4I ] TENDENCIES IN LANDOWNERSHIP 4I 



movement, however, not possessing the strength that 

 has usually been attributed to it. Two opposing ten- 

 dencies have operated with reference to the size of hold- 

 ings — one to divide, the other to multiply it. Several 

 forces have operated on the side of each of these ten- 

 dencies. The figures go to show that the forces of 

 diminution have prevailed slightly over the forces of 

 increase. It is hoped that the next chapter will throw 

 some light on the action of these opposing forces. 



The figures thus far used in this discussion pertain 

 only to thirty-one of the one hundred and thirty-seven 

 counties in the state, but they have been used as war- 

 ranting conclusions respecting the ownership of land 

 among the whites throughout the state. This has not 

 been an unfair procedure, because the counties to which 

 the figures specially relate are representative counties. 1 



In order to get at the geographical distribution of 

 holdings with respect to their size, and in order to get 

 within the nearest range of exactness touching the num- 

 ber of landowners, as well as the average acreage per 

 proprietorship for the state as a whole, a study was made 

 of the 1903 tax digest (1902 digest used in four or five 

 instances) for each of the one hundred and thirty-seven 

 counties, with the results presented in the Appendix. 2 



^he following modification, however, is to be borne in mind in ap- 

 plying to the state the conclusions warranted by the statistics describing 

 the thirty-one counties: There are four or five counties not represented 

 in the above figures, that tend to reduce the average size of holdings 

 throughout the state. These are the counties having a large city each 

 — Fulton, with Atlanta; Bibb, with Macon; Muscogee, with Columbus; 

 Richmond, with Augusta, and Chatham, with Savannah. In the 

 vicinity of these cities many small truck farms have developed, and, 

 although they represent an important phase of farming in Georgia, it 

 was thought best to confine the above statistics to the strictly rural 

 counties. 



2 Infra. 



