become im-
possible all over the United States. And as in the accidents and
mutations of life the small owners are shaken from their hold-
ings, or find it impossible to compete with the grand culture of
capitalistic farming, they will not be able to recover, and must
swell the mass of tenants and laborers. Thus the concentration
of landownership is proceeding, and must proceed, if private
property in land be continued. So far from it being to the in-
terest of the working farmer to defend private property in land,
its continued recognition means that his chidren, if not himself,

 

lChapter 20, page 227.

   
 
  
  
 
  
   
   
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
   
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  

Taxation of Land Values 343

l l_ ll lose all rights whatever in their native soil; shall sink from
 condition of freemen to that of serfs.”

' The single tax was Henry George’s proposed solution to this
 ation. He was probably not unmindful of the difficulty/that
uld confront him in convincing the small landowners that his
gle tax idea was advantageous to them. One passage de-
’ es quoting as an illustration of his argument to the rural
 v owner :

_, “It is clear that the change in taxation which I propose as
i means whereby equal rights to the soil may be asserted and
1 'ntained, would be to the advantage of farmers who are work-
1 land belonging to others, of those whose farms are virtually
1 ed by mortgagees, and of those who are seeking farms. And
é; only do the farmers whose opposition is relied upon—those
_ own their own farms—form, as I shall hereafter show, but
fcreasing minority of the agricultural vote, and a small and
 more rapidly decreasing minority of the aggregate vote;
jfthfi change would be so manifestly to the" advantage of the
Wlled farmers who constitute the great body, that when they
u to understand it they will favor instead of opposing it.
‘- farmer who cultivates his own small farm with his own
 is a landowner, it is true, but he is in greater degree a.
rer, and in his ownership of stock, improvements, tools, etc.,
pitalist. It is from his labor, aided by this capital, rather
y from any advantage represented by the value of his land,
_‘, he derives his living. His main interest is that of a pro-
5- not that of a landowner.“ ' '

The Single Tax and Farm Ownership in the
United States.

l°So far as rural land economy is concerned in the United
 s, there has been little opportunity to test out the value of
ingle tax principles as a means of social reform. The single
principle has made some headway in some of the cities in
‘country, but little progress has been made in applying it in

7' Problems, Chapter 20, page 220.

344 Farm Tenantry in the United States

rural sections. An effort has been made to write the single tax 
principle or a modification of it into the constitution of the
States of Deleware, Colorado, Oregon, California, and Missouri, ;
but in every case these proposals have been defeated by the peo- d.

ple?

The next approach to the application of the single tax prin-
ciple to farm lands is in the irrigated districts of California. In
March, 1909, the California legislature passed a law which re-
quired new irrigation districts to pay for the installation and
maintenace of their irrigation systems by means of a levy upon
the land alone. The landowners of the five already existing dis-
tricts could vote to adopt the same system. This plan has been
introduced into six irrigation districts. The exemption of im-
provements only applies to financing of the irrigation systems.
While this is a modified application of the single tax principle,
the experiment does not offer opportunity to estimate its value
as a social reform.

It may be said, therefore, that as far as this country is con-
cerned, the single tax principle has not been applied in such a way
as to measure its value as a means of social reform in our land
tenure situation. The claims of the advocates of the system that
it would relieve the farming population of the burden of taxes
now weighing upon them, has been denied by high authorities.
Professor Seligman presents an array of figures taken from typ-
ical and widely separated sections to disapprove this claim?

In so far as the United States is concerned, therefore, it may
be concluded that there are no data to support the theory that the
single tax would contribute to the solution of our farm ownership
problem, or as a fiscal policy that it would result in relieving the
burden of taxes of farm owners.

1See Arthur Nicholas Young’s Single Tax Movement in the United States, Chapter! 8, 9,
and 10, (1916).
2See Opus citus, Chapter 3, page 86 to 89

Taxation of Land Values 345

Taxation of Land Values in Australasia.

   
  
   
  
    
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
    
  
  
  
  
   
  
  

 Australasia has experienced very much the same situation
~ lfth reference to the monopolization of land and land specula-
i in that have been described with reference to the United
A tes. The difference has been that Australasia has adopted
more vigorous policy with reference to land reform than we
jve in this country. The explanation is to be found in the fact
t Australasia has been relatively free from war and has no
_ institutions that have required the sanction of long
epted tradition. The system of taxes as applied to the value of
J unimproved land, is only one of the numerous experiments
»: has been adopted.

f The tax reforms in Australia and New Zealand were the re-
 of the policy of land settlement and colonization. The all-
‘w rtant problem of every new country is that of attracting new
a lers. Rarely is a sound land policy considered during the
ges of early development. Land hunger is the impelling force
It draws men from the comforts of a civilized life to a new con-
tent of unknown hardships and privations. The inducement
red by the government naturally take the form of land
 ts. This policy offers unusual opportunity for wholesale
nation and concentration of lands in the hands of compara-
 ly few settlers.

 This exactly describes what happened in Australasia} The
nt of the wholesale alienation and concentration of land may
illustrated by figures presented in an address before the con-
}ti0n of the Australian Workers’ Union in 1915: Ninety-five
ions were in possession of 8,418,308 acres; 361 of 10,408,407
 689 of 9,514,769 acres; 1567 of 10,754,656 acres. The
ings of these 2,712 persons comprised 39,096,140 acres? g
The official yearbook shows that in 1909, the acreage of oc-
 land in New Zealand was over 38 millions, while in Aus-
= approximately 930 million acres were held by individuals
land companies. “It is noteworthy,” says Yetta Scheftel,

pp’s Land Systems of Australasia, (1594).
* e Australian Worker for March 4, 1915.

346 Farm Tenantry in the United States

“however, that of this vast territory under private tenure only
26.5 million acres, less than three per cent., were under cultiva-
tion. Of the two commonwealths New Zealand shows the den-
ser settlement, for about forty per cent. of its occupied land was
under cultivation as compared with one per cent. in Australia.“

It may be seen from these figures that Australasia has a
problem of land utilization not unlike that of the United States.
The fact that that country appreciated this problem, is supported -'
by the legislation that has been passed in the several states as a -
means of improving the situation. Both the Federal govern-
ments and State governments frankly went about the task of
instituting a program that would result in the redistribution
of the land and that would prevent land monopolization.

The taxation of large estates as a means of accomplishing
this end was resorted to. This legislation began as early as
1877. The first law was enacted in Victoria. It provided a tax
on rural lands over 640 acres and valued in excess of £2,500. In
1890, South Australia went further and introduced the prin-
ciple of the graduated land tax. However, the rate of taxation
was so slight that no appreciable reduction in the size of the es- '
tates- was effected.

In New Zealand a more vigorous policy was adopted. In
1891, a graduated tax was imposed in addition to the ordinary

land tax. The rate was fixed at one penny in the pound of ~
land valuation. The additional graduated tax began at an eighth .
of a penny and rose to a maximum of a penny and six-eighths.
To make the tax more effective as a means of land reform and -‘
to prevent any reduction in revenue which might result from ‘
the complete exemption of all improvements, in 1893 the rate of y
progression was still further increased. The rate was made to
vary from one-eighth of a penny to two pence in the pound
valuation, which resulted in the larger estates paying a t_otal

lThe Taxation of Land Values, Chapter 2, page 23.

There is also presented on page 22 of tns very excellent book, a table prepared from
official statistics of the six States of Australia and New Zealand howing the distri- .
bution of acreage, area alienated or in process of alienation, area leased, area in cul-
tivation, and population per square mile.

Taxation of Land Values A 347

  
   
  
  
 
   
   
   
 
  
   
   
 
  
   
   
   
   
 
  
  
  
   
  
  
  

nd tax of three pence in the pound. In 1901, a law was passed
roviding for a tax of one penny in the pound on all land. Im-
rovements up to £3,000 were exempt. On land valued at £5,000,
l additional tax on the graduated value Was assessed, exclusive
 improvements. This rate was increased in fourteen classes

j til it reached one and three-fourths pence in the pound when
he land was worth 210 thousand pounds. In 1903 the rate of
_ x was further increased until the maximum rate on the largest
tates was three pence in the pound?

v It is seen that we have here the application of both the
 gle tax and the. graduated land tax principles. What has
 the effect of this legislation on land utilization and home
ership? Profesor Seligman in answering this question, says:

“This graduated land tax, however, proved ineffective from
th the fiscal and social point of view. This yield had increased
i  ly from £71,000 in 1893 to £9,000 in 1902, notwithstanding a
nsiderable rise in the value of land. The effect of the law in
‘_ tting up large estates was correspondingly slight; it was, in-
eed, almost imperceptible.

“It was consequently decided to increase the scale of grad-
“tion; and in 1903 an additional tax over and above the ordinary
nny rate was imposed on unimproved land, the rate being
' aduated from one-sixteenth of a penny on land values of from
5,000 to £7,000 and reaching 3d. (one and one-fourth per cent.)
. - land values of £210,000, with fifty per cent. additional for ad-
ntees. This change, together with an improvement in the
chinery of assortment increased the yield in the next three
_rs (up to 1906) about thirty per cent.

y “But while the fiscal results were gratifying, the govern-
pnt was not satisfied with the effect of the law in breaking up
lge estates. The statistics show that while there had been,
: to 1906, a diminution in the estates of over fifty thousand
l es, and a somewhat smaller decrease in the number of es-
' s between twenty and fifty thousand acres, there had been
. ually no falling off in estates between ten and twenty
usand acres and an actual increase in those between five and
a thousand acres.

K : citus, Chapter 16, pages 462 to 466; also Chapter 17, pages 516 to 522. _

348 Fawn Tenantry in the United States

“On the other hand, the increase in‘ the number of the 
small plots was largely due to laws independent of the
system, especially the scheme inaugurated in 1892, whereby I‘
government purchased large estates in order to lease them
small sections to intending farmers, as well as the plan by '_
tue of which a group of settlers might form a land settlemi
association, purchase an estate by means of debentures issu
through a public trustee under the guaranty of the governme
and then subdivide it into plots of not more than 500 acres.”‘7i

Scheftel in commenting on the purposes of the progressi ,
land taxes of Australasia in breaking up large estates says:

“After more than two decades since the introduction of f?

tax on unimproved value, Australasia is still the country of a,
land holdings. In only a few states has a. reduction in the s'
or number of large holdings occurred. To illustrate: In Ne

Zealand the average area held by owners of 10,000 acres and u-.
wards in 1889 was 30,009 acres; in 1892 the average had 

reduced to 29,942! in 1902 to 28,312; in 1906 to 23,061 acres;

and in 1910 to 20,523 acres. The number of holdings of 10,0

acres and above has likewise considerably decreased, as a
pears from the subjoined data: 

Number 0f Freeholders in New Zealand Owning 10,000 Acrj

or Upwards, 1883-1910. f
| 1883 | 1886 1 1889 1892 I 1902 1 1906i 1910 5
| 247 0| 259 1 250 262 | 216 [A 204 |

-171 1 

“The effect of the amended Acts of 1903 and 1907 is a: _

parent. The reduction since 1906 shows the process of disinte
gration. In Victoria similarly the number of such holdin

has fallen from 195, in 1900, to 1'75, in 1910, and to 151 in 191 < .
In New South Wales, on the other hand, there was a slight i _ f
crease in the number of estates covering 10,000 or more acre A

from 703 to 706 in a decade. The same has occurred in Weste 4

Australia, the large holdings having increased from 74 to 11 _

lOpus citus, pages 517 to 518.

Taxation of Land Values 349

  
     
   
  
   
   
  
   
  
   
 
  
   
   
  
   
   
  

In addition, when it is considered that the legislation in the
interest of closer settlement has been unremittent, and that the
governments have exercised their power to repurchase land, and
thus to aid in the Work of disintegration, the effect attributable
Eto the land tax could have been but insignificant?“

. A Many of the Australasia officials freely admit that the
A aduated land tax has not measured up to expectations in the
ay of breaking up large estates. It has had a deterrent efiect
in speculation in land. Fictitious values of land have declined
5*: der the influence of this taxing policy. It appears that in
 most every case upon the introduction of the tax, the tendency
as been for land to fall in value. But there has been a gradual
covery in prices with the ordinary development in the country
 growth of the population. While land speculation in the
mmonwealth of Australia has not been eliminated, the tax
urden placed on those who refuse to utilize their land in the
lope of appropriating the increments, has caused some to sell.
 It is significant, however, that the graduated land tax prin-
‘ple has been extended to most of the states of Australia. Even
ore significant, perhaps, was the adoption of a Federal tax on
 values by the commonwealth of Australia in 1910 on prac-
cally the same plan as that of the New Zealand land tax, sys-
'm. The rate of the Federal tax varies from one penny to six
 ce in the pound in the case of residents, and in the case of
a sentee landowners the rate has increased to seven pence in the
. v 'und.2

V In the states of South Australia and New South Wales, the
iogressive principle has not developed as in the other states.
it in 1910, the land value tax system was extended in Tas-
a ia and the rate was increased in Victoria.

 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the principle of
 progressive land tax is well established in Australia and
 Zealand and that social results will be appreciably felt in
*- future, especially with reference to large estates.

 It is still a question, however, if it is possible to make the

F tion of Land Values, Chapter 3, pages 96 and 97.
t,‘ Ofiicial Year Book of Australia, 1900 to 1910, No. 4, page 841.

350 Farm Tenantry in the United States

progressive land tax effective as a means of promoting land f
utilization without going to the extreme of producing confis- 
cation of private property in land. The bare outline that has 
been given of the application of this principle in Australasia, in- 
dicates that the progressive rate must be relatively high. It is '
difficult to determine exactly what rate will result in confisca- if
tion. This difficulty was appreciated in the formulation of the q
New Zealand law. In order to preclude all possibility of con- 
fiscation, an ingenious clause was incorporated in the law of that 
commonwealth. It provides that if a tax payer thinks that his if
land is assessed at too high a value, he can demand that the 
government purchase the land at the valuation placed upon it. l1
The landowner has the alternative topay the tax at the official 
valuation or to sell the land at that valuation. The government 
in turn may purchase the land at the assessed valuation plus ten 

per cent. additional, should the owner refuse to agree to the

official valuation. There are very few cases on record where 
landowners have made use of their rights under this section of 
the New Zealand law; however, the Cheviot estate illustrates the 

application of this section of the statute. This estate consists

of over 84,000 acres, which was appraised in 1892 by the owners f‘
at £260,220. The government assessors appraised the estate at, :
£304,826. On application from the owner, the government re- 
fused to reduce the assessment, and the government was called 
upon to purchase the estate. In 1893, the estate was taken over i.
by the government authorities and cut up into small plots and Y

disposed of to actual settlers}
Conclusion.

The foregoing discussion affords sufficient illustration of the

actual operation of those forms of the taxation of land values that y
have for their object the discouragement of large estates and land.
speculation. Law makers should have considerable for the ex- "
periments that have been in process in Australia, and to 
which reference has been made, before resorting to these forms of 

taxation as a means of social reform in this country. An at-

1See Financial Statement in Committee of Supplies by the Colonial Treasurer, 1893, page

19.

Taxation of Land Values v 351

mpt has been made to show the similarity between the land
{roblems of this country and Australasia with a view to bring-
‘g out the possibilities of land taxation to accomplish the result
3- this legislation in those commonwealths. But land tax legis-
 tion in Australasia, up to the present time, has not been suf-
ciently successful in the accomplishment of social and economic
 form as to justify the adoption of this legislation, in many of
A ~ forms, in this country.

 At the presenttime it appears that home ownership can
 more rapidly promoted and an increase in the utilization of
jpndeveloped lands secured by other means that are more easily
pplied and less likely to produce harmful results in unexpected

   

CHAPTER XXVII.

RURAL CREDIT AS AN AID TO THE
TENANT FARMER.

The most hopeful aspect of the farm tenantry situation
today grows out of the progress that has been made in rural
credit legislation. It has been surprising that the United
States has been the last enlightened government of the world
to extend the benefits of rural credit to its farm population.
The National Government has not been slow in extending aid to
corporations in the form of donations of vast areas of the public
domain as an inducement to build railroads. It has subsidized
shipping lines to carry our mail. It has come to the rescue of
the banks by guaranteeing their contracts as a means
of assisting them to realize on their paper. We have sent
consular agents to the remote corners of the world to report on
market conditions and commodity needs for the benefit of our
commercial interests. But not until July 17, 1916, did our
national government take definite steps to aid our farmers to
procure money at reasonable rates on long terms with which
to purchase farm homes.

It should be stated, however, that previously to the last
quarter of the nineteenth century, the farmers of this country
had not needed the aid of the government to finance their farm
enterprises. There was so much undeveloped land that could
be purchased at comparatively low prices that the ambitious
farmer could easily find means of financing himself. Farm-
ing was conducted on an extensive scale, and the cost of imple-
ments and equipment required in this type of farming was
relatively small. Soil depletion had not become a problem,
and the expense for fertilizer had not entered into the cost of
production.

But with the rapid settlement of the West and the great
extension of agricultural pursuits and corresponding increase
in production, land speculation rapidly developed. The in-
creasing prices of land made it necessary for farmers to re-
sort to borrowing. The uncertainty of farm loan risks caus-

352 -

  
   
   
 
    
   
  
   
   
 
  
  
    
  
  
  
   
  
  
   
    
  

Rural Credits as an Aid to the Tenant Farmer 353

 Eastern and European capitalists to charge high rates of
rest. The ‘credit resources of the South and West were
a,» limited to be of much aid to the farmers.

In the early years of the decade beginning in 1890, over-
iduction of grain caused a fall in prices and a resultant fall
land values. For the first time, the farmers began to feel
 burden resulting from the great mortgage indebtedness.
ny of them could not meet the interest payments on their
 s and foreclosures became quite common. In 1890, the
I l mortgage indebtedness of farms operated by the owners
= estimated at $1,O85,995,960.1 Since that time, a combi-
“ion of economic influences has caused farmers to feel an
reasing need for a better system of financing the farm en-
rise.

W This resulted in the sending of an American commission
Europe to study the rural credit systems in operation in
se countries. The report submitted to congress2 and the
Feral discussion that it evoked led to the adoption of rural
ldit legislation in several states and finally helped to secure
 passage of the farm loan act of 1916.

l Credit unions in Massachusettsa were authorized by a law
roved May 20, 1915. The North Carolina credit union law
‘f. the first experiment in short-time rural credit _in the South.
s law is very liberal in its provisions, and farmers in North
 olina have made considerable progress in the establishing of
i» it unions. The. credit unions in this state first granted
‘r loans, in the main, to assist members to make cooperative
» wholesale purchases of fertilizers. It has more recently
nded its operations so as to include the purchase of farm sup-
11¢ and the financing of the cooperative purchases made by
q credit associations. William R. Camp, in com-
ting on the operation of the North Carolina Act, says:
l policy of North Carolina has been to show farmers the
_ cost of supply-store credit and that borrowing is not a
kortune when the rate of interest is low enough and the in-

Jesse E. Pope's Farm Indebtedness in the United States, Vol. 28 of the Quarterly
I al of Economics for August 1914.

House Document No. 1435, 62nd. Congress, 3rd. Session.

Ch. 628, General Acts of 1915 Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

‘plies which give a higher rate of return than that on the y

354 1 Farm Terwmtry in the United States

 
  
   
  
  
  
 
  
  
   
 
   
   
  
   
   
  
  
  
  

vestment is for improved equipment or that of adequate 

rowed capital.“

The Texas legislature passed in 1917, a rural credit act sii,
ilar t0 that of North Carolina. This act authorizes incorporati
by those engaged in agricultural pursuits of farmers’ coo
ative societies and defines the character of the business in whi:
they can engage. The corporations chartered under this stat 
are required to be purely local in their character, and they 
confine their activities, business operations, and membership‘
the community in which they are located. A number of c.
erative societies have been formed under the provisions of is
act for marketing vegetables, fruits, and other farm producl
The act has contributed substantially to the prosperity of t‘
farmers who have availed themselves of its benefits. l7

The purposes of credit unions and cooperative societies i‘
to extend their benefits to farmers in financing their farm ope
tions and the marketing of their products. They have 
helped the farmers to negotiate on a more equitable basis i
financing their farm operations. It is certain that this type;
legislation will become increasingly popular as its benefits ~_
come better understood and appreciated. 5

’ Long-Term Rural Credits.

We need to keep in mind that there are three objects:
rural credits. (1) To aid the farmer who has an equity§
the land he cultivates to take up short-term farm mortg 
and to substitute long-term mortgages on the basis of s i
annual payments; (2) to aid tenant farmers to acquire a fa l’
home directly through the aid of long-term credit; (3) ands
aid both tenant farmers and farm owners to supply work‘
capital with which to operate their farms efficiently. i’

lSee A Southern Experimeut in Rural Credit in The Survey, Vol. 43, No. 11, for
uary 10, 1920. _Th1s _art1cle goes into some detail t0 show the actual organizati
the largest credit union in North Carolina operating under this Act. i '

 
  
   
    
    
   
    
    
   
   
   
  
    
  
   
  
  
  
 
 

Rural Credits as an Aid to the Tenant Farmer 355
The Oklahoma Rural Credit Act.

l An act to encourage and promote home ownership was first
' led in Oklahoma in 1915. This law made it possible for the
Ste to loan its funds to farmers at five per cent., and $35,000,
p. has thus been distributed. In the spring of 1919, a new
tute was passed with the same object in view. It created a
olving fund that the state may loan to the full value of the
p. The previous law restricted the loan to fifty per cent. of
 value. The loans are to be at five per cent., amortized, the
tor paying four per cent. semi-annually or eight per cent.
pl, year, thus paying off the debt in twenty years.

 This law also provides for loaning on a second mortgage.
e act is expected to allow many tenant farmers to become
 owners, and the interest taken in it is revealed by the fact
t eight thousand applications were filed between the passage
the law in March, and the date that it took effect on July 1,
9,

f‘ The administration of the Home Ownership law is under
- general supervision and direction of the Commissioners of
~ School Land Office, who are authorized to prescribe rules and
i, lations for the loaning of the funds “with the end in view to
ble farm tenants to secure homes.” The Commissioners of
 School Land Office are assisted by Local Boards for each
 ty, consisting of three members who are appointed by the
ernor. The members of these County Boards serve without
 Their duties are to receive applications for loans, attest to
 moral character, integrity, industry, and ability of the ap-
'l nts, and to make recommendations to the Commissioners of
he School Land Office.

Missouri Land Bank Act.

 The Missouri Land Bank Act “to secure a system to mobil-
liand legalize farm credits, securing to the agricultural classes
1» ey on long term credit at low rates of interest so as to amor-
‘ the debt by small periodical payments,” was also passed in
,5. This act is somewhat similar to the original act that was
 in Oklahoma in the same year. The Missouri Land Bank

  
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
   
   
  
  
 
  
  
    
 
 
  
  
  

356 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Act has not been as popular as the act in Oklahoma, due to one;
or two rather serious defects in the statute itself, and to the
further fact that Oklahoma has offered a more inviting field fori
legislationof this kind. f‘

The Federal Farm Loan Act.

The most comprehensive law that has been passed in th
interest of farm enterprise is the Farm Loan Act. The report oi
the Sub-Committee of Congress on Land Mortgage Loans clearl~_
set forth the essential object of this act in the following lani

guage:

“The rapid increase of tenant farmers and the
tendency to abandon agriculture and seek the larger
centers of population has become a national menace
in this country as well as in Europe. It increases A _
the cost of living and causes a one-sided deve1op- 
ment. Most civilized nations are already offering ,
direct aid and other inducements to persuade the ~25
people back to the land. We believe that the Uni-
ted States can well afford the moderate encourage-

ment provided in this bill.”1 1;
The Measure of Results. 

Has the rural credit legislation produced the expect"
results in promoting home-ownership? This question cann'
be answered categorically. The Federal Farm Loan system ma"
rather slow progress in the beginning. It required time‘ 
determine the districts and organize the land banks. 
uncertainty of the meaning of. some of the provisions of t 1"-
law made it necessary to make haste slowly. It also requirx
a campaign of publicity as a means of explaining the systef
to those for whose benefit the. act was passed? The fi,
charter was not granted until March 1, 1917. The fi 
charter to a farm loan association was not granted until Mar 
27, 1917. Progress since that time has been more rapid. If

1Vnl. 53, N0. 9. p. 495 of Congressional Record, Sixty-fourth Congress, 1st. session, eel;

January 4, 1916. '.
2See Geo. E. Putnam's article on The Federal Farm Loan System in The Amer"

Economic Review, Vol. N0. 1, for March 1919.

   
  
   
   
   
  
    
  
  
   
 
   

rStates 3,890 farm loan associations. The total mortgage loans
made by the Federal Land Bank through these associations to

0100,9222 farmer borrowers amounted to $282,007,781. Dur-
ing the month of November 1919, 8,215 applications were re-
lceived asking for $20,324,460. Of this number, 6,410 loans
vamounting to $20,763,905 were approved. This indicates that
“the system is gaining momentum as its operation is becoming
better understood.

K A study of the annual reports of the Federal Farm Loan
iBoard, shows that the greatest demand for farm loans comes
from the West and South, where the interest rates are high and
‘there is a rapid development of new farming sections.

 During the early operation of the system, little attention
was paid to the financial needs of tenant farmers. The num-
;ber of tenant farmers receiving financial benefit under the
gvsystem was comparatively small during the first year of the
§operation of the system. This, perhaps, is what one would
éexpect. This financial plan appealed first to the partial owner
who was carrying the burden of a heavy mortgage ob-
rligation. But gradually, through special effort on the part
Lof the officers of the farm loan banks, the benefits are being
fiextended to the tenant farmer.

i, The methods and results of one Federal Land Bank will
A §probably illustrate what can be done to aid farm tenants. Judge
v  . A. Lindsey, treasurer of the Federal Land Bank of Houston,
 exas, in a letter to the author, says:

“When, about the first of August, 1918, I asked
our three hundred secretary-treasurers of local na-
tional farm loan associations to join me in a special
drive to get fifteen hundred tenants to make use of
the Federal Land Bank loans in the-purchase of
homes by Christmas, we ascertained by a careful
estimate, that 10 per cent. of those to whom we
were making loans were tenants. Since the drive
began, 18 per cent. of the loans made are to tenants.
At the close of business, December 31, we had made
loans amounting to $33,647,906 to 11,940 borrow-
ers. I estimate that between 1200 and 1500 of these
borrowers were landless men who made use of the

358 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Federal Land Bank in the acquisition of homes and
that the loans made to these aggregate $11,000,000.”

In the report of the results of the drive to convert ten- 
ants to home owners for the month of October, the Federal-f

Land Bank of Houston in a public communication says:

“Of the 997 applications for loans during Oc-
tober, 1919, 182, or practically 16 per cent., were
those of landless persons who sought loans for the
purpose of purchasing homes. The oldest applicant
was 73 years of age, the youngest 19, the average
age of all, 37 1-2.

“East Texas, Where lands are cheapest, fur-
nished the highest per cent. (about three-fourths
of the total). The black land belt, where lands
are higest in value, furnished the smallest per cent.
While in South Texas and West Texas the per cent.
was better than in the black land belt, though not
so good as that of East Texas.”

The report on the distribution of applications of tenant ‘it

farmers in the counties of Texas shows that there were 163
applications from 60 counties. The largest number was 13

from Freestone county, 9 from Nacogdoches, and 7 each from - i

Kaufman, Limestone, Rusk, and Smith—al1 counties with large
tenant population.

While it is too early to appraise the value of the farm
loan system as a permanent agency in promoting home own-
ership, there is reason to believe from the information avail-
able that under wise administration it will be possible for the
Farm Loan Banks to materially assist in the Worthy enterprise
of promoting home ownership.

Short-Term Rural Credit.

But it has become more and more apparent that the Fed-
eral Farm Loan Act does not completely solve the rural credit
problem. Reference was made in a preceding chapter to the
disadvantages to the farm tenant of securing his credit from
his local merchant or banker. It was clearly indicated that
prevailing rates of interest were so high that it was diffi-

     
    
   
  
  
   
  

Rural Credits as an Aid t0 the Tenant Farmer 359

j lt for the tenant farmer to get investment capital.
 ery farm enterprise requires capital. Most tenant farmers,
ind not a few farms operated by owners, are under-capital-
g  ed. Some system needs to be devised to supply this capital
i. adequate amounts on a basis of sound business policy.

 How much capital does a tenant farmer need to farm effi-
iently? All agree that he needs at least two good horses or
i‘? ules. In addition, he must have harness, a wagon, plows,
'nd other tools. He should have also at least two cows, and a few
ogs and chickens. An initial capital of about $1000 is neces_
'_ry to start a tenant farmer. He must have for working
 ipital to purchase feed for his stock, seed for planting, and sup-
"lies for his family while the crop is being produced.
 rom time to time, he must add to his equipment and
J his live stock. When his working capital has reached a
ialuation of from $3,000 to $5,000, he may reasonably look to
jhe purchase of a farm home on the basis of a small annual
‘ayment on the obligation.

A Tenant’s Basis of Credit.

y Now, let us see what help, in the way of credit,
V‘ agricultural laborer needs and deserves just as he begins as
“farm tenant. Let us asume that he is a strong, vigor-
us, industrious, and thrifty young man, and that he has a rep-
tation among the members of the community as possessing
hose qualities, and that he is saving from $100 to $300 a year.
_  the end of three years, he will have a team and a small
(mount of farm machinery and equipment. He may have
ved $200 or $300. He now wishes to buy a second horse
; mule and some additional farm equipment. Ordinarily, if
e buys a horse or mule and gives a chattel mortgage on it, he
_: expected to pay off the mortgage in less than one year’s
'me, although this animal, on the average, will be of practical
se as an agency of production for eight or ten years, and
ould, on the average, be adequate security for a larger por-
fon of this time. A $200 animal bought to be paid for in one
i ear or less, will make it necessary that the whole purchase price
e paid for from one crop. It the animal could be bought and paid

   
   
   
  
  

360 Farm Tenantry in the United States

for in six or eight annual installments on the basis of a reasonable f
rate of interest, it would be very simple to finance the opera-i
ation. The same is true of farm equipment. Most of the
machinery used in farm operations is good for several
years if reasonable care and protection is given to it. But un-
der thepresent plan of financing the farmer, he is expected to
pay for all of it within a period not to exceed one year. In ‘T.
other words, all the live stock and farm equipment that the i_
farmer buys on short terms under our present financial system j,
requires that the obligation incurred shall be fully paid off .-
Within the short period of one year, while the live stock and
equipment will be yielding returns in the way of marketable farm ,

produce over several years. -

It has been repeatedly pointed out that deposit banking does _'_;.
not meet the productive requirements of agriculture. By the
nature of this system, short -term credit is essential. However, i
the processes of the farm are slow. Farm machinery it a liabil- f.
ity for some years. A silo does not pay for itself or return a i;
profit on the cost of construction for several years. Fertilizer
does not bring full compensation until two or three years after it _
is applied. But no account of these facts is taken into consider- J

ation in our present credit policies.

The result of this system is, that the farm tenant is com- 
pelled either to operate on inadequate capital or to strain his 
credit by buying more live stock and equipment than he can ;
reasonably be expected to pay for in the short time that he isv ‘jii
given to meet his obligations. There is need for devising a 
system of credit, therefore, that will extend farm credit opera- i
tions over a period of years which is to be determined on the 
basis of the duration of the effective use of the equipment on I
which the credit is based. We have here, then, a fundamental
consideration which goes to the very essence of the problem 1
of farm tenantry, and which has in it all the potentialities that 

may ultimately contribute to the solution of the problem.

It is easy to see that this is a different problem from in-
vestment credit, which is being taken care of through the Federal
Land Bank. It is also easy to see that this problem cannot be
solved through the ordinary banking and credit channels. We
have here a situation that calls for neither long-term nor short-

  
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
   
  
 
  
  
   
  
   
   
   
  

f’ ‘ Rural Credits as an Aid to the Tenant Farmer 361
 credit, but a system of what might be termed middle-term
 intermediate credit.

 There is need of devising an agency for meeting this sit-
 tion. In our study of European models, We have failed to
llize that middle-term credit is as well developed in con-
ental Europe as long-term credit. When We organized our
f» Land Bank, we took the European model and Worked
 over to suit American conditions. We did not broaden our
zstemito the extent of meeting the initial stages of capital re-
uirements. There is need for state assistance to help the
_nant farmer over the promotion stage of his farm operation.

State Farm Credit Banks.

 oup of banking institutions fostered by the several states
 d organized on a basis of cooperation with the Federal Land
‘inks and our present national and state banking system. Such
“system will require the local cooperation of groups of ten-
"i! farmers as a means of strengthening the credit resources.
f; other countries, these organizations have been called “peo-
ie’s banks.” In the United States, unfortunately, they have
 called “credit unions”. But by whatever names they
“o, they have the possibilities of solving the problem of per-
 credits by creating new sources of loans to the‘ deserv-
l g farmer. The legislation in the several states to which reference
"J; been made, is a substantial start in the right direction,
 it does not go far enough to solve the problem. A bank
 ganized and capitalized to handle such loans with paper
tending over a short term of years rather than a
- lbw months, and based upon the average length of life
E the property securing the loans, would be a safe
i: sis for credit, and there is no doubt that bonds issued against
ch loans by an institution large enough in its plan of oper-
“ion to limit hazards, could be marketed. The possibilities
 these banks are almost unlimited in scope. In addition to
 kingloans to aid farm operations, their local branches
‘uld own live stock to be loaned or sold to actual farmers.
 - These banks could be given authority by legislation to ac-

This will require, perhaps, the establishment of a new"

362 Farm Tenantry in the United States

cept second mortgage notes. The officers of these state banking‘

associations would have an opportunity to Work in close coopera-
tion With the Federal Land Bank authorities. The appraised
valuation of the government appraiser could be accept-
ed, and the title that had been examined by attorneys of the
Land Bank which holds the first lien under a deed of trust,
could be relied upon in making these loans. There is no doubt that
with this cooperation, the second morgtage notes incurred Would

be an entirely sound financial risk. The terms of the loans of the 

Federal Land Bank are so easy to meet that the maker of these
notes would be able to pay the second mortgage notes as they
mature, for the first lien note, which is held by the Federal Land
Bank, is endorsed by the National Farm Loan Association, which,
if the borrower should fail to meet his obligations, will promptly
see to it that he disposes of his farm to some farmer Who will

assume and meet the obligations.

The Writer finds from correspondence with hundreds of
farm tenants that “getting a start” is a serious problem. Fi-
nancial methods that have been in operation have prevented
the tenant from getting through the promotion stage on his
Way to farm-ownership. The Federal Farm Loan Act, sup-
plemented by some agency of the state government with au-
thority to make short-term rural credits as a means of provid-
ing initial capital to the farm tenant, would go "far toward
solving the financial problems and overcoming the financial
difficulties of the tenant farmer. Legislation will be required
to accomplish this result. With the progress that has al-
ready been made in rural credit legislation in the several
states, it ought to be easy to secure supplemental legislation
that Will accomplish this object. The establishment of rural
credit banks, possessing these characteristics, should be earn-
estly urged in every state Where farm tenantry becomes a prob-
lem.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

  
   
  
   
  
   
  
   
   
   
  
  
   
   
 
 
  
   
    
   

LAND SETTLEMENT POLICIES AND
FARM TENANTRY.

 Organized effort to promote farm ownership is not of re-
fi = origin. But the different policies that have been adopted
“e not been equally successful in solving the problem for the
'1» less man. One of the oldest, as well as one of the most ef-
 ive policies has been land settlement by private or public
‘nization.

" Land settlement by organized groups is known as land col-
 tion. The term “land colonization” has been rather loose-
fsed in the literature of land economics. The term, for ex-
jl-le, has been applied to land settlement by individuals who set-
 on land in a new region even when they have acquired
lesteads individually. “Colonization,” for purposes of this
lussion is used to describe the land policy adopted for the
 lement of new or only partially utilized land by groups or-
 ed under some definite leadership. Colonization has taken
w forms: (1) The one that is most familiar is known as “pri-
hcolonization,” which applies to those land settlement pol-
V: where the enterprise is promoted by private owners of the
 for personal profit. (2) “Public colonization” is the term
m to describe the plan of land settlement where the land is
licly owned and the settlement is promoted by specific author-
‘ of law for the public good.

Private Colonization.

_f Private colonization schemes of land settlement have be-
J e a part of the land policy of most modern nations. The num-
 of these has increased rapidly in this country in recent
_rs. Cooperative effort has become essential to successful
iness enterprise in modern economic life. We have long rec-
ized this in manufacturing and commerce. The increasing
e ue of land, and the cost of preparing new land for cultivation,
lie made individual enterprise ineffective. It has become nec-

363

364 Farm Tenantry in the United States

essary, therefore, to organize companies and secure aciequate
capital in the interest of private colonization of land.

Private companies have not always had clearly in mind all
of the factors that enter into the successful land enterprise of
this kind. The best statement of the purposes of private col-
onization is that of Professor Richard T. Ely. “Private colon-
ization,” says he, “if successful, must accomplish three purposes:
first, it must afford a reasonable profit to those who sell the land
and undertake to finance the colonization scheme; second, it must
give the settler and his family an opportunity to work on the
land, to gain a livilhood while working, to make a farm and
acquire complete ownershipof it in a reasonable time; and in the
third place, each colony must advance the interests of society.
We have then, two private interests, that of the seller and that of
the buyer of land, to be brought into harmony with the public
interest.“ A

Private land colonization schemes have offered many pos-
sibilities and temptations to dishonest dealings and question-
able practices. “The ordinary settler,” says Profesor Ely, “is
not a man of great capital; he is honest, generally industrious,
willing to work hard and long to have a farm of his own, and
frequently with the thought of handing it down to his children
as a main motive; but he is not gifted in the selection of land
or of capital-equipment, e.g., cattle, seed, and tools. Especially

is he apt not to stand high in managerial capacity. If he were a»

superior man in his economic gifts and economic training, he
would not be a settler in a new country.” The settleris inca-
pacity often makes him an easy victim of land sharks, who en-
gage in exploiting men who are unfamiliar with soil types, farm
conditions, and capital requirements to operate successfully a
farm in a new region. But it is possible to find many examples
of successful private colonization of land. Some of these have
contributed largely to the settlement of undeveloped regions
and established home ownership on the basis of conditions that
insured prosperity to those who entered into contracts for farm-
steads.

lSee “Private Colonization of Land” in American Economic Review of September 1918,
and ire-printed as Bulletin No. 1 by the American Association for Agricultural Leg-
islation, page 2.

2Ibid, page 5.

 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  

Land Settlement Policies and Farm Tenantry 365

 It is aside from the purpose of this discussion to enter into
Aescriptions of the many types of private colonization of land.
 will probably be sufficient to give one illustration of a type of
 nd settlement of recent origin that gives promise of reason-
 ble' success.

Wisconsin Plan of Land Colonization.

 A plan that has been worked out by one of the land econo-
‘ists in the State of Wisconsin, has been advertised extensively
L connection with recent discussions of land settlement for
oldiers. This plan assumes that existing land development com-
ianies and other owners and agencies will voluntarily submit to
 ederal or state regulations; that they will be able and eager to
provide credit for deserving settlers; that they will be glad
themselves to organize supervising agencies to assist these set-
tlers, and that they will work out a clear system that will meet
the needs of the situation. The plan contemplates a Federal or
‘fatate supervisory commission that will promote and foster this
gvoluntary movement through the cooperation between the own-
ers of large holdings of land and colonization organizations cre-
ljated for land settlement purposes. l

 This plan, according to its advocates, will not involve any
{other public expenditure except that of administration. t is
based upon the belief that owners and prospective cultivators of

fidence is established. It is expected that the Federal or state
l jfcommission will be the agency for bringing together large land
Towners and the men seeking a farm home on a-basis of mutual
finterest and agreement. a

 Under this plan, the Federal or state commission will have
uthority to require large land holders to register and to supply
 cessary information concerning their holdings. Uniform re-
- uirements will be imposed upon settlers as a means of protect-
l? lg the equities of the land corporations or other land agencies
 rom whom the land has been purchased. From the first, under
 his scheme, the settlers would be mutually aided and advised in
gthe clearing of land and in the best method of its utilization.

 he land-holding company would provide its own experts, or,

-' Qland quickly enough get together, provided a basis of mutual con-

366 Farm Tenantry in the United States

under some arrangement with the proposed advisory commission,
would have the services of state and county agents and agricul-
tural college experts. The public supervision of this commission
would inspire the confidence, not only of the would-be settlers, but
also of the financial institutions whose function it would be, under
this scheme, to capitalize the companies and individual settler as
well}

It is clearly the object of this plan to avoid the necessity
of the state’s assuming financial obligation as a direct aid to those
who would acquire a farm home. In other words, it is an attempt
to avoid the most obvious defects of the old type of land coloni-
zation, and at the same time to relieve the state of any financial
obligations in connection with land settlement. It is doubtful,
however, if it would be possible to frame a law that would
give the Federal or state commission sufficient authority
to deal with the private and selfish interests of the land-holders
who would seek to profit by such an enterprise. There is also the
danger, under this plan, of lending the aid of the state to pri-
vate colonization schemes that might result in victimizing the
purchaser. Nevertheless, this plan suggests the possibility of
legislation that would give closer supervision to all forms of pri-
vate commercial agencies that have for their object the buying
and selling of land.

Public Colonization Policies.

The settlement of the public lands in the United States has
had a definite object, and our public land policy has been rather
simple. The government has had for its purpose the multipli-
cation of farm homes. Without regard to private gain, the land
has been surveyed and donated to settlers on very reasonable
conditions. The land settlement act of 1862 made 160 acres the
land unit. To safeguard economic sufficiency, the law was made
elastic enough to allow the ownership of multiples of this
unit, Where soil fertility and other conditions made this desir-
able. This land policy was reasonably effective for a time in in-

1For a. brief explanation of this plan see Wisconsin Plan for Land Settlement in The
Survey. Vol. 42, No. 11 for Jan. 14, 1919. A more detailed description of this plan
is found in the article referred to by Professor Ely.

 
  
 
  
  
    
  
  
   

Land Settlement Policies and Farm Tenantry 367

asing home ownership. The failure of our public land policy
= accomplish fully the ultimate purpose of maintaining a proper
tio between ownership and tenancy, has been described in a
‘ evious connection.

State Aid Policies of Land Settlement.

a The most radical and direct method of aiding the landless to
acquire farm homes is that of land colonization by direct aid of
‘ the state on the basis of business practices usually adopted by
iprivate land colonization schemes, but on more liberal terms and
' with more definite benefits to the settler. This is not altogether
I"a new device. Since the beginning of the century, Great Britain,
ziDenmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Italy, Australia,
land New Zealand, Brazil, Venezuela, and Uruguay, have adopted
land settlement policies which have involved at least some of
the aspects of direct state aid to the settler.

Essential Features of These Policies.

 In almost all of these countries, the laws have incorporated
 certain general and essential features. These include small
 initial payments, organized construction for farm improvements,
 —including the improvements of highways, long-time payments
 for land and improvements, and provision for practical advice and
~ expert supervision in conducting the farm enterprise. These
features have become recognized universally as being essential
to any plan of land colonization.

State Aided Land Settlements in Foreign Countries.

One naturally thinks of Ireland first in connection with land
legislation. The struggle of the Irish peasant to secure the
“Three F’s”—fair rent, fixity of tenure, and free sale is fa-
miliar to all students of land economics. The conflict between

v alien landlords and the tenant class, and the divergent interests
that these classes represented, made state action necessary as a
means of securing real improvement in the rural situation of
that country.

I ber of proprietors created by these early experiments Was only i a

368 Farm Tenantry in the, United States

  
  
  
  
  
 
   
   
   
  
   
 
 
 
  
   
   
  
  

The Deasy Act of 1860 was the first attempt by legislation,
to give the tenant the full advantages of free contract. But this.
act proved to be illusory. A real start in corrective effort was}.
made by the Land Act of 1870. This act attempted to prevent
the arbitrary eviction of the tenant by the landlord. But this}
act did not go far enough. The Land League of Ireland convinced"
Gladstone of the necessity for further legislation. “It is essen 
tial,” declared the report of this League, “to recognize the state of
things existing in Ireland and to acknowledge the co-ownership of;
the tenant with the landlord in a more complete manner than~
Would the law of 187 0.” As a result of this report, the Act of 1881. _”
was passed, which has been called “The Magna Charta of the Irish" it
Peasant.” This act secured for the tenant complete security as,
long as he lived up to the conditions of his contract and secured i
for the tenant a regular land charge. But the law did not pro-ii
vide a means for determining a just principle on which the land
charge could be based. There were other defects of the law that;
experience revealed. 

It Was clearly evident that a more comprehensive and rad-
ical form of legislation was demanded to meet the Irish land sit»:
uation. As early as 1869, an arrangement Was made by which the
state was to advance three-fourths of the purchase money toi
tenants on the Church estates. Over 6000 peasant proprietor-
ships resulted from this arrangement. The land act of 1870 con- _
tained a provision providing for land purchase as did the act of f
1881, but none of these acts accomplished the results expected.
Even when the tenant was provided with all but one-fourth ‘
of the purchase price, the capital outlay Was more than the ten- 
ant could provide. The complicated methods of land transfer in 
Ireland also involved heavy expense which the tenant could not,
meet. It is clearly evident that a system of land registration was P
needed as well as a method of state financial aid. The total-num- f

a;

7,665. It is clearly evident that a more liberal measure of land 
reform Was necessary if the tenant Was to receive very material ~
assistance. .

The Ashbourne Act of 1885 was the product of early ex- 
perience in land reform legislation. A committee of the House *
of Lords had worked out a compromise program in 1882, that _

   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
    
 
 

Land Settlement Policies and Farm Tenantry 369

{provided for the loan of the entire purchase money to the ten-
 ant who desired to purchase a farm home. While there Was a
 serious objection to this radical policy, the increasing sentiment
f‘; for land nationalization resulted in the passage of the act. The
 Ashbourne Act provided a large fund from which loans were to
i be made, and placed the administration of the fund in the hands
Q of a land commission. The yearly annuity paid by the pur-
 chaser for this loan was fixed at four per cent. Three per cent.
* of this was to be allocated to interest charges and the remainder
l, was to be set aside/as a sinking fund to pay ofli‘ the principal.
 This plan secured complete ownership for the purchaser after
payments of their annuity for forty-nine years. This act proved

f immediately successful}

i; A more comprehensive measure even than this was passed
 in 1891. This act provided for the issue of land stock to be paid
over to the landlords, which relieved the state somewhat of the
éfinancial burden. Subsequent acts have extended the principle

ljlreland.
 Nine million acres of land have been purchased by the
British gevernment, subdivided into small farms and sold to
 nants since 1903.2 “The actual result of the land purchase act
Ireland has been to create a country of peasant proprietors.
*: March 31, 1915, nearly 300,000 holdings had pased into the
nds of their occupiers. At the same time, an ad-
itional 100,000 holding of over three millions acres were in
Y ocess of negotiation. Together these comprised more than
. ree-fourths of the soil of the country.” '

 Previously to the outbreak of the great war the government of
Treat Britain had agreed to extend the Irish land settlement

 Lionel Smith-Gordon and Lawrence C. Staples Rural Reconstruction in Ireland, Ch.

" . 4 . -
- xllepgrt of the Commision of land colonization and rural credits in the State of
FCaIifornia (1916), p. 69. _

mith-Gordon and Staples, Ibld, Ch. 2, p. 44.

ilof state aid until now it has become an established land policy in

370 Farm Tenantry in the United States

policy to Scotland. Already much has been done in l
England to provide farms for tenants under the Small Hold-

ings Act of 1908.

Denmark, as early as 1899, began by subdividing large es- 
tates and selling them to the Danish people as a means of pre- ‘_
venting immigration that threatened the prosperity of the na- i
tion. Reports indicate that this plan has proved very satisfac- 
tory. Germany also had in successful operation as early as 
1909 an effective system of state aid to tenant farmers. The 
land reforms of Australia have exerted a greater influence in  a

this country than those of Europe. The conditions in New Zea-
land and Australia with reference to the problems 0f land utili-
zation have been very similar to those in this country. As a

'means of bringing about a more rapid development of unoc-

cupied land, New Zealand adopted a system of issuing bonds,
selling these bonds in England and lending the money to farmers
for the purpose of buying land and making necessary improve-

ments on it. In the eight-year period from 1906-1914, the gov- _ 

ernment loaned $72,762,800.1 The loans were made at four and
one-half per cent. and they run for periods varying from twenty
to thirty-six years. It is possible for the land purchaser to borrow
as much as sixty per cent. of the value of the property on the
basis of a first mortgage security.

A similar land policy was inaugurated in the Australian
states and has been in successful operation for a number of
years. Between 1901-1904 the six Australian states purchased
and subdivided 3,056,957 acres, for which $55,243,125 was paid,
or about $18.00 per acre. In the five-year period from 1909-
1904, these six states loaned to farmers $68,029,500 with which
to make improvements and buy implements. This has been ac-
complished without increasing the burdens of taxation, as the
interest paid by the farmer was greater than the interest paid by
the state, and the farmers have succeeded in meeting payments of
both principal and interest; which has resulted in profit to the
State.

1See Report of the Commssion on Land Colonization and Rural Credits in California, p. 73.

   
     
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
   
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 

Land Settlement Policies and Farm Tenantry 371
The California Land Settlement Act.

The success of state aided land settlement acts in the states
Australia and New Zealand, resulted in the passage in 1907 of
 similar act in California. The first section of the act sets
03,4 the justification for such a policy in the following Words:
 legislature believes that land settlement is a problem of
 eat importance to the welfare of all the people of the State of
lifornia, and for that reason, through this particular act, en-
 vors to improve the general economic and social conditions of
 icultural settlers Within the state, and of the people of the
 in general.”

{kl ~
l_ 1 ~
. ,,».

“The Administration of the Act.

 The administration of this act is placed in the hands of the
pg Land Settlement Boardconsisting of five members. Pro-
“T: Elwood Mead has been the chairman of the board since
passage of the act. Much of the success that has resulted
m this legislation has been due to the intelligent administra-
I that has been given to the various provisions of the act by
f- essor Mead and his associates. -

 To finance the land setlement scheme an initial appropria-
‘of $250,000 was made and the Board, acting under authority
 w, purchased 16,480 acres of land in Butte County. All
f 1000 acres of this is alluvial river bottom land and very
’ ile.

 The first allotment to settlers was made ‘in May 1918, fol-
__-» by a second in December. The first allotment included
 acres, which was divided into 53 farms, 44 of which were
 The average cash capital of these settlers was $3,000;
i average assets, including farm implements, live stock,
‘ehold furnishings, and other necessary equipment, amount-
A o about $7,000. '

 At the same time 21 farm laborers’ allotments were made
 W0 acres each, the limit of area to this class of settlers. The
rage capital of these laborers Was about $1,200.

 The Land Settlement Act specifically provided that purchase
 nd may be made by a single settler up to $15,000 in max-

372 Farm Tenantry in the United States

imum value. The settler is required to pay only five per cent. of
the purchase price of his land in cash; the balance, which is due
to run in amortized payments for a term not exceeding forty
years at five per cent. interest. In the agreement that the settler
is required to sign, he obligates himself to cultivate the land in a
manner approved by the State Land Settlement Board; to keep
all buildings, fences, and other permanent improvements in good
order and repair. His failure to live up to his obligation results
in the forfeiture of all rights granted in the contract of purchase.
The farm laborers are permitted to purchase their allotments on
similar terms and conditions.

The success of the enterprise thus far may be traceable to
certain general policies that the State Land Settlement Board“
has adopted with reference to the methods of conducting these
farm enterprises. The Board has encouraged the use of pure
bred live stock, and, as far as possible, of a single breed in the in-
terest of the uniformity in the process of production. For ex-
ample, Holstein cattle and Duroc-Jersey hogs have been very
generally selected for all farms. To insure superior types, pur-
chase has been made through the Board.

The Board has also advised the adoption of a system of

general rather than specialized farming With a View to encourag- .

ing the production of elemental food stuffs, with special
regard to feed for necessary live stock.

Through the aid of a regularly employed engineer, roads
have been built, drainage ditches have been dug, and standard
fencing has been adopted. Free assistance has also been ren-
dered the settlersin the way of Well designed buildings.

That the settler may have some way of measuring the suc-
cess of the farm enterprise, the State Land Settlement Board has
planned that each farm shall produce at least $3,000 Worth of
products each year.

In a recent report, the following statement was made with
reference to the transformation that is taking place in the sec-
tion occupied by one of these colonies:

“When this property was purchased, no land-
owner had lived on it for twenty years. It was farmed
by tenants and hired labor. Today 120 families live
in their own homes and till their own fields, and in

LomdlSettlemeint Policies and Farm Tenantry 373

these homes there are over 200 children. The selling
price of land has been increased, not only within the
boundaries of the settlement, but around it. It has
increased the revenue from taxes, increased the busi-
ness of the surrounding towns, added to the political
and social strength of the state, has added to the aspi-

; - rations, the comfort and happiness of every family.
This has been done without any cost to the taxpayers
of the state. It encourages those who believe in an en-
larged use of the state as an instrument of direct ser-
vice in those things that affect the general welfare?"

Conclusion.

E A land settlement policy based upon direct state aid seems
rtain to gain popularity and to be widely adopted in many of
 states, especially in the Southand West. This plan offers
 e quickest and most satisfactory means of increasing farm
wnership and decreasing farm tenantry. The California plan
 not been in operation sufficiently longto justify fully all
i’. claims that have been made for it by its most ardent advo-
Qtes, but it is reasonably certain that with minor amendments

iat may become necessary as a result of experience, the Act
'll become sufficiently elastic to meet the requirements of the

'tuation. The State of Texas has already made an attempt to
_ lcure constitutional authority for a similar act, but due to po-
tical conditions that were in no way related to the intrinsic

1 erits of the proposition, the constitutional amendment was de-
sated by the people. It is certain, however, that this question
“ll again be resubmitted, in the form of a constitutional amend-
ent to the people for consideration, and it is very likely that the
j endment will be adopted. Political leaders in other states have
l nifested an interest in the California plan, and it is be-
‘ved that within the next four or five years legislation will
q enacted that will extend the principle of state aid
;~ landless men for the purchase of homes.

l It should be observed that supplementary legislation will
so be necessary to make this policy, when adopted, more ef-
 tive. In the following chapter, attention will be called to
her defects in our land policies that should also receive atten-
ion as a means of making this type of legislation more effective.

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
   
 
  
  

 egress under the Land Settlement Act of the State of California published by the
x State Land Settlement on the authority of the Board, May 30, 1919, page 22.

CHAPTER XXIX.

OTHER LAND REFORMS RELATING TO
FARM TENANTRY.

This discussion would be incomplete Without a brief refer-
ence to three other factors that enter into the solution of the
farm tenantry problem. Incidental reference has been made to
them in other connections, but their importance requires a more

direct comment. The three factors are: (1) Specula-
tion in land values; (2) our obsolete and complicated
land transfer system; and (3) property rights of the tenant
farmer in connection with his farm lease. The influence of these

factors upon farm ownership is well known to every student of
land economic problems.

Speculation in Land Values.

Every one is familiar with the present evils of unregulated
land sales. In the preceding chapter, reference was made to land
speculation on the part of private colonization companies. It is
a matter of common knowledge that land companies and indi-
vidual real estate agents in almost every community prey upon
the credulity of the landless man and capitalize his sentimental
attachments for his own home by stimulating land values to the
point of absurd inflation.

It would be unfair, of course, not to recognize that there are
colonization companies and other real estate agencies that have,
by honest dealings and community pride, contributed to the pub-
lic welfare. Every one familiar with land settlement in unde-
veloped areas of our country knows of real estate agents who
have brought to the attention of the general public a knowledge
of the possibilities of the section in which they are interested,

and not only have they rendered aid to landless men in other sec-
tions, but they have been responsible for many improvements
that have made every new country prosperous. But our un-

developed land resources in the past have offered unusual temp-

tations to a class of land sharks. It has been easy in many cases

for dishonest men to exploit sections of the country that offered

unusual possibilities and large returns for individual effort. In
374

  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
   
 
  
  
   
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
   
  
 
  

Other Land Reforms Relating to Farm Tenantry 375

i-ny cases, the actual settler, seeing the opportunity of exploita-
;n, has himself become a land speculator. He no sooner acquires
 ership than he begins to think of selling his farm at a large
fit. It is not unusual to see capital diverted from the normal
icesses of the industrial and commercial channels to land
‘ ,culation. When land is changing hands repeatedly, the cap-
list can readily see that greater profit will accrue from his
I‘ estments in land than is ordinarily derived from returns on

‘ital invested in commercial or industrial enterprise. As a re-
"t of this process, we find the professional land agent trans-
tting the spirit of speculation to the capitalist and even to the
 ,n who normally should settle down to home ownership.

~ What is the result of this situation? In the first place, it
jkes impossible any pride whatever in home ownership. To
gkman who purchases a farm home under the stimulus and
 ptation of large profits and repeated sales, there is no senti-
ental attachment possible for the farm home. In the second
ace, a relatively small amount of our agricultural land that
anges hands is due to the desire of the purchaser to utilize it
 productive purposes. The selling price of agricultural lands
frarely determined by its possibilities for productive returns.
I  the third place, the result is that a farm tenant who seeks
.  - purchase of the land for a farm home, finds that the prevail-
Ty; prices are so high as to require a capital investment beyond
's ability to finance. And the possibilities of productive returns
, {Ii his labor are relatively so small as to make it hopeless for him
 v expect to pay the land obligations off in any reasonable time.

_ i, “Lenders of money on farm lands,” says Herbert Quick,
7f3have long since learned that it is not safe to lend on some of our
~rms even half their market price. They recognize the fact
,at on these high-priced lands such a loan, while not large
A nough to be unsafe in case of foreclosure, is so large that the
Q.- yment of the interest is so heavy a load on the farmer that it
 to make foreclosures an unpleasant probability. Not one
;,armer in a hundred can buy these lands and pay for them out of
their produce; and many of the sales are made to buyers who
feel that while farming them under such a heavy overhead may
be a losing business, the holding of them for the increase in

  
   
   
 
  
   
 
 
     
 
   
 
 
   
  
  
  
 
   
   
  

376 Farm Tenantry in the United States

value will in all probability enable the buyer to recoup his loss
out of some later-coming victim.“ ,7
Something should be done to adjust land values to producti i

rates per unit area. The creation by law of a State Land Co i
mission in the several commonwealths of the United States ,
deal with this situation seems an esential step in the accoi
plishment of this purpose. The laws creating this commissi
should require all land-selling agencies to register and report 
the sales of all real estate transactions. Thisicommission shou ’
have jurisdiction over all disputes relating to misrepresentatio
in the sale of land and it should have power to adjudicate the _
matters. This commission should be charged with the duty 
encouraging soil surveys, and land values should be based upo’
actual data ‘relating to soil types and remunerative returns rd"
sulting from reasonable cultivation. i ,
It should be made the duty of the State Land Commissio

also to act as a farm tenant’s court for the purpose of adjustin
rental charges on some equitable basis of production. Specultg
tion in land values has seriously influenced the amount of ren
that tenants have been required to pay. The land owner -:**'_
rent charges on speculative land value rather than productive
value. This is obviously unsound in principle and unfair to the
tenant. This situation explains the tenant farmer’s inability
in many cases to acquire an argicultural income in excess of his,
labor income. It would be a far-reaching reform if a system of;
this kind could be worked out so that the tenant would be 
quired to pay on What he is able to produce on a basis of reason-inf}
able productive effort, rather than on What he can be made to pay. 5;,
No argument is being made here, even by implication, for;
eliminating private land agencies from our economic system. S
Some have advocated the taking over entirely the di- 
rection of land settlement and providing state agencies for ~l
land transfer. But this does not seem likely 0r desirable. “The '
methods of dealers,” says Herbert Quick,“ in farm lands, may, A
as a rule, be bad, but for all that they will under any conceivable 
circumstances, settle ten families on the land Where the govern- ;
ments, state and national, will settle one. They have the land;

1“F1'0m War to Peace” (1919) Ch. 8, p 69.

  
   
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
   
   
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 

OtherLand Reforms Relating to Farm Tenantry 377

 they possess the organizations, the system, and the skill

'site to make their operations successful in colonization, and

Fese sporadic sales which cannot properly be called by a name

 connotes larger and more systematic dealings. The pri-

f companies will continue to do business; the only manner in
 h their doings can be affected is by inducing or compelling
iges in their methods?" The problem, therefore, seems to
‘ne of regulation rather than elimination. To those who
_ t to a State Land Commission for the regulation of
\ sales, on the grounds that it interferes with the ifreedom of
3;» act, are reminded of the fact that laws have been
 to protect the public against “wildcat” banking; “blue
.’ laws have been passed to protect the innocent purchasers
f: stock in “wildcat” companies and to restrict the organi-
 of fake companies of all kinds. It seems equally justifi-
sto pass laws regulating the more insidious and harmful
“Q ties of dishonest real estate agents who are continually sell-
ispurious farms to innocent purchasers. l

 Land Transfer Reform.
ifs-Farm ownership has no doubt been somewhat retarded by
antequated and complicated system of land transfer. Great
yinse is often involved in the transfer of land under our sys-
y Proving title to land often involves litigation. It is fre-
itly difficult to secure a clear title to land. If a particular
 of land has been transferred many times, especially if a
ber of years intervene between the several transfers, no one
"bribe sure of his title. Court records are full of illustrations

food faith, through defective titles under our present system.
 this system has proved a discouragement to many ten-
_ who otherwise might have purchased farm homes is well
_ to everyone familiar with the situation. p

 The Torrens system of land transfer has been proposed as a
edy for this situation. This system provides that any land
er may take his evidence of title to the land record office and

»cc¢., Ch. 12, p. 96.

jing that innocent persons have lost land that was bought ~

378 Farm Tenantry in the United States

upon proving his title to the satisfaction of the record clerk, who
represents the state, may have his land registered in his name as
owner, and may be issued a certificate to that effect. This cer-
tificate gives him an indefeasible title, and if he wishes to sell,
it is not necessary for him to trace his title beyond the one reg-
istration in the record office. This one feature alone is a great
improvement over our abstract system where a complete chain
of titles is required. The government guarantees the title. I-n
case of a sale, a memorandum of transfer is made, and this, With
the certificate, is taken to the record office. The transfer is then
entered upon the records and upon the certificates, and the trans-
fer is complete. It is the registration that transfers the title—
not the filing of the memorandum of transfer or the securing
of the certificate.‘

The Torrens system originated in Australia and has since
been adopted in Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontraio, and a few
of our American states? The system was adopted in North
Carolina in 1913. In general, the law provides that any person
in peaceable possession of land may commence suit in the county
in which the land lies to have the title to the land registered. The
cost of registering title varies considerably. The fixed charges
are one-tenth of one per cent. of the assesssed valuation of the
land for taxes, which is to be paid into the State Assurance Fund.
Other fixed charges are allowed for the registration of titles and
the issuing of certificates.

There is urgent need of simplifying our land transfer sys-
tem. It may not be practicable to adopt the Torrens system in

the United States Without modification. But a system of land ;
registration that will reduce the cost and simplify the process vf
of transfer, while at the same time giving security to the pur- i

chaser, is necessary if home ownership is to be made easier for
the tenant. It is reasonably certain that our cumbersome system
will give way before many years to some method of land trans-
fer that Will accomplishthis object.

lSee the “Encyclopedia of Social Reform” under topic of “Land Transfer.” Also see the
“Torrens System.”

2See Bomber-gens “The Torrens System of Land Title Registration," a brief history of the
Torrens System and the results obtained by the system in countries where it has been
adopted.

   
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  

Other Land Reforms Relating to Farm Tenantry 379
‘cognition of the Property Rights 0f the Tenant Farmer.

fnother matter that has deserved earlier recognition is
- jglof the property rights of the tenant farmer. At common
 tenant had no right to compensation for any permanent im-

iii-common law rule provides that whatever is fixed to the soil
gwith the soil. Under this rule, agricultural fixtures pro-
‘ by a tenant become the absolute property of the landlord,
he tenant could not remove them either during his tenancy
ithe time of its termination. This common law principle has
lresponsible for many evils connected with our farm tenantry
“l: ion. It is not surprising that little improvement and re-
 have been made by tenants upon the land that they cul-

E

l he Agricultural holdings Acts of 1883, 1900, and 1906, the
jnt’s Compensation Act of 1890, and the Market Gardener’s
nsation Act of 1895, and the consolidation also of these
;into the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, are designed,
rily, to reform the common law doctrine by securing to the
“t farmers their property rights in connection with the land
fthey cultivate. '

The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1908, provides that at the
 ation of a tenancy, the tenant may obtain “from the land-
éas compensation under this act for the improvement, such
las fairly represents the value of the improvement to an in-
 tenant.” The act arranges these unexhausted improve-

fication are grouped buildings and other permanent im-
"ments. Number two relates to drainage, and number
i‘, includes such items as soil improvement and other less
le improvements. The law provides proper safeguards for
f? 11d owner by requirnig the tenant to secure the Written
Ant of the landlord before improvements are made. How-
 this is not required in all cases}

l" hile this comprehensive legislation in England has proved

8's: Agricultural Holdings and Tenant Right Valuation, Part I, ps. 6-17.

ments that he made upon the land during his tenancy. An- »

f under three classifications or schedules. Under the first.

' cepted as the prevailing method of land cultivation, it behoovi

   
   
  
   
   
   
    
     
 
   
 
   
  

380 Farm Tenantry m the United States

very satisfactory and helpful, it has exerted very little influe
on our American farm tenantry situation. Our common f:
states have persisted in following the earlier English doct '
that totally ignores the property rights of the farm tenant. v
results of this unwise policy can be seen on practically ev‘
tenant farm in this country. The tenant has declined to expel
his funds or his efforts in providing permanent improvements a
in building up the soil when the length of his tenure is uncert‘ ~
and when there is no possibility of securing any compensation f
the improvements that he makes. If farm tenantry is to be 

the farm owner, as a means of protection, to encourage lei
islation that Will safeguard the property rights of the ten‘
farmer. In no other way can rural betterment be accomplish“
while tenant farming is the prevailing type.

Land speculation, our obsolete system of land transfer,"al
our indifference to the property rights of tenant farmers ha
each played its part in creating the problems of farm tea
antry. Collectively, these three handicaps to farm ownershi
have been sufficient to go fartoward accounting for the rapi
increase in tenantry in many sections of our country. The ~ 
ognition of these influences should be our justification for 
form in these particulars. Legal remedies are at hand to p p
vent land speculation, to simplify our complicated land trans§
fer system, and to safeguard the property rights of the tenan i}
farmers. It is only necessary for us to apply them to the actua
situation. It is inconceivable that our state commonwealths will
long delay the passage of remedial measures for the accom-é
plishment of these important ends. 

-.
$

CHAPTER XXX.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.

 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
    
 
  
  
 
 
   
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  

 All the great civilizations of the past have been based upon
'vate property in land. But this system has, in most cases,
ulted in private monopoly, which goes far in explaining the in-
"ialities in wealth, which have also characterized the civiliza-
jns of the past and the present. The land reform movement
 had its origin in the last quarter of the eighteenth century,
” W out of the social and economic consequences of the in-
 alities produced by private monopolization of land. Land re-
I ers have emphasized this aspect of the problem at different
1,. es, but, generally speaking, the land reform movement has
fone of two objects in view: (1) either to improve the living
‘wditions, or (2) to secure economic justice for the farm popula-

 it, largelyiexplain the problem of farm tenantry as it ex-
f; today. At least the immediate causes of farm tenantry have
en conditioned by the unequal bargaining power between land
 ers and land cultivators. An attempt has been made in
m II of this book to trace the evolution of the farm tenantry
 ss, and to appraise some of the economic causes that have been
ponsible for it. The social and economic effects of a land ten-
he policy based upon farm tenantry, have been analyzed for
f, purpose of indicating the influence of farm tenantry upon
I‘: icultural production and standards of living in rural com-
‘funities. In the fourth division of this book an effort has been
 to outline a program for increasing the opportunities of
l  ownership and to appraise the relative merits of some of
if. experiments that are already being tried to accomplish this
‘rpose.

f It seems desirable, before concluding this study, to sum-
f, rize briefly the analyses and conclusions that have been pre-
"nted in the preceding chapters of this volume.

__1_

,_ Farm tenantry as it exists today is essentially a feudal
iroduct. The transition from tribal to feudal organiza-

381

Private monopoly in land and the inequalities that accom-

_ to change in ownership. As group interests gave way to individ- 

382 Farm Tenantry in the United States

  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 

tion was accomplished by gradations in property rights
based on land and represented by the obligatory rendition of ser- é
vices or the payment of rentals in money or in kind. This sys-
tem marked a great advance over the primitive allodial form
of property, but it placed political power in the‘ hands of a rela-
tively small class that has been able largely to secure the pass- 4
age of legislation in its own interests and to direct social policies ’
in its own behalf. The feudal organization reflected for a long ~_
time many tribal survivals, but it was constantly undergoing 5
modificationsvthrough the effects of changing social and polit- i
ical influences. The right to alienate land, for example, was ac- i.
quired step by step and with great difficulty. The processes of 
alienation were made as difficult as possible at first, and, in 
fact, land transfer today reflects some of the early antagonisms i’

ual interests, it became increasingly easy to incorporate a policy l
of alienation into the land system of England. Feudal organiza- T
tion went through a slow process of disintegration, but at cer- J

tain periods the process was accelerated by war, disease, and
famine. ’

War and disease are influences that always produce a labor 
shortage. These conditions have compelled the landlords from
time to time to make concessions to the farm population or to
modify their agricultural policies. Such a concession to farm i.
labor resulted in the stock-lease system, which marked the tran-l l’
sition from feudal to modern farm tenantry, and secured greater
freedom of movement to the farm population. Changes in ag- i,
ricultural policies resulted in the system of enclosures, whereby A f
large areas were converted into sheep farms in charge of a few
shepherds. The leasing system marked an important step in the
improvement of the economic status of the farm population of
England. The system of enclosures, however, on the whole,
proved detrimental. The agrarian problems of the eighteenth _,i
and nineteenth centuries in England were largely the result of 
this policy. . 

The modern land reform movement had its origin in an ef-- 

fort to resist the processes of enclosures. Subsequently, an  .

effort was made to formulate a program for improving the living 
conditions of the farm population. The pioneers in this move- 

 

Summary and Conclusion 383

ment were Thomas Spence (1750-1814), William Ogilvie (1736-
1813, and, to a less extent, Thomas Paine (1737-1809). Spence
and Ogilvie were deeply impressed with the effects of enclosures
0n the farm population, both contending that the earth and the
fullness thereof were the original, common property of man-
kind, and that every child born into this world has an inalienable
right to share equally in this common inheritance.

Spence outlines his doctrine in an address before the New
Castle Philosophical Society, delivered on November 8, 1775, his
subject being “The Real Rights of Zllan.” William Ogilvie pre-
sented his views on land reform in his essay on “The Rights of
Property in Land” (1781). His critical views are much more
scholarly, and his reform proposals are much more constructive
than those of Spence. Ogilvie’s proposal for dealing with the
farm tenantry problem deserves to be quoted as it represents
the first contribution to the subject, and indicates the thoughtful
considerationhe had given to this problem:

“Many schemes of innovation may be thought of,
which, without amounting to a complete change, or the
establishment of the best system of property in land,
might yet recommend themselves to the attention of
absolute monarchs, as being more suddenly, and there-
fore more safely, to be carried into execution, than
any total reformation can be, and productive of very
beneficial effects, though not of the best.

“Such as 1st. To fix the rent of every farm for-
ever, and limit the duration of all leases to a single
life of the tenant; that is, to convert leases into bene-
ficiaries.

“2ndly. To make the duration of every lease per-
petual, so long as the tenant may choose to make an ad-
dition of one-twelfth, or some other just proportion
of the present rent, at the end of every thirty years.

“3rdly. To make the duration of every lease per-
petual, reserving to the landlord a stated proportion
of the annual produce, suppose one-fifth, to be paid in
the staple commodity of the country; the amount of this
produce to be ascertained by a jury, once in thirty
years, if the landlord require it, or in twenty, if the
tenant chooses.

“4thly. To convert all farms into freeholds, with a
reservation of the present rent to the landlord, trans-

384 Farm Tenantry in the United States

ferring at the same time all land taxes and all public
burdens whatever, with all their future augmentations
from the landlord, to the new freeholders, formerly his
tenants.

“5thly. To establish a sort of jubilee, with regard
to property in land, by enacting, that at the expiration
of fifty years after the last purchase of an estate in
land, every farm shall become freehold in the hands
of the farmer, with the reservation of the average rent
of the last seven years to the landlord.”

These proposals, in some of their aspects, appear very

 

ancient, in others very modern. The time element seems too i 1'

long to us today. They seem to ignore the effects of changing
conditions. But we need to recall that charges came more slow-
ly in the days of Ogilvie. But his proposals for fixing the land-
lord’s rent and safeguarding the tenant’s rights are pertinent
today.

Thomas Paine’s “Agrarian Justice” reflects the influence

 

of the French Revolution. His argument may be partially illus- 5

traterl by the following quotation:

“There could be no such thing as land property
originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he
had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate
as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did
the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from ‘whence
the first title-deeds should issue. _ _ _ _ From whence
then arose the idea of landed property? I answver as
before, that when cultivation began, the idea of land-
ed property began with it; from the impossibility of
separating the improvement made by cultivation from
the earth itself upon which that improvement was made.
The value of the improvement so far exceeded the value
of the natural earth, at that time, as to absorb it; till, in
the end, the common right of all became confounded into
the cultivated rights of the individual. But they are
nevertheless distinct species of rights, and will continue
to be so as long as the world endures.”

Most of the early land reformers held Paine’s view that
land was the common property of mankind. But no other writer
has presented quite so clearly the origin of private property in
land.

Summary and Conclusion 385

  
 
  
   
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
   
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  

The economists of the latter years of the eighteenth and the
_rly years of the nineteenth century, were familiar with the

arian problems of their respective time, and most of them de-
ed some attention to the social as well as the economic aspects
agriculture. The Physiocratic school of economists in France
nded its system of economics on agricultural production, and
eral of the members of this school incidentally discussed the
ial aspects of the agricultural situation in France. Adam Smith
oted considerable space to the discussion of the economic in-
ences of land tenure, and he emphasized more than any other
inomist previous to John Stuart Mill the effects of the land
pure policy of England on the social life of the agricultural
a ijrker. All of the economists of the classical school regard the
 ry of farm rent as an appropriate topic for economic discus-
Qfn. Ricardo’s most permanent contribution to economic doctrine
alhis theory of rent, and most of the economists of recent times
e agreed essentially with his views on this subject.

John Stuart Mill, who wrote about the middle of the nine-
}_, th century, made the largest contribution of any of the econo-
its to the social and economic aspects of farm tenantry. Mill’s
Ws on the nature of property were largely determined by his
uwledge of the inequalities in the land tenure policy of Eng-
“f1 The earlier classical economists Were influenced by the
lord’s view point in their discussions of agricultural produc-
 Mill approached this topic from the view point of the

 effects, and his constructive proposals were, therefore,
‘e in harmony with our modern conceptions of social justice
‘  were those of his predecessors.
' II

t is rather surprising that in the formulation and develop-
h» of our land policies in the United States, we profited so lit-
~ rom a knowledge of the effects that the English land tenure
 had produced. It is even more surprising that we began
fttempting to transplant the manorial system that had already
 to become decadent in England.

ff-Fortunately, the vast extent of our public domain and
"ijifferences in physiographical conditions made it impossible
ply the land policy of England to America. Nevertheless,

lantry class. His analysis of the farm tenantry situation, its-

‘come has generally been inadequate to supply his needs for main- ‘

386 Farm Tenantry in the United States

the adoption of the English common law in most of our states had}
an important bearing on our land system. The legal system of;
England at the time of our colonial settlement reflected many of;
the policies of the manorial organization. It was inevitable that i
the adoption of the English common law as the basis of our legal;
system would produce similar effects to those produced in Eng-y.
land. The English common law Was formulated in the interest of
property owners, especially landed proprietors. This system plac-Yi
ed the landless man at a disadvantage. The modification of the
common law by statute has come very slowly in this countryf
While the effort to transplant the manorial system in this coun-
try largely failed, except in those sections where the large plan-
tations were developed, the adoption of the legal system of Eng-
land has resulted in economic handicaps to the tenant farmer. l’ W

The farm tenant’s opportunities for purchasing a farm home
have been rapidly decreasing as a result of the following condi-i“
tions: 
1. Inadequate labor income. The farm tenant’s labor in-

*' #4

taining a normal standard of living and to enable him to save a ;
sufficient sum to apply on the purchase of a farm home. The ten- ;
ant’s labor income varies greatly with the type of crop production,
acreage under cultivation, and the amount of his capital invest-
ment. But the data obtained from the numerous surveys that a
have been made of the labor income of farm tenants, all point to ,
the fact that the tenant’s capital investment is usually too small
to leave a margin of profits that may be utilized in making a first
payment of reasonable proportions on the purchase of a farm
home.

2. Speculation in land values. Owing to speculation in land
values, the tenant farmer depending solely on his labor income
has found it impossible to pay for a farm home without jeopar-
dizing his economic independence. With the increase of land
monopolization by individuals or corporations who have invested
surplus earnings from commercial and industrial enterprises, the
farm tenant has found himself at an increasing disadvantage.
The rapidly increasing prices of farm lands has called for an in-
creasing capital outlay to finance a farm home. This has made
it increasingly difficult for the farm tenant to buy a farm of

Summary and Conclusion 387

  
 
  
 
   
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  

Town with the reasonable expectation of earning a sufficient
 to pay off his obligations as they become due, and at the
time to provide the necessary capital for farm improve-

73. Farm Credits. The tenant’s ability to acquire a farm
nds not only on the rate of income, but also upon the condi-

 “under which he secures credit for his farm operations. It
ntirely possible that a farm tenant’s labor income may yield
Zbstantial surplus over and above his domestic expenses, and
A Pit may be absorbed in excessive rates of interest and credit
lies. This is exactly What has happened in every section Where
 [tenantry has become a problem. The farm tenant has usual-
“en compelled to pay excessive rates of interest on his invest-
"pital and unreasonable credit prices for his house-hold ex-
les. This has probably been the most discouraging aspect
iected with tenant farm operations. All the investigations

“l” could succeed and pay the rates of interest that have
i‘ charged to the tenant farmer.

 he hazards connected with agricultural production, and the
omic conditions that have been described, have made the
“jv tfarmer a poor financial risk. This is the explanation that
teen offered as to Why he has been compelled to pay excessive
l, of interest at the bank or exorbitant prices at the credit
_-§ for the money and supplies with which to conduct the farm
i rise While engaged in producing a crop. But whatever be
xplanation, it is not surprising, in view of these conditions,
ljtenancy in the United States has rapidly increased. But
Ethe increase in the percentage of farm tenantry is not the
 disconcerting aspect of the situation. The social and eco-
 consequences that have resulted from the discourage-
 s to the farm population present the most serious aspect con-
 with this problem. The increasing hopelessness of acquir-
 farm home on the part of the tenant, has resulted in tran-
 thriftlessness, and inefficiency. It is these effects that
 sing deep concern on the part of those who realize that
‘ation’s prosperity rest fundamentally upon a sound system
f, a1 economy.

"tlhave been made of this subject, show that no legitimate A

Farm Tenantry in the United States

c:
no
w

 
     
  
    
  
   
  
  

III.

While the causes of farm tenantry are essentially economic“
the effects are largely social. Any land policy that tends to d,
story the economic enterprise of producers, will ultimately impa l
the nation’s vitality, decrease the average of intelligence, and pr
vent the dissemination of the highest political and social ideal_
Our land tenure policy bears a vital relationship to the Nation"
welfare, and it is necessary for us to associate it in our thinking’
with our national prosperity. It is well known 
illness and disease affect the nation’s vitality and efiicienc _,
In those sections of the country where farm tenantry is mo
extensively practiced, the extent of illness is usually found to 
abnormal and the energies of the people are relatively low. Thi
thriftlessness and inefficiency that we hear so much about i
connection with farm tenantry are largely to be explained by th
discouragements that such a system produces. "

The standards of living, the intellectual and religious inter-l
ests that are manifested, and the degree of social consciousness:
that a community reflects are all largely determined by the sys-l
tem of land tenure that prevails. Wherever farm tenantry pre-p
dominates over ownership, the houses occupied are generally
found to be less commodious, constructed of poorer material, more
inconveniently arranged, equipped With fewer conveniences, and
less attractive in appearance than the homes occupied by farm
owners living in the same community. Similar differences exist
with reference to family budgets. Farm tenantry is definitely
associated with indifference to church and Sunday School attend-
ance, recreational advantages, and interest in community welfare.
There are relatively fewer papers and magazines read by tenant
farmers as a class than are read by farm owners, and those that
are read by farm tenants are usually inferior in quality to those
read by farm owners. As a general thing, farm tenants reflect
more prejudice in political action than farm owners, and they
may be said to be more class conscious. There is little or no
community pride in a community where farm tenantry predomi-
nates, and it is almost impossible to promote organization for
community betterment. i

The standards of community welfare can be measured with

 

  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 

Summary and Conclusion 389

 degree of accuracy by approximating the relative number
fme owners and farm tenants in a community. This gen-
ation approximates the accuracy of a social law When the
"unity consists predominantly of share tenants on the farms
 entee landlords.

y.

IV.

‘lf this diagnosis of the social consequences of farm tenantry
, proximately correct it is of fundamental importance
rmulate a constructive program for the solution of this prob-
fand social agencies need to be devised for making such a pro-
" effective. The rent reform movement in other countries,
 ich reference has been made, should prove helpful in form-
i’ g a reform policy for this country. In fact, we have al-
 profited, to some extent, by the experiences of other coun-
 In the passage of the Farm Loan Act, intelligent use was
 of rural credit legislation in European countries. The
__‘of California in its system of extending state aid for the
I: ase of farm homes, made intelligent use of similar policies
‘lnstralia and other countries. It is possible to secure many
l“ helpful suggestions from foreign sources with reference
islation relating to farm tenantry in this country.

l; he solution of the farm tenantry problem consists in de-
Al’; methods for encouraging and assisting farm tenants to
(ase farm homes and in securing social justice in negotia-
jwith landlords. The following may be said to be essential
fires in securing this object:

A Compensation for Improvements. It is surprising that
ve been so slow in recognizing the tenant’s right in regard
provements made upon the farm that he cultivates. Under
llmmon law policy that still prevails in this country, the ten-
s no right to compensation for any unexhausted improve-
 that he may make on the land. England modified the com-
i, W with reference to this matter some time ago. The Agri-
lal Holdings Acts (1908-14) embody the important modifica-
 the common law doctrine. Under the provisions of these
lcompensation for (1) unexhausted improvements, (2) un-
hable disturbance, (3) damage to growing crops, (4) condi-
ifrelating to fixtures and their removal are provided for.

»

‘ land holdings and the breaking up of large estates into sma

_ not appear that it has had a decided effect in acco 

  
   
 
  
   
    
  
 
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
   
  
   
  
  
  
  

390 Farm Tenantry in the United States

One of the chief complaints that the landlord makes agai
his farm tenants is that no effort is made to improve the prod’
ises. He forgets that the tenant has had no incentive to m“
improvements on the farm lands he cultivates. It is unreas
able to expect farm tenants to make permanent improveme

on the farmstead or to do very much in improving the soil, é
racing the land, or building fences when he knows that he will
no compensation when he leaves the place. It see
therefore, to be reasonably obvious that it is in the interest b’,
of the tenant and landlord to follow English precedent and mod »
the common law practice in this country by providing for rei l I
bursement of tenants by landlords for improvements made u_
lands they have leased. The interest of the landlord, of court
should be protected by a provision in the lease contract that -
consent in writing should be secured before the improvements 
made. But the unexhausted value of the improvement that g
mains at the expiration of the contract should be p1
for by the owner. It seems that this is the first important st
to be taken in the adjustment of the rights and duties of fall
tenants in relation to their landlords. l“

2. Taxation of Land Value as an Encouragement to H0 '
Ownership. The taxation of land values has been proposed as o‘,
of the methods of discouraging large land holdings and increa
ing the opportunities of farm tenants to acquire ownership ‘l,
land. This proposal has taken two forms, viz., the single tax’ and "
the graduated land tax. 1t is difficult to see that the appli 
tion of the single tax would have much influence on farm tenant
ry. Application of the principle of the graduated land tax offe T g
more promise of contributing to the discouragement of lar,

individual holdings. However, in Australasia, where the grad, ‘l
uated land tax has been in operation for a number of years, it do vi l

plishing this purpose. It is found that the graduated lan .
tax principle _is difficult to apply. It is hard to determine a ra

of taxation that will discourage the holding of large estates wit l‘
out resulting in confiscation. However, in those sections o
this country where agricultural lands in large areas are bein

  
   
   
  
   
  
  
   
  
   
  
  
   
  
   
  
  
 
   
  
    
    
  
   
 
  

Summary and Conclusion 391
f eld from productive use for speculative purposes, the senti-
 favorable to the graduated land tax is growing.

e _  3. Rural credit. The greatest progress in solving the farm
f  try problem has been made through legislation relating to

 _”credit. Many of the states have legalized rural credit unions
provided other means for increasing credit facilities through
 cooperative agencies. This movement culminated in the
sage of the Federal Farm Loan Act, which has not only in-
A _sed the credit facilities, but by providing for another credit
iency, it has established credit agencies to compete for busi-
js on the basis of a new principle of credit. The effects have
,_eady become quite noticeable. But the problem of the credit
feds of farmers has not been solved. The difference between
'e credit needs of commercial enterprises and agricultural enter-
f"ses has not been sufficiently understood. The farmer needs
pfort-term credit, middle-term or intermediate credit, and long-
 m credit. Short-term credit is required to provide a working
tpital for a single crop. Middle-term or intermediate credit is
l, eded to provide capital for the purchase of the more permanent
orms of farm machinery and equipment. And long-term cred-
V is required to finance the purchase of land.

The Federal Farm Loan Act has partially solved the finan-
l problem connected with the purchase of the farm home. But
does not completely solve it. The Federal Farm Loan Act per-
_1ts a loan to be made of only fifty per cent. of the appraised val-
_ Vation of the land and improvements. This is not sufficient aid to
" able most tenant farmers to acquire a farm home. Some
ency needs to be devised similar to the Act of 1919 in Okla-
ma, for extending credit on second mortgages that will enable
e tenant farmer to acquire a farm home by making a very
' all payment in cash. The several states that have a great
pportunity to promote farm ownership by supplementing the
 farm Loan Act by legislation of this type. ’
 Little attention has been given to the problem of middle-
term or intermediate credit. This is a problem for the states to
‘iork out through state banking facilities or other credit agencies.
At the present time most farms are under-capitalized, due to the
- fact that adequate capital cannot be secured on the basis of an-
lnual credit terms. This aspect of farm credit has been given

892 Farm Tenantry in the United States

least consideration up to the present time, although it presents 

the most serious aspect of rural credit today.
4. Land Settlement Policies.

Land colonization has assumed three forms, as follows: (1)
Private colonization schemes, (2) semi-private colonization, and
(3) colonization promoted through state aid. Private coloni-
zation has long been practiced, and land settlement under this
policy has usually been purely a business enterprise without re-

The most direct means that l
have been devised to encourage farm ownership grow out of the ,‘
land settlement policies in this country and in foreign countries. '

gard to social benefits. The semi-private land colonization, such '

as the Wisconsin plan, is too new to appraise its real merits. It
appears, however, to have the merit of encouraging private init-
iative, while. at the same time protecting the interest of the pur-
chaser by providing state supervision of the land transaction.

State aid, as an encouragement to land settlement, has prov-
ed very successful in many foreign countries and seems to be
proving satisfactory in California. It represents a radical depar-
ture in the land policy of this country, but it seems justified by the
conditions, and there is every reason to believe that the California
plan, with some modifications, will be extended to other states.

5. State Land Commissions. If tenant farmers are to be
encouraged to acquire farm homes, other reforms are necessary
besides those that have been referred to. Legal agencies must
be established to prevent speculation in land values and to safe-
guard the interests of the tenant farmer when he purchases a
farm home. This means that the price of land must bear some
relationship to its productive yield per acre, and the details of
sale must be subject to scrutiny by a competent land commis-
sion with adequate legal powers to protect the purchaser.

6. Reform of Land Transfer System. There is an impera-
tive need for the simplification of our land transfer system. Our
present system is too complicated and involves too many perils
to the innocent purchaser. The Torrens system, or some similar
system, needs to be devised and put into operation as a means
of reducing the expense connected with land transfer and safe-
guarding the purchaser against the possibilities of litigation. It

Summarg/ and Conclusion 393

  
  
   
 
 
  
   
  
  
 
  
  
   
  
  
  

' ertain that the present obsolete system has had a decided in-
hence in discouraging home ownership.

Rural Attractiveness and Conveniences. But no pro-_
m of land reform will solve this problem that leaves out of

n country. Good roads, good schools, churches, and recreation-
acilities are essential factors in the encouragement of farm

tions with the trading center must be considered. The ab-

pulation from the open country to the towns and cities. The
 abilitation of our rural communities can be secured only
7ough the establishment of these agencies that mean so much
he comfort and satisfaction in the daily lives of most people.
The encouragement of agriculture is the most important
blem, perhaps, confronting our country today. The dangers
underproduction threaten us on every hand. The intelligent
 enship of the nation cannot longer, be indifferent to our
 arian problems. Goldsmith’s familiar lines are as true today
“jthey were when first penned in 1770, and their truth should
“ress us with their significance: '

“l? “Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,

* Where Wealth accumulates, and men decay:
Princes and lords may flourish, or may fade,
A breath can make them, as a breath has made;
But a bold peasantry, their country’s pride,
When once destroy’d, can never be supplied.

ount the attractiveness and the wholesomeness of life in the a

ership. Rural free mail delivery and adequate telephone con- .

 ce of these conveniences partially explains the drift of the-

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

This bibliography contains only the publications that re- 1
late directly to some aspect of farm tenantry. Many addi-Q
tional references that bear upon the subject of the several chap- v,
ters, may be found in foot notes but are not regarded as proper ;t
titles to be included in the list of references on farm tenantry. “

NO. I. I 

Books.

Arnold J. H., “Farm Management” (1919). Chapter VIII on “How to";
,Measure the Efficiency of Farm Organization.” .
Black, J. D., “Division of Income Between Landlord and Tenant.” .1
Bliss’ “The New Encyclopedia of Social Reform” (1908). See discussion“,
under heading of “Land” and other general topics relating to land .;
reform. _ 
Butterfield, Kenyon L. “The Farmer and the New Day” (1918). _An opt1- .
mistic study of the agricultural situation. Methods of 1mprove- .
ments are outlined. l;
Card, Fred W. “Farm Management.” (1913). Chapter V, on “Ownership 
or Rental.” I
Carver, T. N. “Principles of Rural Economics” (1911). Contains a good 
discussion of the history of our land problems; also discussion of the ‘j
income of the agricultural classes. 
Carver, T. N. “Selected Reading in Rural Economics” (1916). Chapter __l
III on “Land Tenure” contain several articles from leading author- 
ities on ownership and tenancy. ,.
Crott’s, E. A. “The Transition in Agriculture” (1906). Chapter XVIII 
on “The Land Question” and “Peasant Proprietorship Abroad.” w
Chapter XIX, “Peasant Proprietorship at Home;” Chapter XX, A’
“Tenantry as a Connecting Link.” t‘
Cutler, W. H. R. “A Short History of English Agriculture” (1909). Dis- ~
cusses the disorganization of the manor, enclosures and the de- I
velopment of the lease system. x,"
Fordham, Montague. “A Short History of English Rural Life” (1916). 
Traces struggles of farm laborers and farm tenants for social justice f.
in England. . ;
Gillette, John M. “Constructive Rural Sociology” (1912). _ Contains dis-
cussion of extent of tenancy in the United States and points out t‘
some of the evils of tenant systems. '
Gregory, C. S. “Social Aspects of Tenancy.” 
Hasbach, D1‘. W. Englisc/zen Landarbeiler in Den Lelzlen Hunderl fahrcn. 
(1894). Translated by Ruth Kenyon under the title “A History
of the Engllsh Agricultural Labourer.” Second Impression, 1920.
An authoritative discussion of the breaking up of the English
rnanor and the development of an agricultural proletariat (Ch. 2)
1n England. ‘

Jackson T. G. “The Agricultural gfsgolldings Acts, 1908-1914.” (1917).

   

Bibliography 395

   

The leading and latest authoritative study of the changes in this

5 p act and its influence on land tenure.
t Johnson, Arthur H. “The Disappearance of the Small Land Owner” (1909).
s" Discusses effects of enclosures on farm population in England.

isJouzier, E. Economic Rurale (1902). This book, under the title of Le
Mode De Tenure, discusses the advantages‘ and disadvantages of
mctayage and the modern system of renting (fe rm ag c) as prac-
 ticed in France today.

t» Mead, Elwood. “Helping Men Own Farms.” (1902). A practical discussion
_~ of government aid in land settlement.

 Morgan, James B. “The Place of Agriculture in Reconstruction” (1919).
x A good outline of land settlement systems. Chap. X contains
a defense of farm tenantry in England and the United States.
Nourse’s “Agricultural Economics” (1916). Chap. VII on “Land Tenure
and Land Policy.”
Orr, John. “Agriculture in Oxfordshire” (1916). Ch. VI on “The Agricul-
tural Partnership” discusses the proper relation between landlord,
 agents and tenants.
gPhelan, John. “Readings in Rural Sociology” (1920). Chap. VI on
1 “Ownership and Tenantry.”
illProthero, R. E. “English Farming: Past and Present” (1912). Traces in-
 fluence of enclosure and capitalistic farming on farm tenantry.
‘l Quick, Herbert. “From War to Peace” (1919). Discusses several methods
of aiding tenant farmers to acquire farm homes.
Rogers, J. E. Thorald. “The Economic Interpretation of History” (1909).
h, Discusses influence of tenantry on agricultural production.
YvRyan, John A. “Distributive Justice” (1916). Contains a forceful argu-
*5 ment for private ownership of land, and presents a strong plea
:1,‘ for justice to the tenant farmer.
Smith-Gordon and Staples’ “Rural Reconstruction in Ireland” (1919).
 Chap. II on “Land Legislation,” in which is discussed methods of
legal relief for farm tenants.
Spillman, W. J. and E. A. Goldenweiser. “Farm Tenantry in the United
States,” Yearbook, U. S. Department of Agriculture for 1916, p
321 et seq. t
, Taylor, Henry C. “Agricultural Economics” (Revised Edition, 1919). The
' best text on the subject. Chap. XIX and XXV present the extent
v imdd consequences of farm tenantry in the United States and Eng-
"— an .
Tichenor, W. C. “Farm Contracts Between Landlord and Tenant” (1916).
x The best legal authority on farm leases.
‘YVogt, Paul L. “Introduction to Rural Sociology” (1917). The best text
on the subject. Chap. V on “The Land Question and Rural Well-
fare” discusses effects of the increase of tenantry and proposes
.. several remedies.
i. Warren, G. F. “Farm Management” (1914) Chap. X on “Methods of Rent-
‘ mg Land.”

 
  
 
 
 
 
 

   
 
 
  
 
 
 
  

u
a

NO. II.
Reports and Surveys.

qqBoeger, E. A. “Land Contracts in Typical Counties of tne Wheat Belt.”
\ (April 1921). Bulletin No. 850, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

iBoeger, E. A. “A Study of Share-rented Dairy Farms in Green County, '

396 Farm Tenantry in the United States

Wisconsin and Kane County, Illinois.” Bulletin N0. 603, U. S.

Department of Agriculture.

Boeger and Goldenweiseifs “A Study of the Tenant System of Farming in
the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta.” (Jan. 1916.)

Boniberger, F. B. “TheTorrens System of Land Title Registration”
(1917), Vol. XIV, No. 11, bulletin of the Maryland State College of
Agriculture.

Brooks, Robert Preston. “The Agrarian Revolution in Georgia, 1860-
1912.” (1914). Bulletin No. 639 of the University of Wisconsin.
Chap. III discusses “Decadence of Plantationsf’ “Beginning of
Small Ownerships and of Tenantry.” Chap. IV discusses “The
Contrasting Types of Tenantry in the New Regime.” “Cropping
and Renting.”

-Census Report (1910) on “Agriculture.”

Cox, Alonzo B. “Study Program,” American Association for Agricultural
Legislation (Sept. 1919). Bulletin N0. 4. This bulletin contains
outline of the problems of land ownership and utilization.

Cox, E. E. “F_arm Tenantry in California.” California Commonwealth Club
Transactions. (Dec. 1916).

Dixon and Hawthorne’s “An Economic Study of Farming in Sumpter
County, Georgia.” (Feb. 1917). Bulletin No. 492, U. S. Department
of Agriculture. This bulletin explains the system of tenant farming
in the area studied.

Ely, Richard T. “Private Colonization of Land.” Reprinted as Bulletin
N0. 1 American Association for Agricultural Legislation, from the
“American Economic Review” for September 1918. This bulletin
discusses the influlence of private colonization on home ownership.

Froley and Smith. “A system of Tenant Farming and Its Results.” (Apr.
1911). Bulletin No. 437, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Galpin and Hogue. “Farm Tenantry.” Research Bulletin, No. 44, Feb.
1919, issued by the Agricultural Experiment Station of the Uni-
versity of Wisconsin. This bulletin consists of an analysis of the
occupancy of five hundred farms in Wisconsin.

Georgia Club, State Normal School, Athens. “Tenancy in the South.”
(1916). Vol. IV, No. 1, Serial No. 13.

Hudson, Manley O. “Land Tenure and oCnveyances in Missouri.” (June
19 Law series No. VIII, Vol. XVI, No. 16, Bulletin of the

University of Missouri, Bulletin 121.

Kirsch, William. “The Jew and the Land.”
Association for Agricultural Legislation.
discusses tenancy as an educational stage.

Lloyd, O. G. “Farm Leases in IoWa.” (Sept. 1915). Bulletin No. 159 of
the Agricultural Experiment Station of Iowa State College of
Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. (Abridged edition of the bulletin
issued Dec. 1915).

Mathis, Mrs. G. H. “Problem of Tenant and Landlord in the Cotton
States.” (1916). Report of National Implement and Vehicle Asso-
ciation, Chicago, pp. 118-25.

Mead, Elwood “Summary of Soldier Settlements
Countries” (1918). Bulletin of the U. S.
terior.

Merritt and Hatch; “Some Economic Factors Which Influence Rural Edu-
cation in Wisconsin.” (Oct. 1916). Research Bulletin No. 40 of the
Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Wisconsin.

Bulletin No. 7, American
Chap. V of the bulletin

in English Speaking
Department of the In-

 

.11. eAmgutfii-I-ITE‘ - ‘ ' i l '

Bibliography I s97

This bulletin discusses land tenure in Wisconsin in its relation to
rural education and also education and land ownership.

,.Peteet, Walton. “Farming Credit in Texas.” (Feb. 1917). Bulletin No. B.

~ 34 of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas. This is a
survey of the influence of credit methods on tenancy and rural
prosperity.

Proceedings of the First National Conference on Marketing and Farm
Credits held at Chicago, Apr. 8, 9, and 10, 1913. Discusses influence
of farm credit situation on tenantry. ’

[Proceedings of the Third Annual National Conference on Marketing and
Farm credits held in Chicago, Dec. 1 and 2, 1915. Discusses Rural
Credit Aid to Land Purchase. Also the Landlord and Tenant in
Production in the U. S.

Putnam, George E. “The Land Credit Problem.” (Dec. 1, 1916). Human-
istic Studies, Vol. II, No. II, Bulletin No. XVIII, of the University
2f Kansas. Chapter V discusses Tenancy and Land Tenure Re-

orm.

 Report on Agricultural Co-operation and Rural Credit in Europe by the
 American Commission. Senate Document No. 261, Pts. 1 and 2,
 63rd Congress, second session. Part 1: Observations; Part II:
 Minority Report, including Observations and Recommendations.

1,7 Report of American Association for Agricultural Legislation. Bulletn No.
 ~ 2, “Papers on Tenancy.” This bulletin includes “The Agricultural
Ladder” by W. J. Spillman, “‘Tenancy an Ideal System of Land
Ownership” by Richard T. Ely and Charles J. Galpin, and a dis-
cussion of these papers by W. J. Spillman and Charles L. Stewart.

 Report of California Commission on Land Colonization and Rural Cred-
i’ its, 5gacgemento Problems of Tenantry and Farm Labor (1916)
pp -6 . .

Report of the Commission on Industrial Relations, Vol. IX and X. (The
Wash Report). Contains report and testimony on farm tenant
conditions in the Southeast.

Report of the Industrial Commission, Vol. V (1901) on “Agriculture and
Agricultural Labor.” Review and Digest of Evidence on Farm

.3 Tenure Conditions in the United States.

 Report and testimony of Commission on Industrial Relations submitted

to Congress, V. 9, pp. 8949-9056; V. 10, pp. 9057-9090 (1916).

 “Land Question in the Southwest.”

Report, Monthly Crop. “Size of Family and Farming in Iowa County,

 Wisconsin.” (Feb. 1917).

‘f? Spillman, Dixon and Billings’ “Farm Management Practice of Chester

 County, Pennsylvania.” (Jan. 1916). Bulletin No. 341, U. S. De-

  
  

  

.  partment of Agriculture. This study is based on the operation of
f; 643 farms. The relation of tenant farming to the size of farms as
" wdell as the types of tenantry that are practiced is carefully analyz-
e .

-.”Spillman and Goldenweiser. “Farm Tenantry in the United States.” U. S.
 Agricultural Yearbook 1916.
 Stewart, C. L. “Land Tenure in the United States with Special Reference
,1 to Illinois” (1916). Studies in the Social Sciences, Vol. V, No. III,
; _ University of Illinois, Urbana.
 Thompson, E. A. “Gaining a Foothold on the Land.” (In American Farm
'  Management Association Record of Proceedings 1915, pp. 34-9.)
‘ Turner, Howard A. “Systems of Renting Truck Farms in Southwestern

.
/
,~‘

-  iriv-hg ,5

398 Farm Tenantry in the United States

New Jersey” (Sept. 1916). Bulletin N0. 411, U. S. Department of 

Agriculture.

Vogt, P. L. “Land Problems and Rural _Welfare_.” (Discussion by Hedrick,
W. O.) In American Sociological Society Publication, Vol. 11,
pp. 82-96. . . . . _

White and Leonard’s “Studies in Farm Tenancy in Texas” (1915). Bulletin
No. XXI of the University of Texas.

Wilcox, C. V. “Lease Contrasts Used in Renting Farms on_Shares.” (Feb.
1918). Bulletin No. 650, U. S. Department of Agriculture.
Willard, Rex E. “A Farm Management Study of Cotton Farmsof Ellis
County, Texas.” (June 1918). Bulletin N0. 659, U. S. Department
of Agriculture. This bulletin contains an analysis of the farm

income from this type of tenure.

NO. III.
Periodical Literature.

Absentee Landlord, “The Story of His Experiences in Renting the
Old-home Farm.” The Country Gentleman, Dec. 9, 1916, Vol. I,
No. 50.

Adams, R. L. “A Working Basis for Leasing.” The Country Gentleman,
Dec. 2, 1916, V01. 81, No. 49.

Alfred, C. E. “What Should Be in the Rental Contract.” Tennessee Agri-
cultural Extension Publication No. 73. (1918).

Anonymous. “Confessions of a Land Promoter.” Country Gentleman, No-
vember 13, 1920.

Anonymous. “The One-year Tenant.” Southland Farmer, Oct. 11, 1919.

Anonymous. “The Reflections of a Tenant.” Country Gentleman, May 27,
1916. Vol. 81, No. 22

Beaty, D. G. “How I Select a Good Farm Tenant.” System on the Farm,
Vol. 2, No. 50, Feb. 1918.

Bechtel, J. R. “Some Market Garden Partnership Problems.” Market
Growers Journal, Vol. 22, No. 171, Mar. 1, 1918.

Bill, E. T. “Landlord, Tenant and Soil Fertility.” Hoard’s Dairyman, Sept.
22, 1916, Vol. 52, No. 9.

Birlingmair, Robert H. “Give Tenant Plenty of Leeway.” The Orange Judd
Farmer, June 29, 1916, Vol. 60, No. 5.

Bloom, C. W. “Relations Between Landlord and Tenant.” Ohio Farmer,
Vol. 141, No. 298, Mar. 2, 1918.

Bois, W. H. “Modern Home on Tenant Farm.” Orange Judd Farmer, Vol.
60, No. 12, Mar. 18, 1916.

Brini, F. “Comparative results obtained on an estate in Tuscany where a
farm worked by the landlord was afterwards run on the me ta y g e
system.” International Review of the Science and Practice of Agri-
culture, No. 12: 1821-2, Dec. 1916. '

Bryson, H. K. “Tennessee’s Offerings to Homeseekers.” Progressive Farm-
er, Oct. 21, 1916. Vol. 31, No. 43.

Burton, J. D.-“Plea for the Tenant.” Progressive Farmer, Vol. 31, No.

1321, October 21, 1916.

Butler, Tait. “Farm Tenantry as it Affects Soil Fertility.” Progressive
Farmer, Dec. 8, 1917.

Camp, W. P. “A Tenant Who Became a Home-Owner.” The Progressive
Farmer, May 18, 1918. Vol. 33, No. 20.

  
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
   
 
  
 
 
   
   
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
    
     
  
  
   
   

Bibliography 399
i

mberlain, W. I. “Farm Tenant’s Share.” National Stock and Farm, V01.
41, N0. 764, Nov. 10, 1917.

llins, George A. “A System of Farm Rental That Has Paid Me.” Farm

p Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2, February 1919.

nningham, J. F. “Advancing From Tenant to Landlord.” Ohio Farmer,
Vol. 142, No. 345. Oct. 12, 1918.

cy, G. H. “Hildebrand, Master Landlord.” Country Gentleman, Vol.
82, No. 1854, Nov. 24, 1917.

whurst, W. R. “Landlord and Tenant’s Compensation and Dilapidation
Act.” Progressive Farmer. Vol. 31, No. 1090. Sept. 9, 1916.

lon, Charles. “Giving’the Tenants a Chance.” Country Gentleman,
March 10, 1917.

ggar, J. F. “Tenant Question as Affected by the‘ Boll Weevil.” Pro-

.1. gressive Farmer, Vol. 31, No. 1075, Sept. 9, 1916.

I itorial. “About Co-operative Farming.” Progressive Farmer, Vol. 33,

» No. 4, January 5, 1918. -

itorial. “Agrarian Question in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” International
Review of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 70, No. 69-82. Oct. 1916.

itorial. “Agricultural Credit Legislation and the Tenancy Problem.” In-

’ ’%‘erg1atio1n€l Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 62, No. 93-5,
e .19 .

 

51, No. 10.
orial. A Real Profit-Sharing Scheme. Wallace’s Farmer, Feb. 25,
__ 1916, Vol. 41, No. 8. A
ditorial. “A Hoard’s Dairyman Farm Lease.” Hoard’s Dairyman, Sept.
22, 1916 Vol. 52, No. 9.
itorial. “A Farm or a Failure, Which?” Common Sense, Oct. 1917, No. 7.
itorieglr. “i: Model Lease.” Wallace’s Farmer, Feb. 25, 1916, Vol. 41,
o. .
itorial. “Compensation Claims Under the Agricultural Holdings (Scot-
land) Act 1908.” International Review of the Science and Prac-
tice of Agriculture, No. 1: 3103, Jan. 1916.
itorial: “Central Illinois Tenant Method.” Orange Judd Farmer, Mar.
11, 1916. Vol. 60, No. 11.
' orial. “Debate: Resolved, That Improving Farm Leases is the Best Way
of Meeting the Evils of Tenancy.” Wallace’s Farmer, Vol. 43, No.
> 533, March 22, 1918. I
A ditorial. “Contract Between Landlord and Tenant”. Hoard’s Dairyman
Sept. 29, 1916, Vol. 52, N0. 10.
itorial. “Farm Rental at Shares.” National Stock and Farm, Vol. 40,
No. 866, Dec. 2, 1916.
rial. “Farm Leases in Iowa.” Wallace’s Farmer, Jan. 7, 1916, Vol.
- 41, No. 49.
itorial. “Farm-tenantry Problem of the Country Church.” Current
Opinion, Vol. 61, No. 406-7. Dec. 1916.
ditorial. “Farming Under Five-Year Lease.” Orange Judd Farmer Vol.
60, No. 5, Jan. 29, 1916.

.1 _ dito

37, No. 1223, July 31, 1918.

n

“ditorial. “A Tenant Problem.” Hoard’s Dairyman. Mar. 31, 1916. Vol._

ditoriziléfiiGood Farm Lease.” Ohio Farmer, Vol. 137, No. 454, Mar. 25.
laditorial. “Half-and-half System Most Successful.” Jersey Bulletin, Vol.

ditorial. “The One-year Tenant.” The Southland Farmer, Oct. 11, 1919.

400 Farm Tenantry in the United States

    
   

l
,7 f.

Editorial. “Has a Farm Tenant Any Rights.” American City, Town an?
County, V01. 15, No. 630-7, Dec. 1916. 

Editorial. “How a Tenant Succeeded.” Progressive Farmer, Vol. 31, No.
1073, Sept. 9, 1916. "

Editorial. “High Cost of Idleness.” Country Gentleman, Feb. 19, 1916,75
Vol. 81, N0. 8. 

Editorial. “Investigating Tenancy Problems in Missouri.” The Progresé.
sive Farmer, Oct. 28, 1916. Vol. 31, No. 44. 

Editorial. “Is Renting Profitable Here?” Orange Judd Farmer, Vol. 65, N04 -
452, Nov. 16, 1918. -

Editorial. “Illinois Landlord-Tenant Conference.” Orange Judd Farmer,
Farmer, Jan. 1, 1916, Vol. 60, No. 1. f

Editorial. “Landlord and Tenants in Partnership.” Orange Judd Farmer,
Feb. 26, 1916, Vol. 60, No. 9. 

Editorial. “Leasing Recommendations.” Hoard’s Dairyman. Sept. 22, 
1916, Vol. 52, No. 9. 

Editorial. “Landlord and Tenant.” American Cooperative Journal, Vol. 12, '7
No. 503, Mar. 1917; Agricultural Digest, Vol. 1, No. 379, Apr. c»
1917. "

Editorial. “Let Tenant and Landlord Work Together.” Progressive Farm-
er, Vol. 31, No. 1087, Sept. 9, 1916.

Editorial. “Landlordism in the Corn Belt.” Wallace’s Farmer, Jan. 21,
1916, Vol. 41, No. 3.

Editorial. “More Agricultural Knowledge Needed by Both Landlord and 1
Tenants.” Progressive Farmer, Sept. 9, 1916, Vol. 39, No. 37. ii

Editorial. “Make a Business Partner of the Tenant.” Progressive Fann-
er, Vol. 32, No. 967, Sept. 15, 1917.

Editorial. “Renting a Dairv Farm on Shares.” Hoard’s Dairyman, Sept.
22, 1916, Vol. 52, No. 9.

Editoriaé. “AJSStock-Share Lease.” Wallace’s Farmer, Dec. 8, 1916, Vol. 41,

o. .

Editorial. “Should Farm Owners Raise Rent Now?” Orange Judd Farm-
er, Vol. 33, No. 1071, Oct. 5, 1918.

Editorial. “Some observations on Land Tenantry in the South.” Pro- .
gressive Farmer, Vol. 33, No. 1071, Oct. 5, 1918.

Editorial. “Square Deal Will Get and Keen Good Tenants.” Progressive
Farmer, Vol. 33, No. 1052, Sept. 28, 1918.

Editorial. “Suggested Form of Rental Contract.” Progressive Farmer,
Vol. 31, No. 1074, Sept. 9, 1916.

Editorial. “Stock-Farming and Renting.” Breeder’s Gazette, Feb. 24, 1916,
Vol. 69, No. 8.

Editorial. “Try a Profit-sharing Plan with your Labor.” Progressive
Farmer, Jan. 12, 1918, Vol. 33, No. 2.

Editorial. “The Homestead Law.” Farm and Ranch, Dec. 29, 1918, Vol.
36, No. 52.

Editorial. “The Safest Tenant System.” Country Gentleman. Feb. 19,
1916, Vol. 81, No. 8.

Editorial. “Tenants and Landowners Should be Business Partners.” Pro-
gressive Farmer, Vol. 33, No. 1045, Sept. 28, 1918.

Editorial. “Tenantry and Its Place in the Agricultural Labour System,
Sweden. International Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol.
64, No. 113-17, Apr. 1916.

i RA“ “ha”;

Bibliography 401

   
  
   
  
   
   
 
  
  
   
  
 
    
  
 
   
  
  
  
  
   
 
   
    
   
   
  
    
  

orial. {Tiéeelsqfog Tenant Homes.” Farm and Ranch, Jan. 31, 1921,
 V0.3 , o. .

y orial. “Tenant Partners 0n Illinois Farms.” The Orange Judd Farm-
 er, Sept. 30, 1916, V01. 61, N0. 14.

torial. “The Farm-tenantry Problem of the Country Church.” Cur-
 rent Opinion, Dec. 1916, Vol. 59, No. 6, p. 407.

‘torialé ‘1‘The lgrenlant Fagimer and Rural Life.” Wallace’s Farmer, Apr.
2 , 916, 0. 41, o. 17.
‘torial. “Winnebago Farmers’ Model Lease.” TheOrange Judd Farm-
 er, Feb. 12, 1916, Vol. 60, No. 7.
f. ori2il8.3‘(‘)W1l)1ere ltéielgiehéiant Loses.” Wallace’s Farmer. Vol. 43,. No.
 - , ec. , .
,torial.1“lg7;st3d Iéand on Farms.” Country Gentleman, July 29, 1916,
. o . , o. . .
‘ksolré,  gnd22(;1(')f1th§3Lanilér3glO1ig1irg Gentleman, Vol. 81,
l... o‘ ' 9 " r ' 1 ec- " 7 ~
A Jonezré Ji9E1lk“Tenant Contract.” Ohio Farmer, Vol. 138, No. 515, Nov.
  Rigliiildinlgggga the Run-down Farm.” Country Life, Vol. 29,
 . , pri .
_ onNJ). (ibgltlarifi Relilitelié oii9F1a6rm Owner.” Rural New Yorker, Vol. 75,
~ . - , arc , .
i” thsggi: Iil’. igFlaimggs.  ifiiizllgBank Loans.” The Southland Farmer.
f ey, Louis H. “Farm Credit Conditions in a Cotton State.” (1914)
p Americalili Economic Review, Yo]. 4, pp. 47-67. This article dis:
2131835655; gegtigilnancial difficulties of tenant farmers In a typical
'Hger,2  “ééonlcfiiirtraigori 9o1if7Land Ownership.” Financial World, Vol.
E , . , . , .
q ‘S, 11% llpégTléoTeéigngs) Ggréeatest Chance.” Country Gentleman, Aug.
bard, B- H. "‘Tena " th  th St .” _
 ' view of AgTiCUIlllgTLIl 13501181111105? yo??? Nd} gpliillvtkggllyllour
bard, B- H. “Tenancy in the Southern States.” (1913),. Quarterly Jour-
 nal of Economics. Vol. 27, p. 482, 496.
‘i; T$iaint41‘ANTen1a7nt’s Experience.” Wallace’s Farmer, April 28, 1916.

o . , o. .
pp, B. F. “Tenant Farmer and the Poultry Business.” Progressive
Farmer, Vol. 33, No. 13, Jan. 5, 1918.
H. F. “Farm Leasing.” Hoard’s Dairyman, Vol. 54, No. 650, Nov. 30,
1,; 1917. , -
‘ty, L. N. “What is Right.” National Stock and Farmer, Vol. 40, No.
i-i 746, Oct. 21, 1916.
“le, William Dee. ‘Oklahoma Tenants Paying for Homes.” Farm and
- v Ranch, Oct. 25, 1919, Vol. 38, No. 43.

  gLanglUtgilzlation in Iowa.” Wallace’s Farmer, Vol. 42, No.

 , ec. , .
ly R. T. “Farm Tractor and the Renter.” Power Farming, Vol. 25,
v} , No. 8, Sept. 1916. _ ' ” .
fkham, L. A. “Cooperation Between Landlord and Tenant. Progressive
 Farmer, Vol. 31, No. 1086. Sept. 8, 1916. _
1 'n, W. A. “Will Tenant Farming Increase?” Ohio Farmer, Vol. 140,
No. 422, Nov. 10, 1917.



402 Far/m Tenantry in the United States

Massey, W. F. “Better Methods of Land Re tl f L d- ,4
Tenant.” Progressive Farmer, Vol. 31, bllola 107021, seal, g(;),w1n9e1r6_af
Miller, H. P. “Farm Tenancy Not an Unmixed Evil.” Ohio Farmer, V
142, N0. 161, Aug. 24, 1918. ‘ '
Miller, H. P. “Terms for Tenancy Partnership.” Ohio Farmer, Vol. 13
No. 126, June 29, 1916. - i
O’Brien, H. R. “Ill Fares the Land.” Country Gentleman, Vol. 83, No. 
Dec. 14, 1918. ;
O’Brien, H. R. “If They Make a Dollar So Do We.” Country Gentlem
Vol. 83, No. 11-12, Apr. 6, 1918. j
O’Brien, H. R. “Why Father’s Tenants Leave.” Hoard’s Dairyman, V0
54, No. 173, Sept. 7, 1917. .1
Papi, C. Mclayage on an Umbrian Estate (Italy). International Revie,
of the Science and Practice of Agriculture No. 12:1823-7, De.
1916. ' 1
Parker, L. G. “Farming by the Golden Rule.” Wallace’s Farmer. Oct. I_ a
1916, Vol. 41, No. 41. '1,
Parsons, L. E. “Forty Jerseys on Forty Acres.” Jersey Bulletin, Vol. 
No. 266 Feb. 25, 1916. ‘ - A
Peacock, W. M. “Value of Inventories on Rented Farms.” Rural N
Yorker, Vol. 76, No. 1462, Dec. 29, 1917. _ .
Poe, Clarence. “Legislation Needed by Our Rural Interests.” Progressiv
Farmer, Jan. 29, 1916, Vol. 31, No. 5. a 
Putnam, George E. “Agricultural Credit Legislation and the Tenanc
Problem.” (1915) American Economic Review, Vol. 5, p. 805-81
The Writer favors reform in the rent credit system as the initi’;
step in reducing farm tenants. - . i-_
Robinson, L. G. Address at convention of National Agricultural S”
ciety. Agricultural Digest, Vol. 1, No. 420, May 1, 1917. i;
Roosevelt, Theodore. “Will Our Farmers Become a Tenant Class?” Ohi
Farmer, Vol. 140, No. 314, Oct. 13, 1917. 
Roosevelt, Theodore. “American Farmers as a Tenant Class.” Southlan
Farmer, Oct. 15, 1917, Vol. 36, No. 16 
Ryder, M. Solving Rented Farm Problems. Cooperative Manager and
Farmer, Vol. 6, No. 76, Jan. 1917. 
Series of Letters. “Landlord and Tenant Experiences.” Progressiv
Farmer, Oct. 4, 1919, Vol. 34, No. 40.
Smith, Alfred VG. “Land-owner-ship.” Country Gentleman, Oct. 9, 1920. 
Soule, Andrew M. “Renting System in the South.” Breeder’s Gazette, V011
69, No. 10, Mar. 9, 1916. '
Stewart, George. “Can Farms of the United States Pay For Themselves?‘
_ Journal of Farm Economics, Oct. 1920, Vol. 2, No. 4. 
Taylor, B. R. “The Alabama Tenant Farmer.” Breeder’s Gazette. Jul T
27, 1916, Vol. 70, No. 4. »_
Ten Eyck, A. M. “The Stock-share Lease.” The Country Gentleman, Aug}
-12, 1916, Vol. 81, No. 33. 5i
Tomlinson, W. S. “Leasing a Dairy Farm.” Ohio Farmer, Vol. 137, No.1;
259, Feb. 19, 1916. j
Wallace, H. “Rights of the Land.” Hoard’s Dairyman, Vol. 52, No. 316,”?
Sept. 29, 1916. 

e -{

Warnock, C. W. “The Absentee Landlord Who Demands All-Cotton Rent”

Progressive Farmer, Mar. 29, 1919, Vol. 34, No. 13.

Watkins, D. W. “A Share Plan For Dairy Tenant Farming.” Hoard’s)

Dairyman, Sept. 22, 1916, Vol. 52, No. 9.

.3.

 

  
  
   
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  

Ir, Ed. H. “A New Basis For Farm Leases Proposed.” Hoard’s Dairy-
lman, Sept. 22, 1916, Vol. 52, No. 9.

.Dairyman, May 11, 1917, Vol. 53

" v01. 139, No. s01, June 2s, 1917.
n, C. A. “How to Choose a Tenant.” Country Gentleman, Vol. 83,
N0. 15, Mar. 23, 1918.
n, C. A. “Only Safe Way to Rent a Farm.” Country Gentleman, Vol.
82, No. 1780-1, Nov. 17, 1917. .
C. A. “Partners With the Renter.” Country Gentleman, Vol. 83,
No. 8, Feb. 2, 1918.
n, C. A. “Wanted—Renter For a Farm.” Country Gentleman, Vol.
82, No. 1485, Sept. 29, 1917. ’
, Robert M. “Tenant Is Improving Farm.” Orange Judd Farmer,
Feb. 19, 1916, Vol. 60, No. 8. '

26, 1819.

Bibliography 403 ,

er, Dr. Arthur S. “The Biltmore System of Tenantry.” Hoard’s
J. R. “Maintaining Soil Fertility on-a Rented Farm.” Ohio Farmer,

, W. B. Tenants and the Homestead Law. Farm and Ranch, Jan.

  
    
  

Viiia

WILLIAM BENNETT BIZZELL.

Born, Independence, Texas, Oct. 14, 1876.

B. S., Baylor University, Waco, Texas, 1898; Ph. ‘B., IbidQ-Y
1900; M. A., University of Chicago, 1913. --

   
  

Author: Judicial Intrepretation
G. P. Putnam’s Sons; The Social teachin‘
ets (1916), Silver Burdette & Co.;

Education (1919) in-collaboration with M. H. Duncan; Rand
McNally & Co. i?

Superintendent, Navasota, Texas public schools 1900-1910;:i
President, College of Industrial Arts, Denton, Texas, 1910-1914,’,

President, Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, Collegxfi
Station, Texas, 1914. 

404

  
  
   
    
  
   
   
    
  
  
    
   
  
 
  
    
 
  
  
    
  
   
    
 
   
  
  

7; land settlement, p. 39; the
l omestead, p. 40; the Deasy, p.
_8; the Ashbourne, p. 368.

r, J. P. testimony before In-
 strial Commission on Agri-
lture and Labor, p. 275.
ley, Professor, on beginning
 commutation of services, p.

‘f? ns, Chas. s. on thrifty and
Jpipriftless tenants, p. 227.

tin, Chas. B. on length of ten-
ncy, p. 150; on chattel mort-
ages, p. 217; on bank credit,
-218.

tralasia, taxation of land val-
 in, pp. 345-350.

Q r, Ray S. on condition of the
w" tenant, pp. 264-269.

‘p, John, his social agitations,

s, State farm credit, p. 361.
ett, Professor, quoted, p. 30.
net, R. L. on a credit rate
 p. 219.

ier, E. A. Farm management,
"W _dy of, p. 132.

rd, Professor, on ratio of
rms to population, p. 180; on
norial system Vin New York,
 ‘lsford, H. N. on new land pol-
1' . in Hungary, p. 332.

n, W. G., on spread of im-
4.. gration, p. 164.

' ett, C. W. on cotton produc-
ion, p. 168.

"flgzornia, land settlement policy
 p, 

1r» W. R. on rural credit, p.
“llion, Essay of, p. 45.

 H. C., criticism of Ricard-
f}: theory of rent, pp. 91, 92.
 Professor, on immigra-
l’! p. 107.

er, Professor,_ influence of
‘rginal production on rent, p.
on agricultural income, p.
‘on the single tax, p. 339.

.. the Agricultural Holdings, p.’

405

INDEX.

Cato, on the Roman villa, p. 14.

Chance, A. E. on tenantry in
Mass. p. 126. .
Cheviot estate, confiscation of,

p. 350

Clark, F. B., tenantry study‘ by,
p. 228‘; on rural housing of farm
tenants, pp. 276 and 277.

Colonization, land, p. 363; forms
of, p. 363; Wisconsin plan of,
p. 365.

Coman, Miss, on manorial system
in this country, p. 34; on cap_-
italistic farming, p. 162

Coulanges, de Fustel, on land na-
tionalization, p. 321.

Contract, transition from status
to, p. 21

Corn, production of, pp. 169-171.

Cotton, production of, p. 163.

County, Ellis, farm management
study in, pp. 136, 137.

Credit, what Texas farmers pay
for, p. 212; influence of bank
loans on, p. 214; long-term
rural, p. 354; short-term rural,
p. 358; middle or intermediate,
p. 360

Davis, E. E. rural school study of,
p. 292.

Denmark, land policy in, p. 370.

Dickson, H. M. farm management,
study of, p. 134.

Durand, E. Dana, on tenantry in
Minn. p. 125.

Enclosures, effect on the farm
tenant, p. 23.

Ely, Richard T. on the tenantry
problem, p. 309; on private col-
onization of land, p. 364.

Farmer, Wallace's, quoted p. 148.

Foard, W. E., Farm management,
study of, pp. 143 and 290.

Fordham; Montague, classifica-
tion of services and rentals, p.
1i; description of enclosures, p.
2 .

George, Henry, on our public land
system, pp. 36 and 41; on the
theory of rent, p. 83; on the
theory of private property in

406 INDEX

Interest, rates of, on farm loans;
p. 215; factors affecting ratesf

land, p. 322; on the single tax,
p. 343.

Gide and Rist, quoted, pp. 48, 49
and 50.

Gillette, Professor, on influences
of immigration on tenantry,
p. 256.

Goldenweiser, E. A. on tenantry
in New England, p. 124; farm
management study of, p. 132.

Hale, J. H. on housing of farm
tenants, p. 278.

Hamilton, Alexander, on policy of
land settlement, p. 38.

Hammond, Harry, testimony be-
fore Industrial COIIIIYIISSIOII on
Agriculture and Labor, p. 275.

Haney, Professor, on J. S. Mill,
p. 66.

Hasbach, W. on motive for en-
closure, p. 26.

Hawthorne, H. W. farm manage-
ment, study of, p. 134.

Hayes, professor, on immigration,
p. 108

Hedrick, W. O. defense of tenan-
try, p. 312.

Hills, A. L., on tenantry in Ver-
mont, p. 125.

Holdisch, Sir Thos. H., on land
policy in India, p. 330.

Holmes, George K., a farm man-
agement study by, p. 158.

Hookworm, cause of, p. 232.

Hopkins, on law relating to fix-
tures, p. 95.

Housing, rural in England, pp.
281-293; reforms in, p. 283;
standards in, p. 285.

Houston, D. F., on tenantry, p.
316.

Immigration, policy of, p. 107.

Income Agricultural, definition
of, p. 128; Labor, definition of,
,p. 128; in cotton belt, p. 132;
in grain belt, p. 138; influence
of manpower on, p. 140; in-
fluence of type of farming on,
p. 141; influence of size of
farm on, p. 143.

Individualism, as a factor in ten-
antry, p. 235.

Intellectual, interests of farm ten-
ants, p. 288.

of, p. 217.

Jackson, J. T. on the Agricultural‘,

Holdings Acts, p. 27.

Johnson, A. H., on developmentof
lease system, p. 21; on enclof

sures, p. 25.

Johnson, E. C. on tenantry in;

Kansas, p. 126.

Johnson, O. R. farm manageg
ment, study of, pp. 144 and ;
290. '

Jones, Richard, theory of rent, p. :1
88; classification of rent, pp.
89-91; on relation between,

landlord and tenant, p. 91.
Justice, social, p. 197.
Kansas, tenantry in, p. 118.

King, W. I. on farm areas, p. 147. _
Land, tenure, influence of the 
revolution on, p. 36; nationali- a
zation of, pp. 320, 321; monoply 
in, p. 340; values, speculation:

in, pp. 374-377.

Langland, William, quoted, p. 23. »
Laveleye, de M., on land nation- 

alization, p. 321.

Lease, essentials of, p. 197; stand- 
ard form of p. 198; social jus- .1
tice in p. 198-206; a model,  ‘i

206

Leonard, W. E. on tenantry in l

Texas, p. 1 19.

Lindsey, S. A., on farm loans as
an aid to tenants, p. 357.

Lloyd, O. G., on labor income, p.“ ‘

138; on age of acquiring own-
8I'Sl'11p, p. 150; on leases, p. 188.
Macdonald, William, on unit acre-
age for irrigation farms, p. 173.
Malthus, quoted, p. 59; on rent,
p. 60; hIS point of view, p. 60.

Massachusetts, credit unions in .

p. 353

Maurer, von G. L., on land nation-
alization, p. 321.

McClure Archibold on the Poles as
farmers, p. 241; on effort to
colonize the Jew on farms, o.
243; on the Japanese farmer,

p. .

McMillan, S. A., farm manage-
ment, study of, p. 289.

Mercantilists, ignored

agricul-i
ture, p. 43. '

  
  

  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
   
  
  
  
   
 
   
  
  
  
    
 
  
   
    
    
   
   
   
  

‘ill, J. S., quoted 66, 67; influ-
1 ence of Malthus on, pp. 68 and
5 76; interest in producer, p. 69;
 on private property, pp. 69, 70;
' on policy of leasing, p. 71; on
land nationalization, p. 72; his
,_ classification of tenants, pp. 72-
 77; his remedy for tenantry,
g pp. 77-79: on rent, pp. 92, 93;
 on large and small scale produc-
;,tion, p. 177.

iiller, H. P. on system of leasing,
p. 193.

illis, H. A. on efficiency of Jap-

*1

 anese farmer, P. 246.
virabeau, Marquis of, on increas-
ing food production, p. 43; on
relation of food supply to the
;populat1on, p. 44; his writings,
 p. 44.

vissouri, Land Bank Act of, p.
355.

_ p. 24.

eorgan, J. 0., on crop rotation,
'p. 172.

‘uzzy, Professor, on colonial pro-
1prietors, p. 33

ebraska, tenantry in, p. 118.

_egro, as a farm tenant, p. 257.
emours, de Dupont, p. 48; con-
{ception of Physiocracy, p. 50.
rth Carolina, credit unions in,
ip. 353.

den, Professor, on location of
'i‘rural homes, p. 280; on health
égraditions in the country, p.

ilvile, William, on reform of
i‘ he tenantry situation, p. 383.
io, rural life surveys in pp.
28s, 289. ’
1ahoma, tenantry in, pp 118,
319; rural credit act of, p. 355.
hanization, feudal, p. 13.

‘ Thos. Nelson, on property
Wning by negroes.

et, Sir Richard, on division of
‘ ome between landlord and

It‘
(‘D
-

le, Thomas, on “Agrarian Jus-
Ace,” p. 384.

ilegra, its cause, p. 232.

et, Walton, on farm credit, p.
~ 2.

INDEX » 407

Physiocrats, real founders of pol-
itical economy, p. 43; theory of
net product, p. 47.

?oe, Clarence, on influence of
rural organization on tenantry,
p. 236.

Policie
329.

Pratt, E. A. on tenantry, p. 311.

Pritchett, H. S., on rural educa-
tion, p. 235.

Prothero, on organization of the
manor, p. 14; quoted, pp. 61
and 176.

Pugsley, C. W., on tenantry in
Nebraska, p. 125.

Putnam, Geo. E., on tenantry in
Kansas, p. 118.

land nationalization, p.

Quesnay, quoted, pp. 43, 45, 46, "

his writings, p. 44; argument
for large farms, p 45; on th_e
distributive process, p. 46; his
table, p. 47.

Quick, Herbert, on speculation in
land values, pp. 376, 376.

Rayner, O. S., on tenantry in Col-
orado, p. 127.

Rent, the conception of, p. 81;
contract, p. 95; nature of on the
manor, p. 18; systems of, pp. 97-
103.

Revolt, the peasant’s, p. 23.

Ricardo, impersonal view of, p.
61; theory of rent, p. 62; defi-
nition of rent, p. 89; criticism
of his rent theory, p. 88.

Rogers, Professor, on rent, p. 103.
Ross, E. A. on distribution of Ger-
man farmers, p. 244.

Russia, socialization of land in,
pp. 333, 334. '

Say, J. B. his writings, p. 58.

Scheftel, Yetta, on taxation of
land values, p. 339; on progres-
sive land tax, p. 348.

Seager, Professor, on rent, p. 81
and 96

Seebohm,‘ on origin of manor, pp.
14, 17

Seligman, Professor, on objects
of taxation, pp. 337, 338; on
graduated land tax, p. 347.

Sismondi, his ethical viewpoint, p.
62; his writings, p. 63; his sym-
pathy for the tenant, p. 64.

Small, A. W., quoted, pp. 56 and

4%

58; on social content of Wealth
of Nations, p. 57.

Smith, Adam, economics of farm
tenantry, p. 51; on law of in-
heritance, p. 52; criticism of
landowners ,p. 52; relative
merits of systems of cultivation,
p. 54; quoted pp. 54, 56; on
the long lease, p. 55; on rent,
pp. 83 and 84.

Spillman, W. J. on “climbing the
agricultural ladder,” p. 111; on
iigniantry in New England, p.

Stull, William,
gages, p. 160.

System, half-and-half, p. 97;
share rent, p. 98; stock share-
renting, p. 98; bushel rent, p.

99;_cash rent, p. 99; modifica-
tion of, p. 100; the Torrens, pp.

377, 378.

Taussig, Professor, 0n rent, p. 81;
on margin of cultivation, p. 87;
on theory of land nationaliza-
tion, p. 335.

Taylor, Professor, on land values,
p_. 153; on tenantry in Wiscon-
sin, p. 157.

Tenancy, relation to labor income,
p. 143.

Tenantry, farm; increase in, p.
111; distribution of, p. 117;
transition state, "p. 111; scope
of problem of, p. 113; summary
of social and economic effects
of p. 114 and 115; a problem of,
stated and solved, pp. 129-131.

Tenants, classes on manorial es-

tate, p. 15; labor income of, p.
132.

on farm mort-

INDEX

Texas, tenantryin, p. 118; law on
rural credit, p. 354.

Thatcher and Swill, on nature of
rents on manorial estate, p. 18.

Thompson, C. W. on
rates, p. 216.

interest

Tichenor, Prof. on basis of leas- .

ing, p. 188.

Varro, description of Roman villa,
p. 14

Vinogradoff, Paul, on commuta-
tion of services, p. 20.

Violet, P. on land nationalization,
p. 321.

 ' .. manna-thy.

Vogt, Paul, on age of tenants, p. 

149; on health conditions in the
country, p. 231; on rural hous-
ing, pp. 273, 274.

Wallace, H. R., on land nationali-
zation, pp. 323-325.

Warwick, Countess of, on land, na- c

tionalization, p. 328.

Washington, Booker T., on the
negro farmer, p. 269.

Webster, Ed. H. on division of in-
come between landlord and
tenant, p. 190.

White, E. V., on tenantry in Tex-
as, p. 119; influence of tenant-
ry on schools, p. 293.

Williams, W. T. B. on the negro
exodus from the South, p. 271.

Wilson, W. R., on cause of rural
church decline, p. 152.

Woofter, F. J., on cause of exodus
of negroes from the South, p.
271.

Young, A., quoted, pp. 26, 113,
310. .