Skip to Content
North Carolina Newspapers

The University of North Carolina news letter. online resource (None) 1914-1944, December 22, 1920, Image 1

Below is the OCR text representation of this newspaper page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

The news in this publica tion is released for the press on (feceipt. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA NEWS LETTER Published weekly by the University of North Carolina for its Bureau of Extension. D|:CEMBER 22, 1920 CHAPEL HHJL, N. C. VOL vn, NO. 7 Editorial Board i B, O. Branson, L. B. Wilson, E. W. Knight, D. D. Carroll, J. B. Bullitt. Entered as second-class matter November 14, 1914, at the Poscoffice at Chapel Hill, N. C., under the act of August 24, 1912. ARM LAND TAX VALUES IN N. C. CROWDED COLLEGES A sign of general well-being is the vitality displayed by our colleges and universities. Never were they so pros perous as at the present moment—at least in the number of students. Mr. Julius H. Barnes, Chairman of the In stitute for Public Service, has recently published a report which shows that the attendance for 1919 was 248,000; and, looking into the future, he believes that this will reach 471,000 in 1930 and 831,000 in 1950. ^Ir. Barnes bases this estimate on a thorough investigation of 210 colleges; an investigation which embraces all |;^es, irrespective of size, whether they are supported publicly or privately, or whether they are technical or cul tural in scope. fThis rapid growth means that the universities must bear ever-increasing financial burdens. The lack of money has always limited the facilities which any college could offer its pupils; and now the student bodies of many are doubling. In a few years, it may be expected, the college man and the col lege woman will consequently be ac cepted as a matter of course, like the high school graduate of today.—World’s Work. NORMAL SCHOOL LOSSES The public schools of the United States are short 110,000 teachers. So reports the Federal Bureau of Educa tion. The colleges of liberal arts and tech nical science are filled to overflowing with students, butnot the teacher train- schools of the country as a whole. ; ' iQn the contrary 78 state normal schools report to the New York Insti tute for Public Service that they have 1496 students fewer in 1920 than in 1914. The loss in 50 of these schools during this period is 4723 student^ On the other hand 28 state normal schools have more students than ever—3127 more, and among these are the State College for Women at Greensboro and the East Carolina Training School at Farmville. [Sixty-five of the 116 normal schools, public and private, report a total loss of 5709 students since 1914 in the coun toy at large. ’j|Somehow the aspiration to teach is disappearing. And great teachihg per- ^nalities like Mark Hopkins and Saw ney Webb and Robert Bingham are gone or going, never again to reappear, it, seems. fleaching as a career has faded out of the vision of choice spirits—has been starved out, we might have sai,d. (And the noblest of all professions has bfecome the sorriest of all trades in these modern times. g SHAMEFUL SALARIES ' In 1918 the average salary of all the ^achers, elementary and secondary, ru ral and urban, in North Carolina, was $281. In this respect North Carolina f^lls below all the States and stands at the foot of the column, being $7.00 be low Mississippi and $31.00 below South Carolina. The average salary of teach ers for the United States was $635— more than two and one-half times as much as for North Carolina. In 27 States the average salary was more than twice as much as in North Caro lina. In 8 States it was more than three times as much, and in one, California, only $24 less than four times as much. ISince in North Carolina the salaries of high school teachers, of all teachers m|the city schools, and of many rural i«kchers in the better counties of the State are far above the average, the salaries of many other teachers and particularly of the teachers in the one- teacher .country schools, where for many reasons the best teachers are needed, are lower still—pitifully and shamefully low. Odorous Comparisons 'Thousands of these teachers are paid less than it costs to feed prisoners in the county jails. And the prisoners have free lodging, fuel, light, water, hjedical attendance, and laundry, and they have the ministry of the churches ^ithout cost to them. If these thous ands of teachers were by collusion to commit some crime over night and get in jail for a year, the taxes of the coun ties in which they teach would have to be increased by many thousands of dol lars to pay their board, to say nothing of other expenses connected with their imprisonment. The pay even of the best half of the teachers is small com pared with the pay of mail carriers, stenographers, porters on Pullman cars and messenger boys. Their pay is only a small fraction of the income of law yers, physicians, engineers, and others doing work requiring something like the ability and preparation that ought to be required of those who are respon sible for the education of North Caro lina boys and girls for citizenship, for making a living, and for contributing to the commonwealth. Millions for Uncle Sam For longer terms, for more high schools, for better pay of teachers, as well as for better support of the schools in which teachers are or should be pre pared, North Carolina needs to raise much more money .than it now does— two, three, or four times as much. Can the people afford it? Even though money spent for education is sure to prove a good investment, paying larger dividends than may be expected from money invested in any other way, have the people the money to invest now? It seems quite probable that in all the 250 years of the history of North Caro lina, as colony and State, the people have expended for education in schools of all grades and kinds, public and pri vate, several million dollars less than the amount of taxes paid to the Treas ury of the United States in a single year.—P. P. Claxton, U. S. Commis sioner of Education. A WHALE OF A STATE A week in Texas is time enough to sense the vast distances and reaches and immensities of that great state. Texas audiences will stand up a full six inches taller than similar groups anywhere east of the Mississippi, and weigh twenty pounds heavier per per son, upon an average. The size of Texas men and women makes an East erner fairly gasp. They are as big in brain as they are in body. You find your lung capacity immensely increased, and a sudden necessity for unreefing your vest and letting out your surcin gle in Texas. It is a state of boundless horizons, mental and physical. Quite as we CKpected, we found the colleges and universities of Texas full to overflowing, and turning students away by thousands. But also quite as we expected, we found the heads of educational institutions, church and state, talking to their constituencies not about paltry thousands, but in terms of millions of dollars. Texas is big enough and rich enough to expect such talk, and she is big enough and rich enough to respond in sort. The University of Texas For instance, the working income of 'the University of Texas is already one and a third million dollars a year. Which is more than four times the work ing income of the University of North Carolina. And the bottom has dropped out of the cotton market, nevertheless Presi dent Vinson is asking for three millions a year for university maintenance. And as for campus expansion neces sary to take care of ten thousand: stu dents within the next five years, he is asking for a building and equipment fund of seven and a half million dollars. And nobody challenges his nerve. Such things seem to be commonplace in The Lone Star State. The colleges and universities of Tex as, church and state, are all bent upon increased campus areas, increased build ings, increased equipments, increased salaries, and increased field activities. They are asking their constituencies not for thousands but for millions and tens of millions of dollars. And what the colleges of the state need they are sure to get. Not an editor nor a taxpayer in the state is registering any protest, so far as we could discover. They seem never to have heard the word picayune in Tex- I REMEMBER, I REMEMBER Canadian Courrier I remember, I remember. The house where I was bom; The little window where the sun Came peeping in at morn. You’d hardly know the old place now For dad is up to date And the farm is scientific From the back lot to the gate. The house and barn are lighted With bright acetylene. The engine in the laundry Is run with gasoline. We have silos, we have autos. We have dynamos and things; A telephone and gossip. And a phonograph that sings. The hired man has left us. We miss his homely face; A lot of college graduates Are working in his place. There’s an engineer and fireman, A chauffeur and a vet, ’Lectrician and mechanic— Oh, the farm’s run right, you bet. The little window where the sun Came peeping in at morn Now brightens up a bathroom That cost a car of corn. The milkmaid is pneumatic And she’s sanitary, too; But dad gets fifteen cents a quart For milk that once brought two. FARM-LAND TAX-VALUES The average tax-value of farm land in North Carolina in 1919 was $9.06 an acre; jn 1920 the revaluation average was $38.94 an acre, or more than four fold. It is a tremendous increase, but the average tax-value of our farm land is still far below the average current mar ket price in North Carolina—$36 below, and when we say this we have in mind the per acre value of farm land in North Carolina and in the other states of the Union as exhibited in last week’s issue of the News Letter. And it is fairly easy to see why'the revaluation farm-land averages in North Carolina are a long step upward. For instance, in 1919 the market price of our farm land was $47 an acre. At that time Buncombe and New Hanover, which led the state, listed their farm lands at $21 and $22 an acre, in the or der named; and yet these two counties were listing their farm lands at less than half the state average of market prices. Indeed the average tax-value of Carolina farm lands was less than one-fifth of the state average of mar ket values in 1919. An even dozen of our counties listed their farm lands at less than one-eight of the state average of farm-land values; 26 more at less than one-sixth; 23 counties more at less than one-fifth, and so on and on. The chances are that no other form of property in North Carolina was being listed in 1919 at a smaller ratio of its true value. The revaluation figures of 1920 lifted the tax-value of farm land from an aver age of $9 an acre to an average of $39 an acre. Which is to say, the present tax-value is $8 less than the 1919 mar ket value and $36 less than the market value of this year, upon an average. Not Inflated Values Clearly, farm land has not been listed under the new law on the basis of in flated values. The State Tax Commis sion has had a weather-eye for squalls and has lowered sails accordingly. The plain fact is that town properties of all sorts, corporation properties, and coun try properties, are all taxed this year at barely more than 60 percent of in flated war-time valuations. Mill spin- dleage, for instance, has been listed for taxes at almost exactly half of what it was selling for in the early spring in the syndicating market. The purpose of the law was to list town and country, private and corpo rate properties, at one hundred percent of normal values—not one hundred per cent of inflated values, and to place properties of all sorts on a fair average level of valuation. The result is a mar vel of achievement, and in our opinion it is not likely to be repudiated by the people of North Carolina. Doubtless there are minor changes that ought to be made as a matter of fairplay, but the work as a whole deserves to stand unshaken. The state has passed a great milestone and cannot afford to turn back. The values of farm land in North Carolina in 1920 range from $7.95 an acre in Dare to $113.17 in Wilson county. COUNTRY HOME CONVENIENCES LETTER SERIES No. 39 THE TASK OF THE DIVISION In reflecting on the results of the year’s work, a brief summary of which we gave last week, we naturally turn back to the motive behind the legisla tive act under which we have been work ing. The act, originally passed in 1917, originated, we believe, in the mind of Governor Bickett, whose purpose it was to provide competent engineering ser vices for the large contingent of our people who, on the one hand, could not well afford to pay for such professional advice and assistance, and in whom, on the other hand, the engineering profes sion unfortunately has not shown any real live interest. This latter aspect of the matter will be appreciated when it is recalled that for two years the Com mission was unable to find an engineer with an instinct for social service who at the same time could afford to accept the salary the Commission was able to offer out of the appropriation at its dis posal. In offering to cooperate with the Highway Commission in carrying out the purpose of this act, the University has been impelled by just this idea of social service, believing that it would be in a better position to fit the rising generation ‘ ‘for an Honorable Discharge of the Social Duties of Life” as men tioned in the Act of Incorporation of the University, if it should itself rise to the call which had apparently gone out un heard. It is in this same spirit that the members of the staff have thrown them selves outside of their regular Univer sity duties without any extra compensa tion. Just how well we have succeeded is for others to say. We thoroughly be lieve the idea is a big one and we look forward to the coming year in the con fident hope that we shall be able to reach out to an ever widening circle of, country people to whom we may bring the comforts and conveniences which engineering science has placed at their disposal. In the period of economic readjusment through which we are now passing those factors which lie closest to the funda mental basis of our economic and so cial life are the ones which merit our closest attention. The brains and brawn of the engineering profession have in the past been devoted almost wholly to solv ing the complex problems of city life. Today the problems of country life are eating at the heart of our economic structure. The task is to make life in the country more wholesome and happy by removing the last vestige) of un necessary drudgery. To accomplish the task is a problem of education as well as of engineering, and the achievement will go far tovJard solving the problem of increased world production.—P. H. D. Only 42 counties are above the state average of $38.94. In 13 of these coun ties the average is beyond $60 an acre. They are all choice tobacco or cotton counties, and most of them produce both these valuable crops; or they are what we call our big-city counties, where farm-land values are affected by convenient market facilities. Fifty-seven counties are below the state average and 14 of them are more than 60 percent below the average of $38.94. The table elsewhere in this issue gives the per-acre tax-values for both 1919 and 1920, in order to show the ratio of valuation increase in every county of the state. These increases range from 26 percent in New Hanover to 800 per cent in Wilson. The average increase for the state at large was 3lS percent. FARM-LAND TAX-VALUES IN CAROLINA Per Acre, by Counties, in 1920 and 1919 Based on Report of the State Tax Commission on Revaluation, Aug. 10,1920. Rural Social Science Department, University of North Carolina Average market value in 1920, $75 per acre, as reported by the U. S. De - partment of Agriculture; average tax value in 1920, $38.94; in 1919 it was $9.06; increase 329 percent. Rank County 1920 1919 Rank County 1920 1919 1 Wilson ..$113.17 $12.82 51 Currituck ..$36.30 $10.20 2 Pitt ....87.54 11.64 62 Stokes . ..36.02 8.60 3 Lenoir ....86.52 9.92 53 Cumberland ... ...36.82 9.21 4 Greene ....83.87 12.21 54 Carteret ...34.19 7.11 5 Wayne 81.37 11.07 55 Northampton.. ...33.99 11.64 6 Scotland ... 81.30 11.62 66 Perquimans ... ...33.89 9.44 7 Edgecombe... ....80.44 13.60 57 Gates ...33.20 9.31 8 Robeson ....76.23 11.14 68 Pasquotank .... .. 33.04 11.31 9 Nash ....67.82 11.50 69 Casweii ...32.54 6.42 10 Mecklenburg . ....67.31 12.85 60 Orange ...32.19 7.78 11 Gaston ....67.29 13.16 61 Anson .. 31.93 8.11 12 Johnston ....65.38 10.57 62 Haywood ...31.87 9.46 13 Beaufort ....61.31 9.00 63 Watauga ...31.09 7.85 14' Cleveland ....59.11 13.75 64 Caldwell ...30.17 7.97 15 Forsyth ....58.86 12.45 65 Avery ...29.51 9.37 16 Rockingham . ....57.79 9.08 66 Aiexander ...29.30 8.12 17 Vance.. ....56.39 13.00 67 Mitchell ...29.11 6.67 18 Guilford ....52.98 16.90 68 Richmond ...28.63 6.39 19 Durham ....62.19 19.99 69 Hyde ...28.14 5.58 20 Duplin ....50.45 8.20 70 New Hanover . ...28.05 22.59 21 Franklin ....48.73 10.16 71 Sampson ...28.00 7.26 22 Catawba ....48.60 9.68 72 Randolph .. .27.27 7.61 23 Craven ....47.94 6.65 73 Madison ....27.16 8.02 24 Rowan ....46.00 11.11 74 Washington ... ...26.88 7.90 25 Wake 46.73 10.73 75 Jones ....26.75 6.72 26 Ashe ....46.33 7.80 76 Polk ...24.61 7.86 27 Hoke ....45.05 9.48 77 Camden ...24.04 7.42 28 Buncombe.... ...45.00 21.32 78 Bertie .. 24.00 6.74 29 Cabarrus ....44.88 10.64 79 Transylvania . ...23.59 7.68 30 Martin ....44.72 11.13 80 Chatham ...23.09 7.04 31 Davie .... 44.00 9.62 81 Henderson .... ...23.00 10.86 32 Hertford ....43.36 10.36 82 Burke ...22.66 8.23 33 Davidson ....43.09 10.08 83 Pamlico ...21.09 6.51 34 Stanly ...43.04 7.84 84 Onslow ...20.69 8.32 36 Iredell ....42.63 10.32 85 Moore ...19.93 7.65 36 Yadkin ...42.32 9.43 86 Bladen ...19.24 5.28 37 Harnett ....41.62 8.65 87 Jackson ...19.01 5.33 38 Lee.. ....41.15 9.42 88 Macon ...18.18 6.71 39 Chowan ....39.92 11.60 89 Montgomery... ...17.60 6.11 40 Union ....39.77 7.66 90 Swain ...17.49 6.56 41 Person ....39.65 7.67 91 Tyrrell ...17.21 5.05 42 Rutherford ... ... 39.33 8.23 92 Wilkes ...17.06 6.40 ^43 Lincoln ....38.80 11.82 93 Pender ...16.17 6.83 '44 Surry ....38.72 11.65 94 Clay ...12.33 5.86 45 Halifax ....38.22 10.75 96 McDowell ...11.67 — 46 Granville ....38.20 ■8.88 96 Brunswick .... ...10.90 6.05 47 Alamance ....37.92 10.81 97 Graham ...10.76 5.65 48 Yancey. ....37.88 6.53 98 Cherokee ...10.03 7.42 49 Warren ....36.89 10.49 99 Dare ... 7.96 2.37 50 Alleghany ....36.62 6.68 100 tColumbus .... 7.48 fColumbus valuation for 1920 lacking. I ill 1 0 I:i I

North Carolina Newspapers is powered by Chronam.

Digital North Carolina