.J ‘ x 0'31’ MICH-QGAN CENTENNIAL FARMERS: 50cm coaksurss OF fARM ‘ owueasmp son AN EXTENDED'PERDD. 05 TIME Thesis for the Degree cf Ph. D. MICHtGAN' STATE COLLEGE . Alber? 5. "Leah ~ V h 1954 This is to certify that the thesis entitled "Social Correlates of Farm Ownership for an Extended Period of Time" presented by Albert E. Levak has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for __Bh.D_._degree mm & Anthropology Wflw Major professor [fl Date W51;— 0-169 7/ A 3+ ‘ u m mu; MW!" fillflmllillzlll W12! ll a. l- . wet-cu .~-_. ..o . I", ‘ 1'"... :II e": . - wads .. Ca.-¢¢el I‘Ruu—JCQ'P“ ., “_ Ivv.‘....“_ I '5 “a. p. ‘ " P'Te. 'y in Al '- o '5’. A t '“ t is ‘. . .. they ? ‘5‘ ‘1 .5 '5 HIE «r . J 5 v- A ”I:‘Lra‘~h~. ' . u C 'I “-4.0: . .5 ‘ l 6! V"n . '~‘ Ray’s- s‘ 375‘!“ 'Q ‘4 .h'q CA7 ‘ h..°'“ A‘ '\..S r. J." “ N..eS : - , ‘4 .5:‘ "Mus t5 ‘L ' "‘9 45’! . ._,:‘,r~‘ i=2. ' .:“e ‘Fa a". a, ABSTRACT Purposes. The study endeavors to examine in detail forty-four Centen- nial Farm Families in Michigan. These Families are a portion of the total who received formal recognition from'the State Historical Society. This recognition was based on ownership of land in Michigan within the same family for a continuous period of one-hundred years or more. The study is concerned with the process of transmission and succession of property in land from one generation to the next within the same family for a period of one-hundred years or more; and, the results of this process as it has affected the present owner of the land; and, finally, as it has affected the community in which the land is located. Fundamental to the present study are certain basic concepts, these are: property in land, the element to be transmitted over time; transmission and succession, the.means of transmitting the property through time; the family, the agency through which the property is transmitted; and the community, the element which is affected in part by the preceding. Methods. Lack of empirical data relevant to long time practices of transmission and succession within a family provides the underlying motiva- tion for this thesis. This lack of data also places the study in a formu- lative or exploratory classification, which results in the statement of hypo- theses for future research. Emphasis is placed on existing patterns, rather than quantities of at- tributes, as the keynote of analysis. In consideration of this there are developed constructs or patterns to be used as independent analytical var- iables. Tenure status and relationship of operator are essential character- istics to the development of these empirical constructs. These constructs demonstrate the end results of a hundred years of transmission and succession [Erwzt :F‘l E LL it!!! I practices within the same family. They are, in essence, a continuum of the tenure arrangements of the present owners from owner-operatorship to non-farm ownership. To obtain data for providing insights the case study method was used in Conjunction with a small sample. This sample was drawn in a stratified, purposive manner. Field work involved interviewing Centennial Farmers, selected community informants, and obtaining data from secondary sources within each of the communities. Findings; Approximately one-fourth of the Centennial Farmers meet the governmental ideal of ownership, the remainder are dispersed relatively equally among the other tenure groups on the continuum. The fact that over two-thirds of the owners are beyond retirement age contributes to this lack of owner-operatorship. No particular means of transmission of property are outstanding. Rather the owners have engaged in an equalitarian point-of-view for the distribution of their property. As a result only one—third of the farms in all of the transfers have been passed on as going concerns. The proportion of all children of all owners remaining in the local area decreases as one moves from the owner-operator tenure group to the non-farm owner group. Similarly, the proportion of all children of all owners choosing farming as an occupation decreases as one moves from the owner-operator group to the non-farm owner group. Community informants have a social image of Centennial Farmers based *upon the values of residency and operatorship rather than upon continuity of ownership alom. MICHIGAN CENTENNIAL FARNERS: SOCIAL CORRELATES OF FARM OWNERSHIP FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME By Albert E. Levak A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology and AnthrOpology 195M THESJS 5‘ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to eXpress his sincere gratitude to Dr. J. Allan Beegle and to Dr. C. R. Hoffer under whose patient guidance, supervision and unwavering interest this study was conducted. Their many suggestions throughout the planning and execution of the project and in the preparation of the manuscript were exceedingly valuable. There is also a sincere indebtedness to Dr. J. F. Thaden, Dr. Duane Gibson, and Mr. Kenneth Tiedke for their valuable assistance in the formative stages of the project. Their continued belief in the value of the study provided the author with additional incentive. Special thanks are tendered to Dr. Charles P. Loomis, Head Department of Sociology and Anthropology and his staff for their many timely sugges- tions and helpful remarks. To Dr. Harald A. Pedersen, Associate Professor, Divi- sion of Sociology and Rural Life, Mississippi State College who aided the author in crystallizing his thoughts there is offered sincere thanks. The writer deeply acknowledges and appreciates the kind 000peration of the Michigan Historical Commission, the Centennial Farmers of Michigan, and the Rockefeller Foundation without which the project would have been impossible. Finally, to my wife, Lois Anne, whose contribution can never be measured the writer offers his sincere thanks. 11 IIIIIIIIl--________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS . Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES e e o e e o o e e o e o e e V11 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOFFS OF THE STUDY. 1 The Centennial Farm Program . 1 Purposasof the Study 3 Order of Presentation . 9 II. RESEARCH AND THEORIES PERTAINING TO FARM OWNERSHIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Ownership and Tenure . . . . . . . . 20 Transmission and Succession . . . . . . 32 Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Community . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 III. METHODS OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . . 5M Selection of the Sample . . . . . . . 54 Method of Approach . . . . . . . . . 56 Data to be Collected . . . . . . . . 57 Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . 60 Field Techniques . . . . . . . . . 62 Method of Analysis. . . . . . . . . bu Analytical Constructs . . . . . . . . 72 IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF PRESENT AND PAST CENTENNIAL FARMS AND CENTENNIAL FARM FAMILIES . . . . . 76 Original Owners and Family History. . . 76 Present Centennial Farms and Farmers . . . 77 Ownership and Tenure . . . . . 81 Farm Evaluation . . . . . . . 8 Beliefs About Farming. . . . . .. . 8 Transmission and Succession . . . . . . 86 Family . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Property . . . . . . . . 91 Methods of Tr.nsmission . . . . . . 9b V. THE CENTENNIAL FARM PROGRAM AND THE SOCIAL IMAGE 98 Intoduction . . . . . . . . 9S Recognition of the Concept . . . . . . 98 Continuation of the Program. . . . . . 100 111 TABLE or CONTENTS -- Cog igygg. CHAPTER Pare Reasons for Discontinuing the Program . . . 102 Suggestions for Change . . . . . . 103 Comrunity Recognition of Centennial Farmers : 105 Tenure and Size of Community . . . . . . 106 VI. PATTERNING OF CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN TENURE GROUPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Introduction. . . . . . . . .. . . . 107 Owner Operators. . . . . . . . . . . 107 Owners with Related Tenants. . . . . . . 112 Owners with Non-Related Tenants . . . . . 117 Non-Farm Owners . . . . . . . . . . 122 VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . o . . 127 Hypotheses for Future Research . . . . . 141 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A5 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . e . . . . . . . . . . 184 iv TABLE II. III. IV} VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. LIST OF TABLES Age and Sex Distribution of the Present Owners for the Tenure Groups, 1950 . . . . . . Distribution of Present Owners by Marital Status for All Tenure Groups, 1950 . . . . . . . Distribution of Present Owners by Educational Attainment, for All Tenure Groups, 1950 . Occupation of Present Owners by Tenure Groups, 19 50 e e o e e o e o e e e e I e e Location of Residence of Present Owners by Ten— ure Groups, 1950 . . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Membership of the Present Owners by Tenure Groups, 1950. . . . . . . . Types of Ownership Held by Present Owners for Tenure Groups, 1950 . . . . . . . . Type of Agreement Between Present Owners and Tenants, 1950 . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Number of Years Since a Member of the Family Has Operated the Farm for Owners with Non-Related Tenants and for Non-Farm Owners 1950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appearance of Farm and Faci1ities Available in Centennial Farm Houses by Tenure Groups, 1950. Mean Number of Children per Family for each Generation by Tenure Groups, 1950 . . Occupation and Residence of All Past Members of Centennial Farm Families by Tenure Groups, 1950. Residence and Occupation Pattern for Past Members I of all Centennial Farm Families by Tenure GrOUps, 1950......... Distribution of All Children by Pattern of Sex, Marital Status, Occupation, and Residence for All Tenure Groups, 1950 . . . . . . . 158 159 160 . 161 . 162 . 163 161L 1611 . 165 166 167 168 . 169 170 TABLE XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXV. XXVI. XXVII. LIST OF TABLES —- Continued __-__-._'_-'..—-— Relationship of Succeeding Heir by Tenure Groups, 1950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Birth Order Position of Succeeding Heir by Tenure Groups, 1950 . . . . . . . . . . . Total Acres Owned, Mean Size of Acres Owned for Original and Present Owners by Tenure Groups, 1950 .‘ . . . Number of Transfers and Mean Acreage Available for Transfer, Received by Inheritor and Accrued by Inheritor by Tenure Groups, 1950 . . . Method of Transfer as Utilized by All Owners and by Each Generation for Tenure Groups, 1950. . Distribution of Patterns of Inheritance as Util- ized by All Owners by Tenure Groups, 1950 . . Parcellation of Land for All Transfers for Tenure Groups, 1950 . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Reasons for Keeping the Farm in the Family by Tenure Groups, 1950 . . . . Distribution of Number of Present Owners and Their Plans for Diaposal of the Farms by Tenure Groups, 1950 . . . . . . . . . . . Recognition of the Centennial Farm Concept by Community Informants by Size of Community, 1950. Attitude Toward Program by Community Members and Present Owners by Tenure Groups, 1950. Recognition of Centennial Farmers by Community Informants by Size of Community, 1950 . . _. Distribution of Tenure Groups by Size of Commun— ity, 1950 . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page .172 .173 .179 .180 .181 .181 .182 .183 .183 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1 Summary of Selected Characteristics of Centennial Farmers, Farms and Families by Tenure Groups,1950.. 129 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND PUhPOSES OF THE STUDY J12..99.92%Q.Ql§.L_EaiE_§.I.._EEOJ££%IB In 1948, the Michigan Historical Commission became cognizant of the fact that some of the land settled in the early days of Michigan still remained in the same family a century or more later. The Commission decided to honor the fortitude and tenacity of these early settlers and their descendants by bringing their achievements to light through public recognition. This recognition is in the form of a Centennial Farm Certificate which designates the land owned as a Centennial Farm and the present owner as a Centennial Farmer, The certificate of recognition carries the signature of the Governor and other leading state officials. In addi- tion to the certificate, the State Historical Commission awards a heavy gauge metal plaque for exterior display. Operationally defined by the State Historical Commis- sion, Centennial Farmers are those persons who own land in Michigan, either all or part of which was owned by their ancestors. The ancestor may be determined either by blood relationship or by some other form of kinship. The ownership must have been continuous for one-hundred years or more. A Centennial Farm is that land which has been transferred to a 2 member of the family in all transfers of ownership for a con- tinuous period of one-hundred years or more. The preceding requirements are derived from the GGflni- tion of a farm which appears on the application form prepared by the Michigan Historical Commission. The exact wording is as follows: The farm for purposes of the award is three or more acres, or a less amount if the products raised are valued at $250.00 or more, on which some agricultural Operations are performed by one person either by his own labor alone or with the assistance of members of his household, or hired employees. From the foregoing, one important element must be empha- sized to preclude the reader's misinterpretation. Recognition as g gegtennial Farm is paged 2g ownershgp and not gperatorship. A brief eXplanation of the program is essential to an understanding of the papulation to be studied and some of the problems to be encountered. As of November 30, 1950, the date arbitrarily selected for the purposes of this study, there were 234 Centennial Farms located in 30 counties.1 Because participation in the program was on a voluntary basis and initiation of action for recognition was the responsibil- ity of the land owner, there were eligible land owners who did not apply for the honor. Lack of participation can be 1Appendix A attributed either to an unwillingness to take part in the program or to a lack of awareness of its existence. Since the date specified above, however, many of these individuals may have become aware of the program and may have develOped an interest in it. In addition, other land owners have be- come eligible simply through the passage of time, and undoubt- edly many of them have taken the necessary steps to obtain recognition. The fact that the land owner must voluntarily petition for a Centennial Farm.Certificate possibly introduces a bias into the sample. The possibility of differences between those who apply and those who do not was taken into considera— tion, and during the field work each Centennial Farmer inter- viewed was asked if there were any other farmers in the vicinity who were eligible, but had not made application. Only one eligible owner was discovered who chose not to parti— cipate in the program. Thus, if the farmers interviewed sup- plied complete information, it maybe assumed that relatively little bias originating in this manner has been introduced into the sample. Purposes of the Study In order to better understand any society, or even a segment of society, it is necessary to have some comprehension of its past. Each generation inherits a base of customs and traditions from preceding generations. Attempts are occasionally a made, however, to control the flow of the continuity of evolu— tion in an attempt to derive an objective which seems desirable. Some of the policymaking of early American leaders was directed toward the objective of owner-Operatorship and the family— sized farm. If the early leaders were to observe rural America today, would they say that Centennial Farms were the result of their long range planning? Furthermore, if they had observed the dynamics of the formation of a Centennial Farm, what factors would they set aside as being relevant to the attainment of their expressed ideal? These questions serve to pose the general purpose of this thesis, namely, to investigate the congruence between the expected end of govern- ment policy and the present situation, and to eXplore the factors in the history of the Centennial Farm Families that have contributed to the present situation. This study, then, is concerned with the process of transmission and succession of prOperty in land from one gen— eration to the next within the same family for a period of one-hundred years or more. Specifically, how have the results of this process affected the relationship of the present owner to the land, and how have these results affected the community in which the land is located? The present study may be said to have two objectives. The first objective is methodological in nature, in that analytical independent variables are develOped from data related to the present owner-tenure arrangements of each of the cases under observation. These variables or constructs, which are descriptive of the tenure position of the present owner, demonstrate the end result of a hundred years of trans- mission and succession practices within the same family. They constitute, in essence, a continuum of arrangements extending from owner-Operatorship to non-farm ownership. The second objective is substantive. Once the constructs have been de- velOped it is essential to know what factors in the history of each of the cases has contributed to placing that case in El particular construct. In addition, the cases in each of the constructs are analyzed to determine their contribution tc: the communities in which they are located. The importance of an investigation of this nature is emphasized repeatedly in the literature on land tenure and policy. L. C. Gray, writing in 1938 of the importance of in— heritance laws, states: Detailed information regarding the nature and extent of the transfer of agricultural prOperty through inheritance is exceedingly scarce. Studies of the social and economic consequences of our system of inheritance comprehensive enough to indicate dangerous tendencies exist- ing in the institution of inheritance have not been made....The powerful influence of inheri- tance laws applicable in rural areas on the general social welfare should more clearly be recognized. As a nation we cannot with safety long neglect serious consideration of the economic and social significance of this subject.2 James Tarver, after a comprehensive review of the literature relating to the Wisconsin Century Farm problem, has the following to say of transmission and succession as they are related to farm ownership: It was discovered that rural sociologists had contributed but scant attention to farm owner- ship as it is related to farm succession or transmission within the family. Agricultural economists and lawyers have concentrated more attention to farm succession and transmission than all other social scientists. Those agricultural economists and lawyers who have devoted time and effort to the problem of transmission and smzccession, however, have written primarily of contemporary 131~oblems of transmission of agricultural land. Most state cmollege eXperiment stations have published bulletins in re- :fserence to inheritance, but they are usually restricted to 1811 explanation of the state inheritance laws or to explanations 2Gray, L. C., John B. Bennett, Erich Kraemer and W. N. Sparnawk. "The Causes: Traditional Attitudes and Institutions." léEéEPbook of Agriculture 1938, United States Department of Afiglfiiculture, United States Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 1939, pp. 111-136. 3Tarver, James D. Wisconsin Century Farm Families: L‘study of Farm Succession Practices. UnpublifiledTh.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1950, p. 15. of how to keep the farm in the family.“ In any event, re- search into the social implications of transmission and suc— cession is generally neglected. Ackerman, writing in 1941 of the need for farm tenancy research, concludes that one of the primary needs in the fie 1d is for more investigations centered around the problems of inheritance. He feels that our past policy of inheritance is responsible for many of our present day problems.5 See Berry, R. L. and Elton B. Hill. flew to Keep Your Farm_in_ the Family. Michigan Agricultural Eerriment Station, East Lansing, Special Bulletin 357, April, 19 9: Family Farm-- Tnansfer Arrangemegtg. Illinois Extension Circular 680, Urbana, April, 1951: Aiken, Ann and Dorothy Klitzke. 1.1115; and Otheuays to Transfer Progerty to Heirs. New York Ex- tension Bulletin 7911, Ithaca, May 1950: Johnson, 0. R. Iransferring the Farm to the Next Generation. Missouri Agricultural Extension Service, Columbia, Bulletin 515, July, 1948: Walrath, A. J. and W. L. Gibson Jr. Ehat Will Become 01' Your Farm? Virginia Extension Service, Blacksburg, Bulletin 169: June, 19’47: Beuscher, J. H. and L. A. Young. .Ygur Property -- _l:l_an Its Transfer. Wisconsin Extension Ser— vlee, Madison, CircularWO7, December, 1951: Parsons, K. H. and C. J. Legrid. Planning for the Descent of PrOperty in the Family. Wisconsin Extension Service, Madison, Circular 36”», October, 1945. . Ackerman, Joseph. I'Status and Appraisal of Research in Farm Tenancy," JourngLof Farmiconomics, Vol. 23, No. 1, Feb. 1941, p. 286. 8 Ackerman and Harris writing in the Proceedings of the Chariference on Family Farm Policy, pointedly ask for the answers to two specific questions upon which they feel little has been done to ascertain the facts. On one hand, what is the Inevc11od of transferring physical assets from one generation to tllta next, and on the other, are the "going-concern" values of’ ‘the farm generally preserved?6 The noticeable lack of empirical data on long time fsinn ily succession practices provides the underlying motiva- tion of this thesis. It is possible to establish, arbitrarily, a typology of research studies which classifies research according to primary lrltzent. Classified in this manner, the types are: (l) a fXDIqulative or eXploratory study in which the primary intent 113 to formulate a problem for more precise investigation, to deveIOp hypotheses, or to establish priorities for further ‘Petsearch; (2) a descriptive or diagnostic study in which the 'fllnction is that of assessing the characteristics of a given Etituation; and (3) an experimental study in which the function 143 that of testing hypotheses.7 Although these classifica- ‘Sions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, the phenomena \— Ackerman, Joseph and Marshall Harris. "Family Farm Policy.“ Proceeding of a Conference on Family Farm Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19H7, p. 398. 7Jahoda, M., M. Deutsch and S. w. Cook. Research Methodgin Social Relations. New York: The Dryden Press, 1951, Volume I, p. 28. with which this investigation deals and the methodology which is used place it in the ".i‘ormulative or exploratory" classification. mergil’zsssaiatiaa Chapter II is devoted to an elaboration of the theore- tical framework used in the study. In this chapter the his- tor 1cal position of governmental policies concerning farm ownership are discussed with reference to the ideals of owner- Operatorship and the family-sized farm. It specifically sets forth the basic concepts of prOperty in land, family, and community, and their inter-relationship through the process, of transmission and succession. Chapter III explains the methods of the study, includ- lug the rationale for the selection of the sample and for the a~Dproach used, the data to be collected, the field techniques, and the method of analysis of data. It is recognized that although all of the families involved have worked out their Succession problems in different ways, they have arrived at t3he same end, namely, keeping the farm in the family for a hundred years or more. In consideration of this, constructs 01‘ patterns collating the predominant attributes of the tenure arrangements of the cases under study have been develOped. Tenure status and relationship of the operator to the owner are essential characteristics in the develOpment of these constructs. 10 Chapter IV attempts to isolate those characteristics VVIIJJBh have been historically important in placing the present fairnn in its particular construct. Data relating to the orciJginal owners, methods of transmission and succession, choice of successor, parcellation of land, size of family, and reasons for keeping the farm in the family are all import- axit: characteristics analyzed in this chapter. Additional elxarnents analyzed are education, marital status, residence, oc1314pation, and sex of all family members. A description of the present day owners is given in tHeIrnns of their personal characteristics: age, sex, marital Status, education, occupation, and residence. Other elements fTDI‘ investigation are farm evaluation, beliefs about farming, and plans for disposition of the land. The contribution of the Centennial Farm Family to the community in which the land 18 located is evaluated on the basis of participation in f"(Dr‘mal civic and farm organizations and by an assessment of tile family contribution, not only by present owners but also ‘33' selected members of the community. Chapter V determines the necessary elements for develOp- 111g a social image of the concept of Centennial Farmers by libs selected community informants and by the present owners themselves. Also, there is an evaluation of the Centennial Farm program by the same interviewees. aniu. '1' 0‘ ’ :P‘g :' unity in! r. .s 11 Chapter VI is devoted to an analysis of each of the tenure groups separately and to illustrate the patterning of selected characteristics within each group. Chapter VII presents a summary and conclusions. Since few, if any, hypotheses have been formulated in this area, some space in this chapter is devoted to an attempt to deve10p fruitful hypotheses for further research. CHAPTER II RESEARCH AND THEORIES PERTAINING TO FARM OWNERSHIP The desire to own their land has always been strong in the minds of the Midwestern farmers. This attitude has been strengthened very strongly by the objectives of the Federal government and its land policy. Prior to, and following the 1J1(2E3pt10n of our Federal system of government there has been / a continuous struggle toward the goals of owner-Operatorship 01" land and the family—type farm. Colonists of this country came primarily from countries Where the system of land tenure was feudal in nature, and land-ownership contributed to the stratifification of society along social, economic,and political lines. It was natural t313115311; the colonists should bring with them the customs, tradi- ‘3143ns, and laws of their homelands. However, under the con- dltions of the frontier their folkways and mores underwent 0 Onsiderable change . Prior to the American Revolution there existed in the <3Olonies a land tenure system which incorporated such feudal 'Dractices as quit-rents, primogeniture,and entail. The British I*\\\crown insisted upon maintaining this feudal land policy rather than an ”allodial" one. Under allodial conditions the land would be held in fee simple absolute, providing the owner with ..-. -_. A” (14 st 1:16 .,..1 mo egos. tLJb‘ a t Olv! - . " ~10“- .LI‘E', “aide W135 Ifrs‘ 4.39? or the 14. crigizatcr n' n, I. .‘ 9:37.15?de 3 Ti: V a! . " 11355 B‘Jl‘l’9‘39.‘ . Jient pa: 3-. . 3-: w . '4 " e dCtigr ,-a m. wted 13 the - privilege of disposing of his land as he saw fit, within the framework of the laws and customs of- the country. The desire for the abolition of feudal practices was a contributory cause to the Revolution. However much a war may win political freedom, it does not immediately abolish or change the cultural values of the figeOple. To effect the change in these values, such frontier "radicals” as Thomas Jefferson were necessary to give guidance to the ”new world” philosOphy. Former Secretary of Agricul- ture, Claude Wickard, and others have called Jefferson the 'Father of the idea of the family sized farm."1 He was the (Amman of the draft of the Land Ordinance of 1785 which established a system of land survey and provided for the sale 01" lands surveyed. It was this ordinance which ultimately determined the course of the public land policy, and the Settlement patterns in the Northwest Territory. Complement- ing the action of 1785 was the Ordinance of 1787 which pro- hlbited primogeniture and entail in the Northwest Territory. Under this ordinance prOperty in land became almost the same 818 any other preperty in reference to its freedom of transfer and inheritance. No longer would land be settled permanently upon a person and his heirs, nor would the right of the first 1Wickard Claude R. American Agriculture.“ D- 179- "Thomas Jefferson-~Founder of Agricultural History, Vol. XIX, 19h5, 11} born supersede the rights of all other children. The right of disposal of land became the perogative of the owner of that property in land. Two other land laws significant in governmental policy during the period of abundant land, were the Pre-emption Law of 1841 and the Homestead Act of 1862. The former permitted the settlers to buy the lands they were deveIOping before the federal survey, and the latter gave land to settlers who agreed to improve and live on the land for a specified number of years. The decrease in the abundance of land available for distribution caused the government to turn to other means for the protection and perpetuation of the ideal of owner-Opera— torship. To accomplish this, legislative and financial sup- —-—--port were given in the form of the Farm Credit Act of 1916, the Bankhead Jones Act of 1937, and finally, the development of the Farm Security Administration. Historically, the desirability of owner-operated land or at least, the provision of an Opportunity for those who till the soil to become land-owners, is clearly evident in American land policy.2 The expectation of those who till 2Land Reform. Department of State Publication nuns, U. S. Gofirment Printing Office, Washington, D. C., Feb. 1952. p. 11. 15 the land to become owners in a single lifetime has been dominant in American thinking about land tenure.3 Because agrarian unrest is always greatest where the attachment to the land is not of an enduring nature, it has been assumed that owner-Operatorship is a stabilizing force in society. However, owner-Operatorship alone was not sufficient to eliminate the evils which had been associated with the con- centration of land. Consequently, the family—sized farm be- g—me an additional goal. Inherent in the definition of family-sized farm is the element of size of family which can be a limiting factor in the size of farming Operations, thus mitigating land concentration. The distribution of lands in rural areas is probably more intimately associated with the general welfare of the pOpulation than any other factor, since the livelihood of the rural population may be dependent upon the land. The ideal seems to be that each family would have sufficient land to meet its own needs, no one having a superabundance, and none should be deprived of it. The family farm is not to be considered solely as an end in agricultural policy, but also it is to be considered as a means through which farming becomes a rich and satisfying ‘k 3Wehrwein, George S. ”The Problem of Inheritance in American Land Tenure," @urnal of Farm Economigg, Vol. IX, No. 2, April 1927, p. 16'}. Smith, T. Lynn. The Sociolggy of Rural Life. Rev. ed., New York: Harper and Bros., 1917, p. 303. 16 way of life.5 This idea is crystallized in the following statement: The United States Department of Agriculture be- lieves that the welfare of agriculture and of the nation will be promoted by an agricultural land tenure pattern characterized by efficient family size owner-Operated farms, and one of the continuing major objectives of the Depart- ment will be the establishment and maintenance of such farming as the predomingting Operating farm unit in the United States. This policy was further affirmed by Secretary Anderson in his; 1945 report, when he stated, IThe family—sized, owner— operated farm is the backbone of our agriculture and a found— V;Zion .etone not only of our rural society but of our entire national life."7 Griswold summarized the attitude toward the family' sized farm concept very succinctly by saying, “It is {/no concession to mythology to recognize the popularity of the , fa"lily-bfarm as a symbol of the good life in the United States.“8 Government legislation has attempted to eliminate both land concentration and undersized farm units, and to reduce tenancy and absentee ownership as much as possible. One of the ma.) or inconsistencies in the land policy was the failure _. 5Ackerman and Harris, Op, Cit,, p. 9. 6Ezekiel, Mordecai. 'Schisms in Agricultural Policy." 9.92.2931. of Farm Ecoggmicg, Vol. 24, No. 2, May 19“».2, p. 1‘71. 0 7United Stateg Department of Agriculture:;nterbure§g .2flfilfitee. Quoted in Griswold, Alfred W. Farming and Democragy. N3“ York; Harcourt-Brace, 1948, p. 110. 8Ibid, p. 5. 17 on the part of policymakers to appreciate the fact that wide distribution of ownership could only be effected as long as there was an abundant supply of free land.9 What has appeared as a notable objective in government policy in the foregoing is viewed as a different matter in reality. In a publication entitled Farm ggnd Ownerghip in the United States, the authors say, '...the owner-Operated family- farm (abjective has been only partially realized in the United States. There is much tenancy and considerable land con- centraxtion, and there are many undersized farm units."10 Ackernman and Harris,in their summary of the family Farm Con- feren13e, state the following as a consensus: The system of land ownership in the United States permits both the accumlation and maintenance of large landed estates and excessive sub-division into uneconomic-sized units...it was generally agreed there has been an increase in both land concentration and parcellation. In his study of a prosperous township in the Corn Belt EhltEP came to the conclusion that the retreat from owner- Operatorship is hastened through the "natural” processes of M 9Hibbard, Benjamin H. _A_History of the Public_Land P . New York: Peter Smith, 1939, p. 5R6. 10Inman, Buis T. and William H. Fippin. Ea§m_gggg ngner‘ship in the United Stateg. United States Department of Sriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Miscellaneous Pu‘311c3ation, No. 699, Dec. 19kg, Po 2. 11Ackerman, J. and M. Harris. Op, Cit., p. 19. \ \ 18 life and death and encumbered ownership in a fee simple tenure system.12 Writing on the process of inheritance as prwactuced in this country, Taylor comments as follows: "Since many heirs are no longer farmers the early legislation design— ed_‘tc:safeguard the holding of land by owner-0perator often resnxlts in increased tenancy on absentee-owned farms."13 In.£1 Report of the President's Committee on Farm Tenancy, the foil ow ing appears: For the past 55 years, the entire period for which we have statistics on land tenure, there has been a continuous and marked decrease in the preportion of Operating owners and an aciRmpanying increase in the proportion of tenants. . Finally, Griswold writes in a summary manner regarding the f amily farm: The romantic appeal of the symbol contrasts strangely with the economic fortunes of reality. The years have not dealt kindly with the family farm. Once the home and livelihood of nine- tenths of the American people, it is now the home of less than a fifth of them and affords employment to barely 15 percent of the working pOpulation. It is a home, moreover, that has been slipping from its owners grasp. Nearly “0 percent of the nations farms were moitgaged in l9u0 and an equal proportion leased. 5 h“ ¥ . lesalter, Leonard A., Jr. Land Tenure in Process. Wiscow1sin Agricultural Ex eriment Station, Madison, Research Bulletin 145, February 19 3, p. 42. l3Taylor, Carl, et a1. aural Life in the United States. New York: A. A. Knopf, "1911 , p. 276. in "Farm Tenancy.“ Report of the President's Committee. 1937, Quoted in Griswold, p. 3. 15Ibid., p. 28. 19 However one may observe it, the American dream of the farm, owned by the family which Operates it, is becoming more auqd.xnore remote? Whatever the objective of the family farm coruzept may be, it is the purpose Of this study to view it in the perspective of being both an end and a means in agricultural policy. - Inherent in the preceding discussion are certain basic assuauotions made by those who have been responsible for the develxapment of the policy of owner-Operated, family—sized famna. The first and most important step toward the achieve- .i/sment c>f this goal was the introduction Of the concept of fee simple: ownership. This was begun, in part, to permit the owner the greatest degree of freedom in choosing his suc- cessorfi, with the Opportunity of the successor to become an owner-«aperator. It was also assumed that this system would Imrpetliate itself and there would ultimately exist a nation of owner-Operators among the farmers. .It was further assumed that this end would be beneficial to the ggeneral welfare of the nation and particularly the ‘Kmmunisties in which these farms were located. It was be— lieved. that those having a vested interest in the land would, “itUIWI, have a positive interest in their surrounding social organization. .‘ N ---- -.——c-a.—-~-.c.--.-‘¢— This observation was made in 1949. Since that time the Preportion of owner-operators has greatly increased. y..§r"_’ 0" J . . .--.u fl. “.7 ~—;v~" c .‘H\ .n 1"- a «r. f"; ff. .1 g u-‘ A ~‘C, .6:{-< -‘ 'fi“g“."- f: ; I’.‘~§dohb In ~ l”1h bL .ovu g‘.e assi~I r (H J!) “39 13.15. :7' ‘0 n . qr 1‘1 “‘19 a 11"1" oq 5 s 4. this 83“!“ d“. i (H 1 “KARE on an. ‘ g ‘. n he Doig‘dlv .30“ ‘ C \- ‘4‘ "MH twang half: «A ‘ A V .l A 69933: "r. t “yr...” fi‘ ‘ v.8. a s 4 It ‘ dnict‘: thzr‘sfli A ~\- ‘5: Usp O? 1 N, C‘ t ‘ L: n "aihad o ‘-A - r‘r‘l Ownership and Tenupg Within the ideal of owner-Operatorship there are two Conuoonents, ownership and tenure, both of which are dis- cussed in the following pages. Needless to say, there are variations of each, and type of ownership influences to a certain degree the tenure status of the owner. All of the cases under investigation are owners, but there: are significant differences in type of ownership. There: are those who own the land in fee simple ownership, wherexin the use and ultimate disposition Of the land is vested in the sole owner. This grouping fits the ideal for whicri the assumption of owner-operator exists. Those who own the land own it for the purpose of using it in farming to mange a living. In Michigan, just prior to the inception of thuis study, 81 percent of 1,286 farm owners were holding °°mP143te or sole ownership rights.16 In the United States, Slightly more than 82 percent Of the 38,008 farm owners re- Porting held complete or sole ownership rights. A second grouping Of owners are those who hold purchase contrzictg, a type of conditional ownership in which an in- divldllal has both possession and use rights; however, the 5-...“ 16Unless otherwise stated, data regarding type of o"‘ner‘ship of land in Michigan and in the United States will be Obtained from the following two sources respectively: Timmong, John F. and Raleigh Barlowe. Farm Ownership in the livest. Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station, Ames: Research ~_“—_ Bulletin 361, June, 1949, Table 16, p. 877 and Inman and Flppin, pm 0113., Table 18, p. 29. Q “B ‘iviied or s”. ...-._ P LA ‘ ’. r“ 25.: [.311 _|'_ ‘ 'r'w .. . i p -‘ n ' '- "de wruprs Lu 0 l ‘ ' Fur: ‘ 3".“ he als' - ‘ v! _ LET: pres; °“*‘ 21 legal title to the land remains with the seller until speci- fied conditions are met. Next to the group of sole owners, age laolders of purchase contracts are highly motivated toward owner-Operatorship as a goal since, generally, they are buying the Zland with the intention of farming it. In Michigan, 12 percent hold purchase contracts, while in the country as a wholx: 5 percent hold such contracts. The third category of owners are those who have un- divided or shared interests in the land. This condition ex- ists when two or more peOple, other than husband and wife, have cywnership rights in the same property. Each has an equal voice in the utilization of that property. In order to satiaify'the desires Of all the owners, it may be necessary for a. tenant to Operate the farm. Of the Michigan owners re- portirug, 5 percent were in the above category, while M percent of those in the United States on a whole were in this category. The final category of owners are those who hold Owner— Ship 111 life estate. These owners merely have use rights in the laxld only during their lifetime. They have no control over ttie disposition of the property since disposition has been predetermined. Authorities in the field agree that life estate, is probably the least desirable type of ownership in I“"“i‘er‘erice to owner~0peratorship since it is merely a temporary Bltuationand is not necessarily conducive to good farming. Only 3 percent of Michigan owners are in this grouping. The figure for the United States is almost identical, being a little less than 3 percent. Complementing the types of ownership is the tenure stzgztus Of the various owners. Professor Wehrwein, in a paper 011 areas Of research in agricultural land tenure, had this to seaar Of mans' relationship to land: There are two main types of relationships between man and the land. One is land utilization, in which land directly serves human needs, furnish- ing raw materials, food, and shelter, and standing room. The other is land tenure, including in that term all relations established among men detfgmin— ing their varying rights in the use of land. In its spatial location, land remains fixed, but the Iniggrits in land and the utilization of these rights vary in relation to the social forces present at any given time. The existing tenure system and its impact upon society is an area of? Icesearch for the sociologist. Any research in land tenure unisl: concern itself with a study of the distribution of rights in ‘tlne use Of land, and the consequent effects of the dis- tP-‘IJDution Of these rights in various forms on the social and economic welfare of individuals and society, now and in the f“turmls The existing form of land tenure has its effect on larui utilization, and within the tenure system is found the Structure Of the concept of prcperty. a; 17§SRC Advisory Commiptee on Social and Economic Research 1L1Jiflflilcultural Land Tenure: .§p9pe and Method. SSRC Bulletin 20. New York, 1933, pp. 1-2. 18Ibid., p. 2. 7‘" ""i? is .- ...c 10“”. ‘ MI V" I : 1“ p< "' u ‘< l f, .“ n r-“f JET‘S .ebd- U. span ‘91-: “,- -v A a. U. 1 o.‘ "u?!“ ‘Ie‘ 1‘- } it *I-d- 1.7 23 Relating tenure to the ideal of owner-Operatorship brings forth a number of distinct categories to be considered. The first is the owner—Operator who Operates all of the farm land he owns and, in turn, owns all of the farm land that he operates. This is the goal toward which government policy has been oriented and represents the ultimate rung of what was ‘mown as the "agricultural ladder.” Of 1,169 Michigan farm owners reporting it was found that 61+ percent were owner- operators. The comparable figure for the United States was ap proximately 56 percent . 19 The second owner-tenure group to be considered is that of owner-Operator landlord. The owner in this category owns all of the land. operated, but a part of the land he owns is rented. This owner may deviate only slightly from the ideal of owner-Operatorship because of reasons peculiar to his Particular case.“ Eight percent of those owners reporting in Mich 1gan are in this tenure group. Approximately 15 percent in the United States are in this group. A third owner tenure category is that of the non- Operating landlord who rents out all Of the land he owns. —-__k 19Unless otherwise stated, data regarding tenure groups in Michigan and in the United States will be obtained from the giilowlng two sources respectively; Timmons and Barlowe, -—--—" 0 . p 21 Table 5, p. 861; Inman and Fippin, Mg” Table If, 21; This group is far removed from any ideal of owner-operator. In the Michigan pOpulation 16 percent belong to this category; in the United States about 18 percent. Since the requirements set forth for recognition as a centennial Farm contain no explicit statement that the land in question be farmed, there is the possibility of the ex- istence of a fourth and final owner-tenure group. This group would consist of all owners who are neither operating nor renting any of the land they own. This group can be identi— fied as the non-farm owners. The descriptive title "non-farm“ refers only to the fact that the land is not being farmed. The land may remain idle for a variety of reasons or it may be utilized for purposes other than farming. For those who are not owner-Operators there are other relationships established within the owner-tenure system ex— tant .in the United States. Relationship Of the Operator to the owner is relatively important. Operators may be related or non—related. The former may include either a blood or legal relationship, while the latter is self-explanatory. Those operators who are related to the owner are likely to have a greater interest in the land they are operating, since the land may someday be theirs. The now-related tenants may merely be using the land as a temperary means to an end, and consequently exploit it. Another relevant aspect of the tenure pattern is the Wipe or agreement between owner and Operator. This may be 25 either in the form of a verbal or a written contract. The written agreement explicitly states terms and is legally bind- 1ng. Under this form adequate protection for both parties is provided and the arbitrary nature of the verbal contract is eliminated. In the verbal arrangement the owner and operator amply assent to conditions without putting them in writing. Needless to say, this can be an extremely tenuous arrange— ment, providing neither owner nor operator any security in the ir relationship. In addition there are personal and social character- istics of the owners which affect the tenure status of the owner. These characteristics are sex, age, occupation, and residence. The relative importance of the sexes as they are re- lated to tenure status is illustrated by referring once again to the study by Timmons and Barlowe. Sixty-six percent of all Michigan males reporting were owner-Operators and only 12 percent were non-Operating landlords. Of the women re- port ing, 39 percent were owneraoperators and 49 percent were non—Operating landlords.2o In the study by Inman and Pippin. approximately 59 percent of the men were owner-Operators and ‘ 20Timmons and Barlowe. Op, 013., Table 5, p. 861. an 2"“ ”r .1 And ' v l. .re 'f‘n' “‘.~‘ 1.. “J. .—. ‘ o Q'n J'Ae I .Aoa‘d .,.: :-:H‘ h..- - ,- -“uc‘~ '4 «Al 4 fish “I‘ 1y 3 2;“ a1 .. - -\ 26 about lLi percent were non-operating landlords. For women about 35 percent were owner-operators and 48 percent were non-Operat ing landlords.21 When ownership is held Jointly by man and wife, there is need to assign a tenure role to one of them. Even though the farms may have decended to the wife, the tenure status, for the purposes of this study, is attributed to the husband. since the generally accepted role of the male is that of management and control. A second important characteristic affecting tenure status is age. It is indicated in the study by Professors Parsons and Waples that the health of male farmers begins to deteriorate at the age of forty, and from this point on the size of the Operation decreases with the passing years. Generally a man fifty-five years of age can only do about three—fourths of the work of an able-bodied man, and from that age on, the ability to do farm work declines rapidly.22 Thus, as age of the owner increases the likelihood of owner— operatorship decreases, and this conclusion may also be true of Centennial Farmers. ‘-' i... " 211nman and Fippin. 02.__g_i;c., Table 13, p. 23. F 2‘el’arsons, Kenneth and Eliot O. Waples. Keeping the 33:9-Q‘the Family. Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion --—.—-—..._.... room’lolgzdigon, Research Bulletin 157, September 1915’ p. 17’ Relative to the preceding, Professors Loomis and Beagle make the following point: In the United States there is a tremendous economic wastage because there is no general uniform, institutionalized practice whereby a child may take over at least part of the farm Operation when the father's ability and strength are declining. The occupation of the owner is also relative to the teetiure status of the owner. Five major categories of occupa— tzixon are considered in the present study: Farmer, Retired, Housewife, Business and. Professional Workers, and Clerical- Laborer. The first three groups are self-explanatory. Age is not a requirement for the determination of retirement, rittl1er retirement is determined by the owner's conception of his occupational role. The retired category includes only tho see who have retired from farming. Merchants and salesmen, professional personnel, and public servants, who have retired are :1ncluded in the Business and Professional Group. The final u'category is known as the Clerical-Laborer group. It includes all those engaged in clerical work, in skilled and unskzifllled labor, those who have retired from these occupations, and. tluose who don't fall into any of the other categories. Residence is another factor which is pertinent to the tenure status of the owners. It is obvious that those owners \ ____‘ Ne 23Loomis, C. P. and J. A. Beegle. Ruralmggcial Systems.» W York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1950, pp. 36-37. living off the farm are not likely to be owner—Operators. However, even for those maintaining residence on the farm there are variations of tenure status. The entire pattern of tenure, not only affects the family but also the community in which the land is located. Fundamental to the present study are certain basic concepts,ELL which have been implicit in the preceding discussion. These concepts are: prOperty in land, the element to be transmitt- ed over time; transmission and succession, the means for trans— mitting the property through time; the family, the agency through which the prOperty is transmitted; and, finally, the community, the element which is affected by the preceding factors. In the succeeding pages each of the elements are discussed in separate sections. The first part of each sec- tion will be devoted to the development of the Operational definition of each of the concepts, and the remainder of the section will discuss factors which are related to the study Within the realm of the concept. ~~__. guThe concept of family will be recognized as an as8001ation as defined by MacIver, i.e., "A group organized for the pursuit of an interest or group of interest in common. " The concepts of prOperty in land and transmission ans Succession of this property will be considered as insti— t"um-One, or as "the established forms or conditions Of pro- cedure characteristic of group activity." MaCIVBT', R. “- grad C. R. Page. §9§i§tyz An Introductory analysis. New Pk: Rinehart and Company, 19119, pp. 11-17. 29 £2,912er Renne25 considers the definition Of property as the I‘ijght to control an economic good or service subject to the 3.1Jnitations established by laws and regulations. This con- cept of property consists of three components, the owner, the Ipz~c3perty Object, and the sovereign state. The owner falls into one of four classes: private, 3311t311c, group, or qualified. However, property as it is (gvvried by members Of the pOpulation under investigation, is solely of a private nature. Private property is found when true: right to control an economic good or service is vested 1!: ea private person, either "natural“ or "artificial.” This control exercised by the private person is subject to limita- tions established by laws and regulations. This is to say theat: all prOperty rights and forms are conditioned by the par"C¢1cu1ar social organization at any given time or place. For this reason the concept of prOperty varies as widely as the societies in which it is found. The second component of prOperty is the property Ob— Ject:, or the thing which is controlled. The object in turn may be subdivided, into realty or personalty.._ The legal basis for the division is the relative mobility of the Object. \. 25Renne, Roland.’ Land Economics. New York: Harper and Bros., 191w, pp. 105-110. : e:- .‘ ' “V4 .. --d.. ‘ ,;..1.;~ q u -. I" ‘ r “fig-A . p a. s. "but .2 ".s, - A .-- ,‘_' . v I“ -n sa-._ . I s ". '. M. 14": QA.' "‘ w. ..', '; 1.- ~:_ : .1 ‘_ ‘Ll‘le . V.- v t ‘V‘. ~ Us . .. " ‘ 5,2”: 1‘“ 2d“, 4y.~q y» 30 Land. and most of the things which are attached to land of a permanent or fixed character, such as buildings, are in the classification of realty. The term realty, as it is used in this study, refers only to prOperty in land. Transmission of realty elements other than land was not considered as a requirement for approval as a Centennial Farm by the Michigan Historical Commission. Although objects of personalty had undoubtedly been transferred from generation to generation, they were not considered in the data collected. The sovereign state, or the final component of prOperty, would embrace any form of government or social organism having as one of its functions the protection of the Owner in his rights in the property object, through legal or extra—legal means. The soveriegn state in this study is the community in which each of the Centennial Farms is located as well as the State and Federal governments. No individual ever has com- Dlete control over his property, as the laws have abstracted some of the elements of ownership as a protection for society. What is important to this study is realty, or prOperty in land. The utilization Of property in land is determined by the individuals owning the rights. Over any period of time the use of rights may affect the quantitative aspect of the prOperty. That is,the prOperty may increase, decrease or r"mad-1'1 the same in size. Since 1900 when they averaged 86.4 acres, the average size of farms in Michigan has been increasing. Bl 1:1 1910 the average was 91.5; in 1920, 96.9; and in 1950, .1()1.l. During the following decade there was a decrease in average size to 96.2 acres. By 1950 the average climbed to its highest point, 1014.9 acres. Much concern has been shown regarding the breaking up <31? farms into uneconomic-sized farming units. The policy- rnealsers had hoped this end would be avoided, but possibly this result is not inconsistent with the conditions that may exist 11: :relation to the present Centennial Farms. This result is thsstified when it is recognized that, The right to sub-divide agricultural land into smaller than farm units is not always socially undesirable. Many farm families do not need, nor do they want, what is considered to be a full family-sized farm. The number of part- time farms has increased as the country has be- come industrialized and as adequate transporta- tion and convenient facilities have become available to partially employed city workers who want to live in rural areas. Also many couples find that by living on a small farm they can stretch their retiremgpt income into an acceptable level of living. ' This statement, recognizing that conditions change with the Ilassing time, Justifies the existence of certain types or farms which are not of the ideal type. K _— 26 Ackerman and Harris. Op. cit., p. 58. 32 Transmis 5 ion and‘___Succession The transfer of a farm is an extremely important pro- cess \w}1ich must necessarily be executed in great detail and with. cuareful planning. If the owners look forward to keeping the I?eurm in.the family, they need to be cognizant of the fact that some of the most serious farm ownership problems are a resulgt of the transferring of farms within the family. Owners who VV1sh.to keep the farm in the family are faced with a serious problem. On one hand they want to transfer the farm ‘UD tlieir successor while that individual is at the beginning 01’ his most productive years, and on the other they have a Concern for their own security in their declining years. What are the means of transmission and succession a“lilable to owners? The method chosen is influenced by the Sofils of the owner and by the conditions peculiar to his famley situation. Conditions such as the number of potential I hell‘s, the acreage of land, amounts of other prOperty, and the ecorlcnnic position of the owner will influence his decision. The term inheritance is generally used in a categorical senSe to describe the overall process of transmission and suc- ces81Lon. The layman interprets it loosely to mean a share in the family accumulation, whether received from living or de— ceased parents. A rigid interpretation of the word emphasizes the fact that living persons do not have heirse.7 In essence, the concepts of inheritance and succession refer to the same \ 27Parsons and Waples. Op, cit., p. 5, footnote 6. 6.. o s . a. o .11. l o . ~ <- G i . A o a... I . F” .. a. C~ {I . - a . .3 t u p - “A i» .. C; r x 1‘ a .. n. a .u. I e i. an. . 5 v C\ . u .q a! . u c ‘v . :5 PM w h .. fl . I“ . . idle l e an. 4“ ’ i :i l s .\ Ca ' .nu .. a V1! ‘1. at A A.) .l. ‘ . . . ‘1‘. Ii..- ill 33 thinp;, inamely, "...the entry of living persons into the pos- "23 sessixari of dead persons' property. According to Hertzler, inher 1 tance: ...is the standardized and regulated form of prOperty transmission at the death of the owner. The distinctive thing about all forms of inheri- tance is that they appear only when the family is the dominant feature of the social organiza- tion; and it deals only with the transmission of private property, from generation to genera- tion, within the family. Inhezritance exists only where the basis of the economic and socie11.system is private property.30 Since the rights of ownership in land go beyond the lifetime of the individual owners, the states have made pro- Vialxbns for the disposal of the rights from generation to generation. Transfer plans may be in one of three forms.31 The fipfift» type is settlement, which involves a complete disposal 01' the prOperty prior to the owner's death. The second type 13 te state, or transfer plans made during the owner's life- time to take effect upon his death. For those owners who ——~\< of ‘BSMcMurray, Orrin K. "Laws of Succession."§§gyc10pegi§ r35 Social Sciences, E.R.A. Seligman, ed.,New York: The acmiiian Cof, 1932. Volume 14. p. 35- ? 29Hertzler, J, 0, Social Institutions. Lincoln, Neb— Eiskua: University of Nebraska Press, 19h6, P- 98- 3OEncyCIOpedia of the Social Sciences. 02. Cit.,Vol.8,p.35. 31For a discussion of the Michigan laws of inheritance 39%: Ellis, H., R. Barlowe and E,B.Hill. lpheritance of Farm -szerty in Michigan. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station St Lansing, Special Bulletin 388, December 1953. 34 fail to utilize either of the above forms there is intestate action. In this case, the state laws of descent and distribu— tion go into effect. These laws are an attempt to give ade— quate protection to those who are eligible as heirs. They are written to include all cases, and make it difficult to in- terpret each case on its own individual merits which may re— sult in an injustice to a deserving heir. Settlement would include methods such as purchase con- tract, sale, or gift, while testate action would be in the form of a will which would dispose of ownership rights direct—- 1y or allow them to be held in life estate prior to complete disposal. Purchase contract is possibly the most effective means 01’ transferring the farm within the family. It allows the farm to be transferred as a unit and as a going concern, and “3 Permits the purchaser to begin his farming career at the beginning of his productive years. Thus, the purchaser is 81Ven some security regarding the future. In addition, the“ purehase contract arrangement is flexible enough so that it can fit the peculiar situation of any family and provide equltable treatment for the potential heirs. Even with its many obvious advantages it is a seldom used technique. PI‘i—marily because the owner has few outside investments, he tends to regard his land as his investment, and looks upon it as his security in old age. 35 Outright sales seldom occur within the family, for those who are children seldom have sufficient funds to carry out such a prOposition. Instead, children with insufficient money generally resort to the purchase contract. The reasons for not selling the land outright are the same as those stated above for purchase contract. The practice of making an outright gift of the farm is not a common occurrence, because very few farm owners find themselves in such fortunate economic circumstances that they can give the farm away. Some elements of a gift, however, may exist even when the transfer is in the form of a sale. But, Inman and Pippin, from an analysis of their data and from unpublished data “of other studies, conclude that purchase from relatives does not carry a perceptible degree of gratuity.32 The use of a will allows the owner to select his bene- fbinaries as he so desires and to distribute his prOperty as he sees fit, upon his demise. Those who inherit his pro- perty need not be related. The state, in the form of the probate court, supervises and enforces the desires of the deceased owner. The results of the use of the will are important. T00 frequently the farm does not pass into the possession of atnot‘oher member of the family until that member has passed \ 3aInman and Fippin. Qp_..__g_.’l;§_., p. 33. 36 his pe ak of productivity as a farmer. This is essential because as Professor Wehrwein points out, "Every transfer in ownership, except through inheritance to one heir, means re- capitalization of the farm in whole or in part."33 Even if the will does not take effect for many years to come, a dis- cussion of the provisions of the will with family members is advisable. It provides the potential heirs with security. And, if the conditions of the will are favorable to him, the one who has a desire to continue farming will work toward making the home farm a productive endeavor. However, what generally happens is that owners neglect to make out wills, and even if they do, there is the tendency for them not to discuss the provisions with the potential heirs. As a result those "110 are potential heirs are not aware of their status regard- ing their future stake in the land. Professors Walrath and Gibson found that only 25 percent 01’ the farmers they interviewed had prepared wills)“ John Boutlhern, in a work on the Southwest, found only 16 percent with. wills.” In Michigan, only about 17 percent of the \ 33Wehrwein, George S. Qp, cit., p. 173. t 311’Wa1rath, Arthur J. and W, L. Gibson, Jr. Farm Inheg- % and Settlement of Estateg. Virginia Agricultural Experi- ment Station, Blacksburg: Research Bulletin ’41}, Jan.1943.P.30. 35Southern, John. Farm hand Ownership_in the Southwégsi. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Fayetteville: Re- Search Bulletin 502, Dec. 1950, p. 37 owner‘s.:reporting had made wills.36 Finally, for the United States as a whole approximately 17 percent of those reporting had made a “11.37 Life estate is another method of transferring ownership. This may be provided for in the will so that the remaining living spouse has prOperty use rights. Occasionally a Joint deed is made out providing for the right of survivorship for the remaining spouse. I A final means of farm transference is the use of verbal Droniises and understandings. Owners may discuss their plans for «disposition with the family members and all may be in agrfieement with them, but none of the promises are legally binfilng unless there is transfer of a consideration. As the Paptzies to the agreement advance through life, certain econ- omic’ social, and psychological factors may arise to strain the relationship, and as a result neither party has any BeCNa1>1ty in relation to the prOperty disposition. What can be .1mnportant is the fact that these verbal promises may deve10p into written agreements, which become effective as a part of the transfer arrangements of the farm. -—-;__ 36 Timmons and Barlowe. Op, Cit,, p. 931. 37Inman and Fippin. Op, Cit,, p. ”5. 38 The owner of land has a great many alternatives as to the method of transferring his property, and within his choice the ].auws of the land give him broad license in what he may want t:o consider as a rational distribution. What is relevant to t11€3 present study is not necessarily the choice of method but “time resulting effects of that choice. Thus, such questions as tile following are relevant: what distribution was made to the Ineirs, was there a parcellation of land, and if so, what was the pmsition of the family member who undertook the task 0f keeping the farm in the family? ELEM-.11. The third element to be discussed is the agency through “hidzli prOperty in land is transmitted from generation to generation. There is need to define what is meant by family, Since in a period of a hundred years the family can assume many forms. Family membership is discussed by Kingsley Davis as being of two types. He states: Every normal individual acquires membership in two different family groups. This is because he participates in two species of birth; first when he himself is born, second when he procreates another individual. The first of these families we may call the family of orientation, because it is in this family that Ego is socialized and linked through his parents with the rest of the social organization. The second we may call the family of procreation, because it is here that Ego has children of his own. Ego is the sole 39 link--the sole overlapping member--between these two families.33 Moreover, he says that an extended kinship universe is composed of interlocking families. Involved in this in- terlocking system are three basic relationships, namely, marriage, parenthood, and siblingship.39 In consideration Of this, the original owner of the Centennial Farm begins 'his tenure and his family with his marriage and parenthood, tuna through the repetition of this action in succeeding genera— tic>ns the family extends through time to the present. In the: process, each owner, with the exception of the original owxier, is recognized as having been a member of a family of or;ientation and in almost all cases a member of a family of prc>creation. Obviously the original owner had a family of orienta ti<>n. However, this term only has reference to the time Span under investigation, or, from the time of the original Purchase of the land by the original owner to the present tilnee. The second point is that all members of society do tuft become members of a family of procreation, for they may fa151.to marry or they may marry but remain without progeny. 38Davis, Kingsley. Human Society. New York: Mac- millan and Co., 1949, p. 399. 39Lgc. cit. no In problems of succession, the family of procreation is generally the group from which the successor is selected. .As the term is used here, its size is limited to the parents exnd their offspring. When a family of procreation does not (exist for a particular owner, it is necessary for that owner, cu? for_the state, depending upon the circumstances, to select a.:successor from the family of orientation. When these con- dii:ions exist, the family of the succeeding owner is recognized as a collateral family. To study the family as an agency for the transmission of prOperty over such an extended period of time is in reality a study of changing characteristics of the family which affect the distribution and use of the land. These inferred changing characteristics can be observed by looking at the American faJPm family, past and present. The pioneer American farm faunily, to quote Wilson, was characterized by the following tr‘aits: Land—-private property in land--stands out as one of the important features of early American agriculture and family life....(the farmer) built upon his farm a homestead which represent- ed his ideal of domestic and family comfort. He built for permanence. So far as his means per- mitted, he provided for his children and for generations of descendants." Self-maintenance with a sense of isolation is another characteristic of the early rural family ...(This) is the tradition which has been passed on in such stereotypes as 'independence', 'in- tegrity', and the like...There can be little doubt that the early isolation and the sense of independence did much to magnify the importance of the family and to intensify the importance of its relationships. ul Kinship, with a sense of solidarity, was another importantbwnd in the framework of the early family..A.senserof kinship, of continuing a line of common descent, must have been a sustaining force in those pioneering experiences...Fealty to kinsmen, then, is one ogothe great heritages of the early rural family. And in comparison, Professor Beers characterizes the modern American farm family by saying: The portrait of today's farm family...is a modi- fication of old patterns, a partial acceptance of new patterns. It is smaller than the pioneer family, yet it is still among our chief sources of pOpulation increase. The social organization of the area is no longer familistic...The roles of parent and child are less fixed in the mores. There is a definite heritage of paternal domi- nance...Specialization and education have affected the division of labor, but shared work and shared leisure are still formative of the family pattern. Propinquity continues to foster solidarity, re- “1 sisting the centrifugal effects of urbanization. In the pioneer days it was not too difficult to main‘ taJJI tile farm and the family as a unit. But in the face of the industrial revolution and the resulting urbanization, familgy structure and organization changed. Not to have done 3° 'CNJIJd have resulted in a form of "social rigor mortis.'u2 ‘5‘ Count; luOQuoted from Wilson, warren H. The Evolution of the ESTErJEJLiCOHMUDILY. Chicago: Pilgrim Press, 1923, P. 22. by 8001: J. H. and Edmund deS. Brunner. A Study of Rural igfizfit‘ . New York: Houghton-Mifflin Co., (Revised ed.), ' pp. ace-201+. 1 Cent. Beers, Howard W. I'A Protrait of the Farm Family in 2 Nr‘al New York State." American Sociological Review, Vol. ’ °- 5, October 1937, p, 600. u2112s.. p. 591. 1+2 within the bio-social matrix of the family are those inherent elements which could have affected the tenure of the present owner. Some of these elements are subjective and some are objective in nature. Of the former the observation is made by Lowry Nelson that, While it is admittedly difficult to secure in- formation concerning those more subtle attitudes and responses involved in family ritual, attach- ment to the homestead,family pride in ancestry, and relations with kinfolk, it goes without say- ing that these are the very warp and woof pg which human life from day to day is really spun. There is an attempt made in the present study to derive evidence of this statement, but most of the conclusions re- ' garding such subjective items are made by inference. The objective factors which can be observed and about whixni ssome degree of relatedness to the problem can be ascer- tained are: data on the original owners, number of generation the fsirun has been in the family, size of each owner's family. 39": Occupation, residence, marital status and education of each_¢31- the family members, and the choice of the successor. lKnowledge of the occupational and marital status of the original owners of the sample pOpulation may prove useful in gaining insights into the economic and social maturity of the x‘ ‘ ‘ ~.--w"-.—~o-—v ’ 'v'fi—“w—I - ~~-.«'-~'-” r. 43 Eco Nelson, Lowry. Research in Rural Institutions; ‘9‘ and Method. John D. Black, ed. The Advisory Committee on .. ._.. Yori?cial and Economic Research in Agriculture, SSRC, New June 1933. p. 57. Lt3 menber5 of this original rgroup. Thus, if these owners had been farmers in their state of ori,...~;in, esmcially of a low tentrres status, their motivation in migrating may have been for the ‘pmirpbse of attaining the ultimate rung of the "agricultural ladder," i.e., owner-Operatorship. Secondly, if the original owners were married prior to their migration, there is the likefiLJJnood that they were concerned with establishing a per- maneuut: place of residence. If this is true, they would consume acnarisiderable prOportion of the hundred years of ownership, and tflqe number of transfers of ownership would be minimized. The number of generations a farm has been in the family may 'the a significant contributory element in the present tenure Statllés. It is possible that the greater number of generations a fiiITm,stays in a family, the greater the chance of it being twdkean.up into uneconomic sized units. This condition becomes possiJole because of the number of transfers of ownership that must take place. The reproductive behavior of all of the owners involved in thus succession of the farm is considered. For the past 150 years; the average size of the American family had been declin- ing, In 1790 the average family contained approximately 5.7 perscflns; by 1850 the average was 5.5; in 1880 it had fallen ‘0 5-<3 persona; by 1900 to 4.7; in 1930 to “.1; in isuo to 3.7;“L ‘.‘~ mn— .—-—.-—--.——. -.o——— --.~ 0—..— -—._-— 1mUnited States Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, 1789-19u5, Washington, D. C., 19kg. p. 29, Series B 171-181. 11,11 _ 45 . and, lay 1950 to 5.6. It is possible that an examination of tmee ssunple pOpulation will reveal a similar consistent decrease. if this is so, then smallness of Centennial Farm Families woulxfi ‘keep any extensive parcellation of land and encumbrances to £1 niinimum, thus making it simpler to become an owner- Opernatnor and to keep the farm in the family. Since some of the families of the present owners may as 3rert be incomplete, it may be difficult to determine their size:. For this reason averages are computed for completed fimL1].ies only, and in any family where the female spouse has attained the age of 14-5 the family is assumed to be complete. Itilss assumed that the reproduction function ceases at that age- In addition, for this study, averages of size of family are tassed upon father, mother, and all children who have lived beyond the age of 11% years. Sex composition of the family is important. Not all farms; can be transferred from father to son, as the sex com- posittlon of the family limits such a plan. The owner must take liis choice of transferee(s) from one of the following hyp0tlietica1 situations at the time of transfer: (1) all sons sand no daughters, (2) both sons and daughters, (3) all (knufllters and no sons, and (M) neither sons nor daughters. Whatever the choice may be, it has an effect upon the use of theifarm, which in turn affects the potential heirs of the owner. *--”'- —— nun—.— __ — »— l”jUnited States Bureau of the Census. United States POp- ulation: 1950. Vol. II, Characteristics of the POpulation, Part I, U. S. Summary, Chapter B. United States Government Printing Of— fice, Washington, D. C., 1952. Table M7, p, 1-97, ”5 Related to choice of successor are other questions, such as the determination as to whether the birth order of the heir is important. It was found in one study that the ”in- heritance of the paternal farm does not follow primog'geniture." Generally the inheritor is chosen from about the middle of the sequence of children.46 Has there been a tendency for the owners to name their youngest child as the successor to the faT’M, or is the choice random? It is recognized that each family works out its transmission practices within the structure of its own unique situation, but between the families being investigated there may be a consistency of choice. It is hoped that by taking each family member separate- ly and ascertaining his major occupation, some conclusions may be drawn relating to the occupational mobility of these in- dividuals. Whether or not the occupation is related to farm- ing and the geographical location of the occupation will con- tribute to some understanding of the family as a unit. It has been observed that farm children more frequently inherit their father's occupation than do the children in any other group. It is possible that a trend indicating the movement out of farming with increasing urbanization can be established. In det(-Z‘I‘mining the occupation of the daughters, their chosen -—_-._ _ — ”- ——.~.—— Miner, Horace. ST. DENIS A French—Canadian Parish. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1939, p. 79- 1+6 occupation is tabulated if they are single. But, if married, the 1P husbands' occupation is considered because the husband is viewed as having the major occupation. Relevant to any discussion of occupational preference of farm children, is the idea that farming is a preferred oc- cupat ion because it represents a way of life for which people are Willing to forego substantial money income. Professor Schultz considers this idea to be a gross misconception, as the following quotation reveals: This notion about occupational preferences re- flects mainly the delayed nostalgia of urban peOple who as youths left rural homes and who,u looking bask, overglamorize their early years. 7 Choice of residence of the children of the owners is pertinent to an evaluation of the effect of urbanization upon these farm families. It is recognized that there is a con- stant: movement of pOpulation from rural to urban areas, and therer is occasionally an equally great return movement, es- pecially in times of national economic crisis. Migration to the urban areas itself may not be disastrous. What is relev- ant 143 the continuous flow of wealth from the rural areas to cities, There is little to balance this outgoing flow. A second. factor regarding residence is that it is generally m.“ Schultz, Theodore W. "A Guide to Better Policy for ggr‘igulture,‘ _C_o_n_._su__m_e_r_fi_ep9_r_t§, Vol. 19, No. 4, April 195#, . 5. 1+7 clcnsefily‘related to occupation and education. Where do the children of Centennial Farm Owners tend to settle permanently, and ixf’ it is away from the local area, does the process of transmission and succession contribute to having the migrants return to the farm and to farming? QQELUBAEX Because villagers and residents of outlying lands are comIDIJementary components of a social entity, the third basic concept studied is that of community. As the term is used heree, it refers to the peOple of a contiguous area. This area ser‘rees as a central point for members interests and activities, and i.t represents that area in which the daily needs and wants are satisfied. 48 More specifically the term refers to the following: A community...is any town and tributary area, where the majority of people find satisfaction for their economic, religious, educational, social, and recreational ‘interests. It is the place where one lives, where his children obtain their secondary education, and where he sells his farm products, buys his necessi- ties of life, attends church and lodge, and participates in other social activities. Thus the term "community" ... invariably means a town-country community-- a pOpulation center rendering a sufficient variety of services to —— w-fi S . Thaden, J. F. and Eben Mumford. fligh School Cgm- mynities in,Michigan. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Sta— tion, Inast Lansing, Special Bulletin 289, Jan. 1938, p. 3. satisfy the majority of human needs, and the area, primarily farming territory, tributary _ to it, both mutually dependent upon the other.49 These are in reality trade-center communities and the stuéty considers them as such. All of the Centennial Farms h:ve3 taeen located within the boundaries of some community and the (Dunners affect and in turn are affected by their presence in that particular trade area. Although community boundaries do change, they change 310W1y except in those areas where rapidly expanding urban aresiss encompass small surrounding communities. Due to the fixlty of land, little can be done to remove a farm from with- in tikie imaginary lines of a community. What does vary is the relationship of the owners of that farm to the community in whhzkl the farm is located. In view of this fact, data should be atraJlable regarding farms and farmers of long tenure in a commlzriity. R. C. Headington points out that relatively few families inlnoest communities retain their ownership, and particularly their- occupancy of the same land, for a Span of more than two or tfrbee generations.50 If this is true then a pertinent questzion is that related to the plans of the owners for ugThaden, J. F. The LansingiRegion and Its Tributarv “war-Country Communities. ”'Michiga.n Agricultural EXperiment StatiJon, East Lansing, Special Bulletin 302, March 1940, p. 9. cjoHeadington, R. C. Transferring the Farm From One Generation to the Next. Ohio Mimeo. Bulletin éOH" Dept. of Piral Sociolo;,y and Agricultural Vconomics, Ohio St? te Univ— ersity, Columbus, Nov. 1998, p. l. transferring their farms tr: succeedinj; gynratlons. There is a possibility that S-L‘LTTEE'“ I tte farms hzve already been in the family for more than three generations. Is there evidence that more of them will remain that lon,-; or longer? Professor Sanderson states that a large percentage . l 01' farm owners tend to live near their home farm.5 Hence, it is assumed that a large percentage of the members of Cen- tennial Farm Families who h we become farm owners have settle- ed in the local area. Since one of the criteria of high status in Pural areas is a long; time family history in the community, the name of the Centennial Farmer should be readily recognized by c ommunity informants . Having been long-time land owners in the community the question arises as to what contributions have been made by Centennial Farm Families to their home communities. Some investigation of community participation is pertinent. His- torically, it is difficult to study all of the individual actions of all Centennial Farm Family members. In the early times of rural Amsrica, as described by Professors Kolb and Brunner, "country neighborhood settlement and social organiza— tion went on quite independently and often prior to town —“ —- ‘ - -1" “Ha-m»- ——-—- ——- —-— 51Sanderson, Dwight._ Rural SociolOfl anLEacal. ocial Organization. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 19 2, p. 216. SO settlement."5i3 Since the folh'of the hinterland and the vil- lagers have become more interdegendent, there is the likeli- hood the Centennial Farm Families hare also followed the des~ cribed pattern. Participation in community activities can be observed in terms of organizational affiliation and in the degree of active or passive participation. Do the members of Centennial Farm Families participate only in those organizations whose objectives are directly related to farming, or do these families also participate in organizations whose objectives are of a civic betterment nature? Another area of community participation investigated is that of holding public office. There need be no concern as to whether the offices are appointive or elective, or whether they are on a local, state, or national level. The individual has a vested interest and has obli aticns to his I home community and his actions reflect upon that community. In all community participation, especially in those cases of owner-Operators, it is probable that the time re- quired for them to Operlte their farm precludes, or at least minimizes, any extensive participation. Two years of presenting awards to eligible farmers throughout the state should have created a consciousness of _ —-.-.—— -..—.c—o “n—wm 52Kolb, J. H. and Edmund deS. Brunner. Op, Cit,, p. 227. the eaxistence of the program in the minds of the community nmmfloers, and the recipients of the award should have develOped £3 conceptualization of the program. Certainly if the recip- ients were constant contributors to community growth and de- ‘velopment, they would receive the recognition of the community members. Conceptualization occurs through the reflection of knowledge. This reflection poses the question as to how the Centennial Farmers as well as the community members conceptual- ize the Centennial Farm idea. In essence, this question can be answered from other questions pertaining to the definition a Centennial Farm, suggested improvements in the program, and whether or not the program should be continued. It may be found from asking these questions that the status of owner— operator is held in high esteem while related tenure groupings receive lesser esteem as they move further from the ideal. Community members may merely parrot the definition they have read in the newspapers or elsewhere. Any suggestions they have for improving the program however, indicate the need for a realignment of the definition. Finally, if they suggest that the program be discontinued, it infers that certain con- ditions they may feel to be essential to the program are not being met. In essence, are the community members satisfied simply with long-time ownership, or do they also want occupancy and operatorship to be considered as factors in the awards? | I'll-tall ii I ll 52 Also do they feel that the factor of community contribution on the part of the recipients is Just as important as other fac- tors mentioned. From the point of view of the recipients, the definition of the Centennial Farm should be well structured in their minds. But their suggestions regarding improvements may lead to inferences of eliteness of the group. Some con- clusions may be drawn regarding factors they consider import- ant for recognition by determining their desire to continue or discontinue the program. Considering both recipients and community members, what values of tenure and ownership are abstracted to compound the social image of the Centennial Farm? Another area related to this section is concerned with the Centennial Farmers outlook upon farming as a way of life. One of the stumbling blocks to the understanding of life in America has been the idealization of rural living.53 What is the attitude of the Centennial Farmer as he responds to the question pertaining to his conceptualization of farming as a way of life? Would their responses by synonymous with what has been recognizedas the tradition of agrarianism, or would these responses be in terms of recognizing the land they own as a commercial investment? 53Waring, P. Alston, and Clinton Golden. Soil and Steel. New York: Harper and Bros., 1947, p. 25. 53 Underlying the idealistic aspect of this problem is the statement by Jefferson who believed that "those who labor are the chosen peOpIe of God, ..."5u This statement leads to the agrarian creed, which according to Johnston, has three com- ponents : (1) complete economic independence of the farmer, (2) agriculture fundamentalism -- all other economic activities were dependent upon farming, and (3) agriculture is the natural life and is therefore good.55 Do the present owners of Gen-- tennial Farms respond from a more realistic point of view, perhaps by recognizing the factors of land supply, agricultural seienee’ and urbanization? MacIver and Page are inclined to believe farmers do feel this way, as is illustrated by their 8tatement, "...the land has lost some of its old character as an inheritance and has become more nearly an investment of capital, like any other."56Ar-e those Centennial Farmers who are Owner-operators more realistic in their outlook toward the land than those who fall into. other owner-tenure groups? \ A 51‘United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, "Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and lgr'iculture,“ (from Jefferson's note on Virginia) 102 pages, Ch}? Processed, Quoted by Paul H. Johnstone. ”Farmers in a Defilleging World," iguo Yearbook of Agriculture, United States par‘tment of Agriculture, 19u1, p. 155. 55Ib1d., p. 117. 56MacIver and Page, ng_§it., p. 352. * CHAPTER III METHODS OF THE STUDY The program of awarding Centennial Farm Certificates to century farm families had been underway for approximately two years when this research project was begun. The project was financed by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation and was carried out under the guidance of a committee composed of members of the Department of Sociology and AnthrOpology. The Michigan Historical Commission served as a 000perating agency. Selection of the Sample The sample for this investigation was selected in a stratified, purposive manner. A complete eXplanation of the selection of the cases for study is given in Appendix B. Two variables are important to the selection of the sample: size of community and number of Centennial Farm Families in the community. The size of the sample is purposively small, even though it is recognized that factors which social scientists are unable to control usually cause small samples to be rad- ically different from one another. For this reason, the use of small samples is relatively limited in social research.1 _— 1McCormick, Thomas C.\ Elementary Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Co., l9el, p. 23“. . n‘nfi" “curs;- .uu‘ ‘\ “‘ t . - Ara "l" 5%., so] “-‘ -“ «\pr “H" ... ... i J - “an: ‘4' "r U'V‘Fuv bLa -.. - F‘ H .11 ‘IQ1 ‘ ‘ _ ' I 4 C”... 1 '0- - v—dtOL . 'cflns v-0-oa "““r’w hula . ‘. ‘ . 93C in _ _. ~ f." ‘ v’. ‘ n 1‘. -I .y. a; v ... “1‘- A f k v . . 1 l’..' , " ‘ n ‘1. la- n ‘ "u.’ ~ g (1 k» .. ~- “~ ‘\ ‘ c. J" h ‘-— 55 Nevertheless, the study has the purpose of aiding in the deveIOpment of hypotheses for future study. The small sample not only makes for an economy of research effort, but it is most effective when used in combination with the case study method. It has been found that social scientists work- ing with the case study technique have been able to produce a great number of new insights from a few cases, while an in- crease in the number of cases may yield few new ideas.2 In relation to the purposes of the study, there is little concern for frequency of occurrence, and for this rea- son a small sample seems adequate. Emphasis is placed on ex- isting patterns rather than quantities of attributes. Regard— ing such emphasis, Cooley says: We are accustomed to think of scientific exact- ness as a matter of measurement in small units of space and time. But behavioristic knowledge is essentially organic, must exist in wholes or not exist at all. Even in its simplest forms it deals with conformations, pitterns, systems, not with mechanical units. For this reason the phenomena of life are often better distinguish— ed by pattern than by quantity. Those who are striving to make sociology an exact science might well give morg attention to the method of pattern comparison. eJahoda, M., M. Deutsch and S. W. Cook. Research Methods in Social Rplations. New York: The Dryden Press, 1951, Volume 1, p. H}. Cooley, Charles Horton. Sociological Theory and §ppia1 Research. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1930, p. 31M. 56 Method_of Approauh As already indicated, data were collected through the use of the case study. One of the factors contributing to the decision to use this method is the complexity of the data and the development of relevant phenomenon over a period of a hundred years or more. Secondly, it has been stated in the preceding chapter that one of the specific purposes of the study is to develop insights and to suggest hypotheses for future study. Jahoda observes that scientists who have been working in relatively unformulated areas have found the case study method to be most useful for the above purposes.” In a similar vein, Cooley remarks that the objective of all re- search is a more adequate perception of life to better under- stand what is occurring. He suggests that the social complex must be broken up and examined by units. This can best be done by the case study wherein actual persons or groups are studied very closely, and the perceptions gained from this observation are used as a basis upon which to build an under- standing of other persons and groups and ultimately the whole complex.5 .. --¢~u-~.—--—.’--- v-fi—w—u'n --“-—’-H..--'-- .— ....p...—’.—’ —. uJahoda, M. fi£_§l, 92,”9;§., p. ”2. 5Cooley, C. H. Epgrpmgg, p. 331. 57 J. 0. Hertzler considers the Case study method to be the core of sociological procedure. Especially in reference to historical data, he feels that no other mettod is as effec- tive because the case study alone provides the essential order and consistency to data. It makes possible the examina- tion of a number of similar cases on the basis of spatial dis- tribution and time sequence.6 Both of these criteria are relevant to the present study. Since, according to Palmer,7 one of the functions of science is to reduce individual variations into common cate- gories, it is imperative that the unique characteristics of the cases be brought to the fore. The intensity of the in- vestigation of the case study technique brings forth sufficient information to characterize and eXplain both the unique fea- tures of the case and those which it has in common with others.8 Use of the case study technique aids in meeting the needs of the science. Data to be Cgllgcted The first step in the research process was a thorough review of the literature in hope of obtaining data, or at 6Hertzler, J. 0. Part II, Chapter 2. The Sources and Methods of Historical Sociology. Bernard, L. L. The Fields --.-—-~ ggdflgethgd§_g;_§gg;glogy. New York: Long and Smith, 1933, p. 270. 7Palmer, Vivien. Field Studies in Sgp}ology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938, pp. 20-21. 8Jahods, M. gt 9;. Qp,_cit., p. “3. 58 least insights, for the purpose of delineating areas to be in- veetigated. As has been pointed out in the previous chapter, this. search was virtually fruitless and was abandoned for the use or a more direct technique. The direct technique was to be in the form of a mailed questionnaire which would provide data for the formulation of the problem. After completing the questionnaire, a 00133! was sent with a cover letter eXplaining the purpose of the study and requesting the COOperation of the Centennial Farmer. All of the 231i Centennial Farmers were mailed questionnaires and after the first mailing 1M2 were returned, or slightly more than 60 percent of the total. Additional letters and ques— tionnaires were sent 'to the remaining 92 cases and 17 of these were returned, making a total of 159 returned, or approximate- 13' 70 percent of the total. As a result of the data collected on the questionnaires, “'10 temporal areas of investigation are delineated, namely, the historical and the contemporary. Within the former there are areas of focus, such as; data on the original owner, data on all of the children of all of the owners, transmission and succession practices, and general statements regarding the family. The area of the present referred to the present owner, his De rsonal data, his tenure status, his conceptualization of the program and of farming as a way of life, his community contribution and organizational affiliation. In addition, 6a 59 trmnve is included in the present, a conceptualization of the pnnagram as it is viewed by selected members of the community. Data to be collected on the original owners were please of origin, occupation and marital status in place of ordmgin, age at time of migration and reason for migration, year of purchase of original acreage, number of acres obtained and from whom was the acreage purchased. For each of the owners in the line of descent of the ‘present Centennial Farm, the following information was tabu- lated: Birth order, sex, education, marital status, occupa- tion, and final place of residence. It would be difficult to gather more detailed information than the preceding on all of the family members. Hence, general statements regarding the family as a unit were obtained. Information was to be ob- tained in reference to community participation, and to organ- izational, religious and political affiliation. Personal data on the present owner include his age, sex, marital status, residence, education, community participation, and organiza- tional membership. Information regarding his tenure status was deemed important. Such items as Operatorship, if the farm was not Operated by the present owner, then by whom, and the terms of the contract, whether it was verbal or written. How long has it been since a member of the family has Operated the farm? Finally, what is the size of the farm and how many acres are being operated? 60 Farming as a way of life to the Centennial Farmers is an important attitude to ascertain. Data which provide in- sights into this attitude are related to what they have done with the Centennial Farm Certificate and what they plan to do with the plaque. In addition, their attitudes toward the program as a whole were ascertained, and specifically, whether they thought the program should be continued, and could they make any suggestions for the improvement of the program. It is also considered especially important to find out what plans have been made for the future disposition of the farm. In an attempt to determine the point of view of the community, selected community members were interviewed regard- ing their conceptualization of the Centennial Farm Concept and specifically their conceptualization of the Centennial Farm program, and the Centennial Farms and Farmers located in their communities. Sources of Data As already stated, the results of the selection of the sample ultimately yielded forty—four Centennial Farms located in twelve communities. Each of the Centennial Farms became a case for study, and in each of the communities selected mem— bers contributed to the study by serving as informants. In the case of the former, the individual to be inter- viewed is the one whose name appears on the Centennial Farm Certificate, since these individuals have to be owners to 61 receive the aWard. HoweVer, from the time of the award to the time of the interview there is always the possibility that the owner receiving the award might relinquish ownership; in this case, the new owner is to be interviewed if he is related. In situations where more than one name appears on the Certi— ficate, such as husband and wife, the individual to whom the farm descended is interviewed. However, in cases where the wife was the descendant, data on tenure are collected for the husband. One of the facets for investigation was the relation- ship of Centennial Farmers, past and present, to the community in which the land was located. It is assumed that certain peOple occupying specific positions in their communities would be familiar with the peOple living in the hinterland of the community. This familiarity would be a consequence of the business or professional interests of the selected community members. To maintain a measure of consistency among all of the communities, the interviewees are selected from specific oc- cupations or professions. These are: formal polical leader, public librarian, newspaper editor, banker, and hardware merchant. In all of the selected communities each of the first three occupational categories listed appear only once. The latter two, however, are likely to be duplicated especial- ly in the larger communities. When duplications occur the 62 interviewer makes an arbitrary selection based upon his ob- servations in that community. Additional sources of information are the state and community libraries, compiled local histories, neWSpaper files, observations of the interviewer, and conversations with local historians. Field Techniques Due to the complexity of the phenomena to be studied, it was difficult to construct a simple schedule. Nevertheless, the 000peration received on the mailed questionnaires indicat- ed that the necessary information might be obtained. Ultimately a schedule was prepared and a selected group of Centennial Farmers, known to be exclusive of the sample pOpulation, was interviewed in a pre-test. These inter— views revealed that major revisions were necessary, primarily in the method of conducting the interview. The original schedule had been designed for use in a formally structured situation. Even though it was still essential to obtain the same data, it was necessary to obtain it in another manner. One of the unforeseen difficulties encountered was the ex- treme age of the interviewees. This, coupled with their sentimental involvement in the case history of their family and homestead, made the use of a formally structured interview virtually impossible. The interviewees were prone to digress continuously, presenting a problem in rapport in attempting to return to the question at hand. b3 .After a revision it was still pOssible to use certain segments of the original schedule in a structured situation. That is, the questions pertaining to the interviewee or to the farm could be asked without fear of digression. It was noted that only when questions in reference to the history of the farm and the family were asked, the interviewee went off on a tangent. As a consequence, a decision was made to structure the interview so that those questions which were answered easily were at the beginning of the interview. This in turn provided some of the data in a short time and allowed the interviewer to establish better rapport. Upon completion of the first segment of the interview, the situation became permissive. Through use of a few standard questions it was possible to get the interviewee to describe the history of the farm and the family. These standard questions pertained to the original owner and personal characteristics of members of the Centennial Farm Family. Answers to questions regarding succession prac- tices were asked only when necessary. It was in this area that the interviewer had memorized questions, and'as the inter- view progressed he, abstracted the relevant answers, and made the necessary notes. Due to the flexibility of this method, the interviewer was able to obtain all of the required data. Members of the community, as designated in the section on the sample, were interviewed with a given set of questions. plus any additional requests for information that the interviewer ..4 ‘4‘ en thought necessary Within the framework of the particular situation. The questions asked were designed to determine the community members' conceptualization of the Centennial Farm program. Specifically they were asked to define the term Centennial Farm, and whether or not the program should be continued. In addition, they were asked if they could point out contributions made to the community by any of the local Cen t ennial Farm Famil ies . Method of Analysis The immediate need of the study is a method with which to analyze the data collected. This is not to say that exist— ing methods are not adequate, it is merely to say that the data of the problem will influence the selection of a method of analysis. Relevant to the present study there is one significant Characteristic which must necessarily be taken into considera- tion when deciding upon a method of analysis. The pre-test I‘eVeals that not all Centennial Farmers are farming the land themselves. This factor means that there are differences in tenure status among the present owners. These differences I‘c'=11.°s.e two questions: (1) What is the internal patterning of selpoped characteristics within each tenure group? and, (2) What differences are there between tenure groups by selected Characteristics? 65 To obtain the anrw'rs to these questions there is the nened. to order the data collected by the case study method. FhirfWey'writes that if it is possible to express data ...quantitatively the procedure is comparatively straight-forward...In many cases, however, the observations are not adapted to quantification. Facts and occurrences are described individually rather than counted, and the Value of the study lies in this qualitative description and not in quantitative measurement. For this situation some type of analysis is necessary that will distill the essential facts from a large un- wieldy mass of field notes and present these facts in a way that is scientifically convinc- ing. The problem is how to find a method that will do for descriptive material what 8 atis— tical analysis does for numerical data. In the succeeding paragraphs of this section the ra« tiorua].e for the method to be used and a description of this metruoéi will be elaborated upon. An examination of the litera- ture: I~eveals that the search for a method for analysis is an Oil-going process. T. D. Eliot, writing in 1922, was concerned with the limitations of methods of social research. He wrote, Either all happenings involving "socii' are capable of being analysed, classified, and clarified by existing formulas and methods, or the sc0pe of so-called sociological laws and methods shfgld be so enlarged to make this possible. SO 9Furfey, Paul Hanley. The Scope and Method of .a23éllgggx. New York: Harper and Bros., 1953, p, 3127 10Eliot, T. D. "Use of History in Theoretical SociOIOgyP flmsgiiggeggJournei of Sociology, Vol. XXVII, March 1922, p. 629. 66 Today, Hagood writes that the extent of social research neeedeui, requires that the social scientist transcend any rigid outiljane of steps which have become traditional in the field, In eadcdition, it is suggested that there is no need to resort to .a. slavish imitation of procedures which may have proved fruitful in other fields. In certain projects adherence to such patterns may be useful, but the following of patterns should never be allowed to have a restrictive effect in discouraging eXperimental ventures in method, The more flexible social research can remain, the more chance it will have to utilize all possible contributions in procedures from other sciences and at the same time invent more efffptive and appropriate procedures of its own. The method then must be structured by the desire to demonstrate patterns of selected characteristics of the Cen- tennial Farmers. This emphasis on pattern analysis is stress— ed.13y‘ Charles Horton Cooley in one of his major works, when he says, I have remarked elsewhere that social life in its sensible aspect, presents itself as patterns rather than quantities, and if so, the techniques by which patterns may be recorded are full of scientific promise.1 In any concern for pattern analysis the functionaly inteI‘—z~e1ationship of attributes of a case are important, and \‘ New 11Hagood, Margaret J. Statistics for Sociologists. York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 191W, p. 23. 12Cooley, C. H. 09. 013., p. 336. 67 to Chescribe them merely as isolated attributes does not place thenl in their proper perspective. One of the leading eXponents of the technique of pat- terWILng social attributes was Leonard Salter Jr. It was his observation that in social science research the units of ob— serwnation should always be treated with extreme care. His concern was with the maintenance of functional systems which consisted of relevant attributes as they are actually pattern- ed in each observed case. To destroy this arrangement would in turn ruin the Opportunity of the researcher to observe the very thing he hopes to understand.13 To verbalize on a more concrete level, it is possible to consider the problem at hand by pointing out the difficulties one might encounter through a cross-sectional analysis, only. If two of the Centennial Farms under consideration were to have undergone perfectly identical experiences over a period of one-hundred years, a comparison by cross-section would present a distorted picture, due to the fact that these sets of experiences may not have started at the same instant in time. Consider a farm which was first farmed in 1830 and one which was farmed fifteen years later. Each could pass through identical patterns of transmission of ownership and of tenure status, for example. But to compare these two farms at any given time without consideration of the above patterns, might —._ 13Salter, Leonard A., Jr. "Cross—Sectional and Case- Grouping Procedures in Research Analysis." Journal of Eggg Economigs, Vol. 2“, NO. 4, NOV. 19kg, pp. 792-793. 68 reveal something that is not similar, and thus distort what 1J3 relevant to the ultimate value of the obtained results. One of the considerations in the sample used in this sttuiy was that all of the farms were not in the family for true same number of generations. While one has been held for twc>ggenerations only, others have been owned for three genera- tixnns or more. To examine these cases as a total by isolating aittributes for cross—sectional analysis would certainly obscure "true underlying uniformity of the pattern of sequential events."1u Since not all Centennial Farmers are farming their land, there is the need to develop constructs which can be 'used as independent analytical variables. The procedure for developing these constructs is that of classifying the data “in terms of the internal pattern of the significant attributes of the functional units under study.”15 These constructs very closely approximate the ideal type, but it needs to be em- phasized that they are not identical with the ideal type. To clarify this point and to emphasize the difference the follow- ing paragraphs discuss the differences between the ideal type of Max Weber, the ideal type of Becker which emphasized probab- ility, and finally the empirical construct of Winch. 1“Ibid., p. 794. 15Salter, Leonard A., Jr. “The Content of Land Economics and Research Methods Adapted to Its Needs." gpprnal 9! Farm Econogics, Vol. 2“, NO. 1, Feb. 19#2, p. EMA. 69 Max Heber describes the ideal type :s being . . formed by the one—sided actentuati n of one or more poinm of view and by the synthesis of a great many diffused, discrete moie or less present and occasionally absent gggcge§e_ingix— idual phenomena, which are arranged according to those one-sidly emphasized view points into a purified agalytigal construct. In its conceptual purity this mental construct cannot be found em— pirically anywhere in reality. Weber was of the opinion that this was an indispensible procedure for heuristic and expository purposes, recognizing that it was not an hypothesis but that it would give guidance to the construction of hypotheses. It is not a description of reality but has as its objective that of giving an unam- biguous means of expression to such a description.17 In pre- senting itself as a concise unambiguous abstract construct it "recommends itself not as an end but as a means."13 Thus the ideal type as deveIOped by Weber is that construct which re- presents the empirical data symbolically, that is to say, these types are purely heuristic devices whiCh never exist in their pure or unmixed forms.19 16 Max x"eber on the hethodoloiv of the Social aciences, trans. by? a. A. Shils & H. A. Finch, Free Press, ”lencoe, 111., 19“?) p- 90- ., p. 92. l9Jensen, Howard. Editorial Note. Becker, Haward. Through Values to Social Interpretation Durham, N. 0.: Duke University Press, 1950, P. XI 70 There have been various attempts to make use of the ideal type construct in a more definitive sense. Howard Becker, in his early usuage of the construct, looked upon it as a deli- berate accentuation or even distortion of empirical reality for the purpose of gaining control over reality.2O However, more recently, he admits a divergence from the methodological position of Weber. He now feels the need to emphasize "pro- bability," or,the attempt to find close empirical approxima- tions of canstructed types.21 For the observer to perceive some order in the com- plexities of social phenomena the function of the ideal type becomes obvious. Robert Winch states that typologies are created by the noting of homogeneous attributes in hetero- geneous phenomena; they are created for the purpose of dis- 22 covering systems. He classifies typologies as heuristic or empirical on the basis of their function and technique of derivation. It is with the empirical typology that this paper is concerned. The construct is defined as follows: . . .an empirical typology is derived prim- arily from data rather than from theory, it functions to summarize observations rather than to enhance vision or to illustrate the 20Becker, Howard. Part 1, Chapter 2. The Field and Problems of Historical Sociology. Bernard, L. L. The Fieldgand Methods of Sociology. New York: Long and Smith, 193E, p. 35, 21Becker, Howard. '99, Cit., p. 108. 22Winch, Robert F. "Heuristic and Empirical Typologies: A Jdb for Factor Analysis." _§merican Sociological Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, Feb. 1947. p. 68- 71 essence of essences, it describes modal rather than extreme characteristics, and stands lOgi- cally between obgervation and the reformula- tion of theory.2 Because empirical typologies arise primarily from the data and can be used to summarize the data, they can be ef- fective especially where the problem area is new, where the existing theory is not complete, and where it appears to be . feasible to work with a transdisiplinary approach.2n a The technique of the constructed typology or the empiri- W cal typology is the means of attaining one of the prime re— quisites of scientific inquiry, that is, giving the prOper attention to the internal construction of the observed cases.25 As Max Weber considered his concept of the abstract ideal type so the same consideration should be given to the patterning of attributes of concrete reality; these constructs are not ends but means.26 What seems important at this point is to emphasize the neediflnitthe results of this research be based on a method of analysis that preserves the pattern of attributes within the units of observation, for within the framework of social inquiry 2thid., p. 7b. 25saiter, L. A., Jr. 02, ci§., p. 792. Shils, E. A. and Finch, H. A. 92, cit., p. 92. 72 conclusions are sought which have relevance to the functional structure of such units. While there is the method of cross- sectional analysis which has an important role to perform, it is necessary to support this method by a procedure which re— veals the actual combination of the various attributes as they do exist in the cases studied.27 Analytical Constructs One of the aims of this study is concerned with the discovery of similar patterns in the 1“‘istory of each of the case families. Stated differently, an aim of this study is the discovery of those elements which have contributed to the evolution of the present pattern of tenure. In addition, there is concern over the nature of the influence these families have had on their communities. The focal point of all of the analysis is the present owners and their land use patterns. . There is a need to go from the abstract to the specific attributes in the develOpment of empirical constructs. How— ever, in doing so there is also the need to make a Judgment as to the relative importance of each of the attributes. This judgment is guided not only by reason but also by imagination.‘28 2 7Salter, L. A., Jr. 0?. C;£,, p. 797. “....— . Espearson, Karl. The Grammar of Science. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1911, Third Ed,, p, 3n, 73 It is; Said that there is the necessity to establish major auulxninor attributes which clarify the largest doubts in the cenixnal problem. It is further stated thzt the job of the analgnst lies in the summarization of subsidiary attribute groupings, in the eXplanation of exceptional cases, and in re- conciling other features of the cases within his grOUps. He has as his objective the need to eXplain adequately the re- flection of the basic problem in each one of his cases.29 Vivien Palmer, recognizing the problem of the com- plexity of the data gathered by the case-study method, de- signates the inherent level of qualities in each of the cases. She says: Any case has three important characteristics: (1) characteristics which are common to every individual in the species to which it belongs, (2) variations of these common attributes which are characteristic of groups within the species, and (3) still other characteristics which be- long uniquely to the individual and distinguish it from every other individual within the species. Science is always interested in characteristics of the first two types, and it is attempting to reduce more and more of the individual varia- tions to categories that pertain to the species or to the classes within the species.30 These three levels will be utilized in the attempt to develop and describe empirical constructs. All of the groupings of attributes for the construction of empirical types will be based upon their relative desirability “--.—...... po—cwpvw—m-Amr”H--“-~ w-v--O — --.— , -.——.—. egsalter, L. A., Jr. Op. ci£., p. 801 /o 30Palmer, V. Op. cit., pp. 20-21. 74 as tfloey'are related to the long-time governmental objective of crvner-operatorship. The two major attributes to be considered are owner- shiq: and tenure, both of which have variations that deviate frwnn the ideal of owner-operatorship. To develop a continuum of empirical types, it seems pertinent to base them on how tine «owners are functionally related to the land, However,' true relatively few cases under study limit the number of at— ttriINJtes which may be used, and attributes will be gross in neattrre rather than specific. For the owners as a group there are two alternatives f"OI‘ land use, either farm or non-farm. For the farmer there 1—8 ‘the tenure pattern of the owner which is important —- he “”13” be either an operator or a landlord. If he is the latter, tflleil the relationship of the tenant becomes important; he nuay- either be related or non-related. Those lands which are non-farm need no further breakdown. Schematically the delineation is as follows: Centennial Farmers nu Landlords 25 Owner Belated Non-Related Non- Operator Tenants Tenants Farmers 10 10 15 9 75 Thus the indEpendent variable to be used throughout the zinalysis of data has the following four patterns: 1. Owner-Operators 2. Owners with Related Tenants . Owners With Non-Related Tenants 3 u . Non-Farm Owners CHAPTER IV CHARACTERISTICS OF PRESENT AND PAST CEL-JTENNIAL FARMS AND CEC‘J' ENNIAL FARM FA‘X‘JTILIES Original Owners and Family Histogy The Centennial Farm Families may be considered as old line Americans since all of the original owners came from the colonial states without any apparent identification with any Particular ethnic group. One of the limiting factors in a description of the orig inal owners is the lack of objective information avail— able from the present owners. For example, very few are cer- tain of the occupation of the original owner in the state from which he migrated. Most of the informants thought that the original owner must have been a farmer. Relatively few or the present owners were able to give a reason for the mi- gration of the original owner to Michigan. Another element equally unknown was that of age of the owner of the time of his migration. Only three of the forty-four original owners waited until they arrived. in Michigan to be married. In many 03393 the owners worked their land for a year or two before I‘etur'ning; to their home states for their families. As a group, the familieson the Centennial Farms have been Predominently Protestant of a given denomination. 77 IPolitically the majority of the families identified themselves as being predominently Republican. An examination of newspaper files, library volumes, and discussions with community residents and the present Cen— tennial Farm owners give a basis for a subjective evaluation of the organizational membership and community participation cxf the families through times. With regard to the role of the Centennial Farm Families in organizational affiliation, almost four—fifths were found to be inactive, even though a limited number of organizations were available to all of them. A similar finding applies to their role in community participation. Present antennial Farms and Farmers Personal Characteristics Age and sex composition. The greatest percentage (6H%) of all owners are 65 years of age or over, an age which is normally considered to be the retirement age. Approximately 80 percent are beyond 55 years of age or at that period in a farmer's life when productive capacity begins to decrease rapidly. The advanced age of the total group is illustrated by the fact that the mean age is 66.8 years. (Table I, Appen— dix E) Male owners as a group are younger than their female counterparts. Only 55 percent of the males are over 65 years of age whereas 80 percent of the female owners are in the same 78 age category. At the other end of the age scale, there are four males, or 14 percent, who range in age from 35 to #4 years. In this age range there are no female owners. Comparison between all owners and the selected tenure groupings reveals that the Onwer—Operators are the youngest tenure group, with a mean age of 5u.0 yearS. The oldest ten— ure group is Owners with Related Tenants; these owners have a mean age of 76.0 years. The extensive disparity in the mean ages of these two groups may be explained, in part, by the fact that nine of the ten Owner-Operators are men, while half of the Owners with Related Tenants are women. Non—Farm Owners are the next oldest group with a mean age of 71.5 years, and finally, there is the group of Owners with Non- Related Tenants whose mean age of 66.0 years very closely approximates the mean age for all owners. In all tenure groups, other than Owner-Operators, the largest percentage of the group members are 65 years of age or over. In the Owners with Related Tenants group all of the members are over 65 years of age, while in the remaining two groups two-thirds of the owners are in a similar age category. Marital Stagpg. It is indicated that thirty-eight, or 86 percent, of the present owners have been married or are now married. (Table II,Appendix E) 79 The largest percentage (27%) of any group which has resurined single is found in the Owners with Non-Related Ten— ants group. It is also revealed that none of the members of the Non-Farm Owners group have reamined single, a finding which does not hold true for any of the other groups. Eggpgtignal charactgristigg. Educational attainment of tfloe present Owners is relatively equally distributed among tune categories of grade school, high school, and college. (Table III, Appendix E) There is little difference between the tenure groupsrwr— gardjxmgthe educational attainment of the members. However, the Owners with Non-Related Tenants have the highest educa— tional attainment since all members have had education beyond the grade school level; this group also has the largest per- centage (60%) who have continued on to college. The Owners with Related Tenants group have the highest percentage (50%) of members who have not gone beyond grade school. As the ed- ucational level increases for this group, the percentage of members achieving'higher levels of education decreases. Mmflssslmhsresisrisflss- Nearly 75 percent of all of the present owners have at one time, or at the present, been involved in farming as an occupation. This figure is de— termined by placing in one category the occupational groups of1 Farmer, Housewife and the Retired. However, at present, M-”H—-".-.-"—.e .— -'-' 0"“- 1A11 housewives in the sample are widows of former farmers. — “'— 80 Slightly more than three-fourths of all owners are not act- ively engaged in farming. (Table IV, Appendix E) The members of the tenure group of Owners with Non- related Tenants have the largest percentage (ll-0%) of those who are not engaged in farming or in some related area. This same group has 27 percent of the total engaged in the Business and Professional category, which'is a larger percentage than 18 found in any of the other groups. figsggential characteristics, It is shown by Table V that: 68 percent of all the owners live on farms. While mem- bers of the two groups, Owners with Related Tenants and Owners With Non-Related Tenants, are living in the open-country, S9 Del-‘cent of the Non-Farm owners live in the Open-country. Only 14 percent of the total pOpulation reside in Villages or cities. One of these cases, a member of the Non- Farm Owners group, is a city resident as a result of the ex- pansion of the corporation limits of the city encompassing What: has been designated as her Centennial Farm. The Owners with Non-Related Tenants group has the largest percentage (27%) of members living in cities and villages. With the ex- ception of one case, all other owners who reside on a farm 01' 1n the open country are living on the Centennial Farm. These individuals constitute 69 percent of the total. Qgganigational membership. An examination of Table VI 11“(llcates that one-half of the present owners are not members 81 of either farm or community organizations. Slightly more of the owners are members of community organizations, with 40 percent of them maintaining membership. For farm organiza- tions, 32 percent of the present owners are members. Organ- izational membership was relatively equally distributed be- tween tenure groups. Ownership and Tenure Type offipwnerghgp. Among all of the present owners, sole ownership is most common, appearing 61 percent of the time. Second in prOportion is shared ownership which accounts for 30 percent of the cases. There are relatively few cases of purchase contract or life estate. ‘(Table VII Appendix E) Among the tenure groups, Owners with Related Tenants exhibit the highest incidence of sole ownership. While the Owners with Non-Related Tenants show the greatest incidence of shared ownership. The one case of purchase contract ap- pears in the Owner-Operators group, but none of the three cases of life estate are in the same category. Lgndwuge, The land of the Centennial Farmers is being put to many uses but farming still utilizes the greatest pro~ portion of the land owned. There is a total of 7,163 acres owned, of which 1,079 acres or 15.0 percent, are not being used in farming. The 72h acres owned by the Non-Farm Owners are part of this acreage, as are 355 acres owned by the Owners With Related Tenants and those with Non-Related Tenants. 0f 82 the latter two groups reasons for not renting parts of their farms are peculiar to the particular situation and are quite diverse. The nine Non-Farm Owners use their land for various purposes. One of the farms, 27 acres in size, is within the city limits of a large city as a result of corporate expan- sion. Three other owners with a total of 318 acres are await- ing the residential eXpansion of the same city. Two of these three have already platted their land for residential use while the third is in the planning stage. Three others are widows who, for reasons of their own, prefer not to rent out the land; these three own 299 acres. Another owner who has 70 acres is waiting for his son to return from the Army. ‘The last owner has only ten acres and utilizes this simply as a suburban residence. Type of agreemegt. 0f the two types of agreement existing between owners and tenants, 72.0 percent of them have verbal agreements and the remaining 28.0 percent have written contracts. (Table VIII Appendix E) For those Owners with Non-Related Tenants the five written agreements were made by owners who are in professions which use formalized written agreements as a basis of business relationship. These owners include an advertising agency head, an insurance agent, a banker, and a former state legis- lator, the fifth being the widow of a lawyer. For the ten 83 verbal contracts in this tenure group, and the two in the Owners with Related Tenants group, there is a different clust— ering of occupations. In this group owners are ministers, school teachers, nurses, etc. ggngth of time farm 0p§§ation out 9; famill. It is obvious that the tenure group of Owner-Operators operate their own farm units and members of Owners with Related Ten- ants by definition have family members Operating their farms; the other groups do not. Combining the group of Owners with Non-Related Tenants and Non-Farm Owners, there are twenty- four cases in which time has elapsed since a member of the family has operated the farm.(Table IX Appendix E) For the twenty-four cases the number of years since the operation of the farm by a family member ranges from one to sixty, with a mean of 17.1 years. The Owners with Non-Re- lated Tenants have a range of from four to sixty years with a mean of 18.0 years. And the Non-Farm Owners have not had family members operating the farm for a range of from one totwenty-eight years, with a mean of 15.7 years. Farm Evaluation Facilitigg in the hoggg. Of all the houses located on Centennial Farms, 8“ percent have all of the facilities usually considered as essential to comfort. Only one of the houses is without any modern facilities, and all of the other houses have some of the facilities. With the one exception noted all 84 of the houses have electricity and forty-two of the forty-four have running water. In all cases public utilities are avail- able for installation. The group of Owners with Non-Related Tenants has the greatest percentage (27%) of houses with only some of the facilities. (Table X Appendix E) ggnergilappearance of the farm. An evaluation based on a general Observation was made of each farm. Granting that the basis of the observation is subjective, it is nevertheless considered pertinent to obtain some general description of the farms. The evaluation was based on the general condition and appearance of: (1) the grounds surrounding the homestead, (2) the farm house, and (3) the barn.and other outbuildings. Final evaluation was in terms of other farms in the surround- ing area. The Judgment is stated in terms of above average, average, and below average. Relatively few of the farms were considered to be be- low average in the Judgment of the researcher; only 1# per- cent fell into this lowest category. The remaining farms are relatively equally distributedlxmween average and above average rating. None of the Non-Farm Owners have farms rated above average, while the majority of the above average farms are owned by the Owner-Operators. Beliefs About Farming Egrmigg_as a way_of life. Being an owner of a Cen- tennial Farm must in some way affect the outlook toward farming 85 as a way of life. However, there is a range of involvement in farming among the owners, ranging from the eight who state ‘that with the exception of their childhood they have never 'been.a part of farming, to the six who claim that farming is the only way of life they know. Despite this range, there seemed to be a common core of elements apparent in the re- sponses of the Centennial Farmers. These elements derived from the responses are: (1) farming is hard work; (2) there 3 is independence in farming not found elsewhere; (3) a farm is the best place to raise a family; and (4) farming is God's way of life. There are variations of these four elements to be found in all responses, although each Centennial Farmer does not necessarily verbalize all four of the elements in his response. Between tenure groups there are slight differences in beliefs about farming, exclusive of the core elements. The Owner-Operators tend to emphasize security, financial return and the challenge farming presents to then. As stated by one of these owners, farming provides “security against the ups and downs of our national economy." There is also a pride in the ownership of land, and the coordinating of factors of pro- duction into a successful enterprise. A member of the Owners with Related Tenants group said of farming as a way of life: 'It is essential, dignified, constructive, fascinating; the best place to rear a family; and where you experience real neighborliness and community spirit. " Another member of the same group said: "When you get rooted to one thing it's the only way of life for you." On the other hand, one admits the fact that farming is a ‘hard way of living if you have to do it yourself, it's bet- ter if you get a tenant." One of the individuals in the Owners with Non-Related Tenants group states a common feeling among this group which is incorporated in the concept of independence; he advocates “the independence of man with no interference on the part of the government.“ Another points out that the farmer's inde- Dendence is being endangered by 'too many agricultural laws and bureaucrats.” Members of the Hon-Farm Owners had little.to contri- bute except that the majority appreciated what was referred to as the restfulness and the serenity of the country. Most of tZhem had never been involved in farming except as children. Transmission and Succession Family Size of ggglly. Among owners of the Centennial Farms there has been a total of 527 children born to families since settling the land. or these, 17 had died prior to attaining the age of 14 years. In addition, there are 25 children of present owners who are not counted because they are under 11+ 87 years of age. Therefore a total of l+85 children is con— sidered in analysis. The mean number of children to be found in Centennial Farm Families has been decreasing since the time of the orig- inal owners. For all generations of all owners there has been a mean number of 1LOO children per family. The mean has at- tained a peak of 5.16 for the original owners and a low of 2.74 for the present group. (Table XI Appendix E) In each generation the families of Owners with Related Tenants has consistently had the largest mean number of child- ren per family. This group has the largest mean (”.62) for all generations. In addition, this group has the smallest decrease from the first to the third generations; the de- crease being only 1.01% children per family. On the other hand, the Non-Farm Owners who had the greatest mean number of children per family for the first generation (5.6”) and the BlueCLIest for the third (2.00) had the greatest decrease in mean number of children per family; this decrease was 3.64 children. Occupational Histogy. Of the M85 children of all °Wners to be considered, slightly more than one—half, or 58 p“"I‘eent, have chosen farming as their occupation. Children of families in the history of the Non-Farm Owners have had a tel'ltlency to choose non-farming occupations; 62 percent of these children have done this. For each of the other three 88 tenure groups the balance of the choice of occupation is in favor of farming. Children of Owner-Operators and those child- ren 1n the ancestry of the Owners with Related Tenants are relatively equal in their choice. Sixty-eight percent and 67 percent of the children have selected farming, respectively. Cl‘able x11 Appendix E) Besidential history. Almost three—fourths, or 76.6 Percent, of the children of all owners have remained in the local area.2 Each of the tenure groups had more than two- thirds of their children become residents of the local area. The group of the Diner-Operators had the greatest percentage (Ski) who remained in the local area. The group with smallest Percentage (33%) of children remaining in the local area was the Non-Farm Owners. Occugggtionjng regidence matrig. In an attempt to de- termine pat terns of behavior for the children, the two at- tributes choice of occupation and residence are combined. Over one-half, or 51L percent, of all the children had farming as the 1r occupation and they remained in the local area. This '38 the most common pattern of behavior. The least common pattern was that of engaging in farming outside the local area. Only 3 percent of all children were in this category. The other two patterns of non-farming in the local area and non- \ or 2Local area refers to the area within the boundaries the present communities. 89 farming outside the local area were relatively equally chosen: 20 percent were in non-farm occupations locally, and 22 per- cent were in non-farm occupations outside of the local community boundaries. (Table XIII. Appendix E) Owner-Operators had the greatest percentage (68%) of their children choosing to farm locally, while the Non-Farm Owner-s had only 36 percent choosing the same pattern. None _ a of the children of Owner-Operators made a choice of the Farm— '6 non-local pattern. For the other two patterns, of non-farm- 3118 1n the local area and non-farming in the non-local area there is very little differentiation among the tenure groups. When sex and marital status of the children are in- cluded with the previous attribute patterns there is a much more , extensive description of the occupational and residential 1"Glee of the children. (Table XIV Appendix E) ‘ For the first two generations in the history of the 1'elmllles the most common pattern to be found among the child- ren was that of married male engaged in farming locally. The next most common pattern was similar to the first except that thege children were married females farming locally. The °°°upation was that of their husbands. In the third genera- tion there is a slight change in choice, althoughflmarried, male, farm, local? is still ranked first, it is now equalled by tharried, male, non-farm, non--localn and the next largest group is that of 'fnarried, male, non-farm, 10°31? 9O Choice of u gessgg. Size of family has been discuss— c-w r" ed previously and it is recognized that this element affects the choice of the successor, though sex composition of the family is also pertinent in making a choice. In all of the 101 transfers, slightly less than four- fifths (78%) of the heirs 3 have been sons. Only 17 percent Of all transfers have gone to daughters, and the remaining transfers have been made to collateral families. (Table XV Appendix E) There are no apparent differences between the tenure SPOUpings relative to choice of successor. In each of them the largest percentage of heirs have been sons. Within all tenure groups some heirs have been daughters and there has been at least one case of a collateral family taking possession in each tenure group. There were seven cases of families having only one potential heir, either a son or a daughter. F0“? of these cases were in the Owners with Non-Related Ten- ants group, one case of sole heir being in each of the other tenure groups. Birth order was considered to be important. Informants, however, were vague about the birth order of the children of original owners. Not including the seven cases mentioned p1"eviously, nearly one-half of the transfers have been made \ 12h 3Heirs refers to those children who elected to keep e farm in the family. L1. 91 to the oldest child. The next greatest number of transfers have been made to children who are neither the oldest nor the youngest. Finally, there are those who as heirs were the youngest children in their families; there were five cases such as this. In total there were nine cases where the birth order was unknown. (Table XVI Appendix E) Property Changes in farm gize. Although many farm transfers have taken place among the Centennial Farmers, the total acre- age owned has decreased only slightly. It has gone from a total of 7,580 acres owned by the original owners to a total 0f 7,163 acres owned by the present owners, or a decrease in size of 1+1? acres for the group. On the average each of the fa1"1118 have been decreased by 9.“ acres. (Table XVII Appendix E) Thirteen of the forty-four farms have increased in size from the time of the original owner to the present, 28 have de— creased in size, and 3 farms are the same. The greatest increase in mean size of farms occurred in t3151!: Owners with the Related Tenant group, where the mean mere 333 was l$2.0 acres per farm. On the other hand, the Noth‘farm Owners had a mean decrease of 64.6 acres per farm. None of the owner tenure groups approximated the mean size of all the present farms. For both the farms of the original owners and those of the present owners the Owner-Operator group had the largest Mean size of any of the tenure groupings. While the Non-Farm Ow here had the smallest mean size for the same groups. 92 The slight decreases in mean farm size from the time of the original owners to the present may be misleading. What needs to be displayed is the mean acreage that was available for transfer, the share of that acreage which was passed on to the heir who kept the farm in the family, and finally, the acreage this heir, in turn, accrued for transfer. Since all tenure groups include some fourth generation owners there are at least three sets of transfers considered. As the number or generations involved increases, the number of transfers de- creases. For all owners the mean acreage available for transfer doc-‘J.‘ezaises with each succeeding set of transfers. At the same time’ the mean number of acres received by the inheritors in- Opeageg regularly. While this increase has occurred the average amount of acreage accrued by the inheritor has remain- ed relatively the same in all transfers. (Table XVIII Appendix In the transfers from the first to second generations, the Owner-Operator heirs suffered the greatest gap between mean acres available for transfer and the mean number of acres they received. On the other hand the same heirs recouped the greatest mean number of acres. The heirs of the owners wit=1": Non-Related Tenants had the smallest gap between mean aches available and the heirs of the Non-Farm Owners accrued an average of only 26.9 acres beyond the share they received. The heirs of the Owner-Operators were the only ones who accrued E) 93 a greater mean number of acres than had been made available by their predecessors. In addition this same accrued acreage was greater than any of that accrued by the other tenure groups. In the transfers made from the second to third genera- tions the Owner-Operator group had the largest mean number of acres available for transfer. This same group, once again, attained more acreage beyond that which they received than any or the other heirs. The heirs of Owner-Operators and Owners with Related Tenants were the only two groups who ac- crued more acreage than had been made available to them. The latter group accrued, beyond their mean acreage received, more than twice the mean number of acres accrued by any of the heirs of the other tenure groups. The group recovering the least; mean number of acres was that of the Owners with Non- Related Tenants. In the final set of transfers occurring between the third and fourth generations the Owner-Operator group once a- gain had the largest mean number of acres for transfer. The heirs also accrued the largest mean number of acres of all the groups. But for the first time mean acreage accrued did not exceed mean acreage available for this group. The only group to decrease in mean size of accrued acreage was that of the Non_parm Owners. This decrease has been consistent for all tHires sets of transfers. of all the groups, the Owners Wi th Non-Related Tenants had the greatest decrease between 9h mean number of acres available and the mean number of acres re- ceived- These same heirs had the greatest increase between mean acres received and mean acres accrued. Combining all 101 transfers for all generations and all OWners, it is revealed that the heirs who kept the farm in the family received, on the average, 71h} acres less than was available. The same heirs in turn added a mean of 67.2 act-33' or almost a complete replacement of the acreage which '38 available. Owners with Related Tenants suffered the greatest decrease in the mean share they received of the mean acreage available. This same group accrued a greater mean mufiber of acres than any of the others. The Non-Farm Owners accrued the least mean number of acres. Methods of Transmission Pattern of transmission. There are three methods of Passing on the farm, namely, settlement, testate and intestate. For all of the owners the farms have been transferred by the “titled of settlement twenty-two times. Testate action has taken place forty—six times and intestate action has occurred in th lrty—three of the cases. The use of settlement as a method of transfer has in- creased from the time of the first set of transfers to the Present, while the other two methods have had only a slight change. Testate action decreased after the first Bet 01‘ 95 transfers and remained relatively the same for the next two, while intestate action remained relatively the same for the first two sets of transfers and decreased for the last set. (Table XIX Appendix E) Owner-Operators used the method of settlement in 37 percent of their transfers, and all other tenure groups had lesser percentages. For all tenure groups, the Non-Farm Owners used testate transmission the greatest percentage (68%) of the time. Intestate actionwas relatively equally dis- tributed among all groups, but Owners with Related Tenants used it to percent of the time, or slightly higher than any of the other groups. In two of the cases there was only one transfer each; in twenty—seven cases there were only two transfers. In transferring the farms from generation to generation the forty— four families used 19 different orderings of transfer methods. ‘Eight families used testate in all transfers; three families used intestate in all of their transfers; none of the families made use of settlement alone; and, all other families used some combination of the three transfer methods. Considering all of the forty-two farms which have had two transfers per farm there are nine patterns of transfer. The modal pattern, used in nine cases was that of testate for the first and second transfers. Four other patterns which were used.six times each were: Testate -- Intestate; Testate -- ’96 Settlement; Intestate -- Test-ate; and, Interstate -- Intestate. For the fifteen families who have engaged in three transfers, there are ten distinct inheritance patterns that were used. (Table XX Appendix E) Regardless of the tenure grOUp examined there is no apparent emphasis on the use of any one pattern of transfer. Even when one considers the forty-two cases of only two trans- fers per family there is no concentration of patterns. Parcellation. In the 101 transfers, parcellation of the land has taken place in 56 percent of the cases. That is, the land was divided into shares, either equally or unequally, and distributed to the heirs. In 36 percent of the transfers the land was transferred in total to one heir and the shares of other heirs were given in some other consideration. The final grouping of 8 percent were those transfers where two or more heirs received undivided interest, i.e., where the, heirs shared equally in the property rights. (Table XXI Appendix E) Eh; farm was kept in family. There are a multiplicity of reasons for 'keeping the farm in the family. However, reasons the Centennial Farm Families had for doing so may be categorized as follows: families have always been small; good management on the part of the owners; and, there has always been a member of the family interested. These categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. However, they are 97 the factors considered to be important by the present owners. (Table XXII Appendix E) The most common response was that someone was always interested in farming. Forty-three percent of the owners re- sponded in this manner. All other responses were relatively equal in occurrence. For those who gave responses other than the three previously mentioned, most felt that sentimental attachment to the homestead played an important role, while others attributed keeping the farm in the family to chance. The two owners who are second generation felt that only one transfer was not a basis for Judgment. Euture planp~ for the farm. Only 19 percent of the present owners have made wills for the diaposal of their land. AlthOugh the remaining 81 percent have not made wills, most of them eXpress the desire to keep the farm in the family. Eight of those without wills feel that their farm will go to a 003. lateral family, and in two of the cases, the farm will go compLetely out of the family. One of these farms was in the process or being sold at the time of the interview; the other will go to an only child who will sell the farm because of a lack of interest in farming. The six farms which will go to the collateral family will do so because the present owners are Without children and are beyond the reproductive age. (Table XXIII Appendix E) CHAPTER v THE CENTENNIAL FARM PROGRAM AND THE SOCIAL IMAGE latrséysiiss This chapter is devoted to the conceptualization of the Centennial Farm idea as viewed by selected community members and the Centennial Farmers themselves. Important in determining this social image is the recognition of the con- cept and changes suggested in the program, if any. If there is no recognition of the program, how would the interviewees define the concept of Centennial Farm and Farmers? To supple- ment the foregoing questions, the informants were asked if the Program should be continued or discontinued, and the reasons for their thinking. Questions pertaining to the recipients of awards whose farms were located in the informants' com- munities were also asked. Recognition of the Concept Following introductory remarks and an explanation of his Eairpose, the interviewer asked the community informant if he Pewcognized the Centennial Farm concept. The reapondent was also aasked to enumerate the criteria necessary for Centennial Farm recognition. 99 0f the sixty community informants eighteen, or 30 percent, were able to recognize the concept definitively, idea., as it was proposed by the Michigan Historical Commission. Twenty (33%) recognized the concept vaguely. That is, they 'werwa able to say that they had heard of the program but were able only to enumerate some of the requirements. The final guwnxping of twenty-two informants (37%) stated that they never heard of the concept, and hence were unable to name any of the elements in the program. In total, forty-four (70%) of 'the persons interviewed knew little or nothing at all of the program. (Table XXIV Appendix E) Using the size of community in which informants' lived as a criterion, there are slight differences observed in the recognition of the concept by the selected community informants. For those communities classed as small, half of the informants recognized the concept vaguely while the re- mainder were divided equally on recognition, either defini— tively or not at all. The medium sized community inter- viewees were the least able of all the community groups to recognize the concept, and half of them were in this category. This grouping also shows the least number who were able to recognize the concept definitively. The number of informants of large communities who recognized the concept definitively were equal to the combined number doing so in other community categories. In none of the community groupings, however, dld the majority of the informants recognize the concept defini- tively. K. lOO Qgptinuation of EDSiBEQEEEQ Both community informants and Centennial Earmers were asked if the program should be continued or discontinued. While 78 percent of the community members thought the program should.be continued, less than half, (héfl) of the present owners.had similar feelings. Combining the two groups of informants, there were 6h percent of the 104 persons inter- viewed.who felt that the program should go on. (Table XXV Appendix E). Among the tenure groups, Owners with NonrRelated Tenants was the only group with more than 50 percent of its members who thought the program should not be continued. All other tenure groups were relatively equal in the percentage who thought the program should be continued. Reasons for Continuing the Program Centennial Farmerg. Some of the present owners felt the program should be continued without any change in require- ments. Their responses were quite general in nature, as shown by the following: “The program should be continued because it is a great morale builder for the farmers.“ "Nice to get recognition for being in any area for a hundred years or more." "Any family that can keep property that long is deserving of some recognition." There were also those owners who were more specific in their comments. They pointed out some of the relationships 101 between long time ownership and the community and the land. Scum: selected quotations follow: ”It contributes to the stability of farming and to the community rather than simply as a means of recognizing descendants of early pioneers." ”Long tenure on the land by one family was good for the land and would not decrease its produc- tivity.” Others pointed out that the value of the certificate ‘would.not be affected. Illustrative of this group are the following remarks: “The numbers eligible won't increase too greatly because most farms will go out of the family at an increasing rate in the future.“ "If the program were continued there would be more recognition for the holders of awards, since the concept would become more widely known." Community informants. The members of the community who felt the program should be continued were somewhat more eXpansive in their responses. Those who were favorably dis- posed placed emphasis on the concepts of community, family and farming. Some of these comments are as follows: ”Permanency and tenacity are essential to a small community. These values are fast dis- appearing from the American scene and any attempt to instill them once again is worth- while.” . ”Ownership of land in one family was good for both the community and the family, both bene- fiting from the stability. This indicates a positive feeling toward the community." It It gives recognition to perseverance and stirs up interest in farming and would get the children interested in keeping the farm.“ 102 Essssss.§ir_93§sosiinning the Presses Centennial Farmers, Two major elements Were basic tx> the reasons given for discontinuing the program. The first was based on a recognition of the pioneering spirit of the original owners, and the second was in relation to the con- ceived value of the award. Those interested in the first element said: "To continue the program would no longer give recognition to the struggle of the early settlers." "Early settlers should be given recognition. Especially those who came prior to 1535, since the others havent't contributed as much." Those who were concerned with the value of the certif- icate made responses such as: ”Keep the numbers small and uphold the value of the certificate.I ”Keep down the number of awards, and make it more valuable to future generations, and it may serve as a reason for keeping the farm in the family.‘ Still other Centennial Farmers felt that it wouldn't make too much difference if the awards were discontinued, be- cause they were of the opinion that not too many farms would become eligible in the future. Community informantg, Some of these informants gave the same reasons for discontinuance as did the Centennial Farmers. However, the majority had an entirely different emphasis in their reasons. Some of the informants said: 103 "The program was designed to recognize the early settlers of michigan, to continue the awards would defeat the purpose of the program.“ "There is a distinction between continuity and pioneering." ( Most members deemphasized the criterion of continuity enui substituted in its place a criterion of community con- trilnrtion. In view of this feeling they made the following remarks: "One hundred years of ownership doesn't prove a familys' value. There is the need for an award for outstanding contribution rather than one for continuity." "Continuity is no indication of living in and contributing to the community. The awards should be made to outstanding community members." guggestions for Change Centennial Farmers. Some suggestions for changes in the criteria of eligibility have been implied in the preceding remarks. Regarding needed changes suggested by this group most of said: change the emphasis was in reference to Operatorship. Some "The program should be restricted to owner- operators, since all other are not following in the footsteps of the early settlers.” "Continue the program with the reservation that only owner-Operators receive the award.I "There are too many people who aren't farmers who are getting the award.” Community informantg. The responses of suggested made by the community informants were much more 10h diversified than were those made by Centennial Farmers. Some of the community members wanted to broaden the program by eXpanding the definition to include townspeOple. One of them remarked: "The program should be broader to include towns— people. Then really deserving people would get recognition. Many people would be eligible but for the fact that they don't live on farms, and those who do, don't farm." Other informants emphasized the need to give recogni- tion to those families who had spent a specified number of generations in the area. One informant said: "Restrict the award to three generations of owners. Long tenure is good for the land. Not necessary for the owners to contribute overtly to the community, the fact that the families stayed so long was a contribution in itself." Many of the community informants thought that a significant change to incorporate into the program would be the element of Operatorship. Some suggested that only t0p quality Operators receive the award. One of the respondents epitomized this feeling by saying: "The occupation of farming should be raised to a higher level and that any sort of recog- nition would be of assistance. The historical aspect in itself was unimportant. It is more important to recognize 'good' farmers. The program should be restricted to owner-Operators, at least, as any others contributed very little to the community.” "Another excellent setp in creating interest in farming. Would restrict it to owner-operators as absentee ownership is bad for the land and the community." [ll-.It. , 105 Community Recognition of Centennial Fgrmers The community informants were asked if they recognized the names of the owners of the Centennial Farms located in their community. Each of the Centennial Farmers had a potential number of five recognitions. Slightly more than one-fourth of the forty-four owners were recognized by all five of the community informants, while the remainder were identified by less than five informants in each case. Considering this problem of recognition by size of community, there is an inverse relationship between community size and total recognition. In other words as size of com- munity increases, recognition decreases. In the small com- munities almost three—fifths of the Centennial Farm owners were identified.by all community informants. In the medium sized communities half of their Farmers were recognized by all, and, in the large communities approximately one-tenth of the Farmers were recognized by each of the five informants. (Table XXVI Appendix E) Simple recognition of the Centennial Farmer's name does not indicate subjective evaluation on the part of the community informant. In cases where Centennial Farmers were recognized by less than five, the respondents based their recognition on a vague recollection of having heard or read the name somewhere. Recognition by these informants was not necessarily based on the community contribution of the Cen- tennial Farmers in question. 106 In cases where the name of the Centennial Farmer was recognized by all of the informants, recognition was supple- mented by an evaluation of the farmer's participation and contribution to the community. In almost all of these cases the Farmer was considered a positive contributor to the com- munity and generally was extremely active in community affairs. In a few cases the owners also received recognition for their contribution beyond the local level. One was a state legis- lator, another is at present serving in that capacity, and another holds a high level position in state education. Tenure and Size of Commggigy Of the forty-four Centennial Farms, seven are found in small communities, ten are in the medium sized communities, and, twenty-seven are part of the large communities. (Table XXVII Appendix E) The small communities have the greatest proportions of the Owner-Operators and owners with related tenants; no Non-Farmers are found here. The medium sized communities have the largest preportion of Non-Farmers and the smallest pro- portion of Owner-Operators. The large communities have the greatest share of Owners with Non-Related Tenants. CHAPTER VI PATTERNING OF CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN TENURE GROUPS Introduction The characteristics of Centennial Farms and Centennial Farmers have been discussed previously. As each element was analyzed, emphasis was placed on one or more tenure groups in which the element was outstanding. The purpose of this chapter is to treat each of the tenure groups as a separate entity in order to illustrate the patterning of attributes significant in a description of that group. The fact that four distinct tenure groups exist gives greater meaning to the data when treated in this manner . Owner Operators Personal characteristics. The ten members of this group are farmers, maintaining a permanent residence on the Centennial Farm. Nine of the Operators are men, while the other is a woman who may be classed as an owner-manager in that she uses hired help and none of her land is in any other form of tenancy. Her relationship to the land places her in the category of owner-Operator. 103 Six of the owners are married, three are single, and one is widowed. With respect to education, four have had all or part of grade school, two have had partial or completed high school training, While the remaining four have had some or allof a college education. The age of these operators ranges from thirty-five Half - 1 to seventy-four years, with a mean age of 5h.0 years. of the owners fall into the group below fifty-five years of t... age, and eight of them are below the normal retirement age of sixty-five. Six Operators belong to neither community nor farm , organizations. Of the four Owner-Operators belonging, two are members of one or more community organizations, while all four belong to one or more farm organizations. _anership and tenure. None of the owners hold life estate. One is acquiring his farm under a purchase contract arrangement with his father. their siblings, while the remaining owners maintain sole Three share ownership with ownership. All of the tillable land possessed is being farmed. Farm evaluation. Nine of the houses located. on the Fentennial Farms of Owner-Operators have all five facilities bought to be essential for comfort. One house, at the other :treme, has none of these facilities. The general appearance seven farms was regarded as being above average and the pearance of two was average. One Farm which was considered low average completely lacked facilities in the house. 109 Beliefs about farming. The Owner-Operators looked upon farming as a difficult way tonake a living, but in most cases agreed that it was the only type of work they knew how to do. They spoke bf pride in ownership and the test of their abilities as offered by farming. To them, the land provided security from want. Family. Considering only the first three generations of Owner-Operators, the average number of children per family was 3.72. For these families in each generation respectively, the mean number of children was 5.10, 370 and 2.22. A notice- able decrease, or a mean loss of 2.88 children, may be observed comparing first and third generation families. There are seven fourth generation owners in this group. Of these, three have completed families, with a total of seven children. Two owners, not necessarily having completed families, have a total of eight children, and two owners of this gen- eration are single. Slightly more than two-thirds of the 108 children representing all generations have chosen farming as their primary occupation. Thirty—five of the children decided upon non-farming employment. Those who remained in the local com- munity number ninety-one, while a total of seventeen migrated permanently. ‘ Combining the attributes of occupation and residence, it is found that of the total number of children of all the §*;==“”. 110 owners none elected to farm outside the local area. The <3ecisi£u1 the one described for choice of residence: as one moves away from the ideal of owner-operator the prOportion of child- ren remaining in farming decreases. Combining the two attributes of occupation and resi- dmnace results in the conclusion that those children who re- nuxin.in the local area select farming as their occupation, while those who migrate chose non-farming pursuits. The highest preportion among those who remain in the local area but do ruat farm is found among the children of Non-Farm Owners. There is no evident concentration of any Centennial Farm tenure group in relation to size of community. However, within the small towns in the study there are no Non-Farm Owners. In the medium sized communities the number of cases found in each tenure group increases along the continuum from Owner—Operators to Non-Farm Owners. Within the large communi- ties the most prevalent group is that of Owner with Non-Related Tenants. The present Centennial Farmers and the families from which they came have not been very active in community affairs. One-half of the present owners belong to farm organizations and two-fifths are members of community organizations. Little evidence was available on any positive contribution of the past owners. Approximately a fourth of the names of Centennial Farm Owners were recognized by all informants in the owners' lilo community. One of the factors involved in recognition was the contribution of the owners to the community rather than ownership of the farms. The Centennial Farm concept was not well recognized by community informants. Less than a third of the informants were able to define the concept as defined by the Michigan Historical Commission. The remainder included those informants who were uncertain of the criteria for recognition, and some informants were completely unaware of the existence of the program. The present concept of Centennial Farmer would be changed by the community informants to better fit their scheme of what was important to recognition. Residence on the farm was the most important change mentioned. Extended continuity of ownership was a positive value, but was not meaningful to a community. To give a greater emphasis to residence, parti- cularly in the small towns, the informants would extend the program to include townspeOple. Feeling that an owner-Operator would have more of a vested interest in his community, the community informants second criterion was that of farm manage- ment. Some felt that only 'good‘Operators should receive- recognition regardless of how long the farm had been in the family. According to their values, namely, farm residence and management, they fear that a recognition of continuity of ownership may tend to give recognition to absentee—owners. 141 The present owners view the program differently. There is little concern over questions of residence and manage- :nent as criteria for recognition. Those who would discontinue the program would do so because of a feeling that “early" settlers of Michigan would not be prOperly recognized. As a group the present owners verbalize their belief in the Agrarian Creed. Farming as a way of life to them means hard work, independence and.a nearness to God. fiypotheses for Future Regearch This summary statement is brought to a close with the presentation of hypotheses for future research. These hypotheses are a result of insights obtained in this study on Centennial Farms. Each of the hypotheses presented is to be considered in terms of the qualifications for recognition as a Centennial farm; continuous ownership of land within a family for one-hundred years or more. The hypotheses are related to the major concepts of the study namely, ownership and tenure, prOperty, transmission and succession, family, and community. Property in land in fee simple ownership is the desire of the Midwestern farmer, however achievement of this desire may have many consequences. Type of ownership in land effects the tenure of the owner. 1. In many cases the desire to own land has been so strong that the general welfare of the family and of the land has been sacrificed. its. 2. Long time family ownership of land results in an increasing pPOpCPtiOn of the land being held by owners in occupations other than farming. 3. Long time family ownership of land results in a situation where the owner maintains ownership of the land beyond his peak of physical ability to do farm work. M. In cases of long time family ownership of the land there will be distinct differences in the his- tory of cases of present owner-operators and those cases of present owners who are not operators. 5. In long time family ownership of farm land the size of the original farm, in acres, has an affect on the tenure status position of the present owner. 6. Farms in the history of present owner-Operators will demonstrate an increase in size from the time Of the original owner- The farms in the hands of present owners who are not Operating their farms will demonstrate a decrease in size. The transmission and succession of prOperty in land plays an important role in satisfying the desire of the farmer for ownership of his land. However, there are factors in the policies of transmission and succession which hamper the at— tainment of the ideal of owner-operatorship. l. The inheritance process results in many persons inheriting land who are not farmers and who in turn tend to increase the rate of tenancy. in} 2. Although many owners may have given considerable thought to the disposal of their land they tend to delay action of transmission until the effectiveness of their intentions are minimized. 3. Intestate action on the part of the owner is in many cases an inadequate means of transfer since it divides the prOperty among too many heirs, without consideration of individual family circumstances. 4. In families without any clear-cut ethnic identi- fication the transmission of the farm is on an equal- itarian basis, that is, the owner tends to distribute his prOperty equally among all heirs. 5. In families without any clear-cut ethnic identi- fication keeping the farm in the family cannot be at- tributed to any one item, and it is more likely to be a result of chance. The family which is the agency of transmission for prOperty and the provider of a line of succession is considered for further rcview.with the following suggested hypotheses: 1. In the history of present owner-operators there will be a greater preportion of the children of suc- cessors who will remain in the local area than for any other present tenure group. 2. In the history of the present owner-Operators there will be a greater proportion of children of successors who will choose farming as an occupation than for any other present tenure group. 11m 3. In long time family ownersth of land the size of farm, in acres, 'ather than the size of the family is the significant factor in the achievement of farm ownership. The community which is affected by long time tenure of families has certain concerns in regard to their considera- tion of this phenomenon. 1. Community members consider the elements of local residence and farm management over a long period of time as being more important than the element of con- tinuity of ownership alone. 2. recognition of families owning land within the confines of a particular community for an extended period of time is dependent upon the contribution. of thse families to the community rather than con» tinuity of ownership. 3. For small rural communities one of the greatest values to the inhabitants is that of stability and permanence of pOpulation. APPEND I CES ONTONAGON BA“ GA IRON TE DICKINSON Nnmber of Centennial Farms in each County Cal-unities in the Stu 1. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. Vissar Saransc Elsie . Flushing Rochester Howell Bellevue Jackson Stodkbridge Chelsea Hillsdale wagiac CQQI€~ VAN REM KALAMAIOO 13 3 mmr———sfim§m—— L. 9 3 APPENDIX A ALGER SCrmLCRAFT CH 11.6 LUCE MAC KINAC o'r'scco ANTRIM J J a. gKlALK'A-gKA anwroao oscooA M120"A BENZ'E CCW TI ICISI MANISTEE wexroao wsswlnss noscomuon occwxw IOSCO \. MASON [—LAKE oscsou CLARE GLAOWIN ARENAC non BAY OCEANA vaco mscosu ISABELLA MIDLAND Tuscou NA W G MONTCALM GRATICT A. KENT h ILAPEEF census # OTTAWA IONIA CLUNTON 5"“‘“”£‘ 7 6 2 8 17 C. 1 ‘D. B. l: .....m “‘°°"° BARRY LNINGST F. 3 20 I. CALHOUN SRANCH 8 HILLSDALE 5 K. wgsHTENAW J. 1M7 APPENDIX B THE SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE There were, as of November 30, 1950, two hundred thirty-four Centennial Farm Families (referred to in the fol- lowing as CFF). These CFF were distributed over the southern section of the state, in a total of ninety communities.1 The number of CFF in each of these communities ranged from one to twenty-four. I There are then two factors to be considered; (1) the size of the community by pOpulation, and; (2) the number of CF? in each community. These are important because there is a concern with the effect of CFF upon the growth and develOp- ment of the community in which the Centennial Farm is located. Two categories of communities are established for comparative purposes. Arbitrarily, the communities having one or two CFF were selected as one category (category A), and those having three or more CFF were considered to be in the second category, (category B). The next step was the selection of communities by population. Three groups were established: small, medium, 1 As delineated by Dr. J. F. Thaden in 1940. 148 soul large. There were sixtyosix communities having one or two CFF. The range of pOpulation was from 1,500 to 217,000. 'Fhis range was divided into three equal groups and the median was found in each. The communities in category A nearest this Inedian, plus or minus 100 pOpulation, were the ones selected. The same process was carried through for category B, having twenty-four communities and having a population range of 2,200 to 250,000. The median was slightly higher in each of the groups in this category. One further step was necessary regarding the representa- tion of communities. Since category A represented three fourths of the total number of CFF it was necessary to have three communities in this category in each of the three pOpu- lation categories of small, medium, and large_while category B would have one community in each of the three population categories. Thus, there will be twelve communities. Small Medium Large 0 O. . Population N21. ”of N21. Lo. of CFF' Community P 2. OFF Community Pop. CF'F Community Pap; CFF Category Elsie 2.500 1 Vassar 6.500! 2 Howell 13.700 1 “ Bellevue 2,500 l Flushing 6,600 2 Rochester 1M,000 1 A Saranac 2,500 2 1 Chelsea 6,900 1 Hillsdale 1h,ooo 1 Category —_ B Etockbrme 15000 3 Dowgiac 31,200 5 Jackson 90,600 21+ 1&9 APPENDIX C Section I Date _, Schedule Number Category_ Interviewer _g Community Section II 1. Name of the present owner _fi 2.' Does the present owner reside on the Centennial Farm? a. Yes b. No 3. Where is the location of the permanent residence? . ___On a farm ___in Open country, but not on a farm village of less than 2,500 town or 2,500 to u,999 town of 5,000 to 9, 99 city of 10,000 to 2 ,999 city of 25,000 to 99,999 .___city of over 100,000 :raq H9006” 4. What is the manner in which the farm is owned? a. ___Sole ownership b. ___purchase contract 0. ___life estate d. ___shared ownership 5. What is the educational level of the present owner? a.__~some grade school b.___comp1eted grade school . some high school completed high school some college completed college business college h.___ other (specify) 6. What is the age of the present owner? a. ___under 2 years b. 25 to a years c. 35 to M years d. 5 to 5“ years 10. 11. 12. HD‘OQHQ 150 ~55 to 64 years ___65 to 7“ years _75 to 84 years :85 to 99 years :95 years and over What is the marital status of the present owner? a. ___Married b. _Widowed c. :Sing 1e d. :Other (specify) What is the political affiliation of the present owner? a. _Republican b. ___Democrat c. ___Other (specify) What is the religious affiliation of the present owner? a. ___flethodist b. ___Baptist c. ___Lmtheran d. __ Presbyterian e._Episcopa1 f. ___Inter-denominational g. *Catholic h. :Other (specify)_ :2: Of what community organizations is the owner a member? a. ___None b. “Parent Teachers Association 0. ___Odd Fellows d. ___Masons e. ___American Legion (or Auxiliary) f. ___Veterans of Foreign Wars (or Auxiliary) 3. ___Other (Specify) u_ Of what farm organizations is the owner a member? a. b. c. d. e. '-_-Other (specify) Farm Bureau Grange Cleaners None What facilities are in the house on the Centennial Farm? a. b. c. d. e. Central Heating Running Water Electricity Indoor Toilet Bath I. All of the above 8. _None of the above 13. in. 151 What is the occupation of the present owner? a. ___Farmer b. ___Housewife c. ___Retired Farmer d. ___Other (specify)__ What is the relationship of the present owner to the original owner? a. ___Son b. ___Grandson c. ___Great-grandson d. ___Daughter e. ___Grand-daughter f. ___Great and-daughter g. ___Other fgpecify) Section III From what state or country did the original owner migrate? ___— In what year did the original owner arrive at the present location? A What was the age of the original owner at the time of his arrival? Was the original owner married prior to his migration? Yes No If yes, how many children were born in the state of origin? How many in Michigan? Did the original owner ever marry in Michigan? Yes __ No If yes, how many children were born? w_ What was the occupation of the original owner in his place of origin? ____ If farmer, what was his tenure status? =5 What occupation did the original owner engage in when he arrived in Michigan? __ __ What was the original owners' reason for migrating? 152 Section IV What was the size of the original farm in acres? What is the size of the farm today in acres? How many of the acres owned today are part of the original acreage?‘_ From whom was the original acreage obtained? __ Does the present owner Operate all, part, or none of the farm? If part, how many acres? _ Are the remaining acres idle? _ If part or none Does someone else Operate the farm? Yes ___ No If yes, how many acres? Is the Operator related to you? Yes___No If yes, what is the relationship? How long has it been since a member of your family has operated the farm? _ years Do you have a verbal or written contract with the operator? Does the Operator pay you rent in the form of a. ___Cash only b. ___Share of crOps only c. ___Part cash and part share Of crops d. ___Share of livestock and crOps e. ___Other (specify) _fi DO you or the person who operates the farm rent a. additional land? How many acres? __ b. land to others? How many acres? Section V What has been the predominant religious affiliation in the history of the family? What has been the predominant political affiliation in the history of the family? __ 153 What has been the history of the family community organ- izational affiliation? What has been the history of the family community parti- cipation? == Who were the outstanding members of the family and name some of their activities? What is the general observation of the Centennial Farm? Section VI What have you done with the Centennial Farm Certificate you received? What will you do with the Centennial Farm Plaque when you receive it? __ Why do you think your farm was kept in the family for such an extended period of time? Do you think the program should be continued or discontin- ued? Why do you feel this way? If the program were to continue, what changes would you suggest? _-_H At the time of the award, did your award receive any recog- nition by the members of the community? In what manner? What do you think of farming as a way of life? What plans have you made for the future disposition of the farm? 15M Section VII How many children were in the family of the original owner? ‘What was their birth order position? ‘What was the sex of each child? What was the educational level of each child? __ What was the marital status of each child? 'What was the major occupation of each child? What was the final place Of residence Of each child? The above data are to be gathered for each owner's family and placed in the apprOpriate place on the attached sheet. Section VIII The following questions are to be asked and the answers re- _ corded for each transfer that occurred in the Centennial Farm Family line of descent. 1. What was the means of transfer utilized by the owner to pass on his property to the succeeding generation? How many acres did the owner have available for transfer? How many acres were received by the heir who kept the farm in the family? Among whom was the prOperty divided? 155 QQiLQren Of original owner Birth Order position Sex Education Marital Status Occupation Residence Children of:§econd generation owner Birth order position Sex Education Marital Status Occupation Residence Children Of third generation owner Birth order position Sex Education Marital Status Occupation Residence Children of_§gprth generation ggner Birth order position Sex Education Marital Status Occupation Residence 15.: ‘1'..de APPENDIX D Sche 2.19 £93....COMBQAELIBIO a is - 0- ... --.“... Date ...... Community "pr-m” c..- —-~’.. .— --..—-~.~—.—-~..--.. —. .. — ».__. — Interviewer ...... Informant __ ”w..." ilsc-‘Or-D- .-*”-"'-I-.—"——‘-—~‘ Hello, I'm W _fi 1 1, from Michigan State College. We're conducting research on Centennial Farmers in Michigan, and I would appreciate your help in answering some questions about these peOple. 1. Have you heard of the Centennial Farm Program? Yes No If yes, as you recall the program what would you say was necessary to receive recognition as a Centennial Farmer? __ V— — _— 77 ——v— ‘ M.“ - '- W A p'm"~~* '— f r'fi—a __a '7 '__.___,_ f ”M'— ‘— Before continuing the questionning provide the informant with the exact requirements for recognition as stated by the Mich- igan Historical Commission. 2. Do you think the Program should be continued or discontin- ued? _ Why do you feel this way? F >m- " "h,“ p"!- '— v— f ——v '— - v “v -”~-~“-' —— - v _— ~ —— w—v—c. -'””~ 3. If the program were to continue, what changes would you suggest? fiv—w— WV —'-———— v. w— . fl.— —— wry—*fi’ —’—.-—- ..-——.-- ~--_¢-—..-.--——” ".5- ”fin-rm-~m'”~—.~mw ____ A ____l - —' — _— — wT—v Handing the informant the name(s) of the local Centennial Farmers, ask the following questions. 4. Which of these names do you recognize? 5. Can you tell me anything about the community participation or these peOple you've recognized? Have their families, in the past, made any particular contribution to the com- munity? APPENDIX E 158 0.00H m 1 0.0m m c.00H m 0.0 o o.ow _ NH smpo e mm 0.0 u o o.mm 1 H 0.0 o o.OOH H m.MH m :mcmm 0.0 o o.mm H 0.0 o o.o o m.m H :mu m 0.0 o o.o o 0.0 o o.o # o 0.0 o i saum c.00H m o.ooH : c.00H m 0.00H H o.OOH mH cow< HH4 madame o.mm H 1 ~.N~ m o.oOH m m.m~ m e.mm NH peso e mm o.mm H H.mH m 0.0 0 «.mm m m.~H amnmm. o.mm H 1 o.m H 0.0 0 «.mm m ~.nH : :mumm oxmm H 0.0 o 0.0 o m.mm m N.MH l N saum c.00H : “ 0.00H HH “ 0.00H m o.OOH m o.ooH1 m 1 mow< HH< - i w A _ _ Odd: (MI _ m.H~ a o.eeA o.ea 104m m.mm w so»: u . m.om m . 0.0m oH o.ooH oH 0.0m m m.mm mm hope a me H.HH H . 0.0m m 0.0 o 0.0m m m.mH a : 1mm H.HH H N.MH m 0.0 o 0.0m 1 m m.HH m a 1m H.HH H 0.0 o 0.0 o o.om 1 m o.m : ze-m o.OOH m . 0.00H mH o.ooH oH o.oOH oH c.00H as 1 some HH< II I )1 f, l 111! (I: 1 LI: Ill . uses .02 m pace .0: ucoonom .02 uses .02 uses .02 m moxom £90m 19mm r chem . them seem a ssmkusoz museums nuances cousamm mnoumsoao meocho HH< Hem one om< fill; 111 1. ospmaemiaoz 1, Quake 1 - , mmwzzo azmwmmm mus ho onesmHmamHn xwm 92¢ mo¢ ommH .mmaomw amazes may «on H wands 159 3.3-4-2347 i 1 . l . 0.0 fl 0 N.MH m w 0.0H H 0.0m m M a mH e «HmaHm 3.x: 1 a 0.0m : 0.0m m 0.0H H 1 w.Hm :H euuoeHu m.mm 1 m 0.00 m 0.0: a 0.00 0 m.:m em eoHeues 0.00H. m _ 0.00H mH 0.00H 0H 0.00H 0H 0.00H 1 2: Hence . acme .oz peso .oz ammo A .02 peso .Oz 1 uses .02 upon ILI . whom upom whom 1 «whom 11 {In assassoz 1 museums cassava voueaem encumnoao unease Had seesaw 1coueHemacoz pesto 1 HepHnm: ommH .maaome amazes nae men .maseem aaaHmez um amazeo aszwma a0 onsmmHmsmHa HH mamm£ on: Has one .uumm>nom OHHDSQ .coEmmHmm .Hocsomsma Hemoummouosa .mucm£osms mocSHocH Hsconmouosm 0cm mmomHmsm H 11 1 11 1 m.mm 1 m N.MH m 0.0H H 0.0 0 m.HH m peaches 1 eOHsOHo H.HH H 0.0m : 0.0H H 0.0 0 m.MH 0 HH¢20Hmmmuosm a mmomHmsm H.HH H 0.0: a 0.0m m 0.0 0 m.mm MH eoerom m.mm m m.mH m 0.0» m 0.0 0 e.~m 0H muHsmmsom 0.0 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00H 0H ~.mm 0H posses 0.00H m 0.00H mH 0.00H 0H 0.00H 0H 0.00H1 a: Hspoe uses .02 peso .02 name .Oz uses .oz uses .02 1som 11 Inca 1nom 1nom1 190m aseaucoz essence nuances cousHom nouesono unease HH¢ :OHueasooo emueHmm1eoz use: .IIIlI 1 1I1111 Lil (I'll-p I1 .110 (lg-II Hill.“ ommH wmmaomo Hmozme Hm mmNZBo azmwmmm ho ZOHB«m:ooo >H mamde 162 .OHaoea oom.m can» amOH no assumes coHpmHsaoa O» «house ommHHH> H o O o hpfio . .0m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.m : W.%H W m.w H 0.0H H 0.0 o m.: N h Mowmwwm> 0.0m w 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 H.wH m use 00 sumo 0.0 o m.n~ HH 0.0m m 0.00H 0H H we on s 0.00H m 0.00H mH 0.00H 0H 0.00H 0H 0.00H as Hence use so see .02 name .02 name .02 peso .Oz 1Wem z ween Inom usem 1Aom 11 1| ammalcoz nuances museums veumaom maoummeao unease HH< mocOvaom woumflomlcoz gumbo 0mmH .mmsomo > mqm m4m 04009 1 11 H.HH H 0.00 0 0.0H H 0.0m m 0.00 MH seesaw m.mm m 0.0 0 0.0H H 0.0 0 ~.0 m spasms muHa 303 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0H H mum H 1coo masseuse a.00 0 9.0: 9 0.00 0 0.00 0 m H0 90 0Hom 0.00H m 0.00H 0H 0.00H 0H 0.00H 0H 0.00H :: H0009 ”:00 .02 name .02 aces .oz paeo .oz uceo .02 spam 190m 19mm 190m 190m a9mbncoz museums nuances coumHom msoumpoao apogee HH4 QHnmpomso 00p0Hcm1noz 90:30 90 mass ommH .mmaomfi mszmH mam mmngo Ezmwmmm Nm 94mm mHmmmngo ho mmmwa HH> mqm49 165 HNHHMH NLONNHM MNMM: hobo cam mm mm 0» Hm cm on 0H 0H op HH 0H 0» 0 m o» H 0\ 1n H :0 Haves apmmlcoz nuances ceumaomucoz Hmuoa memo» ommH .mmu220 =04a1202 02¢ 0924229 nmadgmmlzoz IBHB mmmzso mom zmdh Mme nmss£ so£0 00 0:00 000 00HOH0000H0 o>mn 00000 000:0 no HH< m .3009 .00HH00 eoocsH .00HOH0000HO .9000: mnHmcsp .wsHummn Hms0coo nocsHocH moH0HHdomaH 0.00 m 0.0 H 0.0H H 0.0H H 0.0H 0 0000000 uoHom 0.00 0 0.00 9 0.00 m 0.00 m “.00 00 0000000 0.0 o 0.0: n 0.0: d 0.05 N .0: ma owm9o>m o>on¢ such 90 oocmpmoand 0.00H m 0.00H 0H 0.00H 0H 0.00H 0H .0.000 :0 H0009 0.0 0 0.00 a 0.00 m 0.0 0 0.0H 0 00000 00 0200 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0H H 0.0 H s000 00 0002 0.00H m 0.09 HH 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 90 0000 00 HH< some: such a 00H0HHH000 0.00H m 0.00H 0H 0.00H 0H 0.00H 0H 0.000 :0 H0009 0:00 .02 pose .02 name .0: aces .oz pace .0: 100ml 100m Ismh. 19mm them 1 80001002 museums museums ceueaom 90000000. «sash and aOHumnam>m coumHom1noz 00:30 3000 I ommH .000000 000209 00 .00000 2000 4< 00H9HOH0<0 02¢ 0040 00 0020040000 x Hdm000 000 no 0000 0000 00 00000 00 00 00000 0000 00: 00000000 "ooczHocd 0oz H 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 A 00 0.00 00 0.00 000 000001002 0.00 00 0.00 000 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 000 00000 0.000 000 0.000 000 0.000 000 0.000 000 0.000 000 00000 000000000 0.00 00 0.mm 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 m.0 000 00001002 0.00 00 0. 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 .0 000 0000 0.004 000 0.000 000 00000 000 0.000 000 0.000 000 00000 0000000000 0000 .02 0000 .02 0000000 .02 0000 .02 0000 .02 1000 1000 100m 1000 00001002 0000009 0000009 000000m 000000000 H0009 oococaoom 000000m10oz 00000 0 00000asopb 'H 'H .00000000 0000 0002200200 0000 .000000 000200 00 HHN Ham<9 o mmmmzms 9mp3m 0:» mo asap 0:» omma .mmaomw mmsezme Mm .mm 4H2 3 2 1 M-S-F-NL O 0 O O O M—S—NF-L 8 3 1 2 2 M-S—NF-NL 2 1 O 1 O E-n-r-L 100 25 2h 36 15 F-M-F-NL O 3 2 1 Fem-NF-L # 8 5 1 14 F—N—NE-NL h 7 12 11 1h F-B—F-L 6 1 o 5 O F—S-F—NL O O O O O F-S-NF-L 16 5 3 5 3 F-S-NF-NL ‘ 7 2 3 1 1 First Generation Total 1 221 51 SO 70 50 M—M-F-L 79 18 21 2K 13 M-M-NF-L ‘ 9 2 2 1 u-u-NF-NL E 18 u 2 1 11 M-S-F-L i 5 2 2 1 0 F-M-F-L I 57 13 12 ' 20 12 F-N-E-NL ‘ 6 O l 2 h 0 F-fl-NF—L u 18 2 l 8 h E-u-NE-NL t 20 , 6 § 1 7 F-S—NF-L j 9 1 2 j 1+ 2 __ v_ _v_ _ J ,_.__ —--.— TABLE XIV -- Continue; .—-—— 171 Bio—social 1 Characteristics Second Generation Total All— Owners 158 Owner Operator 34 Related Tenants .... _...._..._........_.._JL......._....._....L..—...._....4 30 Non—Related Tenants In-” l—f". 55 -—‘—' M-H-F-L M-M-NF-L M-H-NF-NL K-S-F-L F—K—FbL F-M-NF-L Fél-NF-NL F-B-F-L HU‘I rdhua vum~¢0xnovq~4 H ...: OHmHmmom ...: ...: ONHOHNI—‘w ...: ...: \Jl O\O\\N H “WW Tfiird Generation Total on U1 H .p 1 1 N \N 3 \N 15 Hel-F-L I-I-NF-L I'M-NF-NL F-M-F-L F-H-NF-L F-fl-NF-NL F-S-NF—L 20 16 20 7 9 S WOHHHOQ HWI’UFNN ' H :mw row» OHNHHQN l is occupation, F is farm, NF is non-farm. is residence, L is local, NL is non-local. 2 Symbols used to describe bio-social characteristics are: First column is sex, I is male, F is female. is marital status, M is married, 8 is single. Second column Third column The fourth column All cases are included, however for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gen— erations patterns with less than five in total are excluded. 172 TABLE XV RELATIONSHIP OF SUCCEEDING HEIR BY TENURE GROUPS, 1950 “—— __ .- —' —’Owner Related yon-Related Heir All Farms Operators' Tenants Tenants Non-Farm _f T” 0P??? FEr- __ Per— Per- 0 Per- No. cent No. cent 1N0. cent N0. cent 0. cent Total 101 100.0 27 100.0 20 JO0.0 35 100.0 19 100.0 Son 79 78.2 21 77.7 16 80.0 29 82.8 13 68.u Daughtefl- 17 16.8 5 18.5 2 10.0 5 1h.2 5 26.3 Other 5 4.9 1 3.7 2 10.0 1 2.8 l 5.2 1Of the 17 daughters there were only four cases where the other siblings were also females. TABLE XVI BIRTH ORDER POSITION OF SUCCEEDING HEIR BY TENURE GROUPS, 1950 Birth Order Owner Related man-Related Position Total Operators Tenants Tenants Non—Farm _, v PE?’ 1 Per- Per- } Per- ’ Pg:- #0. cent- No. cent No. cent N0. cent N0. cent Total 101 100.0 27 100.0 20 100.0 35 100.0 19 100.0 Oldestl 56 55.u 15 55.5 7 35.0 21 60.0 13 6e.u Middle 32 31.6 9 33.3 6 30.0 11 31.u 6 31.5 Youngest 4‘ 3.9 3 11.2 04 0.0 1 2.9 O 0.0 Unknown 9 8.9. 0 0.0 7 35.0 2 5.7 0. 0.0 1 Includes seven only children: one Owner Operator, one Re— lated Tenant, four Non-Related tenants, and one Non-Farm owner. TABLE XVII TOTAL ACRES OWNED, MEAN SIZE OF ACRES OWNED FOR ORIGINAL AND PRESENT OWNERS BY TENURE GROUPS, 1950 173 Total Size fl f and Mean Owner Related Non-Related Size Total Operators Tenants Tenants Non-Farm Total 4“ 10 10 15 9 Original Farms Total Size ‘ in acres 7580 1900 1720 2565 1395 Mean Size 172.2 190.0 172.0 171.0 155.0 Present Farms Total Size in acres 7163 2220 2140 2079 72k Mean Size 162.3 .222.0 21u.0 138.6 80.0 TABLE XVIII NUMBER OF TRANSFERS, AND MEAN ACREAGE BY INHERITOR, AVAILABLE FOR RANSFER, RECEIVED AND ACCRUED BY INHERITOR, B! TENURE GROUPS, 17h 1950 gg— j Non:v “I Total Owner Related Related Non- Transfers Acreage Operator Tenants Tenants Farm Total all Generations Number 101 27 20 35 19 Mean.Acreage Available 169.6 19 .5 175.1 162.0 141.1 Receive 95.3 122.8 88.6 z§.2 66.2 Accrued 162.5 206.1 188.5 1 .8 10h.2 First to Second Generation Number UN 10 10 15 9 lean Acreage Available 181.2 193.2 187.3 173.6 169.2 Receive 89.1 65.9 88.2 105.2 89.2 Accrued 163.6 211.3 170.6 155.7 116. Second to Third Generation Number #2 10 9 15 8 Mean Acreage Available 163.6 211.3 16“.“ x 155.7 118.1 Receiveg 91.6 156.9 82.2 77.7 “9.1 Accrued 163.6 223.0 212.6 129. 98.2 TABLE XVIII -- Continued L 175 ‘— ___— :— =Total I Owner Related Non-Related Non— Transfers Acreage Operator Tenants Tenants Farm Third to Fourth Generation Number 15 7 1 5 2 Mean Acre age Available 152.3 1g6.2 150.0 138.0 105.5 Receive 125. 1 .M 150.0 97.0 51.5 Accrued 156.5 17 8 150.0 165.0 7h.5 d 1Inheritor refers to individual who was in line that kept the farm in the family. 2 Includes 4M present owners. 3Includes 2 present owners. u Includes 27 present owners. 5Includes 15 present owners. 176 - A, . o.oo~ w a o.ooa _ ma 0.00H m o.ooa 0H o.ooH m: Hepea _ _ coaumaomow sedge on uncomm H.HH H m.mm m 0.0m m 0.06 m m.:m ma seepeeeeH w.ww w 6.6: A 0.0m m 0.0m m m.mm mm eeeueee 0.0 o 0.0m m 0.0m m 0.0H H m.ma o ueeeeaueem o.ooa m o.ooa ma o.ooa oa o.oaa oH o.ooa a: Hesse coaumponcw uncoom ee suede :.mm m m.mm ca 0.0: m o.~n 0H w.mm mm epeeeeeeH :.mo ma H.Hm ma 0.0: w o.mm A m.m: m: . epeemee m.m H 0.0m A 0.0m S o. m oa ~.Hm mm peeEeHeeem o.ooa mH o.ooa mm o.oo~ om o.ooa pm o.ooa HOH seedseneeee 71. Ada asses ucmo .oz udoo .02 pcoo .02 3.80 .oz pcoo .02 Inman I90...” Ihom Ihom 1 Ihmm . aammtcoz museums manages peamaom encumaoao Hmuos poummmpe In eeueaem-nez _ Negro so eoneezlu ““l .onexx mgm<9 TABLE XXVI 183 RECOGNITION OF CENTENNIAL FARMERS BY COMMUNITY INFORMANTS BY SIZE OF COMMUNITY, '———-— ”—'.— h ———--.-v.——— ’“—w —”'~-w—-' I..- .—-.--— fl ’ .- ”-nwm-s 1950 Size of Community Number of . L0..----,..0.Tm_m- _,_ 0 Recognitions Total Small Medium Large __ A Per- Per: , fl Per-’ 1 Per- No. cent No. cent No. cent No.1 cent ——-+r~ --—-- mwr- ”-"fir’ " w T — Total uh 100.0 7 100.0 10 pO0.0 27 [100.0 .....I. I I _ Less than Five 32 72.7 3 42.8 5 50.0 24 88.9 I Five Recognitions 12 27.3 n 57.2 5 50.0 3 11.1 I TABLE XXVII DISTRIBUTION OF TENURE GROUPS BY SIZE OF COMMUNITY, 1950 ...—......— :m—m -___==.—;==mmmm T“. Size of Community Tenure Group Total _ Small Medium Large _— _ “Per- lewTrier- Per- fl Per- No. cent NO't cent No. cent No. cent Total nu 100.0 =7"}1003 1o 100:0 27 105.0 Owner-Operator 10 22.7 2 28.5 1 10.0 7 2 .9 Related Tenants 10 22.7 H 57.1 2 20.0 h 1 ,3 Non-Related ‘ Tenants 115 34.0 1 1h.2 a Z0'0 11 {40.7 . Non-Farm 9 20.h l o i 0.0 0.0 5 15.5 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Ackerman, Joseph. "Status and Appraisal of Research in Farm Tenancy.” Journal of Farm E9on9mics, Volume 23, Num- ber 1, February, l9El: pp. 277—290. . and Marshall Harris. "Family Farm Policy," figgpceedings of a Conference 99 Family Farm Poli9y. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 19H7. Aiken, Ann and Dorothy Klitzke. Wills and Other Wgys" t9 Trans- ferfiProperty to Heirs. New York Extension Bulletin 791, Ithaca, May, 1950. Becker, Howard. Sys stematic 899io10gy New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1932. ' ._. Throughv a lues to Social Interpretation. Durham, N. 0.: Duke University Press, 1950. ‘ . Part I, Chapter 2. “The Field and Problems of Historical Sociology. Bernard, L. L. The Fields and Methods of Sociology. New York: Long and Smith, 193R Bernard, L. L. The Fields angugggbgds of Sociology. New York: Long and Smith, 1935. Berry, R. L. and Elton B. Hill. How to Keep Your Farm in the Family. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, Special Bulletin 357, April, 1949. Beuscher, J. H. and L. A. Young. Your PrOperty--Plan Its Trans— fer. Wisconsin Service, Madison, Circular EO7," Dec., 1 51. 9 Cole,‘G. D. H. "Inheritance." Encyclopedia of the Social Soi— encgg. E. R. A. Seligman, Ed. , New York: The Macmillan Co. 1932, Volume 8, pp. 35-M3. Cooley, C. H. Human_ Nature and the Social Order. Revised ed., New York: Scribners and Sons, 1902. 9 _fl. Sociologial Theory_and Social Research. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1930. Davis, Kin sley. Human Society. New York: The Macmillan Co., 19 9. Eliot, T. D. "Use of History in Theoretical Sociology." American Journal of S_o9i9l9gy, Volume XXVII, March, 1922, pp. 628 3ST Ellis, H., R. Barlow and E. B. Hill. Inheritance of Farm Pro- p9rty in Michigan. Michigan Apricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, Special Bulletin 388, December, 1953 Ely, R. T. PrOperty and Contract in Their Relationship to therp1stribution of Wealth. New York: The Macmillan Co., V01ume II, 1913. Ezekiel, Mordecai. 'Schisms in Agricultural Policy." Journal of Farm Economics, Volume 2“, Number 2, May, 1932, pp. %3-511 I Furfey, Paul H. The Sc c9pe and Methog 9f 8999919gy. New York: Harper and Brothers, “1953. Gerth, H. H and C. Wright Mills. Max Weber: Essays in Sociol- ogy. New York: Oxford University Press, 19KB. Gray, L. C., John B. Bennett, Erich Kraemer and W. N. Sparhawk. ”The Causes: Traditional Attitudes and Institutions.“ 199rbook of Agriculture_l93§, Unites States Department of Agriculture, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1939. Griswald, Alfred W. F rmingugnd D9m9cra x. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 19KB. Guilford, J. P. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Educa— tiog. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1942. Hagood, Margaret J. Statistics for Sociologists. New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, Inc., 1911. Harris, Marshall D. The Genesis of the Land Tegure Sys t_em _of the U-§. Un ublished PH.D. thesis, University of Illinois, 19 5. Headington, R. C. Transferring the Farm From One Generation to the Next. Ohio Mimeo. Bulletin 20H, Department of Rural Sociology and Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, November, 1948. Hertzler, J 0. Social Institutions. Lincoln, Neb.: Univer- sity of Nebraska Press, 19H3. Hertzler, J. 0. Part II, Chapter 2. "The Sources and Methods of Historical Sociolony." Bernard, L. L. The _Fields and Methods of_ _Soc_iol_ony. New York: Long and ”Smith, 311719 Hibbard, Benjamin H. A History o£_the Public Land Poligihg New York: Peter Smith, 1939. Illinois Extension Service. Family Farm—Transfer Arrange- EQEEE- Extension Circular 680, Urbana, April, 1951. Inman, Buis T. and William H. Fippin. Farm Land Ownersh_p in the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Misc. Publication 699, December, 1949. Jahoda, n. M. Deutsch and S. W. Cook. Research Methods in §gcia1 Relations. New York: The Dryden Press, Volume 1, 1951. Johnson, 0. R. Transferringithe Farm to the Next Generation. Missouri Agricultural Extension Service, Columbia, Bulletin 515, July, 19 98. Johnstone, Paul H. ”Farmers in a Changing World. ' Yearbook of Agriculture 1940. United States Department of Agri— culture, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 191 Kolb, J. H. and Edmund deS Brunner. A Studygof Rural Society. Revised ed., New York: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1936. Land Reform. Department of State Publication 4Hfl5, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., February, 1952. Loomis, C. P. and J. A. Beegle. Rural Social Systems. New York: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1950. Mac Iver, Robert M. and Charles R. Page. Society: nAn Intro- ductory Analysis. New York: Rhinehart, 194 9. Max Weber on the Methodology of the Social Sciences. Trans- lated by E. A. Shils and H. A. Finch, Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1949. McCormick, Thomas C. Elementary Social Statistics New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., 1931. iMcMurray, Orrin K. "Laws of Succession." Encyclopedia of tee Social Scieneee, E.R.A. Seli man, ed. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1932, Volume 1 , pp. 43é-441. Miner, Horace. St. Denis: A French-Canadian Parish. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1939. Palmer, Vivien. Field Studies in Sociology. Chicago: Univ— ersity or Chicago Press, 1928. Parsons, Kenneth H. and C. J. Legrid. Planning for the Descent of Property in the Fam mily. Wisconsin Agricultural Ex- periment Station, Madison, Circular 364, October, 1945. and Eliot A. Waples. Keeping the Farm in the Femily. Wisconsin Agricultural EXperiment Station, Madison, Research Bulletin 157, September, 194 5. Pearson, Karl. The Grammar of Science. Third edition, rev., London: Adam and Charles Black, 1911. Renne, Roland R. Land Economics. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947. Salter, Leonard A., Jr. "Cross-Sectional and Case-Grouping Procedures in Research Analysis.I qurnal of Fare Eeonomics, Volume 24, Number 4, November, 1942, pp. 792-805. . Land Tenure in Process. Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station, Madison, Research Bulletin 14 5, February, 19 43. . "The Content of Land Economics and Research Methods Adopted to its Needs. " Journal of Farm Economics. Volume 24, Number 1, February, 1942 Sanderson, Dwight. Rural Sociology and Rural Social Or aniZa- tions. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1 Schultz, Theodore W. "A Guide to Better Policy for Agriculture." Coneumer Reporte, Volume 19, Number 4, April, 1954. Smith, T. Lynn. The Sociology of Rural Life. Revised ed., New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947. Southern, John H. Farm Land Ownership in the Southwest. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Fayette- ville, Research Bulletin 502, December, 1950. Tarver, James D. Wisconsin Century Farm Families: A Study 9: Farm Succession—Practiggg. UnpublishEd PH.D. thesis University of Wisconsin, 1950. Taylor, Carl, et a1. Rural Life_in the United States. New York: A.A.Knopf, 1939. Thaden, J. F. The LansinggRggion and Its Tributary Town— Countgy Communities. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, Special Bulletin 302, March, 19 O. =, and Eben Mumford. High School Communities in Michiggg. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, Special Bulletin, 289, January, 1938. The Advisory Committee on Social and Economic Research in Agriculture. "Research in Agricultural Land Tenuge~- Scope and Method." John D. Black, editor, Social Science Research Council Bulletin 20, New York, April, 1933. . Research in Rural Institutions-~§coge— and Method. John D. Black, editor, Social Science Research Council Bulletin 18, New York, June, 1933. Timmons, John F. and Raleigh Barlowe. Farm Ownership in the Midwest. Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station, Ames, Research Bulletin 361, June, 1949. , and W. G, Murray. Land_§;9blems and Policies. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State College Press, Chapter 12, 1950. United States Bureau of the Census Historical Statistics of the United States, 17S9-l9fi5, Washington, D. C., l9u9. p. 29, Series B 171-181. United States Bureau of the Census. United States Population: 1950. Vol. II, Characteristics of the Population, Part 1, U. 8. Summary, Chapter B. United States Govern— ment Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1952. Table ”7, p- 1‘97- United States Interbureau Committee, Department of Agriculture. State Legislation For Better Land Use. Apr. 1941. Quoted in Griswold, Alfred W. Farming and Democracy. New York: Harcourt—Brace, 19MB. United Mt: es Department on Postwar Agriculture. Fagm QQJQPQQQlQLQquQ‘QfQ _U..§. July, 19 3. Quoted in Griswold, Alfred W. Fi"l‘n« iQi_DenQQ:iLV New Xork: Harcourt-Brace, 1943. United States Special Committee in Farn Tenancy. :g:m_Tenangx. flgpgrt_ of t‘.e PreSIdent's_Cofjittee Prepared under the auspices af tnc National Ree)urces Committee, Feb,, 1937. Quoted in Griswold Alfred W. Faiaing_1nd -_-._ ’“.fi- Qgggggggy. New York: Hare)urt Brace, 194$. Walrath, Arthur J. and W. L. Gibson Jr. Farm “Inheritance -— ...—m and Setilement_o:_Estltes Virg inia Agricultural Ex- periment Station,B1acksburg, Research Bulletin 413, January, 19+3. ——»-m---__«. . What W111_choua_of Your Form? Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Blacksourg, Bulletin 169, June, 1997. Waring, P. Alston and Clinton S. Golden. Soilmagd_§§ggl. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1937. Wehrwein, George S., "The Problem of Inheritance in American Land Tenure. “ Journal of Farm Economics, Volume 9, Number 2, April, 1927, pp. 163-175. Wickard, Claude R. "Thomas Jefferson—Founder of American Agriculture.“ Aggigultural Histozy, Volume XIX, 19M5, Winch, RCbert F. "Heuristic and Empirical Typologies: A Job For Factor Analysis. " American Sociological Review, Volume 13, Number 1, February, 19E7, pp. 68- -75. R0015 USE GM)’ - 74 ‘7‘ . ‘ 3 c‘ ‘3' r ¢fl L. .7 ‘ If. s ’ 4, , I. . , k 7’ '. I ICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES mm: mm ll w 31293 00129042