FARM OWNERSHIP AND TENANCY IN TEXAS. 



21 



farm, because their returns from the farm do not justify such ex- 

 penditures, or because tenants will not take care of these improve- 

 ments. 



If legal provision were made for the compensation of tenants for 

 improvements put on with the landlord's consent, the present prob- 

 lem of tenant housing would be less acute, landlords would not so 

 often be accused of lack of interest in this problem, and the mutual 

 interest in the farm arising from a joint ownership of improvements 

 would make for a more stable and reliable tenantry. # Moreover, 

 with such a provision, tenants would be able to invest their savings 

 in the farm business, which is possible only to a limited extent with 

 the prevailing crop and renting system. This lack of opportunity 

 to accumulate by gradually increasing their investment in the farm 

 constitutes one of the most serious drawbacks to the tenure and 

 financial progress of the tenant in this area. 



The amount of supervision given the tenant by the landlord is 

 largely dependent on the location of the landlord's residence with 

 reference to the rented land. Data on the residence of the landlords, 

 given in Table 13, show that very few of the landlords of share 

 croppers live outside of the county, and that 42.2 per cent live near 

 the farm of the cropper. On the other hand, only one out of eight 

 landlords of share tenants live near the tenant's farm, and over one- 

 fifth of them live in another county. 



Table 13. — Residence of landlords of share croppers and share tenants. 



Landlords who live 

 near tenant farm. 



Landlords who live 

 in same county. 



Class of tenants. 



Per cent 

 Number. of all 



reporting. 



8hare croppers . 

 Share tenants. . 



42.2 

 12.2 



Number. 



Per cent 



of all Number, 

 reporting, 



Landlords who do 

 not live in same 

 county. 



31 

 127 



48.4 

 G7.6 



Per cent 



of all 

 reporting. 



9.4 



20.2 



The recapitulations for the tux rolls of Bell, Hill, and McLennan 

 ( tounties for L919 show that only 8.4 per cent of all the land outside 

 of incorporated cities and (owns was owned by nonresidents of the 

 county in which the land was Located. Only 17 of the nonresidential 

 landowners in Bell County in HMD lived outside of Texas, and none 

 lived outside of the United States. 



1 1 will be 1 1' -ted from Table L4 that about half of all share croppers 



were sub j eel to -n pen ision by l:i n< I lords. The extent of I his super- 

 vision is iri ;i w;iy indicated by the average number of visits the land 

 lonl makes to the farm during the year, namely, 85 for each of the 



