Severalthingsshouldbeclarified.First,anassessmentoftheannualyieldofland(notlandvalue)wasmadetwoyearslater,butprimarilyattherequestofthelandowners,whoapparentlydemandedsuchassessmentssothattheywouldhaveafixedrentalreceiptas37.5percentoftheassessedyield,intheexpectationthathighenoughassessmentswouldgivethemrentalearningsashighasbeforethepercentagereduction.Thelandownersshouldhaveknownbetter,fortheeventualofficialassessmentswereverymuchinthetenants'favor.[7]Atanyrate,theseassessmentswereofficiallyadoptedinFebruary1952,andafterwardtherewaslittleevidenceoftheirbeingenforced.
Second,by"theorderdatedMarch29,1947"wasmeanttheorderofsharereductionwhichhadformallybeguninafewprovincesinmainlandChina.SincethenationalistgovernmentretreatedtoTaiwan,graduallyfrom1948toearly1949,theyhaveregardedTaiwanasoneprovinceofChinaproper.InApril1949,therefore,thepromulgationandenforcementofthesharereductioninTaiwanwasregardedasacontinuationofwhattheyhadstartedinmainlandChina.WhenthesharerestrictionwasfirstpracticedinmainlandChina,itwaslargelyconfinedtotheprovincesofHupehandSzechwan,and"themethodadoptedfordeterminingtheamountofthetotalyieldofthemaincropswasbaseduponajointreportbythelandlordandtenant."[8]ThismethodwasbasicallyunchangedaftertherestrictionwasintroducedtoTaiwanin1949,withsharedisputesinvestigatedandsettledbygovernmentofficials.
Andthird,"Thecropscustomarilyacceptedaspaymentofrent"obviouslymeansanycrop,providedthatitiscontractuallyspecifiedtobeplantedorrotated.Theword"main"inthecitedarticleisapparentlyintendedtorestricttheformofpensatingpaymentinwhichthelandownermayshareinallcropsalikeunderthesharerestriction,sinceinsomesharecontractscertain"cereals"cultivatedbythetenanthadnotbeensharedbythelandowner.[9]Butwefindnoevidencewhatsoeverthatthishadbeenenforced.Whatinonefarmhadbeencontractuallya"cereal"mightbe"main"inanother.Furthermore,infarmsadoptingtwotosixyearsrotationswithfewrepetitionsofthesamecrop,allregularlyrotatedcropswere"customarilyacceptedaspaymentofrent."[10]
Fromtheaboveitisclearthatthelandowners'totalrentalreceiptswerenotfixed,andthereforeincreasesintenantinputsareimplied.Whatactuallywasfixedbylawwastherentalpercentageoftheannualyield.
ButtheconditionsofsharingarequitedifferentinthenewactpromulgatedinJune1951:[11]
Art.2:Theamountoffarmrentshallnotexceed37.5percentofthetotalannualyieldoftheprincipalproductsofthemaincrops…Theterm"maincrops"shallmeanthecropsmostmonlygrownortherotationcropsactuallygrownaccordingtolocalfarmingpractices,and"principalproduct"shallmeanthechiefarticleforwhichthecropisgrown.
Art.4:Thestandardamountofthetotalannualyieldoftheprincipalarticleofthemaincropofafarmlandshallbeappraised,withreferencetothegradetowhichitbelongs.
Notethat(a)thesubstanceinArt.4wasentirelyabsentintheregulationsof1949,andevenin1951thefuturetense"shallbeappraised"wasused;and(b)theso-calledmaincropsinthisnewactareequallydifficult,ifnotimpossible,todefine,sinceanycropcanberotated.Infact,noneoftheadditionalprovisionsinthisnewactwasputintoeffect,since,aswasnotedinchapter1,theenforcementrulesforthe1951actwerenotsetuntilFebruary1952,atwhichtimeanotherprogramoflandreformwasinthemaking.
Whatinterestsushereiswhythechangesintheofficialsharingmethodcameabout.Theanswerisclear.Chen'sprimaryintentioninreducingtherentalpercentagewastoenforcearedistributionofineinfavorofthetenant,whichwouldserveasapoliticalresponsetotheexploitation-of-tenantclaimwhichMaoTse-tungusedinhisrisetopower.Butthelandowners,underthesharerestriction,managedpartiallytorestoretheirinebyinducingmoreintensivefarming,nullifyingtenantgains.Inearly1951,Chenhadcontemplatedprohibitingtheownersfromrequiringtenantstomitadditionalinputs,butthiswasneverputintothelaw.[12]Ithadbeenexpectedthen,thattheownerswouldrushtoselltheirholdingstotenantsatlowpricesbecauseofthesharerestriction,thusresultinginmoreequaldistributionoflandholdings.Butaswasseeninthelastchapter,outrighttransfersoflandstotenantsunderthesharerestrictionwerefew.Thus,inJune1951,furtherrestrictionswereputon,intendedtobeenforcedearlyin1952.Butitwassoonrealizedthatthenewprovisionswouldbeoverlycostlytoenforce,ifitcouldbedoneatall.Thereremainedoneguaranteedwayofredistributingineinfavorofthetenants:topulsorilypurchaselandfromthelandownersatlowpricesandsellittotenantsatthesamelowprices.ThisisknownastheLand-to-the-Tillerprogram,elaboratelydraftedin1952andenforcedin1953,underwhichnoprivatetransferoflandisallowed.
Theactof1951,thoughnotenforced,hassincebeenpublicizedasifithadstartedin1949,andindeedinmostofficialsourcesthe1949regulationsarepletelydeleted.Writingin1961,tenyearsafterhisownclaimthatthelandowners'rentalineswerealmostashighasbeforethesharerestriction,owingtotheincreaseinoutputaftertherestriction,Chenchangedhistoneandassertedthattheredistributionofinehadbeenexactlyasintended—aclaimunderstandableaspoliticalpropaganda.[13]
Turningtolegalregulationsdirectlyrestrictingthelandowners'inducingmoreintensivefarming,theonlyrelevantprovisionIcanfindintheregulationsasof1949reads:
Alimitationshallbesetonthetotalareaofboththeleasedfarmlandthatmaybetakenbackbythelessoraccordingtothelawandthefarmlandoriginallyownedandcultivatedbyhimself.[14]