North Carolina Newspapers

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. 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, No. 7. 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. 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, No. 13. 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, No. 18. 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. 48. 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, 6. 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. 22. 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, 28. 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. Special Studies 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 Terri tories?-Louise Young, Scarritt College for Christian Workers. | 3. Life on a Virginia Farm.—J. L. Charlton, Virginia. 4. The Farm Tenant Problem in the South; Helping Landless Men to Own Homes and Farms.— J. R. Steelman. Arkansas University News Letter, Voi. XIII, No. 35. 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 improved roads. 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 improved roads. Surfaced Roads 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 roads. 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. representing 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, Alamance county, 2. Orange County—Its Ag^iculture- Its Local Market Problem-Facts about Its Population. —A. B. McLennan, Orange county. 3. BeaufortCounty-HistoricalBack ground.—W. H. Windley, county. 4. Gates County-Historical Back ground.-W, H. Windley, county. 6. Health and Health Work in Brunswick County. -Lois Dosher, Bruns wick county. 6. Farm and Home Demonstration Work in Wilson County.—Julia Taylor, Wilson county. 7. A Study of Maternal Mortalities in Orange County, N. C.,- during 1924, 1925, 1926.—Lucy Massey, Kentucky. Civic Research 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 Seminar Library. ; 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 Fear Country, 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, . Arkansas. 13. A Consolidated School and Its Bea'^iforV Agricultural Activities.-G. E. Pankey. Virginia. 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, Lousiana. 17; Main Street in North Carolina. —Columbus Andrews, Caldwell county. 18. The Staple Cotton Co-operative Association of Mississippi. S. A, Wilkinson, Mississippi. 19. The Co-operative Peanut Grow ers in Georgia and North Carolina. —D. B. Tillett.. 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 roads roads 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 Rank County 60 Alamance^ 4.6. 61 Bertie Inone Percent of Percent of farms on farms on surfaced improved roads roads 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 46.4 46.2 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