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.
NOVEMBER 2, 1927
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XIV, No. 1
Editorial Board: E. C. Branson. S. H. Hobbc. Jr.. P. W. Wager. L. R. Wilson. E. W. Knight. D. D. Carroll. H, W. Odum.
Entered as secend-class matter November 14. 1914. at the Postoflice at Chapel Hill, N. C.. under the act of August 24. 1912.
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCES
MARESAGE5 AND DIVORCES |
The table which appears in this issue |
reveals the ratio of marriages to divor
ces in the counties of the state. The
'first column gives the ratios for the
single year 1926. Because the number
■of divorces in a county varies so from
year to year, it seemed desirable to
supplement the 1926 ratios with the
ratios obtained by taking a four-year
period 1923 to 1926, inclusive'. It is
according to these latter ratios that the
counties are ranked.
In 1923 there were in the state 24,028
marriages and 1,604 divorces; in 1924
there were 23,190 marriages and 1,468
divorces; in 1926 there were 23,337
marriages and 1,676 div'orces; and in
1926 there were 22,691 marriages and
1,591 divorces. The ratios of marriages
to divorces have thus beer, succes
sively, 16.0, 16.8, 14.8, 14.3. This trend
is characteiistic of the entire country.
When the counties are compared it is
found that thirty-three counties have
relatively more divorces than the state
average and sixty-seven have fewer.
They rank from Yadkin, with 151.2
marriages for each divorce, to Gaston,
with only 3.6 marriages for each di
vorce. If we take the single year 1926,
we find three counties—Jones, Pender,
and Transylvania—with no divorces at
all and Richmond wiiii a uivorce for
every 3.2 marriages.
Where Many Divorces
In the four-year period ten counties
— Gaston, Richmond, Avery, Robeson,
Buncombe, Polk, Cherokee, New Han
over, Durham and Rutherford—had
fewer than ten marriages for each di
vorce. It will be noticed that three of
these ten counties are urban counties
and five are counties Itordering South
CaccJtna. -Divorces always imore
. common in the cities than in the coun
try, for the reasons that more married
women are at work and financially
independent, city women have more
contacts with other men, private rela
tionships are more concealed, birth
rates are lower, and family ties in
general are weakened by the very
nature of city life. In the country, or
at least on the farms, the family con
stitutes an economic unit as well as a
more closely knit social unit. Hence it
is not aur^rioing to find Buncombe, New
Hanover, and Durham with high divorce
ratios. Mecklenburg, Guilford, Forsyth,
Wilson and Wayne are other urban or
semi-urban counties with divorce ratios
higher than the state average.
There may be no significance in the
fact that five of the ten low-ranking
counties are counties bordering on
South Carolina, though it is a striking
fact. It is known that many young
people in the border counties go to
South Carolina to be married because
I if more lenient marriage laws. This
necessarily reduces the number of
marriages in these border counties. The
fact that South Carolina grants no
divorces may lead certain South Caro
lina couples contemplating divorce to
establisfi a residence in North Carolina.
If both of these forces operate, a
reason for high divorce ratios in these
border counties is suggested. The
writer can offer no explanation for the
appearance of Avery among the lower
ten. It may be that in the case of
Cherokee its young people divide their
matrimonial fees with the officers of
all three states, Georgia, Tennessee,
and North Carolina, but necessarily
have all their divorce trials at home.
Ratios Vary Widely
The wide variations in the ratios
revealed by the table leave many ques
tions unanswered. Why should the
three high-ranking counties, that is
counties in which the integrity of the
home has been best preserved, be so
scattered—Yadkin, Jones, Currituck?
Why should Currituck and Camden in
one corner of the state rank so high
and Cherokee in the other corner so
low? Why so much discrepancy be
tween Johnston and its neighbor Wayne,
between Clay and Cherokee, between
Yadkin and Wilkes, between Frafiklin
and Vance? It may be that if figures
were taken for a ten-year period the
discrepancies would not be so great,
yet the four-year ratios reveal nearly
as great differences as the one-year
ratios.
Despite the large and increasing num
ber of divorces granted in the state
there may be comfort in the fact that
only two states had fewer divorces (in
1926) per 1,000 of total population than
North Carolina. These two states were
South Carolina, which grants no di
vorces, and New York which grants
absolute divorce only for adultery. In
that year North Carolina divorces num
bered 0.66.per 1,000 people. The aver
age for the United States w'as 1.52.
Stated differently, North Carolina
granted one divorce for every 14.8
marriages. The average for the United
States was one divorce for ev6ry 6.7
marriages. The wide variation among
the states offers an argument for
more uniformity in marriage and^ di
vorce laws.—Paul W. Wager.
HUMANITY FIRST
We cannot suppose that we are
to be benefited by great production
unless the men and women who
furnish it are themselves benefited
by it. We cannot neglect the
human element in our affairs. All
the cattle and grain, all the cotton
and wool, all the cloth and steel,
all the shoes and automobiles, will
be of small advantage to us unless
they contribute a more abundant
life to those who produce them.
Prosperity cannot be divorced from
humanity. —President Coolidge.
NORTH CAROLINA CLUB
The North Carolina Club at the Uni
versity has begun its fourteenth year
with a program which promises to make
the current year one of the best in its
existence. The club has, through the
years, been, studying the economic,
social and civic problems of the state,
or in the words of Dr. E. C. Branson,
its founder, “interesting itself in the
facts and folks of a real world. “
This year the club, in collaboration
with the School of Commerce, is under
taking, a comprehensive study of taxa
tion. The work of the local club will,
in turn, be a part of the larger i>ro-
gram of research that is being under
taken by the newly created State Tax
Commission. Hon. A. J. Maxwell and
Dr. Fred W. Morrison, chairman and
secretary respectively of the State Tax
Commission, have met with the steer
ing committee of the North Carolina
Club and helped formulate the year's
program.
At the first meeting Monday night,
October 17, Robert B. House, Executive
Secretary of the University, addressed
the club on The Historical Background
of the Tax Question in North Carolina.
He pointed out the historical and psych
ological factors which influence and
cloud our thinking in the field of taxa
tion. His interesting and thoughtful
address will help the members of the
club to approach their tax studies ob
jectively.
Tax Bias Inherited
Mr. House said that we need right
now in North Carolina a scientific, im
partial, intellectual consideration of
taxation. Instead, most tax thinking,
so-called, is a complex of emotions.
These emotional reactions to taxation
are an inheritance and a tradition. The
very words—tax and impost—have a
threatening and offensive connotation.
Originally taxes were levied by despotic
monarchs upon unwilling subjects. A
tax was an exaction with little or
nothing given in return. It was an
instrument of oppression, something to
be resisted. So intense was the feeling
against taxes that the tax-gatherer was
the most despised of all persons. A
prominent historian has said that Julius
Caesar was great because he was a skil
ful tax collector. When absolutism in
government began to give way to con
stitutional monarchy it will be recalled
that it was in respect to taxation that
the kings were obliged to yield. The
struggle between king and Parliament
in England was a contest as to who
should hold the purse strings. Finally,
the separation of the American colonies
from England was the result of a tax
quarrel.
Resistance to taxation is thus a tra
dition, a part of our social inheritance.
Liberty, we conceive of, as an escape
from taxation. Since taxation was
considered such an intolerable evil, it
was quite natural that tax evasion was
considered quite proper and moral. In
deed it now appears that some of
our Revolutionary patriots were' very
successful smugglers. Tax evasion
carried no stigma—and that attitude is
also a part of our inheritance.
Tax Dodgers in N. C.
These attitudes, characterizing the
early settlers of America, were pecu
liarly true of the first North Carolina
setttlers. North Carolina was settled
not direct from the old country but by
emigrants from other colonhs, chiefly
at first from Virginia. They were men
dissatisfied with the economic‘conditions
in these older colonies, among them the
taxes. North Carolina represented a
new frontier where economic conditions
would be more liberal and taxation
more nearly suited to their means and
ideas. They wanted “elbow room”
and at least lower taxes. Instead they
were cramped by the measures, of the
Lords Proprietors and the king. Their
land rents were high, their tobacco
duties were high, the Anglican Church
charged them for marriage and bap
tismal rites—ali as high or even higher
than in Virginia.
At the same time the frontiersman
could see little return for his taxes—
in protection, stability of government,
schools, roads, or any institutions of
public welfare. It was as though his
money and goods were distrained for
the benefit of a foreign power. The
people reached the conclusion that the
cheapest government was the best, and
stolidly refused to countenjance any
form of taxation for the public welfare
beyond keeping the peace. Numerous re
bellions and riots occurred, particularly
the War of the Regulation of 1761. In
the light of governmental policy, while
the people did have grievances that
ought to have been redressed, they did
not have cause for rebellion. Yet many
people thought at the time and some
people think today that the War of the
Regulation was the opening struggle
of the American Revolution.
Still Suspicious
As North Carolina began to control
its resources as an independent state,
foresighted men began to plan institu
tions of education and welfare based
on public support. From the beginning
of our history there bad been men of
this type and they were to increase
and prevail in the policies of the State.
But parallel with this progressive and
enlightened citizenship there remained
the individualistic pioneer type—citizens
who based their thinking on these age-
old wrongs and emotions, and doubted
that taxation could ever be anything
but injustice, and who continued to
confront taxes imposed by their govern
ment with suspicion and evasion.
Even so late as 1917 Governor Bickett
could refer ^o our tax books as “a
tissue of lies.^’ And while he aroused
the public conscience for a time, bis
work was short-lived.
Against this sentiment of resent
ment of taxation progress in our
government has been slow. It has
been difficult to get the citizen to tax
himself, or even to realize that in a
democratic government he does really
tax himself. He has felt all along
that someone else was taxing him and
not for his good. Taxation rouses
class consciousness. The farmer, the
laboring man, the manufacturer, the
professional man, each thinks that his
class is the victim of discrimination.
He may be right even about con
temporary taxes, but his emotions at
any rate refer back to some wrong in
the experience of his class with taxa
tion.
And, therefore, while we need to
overcome our personal biases and our
age-old prejudices in order^to consider
the tax question impartially and scientif
ically, while we must ascertain our
objectives as self-governing people and
measure our resources for investment
in these objectives, we must prepare
our minds for accurate estimates of
these problems. But in-order to go at
the question scientifically, innorder to
arrive at expert knowledge, we must
meet squarely and considerately these
age-old obstacles to straigCt thinking
about taxation. '
Fall Program
The tentative program of the North
Carolina club for the remaining meet
ings of the fall term is as follows:
October 31, An Outline of the
Present Tax System. Dr. Paul W.
Wager, acting Editor of the University
News Letter.
November 14, The Need and Plans
for Readjustment in Our Tax System.
Hon. A. J. Maxwell, Chairman of the
Corporation Commission and Chairman
of the State Tax Commission.
November 28, The Functions of
Government and Their Present Dis
tribution Among the Political Units.
Dr. Clarence Heer, Research Professor
of Taxation.
December 12, The Debt Situation in
the Sytate and in Its Political Subdivi
sions. Dr. Fred W. Morrison, Secre
tary of the State Tax Commission.
SLOWLY DISAPPEARING
Ten or 15 years ago, many of the
counties in this state joined in a move
ment to remove from themselves ;the
reproach of maintaining “poor houses,’’
as institutions of the kind had been
known. The poor house was elim
inated by substitution of the name,
“County Home.’’ And now the County
Home is on the disappearing list, be
cause maintenance of an institution of
the kind has become unprofitable in
some of the counties. 'Fhere are so
few charges to care for that it is
cheaper to board them out than to keep
them in a home. Two years ago the
mountain county of As^e put its ebunty
home and lands on the'market, because
there was nobody in that county to
inhabit the home. Other counties
have found the maintenance of a
diminished number of charges bur
densome, and McDowell, one of the
more prosperous counties in the moun
tain districts, has solved the problem
by negotiating with the commissioners
of Rutherford county for the bed and
board of the few “paupers” left in
McDowell. The “poor house” is an
institution of the past in flourishing
North Carolina. The County Home is
an institution that is going along with
its vanished name-sake.—Charlotte
Observer.
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
The county government advisory com
mission has been informed by its exec
utive secretary, C. M. Johnson, that
seventy-two counties of the state are
substantially complying with the new
county government acts, and that there
is no open opposition manifested in the
other counties. This is highly encour
aging. Mr. Johnson and his assistants
plan to spend as much time in the field
as possible and utilize as many county
accountants as can be supplied to aid
the couikies that are not making prog
ress and need assistance in putting the
new laws into effect.
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCES
Ratio of Marriages to Divorces, 1923-1926
In the following table the counties are ranked according to the number of
marriages for each divorce in the four-year period 1923 to 1926. The county
with the most marriages for each divorce is ranked highest. The ratios for
the single year 1926 are also given. The table is based on a recent report of
the United States Department of Commerce.
In the four-year period there were, in the entire state, 93,246 marriages
and 6,189 divorces, or a ratio of marriages to divorces of 16.2. Sixty-seven
counties had relatively fewer divorces than the state ratio and thirty-three
exceeded the state average. The ratio for the state in 1926 was 14.3.
Among the counties, Yadkin ranked highest for the four-year period with
161 marriages for each divorce. This ratio was also sustained in 1926, but
exceeded that year by Camden, Jones, Transylvania, and Pender, the last three
having no divorces. Ten counties had, for the four-year period, fewer than ten
marriages for each divorce, Gaston ranking last with a ratio of 4.6. In 1926
there were thirteen counties with a ritio below 10, Richmond being lowest
with a ratio of 3.2 and Gaston second with 3.6.
Paul W. Wager
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carofina
Marriages Marriages
for each for each
Rank County divorce divorce
1926 1923-26
1 Yadkin 161.0 161.2
2 Jones 126.6
3 Currituck 36.0 88.2
4 Camden 221.0 62.3
6 Johnston 33.6 64.2
6 Franklin 61.6 62.7
7 Stokes 67.5 48.5
8 Graham 27.6 46.0
9 Randolph 38.8 42.3
10 Clay 38.0 40.7
11 Chatham 36.8 39.8
12 Sampson 30.7 39.1
13 Granville 39.0 38.2
14 Pamlico 76.0 36.2
16 Perquimans 16.4 36.0
16 Bladen 20.2 36.9
17 Caswell 38.0 34.4
18 Davie 36.3 34.1
19 Mitchell 27.0 32.0
19 Alleghany 12.2 32.0
21 Alamance 33.9 31.7
22 Onslow 139.0 31.6
23 Gates .‘ 12.4 31.1
24 Person 12.3 29.0
26 Hyde 61.0 28.4
26 Lincoln 37.6 28.3
27 Surry 23.3......... 28.0
28 Lee 26.0 27.6
29 Montgomery 18.1 26.7
30 Hoke 42.0 26.6
31 Craven 24.1 26.1
32 Iredell 36.6 26.0
33 Cumberland 15.4 24.7
34 Harnett 32.8 24.6
36 Duplin 30.9 24.6
36 Wilkes 19.0 24.2
37 Pender 24.0
38 Ashe 21.0 23.2
39 Moore 37.8 22.9
39 Burke 27.7 22.9
41 McDowell 29.7 21.8
42 Carteret 16.6.21.0
43 Jackson 17.1 20.7
44 Warren 14.9 20.6
45 Davidson 13.7 20.6
46 Dare 11.7 20.4
47 Vance 14.9 20.1
48 Martin 22.0 19.8
49 Beaufort 19.6 19.3
60 Brunswick 16.0 19.1
Marriages Marriages
for each for each
Rank County divorce divorce
1926 1923-26
61 Pasquotank 17.2 18.9
62 Anson 11.9 18.6
63 Greene 16.0 18.4
64 Caldwell 17.6 18.0
66 Alexander 12.7 17.8
66 Watauga 16.0 17.6
67 Stanly 12.8 17.4
68 Tyrrell 19.0 17.2
69 Henderson 26.0 17.1
69 Wake 13.1 17.1
61- Rockingham 16.8 16.9
62 Washington 8.1 16.7
62 Union 22.7 16.7
64 Yancey 16.8 16.2
66 Chowan 27,7 16.0
66 Columbus 13.2 16.9
67 Cabarrus 13.5 16.6
68 Edgecombe 11.7 14.8
69 Rowan 11.? 14.4
70 Orange 9.4 14.3
71 Nash 16.6 14.2
72 Halifax 18.3 14.1
73 Macon 31.6 13.6
73 Wayne 11.0 .*.. 13.6
76 Catawba 16.4 13.4
76 Transylvania ... 13.4
77 Wilson 19.0 13.3
78 Haywood 11.3 12.9
79 Guilford 16.2 12.8
80 Scotland 6.0 12.7
81 Hertford 8.6 12.5
82 Lenoir 12.8 12.2
83 Forsyth 10.7 11.7
84 Swain 18.3 11.2
86 Bertie 13.2 11.0
86 Mecklenburg ... 9.1 10.9
87 Madison 11.7 10,6
88 Cleveland 6.6 10.4
88 Pitt 11.4 10.4
90 Northampton... 28.0 10.2
91 Rutherford 7.9..., 8.6
92 Durham 10.2 8.6
92 New Hanover .. 7.6 8.6
94 Cherokee 15.8 h.. 8.3
96 Polk 30.0 8.2
96 Buncombe 8.1 7.9
97 Robeson 5.4 7.0
98 Avery 8.7 6.9
99 Richmond 3.2 6.6
100 Gaston 3.6 4.6