North Carolina Newspapers is powered by Chronam.
The news in this publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
Published Weekly by the
University of North Caro
lina for the University Ex
OCTOBER 19, 1927
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XIII, No. 49
Kaitoi-iaJ Boardt L. C. Branson. S. H. Hobbo. Jr., P. W. Wager. L. P.. Wilson. E. W. Knight. D. D. Carroll. 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.
STUDYING THE HOME STATE
We are presenting below a list of re-
•tearcb studies made by the teachers
and students in the Department of Ru
ral Social-Economics during the college
year 1926-27. iirief summaries of many
of the studies have appeared from time
to time in the News Letter, as indicat
ed. Most of these studies are concerned
with some phase of North Carolina,
economic and social. During the last
thirteen years over sixteen hundred
such studies have been made in the de
partment. These reports ^re all prop
erly filed away and are a part of the de
partment library. '
U. S. Studies
1. How the States Rank in Value of
Farm Products per Farm, 1926. —S. H.
Hobbs, Jr., University News Letter,
Voi. XII, No. 46.
2. Comparative Costof State Govern
ments, 1926.—S.H. Hobbs, Jr., Univer
sity News Letter, Voi. XII, No. 46.
3. State Aid to Education, 1925.—
S. H. Hobbs, Jr., University New'S
Letter, Voi. XII, No. 47.
4. Pubiic Libraries in the United
States. —University News Letter, Voi.
XIII, No. 1.
5. The States Ranked According to
Mileage of Surfaced Roads, 1925.—
Henrietta R. Smedes, University News
Letter, Voi. XIII, No. 6.
6. Illiterate Native White Women.
—University News Letter, Voi. XIII,
7. The States Ranked According to
Percent of Farmers Filing Federal In
come Returns, 1923. —S.H. Hobbs. Jr.,
University News Letter, Voi. XIII, No.
8. The States Ranked According to
Percent of Population Filing Federal
Income Returns, 1924. S. H. Hobbs,
Jr., University News Letter, Voi.
XIII, No. 9. j
9. Expenditures by State Highway ;
Departments.—University News Let
ter; Vol.XIlI, No. 10.
10. State Aid to Colleges and Uni
versities. —University News Letter,
Voi. XIII, No. 12.
11. The Fuenitute Industry, 1926.-
U^iversity News Letter, Voi. XIII,
12. Income Taxes Paid by Corpora
tions, 1924.-University News Letter,
Voi. XlII.No. 17.
13. Corporation Tax Burdens, 1924.
— University News Letter, Voi. XIII,
14. State Revenues from Hunting
and Fishing Licenses, 1926.—Universi
ty News Letter, Voi. XIII, No. 23.
16. Rural Health Service, 1927.—S.
H. Hobbs, Jr., University News Let
ter, Voi. XIII, No. 29.
16. Caring for the Feeble-Minded,
19i/3._University News Letter, Voi.
XIII, No. 30.
17. Cost of State Governments, 1926.
—3. H. Hobbs, Jr., University News
Letter, V'ol. XIII, No. 33.
18. Transporting School Children,
1927.—University News Letter, Voi.
XIII, No. 34.
19. Expenditures for Luxuries and
Education, 1924. —University News Let
ter, Voi. XIII, No. 36.
20. Personal Income Tax Payers,
1926.—Paul W. Wager, University
News Letter, Voi. XXII, No. 41.
North Carolina Studies
1. Counties Ranked According to
Tax Value of Land per Acre, 1924.—S.
H. Hobbs, Jr., University News Let
ter, Voi. XII, No. 42.
2. Tax Wealth and Tax Rates, 1924.
—S. H. Hobbs, Jr., University News
Letter, Voi. XII, No. 43.
3. Negro Taxable Wealth per Negro
Inhabitant, 1924.-S. H. Hobbs, Jr.,
University News Letter, Voi. XII, No.
4. The Counties Ranked According
to Length of School Term in White
Schools.—University News Letter, Voi.
XIII, No. 3.
6. Improved County Government, A
series of eight articles. — Paul W. Wa
ger, University News Letter, Voi. XII,
Nos. 49, 60, Voi. XIII, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4,
6. Bonded Debt of the Counties. —S.
H. Hobbs, Jr., University News Let
ter. Voi. XIII, No. 11.
7. White Public High School Grad
uates per 10,000 White Population, 1926.
-S. H. Hobbs, Jr., University News
Letter, Voi. XIII, No. 14.
8. Municipal Bonded Debt in North
Carolina, 1926.—S. H. Hobbs, Jr., Uni
versity News Letter, Voi. XIII, No. 16.
9. White and Negro Death Rates-
the Counties Ranked —University News
Letter, Voi. XIII, No. 20.
10. Infant and Maternal Mortality
Rates, 1925.—S. H. Hobbs, Jr., Uni
versity News Letter, Voi. XIII, No. 21.
11. Expenditures of North Carolina
State Government.—S. H. Hobbs, Jr.,
University News Letter, Voi. XIII, No.
12. Births Attended by Midwives—
the Counties Ranked.—F.C. Upchurch,
Wake county, University News Letter,
Voi. XIII, No. 24.
13. Meat and Milk Animal Units per
Farm in 1926—the Counties Ranked.—
Paul W. Wager, University News Let
ter, VoL XIII, No. 25.
14. Census vs. Tax Values, 1926.—
F. C. Upchurch, Wake county. Univer
sity News Letter, Voi. XIII, Nos. 27,
16. Farm Land Tax Values, 1920 and
1925.—S. H. Hobbs. Jr., ’ University
News Letter, Voi.-XIII, No. 31.
16. Counties Ranked According to
Taxable Wealth per Inhabitant.—Paul
W. Wager, University News Letter,
Voi. XIII, No. 32.
17. Taxing Personal Property in
A SPIRITUAL RESOURCE
Today in America, as irf all other
times and places, there stand op
posed to each other the two systems
known as “Agriculture and Money-
culture”; and tbday, as in other
periods of decadence, the second
seems in danger of swallowing up
the first. Farming, insists Virgil
Jordan in the March Forum, is not
a business, nor a profession, nor a
means of making money, but a way
of life and self-sufficiency and happi
ness that has little in common with
an industrialized, urbanized society.
To force the countryman, one of
the finest and most ancient of
human types, into an alien mold, to
corrupt him with the ambitions and
ideals of his city brother, and to
measure him by commercial stan
dards, is to destroy rural life alto
gether. The land must be made
again our ultimate spiritual re
source, or we shall soon cease to be
a nation of men.—George B. Logan
in Social Forces.
1. County Government and Admin
istration in North Carblina—a docto
rate dissertation.—Paul W. Wager.
2. A Country Church Community
(Orange M.E. Church, Orange County,
N. C.); What Studies and What Ex-
North Cnrolina, 1926.-Paul W. Waiter, ,,eriencea Ought Home Mission Work
ers to have in Southern Rural
tories?-Louise Young, Scarritt College
for Christian Workers. |
3. Life on a Virginia Farm.—J. L.
4. The Farm Tenant Problem in the
South; Helping Landless Men to Own
Homes and Farms.— J. R. Steelman.
University News Letter, Voi. XIII,
18. State Revenue and the Equaliz
ing Fund.—University News Letter,
Voi. XIII, No. 37.
19. County Buying Power-Dartnell
Index, 1927. —University News Letter,
Voi. XIII. No. 39.'
20. North Carolina’s Bonded Debt,
1927._Univer8ity News Letter, Voi.
^ XIII, No. 40.
I 21. Federal Income Tax Returns, ; Trinity College, Dublin,
j 1926.-Paul W. Wager, University jj-ish Free State,
i News Letter, Voi. XIII, No. 42, Social Conflicts in a Country
22-29. North Carolina Club Studies: ^rea (in Louisiana).—Joseph L. Clark,
Modernizing Education for Citizenship Louisiana.
by Paul W. Terry; Training for Public. ^ Field Study of Native Illiterate
Service by Robinson Newcombe; The Women in Smyth County, Vir-
Case for the Short Ballot by A.S. Kar-, ginia. —Mary Phlegar Smith, Virginia,
tus; Elections and Election Practices,
ties would be different also.
It will be noticed that in fifty-two
counties at least fifty percent of the
farms were located on improved roads,
and in twenty more counties at least
forty percent of the farms were well
situated. Stated differently, 60.6 per
cent of the farms of the slate were on
The Ranking Counties
I New Hanover ranked highest among
j the counties with 84 percent of its
i farms on improved roads. While the
' county is to be commended, the fact
j loses some of its weight when it is re-
j membered that New Hanover is a small
I urban county with only 368 farms ail
I told. Greene has 2,826 farms and 83.6
i percent of them were on improved
; roads, hence its achievement is greater'
j than that of New Hanover. The same
■ might be said of Halifax, Edgecombe,
^ Jones and other high-ranking counties.
It will be noticed tliat many of the
high-ranking counties are in the Coastal
Plains area. This is not surprising, for
there road building is comparatively
simple and inexpensive.
It is quite natural that most of the
low-ranking counties should be moun
tain counties where road building is
exceedingly costly. These counties and
the Tidewater counties are sparse
in population, thus further discouraging
road building. Of the twenty-five low-
ranking counties eighteentare Mountain
counties and seven are Tidewater coun
ties. Alleghany ranks lowest of all
with only 16.0 percent of its farms on
When we examine the counties as to
the percent of farms on surfaced roads
we find that New Hanover leads also
in this particular with 66.0 of its farms
so located. The nature of ihe county
and the comparatively few farms are of
course contributing factors. No other
county approachf^B this record, Chowan
being second with a percentage of‘32.7.
It, too, is a very small county. Alto
gether eleven counties have percentages
of twenty or above. In most of the
counties relatively few of the farms are
on surfaced roads, less than five per
cent in 48 counties and only 8.3 percent
in the entire slate. Bladen, Tyrrell,
Hyde, Bertie, Currituck, Carteret,
Dare, and Gates reported no farms on
surfaced roads. This is hard to explain,
for all of these counties had in 1925
some mileage of state highway. It is
true Uiat most of this mileage con
sisted of sand-clay roads, but such
roads, if graveled, should be considered
surfaced roads. If the highway map
of 1926 was correct, Carteret and Ber
tie had some hard-surfaced roads at
that time. Most, if not all, of these
counties now have some hard-surfaced
Few Farms Served
' One of the interesting facts revealed
by the study is that in 1926 there were
20,016.6 miles of surfaced roads in
the state yet only 23,642 farms located
thereon. That means seven miles
of surfaced road served only eight
farms, or at least only eight farrns
were bordered by such roads. This
indicates that the farmers have re
ceived very liberal treatment by the
other taxpayers, or else that roads
have not been located primarily to
serve the greatest number of farm
ers. Of course road taxes are neces
sarily high in sparsely settled areas.—
Paul W, Wager.
FARMS ON IMPROVED ROADS, 1925
Percent Located on Improved and on Surfaced Roads
In the following table the counties of the state are ranked according to the
percent of farms located on improved roads in 1926. The percent of farms in
each county located on surfaced roads—concrete, macadam, or gravel—is also
indicated. The table is based on the United States Census of Agriculture,
1925. Of the 283,482 farms in the state, all except 9,360 reported in regard
5. Field Studies of County Govern- location, so the figures are fairly complete,
ment in North Carolina.—F.H. Boland.
8. County-Supported Hospitals in
by Paul W. Wager; Distributing the Carolina (17 general hospitals
Tax Burden by Miss Coralie Parker; g tubercular sanatoria).—Lucy
County Government Laws byRalph W. jyjassey, Kentucky.
Noe; The Trehd Toward Lawlessness by . g Buckingham County, Virginia,
J.P. Ashby; Safeguarding Public Credit Economic and Social Survey.-J.L.
in North Carolina by Myron Green. , chariton, Virginia.
County Studies ’ lO. Town and County Disorganiza-
. . tion, a Field Study in the Lower Cape
1. Alamance County-fcconomic and Country, N. C.-Lois Dosher,
Social.-This is a comprehensive sur
vey of the resources and institutions of
Alamance county.—J. W. Harden,
2. Orange County—Its Ag^iculture-
Its Local Market Problem-Facts about
Its Population. —A. B. McLennan,
ground.—W. H. Windley,
4. Gates County-Historical Back
ground.-W, H. Windley,
6. Health and Health Work in
Brunswick County. -Lois Dosher, Bruns
6. Farm and Home Demonstration
Work in Wilson County.—Julia Taylor,
7. A Study of Maternal Mortalities
in Orange County, N. C.,- during 1924,
1925, 1926.—Lucy Massey, Kentucky.
During the college year twenty-one
field studies of county government were
made, making the total of such studies
forty-three to date. Each of these
studies represents three or four weeks
of residence at the respective county
seats, and each report contains 100
pages or more. They have been typed
and bound and are on file m the Rural
; At the time of the census there were, in the state, 8,661 farms located on
; concrete or brick roads, 2,661 on macadam roads, 12,240 on gravel roads, 119,690
! on improved dirt roads, and 130,990 on unimproved dirt roads. In other words,
j 60.6 percent of the farms were on improved roads, and 8.3 percent on surfaced
i roads. New Hanover ranked highest among the counties with 84.0 percent of
i her farms on improved roads; Alleghany ranked lowest with 16.0 percent. In 8
' counties there were no farms on surfaced roads, and in 11 other counties more
! than ^0 percent of the farms were on surfaced roads,
j Paul W. Wager
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina
I Brunswick county.
I 11. A Southern Tenant Farm in the
i Tobacco Belt of North Carolina.—Julia
; Taylor, Wilson county.
’ Ig. The Regional Sociology of a
Rural County in Arkansas.-R.B.Vance,
13. A Consolidated School and Its
Bea'^iforV Agricultural Activities.-G. E. Pankey.
14. Social Agencies and Social Con-
BeaTfOTt flicta in a High School District.-Clyde
V. Kyser, Gaston county.
16. Social Services of a Consolidated
High School.-G.C. Hughes.
16 The Norwood (La.) Truck
Growers Association.—J. L. Clark,
17; Main Street in North Carolina.
—Columbus Andrews, Caldwell county.
18. The Staple Cotton Co-operative
Association of Mississippi. S. A,
19. The Co-operative Peanut Grow
ers in Georgia and North Carolina. —D.
20. A Farm Tenant Survey #of Ap
proximately Two Townships in Robeson
County.—R. L. Eastham.
21. A County Training School and
Its Agencies.-^G. E. Pankey, Virginia.
22. The Farmer Over the Hills.—J.
L. Charlton, Virginia.
Social-Economics , u w.
They were used extensively by the qN IMPROVED ROADS
State Commission ™ ^ the table which appears elsewhere
ment and are now available j counties are ranked
students of county governmen . ; percent of farms
The counties studied j^^^ted on improved roads. The paral-
were Hyde and J carLTt’ lei column shows the smaller percent
Wager; Brunswick, Cani^"> [^..^ted on surfaced roads-concrete, i
Person, and Yadkin, by Brandon Trus- tocated o ,
sdll; Cherokee,Clay, Haywood J^kson, 133^5 census of Agricul-i
Lee, Madison, McDowell, and Wa au- percentages are lower ^
ga, by Charles W. Edwards, and Cu
berland, Johnston, Lee,
Robesdn, and Wilson, by Myron
Montgomery, than would be the case today.
1 Green, ably the relative position of many coun-
Percent of Percent of
farms on farms on
Rank County surfaced improved
1 New Hanover 66.0 84.9
2 Greene 2.6 83.6
3 Halifax 24.4 79.6
4 Edgecombe 4.8 79.1
6 Jones 11.2 79.0
6 Stanly 24.2 78.7
7 Scotland 2.6 76.0
8 Pitt 14.9 74.6
9 Cleveland 1.6 73.0
10 Richmond 4.7 71.0
11 Bladen none 70.2
12 Hoke 0.1 69.2
13 Franklin 20.0 67.4
14 Martin 9.2 66.7
16 Beaufort 11.3 66.6
16 Lenoir 10.6 66.2
17 Wilson 7.0 66.0
18 Chowan 32.7....^... 64.4
19 Surry 2.1 63.9
20 Moore 20.6 62.8
21 Columbus 3.7 62.3
22 Vance 2.4 61.9
23 Montgomery 27.1 61.0
24 Mecklenburg 22.9 60.8
26 Randolph 23.6 60.6
26 Cumberland ........ 7.1 60.4
27 Robeson L6 60.3
28 Rockingham 5.9 69.4
29 Tyrrell none 59.3
30 Granville 5.1 59.0
31 Craven 14.4 68.3
32 Harnett 15.0 67.8
33 Wake 18.9 66.7
34 Anson 4.6 66.8
36 Sampson 2.1 54.9
36 Hertford 4.2 64.8
37 Warren 3.4 53.9
38 Davie 8.8 63.6
39 Catawba 1.2 63.2
39 Yadkin 3.7 63.2
41 Rutherford 0.5 62.6
42- Durham ...23.8 52.4
43 Onslow 2.1 62.2
44 Hyde none 62.1
46 Lee 12.0 52.0
46 Graham 4.6 51.4
47 Chatham 5.0 61.2
48 Johnston 5.4 51.1
49 Pamlico 9-5 60.9
60 Guilford 12.7 60.4
60 Alamance^ 4.6.
61 Bertie Inone
Percent of Percent of
farms on farms on
61 Alexander 2.1 60.2
62 Northampton 9.8 60.0
63 Pender 10.1 49.7
64 Gaston 8.2 49.4
55 Forsyth 21.0 48.8
66 Lincoln 4.6 47.9
67 Davidson 2.7 47.3
68 Pasquotank 16.0 46.9
69 Union 9.1 46.7
62 Orange 4.7 46.1
63 Person 15.3 44.6
64 Nash 6U 43.7
65 Clay :: 17.6 43.3
66 Perquimans 19.4>. 42.3
67 Caswell 2.1..\ 41.8
68 Stokes 0.3....\....41.0
69 Wayne 2.9 40.8
70 Wilkes 2.3 ,.40.6
• 71 Rowan 4.9 ..40.3
72 Camden 0.1 40.2
73 Iredell 3.8 38.6
74 Cabarrus 8.0 38.'^
76 Swain 3.9 37.^
76 Brunswick 3.9 37.2
77 Caldwell 3.6 36.2
78 Ashe 12.6 34.6
79'Jackson 6.3 34.4
80 Henderson 16.6 33.7
81 Currituck none 33.2
82 Madison 8.2 32.6
83 Duplin 1.6 31.6
84 Buncombe 18.7 31.4
86 Haywood 16.0 30.6
86 Polk 2.6 30.3
87 Burke 3.2 29.5
88 Carteret none 27.9
89 Dare none 26.3
90 Watauga 14.6 24.9
91 Gates none 23.6
92 Avery 13.6 23.6
93 Transylvania 16.1 23.1
94 McDowell 7.3 22.0
95 Washington 0,2...: 20.5
96 Macon 0.2 20.0
97 Yancey ; 13.8 19.8
98 Mitchell 11.2 16.2
99 Cherokee..., 3.2 16.6 •
100 Alleghany 6.3 16.0