The news'in this publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
FEBRUARY 15, 1928
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
NEWS LETTER
Published Weekly by the
University of North Caro
lina for the University Ex
tension Division.
. CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XIV, No. 14
Editorial {toardi E. C. Branson. S. H. Hobbo, Jr.. P. W. Wager, L. R. Wilson. E. W.jKnight. D. D. Carroll. H. W. Odum.
Entered as second-class matter November H. 1914. at the Postoffice at Cbapel Hill. N. C.. under the act of August 24. 1912.
GENERAL PROPERTY TAX i dollars, while in 1921 it was only two
^ ^ i hundred and thirty-five million. Yet
The Ust meeneg of the North Caro-1 reduction in the tax rate,
lina Club was devoted to a discussion ^ relieving the
of the general property tax. The d.s-; ^ returning
cussion centered around a paper pte-'
income, inheritance and
aentedby Mr.Ralph^C.Hon,a gjadu_a2e|„(hp^ speoial taxes to the local dis-
tricts in which they were collected.
student in the school of commerce.
An abstract of 1ftr. Hon's paper fol
lows.
The importance of the general prop
erty tax in the state of North Carolina
is indicated by the fact that ninety-
seven percent of the revenue of the
counties and their subdivisions is de
rived from this source. It is particular
ly essential that the people of the state
give this tax considerable attention in
the near future because it will be their
duty, in November, to vote upon a pro
posed amendment to the state constitu
tion which would permit the General
Assembly to classify intangible personal
property and give it a lower rate than
tangible property.
The history of every nation reveals
the use of the general property tax
during the agricultural stage, but
equally universal is its discard when a
more complex economic structure is
attained. This primitive method of
taxation was fairly successful under
the conditions for which it was framed,
when the property owned by different
individuals was relatively homogeneous
both in quantity and quality; but it is
ill adapted to our modern organization
which includes numerous types of
wealth, conferring vastly different
amounts of tax-paying ability upon
their owners.
Criticisms of the Tax
Many valid criticisms are hurled at this
tax, one of the most^ertinent of which
is the fact that it constitutes, by its
very nature, an incentive to dishonesty.
The average rate in the state is slightly
0over two percent which constitutes a
burden on four percent investments
(for example bank deposits) equal to
that of a fifty percent income tax.
Most property owners appreciate the
value of the services rendered by their
local governments and are willing to
assume their fair share of the burden,
but when they realize that other people
are not listing property which can be
hidden, they find it easy to justify
themselves in following a similar policy
as a matter of self-defense. In this
manner perhaps a majority of our tax
payers render themselves guilty of
perjury, since most states (including
North Carolina) which continue to use
the general property tax, require all
taxpayers to sign an oath that they
have listed all property belonging to
them or under their control. This
accounts for the remark frequently
heard that *Tf it is true that Jove
smiles at the vows of a lover, it must be
true that he laughs out loud at the
©ath of a taxpayer.”
One could easily fiili a book with such
statements as the following, which is
taken from the 1908 report of the
Louisiana Tax Commission: “The
system is condemned by political econo
mists writing from a theoretical stand
point; by practical tax officials speak
ing from actual experience; by dozens
of select tax commissions, appointed
to investigate its workings. Indeed its
failure is shown by testimony over
whelming in quantity, unimpeachable
in quality, and, so far as we have
read, without a dissenting voice.”
Of course it is easier to point out the
defects of an existing system than it
is to formulate a substitute which will
function with marked superiority.
Yield Tax
One plan, of which more will prob
ably be heard in the future, provides
for an increasing use of income or
yield, rather than property, as a basis
of taxation.
This is suggested with approval by
Professor Seligman in his Essays in
Taxation; recommended by the Mani
toba Special Commission on the Real
Property Tax (1926); and sponsored by
Secretary Jardine in his annual reports
to the President.
Farm taxes are levied.almost entire
ly on the basis of capital value and
bear little or no direct relation to cur
rent farm earnings. It is estimated
by the National Bureau of Economic
Research that the income of farmers
in the state of North Carolina in 1920
was four hundred and fifteen million
KEEP AMERICA AMERICAN
Making America a better place to
live in is keeping America American..
There is a brave adventure for
every one of us in trying to put that
over to the best of our several
abilities. It is a big order—but
there’s not one of us so poor in
imagination, so lacking in initiative,
so wanting in observation that we
haven’t had ideas and worth-while
ideas that would profit and improve
our communities. You can think
even in this fleeting moment of
some way to make your city a bet
ter home for your children and your
neighbor’s children. Tie to it, stay
with it, fight for it, see it through—
and ycu will have done as much for
America as any American can ever
do for his country. No man de
serves the name American who is
not giving America more than he
receives.—Hanford Macnider in
World’s Word.
The state of New York, for example,
returns fifty percent of its income tax
in this manner and Wisconsin follows a
similar practice. North Carolina’s
educational equalizing fund serves
somewhat the same purpose although
it is distributed on a different basis.
Classification
Thirty-two of the states now have
some form of classified property tax,
but the classifications are so diverse
that it is hard to draw conclusions as
to the effectiveness of each.
By giving property which is less
productive, or more easily hidden, a
low rate many states get much'larger
amounts of such property on the tax
lists than formerly. In some cases
this increase is great enough to produce
an increased revenue in spite of the
low rate. However this study reaches
the conclusion that such an experience
has resulted only where the assess
ments were conspicuously low” before
classification.
Minnesota is usually regarded as one
of the most successful exponents of
classification and it is true that from
1910, the year before sbe adopted
classification, to 1926 her assessed
intangibles increased from fourteen mil
lion to four hundred million dollars and
her revenue from intangibles increased
from three hundred eighty thousand to
one million two hundred forty thousand.
Equally significant is the fact that the
average collection from citizens paying
on intangibles dropped from $61.26 to
$10.78. This indicates that from the
standpoint of justice to the honest tax-1
payer Minnesota has a very superior | MADISON FARMERS
system, but in spite of the fact that;
there is good reason for believing that j A good index to the tremendously
there are more than twice as many i significant change that is coming over
intangibles in the state of Minnesota'in Western North Carolina
as there are ia North Carolina, the ' reading the farm dem-
latter state collects almost double the j onstration agent’s column in The
amount of revenue secured by Minne-I ““''shall News-Record each week,
sota from that source. ' 'In the current issue of the Madison
Kentucky’s record, from the stand- “““‘y newspaper for example, an-
1926. Several of the mountain coun
ties reported very few mortgaged
farms, Greene reported the largest
percentage of encumbered farms, 39.8
percent. Of its 607 farms operated by
owners 202 reported mortgage debt.
In the main, however, it is the tide
water counties which showed the largest
percentage of mortgaged farms.
Sixty-three counties showed a higher
percentage of mortgaged farms in 1926
than in 1910. This is not necessarily a
sign of retrogression, The mortgage
in many cases may be due to the pur
chase of additional land or the con
struction of new buildings. In other
cases it may represent greater facility
in using credit, especially long-term
credit,- in farm operations.—Paul W.
Wager.
point of revenue, appears to be strong
er than that of Minnesota but all the
evidence studied indicates that if North
Carolina adopts the proposed amend
ment, it must be justified on other
than a purely revenue basis. With
proper administration it might result
in an increased amount of intangibles
being listed, with a consequence that
the burden would be more equitably
distributed among holders of intangi
bles, but real estate owners would like
ly bear a heavier rather than a lighter
burden.
FARM MORTGAGES IN N. C.
Last week we presented a table show
ing the percent of mortgaged farms in
each of the states in 1910 and in 1926.
This week we are presenting similar
information for the counties of North
Carolina.
The state as a whole witnessed but a
slight increase in the percentage of
mortgaged farms from 1910 to 1926,
the increase being from 18.3 to 19.3
percent. This is considering only farms
operated by the owners. The percent
age of mortgaged farms in North Caro
lina is far below the percentage for
the United States as a whole, the
latter figure being 36.1. This is partly
due no doubt to the smaller amount of
capital invested in a farm in North
Carolina. Taking the United States
as a whole owner-operated farms (land
and buildings only) represent an aver
age capitalization of $8,018. In North
Carolina the average is only $3,741.
Few in Mountains
That the extent of farm mortgages
is closely correlated with the price of
land is indicated by the relatively small
percentage of mortgaged farms in the
mountain counties and the larger per
centage in the coastal plain and tide
water counties. High and increasing
tenancy ratios tend of course to reduce
the number of encumbered owners-.
Dare county has only 73 owner-
operated farms and none of these re
ported any mortgage indebtedness in
nouncement is made that the banks of
Marshall have just sent a committee
consisting of the county agent, Earle
Brintnall, and two other men to
Eastern Tennessee to purchase milk
cows which the banks will sell at actual
cost to those DOW producing cream or
who will produce cream for market
purposes. “The banks, ” it is stated,
“feel that the production of cream in
Madison county needs to be en
couraged. They feel that it will mean
greater financial resource to the whole
population of the county, both rural
and urban, and that the backing of
the financial institutions of the county
will be well placed in encouraging
farmers to produce cream.”
The Madison demonstration agent is
advocating “five cracking good cows
or 100 cracking good hens, or both,”
on every Madison county farm. One
farmer of the county received a check
for $17 for one delivery of cream last
week. Another Madison farmer received
a check for $23 for 43 pounds of walnut
meats which he bad sold. Still another
farmer is reported by Mr. Brintnall as
making 242 pounds of tobacco on one-
fifth of an acre, realizing for it a net
sum of $97 or slightly more than 40
cents a pound.—Asheville Citizen.
N. C. AGRICULTURE
In 1927 North Carolina ranked seventh
among the states in total value of
farm crops according to preliminary
estimates. The seven high-ranking
states are:
Texas $729,754,000
Iowa 601,726,000
California 436,213,000
Illinois 386,052,000
Nebraska 378,819,000
Kansas 362,689,000
North Carolina 861,606,000
The value of each of several of North
Carolina’s leading crops and the rank
of the state in the production of these
crops is indicated below:
Rank Crop Value
1 Tobacco $120,744,000
1 Peanuts 9,467,000
2
Sweet Potatoes . ..
. 8,117,000
2
Early Irish Potatoes .
. 7,182,000
2
Soy Beans
. 2,397.000
8
Cowpeas
. 1,246,000
3
Cucumbers
688,000
6
Sorghum Sirup
. 2,236,000
6
Snap Beans
728,000
6
Green Peas
468,000
7
Cotton (lint)
, 83,668,000
7
Cottonseed
. 14,097,000
7
Strawberries
. 2,666,000!
7
Peaches
• 2,210,000 i
7
Lettuce
785,000'
THE MURDEROUS AUTO
A total of 2,780 people were killed
or injured in automobile accidents
during the six months which ended
December 31, according to figures com
piled by the motor vehicle bureau of
the State Department of Revenue.
The report shows that 348 people were
killed and 2,432 injured.
Of those killed, 216 were motorists
and 132 pedestrians. There were 896
pedestrians injured by automobiles and
2,037 motorists. These deaths and in
juries occurred in 2,009 accidents.
The following table shows the num
ber of accidents, deaths and injured,
occurring each month since the law
requiring the bureau to tabulate these
figures went into effect:
In
jured
.. 384
.. 443;
.. 343
.. 470'
.. 406
. 386
2,432
ROSENWALD SCHOOLS
Through the aid of the Julius Rosen-
wald Fund, there has been a total of
662 schools and teachers’ .homes for ne
groes built in North Carolina during the
last ten years, W. F. Credle, State di
rector of the Rosenwald Fund, reports.
These schools and teacherages. 80 of
which were erected during 1926 and
1927, cost $3,394,049. The cost of the
grounds upon which the schools are lo
cated is included in this total.
These buildings have a pupil capacity
I of 82,305 and a teacher capacity of
;1,829.
-In the erection of these buildings the
Month
July
Acci
dents
... 312.
Deaths
.... 41.
August ...
. . 352..
... 40 .
September
... 316..
.... 61..
October ...
... 349..
.. . 71
November .
... 339..
.... 67..
December .
... 341..
... 67..
Total
...2,009..
...348..
Rosenwald Fund contributed $629,436;
the public $2,226,737; whites, $68,615;
and the negroes, $669,261. The Rosen
wald Fund contrioutes only when the
whites, negroes, and the public school
fund cooperate.— Marion Progress.
NEED HEALTH OFFICERS
Dr. A. J. Crowell, new chairman of
the State Board of Health, outlining
the policy of expanding health, work of
the state, contemplates a return to the
district plan with a health officer for
each district and co-operation from the
counties comprising the district.
Only 37 of the state’s 100 counties
are now served by health officers, says
Dr. Crowell. The figures are surpris
ing. To those counties in which pre
ventive medicine has been so well es
tablished that the health officer is as
much a part of the county machine as
the chairman of the board of county
commissioners, it is a little more than
surprising.
So accustomed have we been to laud
the effective work of the State Board
of Health and so prone have we been
to accept the county health officer as a
matter of course, it shocks us to realize
that in at least 63 counties of the state
the health officer idea has not yet
emerged from the missionary stage.
—News and Observer.
MORTGAGED FARMS IN NORTH CAROLINA
Percent of Owner-Operated Farms Mortgaged, 1910 dnd 1925
The following table indicates the percentage of owner-operated farms in
North Carolina encumbered by mortgage in 1910 and in 1925. The counties ate
ranked according to the percentages in the latter year.
In 1910 mortgage debts were reported on 18.3 percent of all the farms in
the state operated by owners; in 1925 mortgage debts were reported on 19.3
percent. In thirty-seven counties the percentage of mortgaged farms decreased
in the fifteen-year period and in sixty-three counties the percentage increased.
Dare county' reported no mortgaged farms in 1926 and Graham only 4.3
percent of its farms. At the other extreme Greene reported 39.8 percent mort
gaged. In the main the mountain counties have the fewest mortgaged farms
and the tidewater counties the most.
Paul W. Wager
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina
Percent Percent
of farms of farms
Rank County mortgaged mortgaged
1910 1926
1 Dare 6.9 0.0
2 Graham 1.6 4.3
3 Buncombe 13.1 7.0
4 McDowell 11.0 8.8
6 Jackson 6.6 8.9
6 Cherokee 4.9 10.S
7 Swain 3.2 10.4
8 Lincoln 18.0 10.7
9 Montgomery ...11.7 11.6
10 Burke 16.4 12.1
11 Haywood 9.9. 12.2
12 Madison 11.0 12.6
13 Wilkes 11.6 12.7
14 Alleghany 7.6 12.8
16 Clay 4.3 12.9
16 Avery 13.2
17 Transylvania .. 9.4 13.3
18 Rockingham ...19.6 13.7
19 Macon 7.7 13.8
20 Brunswick 10.9 14.1
20 Currituck 12.8 14.1
22 Yancey 11.6 14.5
23 Durham 16.7 14.6
23 Forsyth 26.3 14.6
25 Mitchell 10.3 14.8
26 Alamance 18.0 16.2
27 Bladen 10.4 16.3
28 Perquimans... ..36.0 16.7
29 Carteret 12.6 16.0
29 Orange 14.2 16.0
31 Chatham ,13.3 16.2
82 Ashe 7.6 16.6
32 Davie 22.6 16.6
34 Cumberland ...14.0 17.0
36 Cabarrus 21.9 17.2
36 Guilford 21.1 17.2
37 Moore 9.0 17.6
38 Watauga 9.2 17.6
39 Gaston 17.7 17.8
39 Northampton ..26.2 17.8
41 Richmond 12.1 18.0
42 Scotland 8.4 18.1
42 Caswell..... 17.8 ...18.1
44 Davidson 26.6 18.2
46 Cleveland 16.3 18.4
46 Halifax 22.7 18.4
47 Stanly 21.9 18.7
48 Randolph 20.0 18.8
49 Catawba 21.3 18,9
49 Lee 12.6 18.9
! Percent Percent
of farms of farms
Rank County mortgaged mortgaged
1910 1926
51 Columbus 16.8 19.0
62 Rutherford 13.6 19.1
53 Robeson 9.2 19.4
64 Franklin 19.2 19.6
66 Pender 16.9 19.7
66 Wilson 21.0 19.8
67 Polk 17.0 20.4
68 Henderson 21.4 20.6
69 Sampson 17.6 20.7
60 Person 16.0 20.8
61 Alexander 26.5 20.9
62 Rowan 26.8 21.2
63 Caldwell .... 10.1 21.3
64 Hertford 30.0 21.6
66 Anson 22.9 21.9
66 Iredell 21.6 22.0
67 Stokes 26.7 22.6
68 Nash 21.1 23.2
69 Yadkin 23.6 23.4
70 Union 16.2 23.9
71 Harnett .11.0 24.0
72 Hoke 24.1
73 Johnston 24.0 24.4
74 Wake 21.9 24.8
76 Pasquotank 26.3 24.9
76 Gates ;...29.8 26.0
77 Pitt 30.9 26.1
78 Onslow 13.7 26.2
79 Wayne 27.6..: 26.5
80 Bertie 29.9 25.7
81 Surry 24.8 26.0
82 Edgecombe 21.3 26.2
83 Warren 20.6 26.6
83 Washington ...32.9 26.5
86 Duplin 23.8 26.9
86 Vance 29.0 26.9
87 Mecklenburg ..24.7 27.1
88 Chowan 34.6 27.3
89 New Hanover..22.0 28.2
89 Pamlico 27.2 28.2
91 Martin 30.2 29.8
92 Beaufort 25.6 30.3
93 Tyrrell 38.7 30.6
94 Craven 18.6 30.8
96 Camden 24,7 31,6
96 Granville 26.1 32.U
97 Lenoir 82.3 33.3
98 Hyde 23.9 36.6
99 Jones 28.8 37.7
100 Greene 26.7 39,8