jority were already convinced that the single-tax philosophy was unsound and were inclined to reject any application of the principle, however mild. The measure received a negative vote of more than two to one. Naturally, farming districts of the state gave the heavier majorities against it. Benton and Gilliam, typical agricultural counties, rejected the measure by a vote of four to one. In Multnomah, Clackamas and Coos the vote was more evenly divided, but no county gave an affirmative majority. Despite the fact that single-tax propaganda has not been productive of tangible results or even increased support for specific measures, it must not be inferred that no benefits have sprung from a campaign of education. The indictment of the general property tax has exposed its weakness in theory and its defects in practice. Many critics of single-tax policy, who in early campaigns were inclined to uphold the principle of "uniform taxation" of all property, now frankly confess that it cannot be done with any degree of fairness and justice. Defects of the existing system are now generally recognized and even the most conservative are beginning to see that the only way to forestall considerable concessions to single-tax policy in the future is to promote the cause of rational tax reform. Single-tax discussion has likewise made clear the nature of unearned increment on city lots and the theoretical justice of taxing urban site value at a higher rate than property that is more distinctly the product of labor. At the same time critics of single-tax policy have emphasized the injustice of taxing away the entire value of land bought and paid for by hardearned savings of present owners, and exposed the folly of placing all taxes on land while disregarding incomes from other sources. The practical outcome may be the adoption, at no distant date, of some policy resembling the German increment tax, which concedes something to single-tax philosophy while avoiding its fiscal and ethical defects. Some single-tax leaders in the state have already made clear their willingness to endorse the principle of the increment tax and recommend its use as a supplementary source of state and local revenue.

JAMES H. GIlbert.

UNIVERSITY OF OREGON.

LAND TENURE REFORM AND DEMOCRACY

N°

I

OTWITHSTANDING the fact that there is still prevalent in the minds of most Americans the lofty sentiment that "all men were created equal," it requires only a modicum of casual observation to convince one that the famous Jeffersonian dictum is, unless liberally construed, substantially untrue. There is perhaps a greater degree of equality in men at the time of their birth than in subsequent years, but even from the beginning there are differences in opportunity and natural talents which lead to inequality in education, possessions, and social standing. On this point, however, it would be unfair to criticise Jefferson severely. One can appreciate his doctrine of equality without fully accepting it. For it is a truism that men's views are moulded in part by their economic environment-the conditions under which they make their living. These conditions, in Jefferson's time, were extremely favorable for the development of a spirit of equality. Land was the predominant form of wealth and it was abundant; all were free to become landowners; and while there was undoubtedly a certain inequality in material possessions, there was nevertheless an approximate equality in opportunity.

That the American spirit of democracy was originally the product of equality in opportunity and economic independence rather than the result of a blind belief in the inherent equality of men, can scarcely be questioned. And for a time at least, the continuance of this spirit was insured by the same conditions which had been responsible for its origin. The existence of a large supply of unoccupied land, coupled with the adoption of a liberal policy for its settlement, gave to agriculture a foremost place in the nation's business, and to farmers a stamp of independence and equality to be found in no other occupation.

As a class the American farmer was of a totally different type from the European peasant. His life was that of a pio

neer, spent in comparative isolation. He seldom saw his neighbors, if he had any, but strangers were always welcome. In his reckoning of character present worth counted for most, antecedents for least. Moreover, with his Bible and his ax he was well-nigh self-sufficient. He paid no rent to an absentee landlord, nor looked to charity when overtaken by misfortune. He was essentially a home builder and a home owner, a farmer rather than a proletarian, who enjoyed the full product of his own labor. Such men," wrote Jefferson, "are the true representatives of the great American interest, and are alone to be relied on for expressing the proper American sentiments."

No less marked in significance was the effect which the land supply had upon the welfare of the laboring classes. On the farm the labor problem was acute. Few there were who cared to work in the hire of another when it was possible for one to become his own master on his own land. Likewise the frontier offered a life of independence to those who found the conditions of employment in the factory and workshop unpromising or intolerable. To have been born in the ranks of a wageearning class was no severe handicap. One could easily rise above the status of "low birth." Laborers had an alternative of economic independence by virtue of which employers were constrained to recognize efficiency as it appeared and to grant an early preferment to those worthy of further employment. It is little wonder, therefore, that the wages of American laborers have been high. Conscious of their ability to rise, however humble in origin, they have had ambition and incentive which in turn have reacted favorably upon their productive powers and the scale of labor remuneration.

II

In the sense that its citizens were free to become their own masters, the United States was, during the first century of its existence, truly a "free country." But with the rapid settlement of the West under the Homestead Law-which marked the climax of the policy of favoring the actual settler-the conditions giving rise to that freedom and equality were destined to run their course. By 1890, in fact, the best lands had been taken up, and the supply of free land practically exhausted.

In recent years a change in the form of land tenure has gradually been making its appearance. The percentage of farms operated by their owners is, for the United States as a whole, declining. Although this change became apparent long ago in some of the older states, where on account of a certain immobility on the part of farmers the status of tenancy was deemed preferable to the isolation and hardships of frontier life, it is only within the last twenty-five years that tenancy seems to have made great headway. In some sections of the country the decline in the percentage of farms operated by their owners has been nothing short of precipitous. According to the Thirteenth Census of the United States, 0.7 per cent of the farms in Oklahoma in 1890 were operated by tenants; by 1910 the percentage had risen to 54.8. In Kansas the percentage of farm tenancy increased from 16.3 in 1880 to 36.8 in 1910. A similar increase is recorded for Nebraska during the same period. These are comparatively new states, where one would expect to find a high percentage of ownership, but the increase in the number of owned farms in the less fertile portions of the western counties has not been sufficient to counterbalance the rapid increase in tenancy in the older sections. In states like Iowa and Illinois, well developed and long settled, the transition from ownership to tenancy has steadily advanced until at the present time there are several counties in which more than one-half the number of farms under cultivation are operated by tenants. Finally, in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas, less than one-half the number of cultivable farms are operated by their owners.

The reasons for this transition are fairly obvious. Land is no longer free. The young man who aspires to land ownership can no longer depend upon the generosity of the federal government. On the contrary, if he has only his hands to work with, he is obliged to spend a number of years in apprenticeship, either as a farm tenant or laborer, in order to acquire sufficient from his earnings to become his own master. In spite of natural handicaps many succeed eventually in acquiring farms, but a number of causes have combined to render that

success problematical if not altogether unprofitable. Land has come to have a speculative value. Owing to the exhaustion of the supply of free land and the rapid rise in the prices of farm products during the last fifteen years, there has been a phenomenal increase in land values, and a growing confidence, borne out by past experience, that the ownership of land is equivalent to the certainty of an unearned increment. All classes indeed have contributed to the speculative spirit. The prosperous landowner, on realizing a surplus from his farming operations, has found it more profitable to invest his funds in additional land than to attempt to increase the productivity of the land he already possessed. Likewise, merchants, bankers, and private investors, equally aware of the possibilities attached to land ownership, have discovered in land acquisition a pleasant and profitable avocation. Much of the land so acquired has naturally been turned over to tenants (many of whom are wholly incompetent) for a cash rental insufficient in some cases to meet the annual tax levy.

The result of this general speculative activity has been to raise the value of land far above any investment valuation that could be made on the basis of present productive capacity. Land which yields a cash rent of $3 per acre may sell for considerably more than $100. When the cost of borrowing on farm-mortgage security is from 6 to 7 per cent, the natural return from the land is less than one-half the expenses that would be incurred by the prospective purchaser. Thus land speculation, even though the land be cultivated, has given rise to a ratio between farm earnings and expenses extremely unfavorable to ownership by the actual cultivator.

III

So long as this ratio continues, tenancy may be expected to go on increasing. The period of apprenticeship which the man of small means must serve preliminary to land ownership must continue steadily to grow longer. This is a situation not to be viewed with complacency. Face to face with the prospect of life-long tenancy, the young farmer of ambition and enterprise. is likely to abandon the occupation of farming for the higher