l fee simple.

2. Giving the homesteads to cultivators on the
basis of perpetual leasehold.

3. Public cultivation, either direct or through
communes or co-operative associations.

Comparing these programs one with another and with the existing
conditions, one reaches the following conclusions: All the programs tend
to treat the land problem merely as a question of ownership. Each favors
a specific form of ownership almost as an all-inclusive remedy for
defects in social relations so far as they depend upon land cultivation
and land use. The argument is based upon reasoning, a mere logical
calculation, and on what the authors of the program desire. The existing
conditions and tendencies are much more varied and complex than they
seem to appear to the land reformers.

First, there is nothing new or untried in these programs, for almost all
the advocated forms of land ownership are already existing side by side.
It seems that no one single form is able to remedy the defects in the
land situation. We have in this country national (Federal), provincial
(state), and municipal or communal ownership, with small-scale private
ownership predominating. We also have special land taxation, as, for
instance, in certain cities that tax unimproved land higher than
improved land. These existing forms of land ownership are competing with
one another. The forms which allow more efficient cultivation, result in
greater social stability, and are based on social justice will be the
winners in the march of the economic and social progress of the country.

The bold claim of Marxian or German Socialism that large private land
ownership, erroneously identified with cultivation on a large scale, is
going to prevail through absorption of small private land ownership is
rapidly losing ground. The small landowners are able to enjoy, through
co-operation, all the technical advantages of large-scale cultivation,
retaining as well the advantages resulting from individual initiative and
efficiency. There is a marked movement toward co-operation among the small
farmers the world over. In Denmark it has developed to the highest degree.

Second, mere land ownership is only a part, though a vital part, of the
problem. Many other important things have to be considered.

If a man has land, but lacks capital or credit, he is unable to make
economic use of his land. If he has both land and capital