North Carolina Newspapers

;jThe news in 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. MARCH 24, 1926 CHAPEL HILL, N C. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS VOL. XII, NO. 19 Editorial Bo rdt E. C. Branson. S. H. Hobbs, Jr.. L. R. Wilson, E. W. Knight. D. D. Carroll. J. B. Bullitt; H. W. Odum. Entered as second-class matter November 14, 1914, at the Postoffice at Chapel Hill, N. C.. under the act of August 24. 1912 WHITE AND BLACK CRIME Elsewhere in this issue is a table showing the number of indictments re- 'turned in the superior courts against whites and negroes in proportion to the population of each race in the county. These figures were compiled from the reports turned in to the attorney general by the clerk of the superior court of each county. The number of indict ments against members of each race divided by the number of inhabitants of that race in the county (in terms of thousands) gives the prosecution rate per 1,000 inhabitants for each race. In studying the table the following facts ought to be kept in mind: 1. In some counties only convictions were reported. Others included “prayer for judgment continued” with convic tions. However, the proportion of con victions was so large as not to greatly affect the rank of the county. (See footnote to the table.) 2. In some counties the proportion of negroes is too small to draw reliable conclusions from. The population of the following counties is dess than ten per cent negro: Dare, Alexander, Alle ghany, Ashe, Avery, Caldwell, Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Madison, Mitchell, Surry, Swain, Transylvania, Watauga, Wilkes, Yad kin, and Yancey, a total of twenty-one. 3. Figures are for superior court in dictments only. Several counties have county courts. Cases finally disposed of in such courts are not included in the table. The data’ offer no way of de ter-mining how many cases were dis posed of in the lower courts, and thus no way of comparing white and negro indictments in the lower courts. Some Conclusions Taking the figures as they stand we get some rather surprising comparisons and conclusions. In general the counties with the largest proportion of negroes are the ones with the lowest indictment ratios for both white and colored races. The counties with large white popula tion ratios generally have high prosecu tion rates for both whites and negroes In other words both whites and blacks seem to be generally well-behaved in areas having large negro ratios. In eleven counties in which at least one negro was indicted, the negro in dictment rate was lower than the rate for the whites. Those counties were generally the ones in which the whites were the chief offenders against lujuor laws And the cattle-tick eradication statute. In nine of these eleven counties the negro population ratio is fairly large. The negro indictment rate was dis proportionately higher in counties con taining large cities. This would indi cate that the negro has more difficulty adjusting himself to urban life than the white. The negro rate is disproportionately higher in counties in which negroes form a small proportion of the total population. This would indicate that the negro finds compensation in crime for lack of social life with his fellows, and hence the closer pressure of the color line. The indictment rate is enough higher in the central and western parts of the state to indicate that a larger pro portion of crime is committed in the western parts of the state. In general the older and more settled parts of the state have less crime. Communities that are less settled and are rapidly developing commercially and industrially have a high crime rate. This fits in with the theory that crime is the result of the maladjustment of the individual to the life of the com munity. The table raises many questions that future studies may help to explain. The next study will show what propor tion of the indictments are for violation of the liquor laws. LOCATING THE SCHOOL The following is a brief of a paper recently presented before the North Carolina Club by Mr. Brandon Trussell, a graduate student, on the question of the location of the consolidated school: whether in country, town, or village. The tendency in North Carolina has been to abolish the small schools and place a consolidated school at some point, often not the community center. The consolidated school should not only be located at the center of population, but some thought should be given to locat ing the consolidated school at the social center. The social center may be in the open country or it may be in the town or village. Usually the logical place for the consolidated school is in town. However, there are certain community centers, far from towns, in the open country, where the consolidated school should be located. The location of the consolidated school should be determined by an expert social engineer. In each state the consolidated school is defined differently, but we should think of the consolidated school not only as an educational center for the y('Ung but as a powerful agent in administer ing to the economic and social needs of the people where it is located. The con solidated school should contribute to the welfare of the entire community. There are certain sections in this state where consolidation in a large way will hardly be feasible because of mountains and other natural obstructions. In such cases the community, with the help of the state, may standardize a small school so that the best type of work may be done in that community. School Offers Hope One of the great problems in this state at present is how to maintain a satisfactory state of civilization on the farm. The rural social institutions have become greatly weakened. The con solidated school^ seems to offer largest hope for improving present conditions. The consolidated school will doubtless restore country life to its former virility if it is properly placed and is made to function in the farm community. The school problem is a social problem as well as an educational problem. Consolidation at present is more in need of direction than of promotion. While its primary purpose is that of equalization of educational opportunity, it is, in many cases, promoted in such a way as to emphasize inequalities instead of equalizing opportunities. Intelligent planning of consolidation is essential to the future success of the whole move ment. The Social Center The consolidated school should be placed at the social center. It is a mis take to place the consolidated school at the geographic center regardless of where the community center may be. Social groups should never be broken up. District or county lines should not separate a natural community. T.he consolidated school should be placed where it will render the greatest good to the community. It must be placed at a point where the people will support the school. Antagonistic groups should never be combined. Only those who have a community consciousness should be included in the district. Then if there be a community consciousness it may easily be directed to a recognition of the educational needs of the com munity and to the support of the school policies. Without such a community consciousness there will be a lack of co operation, and much trouble will arise because of a lack of cooperation on the part of the contending groups. The Open Country School At times, it is better for all concerned that the consolidated school be placed in the open country. Such a school de velops democratic expression and serves a great purpose in making country life efficient, satisfying, and wholesome. The consolidated school, at the com munity center, becomes a vitalizing force in uniting the community on a basis of common interest and common good. An example of the great work of a good school, in the open country, may be seen at Sunbury, Gates county, from which community have come a United States Senator, generals, con gressmen, university professors, judges, leaders in the church and leaders in business. On the other hand, there are barren communities where the school has not functioned properly and where not one single notable person has been produced. Where a natural consolidation takes CALL FOR LEADERSHIP Rural America calls for a states man who will help us, not only to solve the economic problems of pro duction and sale, but to create a finer and fairer social order through out rural America. The specialist has served the farm well. The chemist, the bacteriologist, and the mechanical engineer have effected a revolution in the methods and ma chinery of farming. The economist has turned his attention to the dis tribution of the products that the chemist, the bacteriologist, and the mechanical engineer have helped the farmer to create in greater and greater abundance. His work is far from completed. It will not be com pleted, in my judgment, until the farmers of America, by the grace of intelligent cooperative organization, have met and matched the grand- scale organization of business and industry with a grand-scale organiza tion of agriculture, until farmers as producers of marketable products no longer anywhere buy at retail and sell at wholesale, but stand on a par with other manufacturers in the con duct of their business. -Unless the economist helps the farmer to put agriculture on a par with other manu facturing enterprises, the day will come when the individual farmer will have to give way before a gen eration of great land-owners who will bring a vast'organizing genius to bear upon agriculture and Fordize the farming of America. But, after all, agriculture is more than a business; it is a life; and we have as ya.t hardly nibbled at the edges of the problem of creating throughout rural America a social order that will enable the sons and daughters of our farms to satisfy to the full their economic, social, intel lectual, and spiritual needs without emigrating to towns and cities. For leadership in this we await.—Glenn Frank. been carried furthest. In many cases ! sus of 1920 which shows 2.9 percent of the figures are only estimates on ac- ; North Carolina farms with either gas or count of the difficulty of determining | electric service. Allowing for the indi- when a rural line is serving suburban ' vidual home lighting plants and the few residents who work in town and when j farms with gas service, this figure of 2.9 it is serving a farming population. County Total No. Connecte farms farms Avery 1,472 . ... 26 Bertie 3,444 . 15 Buncombe , 3,798... . 77 Burke . 2,474 , .... 29 Caldwell ,.2,179... .... 34 Catawba 3,086 .. 90 Chowan ,.1,261... 29 Cleveland . 4,670... 475 Craven . 2,124 . 70 Davidson .4,022... 184 Duplin . 4,496... 66 Edgecombe... ..3,963 . 77 Gaston i ..2,493.. 26 Guilford . .4,067... 161 Halifax. . 4,868 . 67 Haywood . 2,176.. .... 39 Iredell ..4,136 . .... 46 Martin . 2,763 . .,.. 77 Mecklenburg. ..4,013. .... 100 Moore ..2,]35 . .... 17 Nash 6,007-. .... 21 New Hanover. .. 368.. 46 Pasquotank... ..1,630 . ... . 14 Polk 1,226.. 12 Robeson ..7,048 . 29 Rutherford. 3,510.. 27 Surry . 4,663 16 Transylvania., ,..1,023.. 76 Union . 4,991 . ... 21 Watauga . 2,133. ., . 6 Wilson.. .. . 4,616 30 Total 100,622 1,975 This estimate of one percent of the farms in North Carolina with electric service from central stations may be compared with the United States Cen- percent would probably come down to about one percent of farms with central station service. According to the census, North Carolina ranks 40th among the states in percent of farms with gas or electric service. The nation’s aver age is seven percent,^ and some states go as high as 26 percent. Why so Few Electrified? One reason for the low figure of farms with central station service is found in the low density of farms per mile of electric line. Our figures show an aver age of 3.6 farms per mile of rural dis tribution line in North Carolina. With the cost of building a line amounting to about $700, it appears that about $200 investment is needed to serve every farm. In most cases the farmer him self pays this sum before electric ser vice begins. This is especially true when the central station is a municipal power plant, since there is a state law prohibiting cities from spending any money for lines and developments out side the city limits. But there must be other reasons, also, for 3.6 farms per mile of line is above tbe country-wide average. Other rea sons are to be found in the unwillingness of many private power companies to cooperate in making rural extensions, and the meagre use of electricity on the farm, resulting in a high cost per unit. In most cases the current is used for lights and flat-irons only, and the use of electricity in agricultural operations is rare. Other reasons are the low cash incomes of many farmers, and ignorance of the possibilities of electricity on the farm. —A. T. Cutler. place its district lines should not be re stricted to the county lines. The school districts should be allowed to develop naturally. The idea is to retain the already established social group and to stimulate its further development. It is a fine thing to establish good human relationships, for by nature and environment man is destined to live in cooperation with his fellow man. The whole purpose of social organization is to bring about amicable relationships between men and groups of men. Any agency which can do this will be of great value. If the consolidated school, in its place, can insure better living condi tions, it truly becomes a source of great value to human society. The consoli dated school, properly located, not only serves as a great educational center, but develops leadership, and promotes economic, civic, and social cooperation in the community. SUPERIOR COURT INDICTMENTS In North Carolina from July, 1924, to July, 1925 In the following table the counties are ranked according to the superior court indictment rate per 1,000 white population for the year ending July 1,1926. The second column shows the indictment rate for negroes per 1,000 negroes. In six counties no negroes were indicted. In eleven other counties, nine of which have from fair to high negro ratios, the white indictment rate exceeded the negro rate. The table is based on records from the office of the Attorney General as re ported by the clerks of the superior court. Ethel Crew, Northampton county, and F. S. Wilder, New Hampshire Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina RURAL ELECTRIC POWER XVIII. From Central Stations Less than one percent of the farms in North Carolina have electric service from central stations. If we add the number of farms equipped with indi vidual lighting plants, like Delco and other fuel plants and individual water power plants, the proportion of farms using electricity might run up to two or three percent. This is an estimate based on the returns from a questionnaire sent out in cooperation with the State Department of Conservation and De velopment to the private and municipal power plants and the county farm agents of the state. Thirty-one counties, having a total of 100,622 farms within their borders, re port rural electric lines serving approxi mately 1,976 farms. This is a propor tion of 1.9 percent. But considering the 28 counties which have no rural electric lines and the 41 counties for which information is incomplete or lack ing, it would seem that not one farm in a hundred throughout the state as whole uses electricity from central stations. Counties for which the returns are reasonably complete are given below, with the total number of farms and the number of farms enjoying central sta tion service. These are probably the counties where rural electrification has Prosecu- Prosecu- Prosecu- Prosecu- tions tions Ranh County tions tions per 1,000 per 1,000 per 1,000 per 1,000 whites negroes whites negroes 1 Stanly* .. .7 ... 4.6 61 Davidson .... . 4.1... ....11.3 2 Currituck*... . .9 . ... ... .4 61 Madison* . 4.1... 0 3 Brunswick... . 1.2 . 2.4 61 Pamlico . 4.1... .. .10.9 4 Washington . 1.2 ... 2.2 61 Stokes . 4.1... ....14.0 6 Martin*-.. 1.4 ... 1.6 61 Yancey 4.1 . .... 3.7 6 Iredell , 1.6 ... 3.1 66 Alleghany.... 4.2 .. 0 6 Johnston. .. .1.5 . '... ... 3.1 66 Catawba . 4.2 .. 6.2 6 Wayne . 1.6 ... 3.6 68 Montgomery. . 4.4 , .... 17.3 - 9 Hoke . . . 1.6 . 4.3 68 Scotland . 4.4 ., .... 1.8 10 Beaufort. ... . 1.7 ... 2.9 60 Anson 4.6 .. 9.6 10 Bladen*^.. . 1.7 ... . ... 3.7 61 New Hanover . 4.7 .. 4.7 10 Craven . 1.7 ... 3.7 62 Swain 4.8, .. 43.4 10 Warren ..1.7 ... 2.6 63 Caswell .. 4.9... 6.3 14 Nash .... . 1.9 ... 3.8 63 Polk 4.9... .... 10.7 15 Cleveland ... . 2.0 . . 4.6 66 Avery .. 6.0... 0 ..2.0 ... 6.0 66 Columbus ... . 6.1... 6.1 15 Hyde .2.0 ... 4.6 66 Hertford.... .. 6.1... 7.1 18 Northampton ..2.1 .. 4.6 66 Surry .. 6.1 .. 6.7 19 Camden*. ... ..2.4 ... 2.3 69 Cherokee .... .. 6.6... 9.3 19 Franklin. .. , 2.4 ... 4.8 70 Dare .. 6.7... 0 pift fi 1 71 Lenoir .. 6.8... 8.4 19 Union . 2.4 ... 4.0 72 Durham .. 6.2... 13.8 9, 6 ... .0 72 Forsyth .. 62... .... 10.8 23 Yadkin . 2.6 ... 8.2 72 Henderson... .. 6.2... 23.6 26 Jones . 2.6 ... 6.6 76 Randolph .... .. 6.3... .... 25.6 26 Onslow*.. .. 2.7 ... 6.5 76 Pender .. 6.3.. .. 6.2 27 Chowan.. .. . 2.8 ... 2.1 77 Person .. 6.4.. 6.1 27 Davie . 2.8 ... 3.4 78 Transylvania. .. 6.6... 22.1 27 Edgecombe , 2.8 ... 6.0 79 Alamance.... . 6.6... 12.3 27 Rockingham* ..2.8 ... 2.9 80 Alexander.. . .. 6.8.. 6.8 27 Rowan .,2.8 ... 2.9 80 Vance .. 6.8.. 4.9 32 Rutherford.. ..2.9 ... 4.9 82 Orange .. 7.0.. 18.3 33 Ashe . 3.1 .. 13.9 83 Macon .. 7.1.. 17.2 34 Carteret* . . . 3.4 .. 11.4 84 Gaston .. 7.2 . 10.8 34 Greene . -. • . 3.4 ... 4.2 84 Wake .. 7.2.. 13.6 36 Granville ... ..3.6 ... 4.7 84 Watauga ... .. 7.2.. 44.1 36 Guilford .... ..3.6 ... 9.3 84 Wilkes .. 7.2.. 6.9 36 Robeson . 3.6 ... 3.6 88 Burke .. 7.3.. 8.6 39 Clay .3.6 .. 30.0 89 McDowell... .. 7.6.. 11.7 40 Cabarrus. .. . 3.7 ... 6.8 90 Mecklenburg .. 7.6.. 13.6 40 Gates . 3.7 .... 3.9 91 Wilson .. 8.0., 13.8 42 Bertie 3.8 ... 6.3 92 Perquimans. .. 8.2.. 21.6 42 Chatham. .. . t.S .. 13.4 93 Buncombe... .. 8.7.. 17.8 42 Graham.. .. ..3.8 0 94 Richmond... .. 8.9.. 16.0 45 Caldwell*... ..3.9 .... 4.6 96 Tyrrell .. 9.2.. 2.7 8 Q 6.3 96 Duplin .. 9.6.. 10.3 46 Halifax*.... ...3.9 .... 4.8 97 Lincoln ... 9.8,. 21.9 46 Moore ...3.9 ...37.3 98 Lee ..10.0.. 18.0 49 Sampson.... ..4.0 .... 6.0 99 Haywood ... ..14.1.. 22.6 49 Pasquotank. ..4.0 .... 3,8 100 Mitchell ..16.4,. 17.8 •^Convictions only. Rank should be lower.