The news in this publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
Vb. m university of north Carolina
NEWS LETTER
AUGUST 9, 1922
Published Weekly by the
University of North Caro
lina for its University Ex
tension Division.
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
SJilorial Board. E. G. Hranson, 8. H. Hobbs, Jr., L. R. Wilson, E. W, Knight, D. D. Carroll, J.
VOL. VHI, NO. 38
B. Bullitt, H. W. Odum. Entered as second-class
matter Norember 14.1914, at the Postoffice at Chapel Hill, N. C., under the act ol August 24, 191S
IMP80VED COUNTY.GOVERNMENT
THE COUNTY BOARDS MEET ■ in 1920 they were less than one-fifth of
The State Association of County Com-1 wealth produced,
missioners meets in annual session on j, strong in gross crop values,
the campus of the University of North j agriculture is weak in livestock
Carolina at Chapel Hill on Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday, August 15,
16, 17.
Place of meetings Gerrard Hall.
Headquarters, the University Y. M. C.
A. building-^a place for rest, comrade
ship, readiiig, writing, etc. Meals in
the town cafeteria and cafes. Charges
moderate.
Tuesday, August 15
7:30 P. M. Registration at the Uni
versity Y. M. C. A. building. Assign
ment to dormitory rooms as guests of
the University.
8:30 P. M. Call to Order, by Presi
dent B. -A. Patton, Asheville, N. C.
Invocation. Addresses of Welcome,
H. W. Chase, President of the Univer
sity, and E. C. Branson, Department
Rural Social Economics.. Response, C.
W. Morgan, Vice-President, Hertford,
N. C.
Report of the Secretary and Treas
urer.
Appointment of Committees on (1)
Resolutions, (2) Legislation, (3) Nomi
nations, (4) Auditing.
Wednesday, August 16
10:00 A. M. Invocation. Improved
County Government.
Address, Governor Cameron Morri
son. Discussion by (1) the State Com
mission on County Government, and (2)
the County Commissioners of the State.
12:00 A. M. A Campus Barbecue.
2:00 P. M. The County Home. Roy M.
Brown, State Department of Public
Welfare. Discussion opened by Mrs.
Clarence A. Johnson, State Commis
sioner of Public Welfare.
8:30 P. M. County Government and
Students of political economy are re-
ferred to the University News Letter
Vol. VIH, Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29,
30, 31, and 32, in which we have been
exhibiting in detail this particular defi
ciency in our agriculture, and we have
been doing so with the hope that stu
dents of political economy are also in
terested in North Carolina. It is much
more than a farm problem. It is a
state problem, and when ■ the boll wee
vil arrives, it will be found to concern
every business and everybody'in North
Carolina. The business men of the
state will then be bunched like partridges
in a snow storm, and just as helpless-un-
less they lookahead wisely and get busy
effectively long before the day of calam
ity. The boll weevil is no respecter of-
businesses, town or country.
Farm-Worher Production
The production of .gross and per-acre
crop values is one thing; the retention
of farm wealth is another. And it is
in this last most important matter that
North Carolina falls down.
As a cjie to our thinking about it we
are presenting elsewhere in this issue a
table of farm wealth production per
farm-worker. And by farm wealth we
mean both crops and animal products.
The gross value of the farm wealth
produced in North Carolina in 1920,
counting both crops and animal pro
ducts, was 470 million dollars-crops
378 millions and animal products 92 mil
lions; and fifteen states made a better
showing.
But states
differ so greatly in size
and population that they must be re
duced to a unit of comparison. The
unit that is most significant is not the
Public Education. E. C. Brooks, State fworker-not the land but
p . , fhA man
Superintendent Public Instruction.
Questions and discussion.
Thursday, August 17
10:00 A. M. Agriculture in North
Carolina. Frank Parker, State Agri
cultural Statistician. Open meeting
and discussion.
12:00 M. Report of Committees. Ad
journment.
0URR4NKIN AGRICULTURE
As a crop-producing state, the rank
of North Carolina is high. In the pro
duction of gross crop values in 1919,
only three states made a better show
ing—Illinois, Iowa, and Texas, in the
order named. In 1920 ten states stood
above us, but in 1921 the states ahead
of us were only four—Texas, Califor
nia, Illinois, and New York. All of
which means that farm crops alone
considered we. rank among the best half
dozen states of the Union in average
years.
. And our rank is high in the per-acre
production of cro^ values. In 1921 only
one real farm state produced greater
crop values per acre, and that state was
California with her wonderful areas of
fruit and truck farming. , The seven
other states that stood above us in this
particular are states in which agricul
ture is an insignificant business—one is
an irrigation state in the Rockies and
the other ^ix are industrial states in the
East.
But our rank as an agricultural state
cannot be based on crops alone. Live
stock atid animal products of all sorts
niust be counted in, when states are
ranked in the production of agricultur
al wealth; and when counted in, North
Carolina’s rank drops from fourth to
fortieth on a per capita basis, in round
numbers in average years.
Crops are an important item; they are
^ight around three-fourths of all the
farm wealth produced in North Caro
lina year by year. And nearly two-
thirds of our total crop values are pro
duced by cotton and tobacco alone.
But crops are not the whole of the
arm wealth produced in any state;
they are barely more than half the
total in such states as Ohio, Indiana,
Blinois, and Nebraska. In Iowa and
Missouri they are distinctly less than
naif of the total farm wealth produced
in average years. In North Carolina
the man,
There is immense significance in the
fact that the average farm worker in
North Carolina in 1920 produced only
$984 of farm wealth; that the average
was larger in forty states and that five
of these were Southern; that in twenty-
four states the average ran beyond
$2000 per farm-worker, and in five
states, beyond $3000 per farm-worker.
In Nebraska and Iowa it was right
around $3,500 per farm-worker. The
states that made a poorer showing than
North Carolina were all Southern—all
of them cotton producing states. The
state that foots the column is Missis
sippi, which is now in the trough of the
boll weevil wave.
Per Capita Country Wealth
Per-acre production of crop values is
significant, but per-worker production
of farm wealth is more significant. The
states that have the highest averages
of per-worker farm production are live^
stock states, with larger farms, more
profit-producing farm machinery, more
cultivated acres per man, and a lower
production cost per bushel, per pound,
per ton. These are the farm kates
that produce less per acre, but more
per worker. The result is a wider mar
gin of profits and a better chance to re
tain and accumulate farm wealth.
In the per-worker production of farm
wealth in 1920, North Carolina ranked
41st, and in the per capita accumula
tion of wealth in farm properties ‘ our
country dwellers held exactly the same
rank.
Accumulated farm wealth per coun
try dweller, $684; rank 41st. Produced
farm wealth per worker, $984; rank 41st.
That’s North Carolina in 1920.
The farm worker produces in a single
yea'r in North Carolina just about as
great wealth as he has been able to ac
cumulate and retain in two hundred and
fifty years.
Per-worker production and per capita
accumulation run along side by side in
every state. of the Union. There is a
causal relation between these two fun
damental facts in agriculture every
where. The Belgian farmers lead Eu
rope in the per-acre production of small
grains; they also led Europe in 1914 in
per capita poverty.
Iowa farmers, man for man, produce
nearly four times as much as Caroling
farmers—$3,554 against $984 in North
Carolina; and man for man they are
Released week beginning August 7
KNOW NORTH CAROLINA
Wealth and Welfare
Prof. C. B. Williams, dean of
Agriculture at State College, has
been impressed with the condition
North^CaroIina that allows poor-pay
ing farms to affect the homes, the
schools, and the churches of the
state to the degree that has been
displayed in the last few years.
Poor homes, inadequate church
and school facilities are more pre
valent than we should like to see
them in North Carolina, says Pro
fessor Williams, because of the fact
that so many of our farms are pro
ducing such poor yields and net re
turns for the efforts put into their
operations.
During the ^ast few years in our
visits to different sections of the
state, I have been struck very much
with the marked correlation between
the productiveness of the soil and
the character of the farm homes and
their surroundings; schools and
churches; with the healthfulness of
the families; and with the education
al qualifications of the people. In,
close proximity to such kreas, it is
not uncommon to find other areas
sparsely settled, with the people liv
ing in humble hom^ Without beauti
fication and with their children not
permitted to enjoy social, religious,
and educational advantages as do
the communities established on more
productive lands. The underlying
conditions largely causing these dif
ferences is not hard to find. My ob
servations are that to a large extent
they are fundamentally connected
with differences in the productive
ness of the soils of these different
communities. Does not this, then,
unmistakably point to the fact that
the greatest and most fundamental
necessity of North Carolina farming
is that of securing and applying in
formation that will aid in the eco
nomic building up^of the productive
ness of soils of the state? No com
munity, state, or nation dependent
upon its agriculture, can prosper
when its soils are not productive.
North Carolina farming, in a gen
eral way, therefore, cannot be profit
able unless goodly acreage yields are
secured and at economic costs per
unit. ’No amoun^ of temporizing
along other lines in a broad way can
bring prosperity to the masses of
our people on the farm. Year in
and year out, where farmers do not
get goodly yields of their crops, it is
not possible to secure large returns
for labor and expenses put into their
production, it matters not how fa
vorable prices may ordinarily be.—
Dean C. B. Williams, State A. and
E. College, in News and Observer.
state waits on the efficiency, the pros
perity, .the satisfaction, and the whole
someness of the farmers.
The man who is too stupid to see this
foundational fact in commonwealth de
velopment is too stupid to see anything
beyond the predatory concerns of pri
vate enterprise.
THEY LIVE AT HOME
which leads only to the drifting sands;
and the same is true of farmers.—The
Country .Gentleman.
HOMES AND THE COMMUNITY
The home'is th^ unit around which
any community must' be built. Wher
ever there is a plenitude of homes,
there you will find a prosperous, con
tented, and happy people. No great
city was ever constructed upon an itin
erant population. There must be
It is interesting to note that some of
our farmers are bringing in their cotton . . j
right now since the price has touched j nucleus of homes upon which to build,
the 22-cent mark, but it is significant Nobody can have a real abiding inter-
also to note that these farmers without ast in a community who is not anchored
a single exception are in one of two
classes, either possessed of wealth and
credit sufficient to borrow money or
else they are in the class of those who
live at home and board at the same
place.
One farmer who yesterday sold his
cotton, told of how he had enough feed
for his teams to last another year;
whiie we heard anotHIr farmer who was
at that time holding his cotton and
probably still has it explain that his
hog and hominy were raised' at home
and that he had enough hams, dhickens,
and eggs to feed himself and family anil
those dependent upon him for another
winter and that _ his ready needs for
money had been taken care of by the
family poultry and the cows. That’s
successful farming.-Rocky Mount Tel
egram.
.to that community. A man will fight
for his home, but he can very readily
■find another place in which to live.
A community that makes it easy for
an individual to own his home need
have no qualms upon the approach of
the census taker. Every community
has in it hundreds of houses that are
not and never will be homes. It re
quires the element of possession and a
lot of living to make a home. Where
there are homes there are likely to be
children, and where there are children
there must of necessity be growth.
It is the ambition of every man to
own some small fraction of the surface
of the earth. Because some men try
to hog it all does not alter the instinct
.which is inherent in every normal hu
man being. In the heart of every man
there is a dream of the time when he
can sit at his ease beneath his own vine
and fig tree. It is good to own a little
XT„. , . , I piece of land—even if it is nothing more
Not long since, a popular speaker en-1 than a lot in a cemetery
joined an audience of college students i « u , •
' A man who owns his own home is a
kindlier neighbor and a better citizen.
He has a very direct and personal in-
GIVE THE FOLKS THE FACTS
substantially as follows;
“The world is growing stale and its
people are becoming commonplace from
sheer lack of ideas. H’herefore, get
ideas. It does not matter so much how
or where you get them, 'or whether in
deed they are correct; the great thing
is to have ideas. ’ ’
Now that is passing strange. Our
observation is that the world is suffer
ing more from lack of knowledge of
facts than from paucity of ideas.
Our conviction is that instead of suffer
ing from too few ideas, we are suffer-
terest in the well-being of the com
munity in which he lives. He stands
for good government because it is only
a good government that can give him
protection for his property. He wants
churches and schools in order that his
children may be educated and trained.
He is interested in the beautification
of his city and the improvement of his
streets, because these things tend to
enhance the value and the beauty of
his own holdings. He becomes rooted
mg from too many that will not work in the soil of that community and
because they have little or no relation
to the facts of life. Our experience
is that it is exceedingly difficult to find
facts enough on which to base a new
idea so that it will square with wh^t
is really going to happen. Wherefore
let us have more facts, even to the
curbing of some ideas that, however en-
part-and parcel thereof.
A city that makes it easy for a man
to own his own home is on the high
road to prosperity. A city that would
encourage home building with financial
assistance to responsible prospects
would soon be a community of homes.
One property owner is worth ten finely
dressed strangers who are here today
and gone tomorrow. Birds of passage
It takes a lot of
terfaining, might prove dangerous to
the individual and the public, who ner-
force must in the long run deal, with Seldom build nests,
facts and not fancies. I v • j. t .
_ ^ ^ . j living to make a home. A city of plenty
Bad advice to the students that. They' of small homes is a delightful commun-
would better even follow histqry. and: ity. There are too few of them.-
precedent than that form of fiction I Charlotte Observer.
worth nearly twelve times as much—
$8,113 against $684 in North Carolina.
The Way Up
Not fewer acres, but more acres bet
ter farmed, with more horse and ma
chine power. Not more farmers but
fewer, with larger , farms and better
balanced farm systems. Not less cot
ton and tobacco, but more, and more
cotton and tobacco produced on a home-
raised bread and meat basis. More
home-owning farmers and fewer ten
ants, white and black. More and bet
ter livestock. A few meat and milk
animals on every farm, at least enough
to feed the farm family. Better ready-
cash market facilities in the nearby
towns. And so on and on.
These are the fundamental economic
needs of agriculture in North Carolina,
if we are ever to accumulate wealth in
our country regions.
Social values wait on wealth in the
countryside, and the welfare of the
FARM WEALTH PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES
Per Farm WorKer in 1920
Based on (1) the farm value of all farm wealth produced: farm crops farm
animals raised.^nd animal products-milk, butter, poultry, eggs, honey and
wax, and the like, as exhibited in Weather, Crops, and Markets, July 1, 1922
and (2) on the federal census of agricultural workers—farm owners tenants’
wage laborers, ten years old and over. ' ’ ’
Grand total of 1920 crops and animal products in North Carolina $470 000 -
000. Fifteen states made a better showing.
Production per farm worker in North Carplina, $984. Forty states made a
better showing.
Miss Henrietta R. Smedes
Department of Rural Social Economics, University of North Carolina
Rank State Per Farm
Worker
1 Iowa $3,654
2 Nebraska 3,400
3 Kansas 3*285
4 Wyoming 3^206
5 Nevada 3,062
6 South Dakota 2,809
7 Colorado 2,786
8 California 2,729
9 Illinois 2,680
10 North Dakota t 2,672
11 Wisconsin 2,577
12 New York 2,562
13 Vermont 2,536
14 Idaho 2,347
16 Oregon 2,289
16 Connecticut 2,234
17 Indiana 2,207
17 Montana 2,207
19 Ohio 2,172
20 New Jersey 2,153
21 Missouri 2,093
22 Washington 2,061
23 Pennsylvania 2,040;
24 Massachusetts 2,013 I
Rank State
Per Farm
Worker
Utah $1,966
Minnesota _ i 924
Michigan j 9^7
New Hampshire 1,742
Arizona
Delaware i 712
Rhode Island 1 70q‘
Oklahoma 1 ^29
Maine ]|e25
Maryland..., '.
New Mexico 1 435
West Virginia 1^339
Texas
Virginia.. i_2S6
Kentucky i 117
Tennessee 1 067
North Carolina 934
Arkansas 73^
Florida 739
South Carolina 745
Georgia ggg
Louisiana 910
Alabama 525
Mississippi 499