However,theterm"owncultivation"isvagueandmaybeinterpretedtoincludethehiringoffarmhandsformercialfarming.Vigorousenforcementfollowedimmediatelyin1949topreventtherepossessionoflandformercialfarming.Furthermore,newcontractswerelaterrequiredtobenoshorterthanthreeyears.Thisminimumleaseperiodwasextendedtosixyearsinthenewactof1951.[9]
Theotherpossibleformoftenurerearrangement,thatthelandlordsellhisholdingsoutright,wasnotsignificantlyrestrictedinallprovisionspriortoandincluding1949.Notonlycouldtheownersellhislandtohistenant,buthecouldalsoselltoathirdparty.Althoughatenant'spreferentialrighttopurchasefromhislandlordwasexpressedintheprereformlandlaw,thetenanthadtobewillingtoaccept"thesametermsasareofferedtoanyotherperson."[10]
Fromtheabovewearriveatthefollowingconclusions:(a)Compensatingpaymentswererestrictedinregulationsupto1949,andthealternativethatthelandownermightsharein"cereals"afterthepercentagerentreduction,thoughfeasible,wasnotsubstantial.And,(b)tenurerearrangementswereconditionallyrestrictedifthelandownerrepossessedlandfromthetenant.Buttheowner'srighttosellhisholdingsoutrightwasnotrestricted.
Twoadditionalremarksarecalledforhere.First,althoughpensatingpaymentstoalandownerintheformofthetenant'spayingthefullnonlandfarmingcostwererestricted(intheeventthatthelandownerhadcontractedtopayapart),thereexistednorestrictiononthelandowner'srequiringthetenanttomitadditionalfarminginputs.Second,althoughrepossessionoflandfromatenantthroughleasecancellationwasconditionallyrestrictedandsubsequentlyvigorouslyprohibited,partialrepossessionoflandwhichentailednoleasecancellationwasnotrestrictedintheperiodunderstudy.Ishalldiscussthesepointsmorefullyinthenexttwochapters.
[1].TheLand-to-the-Tillerprogramwasatthistimeinthemakinganddrewthemainattentionofthelandreformers.
[2].Afullerexplanationforthiswillbeprovidedinthenextchapter.
[3].Art.112,inChengChen,LandReforminTaiwan(Taipei:ChinaPublishingCo.,1961),p.155.
[4].Art.5,inHui-SunTang,LandReforminFreeChina(Taipei:JCRR,1954),p.222.Itisunder"RegulationsGoverningtheLeaseofPrivateFarmLandsinTaiwanProvince."
[5].Art.12,inChen,LandReforminTaiwan,p.193.
[6].Onlysometenantshadbeencontractuallyallowedtogrowsuch"cereals"forhomeconsumption,andonlyonmarginalland.Notethatinnoneoftherentaldisputesonrecordunderthesharerestrictionisthisthirdtypeofpensatingpaymentmentionedatall.
[7].Art.9,inTang,LandReforminFreeChina,p.222.
[8].Chen,LandReforminTaiwan,pp.154-55.Thesetwoarticleswerecitedinchapter1ofthisstudy.
[9].Art.5,ibid.,p.191.
[10].Art.107,ibid.,p.154.
C.EvidenceofIllegalCompensatingPaymentsandTenureRearrangments
Sinceunderthesharerestrictionmostoffsettingcontractualrearrangementswereprohibitedbylaw,thehypothesisthatpensatingpaymentsandtenurerearrangementswouldfollowfromthemaximumsharecontrolwillbetestedbyareviewoftheevidenceastovariousillegalpracticesandlawenforcement.Itisnoteasytodeterminejusthowprehensivetheenforcementwas,orhowarbitrary.Weknowthefollowingfacts.(1)The37.5percentrentalrulewaswidelypublicizedineverytownandvillagein1949,andofficialcontractformswereprovided.[1](2)Theenforcementwasintensifiedasillegalpracticesincreased:
Theinspectionworkwasconfinedtoharvesttimesandrandomsamplingoftenantfamiliesandtheirfarmleaseswasmadetofindoutwhetherrentwaspaidaccordingtothereducedscale.About126countyworkersand26provincialinspectorscoveredtheProvinceintwomonthsaftereachharvest.Thisinspectionpattern…becameineffectivewhenthenumberofrentdisputesbecamealarminglygreat.JCRRandProvincialLandBureau,therefore,designedanewsupervisionpatternusingfulltimeemployeeswithfullpay.[2]
(3)Atotalof7,325fieldworkers,aswellasotherresources,wereemployedfortheenforcement.[3]And(4)by1951,theinspectionworkwasnolongerbasedonrandomsamplingbutcoveredthewholepopulationaffectedbythesharerestriction,andmostoftheillegalpracticesweresoonsuppressed.[4]
CompensatingPaymentsandRentDisputes
Higherwaterfeeswereoneformofpensatingpaymentin1949:
Thoughtenantfarmerswereobligatedtosupplylaborforimprovementofwaterconservancy,theywerenowaskedtoshareinthepaymentfeeaftertheimprovementhadbeenpleted.Thiswasonedevicebywhichlandlordssoughttoreducetheirlossfromtherentreduction.[5]
Thisoccurredbecausetheresponsibilityforpaymentofwaterrightsfeeshadnotbeenclearlydefined:
Accordingtotheoldregulations…,landownerspaidaspecialwaterfeewhichwasusedforfarmimprovementsandtenantspaidanordinarywaterfeetocoverirrigationcoststothelocalwaterconservancyassociationswhichwereposedexclusivelyoflandowners.However,nocleardemarcationanddefinitepercentageforthesetwofeesweremade.Landownersthereforefrequentlyshiftedtheburdenofspecialwaterfeetothetenants.[6]
Theresultingwater-feedisputes,however,weresoonsettledbytheProvincialLandBureauandWaterConservancyBureau.Underthenewregulation,waterchargesbylandownersinexcessofthestipulatedtermswerereportedin107casesbetweenJune1949andMarch1950.[7]