Hellraisers Journal: From the International Socialist Review: The Land Renters Union in Texas by T. A. Hickey, Part II

Quote Robert Blatchford, Merrie England p149 150, Commonwealth 1895 —————

Hellraisers Journal – Saturday September 7, 1912
“The Land Renters Union in Texas” by T. A. Hickey, Part II

From the International Socialist Review of September 1912:

THE LAND RENTERS UNION IN TEXAS

BY T. A. HICKEY

[Part II of II]

Tenantry Inevitable.

In the face of the conditions just sketched it was inevitable that Texas, in spite of her enormous area of free land, should soon find tenantry developing. In 1870 five per cent of the men who tilled the soil in Texas were renters. In 1900 50 per cent were renters, while in 1910 71 per cent is operated by renters, while in the richest black land counties, such as Bell and Falls, 82 per cent of the land is operated by renters. In connection with this I may say that I have had some discussions with some of our socialist statisticians who claimed that the figures were somewhat less than I have given, but they overlooked the important fact, however, that the average renter needs from 80 to 160 acres, according to his family, to make a living, and that there are 29,118 farmers who own less than nineteen acres, a large proportion of whom are compelled to become renters so that they may live, and this is also true of the 98,363 farmers who own from twenty to forty-nine acres, hence my figures are conservative.

Increasing Rentals.

These renters of Texas, for two generations, have been accustomed to pay the landlord the traditional third and fourth, which means that of every three bushels of corn and grain that they produce, the landlord takes one; of every four bales of cotton the tenant produces, the landlord takes one. To the intense disgust of the renter, this third and fourth system is passing away. The landlords have commenced to demand a third all round, which means that the tenant must give up one bale out of every three instead of one out of every four.

Then the landlords commenced to demand of the tenant $1 an acre bonus, and some landlords have demanded as high as $2 and $3 an acre bonus as well as the third and fourth. The putting through of these reductions in the renter’s income produced a storm of discontent and was the main factor that led to the organization of the Renters’ Union, and inasmuch as the economic laws of capitalism will not permit of a reduction in these burdens now being piled upon the renters, it is inevitable that the Renters’ Union shall grow until it it the largest union in the United States.

I will now sketch the reasons why the landlords will not and cannot reduce these burdens.

Within the past fifteen years there has been a steady flow of capital to Texas. It was mostly brought to the state by wealthy farmers of Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Ohio and Illinois, who had sold out their lands at an enormous increase over what their fathers had secured them for. They believed they could come to Texas, buy lands at a “reasonable” price and trust to the growth of the state to enable them to secure large piles of unearned increment. They found, however, that the gentleman already on the ground was able to maintain the price of land at a very high figure, largely because of the fact that the public domain had disappeared and all hands were inclined to hold the land which, unlike other things, is a fixed quantity.

Thus it happens that land that in the 70’s sold for $2 per acre jumped to $40, $50, $100 and even higher. I was on one section of black land in Bell county near the town of Rogers last year that had just been sold to a Northern man for $150 an acre. The renters who worked this land when it was selling at $50 an acre paid a third and fourth and the landlord was satisfied with receiving a good return upon his investment, but when this land went to $150 an acre the new purchaser found that after meeting the fixed charges he could not secure 2 per cent on his investment, hence he was compelled, in order to receive what he considered an adequate return, to demand, as well as the third and fourth, $3 an acre bonus.

On the poorer lands, where production is not half what it is in the rich black land, a corresponding condition obtains, but the land being cheaper in price causes the landlord to ask a smaller bonus than in the black land belt. In either case the renter finds himself in the same position as the city wage earner. That is, he just receives enough to keep body and soul together and enable him to prepare for the next day’s toil.

Land Speculators in Clover.

The second reason for the inevitable growth of the Renters’ Union is found in the fact that, owing to the antiquated constitution under which the State of Texas is being ruled and that was drafted originally in the interests of the landlords, it is impossible to place an adequate tax upon idle land that is held out of cultivation for speculative purposes. The constitution provides that land shall not be taxed more than 35 cents on the $100, and the actual tax is considerably less than half of that sum.

Hence the million-acre land owners pay this petty tax on the millions of acres of land that they have fenced in and lie back in silent satisfaction as they watch the population growing by the natural growth within the state and the immense immigration from without. To give my readers an idea of the blighting effect upon the renter that results from this policy I will quote from an article published in the Chicago Tribune some months ago that was written by the present governor of Texas, 0. B. Colquitt. He said:

“There are 146,000,000 acres of land in Texas that has never felt the caressing touch of the plow; 46,000,000 acres of this land is of a mountainous and arid character, but there is 100,000,000 acres of fine arable land that has never been tilled.” The governor goes on to say. “All the public domain has gone. All of this land is now fenced in, in private hands.“

Tenants Increasing.

After pondering over this statement of the governor I would like to then point out that the number of tenants is continuously increasing. In 1900 there were 174,991 white tenants; by 1910 they had increased to 219,106, an increase of 44,115 in ten years.

If we take a pencil and divide the 219,000 tenants into the 100,000,000 acres of arable land that Governor Colquitt speaks of, we find that each renter could have a farm of 456 acres of good arable land, while the other 46,000,000 acres of land is good for stock grazing.

WHAT A TREMENDOUS PRIZE TO STRUGGLE FOR! WHERE IN ALL THE NATIONS IS THERE A DEFINITE, DISTINCT PROLETARIAN GROUP THAT WAS EVER MOVED TO ACTION WITH THE HOPE OF SUCH A REWARD FOR VICTORY?

I will pass over the great, broad fact that all the proletariat of all the nations has all the world to gain by the establishment of the Socialist Republic. My readers will note that I am writing about an industrial union and not about the general philosophy of Socialism. Let us mass the facts that I have set forth.

Here is land far greater in area than the German nation that has been grabbed by a few exploiters in fifty years. From being practically worthless the land has gone to a price that the workers cannot think of purchasing. The great public domain has disappeared. Where there were no tenants there are now 219,000. The bonus system has been introduced. The landlord has increased his demand on the crop, and each year finds the tenant sinking to an ever lower level.

Renters’ Union Organized.

These facts have led to the organization of the Renters’ Union of North America.

On the fourth day of last November [1911], in the Labor hall in the city of Waco, 110 delegates, from twenty-four counties, met in convention for the purpose of launching the Renters’ Union. Every man paid his own expenses, some of them stopped at the dollar-a-day hotels and others slept in he wagon yards. I attended the convention and in consideration of the fact that I had written the first call for the organization in The Rebel on the 15th day of last July, the convention honored me by placing me on the committee on by-laws and constitution in an advisory capacity. I have attended many conventions during my twenty years in the labor movement, but never one that displayed more singleness of purpose, unity of action, clearness of thought or had a cleaner personnel than the men who formed this convention.

The slogan of the convention was: LANDLORDISM MUST GO.

When our labors were completed I returned to my home confident that the groundwork had been laid for an industrial union that possesses greater potential strength than any other union in the nation. This is what the convention decided upon as its course of action:

First, they declared with Chancellor Kent and Sir William Blackstone that use and occupancy was the only genuine title to land.

Second, they declared that a confiscatory tax should be placed on all land held out of cultivation for speculative purposes.

Third, they declared that the organization should be strictly non-political and non-sectarian.

Fourth, they demanded a change in the State Constitution that would secure the objects outlined above.

Fifth, they declared that when the organization was well under way that a committee from the union should be sent to the political conventions of every party in Texas with a request to place in their platforms a plank demanding an amendment to the constitution that would enable them to tax the land held for speculative purposes and that would make use and occupancy the title to land. They further pledged themselves to use all honorable methods to destroy the political party, be it Republican, Democrat, Prohibition or Socialist, that would not accede to their demands.

Sixth, they took a positive stand for industrial autonomy, and while declaring Texas state division No. 1 the parent organization, it should have the right to issue charters in other states, but as soon as forty local organizations were chartered in the state, then a state convention should be called that would elect state officers and secure autonomy within that state.

Seventh, they struck new ground in a farmers’ organization by absolutely prohibiting from membership anyone who was not a bona fide tiller of the soil.

Eighth, they provided that a man who owns his small home might be eligible to membership, but any man who rented as much as one acre of land could not pass the portals of the union.

Ninth, they demanded that the bonus system should cease, that no man· should give a third of the crop. That the third in grain and the fourth in cotton should be the limit that they would give the landlord.

Tenth, they arranged for a widespread educational propaganda for the renters, their wives and their children under eleven separate heads.

Eleventh, they placed the dues at the lowest possible level, 50 cents initiation, 15 cents a quarter.

Twelfth, they demanded that all of their affairs, as far as possible, should be conducted by the initiative, referendum and recall.

Headquarters Established.

Headquarters have been established at Hallettsville, Texas, with E. O. Meitzen acting as Secretary-Treasurer. The President is Hugh Moore, who resides at Chilton, Texas. Organizers have been appointed, pamphlets have been written, a constitution and by-laws adopted, a large number of locals have been chartered and when the second annual convention occurs at Waco on November 8 the Renters’ Union delegates will meet prepared to take such steps as will bring the entire renting proletariat of the South within the sphere of their influence.

One significant thing may be noticed in connection with this Renters’ Union, and that is that it has been of great value to us in building up the Socialist party. It has broken down a wall of prejudice that stood between the renters and the Socialist party. The Democratic party renters have had the big fact rubbed under their nose that it was the Socialists of Texas that were the most active spirits in coming to their assistance when the difficult work of organization was projected. They are commencing to understand the necessity of using both the political and economic arm. Their old-time leaders are being put to the test and found wanting. Their union is drawing the class line taut. Before the launching of the Renters’ Union the landlord and tenant would walk arm in arm to the same primary, but now they separate at the union door and the renter is beginning to vote for the interest of himself and his class.

[Emphasis added.]