RELATION OF LAND INCOME TO LAND VALUE. 
27 
buildings on the one-year tenant farms was multiplied by the per- 
centage applicable to each group to obtain the amount in dollars to 
be deducted from gross rent. The net cash rents and the ratio of 
net cash rents to land value are shown in Table 8. 
Table S. — Net cash rent per acre and the ratio of net ca*h rent to land -.nine. 
Group. 
rent 
Average 
value of 
buildings 
per acre 
on 
one-year 
tenant 
farms 
Average 
repair 
and 
deprecia- 
tion per 
acre on 
buildings. 
Average 
tax 
per acre. 
Net rent 
per acre. 
Value 
per acre. 
Ratio of 
net rent 
to land 
value. 
7 
$7.46 
6.81 
7.42 
$24.40 
32. 80 
21.40 
IS. 20 
13. 20 
14.60 
14.40 
8.20 
14. 80 
$0.73 
L18 
.64 
.55 
.40 
.44 
.95 
.54 
$1.34 
1.05 
1.31 
.76 
1.00 
1. 35 
2.50 
.32 
$5.39 
4.58 
5.47 
2.^2 
3.72 
6.99 
6.34 
1.14 
4.01 
$160 
164 
225 
128 
143 
150 
98 
30 
66 
Per cent. 
3.4 
9 
10 
2.4 
14 
4.13 
5.12 
8.78 
9.79 
2.00 
5.65 
2.2 
25 
2.6 
26 
4.7 
37 
6.5 
42 
3.8 
46 
■ . 1 
The net rents given in Table 8 are approximately true net rents, 
except those in the three southern groups, 37. 42. and 40. In all 
these groups outside the South it is sufficient to deduct taxes, de- 
preciation, and repair of buildings to get net cash rents; but in the 
South a true net rent is not obtained by making only these deductions. 
The southern landlord has to carry the risk of not getting all the 
rent the tenant contracts to pay and sometimes of not getting any 
rent. In case of a failure in the cotton crop or a sharp fall in cotton 
prices after the contracts are made, the southern tenant will probably 
be unable to pay all the rent he contracted to pay and in some cases 
he may not be able to pay any of it. In other words, the southern 
tenant does not have sufficient resources to carry these risks, so the 
landlord has to carry them, and for this he charges the tenant a 
higher rent. Landlords in all parts of the country carry some risks, 
but they are not so great as those borne by the southern landowners. 
The average rents in the southern groups, therefore, are higher than 
the true net rents. (See pp. 56 and 57.) 
The last column in Table 8 shows the ratio of net rent to land 
value. Offhand, it would be expected that these ratios would show 
much less variation than the ratios between gross rents and land 
values. That is, one would expect to find some of the variation in 
the ratios of gross rents to land values explained by variations in the 
landlord's expenses (taxes, depreciation, and repair). This hypothesis 
is justified to some extent. Not considering the southern groups, the 
ratios based on net rents show about the same variations as those 
based upon gross rents. On the net-rent basis, group 9 is 
brought more closely into line with groups 10 and 14. On the gi 
rent basis, the ratio in group 9 was 4.2 per cent, which placed it in a 
class with group 7, which has a gross ratio of 4.7 per cent. But in 
reducing both to a net-rent basis, it is seen that the gross rents were 
high in groups 7 and 9 relative to the value of the land for different 
reasons. In group 9 the gross rents were relatively high because of 
