Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/124

96 HARVARD LAW REVIEW, tions holding real estate for the revenue to be derived therefrom. Without doubt it would not contravene the policy of any State if a manufacturing corporation should acquire real estate therein, to be used as a factory in the prosecution of the corporate enterprise, or if a foreign mercantile corporation should purchase a building in which to display and vend its goods. But in the case of land companies, whose sole purpose is to deal in lands, and corporations having the power to take real estate to hold as they hold stocks and bonds, merely for the resulting gain or income, a different question is presented. In some States, an apprehension that the recognition of the powers of such corporations might lead to monopolies in agricultural or mining lands, and discourage or prevent their settlement or development, or tend to establish landlordism, has manifested itself in legislation from which a policy hostile to the acquisition of real estate by such corporations might be deduced.-^ In some States, the spirit of the ancient mortmain laws of Eng- land has been invoked to influence legislation in this matter.^ In other States, a liberal policy, which imposes no restriction, has been adopted. It seems to be settled that the policy of a state upon this sub- ject, if it is to be applied by the courts, must appear affirmatively. It is not to be inferred from the mere absence of legislation. As 1 It is said that twenty million acres of land in the United States are owned in Eng- land and Scotland. A syndicate composed of foreign capitalists, and known as the Texas Land Union, is reported to own whole counties in Texas, and to have thousands of persons as tenants. It has been shown, however, in a recent article, by Mr. J. R. Dodge, the statistician, that much has been said of the tendency to land monopoly and landlordism which the facts do not warrant. A comparison of results of the tenth and eleventh censuses shows that in 1890 of the farms of the country 71.63 per cent were cultivated by the owner, against 74.42 per cent in 1880 ; and the increase in farms rented during the ten years succeeding the census of 1880 was only 1.92 per cent of all. This increase is accounted for to quite an extent by natural causes. For example, in the South, the increase of tenant farming is largely due to free labor, the division of plantations, and share rental to freedmen, — a change more nominal than real, as the planter is quite as much a partner as a landlord, having often to furnish horses and implements, seed and food as well as land. In the West it appears that the proportions of persons owning the farms they cultivate have increased, — a tendency directly away from assumed monopoly. 2 In 1883, a bill passed by the Massachusetts Legislature, allowing the Somerville Wharf and Improvement Company two years further in which to organize as a corpora- tion, was vetoed by Governor Butler, who stated as " the great and controlling objection to the bill, that it gives to the corporation the right to hold land in perpetuity, and to act for no other purposes whatever. This land, in the language of the books, would be held in mortmam, or by the dead hand.**