HOcciMMUatii
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 10, 1928
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XtV, No. 46
Kdicorial Board. E. C. Branson. S. H. Hobbs. Jr.. P. W. Waeer. 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 E4. 1911.
A MOTORIZED STATE
A table which appears elsewhere
shows how the counties of North Caro
lina rank in motor cars, the counties
being ranked according to inhabitants
per motor car on August 1, 1928. The
parallel' column gives the number of
motor cars in each county as reported
by the Automotive Bureau, "State
Department of Revenue.
Guilford continues to lead North
Carolina counties, both in total number
of motor cars and in inhabitants per
motor car, with Mecklenburg a close
second in both respects. Guilford has
24,660 motor vehicles, or one motor car
for every 3.8 inhabitants. If passenger
ears alone are considered, Guilford and
Mecklenburg average almost exactly
one passenger car per family.
Yancey county continues to rank
last in inhabitants per motor car, with
about one car for every five and a half
families. Graham with only two hun
dred and thirty motor cars has fewer
cars than any other county.
On August 1, North Carolina had
440,268 motor cars, or one for every
6.6 inhabitants.
Motor Cars by Areas
It is interesting to note the distribu
tion of motor cars by geographic areas.
Most interesting of all is the fact that
with the exceptions of Wake, Wilson,
Pasquotank, Chowan and Edgecombe
counties, all the counties that rank
above the state average in inhabitants
per motor car lie west of the state
capital, and are all in the piedmont area
except Buncombe. The first twenty
counties except Wake are all in
the western half of the state. The
central piedmont country has a big
lead over the rest of the state in the
o.wnership of motor cars.
There are two other areas that make
a good showing in the ownership of
motor cars, namely ten counties center
ing around Wilson in the heart of the
combination cotton-tobacco belt, and
the five counties in the northeastern
corner of the state known as the
Albemarle country.
The tidewater country south of
Albemarle sound makes a poor show
ing in the ownership of motor cars,
while the poorest showing of all is
made by counties that lie west of the
Blue Ridge. With the exceptions of
Buncombe and Haywood, the counties
west of the Blue Ridge rank from
eightieth to one hundredth. Five tide
water counties and one piedmont
county fall in this low-ranking group.
Guilford county has more motor cars
than the twenty counties combined
that fall at the end of the accompany
ing table. She has almost as many
motor cars as the seventeen mountain
counties combined, including Bun
combe. Buncombe has more motor
cars than all the rest of the counties
west of the Blue Ridge combined.
There are eighteen counties that
have one-half of all the motor cars in
the state.
There are four counties in the state
each of which has more motor cars
than the entire state had in 1916, and a
fifth county with almost as many.
Guilford and Mecklenburg combined
have more than three times as many
motor cars as the entire state had in
1915.
Record of Growth
The following table, based on figures
compiled by the National Automobile
Chamber of Commerce, except the 1928
figure, shows the growth of motor cars
in North Carolina since 1916.
Year Number Inhabs.
(Dec. 81) of cars per car
1915 16,410 140.0
1919 109,000 23.0
1920 140,860 18.4
1921 148,627 17.6
1922 182,566 14.6
1923 248,414 10.9
1924 302,232 8.9
1926 340,287 7.9
1926 385,047 7.4
1927 430,499 6.8
1928 (Aug. 1)..440,268 6.6
Since the average family contains
nearly five persons, it is seen that there
is today almost a motor vehicle per
family in North Carolina. In 1916
there was only one motor vehicle for
every thirty families, upon an average.
We have approximately twenty-seven
times as many motor cars in the state
today-as we had thirteen years ago.
What Motor Cars Mean
The number and distribution of motor
cars is perhaps the best single index of
wealth and income. Practically every
body who can afford a motor car, and
many a person who can not, has a car.
Guilford, Mecklenburg, and Buncombe
lead in order in motor cars; they are
the first three counties in taxable
wealth per inhabitant; while Mecklen
burg was first. Buncombe second, and
Guilford fifth in federal tax returns in
1925.
High ratios of motor cars mean not
only abundant wealth and ready cash,
but they also mean improved highways,
town and city centers rapidly increas
ing in population, enterprise and
wealth, and disappearing areas of
static and stagnant life and livelihood.
‘ ‘Low ratios of motor cars, ’ ’ sajs Mr.
Branson, “mean poor roads, inacces
sibility to market centers, plenty to
eat and wear perhaps, but little ready
cash in circulation, and humdrum
existence—as in the remote rural
counties and rural townships.”
The Saturation Point
How many motor cars is North Caro
lina destined to have? What will be
the saturation point? A few years Qgo
there were those who were bold
enough to predict the saturation point,
but the present number of automobiles
is far beyond the dreams of the most
optimistic predictors. There are now
approximately twenty-five million motor
cars in the United States, or an aver
age of one motor car per family.
North Carolina is not far behind the
national average and is gaining
ground. j
The table above shows that since:
1920 we have been increasing our'
motor cars at the rate of approximate- '
ly forty thousand cars a year, some i
years more, some years a few less.
We had one hundred and forty thou
sand cars in 1920, two hundred and
forty-eight thousand in 1923, three
hundred and forty thousand in 1926,
and four hundred and forty thousand
on August 1, 1928, while several thou
sand will be added before the year
comes to an end. In less than a year
there will probably be a half-million
motor cars in North Carolina, which
will be not quite a motor car to the
family. Our guess is that we will con
tinue to increase our number of motor
cars even after we have passed beyond
an average of one car to the family.
There is probably a saturation point
but manifestly such a point is in the
remote future in this state. —S. H. H.,
Jr.
FORWARD-LOOKING MEN
The future works out great men's
purposes;
The present is enough for common
souls.
Who, never looking forward, are
indeed
Mere clay, wherein the footprints of
their age
Are petrified forever.
—James Russell Lowell.
KNOW NORTHLCAROLINA
Governor McLean has called a con
ference of the presidents of ail state
institutions of higher learning, repre
sentatives of the state department of
public instruction, the state historical
■commission, the state board of educa
tion, administrative officers of the
public schools, and the state textbook
commission, to consider ways of fur
thering the teaching of state history in
North Carolina public schools. The
conference will be held October 8, in
the hall of the house of representatives.
In announcing that the meeting had
been called. Governor McLean said,
“North Carolina is not known even
to its own citizenship. A casual con
versation with people who are other
wise highly intelligent will reveal the
truth of this statement. This condi
tion grows out of the fact that some
how our schools and colleges have
failed to leave our young people with
an enthusiastic interest in our his
torical development and its relations
to the present, or with a buoyant con
fidence in our social and economic
future. This is a situation which m
my opinion should be remedied as
speedily as possible. ^
“The common welfare demands that
our children in the public schools be
come better acquainted with the state.
Such knowledge would increase their
respect for our institutions. It would
clarify their comprehension of the
struggles and sacrifices through which
we have passed. It would give them
a clearer vision of our aspirations for
the future. Out of it would come a
greater love for the state. On this
basis would rest a more loyal support
of the great enterprises in which we
are now engaged and those other un
dertakings upon which we must enter
in the future. If we are to meet the
future with intelligence and courage,
we must know the implications of the
past.
“Our history is rich in stories of
deeds of heroism and patriotic service.
It is a fascinating chronicle of a fine
and sustained endeavor of a sturdy
and determined people to grow and to
achieve. It bears a most intimate rela
tion to the longer story of national
development. The knowledge of our
history should be intimate and accu
rate. No greater sources of inspiration
for our youth could be found.
“The public schools have made a
considerable effort to acquaint chil
dren with these facts. Adequate source
material has been unavailable. Much
of the material in use is unsuited for
this purpose.
“Along with the historical back
ground should go a study of the nat
ural resources of the state and their
development through the construction
of railroads, hard-surface roads, and
other means of transportation. The
location of power plants, the building
of manufacturing establishments, and
the improvement in farming should be
considered. The economic growth of
the state is closely linked with the so
cial, intellectual, and moral develop
ment of the people. These relations
should be analyzed and clarified.
“In order that the public schools
may perform the duties that naturally
fall upon them in relation to all these
matters, it is necessary that they be
supplied with an abundance of usable
materials and with teachers who are
thoroughly saturated with a knowledge
of them.
“On the teacher-training institutions
devolves the duty of preparing such
teachers. On the administrative offi
cers of the public schools falls the
duty of seeing that this enterprise is
carried out.
“In consideration of all these facts
and of the needs of the schools, I am
calling a conference of both text book
commis'sions, and the heads and repre
sentatives of all the state institutions
of higher learning, of representatives
from the department of public instruc
tion and the historical commission,
and certain administrative officers of
the public schools, to meet with the
state board of education to devise
ways and means to meet this urgent
situation. * *
COUNTY CONSOLIDATION
In an attempt to reduce the cost of
government in Tennessee, Mr. T. E.
Preston, chairman of the state tax
commission recently appointed by the
governor, and Mr. A. L. Childress, state
tax superintendent, have suggesteo a
reduction in the number of counties.
This idea was probably prompted by
the startling fact that county govern
ment in Tennessee costs nineteen times
the amount spent for state govern
ment. Governor A. B. Smith of New
York, it will be recalled, recently sug
gested a similar reduction in the
number of New York counties, with
the same idea of economy in mind.
State Consolidation
There are two methods by which the
desired reduction in the number of
counties, and thus the cost of govern-
mept, can be realized: first, the
natural absorption of a small county,
or of several small counties, by a large
county, and second, the more artificial
m.ethod of consolidation of all counties
into a smaller number of units ^by
legislation or constitutional amend
ment. Both plans either are being
worked cut or have been suggested for
Tennessee. It is altogether logical
that such a movement should start in
Tennessee. This, state has inherited
the English county in as pure form as
any commonwealth which can trace its
institutional origins directly or indirect
ly to the mother country, yet the
state’s administration today is a nota
ble example of what can be done in
state administrative reorganization.
In 1919 two counties consolidated; in
1927 the county courts of two counties
agreed to a consolidation, and a
measure requesting permission to con
solidate will be presented to the next
legislature; and two state officers have
presented a plan for redistricting the
state, reducing the number of counties
from ninety-five to less than fifty. To
som^e observers these are startling,
facts. At ail events, they show that
some attempt is being made to explore
the “dark continent of American
politics.”
Tax Rate Cut in Half
In 1919 Hamilton county, with Chat
tanooga as the county' seat, absorbed
James county, the legislature granting
its permission upon the request of the
latter and the acquiescence of the
former. This absorption of a small
county by a larger county has proved
successful. The tax rate in James
county has been cut in half, and at the
same time improved roads have in
creased from less than five to over
forty-five miles, and schools are now
in session eight and nine months
as compared with four months during
the year before the consolidation. In
general, the county is in a much better
condition than ever before.
Because of this successful experi
ment, Meigs county, which borders
Hamilton on the north, held a joint
court meeting with Hamilton last year,
and it was agreed that the two coun
ties should sponsor a bill in the next
legislature to allow Hamilton county to
absorb Meigs. The tax rate in Meigs
county now is $4.00, while in Hamilton
it is $1.40.
With the same idea of tax reduction
in mind, in answer to a request for sug
gestions as to the means of reducing
taxes from Mr. Preston, chairman of
the state tax commission, president of
the Hamilton National Bank of Chat
tanooga, and president of the American
Bankers' Association, Mr. A. L. Chil
dress proposed that the ninety-five
counties of the state be consolidated
into eleven units, comprising on an
average eight or nine counties, and
each with an area of some 3,790 square
miles and a population of about 211,-
884. These new counties should be
grouped around an important town,
the highway and railroad center of
each district. In order to overcome
the sentimental objection to changing
•county names, Mr. Childress sug
gested that the eleven new units be
named as follows: George Washington
1 county, John Sevier county, Robert E.
Lee county, Andrew Johnson county,
Benjamin Franklin county, Andrew
Jackson county, James K. Polk county,
Sam Houston county, Davy Crockett
county, James Madison county, and
Bedford Forrest county.
Under the present arrangement of
counties, each of the ninety-five units
supports, on an average, twenty prin
cipal officers, costing the average
county some $200,000. For the total
number of counties this means ],900
chief officers and an annual expendi
ture for this item alone of $19,000,000.
Assuming that a similar plan of inter
nal organization would be followed in
the new units, the total cost would not
greatly exceed $2,200,000.
Of course many objections to the
plan will be raised, for it is no small
^Undertaking to reduce the number of
counties, from ninety-five to eleven.
Therefore, as a matter of expediency,
Mr. Preston has suggested that the
number be reduced to about fifty, and
that the method be that of absorption,
as has been employed in the case of
Hamilton and James counties. Cer
tainly a beginning of reform could be
made by grouping several counties
about the four chief cities of the state,
i. e., Memphis, Nashville, Knoxville,
■ and Chattanooga; and the process has
I actually begun in the Chattanooga
! district.—John W. Manning, Vanderbilt
University, in The American Political
I Science Review.
INHABITANTS PER MOTOR CAR AUGUST 1, 1928
In the following table, based on data supplied by the State Department of
Revenue, Automotive Bureau, and estimates of population, the counties are
ranked according to the number of inhabitants per motor car, automobiles and
trucks combined, on August 1, 1928.
Guilford continues to lead both in number of cars, with 24,660, and in dis
tribution, with 3.8 inhabitants per motor car.
Yancey ranks last with 26.7 inhabitants per motor car. Graham has few
est motor cars, with 230.
State total of motor cars on August 1, 1928, was 440,268. Passenger cars
numbered 396,295; trucks 43,963. On October 4, 1927, we had 411,295 motor
cars, of which 379,200 were passenger cars and 32,096 were trucks.
State average, one motor car for every 6.6 inhabitants.
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina
Number
Inhabs.
Number
Inhabs.
motor
per
motor
per
Rank County
cars
motor
Rank County
cars
motor
car
car
1
Guilford
..24,660
... 3.8
60
Duplin
.. 4,676
... 7.4
2
Mecklenburg ..
...23,666
... 3.9
52
Chatham
... 3,326
... 7.6
3
Buncombe
,.16,266
... 4.7
63
Franklin
.. 3,626
... 7.8
3
Davidson
... 8,676
... 4.7
63
Person
.. 2.660...
. 7.8
6
Durham
..10,076
... 4.8
66
Northampton..
.. 3,200
... 7.9
6
Rowan
..10,300 ....
... 4.9
66
Alexander
.. ],606
... 7.9
7
Catawba
.. 7,636
... 5.1
67
Craven
.. 4,060
... 8.0
8
Lincoln
... 3,676
... 6.2
68
Vance
.. 3,600
... 8.1
8
Wake
..16,675
... 6 2
68
Martin
.. 2,946 ...
.. 8.1
10
Iredell
.. 7,626
.... 6.4
60
Burke
.. 3,010
... 8.3
11
Forsyth
19,206
... 6.6
60
Gates
.. 1,276
... 8.3
11
Moore
.. 4,660
... 6.6
60
Hertford
.. 2,060
... 8.3
11
Randolph
.. 6,976
..6 5
60
Sampson
.. 6,000
... 8.3
14
Cabarrus
.. 7,100
.. 6.7
64
Tyrrell
.. 600
... 8.6
14
Cleveland
... 6,800
... 6.7
66
Polk
.. 1,160
... 8.6
14
Oavie
.. 2,400...
. 6.7
66
Halifax
.. 6,736 ....
... 8.6
14
Henderson
... 3,660 ....
... 6.7
67
Greene
..2,276
... 8.8
18
Gaston
,.11,376
... 6.8
67
Onslow
.. 1,705
... 8.8
18
Montgomery...
.. 2,636
.. 6.8
67
Pender
.. 1,710
.. 8.8
18
Alamance
... 6,300
... 6.8
70
Pamlico
.. 1,060
... 8.9
21
Lee
.. 2,675
6.9
71
Washington ...
.. 1,290
... 9.1
21
Wilson
.. 7,600
.. 6.9
71
Haywood
... 2,826
... 9.1
23
Pasquotank
.. 3,026
... 6.1
71
Columbus
.. 3,666
... 9.1
24
Chowan
.. 1,776 ....
... 6.2
74
Caswell
.. 1,800
... 9.2
25
Union
.. 6,876
... 6.5
74
Warren
.. 2,475
... 9.2
26
Edgecombe
.. 6,660
... 6.6
76
McDowell
.. 2,106
.. 9.4
27
Orange
.. 3,100
... 6.6
77
Hoke
.. 1,376
... 9.7
27
Pitt
.. 8,200
... 6.6
78
Robeson
.. 6,400
... 9.8
27
Camden
.. 860 ....
... 6.6
79
Jones
.. 1,076
...10.3
27
Harnett
.. 6,126
... 6.6
80
Transylvania..
.. 1,080
...10.6
31
Scotland
.. 4,826
... 6.7
^ 81
Anson
.. 2,920
...10.6
32
Stokes
.. 3,060
... 6.8
82
Clay
.. 310
.. 10,8
32
Rockingham...
.... 6.8
83
Wilkes
.. 8,060
...11.1
32
Lenoir
.. 6,200
... 6.8
84
Alleghany
.. 700
...11.4
36
Nash
.. 6,900
... 6.9
86
Bladen
.. 1,860
...11.6
36
Rutherford
.. 4,976....
... 6.9
86
Carteret
.. 3,436
...11.8
36
Surry
.. 4,976
... 6.9
87
Jackson
.. 1,136
...12.1
35
Beaufort
.. 4,615
... 6.9
87
Watauga
.. 1,176
...12.1
36
Currituck
.. 1,076
... 6.9
89
Hyde...r
. 700
...12.3
40
Wayne
.. 7,300
... 7.0
90
Brunswick
.. 1,200
...12.7
40
Perquimans ....
; 1,600
... 7.0
91
Macon
. 996
...13.6
42
Yadkin
.. 2.440
... 7.1
92
Avery
736
...14.9
42
Ricbtnond
.. 4,400
... 7.1
93
Madison
. 1,286
...16 6
42
New Hanover .
.. 6,6C0
... 7.1
94
Cherokee
.. 1,036
.. 16.7
42
Bertie
.. 3,600
... 7.1
95
Mitchell
. 740
...16.2
46
Stanly
.. 4,826
... 7.2
96
Dare
.. 298
...18.0
47
Johnston
.. 7.636
... 7.3
97
Ashe
.. 1,070
...21.4
47
Granville
.. 3,896
... 7.3
98
Graham
. 230
...21.6
47
Caldwell
.. 2,926
... 7.3
99
Swain
. 616
..25.9
60
Cumberland ....
. 6,325
... 7.4
100
Yancey
.. 676
. 26.7