The news m this publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
the university of north CAROLINA
NEWS LETTER
Published Weekly by the
University of North Caro
lina for the University Ex
tension Division.
OCTOBER 15, 1924
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. X, NO. 48
Elllorial B»urJ» B. C. Btansoa, S. H. Hobbs, Jr.. L. R. Wilsoa B. W. Knight. D. D. Carroll. J. B.Ballitt. H. W. Odam.
Enterod as second-class mattor November 14,1914, at the Postofficeat Chapel Hill, N. C., under the actef Autrast 24. 1912
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
1. What is the act the voters will ratify
^ or reject on November 4 ?
It is an Act to authorize a state
system of Port Terminals and Water
Transportation, adequately equipped,
attractive to water commerce, and open
on equal terms to all boat lines what
soever; to utilize and develop our river,
sound, and ocean opportunities as every
other water-front state in the Union
has already done. Just as North Caro
lina has moved into a state system of
public education and public highways,
so it is now asked to move ' forward
into a state system of public water
ways, and for exactly the same rea-
SOTis of public necessity.
2. What does the act provide? The basis
of the act?
It creates (1) a Port Terminals and
Water Transportation Commission of
seven experienced business men fully
empowered to carry out the purposes
and provisions of the Act, (2) to issue
bonds to acquire sites for such public
port terminals as may be deemed nec
essary, to locate, build, and equip these
adequately by and with the advice of
an experienced, skillful, and competent
engineer, (3) to issue bonds to buy or
lease ships, “when in its opinion ade
quate shipping is not provided by pri
vate enterprise to carry the commerce
tendered at the state ports,” (4) to em
ploy a competent engineer, a bonded
treasurer, port managers and helpers,
to fix port charges, and in general to di
rect the business of our waterways as
the business of our highways is directed.
The Legislative Bill was based on the
Report of the State Ship and Water,
Transportation Commission, which stat
ed as the result of fourteen months' in
vestigation, made with the help and ad
vice of a skilled Army engineer, (1)
that it is imperative to create a mari'
time industry on the navigable waters
of the state and (2) that the said indus
try will tend to reduce rail rates
throughout the state and place such
rates on a parity with those of other
states.
3. Who are the Commissioners? Their
duties? Their compensation? What
funds will they have to expend?
The Commissioners are J. A. Brown,
Cbadbourn; C. S. Wallace, Morehead
City; E. H. Bellamy, Wilmington;
George H.Butler, Clinton; A. M. Scales,
Greensboro; A. J. Draper, Charlotte;
and Wallace B. Davis, Asheville. These
are the seven experienced business men
named by the Governor and confirmed
by the Senate at the special session
last August. They represent both
parties and all sections of the state—
the tidewater, the mid-state, and the
mountains.
Their compensation is $10 a day for
each day in attendance upon regular
and special meetings, actual traveling
expenses to and from such meetings
and while in attendance thereat. They
are required t(« meet quarterly and
oftener if necessary.
The funds they will have to spend are
(1) the proceeds of not exceeding $7,-
000,000 of serial bonds issued gradually
as construction needs arise, say during
the next four or five years, as in thirty-
one other states with public port termi
nals. And (2) state bonds not exceeding
$1,600,000 to buy or lease ships, vessels,
and boats when and only when these
become necessary to defend the state’s
investment in port terminals. “The
Commission does not believe it will be
come necessary to operate ships, un
questionably it should do so if others
will not. ” So far not one of the 31
states with public port terminals has
found it necessary to operate freight
ships. The Act plainly lays the em
phasis on Port Terminals, not on Boats.
4. Where will the money come from?
The money with which to build public
port terminals and, if compelled, to
operate ships to protect the state’s in
vestment in terminals, will be derived
from the sale of 30-year, gold-bearing,
tax-free, five-percent bonds, guaran
teed by the full faith and credit of the
state. All of the 68 public port termi
nals in the 31 states have beenifinanced
by public bonds, municipal or state.
“Without exception state-owned ter-
miaals have not only been self support
ing but have paid off their bonded in
debtedness and have effected a reduc
tion of the freight rates to the interior
of the state.’’—Report of the State
Ship and Water Transportation Commis
sion, page 20. The original investment
money does not come out of the pocket
of the taxpayers, and if successful
the operating expenses, interest, and
sinking fund charges are paid by the
port terminal fees. Public port termi
nals are self-financing in other states
and they can be so in North Carolina un
less our people have less business sense
than the people of 31 other states. But
even if our public port terminals earned
nothing, the four hundred and sixty-odd
thousand dollars of interest and sinking
fund charges would lay not one cent of
tax on real and personal property. That
would come out of the General Fund of
the state, and the general taxpayer
does not now pay one cent into this
fund.
5. What is a first-class ocean port? Es
sential requirements?
“A first-class port is a port that will
accommodate ocean freighters drawing
30 feet of water.” So defined by the
London Conference to check the increas
ing draft of vessels and the enormous
cost of channel dredging and port im
provements that vessels of deeper draft
impose.
The essential requirements are (1)
adequate harborage for vessels of call,
at berths or for anchorage, (2) ade
quate turning space, (3) adequate
buildings and equipment for receiv
ing and discharging cargoes at mini
mum expense to railroads, ship own
ers, and shippers, (4) adequate ship
supply and repair businesses. Briefed
from House Document No. 109, 1st ses
sion, 67th Congress.
6. The maximum draft of overseas and
coastwise freighters? Can North Caro
lina develop such ports?
The Bismarck and Leviathan draw
41.3 feet of water, but four-fifths of
the overseas freighters in Lloyd’s
Register in 1918-19 drew less than 26
feet and more than nine-tenths of them
less than 30 feet. The average draft
of the coastwise boats is distinctly less.
The maximum draft of the Great Lakes
boats is only 20 feet. The bulk of the
water traffic in Europe is done in boats
and barges drawing from 6 to 10 feet.
Yes, North Carolina can develop first
class ocean ports, gradually of course
as their rail and water commerce in
creases. Houston, Texas, started in
1912 to develop such a port forty
miles inland, and is already dock
ing boats of 30-feet draft. And she is
doing it with fewer natural advantages
than the lower Cape Fear offers. The
Federal Government is spending six
teen million dollars to widen and deep
en the channel, public bonds are back
ing the effort, and Houston is concen
trating on digging public port sites out
of the mud and equipping them with
modern devices. Ports of this rank are
mainly man-made in recent years
the world over. Los Angeles, Houston,
and Esbjerg in Denmark are conspic
uous instances—all of them public ports
open on equal terms to the shippers of
the world. Beaufort and Morehead
City enjoy natural advantages far be
yond those of Esbjerg which digged
a public port site out of the shifting
sands. Every water-front state in the
Union, with one single exception, has
been forced in self-defense to develop
and equip its own public ports with
adequate facilities. The exception is
North Carolina. A rate-basing port is
necessary; the Inland Waterway with
barge connections is necessary if our
sound and river cities are ever to secure
advantageous rail and water rates. So
it has been in other states and so it
will be in North Carolina.—Port Termi
nals and Water Transportation Leaflet.
THE ONLY WAY
There are 68 public port terminals
in 31 states of the Union, many or
most of them created in the last 26
years. There is no way to control
rail rates except by water competi
tion; and there is no way to have
freedom in water rate competition
except by public port facilities open
and equal to the commerce of all the
world.
WATER TRANSPORTATION
North Carolina is recognized as
second to no other state in the Union
in progressiveness. Our state is at the
top in every respect except in fair
and equitable freight rates. The rail
roads are not to be blamed for failure
to give relief. The people have the
necessary remedy in their own hands
by a majority vote on Port Terminals
and Water Transportation on Novem
ber 4. If carried, the Port Terminals
Act will authorize the ^development of
water transportation in North Carolina,
and the installation of proper terminal
facilities to care for the vast business
the state now generates. This enor
mous volume of business passes through
ports of other states, to their material
advancement and to North Carolina’s
detriment.
Handicaps Encountered
Our state has developed thus far not
through aid furnished by favorable
freight rates, but in spite of the discrim
inatory rates that have served as a
great hindrance to amore rapid advance
ment. Development of water transpor
tation and port terminals by the voters
in November will mean that the great
est handicap imposed through the years
has been removed and the state in the
future will be permitted to expand ir
a manner that will surpass the expec
tations of the most optimistic.
Facts of Interest
A report recently issued by the Cen
sus /Bureau indicates that the total
wealth of North Carolina increased
from $1,647,781,000 in 1912 to $4,643,
110, 000 in 1922. That this growth is
continuing is shown by the statement
that the authorized capital of North
Carolina charters issued in 1921 amount
ed to $125,000,000; in 1922 to$126,000,-
000; and in 1923 to $213,000,000. North
Carolina ranked fifteenth among all
the states of the Union in the value of
manufactured products in 1919, and in
the South was second only to Texas
North Carolina stood fourth in the
United States in 1923 in the value of
twenty-two principal crops and fifth
in the value of all crops. It was first
in the value of tobacco raised, and its
cotton crop of 1,010,000 bales was
second only to that of Texas. The
value of crops increased from $131,072, •
000 in 1909 to $431,600,000 in 1923.
A Point to Be Corrected
A fact not so pleasant is given to the
the public in the statement of a New
York statistical bureau, namely, that
Virginia has approximately 60 percent
more wholesale and jobbing houses than
North Carolina and North Carolina
approximately 60 percent more retail
establishments than Virginia. This
simply means that the favorable
freight rates enjoyed by Virginia, based
on the Erie Canal (waterway transpor
tation, by the way), enables that state
to grow rich at the expense of North
Carolina retailers, who sell to our in
dividual consumers. The latter “pay
the freight” making Virginia cities
richer and themselves poorer.
State Pride
Every North Carolinian is proud of
his state. He should consider it a priv
ilege to be permitted to take part
in a movement which will relieve his
state and himself of paying further
tribute to Virginia. A favorable vote
in November for the state development
proposals will break the chains of eco
nomic servitude to another state.
The Remedy
Rates based on developed water
transportation, if good for Virginia,
will be better for North Carolina,
since we largely support that state.
Rate basing points in North Carolina
which will follow state-owned termin
als and developed water transporta
tion will bring relief.—Port Terminals
and Water Transportation Leaflet
No. 4.
STUDYING CAROLINA TOWNS
A more comprehensive study of
towns and villages in North Carolina is
being inaugurated at the University of
North Carolina through its Institute
for Research in Social Science. The
purpose of such study will be to supple
ment the material already gathered by
the Department of Rural Social Econ
omics and to assemble facts about urban
and semi-urban North Carolina. The
general statistical study will include:
location and position, public improve
ments, financial organization and
methods, town planning, sanitation and
housing, public health, public safety,
public works and utilities, public re
creation, services to rural communities,
business and industry, public education,
churches, fraternal orders, civic and
social service organizations.
Why Such Studies
Such a search after social values will
underlie North Carolina’s continued ef
forts to realize attainable standards ir
municipal programs. It is the busi
ness of the state and its public institu
tions not to concern themselves pri
marily with the size and wealth of the
towns and villages but to direct their
growth while they are small into cen
ters of health and beauty and social
comfort and industrial prosperity. The
growth and development of North Ca
rolina communities cannot be properly
directed without giving due regard to
the accomplishments of other states.
While it is always dangerous to bor
row programs or plans which devel
oped under circumstances totally dif
ferent, and expect them to work satis
factorily under other conditions, we may
be encouraged by their successes as
well as profit by their experiences and
mistakes. As Woodrow Wilson said,
“Every nation must constantly keep in
touch with its past; it cannot run to
wards its ends around sharp corners.”
The same applies to municipal pro
grams. We study progress in other
states and cities because their experi
ences “furnish us with light, but
not with conditions of action.” If at
tainable standards are to be reached in
North Carolina, there must be a basis
for comparison with municipal stand
ards in other states and provision for
continuous research into the conditions
in municipalities throughout this State.
The American City Magazine for
September, 1923, contained a list of sal
aries paid to the mayors of 700 munici
palities throughout the United States
with populations of less than 6,000.
These samples were taken from more
than 40 different states. Out of the
700 mayors there were 141 who received
no salary at all. Eighteen out of the
number received annual salaries of
$1,000 or more each; six out of the 18
received$1,600 or more each;two out of
the six received as much as $2,000 an
nually, andone of these received $2,600.
The Trend of the Study
What kind of salaries do North Caro
lina town and village officials receive?
How do they compare with the sala
ries of town and village officials in other
states? How do we rank with other
states? What are the general financial
conditions in North Carolina municipal
ities? What types of municipal govern
ment do we have? What is the best
form of municipal government for
small towns and villages? What is the
status of public welfare, education,
recreation, community organizations,
and general public improvements in
North Carolina municipalities? What
is the negro’s status? What is the
attitude of the people toward local
government and public affairs? What
percent of the people in each commun
ity vote? Are the muncipal laws of
North Carolina such as to encourage bet
ter conditions? These are only a few of
the questions that might be asked, but
enough to serve to indicate the trend
of the present study.
To be of permanent value any kind
of research must follow scientific
methods, which means that truth and
truth alone must be the final goal. It
might be said too that the truth is not
always complimentary. Too often it
hurts our civic pride to face the cold
facts, but it is only by this method that
solid foundations for progress in munici
pal affairs can be laid.
These studies will be closely correlated
with the University Schools of Engineer
ing, Commerce, Public Welfare, Educ
ation, the Departments of History and
Government, Rural Social Economics,
Sociology, and the University Exten
sion Division.
The studies this year are being pros
ecuted by Roy E. Brown and the
material gathered will be of value in
the organization of a Bureau of Munic
ipal Information and Research, plans
for which the University has been
working on for a number of years.
WHAT HURTS THE TIDE
WATER
That markets of the West are closed
to Carolina oyster shippers and those
of the East are closed to Carolina truck
shippers by reason of the appalling
freight rate discriminations, is an in
teresting discovery made by Josiah
William Bailey, who now is devoting
his time to the interests of the Port
Terminals and Water Transportation
measure upon which the voters are to
pass in the coming election.
A Chesapeake Bay oyster shipper,
Mr. Bailey points out, can ship oysters
to Kansas City for 17 cents a gallon
less than his competitor in North Caro
lina can ship them to the same point—
and this 17 cents is a handicap the
Carolinian cannot overcome.
A California truck grower, for another
example, he declares, can ship vegeta
bles more than 3,000 miles to the great
consuming markets of the East for
$119.00 a car less than his competitor
in Eastern Carolina can ship to the
same markets.
“Woodland and Co., Morehead City,
shipped a carload of oysters to Kansas
City,” Mr. Bailey said; “they found
that the rate from Baltimore was 17
cents a gallon less than from Morehead
City. This discrimination against North
Carolina oysters accounts for the fact
that, notwithstanding we have abun
dant oysters beds on our coast and ex
tensive waters in which to develop the
industry, we can make no progress as
compared with Virginia and Maryland
oysters shippers.”
If North Carolina were on equal foot
ing with its competitors, it could con
trol the oyster market, Mr Bailey con
tends, citing the fact that the Carolina
canned oyster, put up at Morehead
City, determines the price on thePacif-
Coast. This is because water
transportation, through the Panama
Canal, permits Morehead City to com
pete on e(jual footing with its rivals.
Adequate port facilities and water
transportation, he is convinced, iwill
solve the State’s rate problems.—Bryon
Ford News Service.
LOCATION NOT CHOSEN
To the assertion that Wilmington and
the Cape Fear basin are too frequently
mentioned as probable sites for the pro
posed port terminal development by the
State, General Albert Cox, chairman of
the committee in charge of the port
terminals and water transportation
campaign, replies that no port of entry,
nor any state port, will or can be chos
en until a survey of trade routes and
port possibilities is made by competent
engineers. In this survey, he states, no
potential port will be overlooked; all
will be given equal considereration.
Development of the State of North
Carolina, the broadening of its markets,
the lowering of its freight rates, the
creation of agencies through which a
larger service may be given to its
farmers, manufacturers, and merchants
in order that they may be placed on
equal footing with their competitors in
other states—the attainment of these
is the sole object of the North Carolina
port terminals and water transporta
tion project, General Cox declares.
‘This committee,” he says, “is not
concerned with the probable location of
terminals. That is a problem for the
Commission and its engineers. At
present we are bending our whole en
ergy to the dissemination of informa
tion concerning port and water devel
opment in order that our people may
vote intelligently in the coming elec
tion. Should the bond issue fail to carry,
then the commission would cease to
function. There would be nothing for
it to do. If the issue is carried, the
commission then will take up the mat
ter of terminal sites with an open mind,
guided solely by the advice of the
engineers.
‘For any one to say that Wilmington,
or any other town, will be chosen as
the port of entry would be foolish; for
at this time no one can tell what the
engineers will advise. There are
many factors that will govern the
engineers in their choice—and few of
these have been investigated to the
extent that any intelligent guess can be
made at this time.—Byron Ford News
Service.