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 10, 1927
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XIV, No. 2
Editorial Board: E. C. Branson. S. H. Hobbs. Jr., P. W. Wager. L. R. Wilson. E. W. Knight. D. D. Carroll. H. W. Odum.
Entered as second-class matter November 14. 1914. at the Postoffice at Chapel Hill. N. C.. under the act of August 24. 1912.
MOTORIZED AGE
A report from the Automobile Bureau
of the State Department of Revenue
snows the automobile registration on
October 4, 1927, to be 411,296. Of these
32,095 were trucks and 379,200 were
passenger cars. The accompanying
table shows the distribution among the
counties and tixe number of inhabitants
per car in each county. The counties
are ranked according to the latter
factor.
It will be noted that Guilford leads
with an automobile for every 3.9 people.
Pour other counties average a car for
less than five people. Quite naturally
the ratios are not so large in the moun
tain counties where there is a limited
mileage of good roads, and in the tide
water counties where boats are to a
considerable extent substituted for
automobiles, both for commercial and
pleasure purposes. Carteret ranks
lowest with 32 people per automobile.
Only ten counties have less than one
automobile for every ten people.
A Car per Family
The American worker has a higher
standard of living than the laborer of any
other country in the world. His present
standard of living includes a car to drive
to and from his work and for family use
nights and holidays. A few days ago the
writer drove by a factory employing
negroes mainly, yet there along the
curb was the usual line of cars parked.
It is true they were mainly Fords,
some of them old and dilapidated,
nevertheless they qualified as motor
cars. Across the way from my home
a colored cook drives to her work each
morning in a very attractive coupe. An
automobile is a part of the equipment
of the average American household,
and will remain so. This fact is going
to change the nature of our whole
social and economic life and all our
institutions. The changes are already
appearing.
Annihilates Distance
The automobile removes or reduces
the barrier of distance which has been
the greatest obstacle to the integration
of American life. Indeed it is this
barrier of distance which is mainly re
sponsible for the rapid motorization of
America. It is distance and isolation
which have produced the individualism
of the American farmer, it is distance
and sparsity of population which pro
duced the one-room school, the tiny
rural church, the crossroads store, the
justice of the peace, and nearly all of
our peculiar rural institutions. In the
cities, the barrier of distance has been
overcome, or sought to be overcome,
by tenements, by sky-scraperfe, by
concentration of industry.
The automobile, with the help of the
telephone and the radio, permits the
people to spread out without losing
their contacts. The cities of the
future will be less congested, the
streets will be wider, there will be
fewer tenements and sky-scrapers. The
suburban movement will be accelerated.
Indeed, industry itself will be decentral
ized. There will be many small cities
rather than a few large ones. Cities
will be more beautiful, more healthful,
more desirable in every respect.
Transforms Rural Life
Likewise the automobile will trans
form the country, indeed is already
doing so.. The consolidated school has
already come; the consolidated church
will soon follow. The crossroads store
has given place to the gasoline station.
Township governments, where they
exist, are being abolished. The country
people go to the county seat to trade,
to attend lodge meetings, to consult a
doctor or lawyer. The rural community
has been suddenly and marvelously
enlarged. It is true that the readjust
ment is not yet completed. Old insti
tutions are dying in some cases with
out new and better ones to take their
places. The situation has changed so
suddenly that a lagging in readjustment
is not surprising. The reorganization
of rural life in terms of the automobile
and a larger community* is the task of
the hour. It is a task that demands
statesmanship and leadership of a high
order. Is such leadership appearing
and will it ha^e the vision to build
wisely?
Not only will the automobile
j change both the city and the country
but it will blend them. The
mingling of farmers and townsmen is
I breaking down the provincialism of
both. The ease with which the farmers
get to town and the ease with which
the urbanites get to the country means
closer acquaintance and better under
standing between the twb groups.
Furthermore, many farmers and farm
ers’ sons are finding employment in
the Cities, driving back and forth fif
teen or twenty miles each day. On the
other hand, the business and profes
sional men of the cities are buying
farms and living on them several
months in the year. This movement is
not so pronounced as yet in the South
as in some areas. It is very common in
New England.' Indeed the automobile
has already gone far in transforming
and revitalizing the rural life of New
England.
The farmers of Pennsylvania, New
York, and New England sell great
quantities of produce to the tourists
from their roadside stands. They open
their homes as lodging places for the
tourists. The automobile thus helps
to carry the wealth of the city into the
country and at the same time to break
down the barriers of suspicion and mils-
understanding between rural and urban
dwellers. The automobile is likely to
prove the greatest integrating force
that America has known. It makes for
diffusion of prosperity, diffusion of cul
ture, and unity of interest within the
nation.—Paul W. Wager.
A TRUE NOBLEMAN
The instant I enter on my own
land, the bright idea of property,
the exclusive right, the indepen
dence, exalt my mind. Precious soil,
1 say to myself, by what singular
custom of law is it that thou wast
made to constitute the riches of the
freeholder? What should we Amer
ican farmers be without the posses
sion of that soil? It feeds, it clothes
us, from it we draw even a great
exuberancy, our best meat, our rich
est drink, the very honey of our
bees comes from this privileged
spot. No wonder we should thus
cherish its possession....This former
ly crude soil has been converted by
my father into a pleasant farm—
and in return it has established all
our rights; on it is founded our rank,
our freedom, our power as citizens,
our importance as inhabitants of
such a district. These images I
must confess I always behold with
pleasure. I know no other landlord
than the Lord of all land, to whom I
owe the most sincere gratitude.—
Crevecoeur, in Letters from an
American Farmer.
RURAL COMMUTING
The rural folks in this part of North
Carolina have come into appreciation of
the word “commuting,” a word whose
usage had been confined to the larger
cities, where people living in adjoining
towns would ride the train into the big
city to work in the morning, and
ride the trains home after work hours
in the afternoon. The rural population
of Mecklenburg has turned commuter
to a large extent, if we are to believe
the report made in this week’s issue of
The Mecklenburg Times. In fact, that
paper indicates that a system of com
muting has developed into large pro
portions. The good roads and the autos,
that paper says, make it possible for
the people to work in the city and con
tinue to live at their homes in the
country. They like to do this, says
the paper, adding that many who feel
that some of their time must be given
the farm, work in the city the balance
of the year. The Times sees in this
circumstance “one of the reasons for
the prosperity of Mecklenburg county,
for its farmers are among the best in
the state, and the income from the;
farms is supplemented by the steady
income of those who work in the
city.” The commuting privilege- is
particularly good for young people of
the county, for the reason^ as stated by
The Times, that it provides a steady ;
income, out of which they buy the '
things they want, from automobiles to
clothing, and are enabled to complete
their school work with the savings, as '
well as to supplement the family in
come when needed.
And as for the young clerks from the
country, they have a habit of develop
ing into Charlotte’s most progressive
and prosperous business men, as history
has proved.—Charlotte Observer.
their prebaccalanreate days.
This is not an entirely new venture.
A like plan was adopted a few years
ago by the alumni of Amherst. Vassar
and Smith and perhaps still other insti
tutions have also done something of the
kind in certain fields. But here is an
organized and subsidized effort to make
the continuance of intellectual contacts
between the graduate and his college
permanent. Other contacts are main
tained by most graduates out of filial
devotion to their alma mater, social,
financial, athletic or political. But the
highest objects for which college con
tacts are primarily made, are usually
cut off from view with graduation. Col
leges and universities are now largely
extending their extra-mural intellectual
contacts and constituencies through ex^
tension courses, but these are not us
ually designed for college graduates.
What is now proposed for college
alumni might be met through the addi
tion of extension courses especially for
them Consciences are not com
pletely “educated” at graduation nor
are minds finally trained.^ This is an
important phase' of adult education—
not that merely of the adult illiterate
or even of those who lack high school
or college training, but of the so-called
“educated.”—New York Times.
PRISON STATISTICS
There are now 4,191 persons confined
in penal institutions in North Carolina.
In the county jails there are 1,160.
In the county prison camps there are
2,301 serving sentences. Under the
supervision of the State Prison there
are 1,592. Ten years ago there were
only 1,230 prisoners in our prison
camps, compared to 2,301 today. Ten
years ago there were only 760 at the
State Prison and t9day there are 1,692.
Whatever may be the reasons for the
increase, the condition cries for study
and reform.—Public Welfare Progress.
EDUCATING GRADUATES
North Carolina has recently made
great strides in public education, and
now, through her state university, pro
poses a further advance. Her plan is
to educate the educated, beginning with
her own graduates. A committee under
the chairmanship of Mr. Daniel L.
Grant has submitted the project to the
Carnegie corporation and has received
its support in setting out upon this
educational mission. The conten
tion of the missionaries is that those
who sit in intellectual darkness have
every attention, while the most pf those
who have had “intellectual contacts,”
but have dropped them, wander aim
lessly in a sort of penumbra, a twilight
betwixt ignorance and full knowledge
in the liberal arts and the sciences
which they began under guidance in
SAVE THE CHILDREN
The final results of the children’s
tuberculosis clinics, conducted by the
Extension Department of The North
Carolina Sanatorium, during the school
year 1926-27 showed that 8.1 percent
of all children examined were tuber
culous. It was the first time , anything
of the kind had ever been attempted in
the state.
A total of 7,841 white and colored
children were given the tuberculin
test. Out of this number 1,864 reacted
to the test, or 23.79 percent. The
reaction to the test meant that the
children were infected with the tuber
cle bacilli, but not necessarily suffer
ing with active tuberculosis disease.
Physical examinations were given to
1,720 of the number reacting to the
test, and 1,820 of the number given
physical examinations were X-rayed.
Of those X-rayed 151 were found to
have tuberculosis, and 304 were sus
picious cases.
11. SOURCES OF SCHOOL FUNDS
School moneys are now provided by
states, counties, cities, townships, and
districts. In all states a portion of the
total cost is borne by the state. The
proportional amount varies greatly,
from Delaware, which provides 76.1
percent, to Kansas, which provides 1.6
percent. For the United States as a
whole, approximately three-fourths of
the total cost is borne by local school
units. In some states the chief
source of local support is a county tax.
In others it is a county tax with a
special school district tax. In others
there is the local school district tax only.
State school funds are received from a
number of sources, among them perma
nent invested funds, state property tax,
appropriations from general state
revenues, n^iscellaneous sources, such
as corporation tax, income tax, sever
ance tax.
The permanent school funds are large
ly derived from the sale of school lands.
These lands were given by acts of
Congress to the several states for the
benefit of public education. In a- few
cases States also set aside lands for the
benefit of education.
States are employing to a consider
able extent corporation taxes, income
taxes, and other types of taxes instead
of, or in addition to, general property'
taxes as a means of producing state |
school revenues. For example, schools j
in New Hampshire, Maine, New Jer-1
sey, Virginia, California, Delaware, and j
Wisconsin are supported in part by one i
or more of the following: Corporation •
tax, bank tax. railroad tax, public ser
vice and insurance companies tax. In
come taxes are used for schools in
Massachusetts, North Carolina, Arkan
sas, and Delaware; inheritance tax in
California, Virginia, Louisiana, Michi
gan, and Kentucky; severance tax in
Louisiana and Arkansas. , State in
come taxes for schools are considered
an excellent source of funds. The use
of this source has not extended so
rapidly as its advocates hoped, owing to
the creation of the federal income tax.
The severance tax is levied on all
natural products severed from the soil
except agricultural. It is believed by
many students of taxation that when
minerals, timber, clay, and other
natural products are removed the state
is permanently impoverished, and that
those profiting by it should pay tribute
which can properly be spent on educa
tion of future citizens of the state.
Severance tax and state income tax are
steadily growing in popular esteem as
sources of moneys for school support.
It has been emphasized also by stu
dents of taxation that whenever pos
sible the state should draw its-revenue
from sources other than those taxed
by its constituent public. corporations.
This principle has been definitely and
practically recognized in at least two
states, Massachusetts and California.
Whenever new types of state taxation
are proposed it is necessary to empha
size the fact that the reason for
introducing such taxes is to reduce the
general property tax, both state and
local, as far as possible. New sources
of income should not bo an added bur
den, but should tend toward a better
distribution of tax burdens. —U. S.
Bureau of Education.
MOTOR CARS IN NORTH CAROLINA
Inhabitants per Car, October 4, 1927
In the following table the number of automobiles in >each county is indi
cated and the counties ranked according to the ratio of automobiles to popu
lation. Up to October 4, 1927, the registrations for the year numbered 379,200
passenger cars and 32,095 trucks, or a total of 411,296. This does not 'include
HOO piotorcycles.
When the counties are compared it is found that Guilfo^i^d leads both in the
total number of cars and in the ratio of cars to population. It has 24,866 cars
or one for every 3.9 people. Mecklenburg is second in rank in both particulars.
Graham has the fewest cars, 261. Carteret has fewer cars "in proportion to
population than any other county, the ratio being one car to every 32,0 people.
Its low rank in cars is no doubt due in part to the fact that many of its citizens
own motor boats. The average for the state is one car for every 6.8 people.
This table is based on figures recently released by the Automotive Bureau
of the State Department of Reve^iue and estimated population of the counties.
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina
Number Inhabitants
Rank County of cars per car
1 Guilford 24,866 3.9
2 Mecklenburg ...22,676 4.1
3 Moore 6,720 4.4
4 Buncombe 15,720 4.9
4 Person 4,095 4.9
6 Rowan' 9,630 6.1
7 Davidson 7,626 5.3
7 Henderson 3,740 6.3
9 Alamance 6,675 6.4
10 Liifcoln 3,320 5.6
11 Wake 16,246 5.6
12 Durham 8,416 6.7
12 Iredell 7,116 5.7
14 Cabarrus 7,005 6.8
14 Nash 8,280 6.8
14 Randolph 6,475 6.8
17 Catawba 6,355 6.1
18 Chowan 1,720 6.2
19 Alexander 2,030 6.3
19 Camden..; 860 6.3
21 Montgomery ... 2,290 6.4
22 Cleveland 6,916 6.5
23 Gaston 9,866 6.6
24 Forsyth 16,466 6.7
24 Lee ...: 2,245 6.7
24 Rockingham 5,760 6.7
24 Wilson 6,610 6.7
28 Davie 2,025 6.8
28 Richmond 4,446 6.8
30 Pasquotank 2,666 6.9
31 Edgecombe '6,170 7.0
3a Beaufort 4,416 7.1
33 Harnett 4,736 7.2
34 Pitt 7,320 7.3
36 Orange 2,736 7.4
,36 Rutherford 4,600 7.6
36 Scotland 2,196 7.6
38 Caldwell 2,746 7.6
38 Lenoir 4,735 7^6
40 Chatham 3,170 7.7
40 Stanly 4,486 7.7
42 Bertie 3/126 7.9
42 Perquimans 1,425 7.9
44 Craven 3,990 8.0
44 Jobnst^ 6,940 8.0
44 Union 4,910 8.0
47 Granville 3,450 8.1
47 Surry 4,440 8.1
49 Cumberland 4,766 8.2
49 Duplin 4,186 8.2
Number Inhabitants
Rank County of cars per car
49 Stokes 2,636 8.2
62 Northampton... 2,676 8.3
62 Yadkin 2,140 8.3
54 Halifax 6,660.; 8.6
64 Martin 2,725 8.6
54 New Hanover .. 6,612 8.6
67 Greene 2,180 8.7
57 Hertford .’ 1,936 8.7
69 Burke 2,800 8.8
60 Sampson 4,600 !... 8.9
60 Transylvania... 1,260 8.9-
62 Franklin 3,110 9.0
62 Wayne 6,9^6' 9.0
64 Alleghany 810 9.1
64 Vance 2, 916 9.1
66 Pamlico 966 9.4
67 Pender 1,560 9.6
67 Haywood 2,646 9.5
67 Tyfrell .• 610 9.5
70 Polk 9S0 9.8
71 Columbus :. 3,210 9.9
71 Onslow 1,520 9.9
73 Robeson 6,000 10.0
73 Warren 2,265 10.0
75 Jackson 1,340 10.1
76 Hoke 1,286 10.2 ''
77 McDowell 1,881 10.^
78 Caswell 1,676 10.4
78 Gates 1,022..; 10.4
80 Anson 2,880...-. 10.6
81 Washington 1,035 11.3
82 Bladen 1,846 11.4
83 Jones 936 11.7
84 Currituck 690 12.2
85 Hyde 685 12.2
86 Brunswick 1,266 12.3
87 Wilkes 2,735 12.6
88 Macon I,Q30 ..13.0
89 Watauga 1,080 13.1
50 Cherokee 1,096 14.8
91 Avery 690 16.6
91 Madison 1,290 16.6
93 Mitchell 746,... 16.S
94 Dare 304.. 17.6
95 Ashe 1,195 18.9
96 Graham ' 261 19.0
97 Clay 276 19.1
98 Swain 726 21.7
99 Yancey 760 24.7
100 Carteret 620 32.0