96 UNITED STATES - AGRICULTURAI, ECONOMY IN GENERAL 



they inherit a considerable amount of property it is hkely to fall into their 

 hands in middle Ufe , not when thej^ are making a beginning as farmers. The 

 tenant is, without doubt, in most cases a poor man. How^ever,. he is not 

 doomed to remain a poor man always. Somewhat surprising was the result 

 of a government sur\'ey made a few years ago into the condition of over 

 seven hundred representative farmers in several northern States. It appears 

 from this sur^'e3"[that tenants make a larger labour income than do landown- 

 ing farmers. This is another way of saying that under present conditions 

 and circumstances farming as a business does not return a large percentage 

 on the investment. In other v/ords, land rentals have been capitalized at a 

 low rate of interest and in consequence land values are high. Rentals do not 

 rise as readil}- as the selling value of land and, therefore, other things being 

 equal, it is cheaper to rent land than to bu}^ it. Of course, other things are 

 by no means equal, and it would be hazardous to say that it is better to rent 

 than to buy, but it is safe to say that one must pay for the advantages of 

 owning land. The tenants have more to show for a year's work, so far as 

 immediate income is concerned, than have farmers who own the bnd they 

 work. This is true if five per cent, interest be charged on the investment in 

 land . Turning the problem around, it may be shown that, since the landowner 

 earns fully as much as a labourer as does the tenant, he has but three to three 

 and a half per cent, interest on his investment. This suggests strongly that 

 the prices of land are too high, and that a farmer will do better to rent than 

 to buy. However, land is stiU rising in value, especially in the parts of the 

 country where tenancy' is prevalent, and the owner has the advantage of 

 the increase in value while the tenant does not. Add to this the great ad- 

 vantage in ha\ang control over the operations of a farm for a considerable 

 period of years, the satisfaction of staying in one place and building up a 

 business, and, all told, it suggests caution in advising a man who is able to 

 buy to refrain from doing so. The labour income of the tenant is indeed 

 larger than that of the landowning farmer, but the accumulated wealth at the 

 end of a few years is larger in the case of the landowner. 



§ 4. Relation of tenancy to permanent agriculture. 



The (H^estion maj' well be asked whether tenancy is or is not compatible 

 with the maintenance of soil fertility. In England it has been found pos- 

 sible to keep the soil up to its best over several generations of a landlord- 

 tenant system. But in England the landlords are neither retired farmers, 

 hoping to leave as large an estate in immediate value as possible, nor yet 

 are they speculators who hope to make a sale at an advanced price. The 

 interest of the landlord in the land is a permanent one, and as a corollary 

 to this the interest of the tenant in the land is hardly less permanent. The 

 tenant moves ver\' infrequently and has no hope, usually no desire, to buy 

 land. As the tenant does desire to have the land continue to yield well. 



