THE LAND QUESTION IN CUBA.
By W. A. Candler
(W. A. Candler, D.D., Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, in the Independent.) “Every revolution is at bottom a bread riot.” This famous saying is but another way of stating that while men will patiently endure many ills, they will fight before they will starve. “All that ‘a man hath will he give for his life;’ and when he is forced to choose between perilous strife in the field and certain death by starvation in the hovel, he will take the former. These reflections are applicable to the case of Cuba. At bottom the Cuban question is, and has been, an economic issue. Other elements, of course, have entered into the problem collaterally, and they have affected the main issue more or less influentially But these collateral conditions alone would never have produced a revolution. A prime factor in the case is the land question. From the standpoint of the landowner, Cuba is bankrupt. The figures, as given by the census of January, 1900, are as follows: Total value of real estate in Cuba, $323,641,895.70; total incumbrance on real estate, $247,915,496.12. This leaves unincumbered valuation to the landholders of only $75,726,399.58, which is so small a part of the face valuation of the property that it really amounts to scarcely more than an equitable interest. The real owners of Cuban real estate are the holders of the mortgages which rest upon it. Who hold these mortgages? The census does not indicate the holders of $207,627,192.83; but the remainder of $40,288,303.29 is set down under the head of “Censos.” But in the volume published by the War Department at Washington, and from which the foregoing figures are taken, is nowhere explained the meaning of the word “Censos.” An intelligent American who has resided in Cuba for several years, and who has ample opportunity for obtaining accurate information, writes me in response to my inquiry the following explanation of the term:— “Censos” are grants which were given by the Spanish Crown to various religious orders or communities; to the bishop for the bishopric, and sometimes to private individuals. These grants consisted of thousands of acres, the holders of them allowing people to occupy the lands for a yearly tribute. In the event the occupant sold the land, the purchaser bought it subject to the “censo.” These “censos” in some cases could be redeemed; in other cases they could not be redeemed. Thus a man might own a home with a “censo” on it worth $5,000. This “censo” (generally 5 per cent. per annum) had to be paid forever, if not redeemed. The same rule applied to rural properties, where $500 for a caballeria of land (33 1-3 acres) was and is an average “censo.” The grower of cane or tobacco must pay this quit-rent annually or be dispossessed of his property. In addition to the “censos” was another class of ecclesiastical claims, called “capellanias,” which were obligations made by private persons to the church, or to some order or school of the church, for certain religious benefits. These were held in the same way as the “censos”—namely, the church drew a yearly income (generally of 5 per cent.) from certain estates upon which these “capellanias” rested, and the heirs or assigns of these estates were bound to pay these “capellanias,” as they were enforceable by law. They were given for masses for the repose of the original grantor’s soul, or sometimes for the education of a male descendant of any generation who should enter the priesthood. It does not appear from the census published by the War Department whether the “capellanias” are included in the “censos” or not. I know that the Cuban man of the law who runs down a land title for a purchaser is very careful to look out for both “censos” and “capellanias;” and in certifying to the fact that the property is free from any “gravamen” (if it is) he mentions both. In the latter part of last February I visited Cuba, and while there read in one of the daily papers of Havana the following statements which show how the people feel about these ecclesiastical claims:— During the last few days many petitions have been received at the palace asking that the taxes which the Catholic Church has against different properties be remitted or canceled. In each case the petitioners tell a heart-rending story of their needy condition, and they claim that it is next to impossible for them to pay. They ask General Wood to intercede or to abolish the claim for taxes which the church holds. Each of the petitions is referred to the bishop. All these conditions doubtless shed light on the antipathy of the Filipinos to the friars. The same state of things existed in all the Spanish dependencies. The regeneration of Mexico politically began with correcting ecclesiastical encroachments upon the landed interests of the country. The return of prosperity to Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippine Islands will be impossible until the lands are liberated from intolerable burdens. The ground is the foundation of the entire economic structure in these islands, and that foundation can not continue to rest on a species of feudalism without peril to the whole system. Hungry people will fight, and no fine-spun argument appeases hunger. It is not proposed in this paper to suggest remedies, but to reveal conditions, and it is beyond dispute that the conditions revealed can not long continue with safety. What the government of the United States can do, or ought to do, I shall not undertake to say. But occasionally one sees a suggestion9thrown out, which leads me to say there is one thing our government ought not to do. I refer to the suggestion that under the treaty of Paris our government is pledged to the guarantee of these ecclesiastical claims. It may presently be proposed that we should pay them. That I conceive is none of our business. General Wood “referred them to ‘the bishop.’ Very well. That is where they belong. Let the bishop collect his own debts, if they are founded in justice. But one thing may be said without impropriety. The Catholic Church must relax its hold on the land, or lose, even more than it has lost already, its hold on the people of Cuba. This is too clear for argument. When a Cuban legislature takes up the land question, and that question will arise in the first sitting, we may expect some very radical legislation. Captains-general have extended the collection of mortgages and quit rents. That postpones, but does not escape, the day of judgment. That day can not be even postponed much longer. Revising tariff schedules in this country will not remedy the trouble. Sugar-planters and tobacco-raisers can not under any sort of tariff pay these heavy fixed charges on their lands, and still make a living.