Newspapers / The University of North … / March 1, 1916, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The University of North Carolina News Letter (Chapel Hill, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
The news in this publica tion is released for the press oo the date indicated below. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA NEWS LETTER Published weekly by the Uoiversity of North Carolina for its Bureau of Elxtension. MARCH 1, 1916 CHAPEL HILL, N. C. VOL. II, NO. 14 BditoriKl , R. WiLson, L. A, Williams, R. H. Thornton, G. M, MfiKip. !5it«rwi »st hnwond-claas matter Noyembar 24,1914, at the postoffloe at Chapel Hill, N. 0.| under the act of Augrost 24,1912. NORTH CAROLINA CLUB STUDIES OUR WILDERNESS AREA The subject considered by The North IJarolina Club at the University the other night was Our Twenty-two Million Idle Acres: Wliyldle, tlie Consequence.s, and the Renu'dies. Tlie discnssion wag led by Mr. Lawton Blanton of Cleveland coun ty. A brief report follows. Our Kingdom of Silence and Solitude 8eventy-one percent of all the land in Iforth Carolina is a wilderness of idle acres. Twenty-two million acres are in scrub pines, broomsedge, and like growths. Only nine million acres are under the plow and in pasture. Our waste area is more than double our culti vated area. There is enough idle land in the Stat*^! for 250,000 new farm families, allowing 75 acre.s to each family and re- Stirviug 50,000 acre.s in eacli county for wood-lot uses. The per cent oi waste land ranges from 34.19 percent in Alamance to 98.4 per cent in Dare. There are more people en gaged in farming in North Carolina than in both manufacture and transportation combined. And yet we liave enough idle acres to inci-ease our country popu lation 100 per cent. This is the more important when we consi(ier that North C!arolina produced in crops alone in 1915 wealth amounting to $218,000,000 or about one and a fourth times as much wealth as the banks of the State have ac- ;cumulated in 250 years. And mind you our farms created this enormous wealth in a single year. I Larger Population and Great er Wealth North Carolina needs more people— not more tenants, but more home-own ing farmers. Tire population of the State is too sparse. Our rural population in the State at large is only 39 to the square mile. We have nine counties with fewer than 20 people and three counties with fewer than 15 to the square mile. In thjese twelve counties there are nearly 4,- i 000,000 wilderness acres. The idle land in the lower Cape Fear region alone al most exactly equals the entire farm area of Belgium. I If our farm population were doubled our country wealth would be increased 1407,000,000. This increase is reckoned on our present small per capita rural wealth of $322. Their productive power would add $175,000,000 a year to our present total of crops and animal pro ducts. It would mean larger support for churches, schools, roads, and public health. Denser population would help !to decrease illiteracy, social aloofness, ; and the raw individualism that now re tard organization and co-operative coun try enterprises. Why So Many Wilderness Acres About three million acres are at present too stumpy, steep and rocky, wet and acid to cultivate. But for the most part onr wilderness area is due to bad social and political conditions, such as illitera cy, sparsity of population, mixture of races, speculative interest in rising land values, and a vicious tax system. Mr Blanton next showed how, in obedience to the natural law of segrega tion, white' people are selling out and leaving districts where negroes are an increasing majority, while at the same time the negroes are seeking negro settle ments. And further, according to Mr. Blanton, the land speculator is another great factor that is largely responsible for the vast area of waste land in North Carolina and throughout the entire South. The farm lands of North Carolina in creased in value $202,000,000 in the last census period, and land owners are hold ing their lands not to improve them but to reap this great profit in steadily rising land values. A Vicious Tax System A large part of the blame for this state of affairs should be laid at the door of our vicious system of taxation. The big land owner lists his land at from $2 to $5 per acre despite the fact that he is expect ing to get from $60 to $60 per acre for it. In one township in the State 85,000 acres appeared on the 1915 tax list at 57 cents per acre. Our rule is low values and high market pricesi. On the other hand, the small farmer on his 50 acre plat works hard, improves his land and equips his farm. As a con sequence his taxes increase and lie is punished for his industry and thrift, lie has IxH'n an active, productive l itizen, adding value to his own property and to all other projH’rty in the community. And he is penalized for it by our sys tem of taxation, while the owner of idle lands is rewarded. It is profoundly im moral to punish indu.'t.ry and reward idle ness. Our Landless Multitudes The consequences of such a condition in the State are far-reaching. For in stance, the tenants and renters in our town and country regions in 1910 num bered with their families 1,158,000 soi>ls. They are landless and homeless in a State that contains 22,000,000 unoccupied and unused acres. And they cannot buy farms and homes because the prices are too far beyond their means. It is useless to advertise North C.!aro- lina abroad so long as the owners of idle land are allowed to build around the State a Chinese Wall of high prices for town and country real estate. New Zealand’s Way Twenty years ago New Zealand solved the problem of iiome ownership, by a graduated land tax. Henry Demorest Lloyd’s account of this experiment ought to be familiar to thoughtful people every where. A wise adaptation of New Zea- lands’s law is demanded in America. In this land of the free 55,000,000 of our 92,- 000,000 people in 1910 were landless and homeless. Ill North Carolina our homeless jieople numbered in the Cen.sns year 1,158,000. They were 52.5 per cent of our entire population; in the United States they were 60 per cent. Home and farm ownership is a funda mental condition of safe civilization; and our present tax system promotes increas ing homelessness both in our city and country regions. THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE Chief Justice Walter CiarK I nder our plan of government the people alon(' are .?ov*-reign. .Judge.s, governors, presidents, members oi legislHtures and of ('ongreHS are uli alike st’rvants of tiie fieople. No right is given in any constitu tion to either dt'iwrlinent to su|)ervi.se the action of the others. The sole su- pervisional authority is in thii pt»ple. Unle.ss our form f)f government is a mistake, the nvore the |)eopfe know the surer they an* to gf) right. I'he [xiople can tK* trusted with their own government—el.se onr reptiV>!ican form of giivcrnment is a failure. Iienc.e Jefferson’s utterano'; said he, W hoever ex pecta a people to ignor ant and fn'e, ex[)ects what never was and never will be. Hence the profound and unfailing belief of Jarvis in the education of the people of Nortli Carolina. UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION LETTER SERIES NO. it3 AUTOMOBILES IN NORTH CAROLINA CLYDE C. MILLER, Watauga County On June 30, 1915 there were 16,410 automobiles in North Carolina, or one for every 28 families in the State. Their total power was over 390,000 horse pow ers, while the horse powers used in our manufacturing enterprises in 1909 was only 378,000. VVe had $8,208,000 invest ed in automobiles and only $9,078,000 in public school property We are buying motor cars at the rate of 30 per day. We are certainly not investing in public edu cation at any such rate. On January 1 there were 21,084 cars registered with the Secretary of StaU;—an increase of some thing like 80 per cent in two years. During the year ending with last June $1,886,000 was spent in North CaroUna for gasoline and repairs, and only 1,- 698,087 on building, improving and equipping public schools. During the same period $1,575,000 was spent for tires alone and only $1,412,000 for public school buildings and improve ments. Also $3,726,000 was spent for the total upkeep of cars, and only $3,428,000 was paid to the teachers and school superin tendents of the State. Our motor cars are so numerous that if they were placed end to end, they would extend from Greensboro to Winston- Salem with three or four miles to spare. Uncle Sam’s Motor Cars In the United States as a whole there are 2,000,000 cars, or one for every ten families, 17 for every railway locomotive, and 28 for every railway passenger coach. They cost the people of the United States $1,080,000,000 annually, of which amount tires alone cost $192,000,000, or more than we spend on our navy. Six hun dred thousand new cars were bought last year ranging in price from $375 to $10,000, totalling about $450,000,000. It takes a billion gallons of gasoUne worth $130,000,000 to run the 2,000,000 cars of the United States a year, and in addition 20,000,000 snllons of hibricating oil costing $8,000,000. j Automobile accessories, garage ex[jens- es, and repairing costs $300,000,000 an-1 nually. We have invmted in cars a bil-j lion and a half dollars, and in 1916 an- : other half billion dollars worth of cars' will be made itj this country alone. Two states have more chanfl'eurs than the soldiers ami sailors of tlie nation. Where Cars are Most Numerous In North Carolina there are four main groups of counties in v.hich cars are most numerous, population considered; one in the West consisting of Buncombe and Henderson; two in the Middle consisting of Gaston, Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Stan ly, Catawba, Iredell, Rowan, Davidson, Forsyth, Guilford, and Alamance in one group, and Richmond, Scotland, Moore, and Cumberland in the othei’; and one in the Ba.st consisting of Vance, Granville, Durham, Wake Johnston, Wayne, I^e- noir, Craven, Pitt, Edgecombe, Wilson, Nash, Halifax, Bertie, Martin, Washing ton, Chowan, Pasquotank, and Curri tuck . No Cars in Three Counties The counties having the fewest cars are ' mainly tlie niountain counties, the ex treme eastern and south-eastern counties, and the counties havina: the fewest and smallest towns. Three counties had no cars at all, Alle ghany, Mitchell, and Graham; at least none registered in Raleigh on June 30, 1915. On Jan. 1, 1916, Graham had none, Alleghany one and Mitchell four cars carrying State licenses. Hoke and Avery are omitted from the list for lack of population figures. Automobiles and Good Roads An examination of the good roads map of the State shows that the counties hav ing the most improved roads are the counties with the n^ost automobiles. Clearly automobiles stimulate good road building. For instance, Scotland is tirst in percentage of improved roads and fourth in automobiles. New Hanover is second in good roads and first in cars. The big city counties lead both in car? and improved road mileage Buncombe and Henderson rank high because they are city and tourist centers. Another group of counties ranking high in automobile ownership extends from Gaston and Mecklenburg to Guilford and Alamance. This is the great manufactur ing section of the State, In this group are some of our largest and most pros perous towns. Here are most of the cot ton and cottonseed oil mills, tobacco fac tories, furniture and wook-working estab lishments of the State. Motor cars are a most significant index of the prosperity of these counties. Another group of counties in the first division is composed of Richmond, Moore, Scotland, and Cumberland. These counties are among the foremost in cot ton farming, and the market towns of these counties are rich in automobiles. Another group above the State average in automobile ownership embraces 20 connties centering around Wilson and OUR CITY SCHOOLS It Is po.s.sible that we have sometimes failed to reali7.e tlie strategic importance of th(> (X)sition o^cnpied by the city schools of North Carolina, In a state which, like ours, contains no large cities, there can liaturally lie, as a rule, no sharp lis- tinetion drawn between the probl«?ms of city rtkI country sctwaots. City Schoob as Models {n nnany counties, the relation between city and country schools is close. The city school, with its Ijetter trained t‘ach- ers, its betU^r organization and adminis tration, Ls, and should be, regarded a.n in a st'iMt' a model school for the country. The in(lt»riee of its standards and meth ods should be felt throughout the niral .-w.tions. institute WorK The city schools exert a great iniiw.nc* in anotiier way. Many teachers and superintendents from these st'.hook serve during the summer as conduct>ors and as sistants in institate work. The influence which ttiey exert is thus often wider than the cotinty limits. The work of rural teachers in the West, for example, may be moulded by conceptions held by teach ers and school officials in the Piedmont or Eastern sections. A Heavy Responsibility Such factj) make us realize the heavy burden of n^sponsibility that rest« on our city »c)io(.)lfi. Not only are they concern ed with the problems of their immediate communities, bat consciously or not, they are moieln for a wider neighbor- h'Kxl. Ot these Hcboois, as of no other part of the educational system of North Carolina, it can l»e said that they contain the (iromise and the potc'ncy of the edu cational fntupp of f.lie Static. A Loiiical Consequence It follows logically that our city schools must continually siibjeci their work to the most carefnl scrutiny. The presence of a proffttwional spirit, good organization, prop?r standards of work, and a host of other things, are- important in our city schools not only be'.ause of the service which tliey render to their commanities— and this of courm* comes first; but also Ix'cause ways of acting and feeling which are prevaleiit in them tend to lR«ome the prevalent educational attitules of the State of North Carolina e.Ktending from Durham on the west to Currituck on the east, and from (iran- ville, \’ance, and Halifax on the north to (Jraven on the south. Here is a diver sified farm region Cotton, tobacco, (*orn, peanut, piitato, and pork jirodiiction have made this section one of the most pros perous of the State. It stands well in per capita wealth. It contains a number of prosperous towns. What the Figures Show The above figures show how automo biles have extended into our daily life, and how expensive a luxury they are, how we are spending money on them that coukl be more profitably invested in reducing illiteracy to a minimum, in re deeming our 22,000,000 acres of waste land, in improving our 40,000 miles of unimj)rovel roads, in establishing new enterpris(.‘s in manufacture, busine.ss, and banking, all of which an^ needei to give North Carolina the leadership she de serves. Is any state or section likely to rank as high industrially as it might when it has more horse power in automobiles than in all its manufacturing enterprises? Or could it stand high in education when it spends more for gasoline and motor car repairs than it spends in building public schools? Or more for the upkeep of its ears than it pays its ijubiic school teach ers? AUTOMOBILES IN NORTH CAROLINA For the Year Ending June 30, 1915 C. C. MILLER, Watauga County Ihiiversity of North Carolina Rank (bounties No. families Total Rank Counties No. families Total to each machines to each machines 1 Currituck 12 121 50 Robeson 34 302 1 (iuilford 12 985 51 Lincoln 36 95 1 New Hauover 12 515 51 l^e 36 62 4 Scotland 13 229 51 Randolph 36 160 4 Mecklenburg 13 983 54 Tyrrell 37 28 4 Buncombe 13 725 55 Rutherford 38 148 7 Davidson 14 415 56 Northampton 39 112 7 Moore 14 240 57 Perquimans 44 50 9 Richmond 16 245 58 Hyde 45 39 9 Forsyth 16 565 58 Caswell 45 65 9 Wake 16 745 60 J1 ine.s 48 36 12 Vance 17 228 61 Anson 49 . 103 12 Wilson 17 331 62 Union 51 129 12 Pitt 17 425 63 Columbus 52 107 12 Rowan 17 417 64 Surry 53 112 16 Edgecombe 18 351 64 Davie 53 50 17 Cumberland 19 365 66 Sampson 57 105 18 Durham 20 345 67 Burke 65 65 18 Martin 20 172 68 Dare 69 14 20 Nash 21 321 69 Chatham 74 61 20 I^enoir 21 215 69 Gates 74 28 20 Craven 21 237 71 Polk 76 20 23 Wayne 22 324 72 Duplin 78 65 23 Pasquotank 22 147 73 Pender 79 39 25 Cabarrus 23 228 74 Caldwell 80 61 25 Iredell 23 290 75 Alexander 82 28 27 Catawba 24 230 76 Onslow 83 34 27 Chowan 24 91 77 Haywood 84 50 29 Halifax 25 299 78 Stokes 85 47 29 Bertie 25 178 79 Camden 93 12 31 Henderson 26 124 80 Pamlico 99 20 31 Washington 26 83 81 Carteret 102 27 31 Johnston 26 310 82 Brunswick 118 21 31 Stanly 26 148 83 Cherokee 122 23 35 Alamance 27 210 84 McDowell 123 22 35 Greene 27 95 85 Bladen 133 27 as Granville 27 180 86 Yadkin 134 , 23 35 Gaston 27 265 87 Macon 162 15 39 Montgomery 29 101 88 Wilkes 173 35 39 Harnett 29 148 89 Watauga 225 12 41 Warren 30 135 90 Swain 416 5 41 Transylvania 30 47 91 Jackson 624 4 43 Orange 31 95 92 Ashe' 762 5 43 Franklin 31 155 93 Clay 781 1 45 Person 32 107 94 Y ancey 1,207 2 45 Hertford 32 95 95 Madison 4,026 1 45 Rockingham 32 223 96 Alleghany 0 45 Cleveland 32 180 96 Graham 0 45 Beaufort 32 188 . 96 Mitchell 0
The University of North Carolina News Letter (Chapel Hill, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
March 1, 1916, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75