26 ECONOMICS OF LAND TENURE IN GEORGIA [ 2 6 



essential truth pertinent to conditions in Georgia as well 

 as to the growth of large plantations. In order to state 

 correctly the basis of the advantage the matter must be 

 subjected to a little closer analysis than has usually been 

 made. 



The small proprietor of land was at a disadvantage in 

 competing with the planter, but not primarily because 

 the planter was in command of " cheaper labor." Of 

 course, whenever and wherever profits exist there is 

 usually "cheap labor,'' but it is the tendency of com- 

 petition to eliminate such profits by ultimately imputing 

 them to labor and capital. It is a mistake to suppose 

 that in the case of the planter the labor cost of produc- 

 tion was expressed merely in the food, shelter and cloth- 

 ing of the slave. At the end of each year a specific part 

 of the product of the industry was imputable to the labor 

 of the slave. The value of the slave was determined 

 upon the basis of this imputed product after deducting 

 the expenses connected with the maintenance of the 

 slave as well as a sinking fund against his wear and tear. 

 Interest on this capitalized value of the slave was, there- 

 fore, as important an element in the cost of production 

 as was the food, shelter and clothing of the slave. In 

 those cases where the product was unusually large, thus 

 giving rise to considerable profits, competition operated 

 to cause entrepreneurs, in order to participate in such 

 profits, to increase the number of their slaves. In this 

 way profits were cut down, and there tended to be a 

 normal product per unit of slave labor. It thus appears 

 that the entire net product imputable to the labor of the 

 slave really tended to be an element of expense in pro- 

 duction. This product was large, and consequently the 

 labor cost per unit of product was comparatively small, 

 on account of the form of organization. It was, there- 



