512 



READINGS IN RURAL ECONOMICS 



It will be seen that the ranks in value and in tenancy corre- 

 spond closely in about two-thirds of the states and differ materially 

 in the other instances. Must it be inferred, then, that the case 

 is a mere coincidence ? Before dismissing it as such, let us drop 

 three states from the list and re-rank the remaining nine. Drop- 

 ping Wisconsin, Kansas, and Nebraska, the result is that, in 

 value and tenancy respectively, the ranking is as follows : 



RANK IN VALUE AND IN TENANCY, SELECTED STATES 



Surely, if this be a mere coincidence, it is a very striking one. 

 But why drop Wisconsin, Kansas, and Nebraska ? In partial an- 

 swer it may be said that Wisconsin has always been remarkably 

 low in tenancy, from causes which will be discussed later, and 

 that Kansas and Nebraska have come up rapidly in tenancy, due 

 to the unusual adaptability of their lands to extensive farming, 

 and to the further fact that in them no considerable amount of 

 available unoccupied land is left, to be taken by home-seekers, and 

 so for a time balance the tendency toward the purchase of land 

 for speculation. Land held for speculation is always for rent, 

 and the time has arrived in these states when tenants are plen- 

 tiful enough to take the most of it. On the other hand, much 

 land in Minnesota and the Dakotas goes begging for occupants ; 

 it must be worked by its owner or not at all, hence a very low 

 rate of tenancy in the newer sections of these states, which holds 

 the general average of tenancy down, in spite of a high rate in 

 the older sections where speculators and tenants are both plentiful. 



