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.
SEPTEMBER 21, 1927
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XIII, No. 45
Editorial Board: E. C. Branson, S. H. Hobbo. 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 Chape! Hill, N. C.. under the act of August 24. 1912.
VALUE OF FARM PRODUCTS
FARM PRODUCTION
In the table which appears elsewhere
in this issue the states are ranked ac
cording to the gross value of agricul
tural production per farm. This is not
■to be confused with gross income per
farm; it is the value at the current
market price of the crops and livestock
produced whether these products were
sold or consumed on the farm. The
value is gross because none of the ex
penses of production nor shrinkage
have been deducted. The estimated
gross value of farm production in 1926
was 16,666 million dollars or 251 million
dollars less than in 1926. The decrease
was due in some measure to the re
duced price of cotton. If the volume
of crops fed to livestock be deducted
the estimated values become 13,034
millions in 1926 and 12,985 millions in
1926. It is the larger or gross figures
with which this table deals, however.
South Ranks Low
North Carolina ranks second among
the states in the number of farms,
sixteenth in the gross value of agricul
tural production, and fortieth in the
value of production per farm. It will
be noticed that, in the last particular,
Nevada leads the states with an output
of $6,391 per farm; Iowa is second
with $5,266 per farm. Except for
California, which ranks fourth, all of
the twelve highest-ranking states are
mountain states or states in the West
North Central group. The cattle ranches
of the mountain states are large, thus
accounting for the high average produc
tion per farm. The corn and wheat
farms of Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Illi
nois and North Dakota are also rela
tively large and represent large capital
investments. California has a variety
of farros but its orange groves help
to bring up the average value of farm
production.
Half of the states show a per farm
output of from $2,200 to $3,660, but
none of the Southern states finds a
pla'be in this group except Texas, and
it ranks the lowest in the group. The
twelve states which rank lowest on the
basis of per farm production are all
southern states with production values
ranging from $1,704 to $1,085, Missis
sippi occupying the lowest place.
North Carolina ranks well among the
Southern states but fortieth among all
the states.
The average value of production per
farm for the entire United States in 1926
was $2,600 and all of the Southern
states ranked below this average. '
Systems Differ
As previously pointed , out, these
figures do not represent farm income,
or in each state the same relation to
farm income. Theiowa or Illinois farm
er has a much heavier investment
than the Southern farmer and he pays
out more for labor and taxes. A farm
er who owns 320 acres in Iowa may
employ two or three men by the month,
paying them out of the farm earnings.
The tract of 320 acres is classed by the
census enumerator as one farm. The
owner of 320 acres in the South may
have ten tenants and, if the owner also
farms, the tract would be classed by
the census enumerator as eleven farms.
This fact must not be overlooked when
examining such a table as the accom
panying one. The disparity in production
values is not so great as might
appear. ^
Nevertheless, a farm, wherever it is
located, is supporting at least one farm
family, and, in the case of a tenant farm
er, the gross income is divided with the
land owner. There is no question that
the average farmer in Iowa or Califor
nia is enjoying a higher standard of life
than the average farmer in Mississippi
or North Carolina. lierhaps we cannot
deduce from the table that the farmers
in thirty-nine states are better off than
the farmers of North Carolina, though
that may not be far from the truth.
Farm Incomes
From reports filed by 13.476 farm
owner-operators in all parts of the
United States net income returns were
computed. The average return, be
fore deducting interest payments or any
return for investment, was $1,133.
The average in the several geographical
divisions was as follows:
North Atlantic $1,166
East North' Central 1,169
West North Central 1,326
South Atlantic 569
South Central 973
Western 1,694
These figures'indicate that farm in
come, as well as the value of products
per farm, is lower in the South than in
other sections of the country. The
South has good soils on the average, it
has a longer growing season, it can
grow a greater variety of products than
any other section, yet southern farmers
are not enjoying as large an income as
the farmers of the North and West. The
net farm income is low even in states i
with large gross income per farm. Net i
farm income per farm must be very I
low in the South where gross produc- :
tion per farm is far below the average |
for all the states.—Paul W. Wager. [
CARNEGIE'S TRIBUTE
I choose free libraries as the best
agencies for improving the masses of
the people, because they give noth
ing for nothing. They only help
those who help themselves. They
never pauperize. They reach the
aspiring, and open to these the chief
treasures of the world—those stored
up in books. A taste for reading
drives out lower tastes. . . I prefer
the free public library to most if not
any other agencies for the happiness
and improvement of a community. —
Andrew Carnegie.
COUNTY ACCOUNTING
At the recent meeting of the As-}
sociation of County Auditors at Lake i
Lure an address was given by Paul W. i
Wager of the University in which he I
pointed out some of the larger tasks j
of the county auditors, or county |
accountants as they are.now called. A
few extracts from his address follow, i
“Greater gains in county accounting |
have been made in the last year than
any of us dared to hope a year ago.
I believe that the fiscal control act
which was enacted by the last general
assembly is one of the most advanced
pieces of legislation ever enacted in the
state. I believe, if it can be enforced
rigidly, it will elevate county fiscal
administration to a plane never before
reached in this or any other state. I
believe it will rescue county govern
ment from the condition of chaos,
wastefulness and irresponsibility by
which it has so long been characterized.
I believe its operation will be reflected
in lower , taxes, more efficient service
and a more responsive citizenship. I be
lieve it may inspire a confidence in local
government which has never before
existed, and this, in my mind, will be
its greatest benefit. All of the five
county government acts are commend
able, but the fiscal control act, in my
opinion, is the most far-reaching.
“The budget feature is ‘mandatory
and I hope that no county will be per
mitted to circumvent it in any way.
The necessity of levying sufficient tax
to meet current needs has resulted in a
reduction of anticipated expenditures
for next year in every county I have
read about. The balanced budget may
not often result in reduced taxes next
year, but it will prevent them from
rising so much in the years to come.
One of the first essentials of good ac
counting is a system of control and
that our new budgetary system pro
vides.
Uniform Accounting
‘ ‘The next most important need is uni
formity, not necessarily uniformity in
minute detail but a sufficient degree of
uniformity to permit inter-county
comparisons. The forms prepared by
the advisory commission for use in such
counties as care to adopt them are
designed with that in mind. I am
hoping that such items as the assessing
and listing of taj^les, the preparation
of the tax-books, tax collecting, and
other overhead expenses will be so
segregated that in each of these partic
ulars 'Comparisons between counties
can be eAily made. If the tax work is
costing 3 percent of the revenue in one
county and 6 percent in another county
that knowledge will prompt the latter
county to analyze its practices. If one
county is collecting taxes for one and
one-half percent and another for two
and one-half percent that knowledge
will prompt investigation in that field.
I should like to see the counties trying
to outdo each other in lessening ad
ministrative costs. I should like to see
a larger fraction of the revenue avail
able for constructive purposes. I have
a feeling that we need efficiency
engineers in public business quite as
badly as in private business. I do not
think that public business lends itself
so well to minute cost accounting as
does a manufacturing enterprise or a
railroad. But there are a few func
tions common to all counties the cost
of which should be reduced to a com
mon denominator,-for instance, the
cost of maintaining the jail or the
county home per inmate per day. The
cost of each road project should be
computed as closely as possible so that
the commissioners may know what
is a reasonable bid offered for sub
sequent building.
Enlighten the Taxpayer
“The reports of the county accoun
tants must be so simple that the layman
can understand them, and so illuminat
ing that they will be interesting. My
idea of a good accountant is one who
can prepare a statement that Bill Jones
and Tom Smith, who are average
voters, can understand. We cannot
expect taxpayers to pay taxes willing
ly, until the whole process of govern
ment is as visible as the display in a
show window. Good government is
dependent on a program of education
in accounting. First we must educate
the county accountant, then the com
missioners, and then the public.
“A budget is easy to understand and
I have seen more intelli^ble financial
statements in the last month or two
than I have ever seen in the county
papers before. The simpler these
statements become the more will they
be read, and unwarranted criticism of
county administration will be silenced.
“A monthly letter to the taxpayers
from the county accountant would have
a very great civic value. Cold figures
are not very digestible. There needs
to be some explanation, some means
by which the people may be kept
continuously enlightened about their
business, for government is after all
the people’s business. People object to
paying taxes when the product of
their sacrifice is uncertain and obscure.
They will pay taxes as cheerfully as
they pay their grocery bills when the
results are as tangible.”
WE MUST GROW OUR OWN
In connection with the debts of the
average Southern farmer and the
ruinous financing which has accom
panied them, especial attention should
be given to one fallacy which has cost
the farmers of Dixie more money
and more peace and satisfaction than
almost any other fallacy ever taught
here. I refer to the commonly accepted
saying, “The Northern and Western
farmers raise corn, hay, and meat more
cheaply than the South; plainly, there
fore, we should .buy those things in
stead of trying to grow them.” The
trouble is that even if the West can
grow corn and meat and some hays
more cheaply than we can, the man
who advises buying these things forgets
that when we pay the Western farmer
his cost of production for hay, corn,
and meat, we have only just started
the round of payments. Besides coat
of production to the farmer there are
seven and possibly eight other costs we
must pay as follows:
1. The Western farmer’s cost of
negotiating sales, and packing, sacking,
or baling his product.
2. Cost of hauling to Western far
mer’s depot.
3. Expenses and profit for middle
man buying from Western farmer.
4. Expenses and profit for wholesaler
selling to Southern merchant.
6. Expense of a nearly 1,000 mile
freight haul with a big profit for the
railroad.
6. Expenses of hauling from mer
chant’s store.
/ 7. Extra charges by merchant when
bought “on time,” to cover risk, in
terest, and coiiection.-Editor Clarence
Poe, in The Progressive Farmer.
NOTES ON PUBLIC EDUCATION
8. THE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS
The county superintendency is now
considered the strategic position in the
reorganization and improvement of
rural education. The office demands a
person of ability and professional
training and experience equal to that
of the other responsible educational
positions. In 38 states county super
intendents are the supervisory officers
for the rural schools of the counties
and have certain administrative re
sponsibilities varying in degree in the
diffferent states. In New England the
supervising officer is the town or union
superintendent. One state has also
“supervising agents. ” In New York
the rural superintendents are called
“district superintendents” and super
vise a section of a county. In Nevada
they are deputy state superintendents
and supervise one or several counties.
In Virginia they are division superin
tendents, and in many cases the division
and the county are coterminous. In
Delaware there are no county super
intendents, but state officials assume
duties formerly assigned to the county
superintendent. The term of office of
the rural superintendent is four years
in 18 states, two years in 16, and varies
in the others.
In 26 of these states the super- ^
intendents are elected by the people, :
usually in the same manner as other
county officers; in others they are ap
pointed by boards; in New Jersey and
Virginia they are appointed by the
state board or state chief school of
ficer. Although many competent super
intendents are found under the elective
system, it is on the whole an unsatis
factory method of selecting school of
ficials. Political affairs consume the
time and influence the action of
officers elected in this way; tenure is
uncertain and short; the officer must
be a resident of the county, even
though a better candidate could be
secured if selection were made from a
larger territory.
The powers and duties of the county
superintendent should be practically
the same as those of the city super
intendent of schools,
1. He is the executive officer of the
county board of education and admin
isters under its legislation the edu
cational policies determined by it.
2. He is the chief educational officer
of the county and is primarily re
sponsible for the conduct of the schools
as their professional leader.
3. It is his duty to make recom
mendations relative to the location of
schools, the number of grades required,
the type of building and equipment,
etc.
4, He selects supervisors, principals
and teachers for the schools, which
appointments are formally approved by
the school board.
6. He supervises the teaching in all
schools under the county board, either
directly or through assistants.
6. He determines the coursed of
study and the textbooks to be used,
subject to state regulations and the
approval of the county board.
7. He provides for teachers’ meet
ings and for a system of in-service
training and unifies and harmonizes
through bis school system the work of
the schools.
8. He sees that all records of edu
cational activities are kept in proper
form.
9. He has charge of health educa
tion, including health inspection, in
conjunction with the county medical
authorities.
10. He sees that the school census is
taken and that the compulsory educa
tion laws are enforced. —U. S. Bureau
of Education,
SCHOOL FACTS
The August 15 issue of State School
Facts publishes the answers to eighty
questions which it lists as “A Public
School Catechism.” It would be well
for teachers and taxpayers to familiar
ize themselves with these facts relative
to education. It appears that North
Carolina’s educational ranking among
the states was 41st in 1924. This is
not a ranking with which we should be
satisfied. A more universal acquain
tance with school facts and school
conditions is the first step toward
further progress.
VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Total and Per Farm by States for 1926
In the following table, based on data supplied by the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture, the states are ranked according to the gross value of
agricultural production per farm. The parallel column gives the approximate
total value of each state’s agricultural output.
The gross value of crops and livestock produced in 1926 was $16,666,600,000.
In 1926 there were 6,372,608 farms, thu.s the average output was almost exactly
$2,600. Nevada led with an output of $6,391 per farm; Mississippi ranked lowest
with $1,085 per farm. North Carolina ranked fortieth with $1,698 per farm.
In the total value of farm products North Carolina ranked sixteenth among
the states, the state’^s agricultural production approximating 463 million dollars
Texas is the only southern state which exceeded this figure.
Paul W. Wager
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina
Total value
Value of
Total value
Value of
crops and
cropsand
crops and
crops and
Rank State
livestock
livestock
Rank State
livestock
livestock
produced
per farm
produced
per farm
(in millions'
(in millions^
1
. .. $26
..$6,391
,26
SRfiS
$? 9ni
2
Iowa
....1,122
.. 5,266
26
Pennsylvania ... 677
.. 2,884
... 79
.. 6,093
27
Missouri
749
? 87K
4
California ...
672
.. 4,926
28
Ohio
.... 702
.. 2,869
6
Nebraska....
.... 694
.. 4,647
29
Maine
138
.. 2,768
6
Arizona
49
.. 4,636
30
Oklahonja ...
.... 622
.. 2,647
7
Montana
.... 211
.. 4.484
31
'Maryland....
.... 128
.. 2,614
8
Kansas
.... 706
.. 4,266
32
Michigan ....
.... 497
.. 2,689
9
Illinois
.... 922
.. 4,086
33
Delaware....
.... 26
.. 2,536
10
Idaho
.... 166
.. 4,066
34
New Mexico
.... 77
.. 2,430
11
Colorado
.... 236
.. 4,061
35
New Hampshire 48
.. 2,279
12
North Dakota .. 288
.. 3,791
36
Texas
....1,031
.. 2,210
13
Wisconsin ...
706
.. 3,660
37
West Virginia.. 164
.. 1,704
14
New Jersey.
.... 106
.. 3,606
38
Virginia
.... 317
.. 1,636
16
Vermont
100
.. 3,699
39
Florida
.... 96
.. 1,622
16
New York...
.... 664
.. 3,618
North Carolina... 453
. 1,598
17
Rhode Islam
.... 13
.. 3,324
41
Tennessee...
.... 373
.. 1,476 .
18
Washington
.... 242
.. 3,303
42
Kentucky....
... 374
.. 1,447
19
Minnesota...
.... 617
.. 3,277
43
Louisiana....
.... 178
.. 1,344
20
Oregon
.... 183
. 3,273
44
Arkansas....
.... 293
.. 1,320
21
Connecticut.
.... 75
. 3,228
46
Georgia
.... 322
. 1,293
22
South Dakota .. 249
. 3,131
46
South Carolina.. 202
. 1,170
23
Massachusetts.. 102
. 3,049
47
Alabama ....
.... 262
. 1,103
24
Utah
.... 76
. 2,923
48
Mississippi ..
.... 279
. 1,086