TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STAEIEN V, AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS FEBRUARY, 192; W. B. BIZZELL, President EILLETIN NO. 318 DIVISION OF FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS éIliE RELHIIOH BETWEEN RENTS AND AGRKULIURAI. IJIND VALUES IN THEORY MD IN PRAGICE 11:7,» u . ___.> __~_»__;_; _i_ ;_ LL ' 1',- >'.__h '..‘ AG-EIUU.I1T[T_7§_,,-f_f p, I1IISIEAR Y COLLEGE or T ..___ m" ;;.__ I \\11 $11.1, w; / , 11fi11111; W111 -. "W13; 1111/, '1 1'1.LEEEIEII$EEEE1MMNIIEEEWME ‘~1111111111111111111111,111.1-~ COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS 5 s i? 5i I BE. IFOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR ....i...\.___. a... .. i TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SYSTEM]; AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS ' STAFF: (As of April 1, 1924) ADMINISTRATION : B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director A. B. CONNER, M; S., Vice Director A. H. LEIDIGH, M. S., Assistant Director C. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary M. P. HOLLEMAN, J R., Ass’t. Chief Clerk J . M. SCHAEDEL, Executive Assistant VETERINARY SCIENCE: *M. FRANCIS, D. V. M., Chief H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian V. J. BRAUNER, D. V. M., Veterinarian CHEMISTRY : G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist W. H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist A. G. PETERSON, B. S., Assistant Chemist 'J. E. TEAGUE, B. S., Assistant Chemist J. K. BLUM, B. S., Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE : A. T. POTTS, M. S., Chief ANIMAL INDUSTRY: J. M. JONES, A. M., Chief J. L. LUSH, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman, Breeding G. R. WARREN, B. S., Swine Husbandman R. M. SHERWOOD, B. S., Poultry Hus- bandman J. J. HUNT, Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: M. C. TANQUARY, Ph. D., Chief.‘ State Entomologist H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist C. S. RUDE, B. S., Entomologist W. O. VICTOR, JR., Apiary Inspector W. R. JORDAN, B. S., Apiary Inspector AGRONOMY: E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Chief G. N. STROMAN, Ph. D., Cotton Breeder C. H. MAHONEY, B. S., Ass’t. in Cotton » Breeding PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY: J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS: L. P. GABBARD, M. S., Chief V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research - Botanist H. E. REA, B. S., Assistant SOIL SURVEY: **W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief H. W. HAWKER, Soil Surveyor EDWARD TEMPLIN, B. S., Soil Surveyor BOTANY: H. NESS, M. S., Chief PUBLICATIONS: A. D. JACKSON, Chief STATE APICULTURAL RESEARCH LABORATORY: H. B. PARKS, B. S., Apiculturist in Charge A. H. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder MAIN STATION FARM: D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent FEED CONTROL SERVICE: B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief S. D. PEARCE, Secretary J. H. ROGERS, Inspector W. H. WOOD, Inspector J. D. PREWIT, B. S., Inspector T. C. DAVIS, B. S., Inspector J. F. SCHULTZ, B. S., Inspector SUBSTATIONS: No. 1, Beeville, Bee County: R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County: W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Superintendent No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County: R. H. WYCHE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5, Temple, Bell County: A. B. CRON, B. S., Superintendent No. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent No. 7, Spur, Dickens County: - R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent No. 10, College Station, Brazos County: (Feeding and Breeding substation) L. J. McCALL, Superintendent No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: G. T. McNESS, Superintendent **No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: D. L. JONES, Superintendent No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: E. M. PETERS, B. S., Superintendent D. H. BENNETT, V. M. D., Veterinarian O. L. CARPENTS-R, Shephern No. 15, Llano Grande, Hidalgo County: W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent Teachers in the School of Agriculture carrying cooperative - projects on the Station: +8. W. BILSING, Professor of Entomology W. L. STANGEL, Professor of Animal Hus- bandry, Hogs F. A. BUECHEL, Professor of Agricultural Economics G. W. ADRIANCE, Associate Professor of Horticulture W. E. GARNETT, Professor of Rural Sociology G. P. GROUT, Professor of Dairy Husbandry R. C. WHITE, Associate Professor of Rural Sociology ' E. O. POLLOCK, Assistant Professor of Agronomy II. V. GEIB, Assistant Professor of Agronomy ‘In cooperation with School of Veterinary Medicine, A. and M. College of Texas. “In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture. i-On leave. CONTENTS Page Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Introductory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Factors Entering Into Land Valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 The capitalization of rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Other factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..13 The farm as a home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Community development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Personal preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Prospects of future rents and interest rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 High-power salesmanship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 A system of land credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Taxation . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Relation of Rents to Land Values in Brazos, Dallas, and Williamson Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Brazos County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..19 ‘Types of farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..19 Tenancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Dallas County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..20 Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Types of farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..20 Tenancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Williamson County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Physical characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I021 Tenancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Share Rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Texas landlord-tenant law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Determination of the cash equivalent of share rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Analysis of Tables and Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..24 Graphical presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..25 Cash rents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Bonuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 Relation of Rents to Land Values in_Other States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 ‘The abstract economists’ conception of rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..33 The Mercantilists . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 The Physiocrats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 The Ricardians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Critics of the differential theory of rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 Amplifications and refinements of the doctrine of rent . . . . . . . . .37 Rent on the margin-—its relation to price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37 The measurement of rent .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..38 The theory of land value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Relations of rent to land value in certain Texas counties . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 A—Tables 7-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40-61 Figures 1-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42-48 B—Table 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 C—Table 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 D—Table 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..63 65 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . 4 A Bulletin No. 318 SYNOPSIS Agricultural land, in recent years, has come to occupy prominent place among the various categories of economic goo if‘, in the United States. This bulletin is designed to point out so i of the basic facts that are influencing land values and particué larly to show the relation that exists between the financial return from land, or its rent, and the value of the land. i’ Land values are first shown theoretically to be the summatio of all future rents discounted at a rate of interest that reflec Q ourpreference for the present over the future. The difficulty o accurately forecasting what future rents and discount rates ar going to be is noted; Other factors besides prospective rent are suggested as partial determinants of land values, thus sti further complicating the problem of scientific land appraisal. The major portion of the bulletin is given over to a stati " tical study of the relation of rents to agricultural land values Brazos, Williamson, and Dallas Counties, Texas. In the absenc of cash rentals in these counties it was necessary to devise means of obtaining the cash equivalent of the share rent. Thi method used as well as the results obtained are shown in full in’ the text of the paper and in the tables appended. For purposes. of comparison, data from other states are either shown or ref-ii erences given. ' i Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values . 5 FOREWORD The Texas Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion System is pleased t0 present Bulletin N0. 318 entitled “The Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values in Theory and in Practice,” as the first 0f our series dealing with Texas land problems. With our ever- increasing population and the land supply re- maining the same, it becomes obvious that we must give more of our attention to the land upon which we stand and make a living. In the past people have realized the impor- tance of such problems, but the thinking was not all that it should have been. It is hoped that in this new era of creative thought our logic pertaining to the land and related prob- lems may be improved upon. I consider no one better qualified to enter upon a discussion of these problems than the author of this bulletin, Dr. F. A. Buechel. B. YOUNGBLOOD, March 15, 1924. Director. Bulletin N0. 318 . March 1924 THE RELATION BETWEEN RENTS AND AGRICULTURAL LAND VALUES IN THEORY AND IN PRACTICE by _ F. A. BUECHEL* INTRODUCTORY The year 1900 marks, in a general Way, a great turning point in the history of land in this country. Before this date the most striking characteristic of American agriculture was the relative abundance of good land which could be had for the taking, under our homestead, preemption, and similar laws; or at most, for a small price on easy terms. The ascent of the agricultural ladder from laborer or tenant to ownership by men of ambition, but with little money was easy, and the natural result was that land was not accorded a very high place among economic goods. During the past twenty years a veritable revolution has occurred in the relative position of land among the various categories of goods having value; from the position of almost a free good a few decades ago, and consequently regarded as of little economic im- portance, it has risen many fold in value and has come to occupy the central position in the field of agricultural economics. From now on indefinitely into the future, agricultural economists will devote an increasingly greater amount of time to the investiga tion and measurement of the factors that enter into land valuation with the view of arriving at scientific principles in the matter of land appraisals. This is becoming imperative: first, because of the establishment of our Federal Land Banks; second, the great need for a more equitable distribution of tax burdens; third, the rapid growth of tenancy in this country, and fourth, a sound national land policy for the settlement of undeveloped lands re- quires a careful classification and valuation of these lands. p Among the important factors that influence land value is the productive power of the land. Since this factor is measurable and admits of mathematical expression it has been made the principal point of attack in arriving at certain principles in the valuation of land in this work. Other factors are discussed and their importance estimated; their influence varies with place, time, and condition. It goes Without saying that a work of the proportion undertaken in this study can only touch the broader aspects of the problem and will serve only as an humble begin- ning to much more comprehensive studies to be made in this field in the immediate future. *In cooperation with the School of Agriculture, A. and M. College of Texas. 8 . Bulletin N0. 318 FACTORS ENTERING INTO LAND VALUATION The Capitalization of Rent When a man buys a piece of land he obtains a title to its 1 annual income in perpetuity. N0 matter how much or how little i this income might be (provided it were more than zero) no man i, could pay it all in advance, even for a single acre; but only a finite 3 sum is ever asked or paid for a piece of land, for the reason that . people prize a thing less and less highly as its prospective en- ‘ joyment becomes farther and farther removed. A rental of five T dollars receivable a year from now is valued less than five dollars today; if it is receivable two years from now we are willing to accept a still smaller sum if paid today; in three years a sum ‘ smaller still, and so on indefinitely. If these discounted future a rents were all added together We should have the present value of the piece of land which as stated above is merely the sum total of all future rents payable today. To express the above analysis more technically, present wants are estimated more highly than future wants, which leads to the discounting of future incomes “at a rate that reflects the prevailing premium on the present?" The ordinary Way of determining the value of a piece of land is to divide the annual rental by the current rate of interest. This is equivalent to finding the sum of an infinite series of pros- pective net annual rents (say $6.00) discounted at the same rate, which may be demonstrated as follows: “The present value of (a) dollars due in (t) years if the in- a terest be compounded annually at the rate (r) would be ——-— (1+r)‘ since (x) dollars compounded at rate r would give x(1i+r)‘, and if a x(1+r)‘=a, then x= If then the net income of a farm l+r)‘ be (a) dollars a year its value would be expressed by the equation: ‘ a a a a V= + ' + ad. inf. This is- <1+r> <1+r>2 ’<1+r>3 <1+r>* an infinite “geometrical progression with first term a l+r and ratio The limit of the sum of such a series is: 1+r 1 Fetter, F. A., Pub. of Am. Econ. Ass’n. Papers and proceedings of the 16th Annual sessions. Pt. I, p. 196. é; g a . which reduces to — . If Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 9 a 1+r TI-T Tl? We have then the formula for the value: I‘ a V= -— , which is the ordinary method of capitalizing rent.“ r But theacizual value of land differs from the amount as de- termined above for a variety of reasons, the detailed considera- tion of which will be taken up later. One or two modifying in- fiuences should, however, be touched upon at this time. According to the formula just set down if the annual rental were $6.00 per acre and the rate of capitalization were 5% the i value would be or $120.00. But if the rent were to remain constant and interest rates were to decline, say to 4%, the value would be $6 or $150.00. On the other hand if interest rates 4 were to rise’, all other factors remaining constant, the value of land would be reduced; e. g. if the rates were to rise to 8% the or $75.00. It will be seen from this that 8 value would be a changing interest rate accompanied by a constant rental is alone sufficient to account for important changes in land valuation. Before the war interest rates had a tendency to decline and this doubtless, was a large contributing factor in the rise of land val- ues. Another factor so closely related to this phase of the sub- , ject that it should be touched upon briefly here, is the influence ' would amount to if paid today. vEIrv-T, . of a prospective increase in rents in the future. The method of capitalization presented above assumes a constant rental and cap- italizes it, i. e., determines what the sum of all equal future rents If however, the future rents promise to be higher, this method would give a value less than would be encountered in actual practice. A very interesting cor- irection for this formula has, therefore, been offered byiDr. L. C. ‘Taylor, H. C., Agricultural Econ. p. 206. 10 Bulletin N0. 318 Graya as follows: Let V=value of land; a= annual net income; r=rate of capitalization; i=anticipated annual change in net in- come, then, a i $5.00 $.10 V=—+—~ e. g. V = ———— —|— r r2 - .05 (.05)’ J The original formula would have given $100.00 as the value of the land but the modified formula, which makes a correction; for a prospective rise in rent, increases this valuation to $140.00. Dr. Gray‘ says, “There seems to be much confusion prevalent as g to the future element in land values. some economists would j call the $140.00 land ‘overvalued.’ What they mean is either that 5 it is valued at more than present net incomes warrant, or at more than future incomes will probably justify, Whichever they I mean, they are misusing the term value. Land, being a fixed * good, cannot escape having its value based on an uncertain future. f That future will create a net income for it which is bound to be _ something different, either more or less, than present income. 7i Not one iota more of merit attaches to the assumption that the fu- ture income will be the same as present income than that it will l be a half more than present income. The value which is based e on an assumption of rising incomes is, therefore, just as real a i value as one based on the assumption of present incomes perpet- uated. ‘Overvaluation’ is therefore impossible. This of course, does not mean that it is improper to believe that land valuations may be based on too ardent hopes.” The optimism of landowners that the income from land will .; increase in the future is based on the belief that with the pro- ; gress of society the competition for the use of land will cause a l rise in rents. This buoyant feeling regarding the future incomes j from land first became pronounced about 1900 when it was sud- denly realized that the free land of good quality was virtually * exhausted and that what was left could be cultivated only after an expenditure of capital for irrigation, drainage, or otherwise, l which would make its cost comparable with higher priced land already under cultivation. This consciousness of complete oc- cupation of the good land of the country naturally inspired hope —more or less subconscious—for rising prices of farm products, which in turn would make for a rising rent and, therefore, rising land values. These forces were plainly in evidence as stated be- fore, as early as 1900 and were in progress in 1915 when a new or $140.00. ‘Paper of Dr. L. C. Gray read before the American Farm Economic Association November 1919. ’ Note: Technical Bulletin No. 9, University of Minnesota Experiment Station, by G. C. Haas, contains an interesting Statistical Study of Sales Prices as a basis for land appraisal. ‘Paper of Dr. L. C. Gray read before the American Farm Economic Association November 1919. Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 11 impetus was added by the war. Between 1915 and 1919 the prices of farm products increased 130%, and as the farmer’s expenses did not rise in proportion there resulted a rapidly rising net rent. It is very interesting to observe, however, that Whereas between 1900 and 1915 while the increase in value per acre of farm pro- ducts was 66.8% the value of land rose 100%, between 1915 and 1919 when the increase in value of farm products was 130 % the value of land rose only 67%. And to make the comparison still more emphatic, the study showing the increase of values during the latter period was for Iowa, where the frenzy of land specu- lation reached its peak, while in the first period it was for the country as a whole. This illustrates quite clearly that there was a different psychological attitude toward the prospective future increases in land incomes during the two periods: that is to say, in the first period it had come to be felt that rising incomes from land were a perfectly normal condition which might properly be expected to continue indefinitely into the future, and were there- fore allowed for liberally in the process of capitalization; while in the second period the extremely rapid rise in prices and consequent rise in net rents was recognized to be due to the ab- normal conditions of war, which must end sooner or later with a resulting diminution of net income. The rising net rent during the war was, therefore, not projected indefinitely into the future, as in the previous period, and capitalized; but only that part of the increase which it was generally thought would persist after the abnormal situation had subsided. It had come to be generally believed, however as the abnormal war period advanced, that while it was unreasonable to expect the high prices and high in- comes of the War to continue at the high level then existing, nevertheless, it would be many years, and possibly never, before prices and net returns from farms would come down to the level that existed before the war. This partially explains at least why land values rose relatively less between 1915 and 1919 with a rise in the price of farm products of 130% than between 1900 and 1915 when prices of farm products rose only 66.7%. Professor Taylor makes some observations upon this subject that are Worth quoting at some length. He says :5 “The presence of so many uncertainties makes the buying of land partake, more or less, of the character of speculation and during times of prosperity the tendency is for men to be opti- mistic and over-estimate the probabilities of a rise in rents or a fall in the rate of interest. On the other hand, when periods of depression come, the tendency is for men to underestimate the future possibilities. As a result of this psychological element, - the tendency is for the price of land to rise too high during pe- ‘Taylor—Agricultux-al Economics, pp. 208-209. 12 Bulletin No. 318 riods of prosperity and to sink too 10W during periods of de- i pression. As many years are usually required for one of these ‘ changes from undervaluation to overvaluation to take place, land . does not lend itself so readily to speculation as does Wheat, for ‘ example; and yet the man with plenty of funds which are avail- , able at the right time may win large profits from speculative land. Speculation, if indulged in at the proper time, may keep the 5, price of land from falling so low as it might otherwise do in times ' of depression, and also from rising so high as it otherwise might during the time of inflated values. This is true only where the speculator is wise enough to buy when prices are too low and t0 sell when the values rise too high. Unwise speculation in land may have the very opposite result.” The foregoing quotation suggests that we should know what the term speculation means; and also that there are two kinds of speculation--good speculation, or speculation in the economic sense; and bad speculation, or speculation that is waste- a ful. We have good speculation when the speculator carefully weighs all the factors involved in land valuation, calling to his aid the most improved statistical methods that will enable him to rationally forecast future tendencies. Such a speculator will buy when prices are relatively too low and sell when prices are relatively too high. The result of such speculation is the har- monizing of land prices to supply and demand conditions, taking into account not only immediate but future conditions. Bad spec- ulation is the converse of speculation in the economic sense and were it not for introducing another much abused term which would call for definition, I should say it is closely akin to “gam- bling.” Unfortunately there has been a great deal of bad spec- ulation in agricultural land during the past four years. Instead of purchasing when land is low and selling when it is high spec- ulators have too often done the opposite and have helped to ele- vate the crest and depress the trough of land prices thus inten- sifying the evil at both extremes of the economic cycle. While the factors entering into land valuation are extremely complex, land speculators who know how to interpret these factors may exert a steadying influence upon prices of land and thus render a great social service. Men in the public service, as for example those employed in certain divisions of the Federal Bureau of - Agricultural Economics, in departments of agricultural economics in agricultural colleges, as well as those engaged in private bus- iness such as bankers, and editors, may render a similar serv- ice by calling attention to inflated or deflated land prices and thus help to bring them to a proper level. Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 13 OTHER FACTORS The Farm as a Home A farm, as a rule, constitutes both a means of gaining an independent livelihood and a home. In the city the business or E profession and the home are almost invariably distinct. The T home is a consumption good, and has value because it provides E direct enjoyment; while a business attains value because it pro- vides enjoyment indirectly through the creation of goods or services that yield profits. City residents rarely expect their homes to yield an income other than the direct satisfaction that p O comes to the family. l It is different with the farm home. Here the two elements Lf the business and the home-are inextricably blended. When We ‘f speak of the relation of land income to land value the distinction is usually not made between these two elements with the result that the returns from the farm appear abnormally low. The - value of land is usually expressed as so much an acre and this in- cludes an element-a consumption good—-from which no ob- jective return may properly be expected. If this were taken into account it Would afford a partial explanation of why land is worth imore than the net income capitalized at the current rate of in- terest. In proportion as the home possesses certain conveniences of arrangement Within the house and easy access to neighbors and the trading point, it will form more or less a part of the val- uation ascribed to the land. If, therefore, the capitalization of net rent at the current rate of interest is taken as the starting point in the determina- tion of land value this would not be the actual value of the land because it would not include the value of the home, which as a direct consumption good, furnishes its utilities directly and not in the form of a net rent which may be capitalized. In so far then as a home furnishes utilities in the form of comforts, a fine view, scenery, or social prestige, it would have value and if net rental is used as the sole basis of value determination, it will man- ifest itself by a tendency to lower the rate of capitalization. The possibility of greater independence on a farm, so far at least as social relations are concerned, is another factor contrib- uting to a low rate of capitalization of net annual income. Where so-called “amenities” are not largely present, as e. g. in the state of Arkansas, the rate of capitalization is relatively high. Community Development In speaking to the president of the Federal Land Bank at Houston regarding the factors entering into land valuation, I discovered that he ranked community development second only 14 Bulletin N0. 318 to the productive power of land as an element in land valuation; and he appeared to be in doubt as to Whether it should not in some instances be accorded first place. Community development is generally understood to mean the existence or construction of good roads, bridges, school houses, and churches, from the standpoint of the public; and good homes, fences and outbuildings, nice groves, well-kept gardens, lawns and hedges, as pertaining to the individual farm. It is true that there is a close correlation between high productivity of land and the community development; but it often happens that in two communities having equally fertile land, the one with the ‘highest development as interpreted above will have much the higher land values. Even in localities where the land is not very fertile, by industry and thrift a high degree of community development frequently is attained, resulting in relatively high valuation of the land in the community. Community development is, therefore, given very favorable recognition in the making of loans by the Federal Land Banks. It furnishes a stability upon which to base a loan that mere fer- tility of the soil or other natural advantage does not afford. For a high degree of community development implies a cooperative spirit among the citizens which in itself is an asset susceptible of measurement in terms of dollars and cents; it corresponds some- what to personal integrity as a basis of credit for the individual/ That community development is capitalized into farm value is clearly recognized in the following passage: “The tenant’s reaction is revealed in his opposition to im- proved roads, better transportation and communication facilities, and more expensive and permanent farm improvements, for all these represent to him increased values of farm land and a tax rate that will burden him beyond his ability to bear. The same ‘reasoning has caused him to oppose local taxes for school pur- poses. Farm tenantry, therefore, stands in the way and blocks rural progress.“ _ While Dr. G. S. Wehrwein’ recognizes that “amenities” en- hance land values he criticises the foregoing quotation as fol- lows: “This is contrary to the observations of the writer. It is the landowner who opposes such improvements and there are plenty of instances where tenants have been threatened with ejection if they voted for school tax.” He cites various author- ities in confirmation of his views. Both of the writers quoted recognize the influence of community development upon land values but differ in their interpretation of the reaction of owners and tenants toward such improvements. ° Bizzell, W. B., Farm Tenantry in the U. S-, pp. 160-161. Tex. Sta. Bul. 278. "Thesis, U. Wisc., 1922. ~ ~ ~ Hlwqav-W-wuwwwqwm-m Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 15. Personal Preference Personal preference may take various forms. It may, for p; example, take the form of preference for farming as against any other occupation. 2 have a tendency to create higher land values than normal, be- cause of the willingness of the individual with this preference to sacrifice a larger income in some other occupation. l sult in bidding so high for the land as to furnish a relatively small return for labor and capital. The presumption here is, of course, that not merely one, but many have this occupational preference. In a completely settled country this would It will re- Then again it may take the form of a preference for a par- ’ ticular farm; it may be for purely sentimental reasons; simi- , lfarity to the old farm home for example, or purely a matter of ~’ ancy. F sum for the land out of all proportion to the capitalized net rent. , Analogous to this, we often find entire communities of foreigners settling in a section because of its resemblance, real or fancied, to their homeland, in climate and topography. The Swiss settle- In such a case an individual might be willing to pay a ment in Green County, Wisconsin, serves as an illustration. It frequently happens that family ties and traditions are so it strong in the community that rather than go to a new section of country a man will be but little influenced by the relative rate of income. Such high prices will be paid for the land that if the in- come is expressed in terms of the rate of return on the purchase price the rate appears ridiculously low. I have in mind numerous instances where this holds true in Northwestern Iowa and South- western Minnesota. A man may prefer to invest his surplus in lands adjacent to what he now owns rather than at a distance where he would have to contend with difficulties of supervision, fraud, and travel. Where a large number in the community have a similar prefer- ence land values are likely to bear but little relation to rent; or putting it another way, the rate of capitalization will be very low. Prospects of Future Rents and Interest Rates The influence of future rents has already been touched upon and will require but passing notice at this point. It was noted above that if capitalization of land were based entirely upon net income, it does not follow that it would equal the capitalization of present income at the current rate of interest. It will be greater or less according as people believe that rents will rise or fall; or that interest rates will fall and rents rise or interest rates rise and rents fall. If the prospects are for falling rents and a brisk d-emand for capital or high interest rates, as was the case after the American Civil War, it Will soon be reflected in lower land values. 16 Bulletin N0. 318 Henry Wallace says in this connection: following the Civil War. been bought for $60.00 an acre. farmers of the East have been selling land at about the cost of im- provements, and is some cases for less.” For many years the farmers of the Middle West have been experiencing ‘constantly increasing rents. frequently worth thirty to forty times the rent. of declining rents? portant difference between the present agricultural reaction and the reaction following the Civil War. land with consequent over-production and fall .in price. are no discernable prospects of such epoch-making machinery as appeared contemporaneously with the opening up of the rich a virgin soil of the Mississippi basin. We are, however, confronted with the prospect of a declining foreign market for our farm pro- ducts as Europe becomes more nearly self-sustaining. Just how all , these factors will influence land values during the coming decades - At present a feeling of uncertainty prevails 1 is hard to predict. thruout the country regarding the true value of agricultural lands. Contrast this condition with the spirit that prevailed four years ago as illustrated by the following passage?‘ “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. 5% interest on deferred payments on the market price of local farm land and make a living. get commensurate results from the soil. and he is willing to take the gambler’s chance with a dubious in- vestment.” Not only the climate, but the optimism of California is capitalized and forms a large element in the price of land. “Review of the Report of Land holdings in Southern California in the Survey for 1i Quoted by W. B. Bizzell in Farm Tenantry in the U. S., Tex. Sta. i May 24, 1919, D. 310. Bul. 278, p. 152. “The Pennsylvania farmi on which my father was born was worth about $160.00 an acre‘ Thirty years afterward it could have i} The Eastern farmer could not. compete with the flood of cheap agricultural products which, flowed from the Great West; and for twenty years past the‘ The result is that instead of land values being j equal to twenty times the annual rent as in the East, they are i But what is ; the prospect today? Are not farmers facing an indefinite series It is hard to say. But there is this im- i We are not today facing i the possibility of opening up a vast area of highly productive There " In San Diego l, County it is a common saying that no farmer can possibly pay- In every southern county the f seeker of farm land is confronted with prices which he knows, s if he pays them, involve grave risk to himself in the attempt to When he pays these _ prices he does so because, for other than strictly economic rea- * sons, he has fixed upon some particular locality for a homestead ; l...» ~41 Y-n Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 17 HIGH POWER SALESMANSHIP This consists of artificially stimulating land prices without reference to the productive power or any other attribute of , value. During the boom period in 1919 it was common for groups of men in eastern South Dakota to stage land sales, in prepara- tion for which they advertised elaborately in all the larger news- papers over a wide area. “Mock” bidding by the members of the “inner circles” kept prices soaring on a high plane. The _most ex- aggerated “jargon” of the auctioneer was greedily accepted. When the prospective purchasers were told that the land which was being offered for sale at two hundred to three hundred dol- lars an acre would soon be worth five hundred dollars they greed- ily calculated the increment to be gained by immediate purchase and each one became nervous for fear some one else would “beat him to it.” In one case a tract of about six hundred acres, which could have been bought the year before for seventy-five dollars an acre was sold for two hundred and twenty-five. Often the same farm would be sold three or four times within two months at an increase of ten to twenty-five dollars an acre each time. Akin to the methods above described are those used by many private Colonization companies. In Texas We have large areas of agricultural land available for colonization and it is to be hoped that means will be found to open up this land at the proper time under the most approved methods of land settlement. In this matter the State may properly play an important part. Before the land is opened up for settlement careful surveys—soil and economic--should be made and the information made available to prospective settlers. Land values in colonization projects should be conservatively calculated. A System of Land Credit A system of land credit may, by lowering interest rates, increase the value of land and in this way make the prospective buyer pay the same amount of interest and a larger principal. Taylor” says: “The effect of better credit, in this regard, depends upon the source of the funds. If, for example, the federal farm loan bonds are sold in New York City and the money borrowed by Iowa Farmers, the effect might be to force the price of land up. On the other hand, if the bonds were marketed in the very same region where the money is borrowed, the effect might be very different. Many Iowa farmers buy more land than they care to farm because they have no other safe investment available. When federal farm loan bonds can be bought at the country banks in Iowa many farmers who are now paying high prices ‘Agricultural Economics, pp. 184-185. 18 Bulletin N0. 318 for land just as a safe investment and many retired farmers who a hesitate t0 sell their farms for lack of a safe investment, will > prefer bonds to land.” Taylorthinks that by thus removing from §_ the demand side of the market a class of strong bidders for land, the wealthy farmers, the tendency would be toward lower values. ‘ Taxation A progressive tax on land has been proposed as a means of 1 discouraging wealthy farmers and others in the purchase of land. Since the ownership of land above a certain minimum would re- ' sult in an increasingly higher rate of tax thus reducing the net profit from the land, a point would soon be reached where it would be unprofitable to buy more land and strong competitors would thus be removed from the land market. This would have a natural tendency to depress land values. A law was enacted in Oklahoma in 1907 embracing this prin- ciple. The scale of rates was as follows: Acres Tax Rate 640 or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Normal — 640- 1280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ -|- 1A1, % 1280- 3000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ + 1% 3000- 5000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. “ + 2% 5000-10000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ + 5% 10000-25000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “ + 10 % The valuation for tax purposes was to be an average of $20.00 per acre for Oklahoma land. The same principle was applied to leased lands. The law was declared unconstitutional. The Ralston-Nolan bill pending in Congress also has for its ' object the reduction of land values by forcing into use vast areas of “fertile lands” to be broken up into 80-acre tracts and distrib- uted among tenants and the unemployed of cities. Such a bill, if passed, and if it were to do what its advocates claim it will, would injure all farmers by increasing the competition of their h . .. mlietzmmmhumn .. n lA-l-mxmw “M .1». 1i ma- _>..\'an>¢4al_,-.Ql1ndni;v!h~&'4. . _, .. vY-p o». goods upon the markets; it would thus depress prices and would in addition injure a large percentage of farmers by adding an- ' other tax and thus reducing the value of their most important asset. Through taxation a very great influence may, therefore, be exerted upon land value. In summarizing the factors influencing or determining land values We should, therefore, include the following: future rents and interest rates; the farm as a home; community develop- ment; personal preference; high-power salesmanship; credit fa- cilities, and taxation. The relative importance of these elements will vary in dif- ferent sections of the country. It is clear from the analysis of the foregoing pages that we Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 19 may hardly expect to arrive at the true valuation of agricultural land through the process of capitalizing the current rent by the prevailing interest rate at a given time and place. It is equally evident that there must be some relation between the value of the land and its productive power. The following pages are de- voted to a statistical study for the determination of the relation of rents to land values in Brazos, Williamson, and Dallas Counties and a comparison of these figures with those obtained in sim- ilar studies in other typical agricultural states. RELATION OF RENTS TO LAND VALUES IN BRAZOS, DALLAS, AND WILLIAMSON COUNTIES. Before taking up the quantitative analysis of the data em- bodied in subsequent tables and graphs it is perhaps desirable to give first a brief description of the physical characteristics, types of farming and system of land tenure, of the counties under con- sideration, and second a brief statement concerning the sources of information and methods of computation under review. Brazos County Physical Characteristics-—The soil survey of Brazos County by the U. S. Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the Texas Experiment Station includes the following statements in its summary:1° “Brazos County is located in east central Texas, about 150 miles from the Gulf of Mexico, in that part of the Gulf Costal Plain known as the ‘East Texas Timber Belt.’ It has an area of 578 square miles, or 369,920 acres. “The surface is level to gently rolling and ranges in ele- vation from about 200 to 400 feet above sea level. The greater part of the County is well drained and practically all of it is cul- tivable. There is a natural division of the county into up- land and bottom land. The latter constitutes about 20% of the area. Most of the upland is forested, mainly with a small growth of post oak, but about one-fourth is treeless or prairie. The bottoms are forested with a variety of hardwoods, elm, hack- berry, ash, pecan, and oak predominating. “The mean annual temperature is about 68° F. The average annual rainfall is about 38 inches. Crops often suffer from sum- mer droughts. (It might also be added, from spring and autumn floods).” Types of Farming-“Brazos County is distinctly an agricul- tural county. Cotton is the chief crop.”11 Considerable corn is 1° Advance sheets—Field operations of the Bureau of Soils, 1914, p. 52. 1‘ Ibid. 20 Bulletin N0. 318 also grown and these two crops constitute virtually the sole - source of income of the majority of the farmers. Poultry and 3, v poultry products, fruits and berries, as well as pecan culture are g a few of the specialties that are beginning to receive considerable attention and give promise of substantial development in the fu- I ture. Absence of a good market for whole milk will doubtless A prevent the dairybusiness from ever assuming large propor- ‘l tions. Greater diversification, better tillage, more scientific _ methods in the treatment of the soil and control of excessive ' moisture and flood water are especially needed in the county to make it prosperous, as the chief drawbacks now are either soil depletion, shallow ploughing, 1nsuflicient fertilizer, and lack of sufficient terracing on the uplands and levees along the rivers. These adverse physical characteristics make farming highly speculative in this county. An abnormal relation between rents and land values will therefore not be surprising. Tenancy-The percentage of farms operated by tenants Was, as follows: 1900, 60.3% ; 1910, 59.9%; 1920, 47.8%. Al- most half of the share tenants were croppers, doubtless most of them colored. Dallas County Physical CharacteristicseDallas County lies nearly two hundred miles north and slightly west of Brazos County. In we‘ general topography and the character of its streams and bottom lands it is not very dissimilar to the latter, except that the sur- face is not so gently rolling and the river valleys are not so broad. Dallas County is one of the b'lack land counties and in con- trast with Brazos County is one of the most productive in the state. In everything that pertains to the qualities of the soil, (ex-- ' cept the bottom land), it is in marked contrast to Brazos County, but like the latter the bottom lands are subject to frequent floods and farming there is extremely uncertain. Types of Farming-In Dallas County cotton and corn are the most important crops but wheat and oats are also produced to a considerable extent. Dairying and the production of vari- ous specialties are important in the vicinity of the city of Dallas. Tenancy-The percentage of farms operated by tenants was in: 1900, 57.6% ; 1910, 66% ; and 1920, 63.2%. About one-third of the tenants were “croppers”? l 1‘ The term "croppers” is used here as in the Census Report. Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 21 Williamson County . Physical characteristics--Williamson County is less than 3 00 miles west of Brazos County. The eastern two-thirds of the unty, with the exception of a small area in the Southeast cor- er, is in the black-land belt, and the type of farming and the rops produced are s1milar to those of Dallas County. The estern third of the county is in a timber belt, and is more like razos County. While the land in the Western part of the unty is less productive than in the eastern part there is less nancy and a more diversified agriculture is practiced. The ‘ops produced are of the same kind as in Dallas County; in the utheastern corner of the county, however, watermelon culture a carried on quite extensively. _; Tenancy-The percentage of farms operated by tenants in 3111131118011 County was in: 1900, 60%; 1910, 59.1%; 1920, .1» 9.5% . Less than one-fourth of these were croppers. SHARE RENT Share rent is the dominant type of rent in the counties tudied; cash rent being met with but rarely. Before the pas- gage of the Texas Landlord-Tenant Law in 1915 cash rent seems to have predominated in many sections of the State. It will be of interest to pause for a moment to consider this interesting bit Texas Landlord-Tenant Law The Texas “Landlord-Tenant LaW,” passed in 1915, Was made as an amendment to Article 5475 of the Revised Civil p. shall have a prefer- gvence lien upon the property of the tenant for any rent and for any Emoney, animals, tools, supplies, etc., furnished by the landlord Efzwhich were necessary for the producing and marketing of the crop. . The amendment provided that this article should not apply ‘gwhere the tenant furnishes everything except the land, and where the landlord charges a rental of more than one-third of the value §of the grain and more than one-fourth of the value of the cotton raised on said land; nor Where the landlord furnishes everything ‘except the labor and the tenant furnishes the labor and the land- lord directly or indirectly charges a rental of more than one- half of the value of the grain or more than one-half of the value of the cotton raised on said ground. Not only was the landlord to lose the right of the preference A during the past few years, it has been necessary to determine the 1 22 Bulletin No. e18 lien but also of liens of any kind, either contractual or statuto A rental contract fixing a higher rent than the one stipulated s the law was to be null and void and not enforcable in the cou The tenant could also sue his landlord within two years aft such rent had been paid and recover from him double the amo 12 of rent so received or collected. ‘ The court cases that came up under the amendment ' Article 5475 were of three classes: (1) those involving t‘ proper interpretation of the rental contract; (2) those involv' the question of whether the law had been violated; (3) those ‘i; volving the constitutionality of the law. Under the first _ classes of cases the courts almost invariably found in favor of th - landlord because in addition to the use of the land the tenant h received valuable amenities. In the third class of cases the s ' preme court decided that the law violated the freedom of co e.-_-_- tract clause and the rights to property clause of both the Sta »~ and Federal Constitution and was therefore null and void. ‘i The apparent reason for the prejudice against cash ren, which resulted in the amendment described, was due to the -;,' vailing practice of exacting a bonus of one to three dollars a acre in addition to the regular rental. There can be no questio about the existence of the bonus evil; neither can there be doubt that the law failed to bring the desired relief. It did, how, ever, furnish some valuable political capital at the time and may“ therefore, be said to have fulfilled the mission for which it w 1i intended. ' ' 1 Whether the landlord or tenant was most responsible for th: origin and growth of the bonus system is an open question whicl it is not necessary to examine at this point. It should be said ' t} passing, however, that there is plenty of evidence to show tha there was exploitation of tenants by other tenants through th process of sub-leasing as well as exploitation of tenants by land lords, through the system of bonuses. When the landlord di_ covered that his tenants who were paying $4.00 an acre cas rent were sub-leasing at a much higher figure or, what amount d. to the same thing, were transferringtheir leases to others an‘) therewith were “incidentally” selling their equipment at a ve " high price, the landlord naturally felt that if there was to be any" additional return from the land he wanted to have it. Keen com; petition for the fertile black land and the tendency of cash rent l to remain static were responsible for the situation. - 7i Determination of the Cash Equivalent of Share Rent , On account of the relative scarcity of cash rents in Texas§ cash equivalent of the share rents. The amount of available data a on the subject, however, is very meager, the starting points in T Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 23 this work, therefore, were the U. S. Census, the U. S. Department of Agriculture Year-book, and fairly good samples of land sales from 1910 t0 1920. From these data as a basis by a process of statistical manipulation and interpolation the desired figures were deduced. The process by which the cash equivalent of the share rent was obtained will be discussed in detail in the following pages. The problem was: first, to secure adequate samples of land sales back as far as 1910 for the three counties studied, viz. Brazos, Dallas, and Williamson; second, to determine the cash equivalent per acre of the share rents; third, to calculate the ratio of the rent per acre to the average value per acre. The two prevailing types of share rent in the counties studied are: First, the tenant gives the landlord a third of the small grain and corn and a fourth of the cotton. In this type of rental the tenant furnishes the labor and equipment, the land- lord the land and buildings, The landlord also, in the case of cotton, pays for the expense of ginning, bagging, etc., in pro- portion to his share of the rent. Second, both the tenant and landlord receive half of the crop, the tenant furnishing the labor and the landlord the land, buildings, and equipment. The calculations made in this study were on the basis of the third-and-fourth share as this is by far the more common type of tenure; it also lends itself more readily to computation, for in the half-share system various deductions must be made to ar- rive at the net rental while in the third-and-fourth share system virtually no deductions need to be made and these are readily de- termined. In order to obtain the value of the shares it Was nec- essary to determine the production per acre of the staple crops. Production and acreage figured by counties are obtainable only in census years; during the intervening years these figures are given for the State only, not by counties. It was therefore necessary to interpolate between census years to obtain the de- sired acreage and production figures for these years. This was done by computing the ratio of acreage and of production of the three counties under consideration to the acreage and the pro- duction of the State for each census, for each crop from 1880 to 1920 inclusive. These ratios were plotted, and a straight line was fitted to the data to determine the trend. From these graphs the ratio of acreage and production of the respective counties studied to the acreage and production of the state could be read and the ratios of production of the county to the production of the State and the acreage of the county to the acreage of the State for each crop for the years intervening between census years were applied to the production and acreage of the state, thus obtaining the acreage and production for the counties dur- ing the years intervening between any two consecutive census years. The number of bushels or pounds per acre was readily 24 Bulletin N0. 318 obtained for each year and the share computed. The United States Department of Agriculture Yearbooks contain the prices of the staple crops and these applied to the share of the crop gave the value of the share. The rent per acre was obtained by adding together the values of the share of each crop per acre pro-rated in the proportions that each crop bore to the total area under cultivation. The figure thus obtained represents the re- turn upon the land actually cultivated, not the total area in farms. In order to spread this return over the entire area in farms it is necessary to determine the ratio of the cultivated area to the total area in farms and apply this ratio to the return on the cultivated area. This final figure is the net rental with which it is desired to compare the land values in order to discover the relation that exists between them. The ratios of rents to sales prices of the land were computed first by taking annual rents and annual sales prices and second by taking a three-year mov- ing average rent and a three-year moving sales price. The lat- ter are the more significant and are the ones that will be re- ferred to in this discussion. Some data were obtained on cash rents in Dallas and Wil- liamson Counties. While inferences may be drawn therefrom that are not fa_r from the truth, the analysis must be descriptive rather than quantitative. ANALYSIS OF TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS“ Tables-7, 8, and 9, show the r-atios of acreage and produc- tion respectively of cotton, corn, oats, and wheat, in Dallas, Williamson, and Brazos Counties, Texas, to the acreage and pro- duction of these crops for the entire state in the census years 1880, 1890, 1900, and 1920. Figures 1 to 10 represent straight lines fitted to plotted points which were located by using the ratios mentioned above as ordinates and the census years as abscissae. The lines were determined by the method of least squares and they show the secular trend of the ratio of acreage and production in the State from 1880 to 1920. From these lines the ratios of acreage and production of the respective crops men- tioned above were read for the years intervening between the census years. g Tables 10, 11, and 12, show the application of the ratios of acreage and production of cotton and corn of each of the three counties to that of the state, in order to determine the acreage and production for each county for each year. From these figures the average yield per acre was readily determined. In Tables 13 and 14, the same process was pursued to ob- l‘ See Appendix A for tables and charts referred to in subsequent pages. é i» i Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 25 l tain the yield per acre of Wheat and oats for Williamson and Dallas Counties. Since these crops are practically negligible in Brazos County no computations were made for them. Having determined the yield per acre for each of the staple crops for a period-of years, the next step was to determine the value per acre of the cotton lint, cotton seed, corn, wheat, and oats. Tables 15, 16, and 17, show the value per acre of the cotton lint, cotton seed, corn, wheat, and oats, and the value of the land- lord’s share of each of these crops. The prices used were taken from the U. S. Department of Agriculture Yearbook.“ To determine the value of the share of each acre it was nec- essary to find the proportion to be imputed to each of the con- ‘I tributing crops. Tables 18, 19, and 20, show the relative acreage of cotton, corn, wheat, and oats and the value of the share rental prorated on the basis of this ratio and the total share rental. The sum of the shares imputed to each of the contributing crops gave the net annual rent, or rather the rental from which all deduc- tion except taxes had been made. Tables 21, 22, and 23, show the ratio of rents to land value: first when only the cultivated land is taken into account; and, second, when all the land is taken into account. The latter is de- termined by applying the ratio of cultivated to total area in farms to the ratio of the rent on the cultivated area to sales value. Both the ratio of the three-year moving average rent to the three year moving average sale price on the total area in farms and the ratio of annual rent to sales price on the total area in farms is thus obtained. The ratios obtained by the use of the moving average, it will be observed, are more regular than are the ratios of the annual rent to the average annual sales price. Graphical Presentation Figure 11 shows a comparison of ratios of moving average rents to moving average sales prices from_ 1910 to 1920, in Brazos, Dallas, and Williamson Counties. Some striking dif- ferences and likenesses are at once discernible. It will be ob- served at once that the ratio of rents to land values are much higher in Brazos County than in either of the other two, and that the variation is very large-from 6% % in 1914, to almost 14% in 1916—in Brazos County; somewhat less, although considerable from 4% % to 10% % in Williamson County, and relatively small . -—4% % to 7 %—in Dallas County. It Will also be seen at a glance" that after a slight increase in the ratios in Dallas and Brazos Counties between 1910 and 1911 there was a gradual fall in the ratios up to 1915 in these counties. In Williamson County there “December 1, farm prices. 26 Bulletin N0. 318 was a rise until 1913, followed by a fall in 1914. All these counties show remarkable regularity in the rise and fall of ra- tios from 1915 to 1920, reaching the highest figure in 1916, but the degree of rise and fall varies greatly, being largest for Brazos, next largest for Williamson, and least for Dallas. The influence of the war, both in causing the depression of cotton prices as Well as other farm products in 1914 and the same influence causing the extreme rise in prices of these products beginning in 1915, is perhaps the most striking feature of the chart. It is readily explained by the fact that temporarily the normal relation between rents and land values was disturbed by the fact that farm incomes, and therefore the value of share rents, first fell and then rose sooner, and to a greater extent, than land values fell and rose. By 1917 land values were rapidly “taking up the slack” and by 1920 the normal ratio had again been reached, in every case with perhaps the exception of Wil- liamson County, where the ratio remained somewhat higher than normal. As was previously noted, Brazos and Williamson Counties display the widest variations in ratios during this ten-year pe- riod. In these counties too the ratios are the highest. Both of these counties have a high percentage of agricultural population; the descending order for the three counties is Brazos, William- son, and Dallas, and this also is the order of variation in the ratios. I believe this correlation is due to the fact that, in Dallas County, custom was less influential upon land values; there were more men with funds to invest, and, therefore, a relatively small increase in farm incomes, or prospects of increase, was more quickly capitalized into value than in the other two counties. This opinion I believe is further confirmed by the fact that of the two counties having the largest variation the one with the smaller urban population, Brazos County, shows the greater variation. Custom always has a firmer grip upon rural than upon urban people. Wealthy citizens of the city of Dallas fre- quently buy farms for the social prestige that land ownership confers and this would also make for a low rate of capitalization. Figure 12 illustrates the data discussed above in such a way as to show more clearly the variation in the ratios between the share rents and land values during the ten-year period. The wide variation in the ratios for Brazos and Williamson Counties as compared with Dallas County is here distinctly shown. By inspection of Figures 11 and 12, the arithmetic average of the ratios of share rents to values for Brazos County appears to be approximately 10% ; for Williamson County 7%, and for Dallas County slightly less than 6%. From these percentages a. deduction would have to be made for taxes. Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Laud Values 27 Tables 24, 25, and 26, show ratios of share rents to land value after deductions have been made for improvements. In my opinion these ratios are neither as significant nor as accurate as those in Tables 21, 22, and 23, and represented graphically in Figures 11 and 12, for the reason that share rents are a pay- ment not only for the land, but for the improvements as well. Cash Rents Cash rents are so rare in Texas that it is well nigh impos- sible to secure an adequate sample. The data given in Appendix B are perhaps well within a 10% error. After making allow- ance for taxes and other expenses, the net return to the landlord is very close to 4% in Dallas County; for Williamson County I am obliged to make an estimate based upon a direct canvas of the black-land portion of the county where I talked with both landlords and tenants and secured figures that are suggestive but not amenable to tabular arrangement. It appears that the net annual income from this land amounts to very nearly 5 % of the value of the land. It was impossible to secure any cash-rent data for Brazos County. I believe there are none except for a few small patches of ground in the immediate vicinity of Bryan. It appears, then, from the two counties-Dallas and Wil- liamson—in which a comparison can be made between net re- turn based upon cash rent and share rent, that the landlord re- ceives a return of approximately 2% less upon his real estate investment when he rents for cash than when he rents on shares. Bonuses The ratios given in tables 21, 22, and 23, probably represent a pretty close approximation to a net return to the landlord. It is not at all unlikely that the bonus paid by the tenant, especially in the black-land section in prosperous years, has a tendency to offset such expenses as taxes, insurance, and general expenses incurred by the landlord. The bonus is an irregular payment, however, which can be described but not accurately measured. Appendix C makes a comparison between the average sales value and the value as appraised by the Federal Land Bank for a number of years. On account of the short time the bank has been in operation, and during a large part of that time the opera- tion of the bank was suspended, it would be unjustifiable to at- tempt to draw definite conclusions. But the figures are sug- gestive. There certainly seems to be evidence that the appraisers were influenced by the rising prices in land during the boom pe- riod. In many cases the average annual appraised value was greater than the average annual sales prices. land, the tendency has been for rents to rise most rapidily; and, ‘getting only two to four per cent on his capitalization. His 28 ' Bulletin No. 31s Conclusions The foregoing analysis seems to show clearly that the ratio; of share rent to land values falls when there is a drop in price. or a poor crop and conversely; and when there is a tendency for the share rental to rise, for a series of years, land values very soon rise and the ratio of rents to land values diminish even though the value of the share rent continues to rise. ' » This seems to show that landlords expect a certain rate of; return and when the rents rise they increase the valuation of their land so as to receive the expected rate of return. The same? holds true whether the rent be cash or a share of the crop. Instead of a low rate of return being an evidence of unpro- fitableness of land ownership, the reverse is normally the case.’ For it is almost universally true that the lowest rate of returns is to be found on the best land for two reasons: first, on this second, as a result of this tendency the landlord has capitalized‘ the future increases as well as the present rent. Where the rents are stationary the rate of capitalization corresponds to the cur- rent rate of income and where the rents do not promise to in- crease the rates will be above normal. It is, therefore, folly for. the landlord to complain that he is getting only two to four per cent on his investment. Accuracy requires him to say that he is‘ actual investment may have been but a small fraction of his pres ,_» ent capitalization. Had he not increased his capitalization would perhaps have received at least the current rate of returns; on his original investment. . The income from land on the basis of cash rent seems to b about two per cent less than upon the basis of share rent and in the case of Brazos County, I presume the discrepancy would 0Q greater still. . < The variations in the rate of return are very marked in th three counties and the rate varies directly as the degree of spe ulative risk. Appraisers of land appear to be influenced too much by th prevailing land prices. To be scientific, land appraisal must v- based not on customary selling value, but on the prospective a turns imputable to it, and by other attributes of value that a» land may possess. ‘ Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Valaes 29 RELATION OF RENTS TO LAND VALUES IN OTHER STATES Studies have been made in a number of other states" for the purpose of showing the relation of rents to land values, but unfortunately the study in each case was confined to a single year instead of a series of years. Wisconsin-—For the state of Wisconsin we have the census report of 1920 and a study made by Dr. J. D. Black“ in 1917. Table 1 shows the percentage of return on land valuation for eight counties in that state. The tenants were classified as ( 1) relatives, (2) not relatives; and the latter were divided into those who were on the farm one year and all others. The last subdi- vision, “all others,” doubtless refers both to those who had a lease covering a period of years and to those who renewed their lease from year to year. In both cases the rents paid were evi- dently influenced by ante-war conditions, for the per cent of re- turn on land valuation is invariably less than in the case of those who were on the farm only one year. Apparently whenever a lease expired, rents took a substantial rise, on account of war prices. In a bare majority of the counties the average rent paid by relatives was less than that classified as “all others.” Table 2 was prepared by Dr. J. D. Black" as a result of a study of 396 cash-rented farms in southwestern Wisconsin show- ing per cents of market valuations. 1‘ See Kentucky Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. No. 240; U. S. D. A. Bul. No. 874; Missouri Exp. Sta. Bul. No. 167; Minnesota Exp. Sta. Technical Bul. No. 9. " Proceedings of the American Association for Agricultural Legislation, 1919. 1" Ibid. 3O Bulletin N0. 318 TABLE 1 ‘ PERCENTAGE or Rrzrunns 0N LAND VALu/{Tlon m EIGHT Couuruzs 1n WISCONSIN (percentages) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ‘Y? E a é‘; “a E g n; ‘U a) g U é U 3 Q < f,’ § $.91 o ‘<3 o ‘J *2 g Z- 1» w _ _ o 3 w y: gm: F, a =1 5'2 a, =1 h t. w: t. 1. v =1 = 5 p a ._. a 0- u a: :1 o 3 u fl k g"; 8 z u Q Q ff} 3B1 2 o. j: n. a‘: .2 > ti - 1 2 Dane... . . Farms rented to l. relativczs. . . . . . . 196 125 ,205 26 ,664 18 ,848 38 ,161 143.12 4 . 70 3 . 28 N t rente to 0 relative: 1 yr. on farm. . . . 60 38,115 6 ,244 4 .504 9 ,620 154.07 6.10 3.96 All others . . . . . . . 163 88 ,278 18 ,815 12 ,876 26 ,682 141.81 4.69 3.31 Riehland Farms rented to . Nrelativzs. . . _ _ ._ 18 11 ,O14 2 ,509 1 ,512 3 ,310 131.93 4.39 3.33 0t rent: t0 relative: 1 yn on farm_ _ __ 21 8 ,841 2 ,024 908 1 ,666 82.31 4.37 5.31 All others . . . . . . . 7 4 ,398 727 382 939 129. l6 6.05 4.68 Ilffl-wfl Farms rented to l N rclativfis. . . . . . . 106 63 ,71s 12,989 s ,40s 16 ,913 130 . 21 4.91 3.77 o! rente to relative: 1 yr, on farm , _ , 43 24 ,558 4 ,427 2 ,908 5 ,527 124.85 5 . 55 4 A4 A11 othm-s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 100 51 ,362 11 ,966 7 ,082 14 ,576 121.81 4.29 3.53 g z D031! Farms rented to Nr¢1at;ves_ _ __ _ ‘ _ - 94 58 ,478 11 ,290 8 ,057 17 ,830 154.94 5.18 3.28 0t rented to l relative: f; _ 1 1 yr, on fafnL _ ‘ _ ,82O 4 ,047 2 ,77O 6 #151 6. 13 :9 All others. . . . . . . . 75 40 .799 8 330 5 $375 11 #339 128-31 4-62 3.60 1 R061! Farms rented to '3 Nrc]ativ?_ _ _ _ ‘ _ _ 46 35 ,411 6 ,6l4 5 ,287 1O ,277 155.38 3.35 345 w 0t rente t0 relative: »_ 1 yr. on farm. . . . 49 33 344 4 ,794 3 ,744 6 ,7‘)? 139-95 6-96 4.97 I All others . . . . . . . 82 52 .895 10 ,036 7 .787 15 .665 156.09 5.27 3.3a i4 @1011! Farms rented to j Nrclativzs. . . . . . _ 135 97 .325 23 ,644 15 ,9e1 30 .979 131.02 4.12 3_ 14 1 0t rente to ' ‘ relative: 1 yr. on farm. _ . . 65 48,481 s .639 5 ,313 10 ,659 123-38 5-62 4.55 All others . . . . . . . 135 104 ,269 22 ,6s1 14 ,607 29 ,395 129 . 77 4.60 3_55 Flmd d“ Farms _rcnted to o rente to relative: 1 yr. on farm. . . . ~34 21,270 3 ,624 2,433 4 .464 123.18 5.87 4,16 All others . . . . . . . 05 24 ,515 5 ,926 3 .327 7 A55 125.91 4.14 3.29 Wfllwvfill Farms rented to Nrclativfls. . . . . . . 64 42 ,972 8 ,934 5 .912 11 .955 133.81 4 4 31 3_59 0t rente to relative: _ 1 yr. on farm. . . . 73 53 ,552 8 ,505 6 ,178 12 ,229 143.79 6.30 4.38 All others . . . . . . . 95 57 ,789 11 ,395 8 .236 15 .866 139.24 5.07 3.64 Retatzbn Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 31 TABLE 2 Per cent of market valuations Number of farms 1.6 - 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 2.0 - 2.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 2.4 - 2.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 2.8 - 3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 3.2 - 3.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68 3.6 4.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..106 4.0 - 4.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85 4.4 - 4.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 4.8 - 5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 5.2 - 5.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 5.6 - 6.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 The striking thing shown by the table is the wide variation in rate of return—from 1.6% to 6.0%—though the data were secured over a relatively limited area. At a given time and place the variation should not have been so great if the data had been more accurate, as the author of the study has pointed out. The mode is clearly defined at the class 3.6-4.0 and as the table displays an almost normal frequency distribution, the arithmetic average of 3.8% would be expected to lie within the class; and as a matter of fact, it does. After deductions have been made for taxes, insurance, grass and clover seed, upkeep and depre- ciation, amounting to 1.49% of the market value, there is left a net rental of about 2.3%. It would be natural upon superficial observation to conclude that landlords are certainly not getting exorbitant returns from their investment, but such a conclusion is unwarranted for the reason that sales values as a rule do not represent investment, but rather expected future returns as already shown in another con- nection. The rate of return is based then not upon investment but upon the capitalized expected future rents. This annual return, however, has been very greatly supple- mented by the rise in land values. The price per acre of land doubled from 1900 to 1910 and increased at even a more rapid rate from 1915 to 1920, for the United States as a whole. Should we be confronted with the prospect that the existing level of rents will be maintained for a long period of years, land values would probably depreciate; for present land values are the result of a period when a future increase in rents was ex- pected and consequently capitalized. Table 1 shows the rate of interest on the investment (cap- italization) of 503 Iowa farms classified according to size :18 “Courtesy of O. G. Lloyd, one time Prof. of Agr. Econ., Ames, Iowa; now at Purdue University. 32 Bulletin N0. 318 TABLE 3 Area of Farm Acres Interest on Investment Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.48% 80 or less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.32% 81 - 120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2.54% 121 - 160 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.41% 161 - 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.41% 201 - 280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.51% 281 - 360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2.68% 361 and over. . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.50% The figures in Table 3 show the composite rate of return on market valuations. The three different types of rents included are: cash, share, and stock share; cash and share cash. The com- posite figures, above, are broken up into their constituent ele- ments, in the three following tables :19 TABLE 4 Cash Rented Size of Farm Acres Interest on Investment Per Cent Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.15 120 and less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.14 121 - 160 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2.10 161 - 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2.03 201 - 280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2.17 281 - 360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2.42 361 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2.48 TABLE 5 Share and Stock Share Size of Farm Acres Interest on Investment ~ Per Cent Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.7 9 "120 and less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2.25 121 - 160 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3.26 161 - 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.33 201 - 280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2.45 281 - 360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2.82 361 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.35 TABLE 6 Cash and Share Cash (Cash equivalent of share) Size of Farm Acres Interest on Investment ~ Per Cent Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.23 120 and less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3174 121 - 160 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3.11 161 - 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2.75 201 - 280 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.27 281 - 360 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3.31 361 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.07 It Will be seen at a glance that pure cash rents bear the smallest ratios to market valuations. 1” Courtesy of O. G. Lloyd, one time Prof. of Agr. Econ., Ames, Iowa, now at Purdue University. I 13w“ swam mnwwy _“1>‘|§gv~v Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 33 It is of interest to compare the rate of return on market val- uation in each case. The average for cash-rented land is 2.15 % ; for share and stock share 2.79 % ; and for straight share 3.23 % . l It is furthermore of interest to compare these figures with those i; obtained for Dallas County, Texas.” Iowa In Iowa the rate of return on share-rented land is about 1 % greater than on cash-rented land, while in Dallas County, Texas, it is about 2 % greater and the rate of return in theTexas county is about twice as great as it is in Iowa with either type of rent- Vi. ing, about 2 % in Iowa to 4% in Texas in the case of cash rent; and 3 % in Iowa to 6 % in Texas in the case of share rents. The figures seem to clearly bear out the theory that land values are based not alone on the capitalization of present rents,. but in addition thereto on the capitalization of all prospective future increases of this rent. If the people are optimistic rents will rise, and land values will rise accordingly so that based upon ' present income the rate of return upon land will be very low. It may be stated as a rule, then, that where the rate of returns upon land is 10w it is due to extreme optimism as to the future in- crease in returns from land, thus resulting in a land valuation much greater than would be the case if merely the current rent were capitalized at the prevailing rate of interest. ABSTRACT The Abstract Economists’ Conception 0f Rent—Throughout ancient and medieval times the payments made by the tillers of , the soil for the land were not rents in the abstract economist’s sense of the term; for the economist assumes competition; as- sumes that the landlord and farmer are guided only by commer- cial principles; that there is an average rate of profit which the l farmer knows; that he will not take less and cannot get more. l’ However labor services and dues came to be fixed, they Were fixed at some earlier period, and became crystalized into custom. In England these labor services were fixed at the time of l. the Conquest, 1066; they remained unchanged till they were Q commuted for money; and when they had once been commuted, no .-_ increase took place in the money rent. The chief thought of lord s. and tenant was not what the tenant could possibly pay but what was customary. It is therefore obvious that throughout this long period, no theory of rent in the modern sense of the term had in the slight- est degree been suggested. ” Appendix A. 34 Bulletin N0. 318 The Hundred Years War, the Black Death, and the War of the Roses, affected profoundly the conditions of agriculture in England. As a result of these disturbances, farm labor rose rapidly in price and in order to escape the payment of the high wages the small strips which prevailed under feudal tenure were consolidated and used for sheep pastures, thereby greatly reduc- ing the amount of labor required. The production of cereals was consequently reduced, while at the same time the demand on the market was increased on account of the increase of popula- tion in urban centers. Both influences tended to increase the price of grain. p The Mercantilists—The subject of rent accordingly began to attract attention and efiorts were made to explain its nature and origin. The “Surveyor’s Dialogue” has been cited herein as an early instance of a discussion of rent, and of a remonstrance by the tenant against rising rents. Sir William Petty was among the first to give the subject careful attention and displays a fairly clear notion of the nature of rent. He says in substance that rent is the surplus above the cost of labor and capital. He also appears to have sensed the ex- istence and significance of the margins of cultivation. He warns farmers against expenditures for improvements beyond the point where the cost of production upon the old land equals the cost upon the wild lands, or as We would now express it: “The ex- tensive and intensive margins should always be in equilibrium.” And he very clearly foreshadows the differential theory of the measurement of rent, from the extensive margin of cultivation. Locke regarded falling rents as “an infallible sign of your decay of wealth” and insisted that the nation should do its ut- most to raise them, for this would be an advantage to the Jfynd- lord and consequently to the public. Vanderlint advanced the idea that the cause of high rents was the excess of demand over the supply of farms, and consequently advocated bringing new lands into use. Steuart makes some interesting quantitative observations on the question of rent. He clearly foreshadows Von Thunen’s theory of the influence of location upon rent, and therefore ap- pears to have a clear notion of the extensive margin of cul- tivation. The mercantilists may therefore be said to have clearly fore- shadowed the doctrine of differential rent. The Physiocrats—-The physiocrats devoted a great deal of attention to the “produit net” of land; in fact, it was the cen- tral theme in their whole philosophy. This “produit net” was the same as the rent of the classical economists but its origin and nature was explained in a radically different way by the two schools. Relation Between. Rents and Agricultural Land Values 35 Upon the basis of the “produit net” the physiocrats worked out their entire system of distribution and their theory of tax- ation. Adam Smith was greatly influenced by the physiocrats in the part of his work which relates to Distribution and there- fore it is not surprising to find that he has the same misconcep- tion of rent that they had. But he is not consistent in his treat- ment of the subject and Ricardo selects certain passages of the Wealth of Nations which seem to indicate that Smith had the correct idea of differential rent; and again he quotes other pas- sages which prove conclusively that Smith had not grasped the idea. It is very probable that the glimpses of the true theory of differential rent occasionally displayed in the “Wealth of Na- tions,” furnished valuable suggestions to Ricardo and his con- temporaries in their development of the theory. The _ Ricardians-Anderson, Malthus, West, and Ricardo, may properly be considered as joint authors of the theory of Difiierential Rent which is commonly associated with Ricardo’s name. All of the essential principles of the doctrine had been clearly enunciated by one or more of these men before Ricardo’s work appeared, but in his work alone were all the elements brought together and placed in proper relation to each other. During Ricardo’s time and since, much of the criticism of the ‘Ricardian doctrine has been due to the refusal of the critics to view the doctrine from the dual aspect of the extensive and in- tensive margins of cultivation, and the necessary equilibrium of these two margins. The tendency has always been to crit- icise the doctrine by consciously or unconsciously ignoring one or the other of the two fundamental aspects of the theory. As early as 1820 Ricardo answered Say’s critisism by clearly point- in? out that the differential theory did not require the existence of no-rent land, and Say admitted his error. But the same mis- conception of the theory has persisted up to the present time, and even F. A. Walker stated emphatically that the existence of no- rent land is essential to the validity of the Ricardian doctrine. Critics of the Diflerential Theory of Rent--The Ricardian doctrine has been subjected to criticism for a century, largely on the basis of two implications involved in it, viz: (1) its pessi- mistic outlook, and (2) the relation of rent to price. The early critics, especially the Americans, were outspoken in their denunciation of Ricardianism and the pessimistic as- pects of the theory. They thought Ricardo’s doctrine was in- applicable to this country; and that the theory was invented to suit the conditions of England and that it could not hold in the United States because we had no distinct class supported by wages, and because a growth of population here caused increas- ing returns and lower prices. Still other criticisms were: First, 36 Bulletin N0. 318 the origin of rent is not found in the different qualities of soil but in the scarcity of soil suited to different kinds of crops. Second, all lands under cultivation pay a rent because they are valuable. Third, there are no original and indestructible qual- ities of the soil. Fourth, like machinery, agricultural lands are the products of labor. Fifth, society is so organized that one in- dustry aids other industries; therefore, the interests of classes are not antagonistic in nature. Sixth, Ricardo’s theory is a fal- lacy of inversion; the poorest land brought under cultivation does not determine price, but price determines the poorest land brought under cultivation. Seventh, the order of cultivation is from the poor land to the rich and not from rich to poor as Ricardo teaches. Eighth, demands for produce increase more rapidly than do improvement in husbandry; therefore, improve- ‘ments augment rather than lower rent. Ninth, land is not a dis- tinct factor in production, but a form of capital. One of the early American Writers, H. C. Carey, was by far ‘the most prolific, and his Writings embraced all the errorsmade by the various American writers of the time on account of the peculiar environment under which they lived. A wilderness stretched before their vision which they thought would require a thousand years to subdue, but Which has nevertheless been subdued in less than a hundred years. Labor was to them the limiting factor, While to Ricardo land Was. The events of the last half century seem to confirm the theory of Malthus and Ricardo. In England, Richard Jones was among the earliest of the adverse critics of Ricardo. He classified rents as farmer’s rents and peasant rents and held that at best the Ricardian Doctrine would apply only to the former, which embraced only a small fraction of the land tenure of the world. Even in its application to farrnerls rents, Jones accepted the Ricardian formula with important reservations. He did not accept the doctrine that in- creasing applications of labor and capital became less and less productive, but that inventions and improvements of all kinds would at least maintain the productivity of labor and capital at the existing level and possibly might even increase it. John Stuart Mill in England and F. A. Walker in America, accepted the Ricardian doctrine. But Mill, in making What he considered an unimportant qualification to the doctrine, drove the entering Wedge for very damaging criticism in recent years. ‘The Ricardian doctrine was designed to show that rent does not constitute a part of the price of farm products. But Mill sug- gested that rent might enter into price under certain remote con- tingencies, conceivable, but not probable: first, in case of ab- solute scarcity, where no more marginal and submarginal lands exist and all lands therefore bear a rent; and, second, Where Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 37 land is marginal for a given purpose, but capable of bearing a rent in some alternative use. Jevons pointed out that What Mill regarded the exception has proved to be the general rule. Von Wieser accepts the Ricardian doctrine of the differen- tial character of rent, but he contends that the doctrine is inade- quate in that it fails to recognize that all lands and powers of lands bear rent. According to Von Wieser, all that Ricardo’s doctrine tells us is that certain lands have more imputed to them than others by the amount of their surplus return. He concludes that a law of universal rent and a law of universal imputation are identical and that a theory which has no formula for the former confesses its utter inability to solve the problem of val- uation of production goods generally. Amplifications and Refiinements of the Doctrine 0f Rent— Alfred Marshall declared that “the rent of land is the leading species of a large genus.” J. B. Clark applied the differential principle to the determination of the surplus attributable to labor and capital. Clark does not regard land as a distinct fac- tor in production. At an earlier date, F. A. Walker had shown that a differential existed in the case of profits as well as in the case of land, and Hobson worked out his “law of the three rents” in the early- 90’s. More recently Taylor has shown that farmers vary in qualitative and quantitative efficiency which gives rise to a surplus or differential rent. Moreover, consumer’s and pro- ducer’s surpluses have frequently, but improperly, been spoken of as rent. Rent on the M argin-J ts Relation to Price-A great deal of controversy has centered about the question: does rent enter into price? Ricardo and his disciples maintain that it does not; the critics of the Ricardian school maintain that rent on the margin enters price, but that difierential rent does not. Among the present-day adherents of the Ricardian doctrine on this issue are Haney, Hollander, Ely, and Taussig; among those who hold that rent may enter price are Fetter, Patten, Hobson, and A. S. Johnson. This divergence of opinion is due largely to the dif- ferent assumptions as to the possibility of relative increase of the factors of production: the first group assumes that the supply of land uses cannot be increased as rapidly as labor energy and cap- ital power; the second group assumes that all three factors may be increased with equal facility. In this way they reduce to an absurdity the argument for the measurement of rent, from the intensive margin by proving that by the same argument it may be shown that neither wages nor interest enters into price. Having thus disposed of the intensive margin as a basis for rent determination, the opponents of the Ricardian doctrine hold that the measurement of rent must be based entirely on the ex- 38 Bulletin N0. 318 tensive margin. But here rent may enter into price because of the alternative use to which land may be put. The argument, as intimated above, is not conclusive because it is based on a doubtful premise. The Measurement of Reut—Professor H. C. Taylor has habnw»...h.v . f1 .>. J “l... v."»4.nllfialrnd$..fld4 shown that rent is not measured by a simple differential arising from one variable, viz: the difference in the productivityof dif- ferent pieces of land, but by a complex difierential resulting from i the interaction of three variables; variation in the productivity F of land, in the intensity of culture, and in the efficiency of farmers. ‘ THE THEORY OF LAND VALUE Land value is, in theory, based upon the prospective receipt of rents indefinitely into the future. The sum of these pros- pective rents, capitalized at a rate that reflects the prevailing premium on the present, is the theoretical value of the land. The value of the land, will, therefore, vary with: first, changes in prospective future rents; and, second, changes in interest rates. But this method of arriving at the valuation of land is based upon the assumption that land is valued solely for its income- bearing powers; and that the prospective rent is a net income from which no deduction need be made. Neither of these asump- tions is entirely correct and, therefore, there is to be found in ‘ the valuation of land throughout the United States more or less variation from the capitalization of prospective rents, depending upon the force of the modifying influences. Among the factors other than rent which exert an influence , upon land values, may be mentioned the following: the expec- tation of the comforts of a home; social relations; community development; love of nature; speculative returns; prospective‘ ease or difficulty of payment as influenced by a credit system or‘ by taxation. RELATIONS OF RENTS TO LAND VALUES IN CERTAIN? TEXAS COUNTIES The relation between contract rents and land values was de- termined on the basis of share rents for three counties in Texas, The relation was also de-*;‘ viz: Dallas, Williamson, and Brazos. JQ-‘d-‘dpfiilfii termined on the basis of cash rent for Dallas County; and a close approximation was made for Williamson County; no cash rent data whatever were available in Brazos County. The land sales between 1910 and 1920 were obtained for the three counties, the average value of the share crop was deter- Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 39 mined, and from these data the ratio between the average value of the share for each year and the average sales value of the land for each year was computed. All computations were tabulated and the ratios sought were represented in graphical form for purposes of comparison and analysis. g Marked variations in the ratios of the value of the share rent to the land value both with respect to the same county for the series of years and the different counties for the same year, are the most striking features of the study. The ratios are the most regular and are also the lowest in the‘ counties with the greatest wealth and the lowest speculative r1s . Landlords expect a certain rate of return for their land and if the rent rises or falls it is very soon reflected in land values. During the period from 1915 to 1920 rentsrose more rapidly than land values for a while with the resulting high ratio be- tween them; but the tendency to capitalize rents at a certain rate soon increased land values to the point where the normal relation between rents and value was restored, but with land valuation greatly increased. Where land is rented for cash the income from the land is about two per cent less than where it is rented for a share. This represents an element of risk and perhaps wages of man- agement of the landlord. In southern Wisconsin the rate of capitalization is lower than in Dallas County, Texas; and in the case of Williamson and Brazos Counties the discrepancy is still greater. The rate of capitalization in Iowa in 1913 was less than in Wisconsin in 1917. Since then the rate in Iowa has doubtless materially de- creased. . Appraisers of land appear to be influenced too much by the prevailing land prices. To be scientific, land appraisal must be based, not upon current selling value of land, but upon the prospective returns imputable to it, and by other attributes of value that the land may possess. In view of the great increase that has taken place in land values during recent years and the resulting demand for enor- mous expansion of credit for the purpose of land purchase, it is imperative that a scientific method of appraisal be developed. This fact is emphasized all the more because of the insistent de- mands of prospective purchasers for loans, more and more nearly approximating the full value of the land. 4O Bulletin No. 318 TABLE 7 Appendix A AcnnAcE AND rnonvcnon AND nzznxnvz: ACREAGB AND PRODUCTION or DALLAS Couwnr TO THAT or "rm-z STATE, r011 "m: CENSUS YEARS 1880-1920, INCLUSIVE, or COTTON, CORN, OATS, AND wmzn DALLAS COUNTY ACREAGE PRODUCTION PRODUCT YEAR TEXAS DALLAS Co. RATIO TEXAS DALLAS RATIO ACRES ACRES % BALES BALES % 1880 2178435 44377 2.02 805284 21469 2. 67 1890 3934525 54284 1.38 1471242 20815 1.41 COTTON . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1900 6960367 92028 1.32 2506212 37226 1.48 1910 9930179 150364 1.52 2455174 37712 1 . 54 1920 11522537 150302 1 .53 2971757 37020 1.24 Bu. BU. 1880 2468587 44044 1 .66 29065172 575667 1 .98 1890 3079907 58484 1 .89 69112 150 1802407 2.61 CORN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1900 5017690 89957 1.79 109970350 3302620 3.00 19 l0 5130052 73180 1 .09 100047969 959697 0 . 96 1920 4748655 49151 1 .03 108377282 1639618 1.51 1880 238010 8306 3.49 4893359 209281 4 . 27 1890 528924 15723 2.97 12581360 417484 3 .31 OATS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1900 847225 28282 3.34 24190668 1022850 3.00 19 10 440001 10204 2.32 70346 17 154226 2. 19 1920 1862933 41421 2 . 22 63989423 1448541 2.26 1880 373570 26854 8. 84 2567737 186460 7 .26 1890 352477 23584 6 .69 4283342 243873 5 . 69 WHEAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1900 1027947 46090 4.48 12266320 709560 5.78 1910 326176 3793 1 . 16 2560891 40429 1 . 57 1920 2414903 40239 1 . 66 36427255 584399 1 . 60 TABLE 8 Acumen AND rnonucnon AND RELATIVE ACREAGE AND PRODUCTION or Wxuuuason Counrv 1'0 THAT 01-" TEXAS, FOR THE CENSUS YEARS 1880-1920, INCLUSIVE, or COTTON, conu, OATS, AND wann- WILLIAMSON COUNTY ACREAGE PRODUCTION Paonuc-r Yum TEXAS WILLIAMSON RATIO TEXAS WILLIAMSON RATIO ACRES Co. ACRES % BALES Co. BALI-ZS % 1880 21 8435 18528 0.85 805234 4217 0.52 1890 39 4525 78419 1.99 1471242 33945 2.31 COTTON. . ; . . . . . . . . . . 1900 6960367 152659 2. 19 2506367 74658 2.98 1910 9930179 219546 2. 21 2455174 68721 2.80 1920 1 1522537 102119 0.89 2971757 11508 0 .39 Bu. U. 1880 2468587 25225 1 .02 29065 1 72 2027 1 1 0 . 68 1890 3079907 4 136 1 1 .34 6911 2 150 1203780 1 . 74 CORN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1900 5017690 81674 1~. 63 109970350 2502100 2.27 1910 5130052 62191 1.21 75498695 1034040 1.37 1920 4748655 58255 1 .23 10837 7282 2243826 2 .07 1880 238010 8634 3 .63 4893359 193490 3.95 1890 528924 7200 1 .36 12581360 158863 1 . 26 OATS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1900 847225 12992 1.53 24190668 233800 0.97 1910 440001 5236 1 . 19 7034617 102982 1 . 46 1920 1862933 31887 1 . 71 63989423 1325097 2.07 1880 373570 7901 2.11 2567737 56695 2.21 1890 352477 2004 0 . 57 4283344 16735 0.39 WHEAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1900 1027947 11274 1.10 12266320 111560 0.93 1910 326 176 175 0. 05 2560891 1244 0 . 05 1920 2414903 1 1531 0 .48 36427255 207250 0 . 57 Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 41 TABLE 9 ACREAGE AND nonucnou AND RELATIVE ACREAGE AND PRODUCTION or BRAZOS COUNTY T0 m.“ or TEXAS r01. rm: CENSUS YEARS 1880-1920, INCLUSIVE, or COTTON, CORN, OATS, AND WHEAT. BRAZOS COUNTY ACREAGE PRODUCTION PRODUCT YEAR - TEXAS BRAZOS Co. RATIO TEXAS BRAZOS Co. RATIO ACRES ACRES % BALES BALES o 1880 2178435 28044 1 .29 805284 9743 1 . 21 1890 3934525 43979 1 . 12 1471242 16923 1 . 15 COTTON . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1900 6960367 49213 0.71 2506212 18358 0.73 1910 9930179 72275 0 . 73 2455174 21453 0 . 87 1920 1 1522537 71 100 0 . 71 2971757 8177 0 . 28 ' Bu. Bu. 1880 2468587 16542 O . 67 29065172 165100 0 . 57 1890 3079907 21140 0.69 69 1 12150 406824 0 . 59 CORN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1900 5017690 26382 0.53 109970350 382540 0.35 1910 5130052 34021 0 . 66 75498695 690802 0 . 92 1920 4748655 35428 0 . 74 108377282 595789 0 . 55 1880 238010 626 0 . 26 4893359 14435 0 . 29 1890 528924 1088 0 . 21 12581360 19874 0 . 16 OATS. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 1900 847225 557 0.07 24190668 13200 0.05 1910 440001 151 0.03 7034617 2502 0.04 1920 1862933 99 . . . . . . 63989423 2266 0.04 1880 373570 8 . . . . 2567737 25 1890 352477 6 . . . . 4283344 42 WHEAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1900 1027947 13 . . . . 12266320 180 1910 326176 0 . . . . ’ 2560891 0 1920 2414903 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36427255 . . . . . . . . . . Bulletin N0. 318 42 o~m\ 02$ 003 00$ ow? a S. dliuobowk 20:00 a. l I 3 .\ I I llll 3E Ill. I I [J WQXWk rcv mciixQ >< cum? ow? tfiQux Iqxnbv v.0 lolwbQowQ Kw woQWQuY lo QENQk m. N13 U\..\ o °. w § V. ~ 0 Q ‘V O Iv M. H$QUQvQ Ill >31 vbonkm >525 WQkWk >0V “@366 ?.\ 3.3 on ow? Xokk know R0 toiuauoko. Av M0150? m0 QQWvK \ uwaQk Q 3 8 8 \' ' P5 .1. o_/ "o; surnra d0 ~ou>r>aoud '3 99:72am, :0 o/xua Q V7. \ 43» Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values o~m\ oi\ oo0\ 0Q“: omm\ UwQwuG-v I || Ill Ioivaadwk k Qwk} WWXUR: TOU MQQNQQ >§ o~m\ - 0QQ\ YQQK hQM§§ v.0 QQFMVQQQQQ u” Uuéilv? k0 Qx svrwuo .40 NOI4>I70OUd 9 :9 44 Bulletin N0. 318 ONQ\ 0\o\ OQQ\ O0wx 0QQ\ om. o‘. OW. EoQuwvv. 20 I uaeoml Qox» 0b mQxluk rob ?owv$\ 3m? Q22 . >\O»\,QU mo toivaQokk .0 wwqmivq k0 Qéuui u~. *3. *3 3 é \ M w 0 4. w r 3 m W wwauwx =5 a a QZW M Q3. a ..|| .|.l. l.|| I .ll m l III l|.... Ill Ill: all. §3 ~ o Q M m Q . ... w u e. w, Uoqflqvi w 20>hvJQOQK Zwob ale, am y 8%» \ S n»! \ \ a . \ 3 \ \ \ Q3 \ \ \ uwxwk, >ow kohbst 35% o: X \ UNM\.QWQ\ . 50M KO >\0\ku§QOW\ Q U-UQWUUQ K0 QQUQR , h HvSuQ 3N 45' Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Value." o». .\ o: o3 0A .~ Q3 OQ.\ o~$ 3.3 02$ 00$ om? UWWWQVQ \\O\k uQQQwQ kiwi} .wwxwk tab \\v6 I vb Qu~€ whwQ .WYKWK >QV iQmfisqil 0~m\ . on? , wkfi° >\Q\kv§Q§W~\ Q WwQUkXw. k0 Qlhlk k wQauQ §§QR° Qufi Bulletin N0. 318 46 om 3. OW 0% QN\ o3 o3 O%\ ON on o» OM OW Oh 0Q 0N2 O\M~ OOM< 0m 3 OQQ\ 0 6N ,- QV a v l‘ I u I aw m WQYWWV‘ 4% lukoivbfioq 205.00 am m 3 3%”. .0 I QNW. o .0 3L” J u ogm fitxukfiizaav wonqkQ a oumx. 0QQ\ Zutob \~WOR S? Q\ MvSoQ m o w w 2 4 3 o II|IIII||I W UBQWQVY w, II l||| ll >.0\kv§QOw:\ tmou on M y 3. a m w IL om n ll. \ ‘ D I l I lllll n. ‘l lll|l|l QWO. E. w m 3v S .WQXWk\Lk>\30U woNviQ 0a °MQ\ . QQ@\ QQDU KO IQ>~VDQQQQ .6 WQQWKU‘ k0 QzWQ-h G, wtask Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values I910 19/! I 912 1.9/3 I914 I914" I9/6 I917 / 91X 19/3 BIMZ 0S MLLfiS WILL HHS 0N BFMZOS DALLAS Wll. LMHS 0 N . B84205 DALLA S WILLIAMSON BRAZDS DALLAS WILLMHSQN BR H Z 0S DALLIS Wll- LMHSON BRAZOS DALLAS Wll. Llltvou B64205 DALLAS WILLIAMSON Bfl/IZOS DGLLJS WILL MHSOM BRflZDS DfILI-fls IILLIHHSQN BMZO$ um. LAS WILLIAM-MN BR RZOS I520 DALLAS wn-uflmm 4.7 FIGURE ll COMPARISON 0F RATIOS or movula AIERME REuTS To fwvllfi AVERME SALES PRICES FRI!!! 19/0 T0 I920 l" BRIZOS, MLLAS, AND WILLIAMSON COUNTIES Pe.\-¢ err-fa 9S- o l Z 3 4 S 4° 2 =r 1 1 | 1 l \\\\ \\ II \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\‘ \\\\ \\\\ \ \ \\\\ \ \\\ \\\\l\\\\\ \\\\\ l Q l\\ \\\\\\\\I\\\\\\\\\\ \\\I\\\\\I [\\\\\\\\\R\\\ \\\\l\\\ 48 BRAZDS Bulletin N0. 318 FIGURE I2 RATIO 0F MOVING AVZHAGG RCITS T0 MOVING AVERA6€ SALES PRICES FHON I910 T0 [.920 IN BRAZQ DM-LAS IND WILLIAMSON COUNTTES l’ rcent0 s c: 4*"; 1 Z 0 . 00 0 .0mH 0000000 000mv 0v . H vH . H 000000vmH 000000v 000mm H000mH 0H . H m0. H 00000m0 O000m00H 000H 0 . 0v 0 . v0H 0000000 0v000 H0 . H 0H . H 000000000 0000000 0H H0m 000vvH 0H . H 00 . H 00000m0 0000mv0H 0H 0H 0 . 0H v . HOH 000HO0H v00H0 00 . H 0H . H 00000000 000m000 00Hvm 00H 00H vH . H 00 . H 000G000 000000H H 0HOH 0 . vH m . 00H 000HO0H 000mm m0 . H 00 . H 000000mm 00000w0 0m000 00000H 0H . H 0v. H 0000m0m 000000H H mHOH 0 . 00 v . HvH 000m000 m0v0v 00. H 00 . H 00000000H 00000mm 0v000 vvm00H 0H . H Hv. H 0000000 00000vHH 0HOH 0. H0 H . vmH 0000H m0 vH00v 00. H v0 . H 00000000H 000m000 00000 vv00vH 00 . H 0v. H 00000Hm 0000HO0H 0HOH v.00 0 . 0mH 0000000 0H000 00. H m0 . H 000000v0H 000000v 0000m mH0.0mH 00 . H 0v. H 00000v0 000HO0H H vHOH 0 . 00 v . HvH 0vv00m0 000H0 m0 . H 00. H 00000000H 0000v0m 000v0 000HOH . v0 . H vv. H 0000000 000m000H mHOH 0 .00 0 . 00H 00H0000 0Hvv0 0m. H 0m . H 00000m00H 000000v 000H0 H0vv0H 00 . H 0v. H 000000m 0000mmHH 0HOH 0 . 0H 0 . 0mH 00m00HH 0v0m0 0m. H 00. H 00000000 000000v 0vvm0 m0m00H 00 . H 0v . H 00000mm 0000v00H H HOH H . 00 m . 0vH 00 H0v00 0m00v 0m . H 0m . H 0000000vH 00v0v00 00v00 000mvH 0m . H mv. H 0000000 0000000H 0HOH 0.00 0 . 00H 0000mH0 00000 0m . H 0v. H 00000000H HH00000 000m0H 0000vH 0m . H 0v. H 00000H0 0000000 000H m . v0 0 . 00H 0vvm00m 0v0v0 H0 . H mv. H 0000v0H00 00vvH00 0v000H 00000H v0 . H 0v . H 000v00m 0000H00 000H v.00 0 . 00H m000000 000mm v0 . H 0v. H 00000000H 0mH0000 00m00H 0v0m0H 0m . H 00 . H 00000vm 00000H0 m00H m . 0m 0. 000 v00m000 00H00 00 . H 0v . H 00mv0000H 000vmHv H0000 00000H 00 . H H0 . H 000v000 000v000 000H 0 .00 0. 00H vv00H00 v0000 00 . H 00 . H v0v0vH0mH 0000m00 0vvH0 v0000H 0v. H 00 . H 0000000 H000v00 000H H . H0 0 . H00 000HH00 mmH00 H0. H 00 . H 00000m00H 00vvH00 H0000 H00m0H 0v. H 00 . H 0000v00 H0v0000 v00H 0 . 00 0 . 00H 0000mm0 0HHOm v0. H m0 . H 00m00m0vH 0mH0000 00m00 00HO0H vv. H v0 . H 0000H00 0m0H00m 000H 0 . 0H 0 . 000 0m0m00 00000 m0. H 00 . H 0Hvm00vv 000vmHv 00v00 00v0H H 0v. H 00 . H 0000000 H000v0m 000H m . vH 0 . HmH 000HO0H 0H00v 00.0 H0. H 00000000 000HH00 mm0H0 m0v0H H 0v. H 00 . H 0000mH0 0H0000m HO0H 0.00 0 . 000 0000v00 0m0H0 v0.0 v0. H 00m0m000H 0m00vHm 0000m v000H H 00. H m0 . H 000mH00 0H00mHm 000H v . v0 v . 00H 0HmHm0H 0000v 00 .0 00 . H 00mHOHHO 0000mv0 H0000 0m0v0H 00 . H 00 . H 000000v 0000v00 000H 0 . 00 m .000 00000H0 m00m0 00 .0 Hm. H 00m00000H 00H000m 000v0 0mH HH H v0. H 00 . H 00v0H0v v00H000 000H 0. v0 0 . vH0 0000HOH m0H0v 0H .0 vm . H 0vH0mH0m 00v0000 00000 v00vH H 00 . H 00 . H 00mH00m 0mHv0Hm m00H 0 . 0H 0 . 0mH 00v000 000mm mH .0 mm. H mH00000m H0m00H0 m00m0 0H000H 00 . H H0 . H 00v000m 00000m0 000H 0.0m 0 . HOH m000H 00 000v0 0H .0 00 . H 000000m0H mm0000H 00000 H00v0 00 . H 00 . H 00mm00v 00v0000 000H v.Q00 0v000 00.H . . . . . . H000m00 . . . . .. 00mHHH 00H H00v000 v00H £0025 .23 floawcm 31m 00 00 Busmcm 30mm wucu< .384 NR“ 00 wocu< . 354% E00 c0300 ccoU c0500 E00 c0300 F60 cofioU E00 c0500 ccoU cofioU E00 c0300 52c? umu< mum n52? whzDoU w0. H oooom: ooooH moH 22 m. mm H .03 owomowm 25$ mo . H mm . H ooooomvmH c882. omwwm $002 mm . H mo. H 00009.0 oooHmoH H $2 c . 0.... o . mmH oomoHHm HAHN» 8.0 mmH 80082: c0822 008w oHHoom mm .H 8. H ooooomo 000.20%; mHoH o . cw m . Sm 000.00% 220w mm. H mm. H ooooommmH oooommv omwmm oH wmmH Hm .H 3 .H ccoocfi ooommmHH N2: H. . mH o . 3m . mmommmH $02. mm. H mm. H oooommoo oooommv omomo @022: Hm .H no . H c0000? 089.2: HHoH o . mm H . $2 200.23 .253. mm . H mm . H oooomoovH 353w omoom mwmmoH Hm . H 2 . H ooooomo oooommm oHoH m . om o . HQH mmRHmm 0S3. Hm . H mm . H oooommmmH H Hmmmmm ommmoH oomomH om . H 3 . H oooomHm oooowoo oooH H. . mm H 4.0m onomHom $22 E. H mm . H ooomvmHom £3200 moHmoH 3.0.03 om. H 3. H c0035 ooooHmo mooH 0 . mm m. mmH 20.0030 momHv “n. H mm. H oooommmmH 0200mm uHmom mmHonH om. H x0 . H ccccfia ooowmHo 82 m. .om m. “mm c5050 08E 3.. H mm. H $2000.02 0021.2. ommom mmmhvH cm . H H6 . H 8008c .ooommom oooH m. mm m . mom 00023.0 3A8. 2.. H mm . H 2.2.0302 oooonmm $8.0 mommHH cw. H mo . H ooowmmo 083$ 82 o . om H“. mmm 235mm $80 H». H Hm . H $22202 28.3w». oHomu omHomH om. H mo. H ooomvoo ooommmm S3 c. Hm . o . moH mmomumm mmwHv mo. H Hm. H mmhonuovH mmH oomm Si.» 02.0.2 mm . H mo. H ooooHmm. oooH omu mooH m. . oH m . mom Emmi. $3» S. H Hm. H 022.222. 008.23. 0&8. $.52 mm . H N0. H oooommm. 2222.3 82 m . 0H m . mmH mvmooo 08$ 3 . H Hm. H wooomooo 0020mm mmmmo $8.2 mm . H mo. H 009KB c0002: HooH H mm Hm . 0.0m H 108.2 Hmoom. mo. H Hm . H 000E202 Q2035 0E8 mmmwHH >0 . H mo. H ooomHom ooom»: oooH m . mm w. . mom HmmwomH owmmw Ho . H . om. H mmmHmH Hm @3030 BOB omoooH S . H Ho . H c0082. 0802.8 momH m. Hm . o . mom $023 wmmoo on . H om. H oonommmoH ooH mwmm mommm mmmmH H S . H Ho . H ooomHmH. oooHmoo momH H mm H mum $32 H momom S. . H om. H 02.1.4.5“ mowmmmm 0.22. 2&2 H 0N . H :0 . H oooHomm @202: h 82 H. . HH m. . mmH mmvoom oommm mm. H om. H .2 ommmmm 23020 022a. mmmmoH 0N. H oo . H ooommmm cccwfic mmmH o . mm o . mmH oooomwH 003m mm . H om. H ooomoonoH 5.0.22 02.5 mHmmo 00. H oo. H 000222. oooommm momH 01.20am .004 20:25.» muHwmH 2N0 “N. cHusmum 31mm w0c0< m000< 2R. Q. w000< w000< F60 c0300 c000 c0300 c000 c8000 c000 c0300 c000 c0300 c000 c0300 c000 c0300 “<0 0204. 2mm .00 200250.33 3.20M. 00. 0F<~H 0520M. .00 200243.23 0520B 0c. 022M 053C. > 2050:0022 00,520.... .023. c: 2200 02¢ 20.2.00 c0 0.00:» 0E. 02¢ omoHémmH 20c... 7200 0z< 20.500 c0 0520B c0 0.55 0n E2000 20w2<5fi>> 20 202.0009: 02< u0 >kzDo0 woNfiHm wfifiuh. o.“ cEkwH 92GB 5.2000 55mm mfinmh. o... 022M 332C. ZOHHUDOOMnH moFZDOQ mosFZDOU m<§P hO QQNFF NIB 92¢ SOMM .w._.._.zDoU 203.2553 wfinurH. OH 2.2M wfinuk 02.7500 zowi<~qa~>> mfiwuh. Oh oEEMH mfimmh. > ZOHPUDAHOMnH VFZDOU ZO00>H> MHU> no 015:? umu az< 000H-000H 2o: wh> no 233.0 ho .525. 0a 0.5500 zomifififi? no zoiuanomm nz< uo0.0H 00 HH 00 0H.0H 0vm00 m> H 0H H0 00 0 >0.0m v0 0 0.00 H0.0 v0.0 H0.H 0.>>m 00..v 0v 0H 0.vH 0 00H 000H 00 0 00.vm v0 00 00 m0.>H 0> 00 00 m 00 00 00.HH vH.0v 0H H .0.0v H0.0 0v.m 00.0 0.0vm 00.HH >0.vv >00 0.vmH 0HOH 0H v 0v.mH 00 0v 0H 00 vH 00.0v 0H m 00 00 m0 > 0>.0m 0> H 0.0H 0v.H 00.0 00.0 0.00m 00 > 00.>0 0.>m v.HOH 0HOH 00 0 0> 0H 00 00 vm 0>.vH Si. 0H m 00 Hm vm 0 0>.vm >0 H 0.vH >0.H 00.> 00.0 v.Hvm 00.0 0v.00 >.>0 >.0mH >HOH mv 0 >0 0H H0 00 0m v00H 0H.0m 0> H Hv >H v0 0 00.00 v0 H 0.00 0>.H 0H.> H0.0 0.000 00.0 H>.>0 00H v.HvH 0HOH 0> v 0H vH mv. 00 00 0> 0 0H.0m 00. 00.mm 00 0 00.0H 00 0 0.H0 v0.H 0H.v 00.H 0.000 0>.0 0H.0H 0H.HH H.v0H 0HOH 00.0 0v HH 0v 00 0m 00 0 00.>H 00 >0 >H H0.0 v0.0H v> 0 v.00 00.0 00.0 0>.0 0.Hv0 H0. 0 m0.HH 0.0 0.0>H vHOH 00 0 00 0H H0 >H H0 0H.> >v.Hm v0. v0 m0 00 0 0v.0m 00 0 0.00 0> 0 vH.0 HH.H 0.000 H0.v 0m.>H 0 0H v.HvH 0HOH 00 v 00 vH 0v 00 v0 H0 0 vv.>H 00 0>.0H v0 0 HH.0H v0 0 0.00 00 0 m>.0 00.0 0.H0m 00 0 H0.00 0 HH 0.00H mHOH 00 v 0H 0H v0 0v vm >> 0 00.HH 00 H m0 HH Hv 0 v0.0H 00 0 0.mH >>.0 00.0 00.0 0.000 00 0 000H 0.0 0.0>H HHOH 0m 0 00 0H >v >H v0 0v 0 0m.0H 00 H0 0H 00 v 00.vH 00 0 H.0m 00.0 >0.0 0m.H 0.v00 m0 0 00.00 H.vH 0.0vH 0HOH 00 0 0v HH m0 0v 0H 00 v 0H.0H 0H.H m0 0H m0 0 00.0H 0> 0 0.00 00 0 Hm.0 00.H 0.>v0 0m v >H.>H 0.0H 0.00H 000H 00 v >0 vH m0 0> 0m 00 0 v0.HH 00 0H 0H 00 v >0.vH 00 0 >.vm 0> 0 >0.m 0>.0 0.000 0> v 00.0H > 0 0.00H 000H H0 0 vv HH 00 >0 0H H0 m 00.> 00 H0 > 00 0 v0.>H 00 0 v.00 00 0 0v.m .00.0 0.vv0 0H 0 m>..0H v.0H 000H >00H 0> v >0 vH Hv 00 00 vH 0 Hv.0 >> mm 0H 00 0 0H.0H 00 0 0.00 00 H 0H.v 00.0 v.00v 00 0 00.mm 0.0 0.000 000H 00 0 Hv HH 0v 00 0m 0> 0 0H.0 00 0m 0 >0 v H0.vH 0v 0 0.0m v0.0 >>.0 m0.H 0.0>0 00 0 00 0H 0.0H 0.00H 000H 0> v v0 vH vv 00 m0 mH.v 00.0H 0H H 0m HH mm 0 00.0H m0 0 H.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 v.00v 0m 0 H0..0m 0.0 0.H0m v00H v0.0 H0 0H vv. 00 00 00 0 00.0H 0> >0 0H m0 0 00.0H 0v 0 0.00 0>.0 00.0 00.0 0.000 v0 0 0> 0H 0.0H m.00H 000H H0 0 m> HH 0v v0 0m H0 0 00.0 >> 00 0 H> m 0>.0 00 0 m.0H 00.H 00.0 H>.0 v.000 m0 0 0m..Hm 0.> 0.000 m00H 00 0 0H 0H 00 00 0H 00.0 00.0 0> 0> 0 m0 0 0>.HH 00 0 >.vH H0.H 00.0 00.0 0.0v0 00 0 00.HH 0.> 0.H>H HO0H >0 m m0 HH 00 m> 00 vH v mv.0H v0 Hv 0H >0 v H0.vH >v 0 0.00 00.0 v0.0 00.0 0.>0v 0v 0 00 m0 0.0 0.000 000H 00 m 00 0 00 00 0H 0v 0 0m.> 00. m> 0H 00 0 .0>.0 00 0 v.v0 00.0 00.m 00.0 0.000 vv 0 0>..0H 0.> v00H 000H 0H 0 00 0 0m. vH.v0 Hm 0 v0.0 00. 0H.vH 00 0 0v.HH v0 0 0.0m 0> 0 0>.0 v0.0 v.>H0 00 0 0>.vH >.0 >000 000H 00.0 0H > >0 m0 0m 0v.v 00.0H 00 H0 0H 0v 0 H0.0H Hv 0 0.v0 00.0 0>.0 00.0 0.0mv 00 0 00 vH >.0 0.vHm >00H 0v.m 0m.> v0. 00.Hm 0> m >m.0 0>. 00 HH 0> H 00.0 Hv 0 0.mH v0.0 >H.0 00.0 m. .v0 00 0 00..HH >.0 0..0>H 000H 00 H 0> 0 00 0H mm >H H H0 0 00 00.0. >0 0 M0 HH H0 0 00.0 00.0 H>.0 0.00m 0v 0 00 0H 0.> 0.HOH 000H . .. . .. . . . . . . .. v00 0H0 0v0 0000 >00 H0.HH 0.v v000 v00H 0 0 0 5m 0 0 0 5m 0 0 .0 50 0 0 $0 0 0 .20 .04 5.300 5.5 5w 55< 5.500 55¢. 5 55< 9:30 55< um 55¢. 5200 55¢. AA 55< 5500 55¢. .04 55< 00o .5 .5 .50 0o 5a .5 50 0o 5m 5Q 5m 0o 5m 5m 5Q 0o 5m 5m 50 53~> 53¢> 53~> 32> 53w> 53~> 53w> 35; 53w> 53m> 53~> E5; 53~> 53¢> 53~> .30 53~> 53~> 53m> 35; 55> 5.5.0 h> zmoU nwum 20.5.00 e23 20.5.00 >FZDOU 0 0H 0.5,? 00.0 00.00 00.0 0.00 00..0 0.0.0.0 00..0 0.00 0v.00 00.v0 v0.0 0.0v 00.0 00v 00.0 0.000 0v.0 00.00 0.0.0 0.000 0000 00.00 00.00 v0.0 0.0.v 0v.0 00.00 00.0 0.v0 00.00 00.v0 00.0 00v 00..0 00.00 00.0 0.000 00..v0 00.0.0 0.00 0.000 0000 00.0 010.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 00.0.0 00.0 0.0 00.0 00.0.0 00x0 v00 0.0.0 0.0.0 00.0 0.000 0.0.0 0.0.00 0.0.0 v.000 0000 00.0 00.v0 00.0 0.00 v0.0. 0v.00 0.0.0 0.00 00.0 00.0.0 0.0 0 0. 00 00.0 00.00 00.0 v.000 00..00 00 0v 0.0.0 0.000 0.000 00.0 00.00 00.0 0.00 0.0.0 00.0.0 00..0 0.00 00.0 v0.00 v0.0 v.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.000 00.0 00 00 0.00 0.000 0000 00.0 00.00 0v.0 0.00 00.v 00.00 00.0 0.00 00..0 v0.00 00.0 0.v0 00.0 v0.0 00.0 0.000 00.v 0.0.00 0.00 0.000 0000 0v.v 00.00 0v.0 0.0.0 00v 00.00 00.0 0.00 00.0. 00.00 v0.0 000 00.0 00.0 00..0 0.v0v 00.0 0v.v0 0.0 0.000 v000 00.0 00.00 00.0 0.00 v0.0 0v.00 v0.0 v.00 0v.0 0v.00 00.0 0. v0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0v0 0.0.0 00.00 0.00 0.00.0 0000 00.0 00.0.0 00.0 0.00 0v.v 00.00 00.0 0.v0 00.0 00.00 v0.0 0.00 00.0 00v 00.0 v.v0.v 00.0. 00.00 0.00 0.0.00 0000 00.v 00.v0 v0.0 v0.0 0.0.0 00.0 00.0 0.0 0.0.0 00.00 00.0 v.00 00.0 0.0.0 00.0 0.00v v0..v 0.0.00 0.0 0.000 0000 0.0.0 00.00 0.v.0 0.00 0.0.v 00.v0 00.0 0.v0 0.0.0 00.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 v0.0 00.0 0.v0.0 00v 00.00 0.v0 0.0.00 0000 0:. 00.00 00.0 0.00 v0.0 00.00 00.0 0.0 0.0.0 00.00 00..0 0.00 v0.0 v0.0 00.0 0.000 00.0 00.00 0.00 0.vv0 0000 00.0 0.0.00 00.0 0.00 00..0 00.00 00.0 v.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 v.00 00.0 0v.v 00.0 0.v0v v0.v 00.00 0..0 0.0.00 0000 00.v 00.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 v0.0 00.0 0.0 00..0 00.0.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.00.0 00.0 0v.v0 v.00 0.000 0.000 v0.0 00.00 0v.0 0.0.0 00.0 00.0 0.0.0 0.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.0.0 00.0 0 000 00.0 00.v0 0.0 0.0.00 0000 0v.v 00.00 0v.0 0.00 00.0 00.0. 00.0 0.0 00v 0.0.00 0v.0 0.00 00.0 v0.0. 00.0 000v 00.0 00.00 0.00 0.000 0000 0.0.v 00.v0 vv.0 0.00 00..0 00.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 00.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.000 00..0 00.00 0.0 v.000 v000 v0.0 00.00 vv.0 0.0.0 00.0 vv.00 00..0 0.00 00.0 00.00 0v.0 0.00 00.0 00.0 00..0 0.0.00 00.v 00.0.0 0.00 0.000 0000 00.v 00.00 0v.0 0.v0 00.0 00..0 00.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.00 00.0 00.v 00.0 v.000 00.0 00 00 0.0. 0.000 0000 vv.0 00.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 00.0 00..0 0.0 00..0 00.00 00.0 0.v0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.000 00.0 00.00 0.0. 0.000 0000 00.0 0.0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 0v.00 v0.0 0.0.0 0v.v 0000 0.v.0 0.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 000v 00.0 0v.00 0.0 0.vv0 0000 00.0 0.0.0 00.0 0.00 0v.0 v0.0. 00.0 0.00 00..0 00 0 00.0 0.00 00.0 00.0 v0.0 v.00v 00.0 00.v0 0.0. 0.000 0000 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.00. 00.0 00.0 00..0 0.v0 00.0 v0.00 v0.0 0.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0.00 v0.0 00.00 0..0 0.000 0000 v0.0 00.0. 00.0 0.00 00.v 00.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.v.0 0v.0 0.00 00..0 0.0.0 00.0 000v 00.0 00.00 0.0 0.000 0.000 0v.0 00.0. v0.0 v.00 00.0 00.0 00..0 0.00 00.0 00.v 0v.0 0.00 00.0 0v.0 00..0 0.000 v0.0 00.00 0.0 0.00.0 0000 00.0 v0..0 00.0 0.00 00.0 00..0 00.0 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.00 0v.0 00.0 0v.0 0.000 00.0 00.00 0.0. 0.000 0000 3w m 3m .20 Mum 30.0 9&4 WQQM? “Z0000 3%< 50$ w._._um0< 0.0.0010 P0030. v~u< 20$ 3&0» 0W0 m: 3%. .5 30% M00 .30 00% “on 0.0 .50 .50 .30 w .30 Hun .30 w .50 .80 00%. “mo? @350 v3.0.0’ u=0~> 33> 31> 0:10.00 u3~> 003% 30> vs0w> 03x0» 32> QE~> 31> u=0~> .200 us0w> v33», 0:030 Bu; 9:0 0.4mm? zzoU nuuw ZOHPOU .520 zoeaoU 00.0.2300 ZO00>0<00000$ 0000-0000 £50.00. ihzsoU 0.252.004.0005 Z0 w._.> imou dwuwzohhou $.25 zohhou .00 iomu 52mm wme .._o oz< “.0010 m0; .._o uuu< 5E u0§<> 00 000M000. 56 Bulletin N0. 318 TABLE 17 VALUE Pza:Acnz:or:'raE'cnoP AND 0F THE SHARE or rm: cxor or corrou um‘, corron s52» AND coax m ' BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS Corrou LINT COTTON SEED Conn »_ S! Yum Yield Value Value Value Lbs. Value Value Value Bu. Value Value Value - per per per of 3} per er per of z} per er per ofQ ‘a Acre Lb Acre Share Acre b. Acre Share Acre u. Acre Share Lbs Cts Dol’s Dol’s Cts. Dol’s Dol’s Dol’s Dol’s D01’! 1894 222.0 4.6 10.21 2.55 444.0 0.43 1.90 0.48 25.4 1895 160.0 7.6 12.16 3.04 320.0 0.71 2.27 0.59 9.1 0.31 2.82 0.71 1896 154.0 6.7 10.32 2.58 308.0 0.63 1.94 0.49 17.5 0.41 7.18 1.80 1897 192.0 6.7 12.86 3.22 384.0 0.63 2.24 0.61 23.5 0.41 9.64 2.41 1898 230.0 5.7 13.11 3.28 460.0 0.54 2.48 0.62 23.5 0.34 7.99 2.00 1899 174.0 7.0 12.18 3.05 348.0 0.66 2.30 0.58 17.1 0.36 6.16 1.54 1900 207.0 9.2 19.04 4.76 414.0 0.86 3.56 0.89 23.1 0.47 10.86 2.72 1901 155.0 7.0 10.85 2.71 310.0 0.66 2.05 0.51 11.0 0.80 8.80 2.20 1902 255.0 7.6 19.38 3.85 510.0 0.71 3.62 0.91 7.5 0.66 4.95 1.24 1903 134.0 10.5 14.07 3.52 268.0 0.99 2.65 0.66 22.5 0.48 10.80 2.70 1904 204.0 9.0 18.36 4.59 408.0 0.85 3.47 0.87 21.4 0.52 11.13 2.78 1905 134.0 10.8 14.47 3.62 268.0 1.02 2.73 0.68 20.2 0.49 9.90 2.48 1906 204.0 9.6 19.58 4.90 408.0 0.90 3.67 0.92 21.3 0.50 10.65 2.66 1907 110.0 10.4 11.44 2.86 220.0 0.98 2.16 0.54 19.9 0.60 11.94 2.99 1908 176.0 8.7 15.31 3.83 352.0 0.73 2.57 0.64 24.4 0.59 14.40 3.60 1909 110.0 13.9 15.29 3.82 220.0 1.30 2.86 0.72 14.4 0.76 10.94 2.74 1910 140.0 14.1 19.74 4.94 280.0 1.29 3.61 0.90 19.5 0.63 12.29 3.07 1911 158.0 8.8 13.90 3.48 316.0 0.85 2.68 0.67 9.0 0.80 17.20 1.80 1912 174.0 11.9 20.71 5.14 348.0 0.95 3.31 0.83 19.9 0.64 12.74 3.09 1913 126.0 12.9 15.37 3.84 252.0 1.11 2.80 0.70 22.8 0.82 18.70 4.68 1914 126.0 6.8 8.58 2.15 252.0 0.76 1.92 0.48 18.8 0.74 13.91 3.48 1915 120.0 11.3 13.56 3.39 240.0 1.55 3.72 0.93 22.6 0.58 13.11 3.28 1916 122.0 19.6 23.91 5.93 244.0 2.51 6.12 1.53 18.3 1.04 19.03 4.76’ 1917 104.0 27.7 28.80 7.20 208.0 3.25 6.76 1.69 10.6 1.67 17.70 4.43 1918 88.0 27.6 24.29 6.07 176.0 3.30 5.81 1.43 9.6 1.76 16.90 4.23 1919 95.0 35.7 33.92 8.48 190.0 3.39 6.44 1.61 29.0 1.18 34.22 8.54 1920 111.0 14 0 15 54 3.89 222.0 1.31 2.91 0.73 25.1 0.84 21.08 5.27 < ~ 1.5;... .~_...<1.. _.. 1\ . - ~ H» . 0 wN.0 v0.0 HH..0 wHiN E .0 0w . N HH .NH 5 . w 2 6N 0m . 0m wNHmm 00w0 08E Smut ¢HNO0N 0NOH owNH HHflo bHflH 00H 24. H0. H Hm...» 00.5 $05. HH 0N 0N.0m. 0mw0m 00H>H ~23 $33 255w 0HOH 00. m 0M0 N00 wmd 0H .N Nw.0 8+ 5.2 3a HN . “N 3. S. 33m 00N> 003$ wmHomH >820 wHOH nH .0 m» . 0 t. . 0 0n . 0 ww . N w0. H S . w m0. HH m» . 0 H0 . wN H0 . v.0 000mm 00mmH 28w wwNmmH wHmmwN 50H mH .w 0w . 0 00 . 0 0m. . 0 3 . N w0 . 0 ww . w mH .NH m0 .. w 0m . 2.. 1°13 omNmw 03$ 00N0w 3&2: wwwomN 22 hH a mH .0 $5 0.0.0 w». H mm .0 m0. H wH .NH ww.» 8.0m 0w . 0m 85m 00HmN 00Nwm wwNmvH 302m 22 Hw . H. mH .0 0N . 0 3 . 0 t. H 0m .0 m». H mm . ._. N0. 0 wH EN 0m . 0m 000HN ~82 owow» 22.5 nowmwN 32 w0 . w 0H .0 3.0 mm . 0 S. . N S . 0 5 . N P0. w 00 . w H» . vN N0 . 0m 003m Si; 83w ommHwH wmNHqow MHOH HH .0 wN .0 5 . 0 0N . 0 00. H Nm .0 uN . m mm . u N0. m 3. Hm HH .3 N38 00>: 0w0H0 03x: wwnNmN NHOH >0 . w 0H .0 wN . 0 0N . 0 HH . H fi .0 0N . N Ev . 0 3 . m. 0m . Nm 2 . mm N53 Q33 @008 >082 awflww HHOH 1m...“ 0N . 0 mm . 0 w” . 0 wm . H 0m. .0 HQ . N 0m . 0 HN . 0 0w . Nw m0. E M65 00w0H 03$ Nwws; @265 0HOH w» . w 0H .0 NN .0 HN . 0 N0. H Hm . 0 wH .N 2 . m. HQH a Hm . ww 20.3 bowmH 0M3; owfifi wgwfi fiwowm 000H » 58M » » w w w a $0 “N. Q0 HR. 12:23‘. 0230mm H3O “E055 E00 wuuw$00 c0500 BkO $055 E00 00300 3x0 H.355 F50 00300 130m. FUDDNQ auhfiTomm uxu< mum “$5.0m mo 00.35 .2009 OH 023M uu VPZDOU 30.20 €H¢FZHH @528 JHF0.w~ 00.00 0~0hH Mmfifl Q0000 0nNH~N mmhmfim 0NOH ¢m.0H 00.0 >w.0 00.0 w¢.m ©0.~ 00.w @m.w ~0.0 00.00 m@.o@ mbawm 0000 00050 000050 Hm>0@~ 0~0~ ~¢.@ ¢¢.¢ 0N.0 m0.0 >>.~ 50.0 m>.m 00.0 00.0 00.0” 0H.m@ M0050 cmmfi 0h>~0 wfifiwwfl Nfiomaw wfimfi 0H.HH 00.0 00.0 00.0 m@.~ 00.0 00.0 wm»m 00.0 0m.Hm H0.N0 M0000 00mm w@0¢@ wmmmwfi “ohwam nfimfi +0.0 $0.0 @m.0 no.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 No.0 00.0 >0.0N @0.m0 omfiwfi Qwhm 0¢¢0@ 0mm00~ 0m»_0m 0~0H 50.0 NN.0 mm.0 00.0 *0.“ w~.0 w».~ ~m.0 mm.~ 00.00 wH.@@ 0m>wH 000m owmww »~@@~H “@0000 mflafi w@.¢ wH.0 hH.0 00.0 00.0 $0.0 Hv.N ~0.m N0.~ m¢.ww 00.00 00000 0m0m owwww +m0w@0 ¢»H»@~ wfiwfi ww.@ 0N.0 00.0 $0.0 0n.N $0.0 00.0 m~.¢ 0>.0 00.00 m¢.0@ 00mm_ @000 owbaw 0~HO0N 000000 m~0H F0.» ~m.0 ¢N.0 m0.0 v0.0 ~».0 00.0 >@.m 0w.0 m0.Nm @0.m@ Hmw__ @000 amwmm ofimwwfl “mmwam NHQH 00.0 00.0 0~.0 m0.0 >~._ 00.0 mw.N @w.m 00.0 0n.mm 00.00 Nmmofi 00mm omwmm 000000 Hwmawm fifimfl m@.m Nw.0 00.0 00.0 m0.m »@.0 w@.~ .@~.m 0~.H @¢.mm 00.~0 .0500 owom @0000 mvwmwfi 000000 0~0~ @m.m 00.0 00.0 m0.0 _0.~ 00.0 ww.~ ~m.m wm.0 ~m.wm @¢.»@ ¢@_@ omnm 000000 0@m@@~ +~N»»~ 000M w 05m 0 0 w » a w “m. Q0 Q0 0. 12504» 0230mm 300 0.355 E00 036.000 c0300 $00 £355 E00 c0300 W000 235$ 0.50 c0300 130k. HUDQNQ nufiwm-omm umu< mum um 1500B Ob 20km wo >PZDO0 232550? A.~.ZDOQ ZOm§<~AA~a v: 9:0 QZ< 0.4mm? JAKOU .ZOH.HOU b0 MO~P‘~ ._."" om >_,.. w. QJH-l ~07“ Q U '5'}: mo‘ “i” 0m Nfi-EL‘ “l “""q mew“ Q <3 w 5T’ *~ '- -:: > Q‘ _>.E 5 am- .E 2 “‘ o 0 C. 0 u“ £3 I) 00g O a, 5 C2 > O q; H-g Eu w; mg: *-’> c: 5v -~<¢ s: w °*-’w___ 4: u ‘V 5 a, =1 ,_ <1 "" -—< I3 Q w Q 0 Q Q u =4: T“ q: 8 > G ‘V U u Q k E ‘a o u kw o" >—' -+-_a_-_»> ".59 008"’ ‘fir! 1447"“ _+_‘ugoo kg g 65w 5.5 E a O_, 00,-. O":“§ i Q H d (q N >~ < [- .1 o4 J's o4 m m m $ $ 3 % $ C/c % % % 1909 4.78 63.46 . . . . .. 1910 5.31 4.72 70.01 7.53 65.64 7.19 76.57 5.77 5.51 1911 4.07 5.16 71.13 7.58 68.20 7.56 81.12 6.14 6.13 1912 6.11 5.42 85.40 5.72 75.51 7.18 82.52 4.72 5.92 1913 6.08 5.33 110.09 7.15 89.14 6.20 85.71 6.13 5.31 1914 4.41 5.22 86.02 5.48 94.11 5.54 80.93 4.43 4.48 1915 5.17 5.90 82.59 5.13 93.17 6.33 82.37 4.23 5.21 1916 8.13 7.49 88.39 6.26 85.66 8.74 81.52 5.10 7.12 1917 9.17 8.30 110.06 9.19 93.68 8.85 79.53 7.31 7.04 1918 7.60 9.89 125.29 9.33 107.91 9.16 76.09 6.34 6.97 1919 12.89 8.46 172.39 6.07 135.91 6.75 80.26 5.42 6.79 1920 6.71 8.77 147.05 7.47 148.24 5.92 80.98 6.05 4.71 60 Bulletin N0. 318 TABLE 22 Rnuvnon or RENT:T0 SALES nucz-z. ‘RAno 0F CULTIVATED TO TOTAL AxEATINIFARMsYANNUALLY AND FOR THREE YEARS movmc AVERAGE WILLIAMSON COUNTY ‘é i é 88% 8E E88 H m4.- x- u cu >, 1.. n! T, u- h a > > n‘ Q c G o U o > 603 0,2 _ 0m w O 5 g -;:: Z "$33 3?: 232-; :2 42,. wfiwt’ -g o. U 2731"; s: 8553 .515 EFW 53%;“ ._. E Q g u §> H: .5 E 0 "5 w E fi ° "- 3 =5» 1'8 E6 3... 353E “E .13: EE~§ 5 53 V» *3? 5.11:. “a; “T. "5388 m u c‘ L» w H u o 5 ~ 3: "i: '58s 2E "EH5 '52 '58s 3919285 § 2’ 1i :3 52 “ 52 .52 2‘ 2“ U) s s s % 3 % % % % 1909 5.39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1910 5.63 5 23 41 49 12.99 45.56 11 49 4O 24 5.22 4.62 1911 4.66 5 82 53 71 10.48 49.93 11 66 41 06 4.30 4.79 1912 7.17 6 24 54 59 8.53 50.69 12 31 45 82 3.91 5.64 1913 6.88 6 34 43 76 16.38 54.39 11 65 48 71 7.98 5.67 1914 4.98 5 94 64 84 10.61 56.08 10 59 46 36 4.92 4.91 1915 5.97 6 96 59 63 8.35 53.90 12 91 46 63 3.89 6.02 1916 9.94 9 02 37 24 16.03 48 26 18 69 47 82 7.67 8.94 1917 11.16 10 28 47 93 20.73 46 50 22 11 47 72 9.89 10.55 1918 9.7 12 41 54 33 20.54 6O 77 20 42 48 16 9.89 9.83 1919 16.34 11.44 80.06 12.16 70.72 16.17 47.19 5.74 7.63 1920 8.34 11.01 77.77 21.01 85.13 12.93 52.34 ‘11.00 6.77 TABLE 23 RELATION 0F RENT-ITO SALES PRICE. RATIO OF CULTIVATED TO TOTAL AREA IN FARMS ANNUALLY AND FOR THREE YEARS MOVING AVERAGE BRAZOS COUNTY i é? 5 B? E9. iii-E ,_, s. u m "' s- w E .505 3 "T, :1?’ 55g E3 7.8g $.98 :5 1" 1"‘ U504 0P1 1n 3 Z N 2.5% E5 i=1“; E5 gu >881“ E5 :3 8?? “i 8°32 is: sE-E E232 +2. §fi "g5. 25$ 8:33 g: 49g 382g ._. >. o m ° 0T, a... E o 0___ o} q o o 9 " U U w a: Q m 3 “if -U._. o m: 083$’ o3 o ._. 629w“? g »== »-: =2 '58s as "=23: "=8 12283.28: c: ,1: w w: a <6 <6 cs <6 >~ < e q 12 u: n4 r2 o4 n4 3 3 $ % $ % % % % 1909 3.69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1910 4.65 3 84 15 15 24.35 20 16 19.05 40 14 9 77 7 64 1911 3.18 4 2O 30 21 15.39 21 09 19.91 43 23 6 65 8 64 1912 4.76 4 11 17 92 17.74 24 78 16.58 43 64 7 74 7 23 1913 4.39 3 98 26 21 18.16 27 64 14.39 45 11 8 19 6 49 1914 2.79 3 65 38 78 11.32 24 28 15.03 42 37 4 80 6 36 1915 3.76 4 26 25 17 31.56 20 74 20.54 40 41 12 75 3 1916 6.23 5 64 14 60 25.75 16 54 34.00 40 78 10 50 13 86 1917 6.94 6 39 26 19 23.79 19 61 32.58 40 15 9 55 13 08 1918 6.01 7 36 18 04 38.47 24 26 30 33 39 22 15 O9 11 90 1919 9.14 6 62 28 54 31.06 27 53 24 O4 36 47 11 32 8 77 1920 4.70 6 18 36 01 25.58 33 52 18 43 41 17 10.45 7 59 Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 61 TABLE 24 RATIO or VALUE 0E LAND LEss IMPROVEMENTS TO SHARE RENTAL IN DALLAS COUNTY FROM 1910-1920 Annual Share Share Rent Sales Value per Ratio of Annual Ratio of Moving YEAR Rent per Acre Three Year Acre of Land Rent to Sales Average Sales Total Area Moving Average Alone (Census) Price ‘of Land Price one $ $ ’ $ % % 1910 4.30 3.87 60.97 7.0 6.3 1911 3.36 3.77 62.21 5.4 5.7 1912 5.24 4.30 74.73 7.0 5.5 1913 4.92 4.51 97.77 5.0 5.4 1914 3.63 4.60 75.69 4.9 5.5 1915 4.21 4I25 73.01 5.8 5.6 1916 6.47 4.77 78.23 8.3 5.8 1917 6.98 5.89 97.35 7.2 6.0 1918 6.10 6.52 111.27 5.5 5.4 1919 10.49 7.86 153.09 6.8 5.9 1920 5.50 7.36 130.58 4.2 5.3 TABLE 25 RATIO or VALUE or LAND LEssjMPxovEMEu-rs TO SHARE RENTAL n»: wrLLmmsofCouzn-Y FROM 1910-1920 Annual Share Share Rent Sales Value per Ratio of Annual Ratio of Moving YEAR Rent per Acre Three Year Acre of Land Rent to Sales Average Rent Total Area Moving Average Minus Improve- Price of Land to Moving Aver- ments (Census) Alone age Sales Price $ 3 35 ' % % 1910 2.26 2.11 37.13 6 1 5.2 1911 1.91 2.46 47.93 4 0 5.5 1912 3.29 2.85 48.58 6 8 6.3 1913 3.35 2.98 38.84 8 6 6.2 1914 2.31 2.81 57.38 4 0 5.7 1915 2.78 3.28 52.63 5 3 6.9 1916 4.75 4.28 32.77 14 9 10.1 1917 5.32 4.92 42.06 11 3 12.1 1918 4.69_ 5.91 47.54 9 9 11.1 1919 7.71 5.59 69.85 11 0 12.5 1920 4.37 5.48 67.66 6 5 5.3 TABLE 26 RATIO or VALUE or LAND LEss IMPROVEMENTS 'ro SHARE RENTAL m BRAZOS COUNTY FROM 1910-1920 Annual Share Share Rent per Sales Value ‘per Ratio of Annual Ratio of Moving Rent per Acre Acre Three Year Acre Minus Im- Rent to Sales of Average Rent to YEAR Total Area Nloving Average provements Land Alone Moving Average (Census) Sales Price 3 3 % o 1910 1.87 1.70 12.42 15.1 11.3 1911 1 37 1.77 24.46 5.6 8.0 1912 2 08 1.81 14.33 14.5 10.4 1913 1 98 1.75 20.71 9.6 9.1 1914 1 18 1.56 30.25 3.9 5.0 1915 1 52 1.75 19.38 7.8 7.5 1916 2.54 2.28 11.10 22.8 15.2 1917 2.79 2.56 19.64 14.2 18.9 1918 2.36 2.83 13.64 17.7 13.1 1919 3.33 2.54 21.12 15.7 16.3 1920 1.93 2.40 26.65 7.2 7.8 62 Bulletin N0. 318 TABLE 27 Appendix B RATIO OF VALUE OF LAND LESS IMPROVEMENTS TD CASH RENTAL m DALLAs COUNTY FROM 1910-1920 Sales Value Assessed Ratio of Ratio of Sales Value Cash Ratio of Ratio of per Acre alue per Assessed Value of per Acre Rent Rent to Moving YEAR of Land ere of to Sales Buildings of Land per Land Average an Land and Value to Value Alone Acre Value Rent to Buildings Buildings of Land Moving (Census) Average Sales Price 3 35 % % 3 $ % % 1910 70.00 24.00 34.3 12.9 60.97 3.00 4.9 4.9 1911 71.10 24.05 33.8 12.5 62.21 3.00 4.8 4.7 1912 85.40 24.00 28.6 12.5 74.73 3.25 4.3 4.2 1913 110.10 24.75 22.5 12.0 97.77 3.50 3.6 4.1 1914 86.00 24.90 28.9 12.0 75.68 3.50 4.6 4.3 1915 82.50 25.40 30.8 12.0 73.01 3.50 4.8 4.6 1916 88.40 25.70 29.1 11.5 78.23 3.50 4.4 4.4 1917 110.00 26.25 23.8 11.5 97.35 4.00 4.2 4.4 1918 125.30 25.25 20.1 11.2 111.27 5.00 3.5 4.3 1919 172.40 26.20 15.2 11.2 153.09 6.50 4.2 4.5 1920 147.05 27.00 18.4 11.2 130.58 6.50 5.0 4.7 TABLE 28 Appendix C WILLIAMSON AND BRAZOS Counnns COMPARISON or SALES VALUE or LAND wrru APPRAISED VALUE BY FEDERAL LAND BANK, IN DALLAs; Average Average Appraised Value COUNTY Date Sales Value (Federal Land Bank) of Land per Acre, Land DALLAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1918 $111.30 $ 90.90 1919 153.10 134.20 1920 130. 58 155 . 85 1921 147.05 125.50 WILLIAMSON . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1917 47.90 79.30 ' 1918 54.35 66.20 1919 80.05 76.90 1920 77.75 94.50 BRAZOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1918 18.05 24.78 1919 28.54 26.30 1920 36.00 17.66 PERCENTAGE OF TENANCY IN TEXAS BY COUNTIES IN DESCENDING TABLE 29‘ Appendix D 0110mm FOR THE YEAR 1920 COUNTY 1920 1910 1900 COUNTY ‘1920 1910 1900 Navarro . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.0 65.5 63.8 Leon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53. 1 52.3 47.3 Calhoun . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.1 35.4 27.4 Bosque . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53. 1 49.8 46.8 Caldwell . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.1 66.1 55.5 Jim Wells . . . . . . . . . . .. 52.7 Rockwall . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.7 65.3 64.8 San Jacinto . . . . . . . . .. 52.7 46.4 49.5 Ellis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.8 69.0 65.7 Scurry . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52.6 49.7 22.8 Karnes . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.0 61.0 44.5 Houston . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52.5 51.5 43.9 Nueces . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.9 35.3 34.5 Motley . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52.3 49.5 11.0 Kaufman . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.7 66.6 59.7 Nolan . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52.0 54.6 20.4 Fort Bend . . . . . . . . . .. 69.2 60.9 63.2 Hopkins . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52.0 52.9 45.7 Collin . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.5 68.7 60.1 Taylor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.9 56.2 43.7 Falls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.4 66.1 67.7 McCulloch . . . . . . . . . . . 51.6 53.5 34.0 Milam . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.1 64.3 60.8 Panola . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51.5 47.7 50.3 Delta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.9 66.6 59.6 Washington . . . . . . . . . . 50.9 57.2 63.9 Lamar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.7 65.7 62.6 Stonewall . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.4 50.1 26.2 Wilbarger . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.6 61.2 39.7 Baylor . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50.4 59.2 37.9 Limestone . . . . . . . . . .. 66.4 63.3 61.9 Cass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50.4 45.7 38.2 McLennan . . . . . . . . . . . 65.7 64.1 62.0 Comanche . . . . . . . . . .. 50.1 55.4 49.7 Bee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65.6 57.1 42.2 King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50.0 58.8 5.6 Fanmn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.4 66.9 64.8 Cherokee . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.0 48.7 47.6 Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65.2 64.4 60.2 amp . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.9 49.3 48.8 Red River . . . . . . . . . .. 64.9 62.7 60.1 Erath . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.7 48.6 46.7 Gonzales . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.2 60.4 58.3 Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.5 53.9 51.7 orris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.2 56.0 50.8 Collingsworth . . . . . . . . 49.5 42.2 5.0 Brazos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.1 59.9 55.5 Bexar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.3 43.0 38.3 Grimes . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63.6 61.2 62.8 Tarrant . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.2 49.8 46.8 Guadalupe . . . . . . . . . .. 63.6 51.3 43.7 Henderson . . . . . . . . . .. 49.2 46.9 44.3 Wichita . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63.5 55.2 40.6 Rusk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.2 48.0 44.3 Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63.2 49.7 44.2 Burnet . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.1 45.2 46.9 Dallas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.2 60.8 57 .6 Shackleford . . . . . . . . . . 48.9 42. 1 27. 1 Travis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63.0 60.4 56.8 Kent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48.8 47.5 18.6 Haskell . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.9 60.9 26.9 Hardeman . . . . . . . . . .. 48.8 57.0 27.4 Goliad . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.8 52.9 35.9 pshur . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48.7 48.8 45.2 Hays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.5 59.1 52.7 Cottle . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48.5 55.9 19.6 Hunt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.0 67.5 58.7 Fisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48.4 56.1 27.3 Matagorda . . . . . . . . . .. 62.0 54.8 41.7 Donley . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48.3 43.4 7.8 Refugio . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61.3 41.9 41.7 Willacy 48.3 Wharton............. 61.2 59.5 53.6 Anderson . . . . . . . . . . .. 48.2 50.5 45.2 Grayson . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.8 62.6 58.8 Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.1 46.6 54.5 Victoria 60.7 45.4 3 .9 Mitchell . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.1 62.9 15.5 Frio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.3 61.7 21.3 ard . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47.9 47.1 80.8 Bell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.0 60.5 60.2 Brazoria . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47.8 49.3 48.8 Robertson . . . . . . . . . . . 60.0 69.7 64.6 Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.6 49.3 47.2 Callahan . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59.9 43.4 40.0 Cooke . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47.6 51.0 47.7 “lilliamson . . . . . . . . . .. 59.5 59.1 60.0 LaSalle . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47.5 38.4 20.5 Crosby . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59.5 28.1 77.6 Nacogdoches... . . . . . . . 47.5 47.9 44.7 Mills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58.8 43.9 37.3 Lampasas . . . . . . . . . . .. 47.4 42.6 38.8 San Patricio . . . . . . . . .. 58.7 53.6 35.8 ood . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47.3 47.2 45.0 Harrison . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57.9 51.7 53.6 Coke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47 .3 47.5 25.8 Titus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.7 57.0 49.3 Lavaca . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47.2 47.6 49.9 Maverick . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.6 24.5 15.4 Montgomery . . . . . . . . . 46.6 48.4 47.4 Kleberg . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57.5 Marion . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.6 38.6 47.6 Knox. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57.3 54.7 27.3 Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.5 48.9 35.6 Jones. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57.0 61.0 34.5 Live Oak . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.5 50.1 31.3 Brooks . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.8 Fayette . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.4 49.9 53.1 Bowie . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.5 57.3 54.2 Freestone . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.2 55.4 56.4 Franklin . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.5 52.4 47.4 oar . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.1 48.4 12.4 DeWitt . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.0 51.3 43.0 Van Zandt . . . . . . . . . .. 46.0 46.0 42.3 Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.0 61.0 50.0 Conc o . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.8 53.7 3.4 Johnson . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.0 52.0 53.9 Wise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.8 47.6 48.3 Bastrop............. 55.4 58.6 56.9 Cameron . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.7 45.4 62.0 Rains................ 55.2 53.8 48.3 Hood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.5 50.8 49.0 Walker . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 55.1 57.0 46.2 Palo Pinto . . . . . . . . . .. 45.4 47.8 41.3 Atascosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.0 46.0 33.5 San Augustine . . . . . . . . 45.0 54. 1 46.6 Waller . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54.9 56.1 54.5 Austin . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.9 44.7 47.0 Madison............. 54.8 51.9 49.3 Floyd . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.4 37.4 3.2 Coleman . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54.8 52.9 40.0 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.3 30.2 .... Hall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54.7 66.6 14.6 Eastland . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.6 48.7 41.1 Burleson . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.4 60.7 54.1 Shelby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.3 38.8 37.8 Runnels . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53.9 55.3 33.3 Young . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.0 44.6 38.9 Coryell . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53.6 51.6 47.7 Duval . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.0 38.3 26.4 Dimmitt . . . . . . . . . .. 53.6 32.5 21.9 Hamilton . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.0 46.0 43.2 Childress... 53.5 55.1 19.0 Parker . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.0 47.6 44.3 Wilson.............. 53.3 48.9 47.3 Gregg . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.9 52.7 39.6 64 Bulletm N0. 318 TABLE 29 Appendix D—Continued COUNTY _ 1920 1910 1900 ' COUNTY 1920 1910 1900 i Carson...... . . . . . . .. 42.9 48.9 3.5 Garza . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.6 20.9 13.6 Swisher . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.8 36.1 3.7 Trinity . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.6 40.6 31.4 Tom Green . . . . . . . . .. 42.8 49.0 26.7 Reeves . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.1 9.3 25.4 Montague . . . . . . . . . 42.5 48.3 52.5 Angelina . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.5 29.4 33.0 Jeflerson . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.1 43.1 15.5 eal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.2 Archer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.8 42.9 28.8 Webb . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.8 9.5 40.0 Dickens . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.7 41.5 15.2 Jim Hogg . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.6 Medina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.7 45.7 23.5 Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3 30.1 34.0 Briscoe . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.5 34.8 1.7 oore . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.3 29.4 Hale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.3 31.9 6.9 Comal . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.9 32.8 21.9 Stephens. . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.1 36.8 31. 1 Sterling . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.4 5.1 1.2 orden.. . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.1 31.6 27.8 Wheeler . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.3 32.0 6.7 McMullen . . . . . . . . . . . 40.0 29.3 15.3 Irion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.2 18.1 9.6 Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.8 42.3 40.3 Schleicher . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 20.6 1.6 Sherman . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.7 33.9 eagan . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.1 17.6 Armstrong . . . . . . . . . . . 39.7 34.4 10.5 Hutchinson . . . . . . . . . . 26.1 14.6 4.8 Parmer . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.6 24.8 .. .. Upton . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.8 28.5 22.2 Howard . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.6 51.9 12.3 amb . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 825.6 16.3 {ack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.5 47.6 35.6 Tyler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.5 26.5 26.5 ynn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.5 27.0 Pecos . . . . . . . . . 24.2 3.5 16.8 San Saba . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.5 44.5 42.2 Sutton . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.1 11.4 4.3 Zavala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.3 24.0 5.0 Kerr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.1 21.8 20.7 Chambers............. 39.3 27.6 5.8 Glasscock . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.1 37.0 Menard . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.0 38.6 34.8 Yoakum . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.9 ‘14.0 Somervell . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.9 48.5 43.8 Val Verde . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.8 20.4 50.0 El Paso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.5 22.5 25.1 Andrews . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.8 5.6 25.0 Deaf Smith . . . . . . . . .. 37.2 35.2 1.1 Bandera . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.4 25.2 24.4 ldham . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.2 32.1 4.3 Liberty . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.4 38.9 1.1 Hemphill . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.9 28.1 7.9 Kimble . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.2 22. 1 21.4 olk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.8 40.0 41.5 Gillespie . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.1 21.7 13.0 Ochiltree . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.6 34.8 . . . . Galveston . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.9 18.0 28.8 ray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.9 29.5 11.3 Edwards . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.9 23.9 12.0 Bailey . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.9 23.9 .... Orange . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.3 27.1 22.3 Sabine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.8 38.3 34.9 Kendall . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.6 20.2 17.7 Midland . . . . . . . . . . ... 35.3 29.0 9.5 Gaines . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.9 17.4 50.0 Llano . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.0 41.2 39.5 Hockley . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.7 13.0 .... Potter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.9 27.1 5. 1 Starr . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.6 28.4 17.3 Harris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.7 25.7 20.6 Newton . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.6 14.6 27.6 Dawson . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.0 32.1 20.0 Brewster . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5 3. 1 14.3 Aransas . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.9 21.5 23.4 ' Loving . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.3 ... . 33.3 Lipscomb . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.7 21.0 8.5 Cochran . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.2 31.2 ... . Randall . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.1 39.1 2.0 Jasper . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.1 22.4 30.9 Hansford . . . . . . . . . . .. 32. 1 16.4 . . .. Hardin . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.1 13.7 ~ 19.2 Dallam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. 1 23.3 . . .. Ector . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.7 13.1» 56.0 Blanco . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.0 31.8 28.7 Crane . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.5 16.6 Hidalgo . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.8 35.0 50.6 Zapata . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.5 10.1 1.4 Throckmorton . . . . . . .. 31.8 42.2 41.9 Presidio . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.7 30.0 30. 1 Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.7 23. 1 6. 1 Terrell . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.3 23.3 . . . . Mason . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.7 39.8 32.8 Hudspeth . . . . . . 8.5 Castro . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.7 28.7 13.1 Culberson . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.5 . . . . . . . . Uvalde . . . . . . . . . . . .' 31.4 31.5 19.6 Kinney . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.1 20.0 18.0 Terry . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.0 22.5 16.6 Jeff Davis . . . . . . . . . .. 6.5 2.1 2.0 Hartley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.9 27.8 3.7 Winkler . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.7 .8 33.3 Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 65 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adler, Abraham. Ricardo and Carey in ihren ansichten uber die grundrente. Leipzig, 1873. , Anderson, James. Observations on the means exciting a spirit of national industry; chiefly intended to promote the Agriculture, Commerce, Man- ufactures, and Fisheries of Scotland. In a series of letters to a friend. Dublin, 1779, 2 v. Recreations. Argyll, Duke of, Unseen Foundations of Society. Bagehot, Walter, Economic Studies, ed. by R. H. Hutton. London, 1880. Baird, Henry Carey. Political Economy. New York, 1875. Carey and Two of his Recent Critics, Eugene V. Bohm-Bawerk _and Alfred Marshall. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society (Phila.), XXIX, 166-173. Bascom, John. Political Economy, New York, 1859. Social Theory. New York, 1895. Bentham, Jermy. The Theory of Legislation, ed. by R. Hildreth. London, '1896. Bizzell, W. B. Land Tenantry in the United States. Exp. Sta. Bul. No. 278, A. & M. College of Texas, College Station, Texas. Black, J. D. Proceedings of the A. A. A. L. Dec. 29-31, pp. 6-21. Bogart, E. L. The Economic History of the United States, New York, 1909. Bonar, James. Letters of David Ricardo to Thomas Robert Malthus, 1810- 1823. Oxford, 1871. Malthus and His Work. New York, 1885. _ Philosophy and Political Economy in Someof their Historical Rela- tions. New York, 1893. _ Where Ricardo Succeeded and Where He Failed. American Economic Association, bulletin, 4th series, I, No. 2, 85-96. Bonar, James, and Hollander, J. H. Letters of David Ricardo to Hutchins ‘Trowen and Others, 1811-1823. Oxford, 1899. i Bowen, Francis. Principles of Political Economy, Boston 1856. American Political Economy. New York, 1885. Bright, Richard. Travels from Vienna through Hungary. Buchanan, David. Wealth of Nations. Bullock, C. J. Selected Readings in Economics. Boston, 1907. ‘The Variation of Productive Forces. Quarterly Journal of Economics, XVI, 473-513. Burgess, J. W. The Middle Period, 1817-1858. New York, 1905. Cairnes, J. E. The Character and Logical Method of Political Economy. 2nd ed., New Work, 1875. Some Leading Principles of Political Economy Newly Expounded. _New York, 1874. Callender, G’. S. Selections from the Economic History of the United States, ‘1765-1860, with introductory essays. Boston, 1909. Cannan. Edwin. A. History of the Theories of Production and Distribution in English Political Economy from 1776-1848, 2nd ed., London, 1903. The Origin of the Law of Diminishing Returns. Economic Journal, II, 53-69. Cantillon, Ricahrd. Essai sur le commerce. Cardozo, Jacob Newton. Notes on Political Elconomy. Charleston, 1826. lRleminilscences of Charleston. Charleston, 1866. - anue . 66 Bulletin N0. 318 Carey, H. C. Essay on the Rate of Wages; with an examination of the causes of the diiference in the conditions of labouring population throughout the world. Phila., 1835. The Harmony of Interests, Agricultural, Manufacturing, and Com- lmercial. Phila., 1851. Past, Present and Future. Phila., 1848. Principles of Political Economy. Phila., 1837-1840, 3 V. Principles of Social Science. Phila., 1888, 3 v. Manual (Ed. Kate McKean). ‘The Unity of Law; as exhibited in the relations of Physical, Social Mental, and Moral Science. Phila., 1872. Wealth; Of What Does It Consist? Penn Monthly Magazines, October, 1870. Carey, Mathew. Autobiographical Sketches. ’Phila., 1829. Essays on Political Economy. Phila., 1822. a Carlton, H. H. The Relation of Marginal rents to price. Qr. Jr. of Ec. 1906. Carver, T. N. Distribution of Wealth. - Camzpél élggiitation of the Ricardian Theory of Rent. Pol. Sci. Qr. 33 —-—. Chalmers, T. On Political Economy in Connection with the Moral State and Moral Prospects of Society. Glasgow, 1832. Cheyney, E. P. An Introduction to the Industrial and Social History of England. New York, 1910. ‘ I 4 Clark, J. B. Capital and Its Earnings. American Economic Association ‘publications. III, No. 2, 81-149. Distribution as Determined by a Law of Rent. Quarterly Journal of Economics, V, 289-318. Cohn, Gustav. A History of Political Economy, trans. by J. A. Hill. Phila., 1894 System der Nationalokonomie, ein, Lesbuch fur Studirende. Stuttgart, 1885. 2 v. Colton, Calvin. Public Economy for the United States. Cincinnati, 1848. Colwell, S. The Ways and Means of Payment. Phila., 1859. Coman, Katherine. The Industrial History of the United States. New York, 1910. Commons, Jhon R. The Distribution of Wealth. New York, 1905. Cooper, Thomas. Lectures on Political Economy. Columbia, S. C., 1826. The same with additions. Columbia, S. C., 1829. Cossa, Lugi. An Introduction to the Study of Political Economy. London, 1893. , Coxe, W. Travels. Cunningham, G. G. The English Nation ; a History of England in the Lives of Englishmen. V. Edinburgh, 1963-1868.’ Cunningham, W. The Growth of English Industry and Commerce. Cam- bridge, 1896. 2 v. Davenport, H. J . Value and Distribution. Chicago, 1908. Devas, C. S. Political Economy. 2d ed., New York, 1901. Dew, Thomas R. The Great Question of the Day. Letters from President ‘Thomas R. Dew, of William and Mary College, Virginia, to a Repre- sentative in Congress from that state; on the subject of the Financial Policy of the Administration. Washington, 1840. Lectures on the Restrictive System; delivered to the Senior Political Class of William and Mary College. Richmond, 1829. Dunligiéh C. F. Economic Essays. O. M. W. Sprague, editor, New York, Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 67 Henry C. Carey. Palgrave’s Dictionary of Political Economy. I, 225-226. Ricardo’s Use of Facts. Qr. Jr. of Ec., I., 474-476. Eden, F. M. State of the Poor from the Conquest to the Reformation. Edmond, P. R. An Enquiry into the Principles of Population, exhibiting ‘a system of regulations for the poor, designed immediately to lessen and finally to remove the evils which have hitherto pressed upon the La- bouring Classes in Society. London, 1832. Elder, William. Conversations on the Principal Subjects of Political Econ- omy. Phila., 1882. A Memoir of Henry C. Carey. Phila., 1880. Questions of the Day. Economic and Social. Phila., 1871. Elliott, O. L. The Tariff Controversy of the United States, 1789-1833. Palo Alto, Cal., 1892. Ely, R. T. Outlines of Economics. New York, 1893. ‘The same, revised ed. New York, 1909. Past and Present of Political Economy. Johns Hopkins University Studies, ed. series, No. III, Baltimore, 1884. Ensor, George. An Inquiry into the Population of Nations Containing a Refutation of Mr. Malthus’ Essay on Population. London, 1818. Espinas, A. V. Historie des Doctrines Economiques. Paris, 1891. Everett, A. H. New Ideas on Population; With Remarks on the Theories of Malthus and Godwin. Boston, 1826. Falkner, R. P. Some aspects of theory of Rent. An. Am. Ac. Pol. and Soc. Science. Vol. 12, p. 89. Fetter, F A. The Essay of Malthus: A Centennial Review. Yale Review, VII, No. 2, 153-167. Pub. of Am. Econ. Assn. Part I, p. 196. ' Discussion of the Phenomena of Dynamics. American Economic Asso- ciation publications, 3rd series, XI, No. 1, 130-135. Passing of the old Rent Concept. Qr. Jr. of Econ. XV, 416-455. The Principles of Economics. New York, 1904. Population or Prosperity-Annual Address of the President. American Economic Review, III, No. 1, 5-19. The Relation Between Rent and Interest. Publications of American Economic Association. 3rd Series. V. Pt. I. Fitsherbarbe, Sir Anthony. Treatyse on Surveying. Furber, H. J. Geschichte und Kritische Studien zur Entwickelung der okonomischen Theorien in Amerika. Halle, 1891. Ganihl, Charles. An inquiry into the various systems of Political Economy; their advantages and disadvantages: and the theory most favorable to the exercise of national wealth, trans. from the French by D. Builleau. New York, 1812. George, Henry. Progress and Poverty. New York, 1885. Gibson, A. H. NaturalEconomy and Cosmopolitan Economy. New York, 1909. Gide, C. and Rist, C. Historie des Doctrines Economiques depuis les Phys- iocrats jusqu’a nos jours. Paris, 1909. Godwin, William. Essay on Population. London, 1873. Gray, L. C. Am. Farm Ec. Assn. Nov. 1910. . Gray, S. Happiness of the States: Or, an Inquiry Concerning Population, ‘the modes of subsisting and employing it, and the effects of all on human happiness. London, 1815. Greeley, Horace. Essays Designed to Elucidate the Science of Political Economy. Phila., 1870. 68 Bulletin N0. 318 Gross, Charles. The Gild Merchant. Haney, A. T. Economics, New York, 1906. . H-ale, W. H. Useful Knowledge for the Producers of Wealth, etc. New York, 1833. Haney, Lewis H. History of Economic Thought. New York, 1911. Rent and Prices, Qr. Jr. Ec., XXIV, Nov., 1910. The Ricardo Centenary Discussion. American Economic Association, bulleting 4th series, I, No. 2, 98-102. Hawley, R. C. Forestry in New England. Hirst, M. E. Life of Friedrich List, New York, 1909. Hollander, J . H. The Concept of Marginal Rent, Qr. Jr. Ec., X, p. 180. Hobson, J. A. The Law of the Three Rents. Qr. Jr. Ec., V, 263-420. Economics of Distribution. Hollander, J. H. Agricultural Depression in England. Yale Review, VI, No. 4, 409-420. ‘ Letters of David Ricardo to John Ramsay McCulloch, 1816-1823. Pub- lications of the American Economic A.ssoc., 1st series, X, Nos. 5-6. The Work and Influence of Ricardo. Amer. Econ. Asso, bulletin, 4th series, I, N0. 2, 71-84. Ingram, J. K. A History of Political Economy. 2nd Ed., New York, 1909. Jarrold, Thomas. Dissertation: Man, Philosophical, Physiological, and Po- litical. In Answer to Mr. Malthus. London, 1806. Jenks, J Henry C. Carey als Nationalokonom. Jena, 1885. Jevons, W. S. Theory of Political Economy. London, 1871. The Principles of Economics. Johnson, A. S. Rent in Modern Economic Theory. American Econ. Asso. publications, 3rd serise, III, No. 4. The Ricardo Centenary Discussion. Amer. Econ. Assoc. Bulletin, 4th series, I, No. 2, 97-98. Johnson, E. R. American Railway Transportation. New York, 1904. Jones, Richard. Peasant Rents. Economic Classics, ed. by W. J. Ashley, New York, 1897. - Keys, J. N. The Scope and Method of Political Economy. 2nd ed., Lon- don, 1897. - Kropotkin, Petr. A. Fields, Factories and Workshops. La Borde, Maximilian. History of South Carolina College, from its incor- poration, Dec. 19, 1801, to Dec. 19, 1865, including Charleston, S. C., 1874. Lauderdale, Lord. An Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth and into the means and causes of its increase. Edinburgh, 1864. Leroy-Beaulieu, Paul. Repartition des Richesses. Paris, 1882. Leslie, T. E. C. Political Economy in the United States. Fortnightly Re- view, XXVIII (Old Series XXIV), 488-509. List, Friedrich. National System of Political Economy. With preliminary essay and notes by S. Colwell. Phila., 1856. Livermor, C. H. Carey and his Social System. Political Science Quarterly, V, 553-582. Loria, Achille. The economic synthesis. MacLeod, H. D. The History of Economics. London, 1896. McCulloch, J. R. The Literature of Political Economy. London, 1865. A Selected Collection of Scarce and Valuable Economic Tracts. Lon- don, 1859. Works of David Ricardo. London, 1871. Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 69 McFarland, Chas. W. Distribution by Law of Rent. McVickar, John. Outlines of Political Economy, being a republication of the article upon that subject contained in the Edinburg Supplement to the Encyclopedia Britannica, together with notes explanatory and critical and a summary of the science. New York, 1825. Malthus, T. R. An Essay on the Principles of Population. 5th ed., Lon- don, 1817. Reports respecting grain and the corn laws. Grounds of an Opinion—Restricting Corn. Observations on the Effects of the Corn Laws. The Nature and Progress of Rent. Being a reprint edited by J. H. Hollander. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1903. Principles of Political Economy considered with a view to their prac- tical application London, 1820. Marsh, G. P. The Earth as Modified by Human Action. Being a last re- vision of Man and Nature. New York, 1898. Marshall, Alfred. Principles of Economics, an introductory volume. 6th ed., London, 1910. I Matheson, C. F. Narrative of a Visit to Brazil. v Mill, J. S. Principles of Political Economy, with some of their applications to Social Philosophy. Ashley ed., London, 1909. Political Economy. Neill, C. P. Daniel Raymond; an Early Chapter in the History of Economic Theory in the United States. Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, 15th series, No. 6. Neilson, Nellie. Customary Rents. Newman, Samuel P. Elements of Political Economy. New York, 1835. Nordhoff, Charles. Politics for Young Americans, New York, 1875. Nourse, E. G. Agricultural Economics. Opdyke, George. A Treatise on Political Economy. New York, 1851. Owen, Robert. Moral Physiology, a brief and plain treatise on the pop- ulation question. 1833. Pantaleoni, M. Phenomena of Economic Dynamics. American Econ. Assoc. publications, 3rd series, XI, No. 1, 112-122. Patten, S. N. Interpretation of Ricardo. Qr. Jr. of Ec. Assoc., VII, 322-252. Malthus and Ricardo. Amer. Ec. Assoc. publications, 1st series, IV, No. 5, 333-358. The Premises of Political Economy. Phila., 1885. Perry, A. L. Political Economy. 18th Ed. New York, 1883. The Foes of the Farmer (an address) Published by State Board of Agriculture of Nebraska, 1874. Phillips, Willard. A Manuel of Political Economy. Boston, 1828. Propositions Concerning Free Trade and Protection. Boston, 1850. Pickering, John. The workingman’s Political Economy, founded upon the principles of immutable justice, and the inalienable rights of man; de- signed for the promotion of national reform. ‘Cincinnatti, 1847. Pierson, N. G. Principles of Economics, trans. by A. A. Wotzel, London, 1902. Place, Francis. Illustrations -and Proofs of the Principles of Population; including an examination of the proposed remedies of Mr. Malthus, and a reply to the objections of Mr. Godwin and others. London, 1822. Purves, George. (Pseud. of S. Gray). The Principles of Population and Production investigated, and the question: does population regulate sub- sistence, or subsistence population * * * and shall government en- courage or check early marriage * * * discussed. (Miscellaneous Sta- tistics). London, 1818. Rae, John. Life of Adam Smith. New York, 1895. The Sociological Theory of Capital: being a complete reprint of the New Principles of Political Economy, 1834, by John Rae . . . edited 70 Bulletin N0. 318 with biographical sketches and notes by charles Whitney Mixter, New York, 1905. Raymond, Daniel. The Elements of Constitutional Law and Political Econ- omy, 4th ed. Baltimore, "1840. iPolitical Economy in two parts, The Elements of 2nd ed. Baltimore, 1820. ‘Thoughts on Political Economy in two parts. 1st ed., Baltimore, 1820. Reynolds, J. S. Practical Observations on Ricardo’s Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London, 1822. Ricardo, David. Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Gonner ed. London, 1908. Essay on the influence of a Low Price of Corn. Roshorr, W. Principles of Political Economy. Chicago, 1882. Sadler, Michael T. The Law of Population; a treatise in six books; in dis- proof of the superfecundity of human beings, and developing the real principle of their increase. London, 1830. 2 v. Say, J. B. A Treatise of Political Economy. 4th American ed. Phila., 1830. Schmoller, Gustav. Grundriss der Algemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre. Lepzig, 1901. Jahrbuch fur gesetzgebung, verwaltung und volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich. Leipzig, 1877. Senior, N. W. Two lectures on Population, delivered before the University of Oxford in 1828. Added a correspondence between the author and T. R. Malthus. London, 1831. An Outline of Political Economy. London, 1836. Three Lectures on the Cost of Obtaining Money, and some effects of paper money. London, 1830. Three lectures on the Rate of Wages. London, 1831. Sewall, H. R. The ‘Theories of Value before Adam Smith. Amer. Econ. Assoc. publications. 3rd series, II, No. 3. Small, A. The Kameralists. Sherwood, Sidney. Tendencies in American Economic Thought. Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, 15th series, N0. 12. ‘ , Sidgwick, Henry. Principles of Political Economy. 3rd ed. London, 1901. Sismonde, J. C. L’E'tudes sur l’ economie Politique. Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of. the Wealth of Nations. Cannan ed. New York, 1904. ' 2 v. Smith, E. Peshine. A Manual of Political Economy. New York, 1853. Spencer, Herbert. A theory of Population, deduced from the general law (Iif anirgioal husbandry. Westminister Review, April, 1852, new series, , 468- 1. Steuart, Sir James. An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy. London, 1767. Taussig, F. W. Capital, Interest, and Diminishing Returns. Qr. Jr. of E-con. XXII, 333. State Papers and Speeches on the Tariff. Cambridge, 1892. Taylor, H. C. The Ricardo Centenary Discussion. Amer. Ec. Assoc. Bul- letin, 4th series, No. 2, 102-109. Agricultural Economics. ~ Rent of Agr. Land. Qr. Jr. Econ. 1903. Thompson, R. E. Elements of Political Economy, with special reference to the industrial history of nations. Phila., 1882. Henry C. Carey. American Supplement to the Encyclopedia Britannica. New York, 1883, 730-723. Social Science and National Economy. Phila., 1875. Thompson, Thomas P. The True Theory of Rent. Thunen, J. H. Der Isolirite Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirthschaft und Nationalokonomie, oder Untersuchungen uber den einfluss, den die Relation Between Rents and Agricultural Land Values 71 Getreidepreise, der Reichtum des Bodens und die Abgaden auf den Acerbau ausuben. Hamburg, 1826. Toynbee. The Industrial Revolution, pp. 132-135. Tucker, George. Correspondence with Alexander H. Everett on Political Economy, 1845. .'The Laws of Wages, Profits, and Rent, Investigated. Phila., 1837. Political Economy for the People. Phila. 1859. Progress of Population and Wealth in the United States in fifty years as exhibited by the Decennial Census, taken in that period. New York, 1843. lTheory of Profits. Merchants’ Magazine and Commercial Review, II. Turner, J. R. Henry C. Carey’s Attitude toward the Ricardian Theory of Rent. Qr. Jr. of Econ. XXVI, 644-672. Vale, G. Manual of Political Economy, a supplement to the Diamond. New York, 1841. ‘ Vethake, Henry. An Essay on the Moral Relations of Political Economy. lThe Annual of the Board of Education of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, ed. by Rev. John Breckenridge. Phila., 1835. ‘The Principles of Political Economy. Phila., 1838. Wade, John. History of the Middle and Working Classes with a popular exposition of the Economical and Political Principles which have in- fluenced the past and present conditions of the industrial order. 3rd ed., London, 1835. Walker, Amasa. The Science of Wealth, a manual of political economy. 4th ed., Boston, 1866. . Walker, F. A. The General Characteristics of American Agriculture. Tenth Census of the United States, III, xxxi-xxxiii. United States Census, 1890. Land and its Rent, Boston, 1883. Memoir; of Amasa Walker (Reprint from New England Historical and Genealogical Register for Apr., 1888). Boston, 1888. Ware, Nathaniel. Notes on Political Economy Applicable to the United States, signed by a Southern Planter, New York, 1844. Wayland, F., and Wayland, H. L. Memoir of the Life and Labors of Francis Wayland, President of Brown University, New York, 1868. 2 v. Wieser, Friederich von. Natural Value. West, Sir Edward. The Application of Capital to Land. Being a reprint edited by J. Hf. Hollander. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1903. Wetzel, W. A. Benjamin Franklin as an Economist. Johns Hopkins Uni- versity Studies in Historical and Political Science, 13th series, No. 9. Baltimore, 1895. Whittaker, A. C. History and Criticism of the Labor Theory of value in English Political Economy. Columbia University Studies, XXIX. Wilson, Marcius. A Treatise on Civil Polity and Political Economy. New York, 1838. Wilson, W. D. First Principles of Political Economy with reference to statesmanship and the progress of civilization. Phila., 1875. Wright, C. D. The Industrial Evolution of the United States. Meadville, 1895. Young, Arthur. Farmers Guide. Farmers Kalendar. Rural Economy. Farmers Tour. Travels in France. - Youngblood, B., and Cox, A. B. An Economic Study of a Typical Ranching Area on the Edwards Plateau of Texas. Experiment Station Bulletin No. 297, A. and M. College of Texas, College Station, Texas.