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. 
Class of tenants. 
Landlords who live Landlords who live La ^ lo H J s a £ h ° *? 
near tenant farm. in same county. county 
Per cent Per cent Per cent 
Number. of all Number. of all Number. Of all 
reporting. reporting. reporting. 
Share croppers 
27 " 42.2 31 48.4 6 9.4 
23 12.2 127 67.6 38 20.2 
The recapitulations for the tax rolls of Bell, Hill, and McLennan 
Counties for 1919 show that only 8.1 per cent of all the land outside 
of incorporated cities and towns was owned by nonresidents of the 
county in which the land was located. Only 17 of the nonresidential 
landowners in Bell County in 1919 lived outside of Texas, and none 
lived outside of the United States. 
It will be noted from Table 11 that about half of all share croppers 
were subject to supervision by landlords. The extent of this super- 
vision is in a way indicated by the average number of visits the land- 
lord makes to the farm during the year, namely, 85 for each of the 
