hundreds of settlers in the western half of the semiarid belt who must supplement the dry farm by irrigation; and unless they do, the next period of drought will witness a greater exodus and more hardship and privation than the first.

V. SOUTHERN AGRICULTURE

Tenancy, Size of Farms, and Character of Crops, 1850-19101

The Civil War and its results caused radical changes in southern agriculture, the most important of which was the readjustment of land tenure. Many of the large plantations, which had formerly been worked by slaves, were broken up and rented or sold to the freedmen. In either case the change was radical, but the question of tenancy has been the most important.

Previous to the Civil War there were many large farms in the South which were mostly worked by slave labor. These were ordinarily called plantations. There was no sharp line of distinction at that time, nor is there at present, between plantations and other farms, the term "plantation" being applied simply to large farms usually comprising several hundred or even thousands of acres. Prior to the war each plantation was, of course, a single agricultural unit and was so reported by the census, being counted as one of the farms of the country.

During the period of reconstruction after the Civil War the owners of the plantations largely tried to work them by hiring labor. A movement soon began, however, for the substitution of the tenant system of operation. Under this system a plantation was sub-divided into small tracts commonly called "parcels" or "cuts" - each of which was operated by a tenant. The tenants were designated by various terms, such as "cropper," "standing renter," and the like.

Since there were considerable numbers of tenant farms in the North as well as in the South, the Census Bureau very naturally adopted the practice of treating the tenant farms in the South in the same manner as those in the North; that is to say, each tract of land operated by a tenant was treated as a separate farm. As a matter of fact, however, a large proportion of the tenants in the South actually occupied a very different economic position from that usually occupied by tenants in other parts of the country. The plantation as a unit for general purposes of administration has not disappeared, and in many cases the tenants on plantations are subjected to quite as complete supervision by the owner, general lessee, or manager as

1 Thirteenth Census, 1910. Agriculture (Washington, 1913), Vol. V, 877–8.

that to which the hired laborers are subjected on large farms in the North and West. Where this is the case a tenant is very similar in his economic position to the hired farm laborer, practically the only difference being that he confines his work to a particular parcel of land which he works by himself and that he is paid by a share of the crop instead of by wages. There are also some plantations in the South which are operated by hired labor. The distinction drawn in popular speech is still based on the size of the agricultural unit and not on the form of organization.

From what has been said it is evident that the statistics of agriculture for the South, when each tenant holding is treated as a separate farm, are in some respects not comparable with those for other parts of the country. In the North and the West a tenant farm is very similar in its method of operation to a farm operated by the owner himself. The owner ordinarily exercises very little supervision over the operations of the tenant, and the latter has substantially an independent economic status. Tenant farms in the North and West are in general quite as large as the farms operated by their owners, and the tenant farmer often employs hired labor to assist him. In the South, on the other hand, a very large proportion of the tenant farms are decidedly small, containing no more land than can be effectively worked by the tenant alone, with perhaps the assistance of his own family. Moreover, many, though not all, of the tenants are subjected to very thorough supervision by the owner or manager of the plantation of which the farm is a part. As the result of this difference in conditions, the average size of farms in the South, when each separate tenant farm is counted as a unit, is very much less than in the North or the West, and the statistics give an impression which does not correspond to actual conditions. . .

During the half century between the census of 1860, the last census before the process of breaking the plantations up into tenant farms commenced, and that of 1910, the amount of land in farms in the II Southern states increased only 43.3 per cent, while the number of farms, as returned by the census, increased from somewhat more than half a million to about two and a half million, or 353-7 per cent. In 1860 the average farm contained 365.1 acres, of which 103.5 acres were improved, and the average value of land and buildings per farm was $3,370. In 1910 the average farm had decreased in size to 115.3 acres, of which 43.8 acres were improved, the average value of land and buildings being $2,172. In the East South Central and South Atlantic divisions the average total acreage in 1910 was

1

materially lower than that for all of the states.

being increased by the presence of many very large ranches in the West South Central division. [There has also] been a con

tinuous decline since 1860 in the average size of farms in the plantation districts, the greatest decrease taking place between 1860 and 1870.

The effect of the method of classifying farms in the South is further shown in [the following table] by a comparison of the average total and improved acreage and value of land and buildings for that section with the corresponding averages for the North.

The decade from 1900 to 1910 saw a remarkable development in American agriculture, particularly in the value of farm products and of farm property. This development is indicated in the Thirteenth Census as follows:

There were in the United States at the time the census enumeration was made 6,361,502 farms, containing 878,798,325 acres, of which 478,451,750 acres were improved, the remaining 400,346,575 acres comprising the acreage of woodland and other unimproved land. Of this latter acreage, 190,865,553 acres were reported as woodland and 209,481,022 acres as other unimproved land. The land in farms

1 Thirteenth Census, 1910. Agriculture (Washington, 1913), Vol. V, 27–9, 33-4, 37, 43-4.

represented 46.2 per cent, or somewhat less than one-half of the total land area of the country. The improved land, which formed more than one-half (54.4 per cent) of the farm land, represented only about one-fourth (25.1 per cent) of the total land area of the country. The average size of a farm was 138.1 acres, of which on the average 75.2 acres were improved and 62.9 acres unimproved. . .

It is a significant fact that whereas the total population increased 21 per cent between 1900 and 1910, the population of the territory which was classed as urban in 1910 (that is, resident in places having at that census 2,500 or more inhabitants) increased 34.8 per cent during the decade, and the population of the territory classed as rural in 1910 increased only 11.2 per cent. It will be noted that the rural population, under the census classification, includes much more than the agricultural population, and it is probable that the agricultural population increased even less rapidly. Indeed if the census distinction of urban population were drawn at incorporated places of 1,000 inhabitants or of 500 inhabitants the rate of increase in "rural" population would probably be less than 10 per cent. The number and acreage of farms increased much less rapidly than the total population, but the growth in the number of farms, 10.9 per cent, nearly kept pace with the increase of the rural population, 11.2 per cent. The total farm acreage, on the other hand, increased only 4.8 per cent. This, however, is less significant than the increase of 15.4 per cent in the improved farm acreage, which still fell appreciably below the increase in total population. . . .

The small increase in the total farm acreage was partly due to changes in conditions under which land was held.. Not all land reported as in farms is in any true sense used as farm land. In some cases considerable amounts of land formerly owned by farmers but not found immediately available for agricultural purposes have since been purchased for speculation, and although reported as in farms in 1900 were not so classified in 1910. On the other hand, in some cases large stock ranches which as entireties were reported as "farms" in 1900 have since been partly divided into smaller farms and partly left unused for agricultural purposes. The formation of forest reserves and the purchase of large tracts of land by wealthy citizens for country homes have also tended to keep farm acreage from increasing rapidly. . . .

That the number of farms increased more rapidly than the acreage of land in farms is accounted for partly by the fact that in some sections of the country considerable numbers of small truck, poultry, and

fruit farms have been established, but still more by the fact that in the West large numbers of farms of moderate size have been established where great cattle ranches were formerly found. Then, too, in the Southern states the subdivision of many plantations into smaller tracts of land operated by tenants a process begun soon after the Civil War has continued, each of such tracts counting

as a farm under the census definition.

...

The total value of all farm property in 1910 reached the enormous sum of $40,991,449,000, of which over two-thirds (69.5 per cent) represented the value of land, somewhat less than one-sixth (15.4 per cent) the value of buildings, and about the same proportion (15.1 per cent) the value of the equipment. The value of land formed an appreciably larger proportion of the total value of farm property in 1910 than in 1900. The total value of farm property a little more than doubled during the decade 1900-1910. The greater part of this extraordinary increase was in the value of farm land, which increased no less than 118.1 per cent. This latter increase was largely due to the advance in the selling price of land, the average exchange value per acre being more than twice as high in 1910 as in 1900 $32.40 as compared with $15.57. There were remarkable increases also in the value of farm buildings and equipment during the decade, the value of buildings having increased 77.8 per cent, that of implements and machinery 68.7 per cent, and that of live stock 60.1 per cent. These increases were due in part to higher prices of building materials, implements, and farm animals and do not represent correspondingly great additions to physical property.

In spite of the decrease in the average size of farms, from 146.2 acres to 138.1 acres, the value of all farm property per farm increased from $3,563 in 1900 to $6,444 in 1910, or 80.9 per cent. The average value per farm of each class of property increased materially, but the largest increase was in the value of land, from $2,276, per farm in 1900 to $4,476 in 1910.

The average value of all farm property per acre of land in farms increased from $24.37 in 1900 to $46.64 in 1910, a gain of 91.4 per cent. The investment of farmers in buildings and equipment is chiefly utilized in connection with improved land. The average value of buildings per acre of improved land was $13.22 in 1910 as compared with [$]8.58 in 1900, while for equipment the corresponding averages were $12.94 and $9.23, respectively..

In each of the three geographic divisions in the territory north of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi - New England, Middle At