The news in this publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
THE UNIVERSjTY OF NORTH CAROLINA
NEWS LETTER
Published Weekly by the
University of North Caro
lina for the University Ex
tension Division.
DECEMBER 10, 1924
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE 0NIVESSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XI, NO. 6
Editorial Board* B. O. Bnonon. 3. H. Hobbs, Jr.. L R WIIwo, B. W. Enictht, D. D. CarrAll J. B. BoiUtt, H. W. Odam
Bnterad m ■•emd-elau mattar Mavambar U 1914, at tha PoataSea at Chapai Hill N. C.. andar tha act af Aoatut U.
1912
STATE-AID TO TENANTS
At the meeting of the North Carolina
Club Monday night, November 17, Mr.
Reid Kitchin, president of the Club,
presented a paper on State-Aid to
Landless Farmers. The following is a
synopsis of Mr. Kitchin^s paper.
There are 64,000 landless white
farmers in North Carolina. Should
the state extend its aid to these' land
less or tenant citizens, and, if so, under
what conditions, and why or why not,
were the questions discussed by Mr.
Kitchin.
Of North Carolina's 269,000 farms
43.5 percent are operated by tenants.
This figure has been attained by a
steady increase in tenancy since 1880,
when the rate was only 33 percent.
The present percentage does not seem
to be the peak of tenantry, for the rate
is steadily increasing.
These tenants are so handicapped that
they do not become the most effective
citizens. They get few advantages be
cause of their state of poverty. They
have little reading material; they
know little of sanitation; they seldom
state.
Many believe that this would weaken
the self reliance of the people. North
Carolina, along with other states, has
already the advantages of the Federal
Land Banks and Loan Associations,
through which a loan may be gotten up
to fifty percent of the value of the land
purchased, the loan not to exceed $25,-
000, payments to extend from 6 to 40
years, interest not to exceed 6 percent,
paid in semi-annual or annual install
ments.
Still other plans have been thought of
but they have not materialized. There
was an effort to aid the tenant farmers
in North Carolina in the 1923 legisla
ture, but as yet nothing but investiga
tion has resulted from this effort.
StarK Reality
“Some people see a remedy for farm
tenantry from the viewpoint of legisla
tion; some see it in socialistic reforms;
some from the viewpoint of education,
assisted by religious training; probably
an intelligent application of them all
would aid”, said Mr. Kitchin.
“But we are yet face to face with
stark reality. The tenant system in
get a fair education; they receive poor I North Carolina has enslaved a negro
religious instruction; in fact, they are population of 260,000 and a white popu-
deprived of the essential things that
go to make cultured citizens. Natural
ly, they develop the “don’t care” atti
tude and may be considered as a
“doubtful economic asset and a distinct
social menace. ’’
Advantages of State-Aid
State-aid to the landless farmer has
three main advantages: (1) a state
readily demands financial credit; (2) a
state is particularly competent to se
lect and acquire land needed for any
farming venture; (3) through the
aid of its colleges and agricultural de
partment, a state has at hand men and
women well qualified to practically
apply any policy it may adopt.
The questions now arise, should the
state extend its aid to these landless or
tenant farmers, and, if so, under what
conditions, and why or why not?
Various types of state-aid to landless
farmers have been triedby'anumberof
states such as California, Kansas, Okla
homa, and North Dakota. Several for
eign countries such as New Zealand,
Australia, Italy, Holland, Denmark,
and the British Isles have successfully
carried through plans of state-aid.
The ProposedJPlan
One of the most successful plans, and
the one that North Carolina might well
try, is that one being used by California,
which has as its outstanding features:
(1) small colonies of farmers settled in
farm communities, applying community
cooperation in marketingjproducts: (2)
careful supervision on the part of the
state executive agency, costing the
state nothing but its loan ofjcredit; (3)
actual successful demonstration to pri
vate owners that such a plan can work
successfully. From the ^standpoint of
the tenant state-aid has the following
advantages: (1) profits of private col
onizers are saved; (2) low interest
rates; (3) extended payments; (4) ex
pert advice and direction;'(6) lessens
the time in which each farm may be
improved, and (6) places the owner in
a position to earn enoughjmoney to pay
his principal and interest when due.
Under the California plan the Land
Board can either improve the land be
fore selling as farms to the settlers, or
lend the settlers up to $3,000 each for
making the improvements themselves.
The state asks a small cash],payment
on the land and requires the settler to
provide one-third of the money needed to
improve and equip the farm. Thus, capi
tal and credit are the twin keys)needed to
unlock the door to farm ownership in
California. The plan worked so well
in the establishment of the Delhi and
Durham colonies that not a farmer or
laborer was in arrears at the completion
of the first several years, and before
Durham, the first settlement, was a
year old, it had been visited and stud
ied by ofiicials of ten American states
and five foreign states. This undertak
ing has entered California on a new
economic era and has given that state
a new social background to rural life,
and a rural civilization worthy of the
iation of 300,000; it involves 117,000
farms. Altogether forty-three per
cent of our farming population ofl,-
600,000 are so engulfed. It will re
quire years of patient and intelligent
labor on the pirt of our economists and
sociologists to turn back the tide of
farm tenantry in North Carolina and
justify farm ownership by white men.
It is essentially a white man’s prob
lem.”
After Mr. Kitchin’s presentation of
the subject, many members of the Club
questioned him regarding the feasibil
ity of several phases of the question.
Dr. E. C. Branson was present, and
declared himself as being heartily in
favor of the community colonization
plan. He told the Club how Denmark had
practically eliminated tenancy, town
and country. Dr. Branson expressed
himself as being uncompromisingly
opposed to a state-aid plan of any sort
by which the State would act as credi
tor to the landless individually scat
tered here and there all over North Caro
lina. Such a plan he believes thoroughly
impracticable. Furthermore, North Ca
rolina does not need more farmers.
What she does need is to develop farm
communities, for it is only when farm
ers live together in farm communities
that true cooperation succeeds. This
is the argument for the California
farm community plan.
NOT IN OUR CLASS
The Presbyterian Standard calls atten
tion to and views with alarm a state
ment by the professor of sociology in
the University of South Carolina, to the
effect that there were 204 homicides in
that state during 1923, and 93 during
the first seven months of the current
year.
The esteemed Standard may not know
it, but at that South Carolina isn’t in
our class at all. For the year ending
July 1, 1924, 366 homicide cases—one
for each day in the year and one for
the extra day of leap year—were heard
in the courts of North Carolina.
Take notice, please, that the 366
cases were actually brought to a hear
ing in the courts. It is a reasonable
assumption that there were quite a
number of homicide cases not brought
to trial for various reasons. Therefore
the 366 do not account for all the homi
cides in our state during the year under
consideration. It is probable that the
number reached 400, or thereabouts;
and the rate since July 1st indicates a
considerable increase by next July.
But with the 366 cases we are so far
ahead of South Carolina that that state
isn’t in our class. In fact it is believed
that along with our boast of good
roads and industrial and educational
progress, it could probably be said we
are killing more folks according to pop
ulation than any other state. In any
event we are well up ahead. South,
Carolina is no doubt doing the best it
can according to its opportunities, but
the 204 killings down there are but
little more than half our record, if it
KNOW NORTH CAROLINA
It is sometimes lost sight of that
the United States is still a growing
nation, that vast portions of it are
undeveloped and that its rate of ex
pansion is increasing rather than di
minishing. Everywhere new cities
are springing up in the wilderness,
small communities grow over night
into thriving cities and unclaimed
lands are converted into rich agricul
tural lands.
A first hand example of this cur
rent growth is afforded by the state
of North Carolina.
The story of North Carolina draws
the imagination like a magnet, so
fascinating is the progress of its
people in the last quarter of a cen
tury. Many a man looking at a map
of North Carolina, with Pamlico
sound and the Atlantic ocean on the
east and the towering Appalachian
range in the west, so that it is
blessed with every climate of the
temperate zone, has envied its in
habitants their natural advantages.
But to North Carolina’s natural
wealth, the energy and industry of
its people have added taxable ma
terial wealth, with the result that
cities have sprung up from back-
woods settlements, straggling vil
lages have become handsome towns,
modern highways have been con
structed from sea to mountains and
where were poverty and privation
not many years ago are now plenty
and luxury.
The further North Carolina goes
on the road of progress the faster
she seems to move. Seven years
ago she spent $4,000,000 on school
maintenance. Last year the
amount was $23,000,000. In 1900
the value of her school buildings
was $1,000,000. Today it is $48,-
000,000. In three years she has
spent $76,000,000 on concrete and
macadam roads to connect the seats
of her 100 counties. Her wealth
has been multiplied by 10 in the
last 20 years. In 1900 her bank de
posits were $16,000,000, By 1923
they had risen to $345,000,000. She
has practically no immigration.
Her fortunes h^ve been piled up by
the brains and sinews of a native
stock that is not afraid of work.
North Carolina is increasing in
wealth faster than any other state
in the Union.
North Carolina is only one of
many states which by their progress
iveness in recent years are making
themselves factors in nations!
affairs. In the same manner are
formerly isolated and undeveloped
sections of all states making them
selves factors in state affairs. The
country still displays the healthy
glow of growth.—Tampa Tribune.
is really half.
Instead of trying to boost South Ca
rolina the Standard would do well to
invite attention to our own progress.
Can’t say that it is cause for boast,
but it is well to let the public know
that we do not propose to let South
Carolina get ahead of us even in num
ber of murders. —R. R. Clark.
NORTH CAROLINA LEADS
During the month of October North
Carolina led the states of the Union in
the aggregate number of spindle hours—
the number of active spindles times the
number of hours in operation during the
month. North Carolina has only one-
half as many spindles as Massachusetts,
but the cotton spindles of North Carolina
ran an average of 281 hours each dur
ing October, against only 128 hours in
Massachusetts. Both North and South
Carolina ranked ahead of Massachu
setts in aggregate spindle-hours. North
and South Carolina led all the states
not only in aggregate spindle-hours,
but in the number of hours the average
spindle in place ran during the month.
Measured in terms of aggregate spindle-
hours per month North Carolina is now
the leading textile state of the Unicm.
DIVORCE RATES GROWING
The table which appears elsewhere
shows how the counties of the state
rank in divorce rates for the year 1923.
(The rank of the states was presented
in last week’s issue of the News Let
ter.) In five counties no divhrces were
granted during the year, according to
the reports filed by the Superior Court
Clerks. Exclusive of these counties,
Franklin county, with one divorce for
every 286 marriages, ranked best in
North Carolina. Cherokee county
with one divorce for every 3.7 mar
riages had the highest divorce rate in
the state.
CheroHee Leads
Cherokee! Why Cherokee of all the
counties of the state? The divorce
habit is supposed to be, and usually is,
an urban one. But the three counties
with highest divorce rates are sparsely
settled, remote, rural mountain coun
ties—Cherokee, Avery, and Polk. Of
the ten counties with the highest di
vorce rates, six are in the moun
tains where family ties are sup
posed to be strongest. Of the ten
counties with highest divorce rates,
only two could be classed as urban.
Seven of them are sparsely settled, re
mote and rural mountain and tidewater
counties. Is it possible that the lot of
the farm wife in these remote areas of
the state is excessively hard? We
don’t know. We are merely asking
for information.
While the above is true, the di
vorce problem is mainly a prob
lem of urban areas. The rate is
high in several rural counties, yet the
great majority of divorces are granted
to urban dwellers. About one-half of
all divorces granted in the state in 1923
were granted in the ten counties which
contain the ten largest towns. Not a
single one of the state’s large towns is
found in the fifty counties that rank
best—the ones having from 20 to 285
marriages per divorce. The ten coun
ties which contain the largest towns all
had fewer than twenty marriages per
divorce.
Large Increases
The divorce rate in North Carolina is
growing at a very rapid pace. In 1916
the only state that had a better record
than North Carolina was South Caroli
na which grants no divorces. At that
time our rate was one divorce for every
32 marriages . Our rate is now one di
vorce for every 16 marriages and the rate
qteadily increases from year to year.
In 1890 only 163 divorces were grant
ed in the state. By 1906 the number
had increased to 380, by 1916 to 968,
and by 1923 to 1,497. Or to put the
the facts on a comparable basis, from
1890 to 1923 our population increased
67 percent, but our divorces increased
818 percent!
Manifestly it will be not many years
before the divorce problem will have
become a grave one in North Carolina,
even if it is not so considered at the
present time.
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE RATES
In North Carolina in 1923
Based on the Bureau of the Cfinsus report on marriages and divorces, show
ing the number of marriages for each divorce granted in each county.
North Carolina now averages one divorce for every 16 marriages, against one
for every 32 in 1916. The rate for the United States in 1923 was one divorce
for every 7.4 marriages, A total of 1,497 divorces were granted in North Carolina
in 1923, against a total of only 239 in 1903, or two decades ago. The total num
ber of divorces granted annually has steadily increased from 169 in 1887 to 1 497
in 1923. *
Buncombe leads with 99 divorces, Guilford comes second with 87, and Forsvth
third with 86. ••
The best record is made by Clay, Gates, Jones, Person, and Tyrrell counties
—all rural counties—which report no divorces in 1923.
S. H. Hobbs, Jr.
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina.
Rank Counties
1
2
3
4
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
26
27
28
29
30
30
32
33
34
36
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
46
48
No. Marriages
Per Divorce
Franklin 286.0
Camden 90.0
Johnston 80.0
Randolph 77.3
Yadkin 76.5
Montgomery .\... 73.0
Sampson 72.0
Bladen 69.0
Davie 68.6
Stokes 66.0
Scotland 67.0
Warren 66.2
Ashe 61.7
Hertford 46.6
Alleghany 42.0
Currituck 41.0
Chatham 38.6
Watauga 38.0
Yancey 37.6
Graham 37.0
Lee 36.6
Cateret 34.6
Harnett 33.8
Cabarrus 33.6
Hyde 33.3
Cumberland 31.6
Lincoln 31.4
Burke 31.2
Caldwell 28.7
Mitchell 28.0
Pamlico 28.0
Alamance 27.8
Craven 26.6
Hoke 26.4
Alexander 26.8
Caswell 26.0
Perquimans 24.8
Dare 24.0
Martin 23.9
Rockingham 23.4
Swain 23.2
Granville 22.9
Jackson 22.0
Washington 21.8
Wilkes 21.7
Davidson 21.4
Surry (1922) 21.4
Pasquotank 20.7
Rank Counties
49
60
51
62
63
63
65
66
66
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
66
66
67
67
69
70
71
72
73
74
76
76
77
78
78
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
92
94
95
No. Marriages
Per Divorce
Orange 20.5
•-M22E&-— 20,2
Wake 19.9
McDowell 19.6
Beaufort ig.s
Duplin 18.8
Stanly I8.7
Anson 17.8
Brunswick 17.8
Onslow 17.3
Rowan 17.0
Cleveland I6.8
Columbus 16.7
Iredell 15.9
Pender 15.2
Vance 14.6
Wilson 14.6
Macon 14.0
Henderson 13.5
Union 13.5
Guilford 13.3
Lenoir 12.9
Edgecombe 12.8
Rutherford 12.6
Mecklenburg 12.3
Richmond 12.2
Nash 12.1
Forsyth 12.0
Madison 11.9
Durham 11.7
Halifax 11.7
Wayne 11.6
Greene 11.1
Catawba 10.8
Chowan 10.7
Pitt 10.3
New Hanover 10.0
Haywood 9.8
Transylvania 8.6
Northampton 8.1
Buncombe 7.4
Bertie 6.6
6.2
6.0
6.0
5.4
3.7
Robeson..
Gaston,..
Polk
Avery....
Cherokee'.