EVOLUTION OF THE COTTON SYSTEM 57 



of cotton amounting to a specified cash value at harvest 

 time. Laborers who had worked up to the dignity of 

 standing renters owned their animals and work tools. 

 Since the renters possessed no capital the landlord often 

 found it necessary either to stand for his supplies at 

 the merchant's or to furnish them himself. Thus grew 

 up the crop lien system as will be shown later. 



That the system was a successful adjustment for the 

 times was shown by the ease with which it displaced 

 wage labor on the cotton farm. That it deserved to 

 become a permanent arrangement is doubtful. With a 

 measure of truth share renting has been called "a sys- 

 tem whereby labor is secured without wages and loans 

 are made without security." The lack of any security 

 except the crop leads in many cases to close supervision 

 over the activities of the renter. How this may fail is 

 told by a Georgia planter : 



The plan of dividing crops under the share system is an 

 equitable one, and if it were properly carried out there could 

 be no cause for complaint; but the owner in nine cases out 

 of ten, has not only to furnish his farm, but to supply all 

 the needs of the tenant, without having any control over the 

 time or acts of the tenant, who is often seen idling and loi- 

 tering when his crop requires his immediate attention. Ten- 

 ants owe the owners for provisions, clothing, tobacco, etc., 

 and in many cases they are indifferent as to whether they 

 produce enough to pay the owners these advances made dur- 

 ing the season. Thus the landlords annually lose largely by 

 the system of shares, simply because they have all the risks 

 and no corresponding control. 39 



39 "Report on Cotton Production, Georgia," Census 1880, VI, 172. 





