CHAPTER XXIII 

 FORMS OF LAND TENURE IN THE UNITED STATES (Continued) 



Share versus cash rent. Is it better to let land on shares 

 or for cash? The answer to this question depends largely 

 upon the amount of time the landlord can give to the supervision 

 of the farm and to the amount of money and ability possessed 

 by the tenant. The landlord who lets land on shares must give 

 much attention to the management of the farm, but he who lets 

 his land for cash need give little attention to the farm beyond 

 the securing of the right tenant under proper agreements. 

 Share tenancy usually yields larger returns to the landlord than 

 cash tenancy, because he renders more service, takes more 

 risk, and often furnishes more of the capital. 



The tenant with little capital and but little experience in 

 farming finds share tenancy better than remaining a hired man. 

 Compared with the cash tenant he is more dependent and may 

 make less money, but if he lacks the capital and skill to succeed 

 as a cash tenant he will find share farming under the supervision 

 of a landlord who has been a successful farmer more profitable, 

 as well as a more independent life, than working for wages. 

 For many young farmers a period as share tenant under the 

 supervision of a good landlord who is himself a successful farmer 

 is a most valuable apprenticeship in farm management. 



Share tenancy. Share tenancy is more common than cash 

 tenancy in the United States. In 1910 there were 1,399,923 

 tenants whose entire rent was paid in the form of a share of 

 the product or a share of the proceeds. There were 128,466 

 who paid rent in the form of a share of the product and who paid 

 a cash rent in addition usually for a part of the farm, the pro- 

 ceeds of which were not shared with the landlord. There were 

 712,294 tenants reported as paying a cash rent solely, but a 



285 



