rr lopr iriwi irr n ir tt iYW i
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 its University Ex
tension Division.
SEPTEMBER 21, 1921
CHAPEL HHJ., N. C.
VOL. Vn, NO. 44
Editorial Board I E. C. Branson, S. H. Hobbs, Jr., L. R. Wilson, E. W. Knight, D. D. Carroll, J. B. Bullitt, 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.
STUDYING NORTH CAROLINA
HOME STATE STUDIES
During the college year just closed
the following studies of the state have
been made by various students in the
University of North Carolina, mainly
in the department of Rural Social
Science. Where possible, the facts for
each county were worked out and the
counties of the state ranked according
ly from high to low, or for each state
and North Carolina ranked accordingly.
During the last seven years more than
eight hundred such studies have been
made in the University of North Caro
lina.' The University News Letter has
carried briefs of them week by week
since November 1914.
County Studies
1. Historical Backgronnd of Robe
son County. — Robert W. Proctor, Lura-
berton.
2. Cherokee Indians of Robeson
County.— Robert W. Proctor, Lum-
berton.
3. A Historical Sketch of Harnett
County.— Edwin M. Holt, Duke.
4. Natural Resources, Industries,
and Opportunities of Harnett County.—
Edv/in M. Holt, Duke.
5. A Brief'History of Vance County.—
H. B. Cooper, Henderson.
6. Natural Resources of Vance Coun
ty.— H. B. Cooper, Henderson.
7. Industries in Vance C'ounty.— H.
B. Cooper, Henderson.
8. A Brief History of Edgecombe
County.— Katherine Galloway Batts,
Tarboro.
9. A Brief History of Wayne Coun-'
ty.— Phillip Hettleman, Goldsboro.
10. Natural Resources of Wayne
County. —' Phillip Hettleman, Golds- ^
boro. i
11. Wayne County Industries.—
Phillip Hettleman, Goldsboro. \
12. Wealth and Taxation in Wayne j
County.— Phillip Hettleman, Golds-,
boro. !
13. Farm Conditions and Practices in
Wayne County.— Phillip Hettleman, !
Goldsboro. ■
14. BWcts About the Folks in Wayne I
County.— Phillip Hettleman, Golds
boro.
16. Historical Background of David- ■
son County.—Julius R. Raper, Jr., Lin-,
wood.
16. Natural Resources of Davidson j
County.— Julius R. Raper, Jr., Lin-j
wood. I
17. Facts About the Folks in David
son County.— Julius R. Raper, Jr.,
Linwood.
18. Farm Conditions and Practices in
Davidson County.— J. R. Raper, Jr.,
Linwood.
19. Wealth and Taxation in Davidson
County. —.J. R. Raper, Jr., Linwood.
20. Historical Background of Ala
mance County.— P. K. Holt, Burling
ton.
21. Natural Resources of Alamance
County.— L. L. Hodge, Burlington.
22. Industries of Alamance County. —
P. K. Holt, Burlington.
23. Alamance County in 1860 and 1910.
— Ogden F. Crowson, Jr., Burlington.
24. Where Alamance Lags and the
Way Out.— 0. P. Crowson, Burling
ton.
25. Farm Conditions and Practices in
Alamance County.— C. B. Ellis, Jr.,
Burlington.
26. Wealth and Taxation in Ala
mance County.— C. B. Ellis, Jr., Bur
lington.
27. Historical Background of Pasquo
tank County.—W. C. McMullan, Eliza
beth City.
28. Natural Resources of Pasquo
tank County. — W. 0. McMullan, Eliza
beth City.
29. Industries and Opportunities of
Pasquotank.— W. 0. McMullan, Eliza
beth City.
State Studies
1. Welfare Agencies in North Caro
lina.—Jonathan Daniels, Raleigh.
2. North Carolina as a Tobacco
State.—C. 0. H. Laughinghouse, Green
ville.
3. Cooperative Marketing of Truck
Crops in Eastern Carolina.—William G.
Clark, Jr., Tarboro.
4i' T'^-year Gains in Local School Tax
Districts, 1911-1920.—William G. Clark,
Jr., Tarboro.
5. School Expenditures per $1,000 of
Taxable Property, 1919-20.—H. H.
Doggett, Forest City.
6. Average Salaries Paid County
Superintendents in the United States
in 1920.—H. H. Doggett, Forest City.
7. Who Pays Federal Income Taxes
in North Carolina.—H. B. Cooper, Hen
derson.
8. Cooperative Marketing of Tobac
co.—Edgar Frank Hooker, Kinston.
9. Ten-year Increase in Farms, by
Counties.—E. F. Hooker, Kinston.
10. Cotton Production per Acre in
North Carolina, 1920.—E. F. Hooker,
Kinston.
11. Cotton production in North Caro
lina in 1920.—E. F. Hooker, Kinston.
12. The State Board of Charities and
Welfare, 1919-1920.-L. deR. MacMil
lan, Wilmington.
13. Investment in Automobiles and
Schools in North Carolina in 1920.—L.
deR. MacMillan, Wilmington. Univer
sity News Letter, Vol. VII, No. 14.
14. Size of the Counties in North
Carolina. —M. B. deRosset, Wilming
ton.
15. Dogs Versus Sheep. —Rufus A.
Hunter, Raleigh.
16. State Income Taxes, 1919.—Rufus
A. Hunter, Raleigh.
17. State and County Tax Costs per
Capita in 1919.—C. P. Savage, Wallace.
18. Professional Taxes Paid in North
Carolina in 1919.—C. P. Savage, Wal
lace.
19. Ten-year Increase in Real Estate
Values, 1911-1920.—C. P. Savage, Wal
lace.
20. Inheritance Taxes—State and
Federal.—R. L. LeGrand, Wilmington.
21. Per Capita School Expenditures
in North Carolina in 1919-20.—P. D.
Herring, Clinton.
22. Local School Tax Districts, 1919-
20.—P. D. Herring, Clinton.
23. Average Annual Salary Paid
White Teachers in North Carolina,
1919-1920. —P. D. Herring, Clintpn.
24. White School Population in Aver
age Daily Attendance in North Caro
lina in 1918-1919.—Howard Holderness,
Tarboro.
25. Colored School Population in
Average Attendance in North Carolina
in 1918-1919. —Howard Holderness, Tar
boro.
26. Per Capita Expenditures on
Schools in North Carolina in 1919-20.—
Howard Holderness, Tarboro.
27. Small-Town Development in
North Carolina. —H. B. Cooper, Hen
derson,
28. Revaluation and the Year Before.
— L. deR. MacMillan, Wilmington.
University News Letter, Vol. VII, Nos.
1 and 5.
29. The Cityward Drift in Carolina.—
C. J. Williams, Concord.
30. The Small Town in North Caro
lina.—L. D. Martin, Virginia.
31. Rural White School Property in
North Carolina in 1918.—D. C. Sin
clair, Wilmington.
32. Rural Population Density in
North Carolina in 1920.- M. M. Jer-
nigan, Dunn.
33. Per Capita Cost of State Govern
ments in 1919.—University News Let
ter, Vol. VI, No. 44.
34. Carolina Church Wealth.—Uni
versity News Letter, Vol. VI, No. 46.
35. The Lumber Cut, by States, 1918.
—University News Letter, Vol. VI,
No. 50.
36. Population Increases and Decreas
es in North Carolina Counties, 1910-20.
-Miss A. B. Pruitt. University News
Letter, Vol. VII, No. 2.
37. Countryside Populations in Caro
lina.-J. B. Douglass, Winston-Salem.
University News Letter, Vol VII, No.
4.
■ 38. Farm Land Values per Acre m
the United . States, 1920, by States.—
University News Letter, Vol. VII, No.
6.
39. Farm Land Tax Values per Acre m
Carolina, 1920, by Counties.—Universi
ty News Letter, Vol. VII, No. 7.
40. College Attendence in 1917-18, by
States.—University News Letter, Vol.
VII, No. 21.
41. Local School Bonds in North
Carolina, Voted Since January 1, 1921.
—University News Letter, Vol. VII,
No- 3D . V,
42. Increases and Decreases m Number
of Farms in North Carolina, by Coun
ties.-University News Letter, Vol.
VII, No. 34.
HOME-BRED CITIZENSHIP
National progress is the sum total of
local progress in the United States,
says Mr. Hoover. When local de
mocracies, town and country, func
tion effectively, the whole of Amer
ica moves up to higher levels—and
not otherwise. When private citi
zens develop a robust sense of social
and civic responsibility, the home
communities move up to higher lev
els—and not otherwise. The man
who is a poor citizen at home is
bound to make a poor town or coun
ty official, or a poor legislator, or a
poor state-house official, or a poor
representative or senator at Wash
ington. How could it be otherwise?
The home problems are first in im
portance. Progress in the home
community and the home state are
dependent upon competent citizen
ship and a generous will to serve the
common good. An acre in Middle
sex is worth a whole township in
Utopia, said Macaulay. Moving in
to better public conditions in every
square mile of North Carolina is an
energizing vision for every lover of
the Old North State. — E. C. Bran-
43. Farm Tenancy in North Carolina—
Gains and Losses, by Counties, 1910-20.
—University News Letter, Vol. VII,
Nos. 36 and 38.
44. Negro Farm Operators in North
Carolina—Increases and Decreases in
Number, by Counties, 1910-20.—Uni
versity News Letter. Vol. 'VII, No. 41.
45. State Finances in North Caro
lina in 1919.—University News Letter,
Vol. VI, No. 44.
46. Carolina Public Libraries.—Uni
versity News Letter, Vol. VI, No. 45.
47. The Colleges of North Carolina.—
University News Letter, Vol. VII, Nos.
3, 8, and 9.
48. The New Day in Carolina.—Uni
versity News Letter, Vol. VII, No. 13.
49. Federal Taxes in North Carolina
in 1920. —University News Letter, Vol.
VII, No 15.
60. Personal Income Taxes in North
Carolina in 1918.—University News
Letter, Vol VII, No. 16.
Special Studies
1. Education and Expenditures in the
United States, 1920.— University News
Letter, Vol. VII, No. 25.
2. Gastonia the Natural Textile Cen
ter of the South.—A. C. Lineberger,
Jr., Belmont.
3. The Future Possibilities of Wil
mington as a Port.—M. B. deRosset,
Wilmington.
4. History of Cotton Production in
South Carolina.—R. E. James, Dar
lington, S. C.
TOWN AND CITY STUDIES
Tne programs of the North Carolina
Club at the University were concen
trated in 1920-21 upon studies of North
Carolina: Industrial and Urban. These
studies are being edited by Messrs.
Odum, Saville, and Branson of the fac
ulty, and will be given to the public in
the next Year Book of the Club in the
early fall.
1. The Cityward Drift in Carolina:
The extent, causes, consequences. Is it
well or ill for the state-at-large? The
Outlook.—C. J. Williams, Cabarrus
county.
2. Small Town Development in Caro
lina: (1) The increase of small towns in
number and population since 1900, (a)
in the Tidewater and Coastal Plain
mainly as market towns, and (b) in the
Hill country mainly as mill villages,
(2) Small-town Problems, inventory,
analysis and discussion.—L. D. Martin,
Nansemond county, Va., and H. B.
Cooper, Vance county.
3. The Developing Industries of Caro
lina: (1) Extent and variety, (2) Why
more rapid than in other southern
states. (3) The significance. (4) The
Outlook.—M. M. Jernigan, Sampson
county.
4. The Mill and Factory Centers of
Carolina; Advantages and disadvan
tages, problems, and social activities.
—B.W. Sipe, Gaston county.
5. The Future of our Small Towns:
(1) Town Planning for our Mill Vil
lages. (2) Noteworthy leaders and a-
chievments. —Miss. Beulah Martin,
Georgia.
6. Town and Country Interdepen
dencies; Board of Trade Policies and
Activities.—Roy M. Brown, Watauga
county.
7. City Problems in Carolina: Eco
nomic, Social, Civic; Inventory, Analy
sis, Discussion.—T. R. Buchanan, Vir
ginia.
8. City Planning in Carolina, in view
of ascertained Common Deficiencies.—
N. P. Hayes, Warren county.
9. City Government in Carolina;
Forms of. Efficiencies and Deficiencies.
—P. A. Reavis, Franklin county.
10. City Finance and Financial Meth
ods in Carolina.—J. G. Gullick, Gaston
county.
11. Public Utilities in Carolina Cities:
Common Utilities, Utilities that are
Commonly Owned, Franchise Policies,
etc.—W. E. Wolfe, Buncombe County.
12. Home Ownership and the Hous
ing Problem: The Facts, their Social
Significance, Constructive Suggestions.
—Annie Pruitt, Franklin county.
13. Community Life and Organiza
tion in Carolina; (1) The Rarity of
Country Communities and why; the
Consequent Social Problems, (2) The
most Promising Agency of Social Inte
gration in Rural Areas and why.—C.
E. Cowan, Bertie county.
14. Training for Public Service in
Carolina: Agencies and Activities, pub
lic and private.—H. W. Odum, Uni
versity Faculty.
16. Mujjjcipal Accounting and Audit
ing.—P. Hettleman, Wayne county.
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
REFORMS
We are here giving to students in the
state-at-large a syllabus of the studies
in county government, in the depart
ment of Rural Social Science #t the
University of North Carolina during the
year 1920-21. The legislature of Louis
iana is this fall considering county gov
ernment. Our ovvn legislature can con
sider no more important subject. What
Dr. E. C. Brooks, our state school com
missioner, has been talking about late
ly ought to wake up the state.
1. The Importance. Due (1) to the
number of people involved, which is ev
erybody in the United States. It is al
most the only government that nearly
two-fifths of the people in the United
States are directly interested in. In
North Carolina the ratio rises to more
than seven-tenths of the total popula
tion. These are the open-country dwell
ers living outside all incorporated towns.
(2) To the enormous cost of county gov
ernment. In North Carolina in 1913 it was
twice the costof our state government and
in 1921 this ratio is greatly increased.
The bonded debt of our counties is now
well over 40 million dollars. (3) To
wide-spread unbusinesslikeness and
waste in handling county revenues—not
to dishonesty so much as inefficiency.
See North Carolina County Government
and County Affairs, pp 7-11, 69-79.
Also bulletins of the Alameda County
Tax Association, and Gilbertson’s The
County, p 189-90. And (4) to the ten
dency of county government to rise
above the Big Policeman idea and to be
come a service agency, in highways,
schools, public health, etc.; which
means greatly increased taxes. It must
also mean greatly increased efficiency;
else a collapse of public spirit, as in
Oregon. See Municipal Quarterly Re
view, Feb. 1921.
2. Why County Government is the
Weakest Link in American Democracy.
(1) Country people are individualistic;
their sense of civic and social responsi
bility is apt to be lacking, or to be fee
ble. They are private and local in
mood, humor, and temper. (2) They
dwell too far away from the county
seat to be acquainted with county af
fairs, or be intelligently aware of de
ficiencies and delinquencies in county
offices. Ignorance, indifference, and in
ertia are everywhere the deadliest ene
mies of democracy. (3) Thus court
house officers and county bosses are li
censed to do as they please, and if only
they are clever, good fellows they last
a long time. The value of well balanced
parties in a county.
3. Constructive Suggestions: (1) Un
ified county government under respon
sible headship. Our present commis
sioner plan recommended but strength
ened as follows: (a) The commissioners
locally elected as before, with the right
to choose one of their number as a
whole-time chairman and to vote an
adequate salary to him as the county
commission-manager having full author
ity to manage county affairs with the
advice and counsel of his fellow com
missioners; or the board may appoint a
competent outside expert as its county-
manager. (b) The board to have
adequate authority over the four con
stitutional county officers, and the right
to appoint and dismiss all other county
officers whatsoever, (c) Clothed with
complete authority over county finances
under state laws, but under a county
budget plan, (d) With authority to es
tablish and maintain uniform account
keeping and reporting of all public
moneys handled by all county officers,
(e) Required under penalty to publish
annually in compact form a statement
of county finances showing— assets
what and where; liabilities and forms
of the same; classified receipts and dis
bursements in every office and sum
mary of the same; fees and commis
sions due and collected in each office
and summary of same; or if a salary
county, the fees and commissions sub
ject to collection, actually collected,
and turned over to the county treasurer,
along with the fee-and-salary account
of the county in detail, (f) All re
ports so rendered as to show unit costs
or expenditures. Here is the commiss
ioner-plan based on the short ballot in
county government, with the fewest
possible changes in the present plan.
Open discussion.
(2) A State Auditing Bureau in the
State Auditor’s Office charged (a) with
devising and prescribing simple forms
of account-keeping and reporting in
state departments, state institutions,
county and municipal offices, (b) with
installing proper forms and methods of
public and institutional accounting and
reporting by all public officers handling
public moneys, (c) with instructing and
guiding such, officers, to the end that
unit costs and expenditures may be
available for purposes of comparison,
(d) The State Auditing Bureau to have
a field force of public accoutants busy
auditing public accounts—upon the plan
of our state bank examiners, their chief
duty being to prescribe, instruct and
guide, and where necessary to warn pub-
lie officials—not to serve as detectives
solely but as friendly counselors mainly.
In general, such a bureau was estab
lished by the legislature of 1921.
(3) The enactment of such organic
and statute laws as may be necessary
(a) to establish county government of
the type suggested, or something bet
ter than we have in any state at pre
sent, and (b) to place such government
under sympathetic guidance at the
capital; the end being the largest possi
ble measure of local self-determination,
and the least possible interference on
part of state officials in county affairs,
the general public good considered. At
present our counties are subject to
state legislation without any proper
state counsel, direction, or supervis
ion.
4. Reading References. Gilbertson’s
The County. Fairlie’s Local Govern
ment in Counties, Towns, and Villages.
Branson’s County Government and
County Affairs in North Carolina.
Maxey’s Plan of Unified County Gov
ernment. .Bulletins of the Alameda
County Tax Association, 823 Bank of
Savings Building, Oakland, California.
Bulletins of Cook County Bureau of
Public Efficiency, 815 Plymouth Court,
Chicago. Bulletins of the Westchester
County Research Bureau, White Plains,
New York. James’s County Government
in Texas, bulletin of the University of
Texas, Austin. County and Local Gov
ernment in Illinois, Bulletin No. 12,
Legislative Reference Bureau, Spring-
field, Illinois.
A BROADSIDES BY BROOKS
The annual gathering of North Caro
lina farmers and farm women was held
in Raleigh this week with a number of
notable speakers on the program.
Among those who made addresses the
first day of the convention were Dr. E.
C. Brooks, Dr. Carl Taylor, and Miss.
Helen Louise Johnson.
Dr. Brooks fired a broadside at in
efficient county rule upon a basis of in
vestigation in a dozen representative
counties in the state, making the fol
lowing charges quoted from the News
and Observer:
That there are epunty officials who do
not know how much money is due from
taxes or how that money is being spent.
That in many districts no records
have ever been made of taxes levied in
those districts.
That while the tax rate has been go
ing up, leakage in some counties through
unpaid taxes has been tremendous.
That many escape taxation and no
foreclosure is attempted even after
property is advertised as required by
the law. —Smithfield Herald.