REGION OF DISCONTENT J 9 



likely to be worth about five-sixths as much as those on the farm oc- 

 cupied by its owner. The tenant had a little less than his proportional 

 share of implements and farm machinery, in part because his need was 

 less for such items as haying tools, corn binders, or milk separators. 

 Hibbard pictured the tenant farmer in 1910 as one who was much younger 

 than the landowner and as one who stayed on the same farm about a 

 third as long. He was likely to have poor buildings and comparatively lit- 

 tle grassland and livestock, and probably would be devoting his time to the 

 raising of grain to haul to market, although he might feed much of his 

 corn to hogs. 



These conditions seem to indicate that the high price of land was not 

 the sole reason for "the concentration of tenancy on the better land." The 

 tenant farmer usually lacked the capital and was ill equipped to raise 

 stock on a wider basis. He wanted returns that same year and not several 

 years later. Usually the landlord gave him no encouragement to raise live- 

 stock because that would require a great deal of money to build the neces- 

 sary barns, silos, and fences. Even if the farmer wanted to raise stock, he 

 was likely to be discouraged by the fact that he would probably have to 

 move soon. All this seemed to indicate that the tenant veered toward that 

 type of farming for which he felt best fitted and which best met his needs. 

 The one thing upon which the landlord and tenant were completely 

 agreed was that they both wanted "prompt returns on the outlay." 2 



Critics of the farm tenancy system pointed out that the first and most 

 important reform was to get rid of the one-year lease. They urged that the 

 tenant be assured tenure as long as he farmed satisfactorily and also im- 

 munity from frequent and unreasonable increases in rent. The English 

 system, which conceded the right of the tenant to whatever fertility he 

 had put into the soil without being able to harvest it, was cited as an ex- 

 ample for American landlords. In England, unlike the situation in the 

 United States, a tenant could count on a virtually permanent lease and 

 just treatment. Should the landlord grow careless with the tenant's rights, 

 the tenant had the right of action at law for damages. 30 



29. B. H. Hibbard, "Tenancy in the North Central States," in T. N. Carver, ed., 

 Selected Readings in Rural Economics (Boston, 1916), pp. 511-22. 



30. Wallaces' Farmer, XXXVIII (April n, 1913), p. 650; (October 10, 1913), 

 p. 1372. 



