58 BULLETIN 1224, IT. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
Table 20. — Cash rents paid by white and Japanese tenants in groups indicated. 
White tenants. 
Japanese 
tenants. 
District. 
Number 
of 
farms. 
Average 
rent 
per acre. 
Average 
value 
per acre. 
Ratio 
rent to 
value. 
Number 
of 
farms. 
Average 
rent 
per acre. 
Average 
value 
per acre. 
Ratio 
rent to 
value. 
16 
472 
149 
646 
435 
541 
1,545 
551 
610 
601 
764 
Dollars. 
4.16 
6.18 
9.45 
3.28 
7.67 
2.75 
4.00 
7.30 
5.21 
21.38 
Dollars. 
94 
91 
143 
69 
202 
85 
125 
155 
182 
214 
Per cent. 
4.4 
6.8 
6.6 
4.8 
3.8 
3.3 
3.2 
4.7 
2.9 
10.0 
75 
60 
71 
11 
284 
27 
184 
450 
1,050 
331 
Dollars. 
15.81 
14.94 
15.19 
7.12 
20.44 
7.52 
20.44 
24.98 
22.60 
27.96 
Dollars. 
214 
183 
242 
186 
401 
170 
552 
324 
713 
229 
Per cent. 
7.4 
17 
8.2 
20... 
6.3 
21.... 
3.8 
22 
5.1 
23... 
4.4 
25 
3.7 
26 
7.7 
27 
3.2 
28 
12.2 
Total or average . 
6,314 
6.16 
120 
5.1 
2,543 
22.51 
404 
56 
Table 20 shows that the Japanese pay higher rents, relative to 
the value of the land, than the white tenants, in all the groups 
except group 21. In this group the number of Japanese tenants is 
so small that the averages can not be relied upon. What is the 
explanation of the higher rents paid by the Japanese tenants ? They 
do not work under supervision as the negro tenants do in the Cotton 
Belt; neither do their rents cover payments for the risk assumed by 
the landlords. The explanation will, therefore, have to be soug;ht 
in another direction. 
The explanation is to be found by a study of each class of tenants. 
The Japanese are willing to work longer hours every day in the week 
than the white tenants. The Japanese have large families, all the 
members of which become farm hands at a very early age. The 
white tenants have smaller families and they give their children 
at least the legal minimum amount of education, so that they do not 
become effective farm help at as early an age as do the children of 
the Japanese tenants. The Japanese tenants are willing and accus- 
tomed to spend considerably less for food, clothing, home comforts, 
and amusements than the white tenants. The result is that the 
Japanese tenants can and will pay considerably more for the use of 
the land than the white tenants. Since the land owners prefer to 
rent to white tenants without this rent premium, the Japanese have 
to pay this premium in order to get the use of the land. 
The fact alone, that the Japanese have to pay higher rents than 
the white tenants in order to get the use of the land does not explain 
why the Japanese rents are higher relative to the value of the land. 
If the Japanese were found grouped in large communities which the 
buyers and sellers of land regarded as stable, and if the Japanese 
could not become owners of this land, as is the case, then the buyers 
and sellers of land in these communities would base their values on 
the income the farms would earn when leased to Japanese tenants. 
Then the ratios of rent to value in these communities would be the 
same as the ratios in communities of white tenants, although the 
rents would probably be higher. The fact that the Japanese were 
paying relatively higher rents than the white tenants would not 
alter the situation, for the values would be directly based upon those 
rents, regardless of the factors determining them. The percentage 
