I0 5] ECONOMIC WORKINGS OF THE SYSTEMS 105 



of tenure would suggest to him the possibility of his fail- 

 ing to reap the benefits which even the share system 

 would give him from such improvements. 



This leads to the third count against the system, 

 namely, that it supplies no adequate incentive to either 

 the landlord or the cropper to do more than is called for 

 by the customary terms of the contract. If either of them 

 does anything extra, that is to say, if the landlord furn- 

 ishes more and better capital goods, or if the cropper 

 takes extra pains in the cultivation of the crop, or himself 

 furnishes extra capital goods, the return expected from 

 such additional expenditures must be twice as large as is 

 necessary to compensate for the additional outlay. This 

 is true, unless there is a co-ordinating head for the busi- 

 ness, so that as a balance against the extra capital furn- 

 ished by the landlord, an adequate amount of extra labor 

 could be required from the cropper*, But in case efficient 

 management is called to this task it would not long be 

 content with the limitations of the share system — it 

 would devise another system, and it is already doing this 

 very thing in Georgia. 1 



1 One instance of the way in which the difficulty under consideration 

 was disposed of in the case of the cropping system may be given. Per- 

 sonal inquiries have been made as to the historical reason for the crop- 

 per's paying for one-half of the commercial fertilizers used in making 

 the crop — this being the only form of capital goods he helps to furnish. 

 The answers that have been received are inadequate. The following 

 explanation is ventured: Immediately after the war, when the cropping 

 system arose, commercial fertilizers were not used at all. Then the 

 landlord furnished the entire stock of capital goods used in making the 

 crop while the cropper supplied only the labor. Experimentation later 

 demonstrated that fertilizers increased the yield very considerably. Ac- 

 cording to the landlord's reckoning, one-half of the increased return due 

 to the use of fertilizers was not large enough to offset the cost of the 

 stuff. Inasmuch as the cropper was to share equally in the increased 

 return, it was thought proper for him to bear one-half the extra ex- 

 pense. It was, perhaps, unconsciously assumed that the landlord's 



