The 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.
JUNE 15, 1927
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XIII, No. 31
Editorial Boards 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 PostoRice at Chapel Hill, N. C.. under the act of August 24, 1912.
LAND TAX VALUES
It is generally conceded that the fa
mous revaluation year of 1920 resulted in
the uniform listing of property the state
over at something like its true value.
We are presenting elsewhere a table
which shows the average tax value of
land per acre in 1920 and five years
later, 1926. The table does not include
real estate inside incorporated towns
and cities, nor does it include manu
facturing properties outside incorpor
ated places, nor mineral, timber or
water-power properties unless a part of
farm property. For all practical purposes
the table may be considered as referring
to farm real estate.
In the accompanying table column
number one gives the average per acre
value of land as listed for taxation in
1920. Column number two gives the
average per acre value of land as
listed for taxation in 1926. The third
column shows the average per acre in
crease or decrease in the tax value of
land during the five-year period. The
counties are ranked according to the third
column, the county showing the largest
per acre increase (Burke) coming first,
and the county showing the largest per
acre decrease (Scotland) coming last.
Increases and Decreases
The table shows that in twenty-two
counties the average per acre tax value
of land increased, the increase ranging
from twenty-two dollars and fifty-
seven cents in Burke to fifteen cents in
McDowell.
The average per acre' tax value of
land decreased in seventy-eight coun
ties, from six cents per acre in Iredell
to thirty-nine dollars and fifty-four
cents in Scotland. Thus land values on
the tax books have increased in nearly
a fourth of the counties and have de
creased in slightly more than three-
fourths of the counties. The maxi
mum increase added to the maximum
decrease gives a total maximum per
acre ‘spread’ of sixty-two dollars and
eleven cents from the 1920 revaluation
values. The state average decrease
in the tax value of land during the five-
year period was six dollars and nine
cents.
East-West Contrasts
Tax values have held up much bet
ter in the western half of the state
than in the eastern half. Of the twenty-
two counties showing an increase in
per acre tax values, nineteen are in the
western half of the state and only
three in the eastern half. Of the
twenty-four counties with average de
creases in tax values of more than ten
dollars per acre, nineteen are in the
eastern half of the state and only five
in the western half.
The Tidewater counties have held up
better than the cotton and tobacco
counties of the Coastal Plains. In fact
the counties showing the largest de
creases in tax value of land are the
combination cotton-tobacco belt coun
ties of which there are about two-
dozen centered around Wilson. These
counties lead the world in cash crop
wealth production but they do not
seem able to retain much of the wealth
produced, and it is this great cash crop
center that has experienced the great
est slump in land values, judging by
the tax ^ooks.
The Piedmont and Mountain areas
have held their own remarkably well
during this period. The only area in
the western half of the state that has
shown a noticeable tendency to decrease
land tax values is the tier of counties
along the Virginia border from Person
through Watauga.
Irregular Counties
However, the thing that complicates
matters is the fact that there are glow
ing exceptions to any rule about re-
• gional increases and decreases. Some
counties • have increased their values
while neighboring counties with similar
or better conditions have decreased
theirs. In other words, the good result
of revaluation, the uniform listing of
property, has been lost, and very
likely there is less uniformity in listing
property now than before revaluation.
If we assume that land, including
buildings, was listed uniformly and at
approximately its true value in 1920,
then the five-year changes in per acre
values call for explanation. There can
be only two explanations; (1) real
changes in land values, and (2) tam
pering with the tax values,—getting
horizontal reductions, and so forth.
There has probably been more of the
latter than of the former.
Five years ago the counties that led
in country land values on the tax books
were the great cash crop counties of
the Coastal Plains—Wilson, Wayne,
Pitt, and their neighbors. Today the
counties that lead in country land
values on the tax books are located
mainly in the Piedmont areas,—Dur
ham, Gaston, Forsyth, Cabarrus and
others. Coastal Plains soils are far
more productive than Piedmont soils,
but manifestly there are other factors
than fertility that determine the value
of country real estate.—S.H.H.,Jr.
FARM LAND VALUES DECLINE
Farm real estate values in the United
States averaged about 30 percent lower
on March 1, 1926, than on March 1,
1920, according to a report by the
United States Department of Agricul
ture. In general the most severe de
clines in farm valuations since 1920
have been recorded in the states of the
Middle West raising grain and livestock.
There have been severe declines in
several of the Mountain states and in
certain cotton states.
In a region comprising primarily the
North Atlantic states and extending
westward into Michigan and Wisconsin
and southward into Delaware, Mary
land and the Virginias, farm land values
declined comparatively little. The same
is true of cutover country of northern
Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and the
upper peninsula of Michigan. In the
Texas Panhandle sharp increases in
farm values have accompanied the con
version of cattle ranches into cotton
farms.
Sustained or increased values in
western Kansas have been assocHated
with increased acreage of wheat, in
turn partly the outcome of a shift from
grazing which was aided by the de
velopment of improved power machin
ery. increases noted in western North
Carolina were in no small degree attrib
utable to residential and recreational
development, a situation true also of
sections of Florida and California.
It is estimated on the basis of the
data collected by the department that
the average value of farm real estate
per acre in the United States on March
1, 1926, was $76.47, compared with
$107.89 on March 1, 1920. These figures
are somewhat higher than those given
in the 1925 census. They show about
the same relative phanges, however.
More importance is attached by the de
partment to these relative changes
than to the absolute values indicated.
It is pointed out Ihafthe census figures
represent an enumeration of all farms,
whereas the 'bureau’s index is based
upon sample data. —Rural America.
THE NEW JERSEY PLAN
The New Jersey county library idea
is state, county and community com
bined, each doing its part, giving its
contribution toward the cost and hav
ing its share in the labor and service, one
working through the other never in com
petition, and each having the greatest
measure of independence possible to
efficient service.
In New Jersey the county libraries
consist of offices at headquarters, usu
ally in the county courthouse, a branch
or station in every community no mat
ter how small, a permanent reference
collection and Iban collection for supple
mentary and general reading in every
school.
The Idea at WorK
The number of stations in the
counties so far organized ranges from
ninety-one in the most sparsely settled
county to one hundred and forty-nine in
the largest county. The volumes at
these stations range from fifty to
several thousand, according to the size
of the community. As one county li
brary said in its statement to the people
at the time of organization, “Each
community is accredited with one book
per inhabitant.” In smaller places it
is necessary to have more than one
volume per inhabitant so that the peo
ple may have a choice. There is regu-
KNOW NORTH CAROLINA
2. Knitting Industry
The knitting industry is second in
importance among the textile group
of the state. Our textile develop
ment is confined largely to the
manufacture of spun yarns with
weaving and knitting coming more
and more into prominence. We
have only recently begun to turn
our yarns into finished goods. In
gradually passing from a producer
of coarse and fine yarns to a manufac
turer of finished goods we are only
repeating the history of the textile
industry of other regions.
There are one hundred and twenty-
nine active knitting mills in North
Carolina. Forty-five of these have
been established during the last
seven years, and eighty-eight, or
more than two-thirds of them, since
1910.
The principal products of our knit
ting mills are cotton hose, sheets,
and drawers, union suits and half
hose.
The capital stock of our knitting
mills is approximately thirty-seven
million dollars. This includes a con
servative allowance for several mills
that failed to report on this item.
The annual value of output, includ
ing estimates for mills failing to
•report on this item, is approximately
fifty million dollars. The value of
output for 1925-26 was considerably
larger than for 1924-26.
Knitting mill employees number
approximately fifteen thousand, in
cluding estimates for several mills
not reporting on this item. Nearly
two-thirds of the employees are
women, nearly, one-third men, and
two and a half percent are children
between fourteen and sixteen years
of age.
Ten hours constitutes a day’s
work and sixty hours a week’s
work.
lar and frequent exchange of books
between stations and headquarters, so
that every book is kept continually in
service. Each county is supplied with
a car fitted with shelves for the ready
transportation of books. A trained
librarian selected for personal fitness
for the work is at the head of each
county library. This librarian goes with
the books to the people making regular
trips in the book car over stated routes,
visiting each school and station, at in
tervals of about one month. She
leaves new books and takes away those
no longer being read, allowing the li
brarian and local committee to select
others in their place from the stock on
the shelves of the car. By such ex
change no book stands unused on the
shelves of a branch and each commun
ity has a continual supply of new
books. The arrangement of the books
on shelves allows a choice of books by
the station custodian or branch libra
rian. This is a greatly prized privi
lege. The librarian upon these viaits
advises with those in charge of the
branch or station, talks with the people
and straightens out problems. Any
particular book wanted may be bad at
any time by mail or special delivery,
and upon emergency calls the librarian
or assistant will make a special visit.
The office at headquarters acts as a
central bureau for information and
reference service for all branches and
stations.
Library Commission Helps
The Public Library Commisson gives
to the county library upon organization
fifty books for each station established,
and each successive year a sufficient
number of books to keep intact the
initial collection. These books are
selected by the county librarian. It
also pays to the county library every
year a certain amount of money for
each school building served; In addi
tion it lends books on special call nad
aids whenever asked with advice and
personal service. After the organiza
tion of a library in a county, the Com
mission works in that county only
through the county library, except in
exempt towns.
To say that seven county libraries
have circulated upward of two million
books from branches does not convey
the real work done. The ultimate value
of the w'ork consists in awakening a
desire for book service, creating a
belief in the printed word as a vital
factor in life, bringing books to people
who have never been able to obtain
them before, in giving reference ser
vice to the man in the cpuntry, in pro
moting a happier, better and more effi
cient rurallife,—that is the real work
of the new development. —Excerpts
from article in Library Journal, on
Equalizing Library Opportunities.
TAX VALUE OF FARM LAND PER ACRE, 1920 AND 1925
Five-Year Increase or Decrease in Per Acre Value
The following table, based on reports of the State Department of Revenue,
is designed to show the change in per acre tax value of land since the revalua
tion year. Column 1 gives the average tax value of land per acre for 1920; col
umn 2 the average tax value of land per acre for 1926; and column 3 the
average per acre tax value increases and decreases. The counties are ranked
according to the third column, from largest increase to largest decrease.
That is, in Burke county the average tax value of land increased $22.67 per
acre during the five-year period, while in Scotland county there was an average
per acre decrease in tax value of $39.54.
The table covers mainly farm real estate—land and buildings. It does not
include town real estate, nor manufacturing properties outside incorporated
towns, nor mineral, timber, and water-power properties owned by corporations.
State average tax value of land per acre in 1920 was $39.49, and in 1925 it
was $33.40, a five-year decrease of $6.09 per acre.
S. H, Hobbs, Jr.
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina
Average
Average
Average
tax
tax
tax
value
value
value
of land
of land
increase
per acre
per acre
or de-
Rank County
1920
1926
crease
per acre
1920-26
(1)
(2)
(3)
Increase
1
Burke.'
. $20.60
$43.17....
. $22.67
2
Cabarrus
44.81
66.93....
22.12
3
Durham
. 70.72
87.60....
. 16.78
4
New Hanover
. 62.66
62.73....
. 10.17
5
Stanly
41.10
60.21
9.11
6
Forsyth
. 68.74
76.06....
8.32
7
Vance
. 44.61
61.66....
6.94
8
Henderson
. 37.90
44.67
6.77
9
Chowan
. 33.68
40.40....
6.72
10
Caldwell
. 28.28
33.48....
6.20
11
Craven
. 20.23
24.79
4.56
12
Davidson
. 26.44
30.42....
3.98
13
Gaston
. 79.32
82.71....
3.39
14
Clay
13.28
16,21....
2.93
16
Mitchell
. 26.76.. ..
29.10....
. / 2.34
16 , Moore
. 25.64
27.45....
1.91
17
Macon
. 16.12
17.93
1.81
18
Guilford
. 60.31
61.62
1.31
19
Lee
. 28.78
29.67
.89
20
Cherokee
9.33
10.19....
.86
21
Graham
10.76
11.68
.82
22
McDowell
13.03
13.18
.16
Decrease
23
Iredell
. 39.60
39.64
.06
24
Gates
. 22.43
22.09
.34
26
Richmond
. 30.11
29.73
.38
26
Stokes
. 29.65
28.96
.60
27
Montgomery
. 17.60
16.60....
LOO
28
Yancey,
. 36.18
34.08
1.10
29
Avery
. 26.18
26.03....
1.15
30
Granville
. 35.24
33.94 ....
1.30
31
Orange
. 32.10
30.60
1.60
32
Dare
. , 7.94
6.34
1.60
33
Hyde
12.44
10.61
1.83
34
Rowan
63.14
61.20
1.94
35
Alamance
. 34.38
32.41....
1.97
36
Brunswick
. 13.62
11.43....
2.09
37
Jackson
. 19.13
16.96....
.2.17
38
Transylvania
. 21.30
18.92....
2.38
39
Buncombe
. 61.47
68.80....
40
Bladen
. 18.67
16.82....
2.75
41
Perquimans
. .30.27
27.61....
2.76
42
MecKlenburg
. 61.56
68.69
2.86
43
Catawba
. 48.11
46.03....
3.08
44
Rutherford
. 36.27
31.99....
3.28
45
Cleveland
. 66.78
63.44
3.30
46
Pender
. 16.89
12.66
3.34
47
Polk
. 31.20
27.82....
3.38
48
Anson
. 31.32
27.63....
3.69
49
Pamlico
. 26.45
22.65....
3.80
50
Pasquotank
. 49.91
45.30
4.61
61
Cumoerland
. 35.56
30.46
62
Swain
. 17.61
12.90....
4.71
63
Rockingham
. 40.86
35.82....
6.04
64
Washington
. 27.17
21.90
6.27
65
Columbus
26.68
20.35....
5.33
66
Chatham
22.69
17.13....
6.46
57
Wilkes
. 21.86
16.00
6.85
68
Onslow
. 23.81
17.93
6.88
59
Person
. 39.68
33.60
6.98
60
Carteret
. 20.02
16.99
6.03
61
Camden
. ■ 24.03
17.84
6.19
62
Currituck
. 37.13
30.46....
6.67
63
Randolph
. 27.46
20.44....
7.02
64
Alexander
. 31.93
24.56
. 7.37
66
Lincoln
. 39.86
32.36
7.51
66
Duplin
. 43.23
35.68
7.65
67
Bertie
. 29.41
21.74
7.67
68
Surry
. 38.78
31.09
7.69
69
Madison
. 26.78
17.79
7.99
70
Davie
. 46.96
38.47
8,48
71
Sampson
. 35.63
26.66
. • 9.08
72
Union
. 42.51
33.42
9.09
73
Yadkin
. 39.84
30.64
9.20
74
Northampton
32.10
22.56
9.54
76
Warren
. 37.61
27.83
9.68
76
Tyrrell
26.34
17.63
9.71
77
Jones
27.96
17.78
10.17
78
Haywood
40.50
30.06
10.45
79
Wake
64.83
44.04
10.79
80
Caswell
33.37
21.89
11.48
81
Watauga
39.37
27.44
11.93
82
Beaufort
44.05
30.88
13.17
83
Alleghany
36.09
23.73
13.36
84
Hertford
41.03
27.31
13.72
86
Hoke
56.67
42.70
13.87
86
Harnett
43.37
38.36
16.01
87
Ashe
44.61
29.42
16.29
88
Halifax
44.62
27.76
16.86
89
Martin
48.21
30.34
17.87
90
Franklin
47.86
28.08
19.78
91
Pitt
86.78
66.89
19.89
92
Johnston
66.60
46.00
20.60
93
Lenoir
77.30
65.66
21.73
94
Greene
• 84 60
61.60
23.00
96
Robeson
68.16
34.62
34.54
96
Wayne
92.70
57.16
36.54
97
Nash
77.83
41.25
36.68
98
Wilson
112.94
74.26
38.68
99
Edgecombe
79.52
40.56
38.97
100
Scotland
81.16
4J.62
39.64