TENANCY IN THE SOUTHERN STATES 



529 



preceding, cash tenancy increased more rapidly than share ten- 

 ancy ; during the 1900-1910 decade the proportion of share 

 tenancy made a considerable gain, while that of cash tenancy 

 decreased. Among white tenants the change was not pronounced, 

 but among colored tenants it was. 



In 1900 out of every 100 negro tenants 51 rented on shares, 

 while 57 rented on that basis in 1910. 



For some years a principle in agricultural economics which 

 has received prominent attention is the theory of cash and share 

 rent in relation to the intensivity of cultivation. It is proved 

 that a cash tenant will cultivate more thoroughly, on the basis, 

 of course, of similar conditions. The situation in the South is 

 such that the principle seems to be contradicted. For example, 

 in the South Atlantic states the share tenants grow four bushels 

 more of corn per acre than do cash tenants, while in the North 

 the cash tenants conform to the doctrine of the economists and 

 produce appreciably more than the share tenants. In cotton 

 yields the case is unmistakable ; the share tenant produces 

 more than the cash tenant. The explanation is not far to seek. 

 In the North the tenant follows largely his own plans and 

 impulses. In the South the share tenant is supervised minutely, 

 doing the farm work as prescribed by the landlord, while the 

 cash tenant is left much more to his own devices. Hence the 

 share' tenant does better farming than his own judgment would 

 prompt him to do ; the cash tenant does poorer farming than 

 his best economic interests would suggest. 



Tin- relation of the value of land to tenancy in the South, as 

 elsewhere, is a vital one. It may be viewed in two ways: first, 

 that of the average value per acre of all owned land as compared 

 to the average value of all tenant land. The second viewpoint 

 is that of counties in which land is hi^h in price in comparison 

 with counties in which the price is low. It is by counties rather 

 than by states that conditions sufficiently similar to be compar- 

 : >und. In state after state the land held by the tenants 

 her in price (usually much higher) than is the o\\ned land. 

 The difference- in the leading cotton states in this i 

 fn>m 16 per rent in South Carolina to 60 per cent in I 



