The news in this publi
cation is reiecised 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.
JANUARY 30,1924
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA TRESS
VOL. X, NO. 11
B titorial Boardt B.IG. Braaaon. S. H. Elobba, Jr., L. S. Wilson. E. W. Knight, D. D. Carroll. J. B.Ba}Utt, S. W. Odam.
Entered aa aecond-class matter November 14. 1914, at the PoatofSce at Chapel HHl. N. C., under the act of August 24, 191S
COST OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
STATE FINANCES IN 1922
The Department of Commerce an
nounces that the costs of government
for the state of North Carolina for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 1922, amount
ed to $25,364,112, which was a per cap
ita cost of $9.68. In 1918 the per capita
cost was $2.19, and in 1916, $2.12, the
totals for these years being ^$5,407,381
and $5,003,902, respectively. The per
capita costs for 1922 consisted of ex
penses of general departments, $5.43;
payments for interest, $0.28; and for
outlays, $3.87. Of these the largest
were nearly $6,000,000 for highways
and $2,600,000 for schools.
Revenues
The total revenue receipts for 1922
were $13',101,249. or $4.97 per capita.
For the fiscal year the per capita ex
cess of governmental costs over re
ceipts was, therefore, $4.61. Per cap
ita. expenses for general departments
and payments for interest, exceed the
per capita revenue receipts by $0.74.
In North Carolina property’'and spe
cial taxes represented 41.6 percent of
the total revenue for 1922, 60.2 percent
for 1918, and 51.7 percent for 1916. The
increase in the amount of property and
special taxes collected was 22.0 percent
from 1916 to 1918, and 84.7 percent
from 1918 to 1922. The per capita pro
perty and special taxes were $2.07 in
.1922, $1.20 in 1918, and $1.03 in 1916.
Earnings of general departments, or
compensation for services rendered by
state officials, represented 13.7 percent
of the total revenue for 1922, 20.4 per
cent for 1918, and 24,1 percent for
1916.
Business and nonbusiness licenses con
stituted 83.9 percent of,the total reve
nue for 1922, 19.4 percent for 1918, and
14.7 percent for 1915. Receipts from
business licenses consist chiefly of tax
es exacted from insurance and other
incorporated companies, while those
from nonbusiness licenses comprise
taxes on motor vehicles and amounts
paid for hunting and fishing privileges.
Indebtedness
The net indebtedness (funded and
floating debt less sinking fund assets)
of North Carolina was $12.69 per cap
ita for 1922, $3.85 for 1918, and $3.77
for 1916. During the current year over
$19,000,000 worth of bonds were issued
of which $10,600,000 were for high
ways.
Taxes shown as collected for the
year 1922 were from the 1920 levy.
Since that year there has been no gen
eral property tax for state purposes.
STATE GOVERNMENT COSTS
The table presented in this issue of
the News Letter shows what it cost
on a per inhabitant basis to operate the
various state governments of the Unit
ed States in 1922. The Bureau of the
Census has recently issued for each
state a statement similar to the one
presented above for North Carolina.
We wish it were possible fully to an
alyze these reports, but with our lim
ited space it is impossible.
The cost of operating the respective
state governments varies greatly, even
OR a per inhabitant basis. In Nevada
the cost in 1922 was $41.46 per inhabit
ant, while in Arkansas it was only
$3.90. As a rule the cost was largest
in the sparsely settled western states
where large amounts have been spent
for permanent improvements, and
smallest in the southern states where
the state governments confine their
activities largely to executive, legisla
tive, and judicial functions. In Ala
bama, for instance, it cost $7.02 per
inhabitant to run the state govern
ment, of which amount it took $5.01 to
run the general departments. Practi
cally the same ratio holds for the en
tire South, except in North Carolina
where the state government has recent
ly broken away from the Big Police
man type. It is no longer an organi
zation for office holders, but a public
service institution in which the develop
ment of its social and economic re
sources is its prime activity. More than
three-fourths of our state government
expenditures in North Carolina at pres
ent are for outlay payments, for roads,
public buildings and so on. Even in
1922 more than one-third of the total
cost was for outlay payments.
The Cost Increases
It will be noticed that in 1918 the per
inhabitant cost of our state govern
ment was only $2.19. At that time
only one state spent less than ours,
while in 1920 we were at the very foot,
spending less per inhabitant than any
other state. The state had no high
way program, and spent only a small
amount on its public schools. During
the four years following 1918 the cost
per inhabitant rose to $9.68 and our
rank to thirty-third in the United
States. Even with our large invest
ment in highways, public buildings,
public schools and the like, the cost of
our state goveflment on a per inhab
itant basis is still below the average
for the states of the Union. The four-
year increase in the cost of our state
government is large on a percent basis,
but it is well to remember that we
started at the very bottom, and though
the increase seems large, yetj; actually
the present cost of our state govern
ment is relatively small when compared
with states outside of the South. Two
southern states, Florida and Virginia,
still rank ahead of us, or so in 1922.
Consideri.ng the marvelous benefits we
are getting, state government is still
relatively cheap in North Carolina.
Revenues Vs. Expenses
The statement as given out by the
Census Bureau shows that our state ex
penditures for 1922 amounted to slight
ly more than 26 million dollars, while
our revenue receipts were only slightly
in excess of 13 million dollars. The
statement is likely to be misleading
unless carefully studied. Two expla
nations largely account for this dis
crepancy.
The first is that outlay payments for
highways and schools totaled about
$8,600,000. This expenditure was made
possible largely through the sale of
bonds. It represents an outlay for
permanent improvement, and it is not
a proper charge against the coat of
operating the state for that year. Only
the interest and the sinking fund nec
essary to retire the bond issues are
legitimate charges against the cost of
operating the state government. Nat
urally the state is making no attempt
to retire in one year any bond issue
for permanent improvements.
The second explanation is that in
1921 the state changed its financial
policy. Formerly it operated largely
on the cash basis; it now operates
largely on the accrual basis, the bulk
of its revenue coming from income taxes
and the like which are accruing but
uncollectible until the close of the fis
cal year.
The year 1922 marked the transition
in the method of financing the state
government, and the apparent deficit
was met once the taxes for the fiscal
year were collectible. For a detailed
report on this subject see News Letter
Vol. IX, No. 47.
Who Pays State Taxes
Up to 1921 a large part of the state
revenue was obtained from a general
property tax. Everybody in the state
who had property on th# tax books
paid something to the support of the
state government. The 1921 legisla
ture abolished the property tax as a
source of state revenue and adopted
the income tax as the main source.
Immediately the support of the state
government was shifted to a new and
relatively small class of taxpayers.
The general property tax is used ex
clusively for local county purposes,
while the state operates on revenues
received from income tax payers, indi
vidual and corporation; inheritance,
license, franchise taxes and so on, and
from earnings of the general depart
ments of the state.
Practically the entire burden of state
support fails on our urban dwellers and
the corporate businesses of the state.
The property tax is spent locally for
county purposes.
The individual who pays only a
property tax contributes nothing to
the support of the state government,
unless he owns an automobile, in which
case he pays a license and gasoline tax
which is used exclusively for highway
construction and maintenance. Rela
LETIERS DISCONTINUED
Due to slight illness which prevents
the use of his arm, Professor Bran
son has been forced temporarily to
discontinue his series "of articles
which have been appearing regular
ly in the News Letter and the state
press during the last six months or
more. Mr. Branson will return to
Chapel Hill about the middle of
March. He is still in Paris and his
series of letters will be continued as
soon as he regains the free use of
his arm.
tively only a small percent of our peo
ple contribute to the support of the
state. Except for the auto and gas
tax, our farmers pay practically noth
ing. The support comes from the in
dividuals who can afford it, and from
corporations chartered-by the state,
from licenses granted by the state-
in general from sources^receiving di
rect services from the state. It is a
fair, sane, and progressive method of
raising state revenue and it was only
through its adoption that North Caro
lina was able to engage in her program
of progress.
But even now we are not spending
recklessly or extravagantly in North
Carolina. We have finally and with
due deliberation entered the group of
progressive states, and no state in the
Union is getting as much for the
money it is spending as North Caro
lina.—S. H. H., Jr.
public school buildings for Negroes.
This includes the generous sums given
by Mr. Julius Rosenwald of Chicago to
stimulate the building of good rural
schools.
The state has now selected four cen
ters for- conducting its teacher-training
work for Negro teachers—one at Eliza
beth City, one at Fayetteville, one at
Winston-Salem, and one at Durham.
Buildings and equipment are rapidly be
ing provided to supplement the present
plants and to make them all that mod
ern progressive colleges for training
teachers should be.
North Carolina is beginning to dem
onstrate on a grand scale that endur
ing progress and prosperity in a state
should be based upon good schooling
for all of its citizens, and upon good
morale, a morale which can be built up
only by widespread confidence on the
part of the citizens of a state in the in
tegrity, fairness, and unselfishness of
its officials. —Southern Workman.'
BUILDING HIGHWAYS
Ten hundred and forty-four miles of
road, together with bridges, costing a
total of $22,028,787.14, were completed
by contractors and turned over to the
state during the year 1923, according
to final figures made, public yesterday
by the State Highway Commission.
Plain concrete led in all the thirteen
types of roads constructed by the Com
mission with a total of 223.04 miles,
with top soil taking second rank with
a total of 221.63 miles completed.
Paved projects completed total 626.99
miles of road. The remainder is distrib
uted among five types of impermanent
roads.
Not included in the completed list for
the year are sections of road on which
the final work has not been done by the
contractor, which will bring the total
mileage for the year to beyond the
1,200 mile mark. The year is regarded
by Chairman Page as the most success
ful in the history of the road building
program in the state, but the record
will not likely last out the present year.
Following is the list of roads com
pleted, together with the cost:
Topsoil, 221.63 miles, costing $1,909,-
691.12.
Graded, 123.06 miles, costing
$1,084,367.84.
Gravel, 92.62 miles, costing $862,297.-
67.
Bitulithic macadam, 38.66 miles,
costing $942,611.79,
Waterbound macadam, 40.76 miles,
costing $695,289.30.
Sand asphalt, 21.87 miles, costing
$284,762.80.
Asphaltic concrete, 186.94 miles,
costing $6,638,631.63.
Plain concrete, 223.04 miles, costing
$7,463,383.40.
Reinforced concrete, 32.71 miles,
costing $1,218,886.32.
Brick, .67 miles, costing'$14,348.77.
Corduroy, 1.32 miles, costing $33,-
'769.89.
Bridges, $625,627.69.
Sand clay, 55.60 miles,’ costing $404,-
497.13.
Reconstruction, 6.20 miles, costing
$70,841.79.—News and Observer.
USING PUBLIC LIBRARIES
There have been various schemes for
extending the privilege of city-and town
libraries to country districts, and all of
them have proven of some benefit, still
there have not been the results that
were desired:
Certain of the states, notably Cali
fornia, have adopted the county as the
unit for library organization. The sys
tem includes a central collection at the
county seat, and branches or stations
planted in widely scattered villages, to
which frequent deliveries are made by
automobiles. In Maryland the Wash
ington county free library, with head
quarters at Hagerstown, and in Dela
ware the state library commission,
make frequent house-to-house deliver
ies of books.
A Durham organization—the Kiwanis
club—has put into effect a plan that is
new in North Carolina and probably
unique in the whole country. The club
has purchased a motor truck, and fitted
it iip especially as a carrier of books, it
having a capacity of about 600 volumes.
It will be turned over to the trustees
of the Durham library, and will be used
in distributing, books among the people
of the county, and in that way every
person in the county will have the
benefit of the library almost as though
living in the city.
The fact that the Durham library is
county institution is not generally
known, and comparatively few of the
people outside of the city have availed
themselves of it. The inconvenience in
getting and returning the books has
prevented hundreds of rural inhabitants
from using the library. But, with the
securing of a trilck, the benefits of the
library will be brought to the doors of
the various communities of the county.
—Durham Herald.
NEGRO EDUCATION
During the year 1923, $3,803,000 was
spent in North Carolina on Negro edu
cation alone, a sum which is larger than
the sum spent for the state's entire
system of public schools in the year
1900, In the past four years $969,000
has been spent for new-buildings alone
at three of the State colored normal
schools, and the General Education
Board gave $125,000more forthe equip
ment of these buildings. A million and
a half dollars annually are now (1923)
being spent in North Carolina for new
STATE PRISON REFORM
At the regular meeting of the North
Carolina Club on December 3, Mr. N.
B. Brunson of .iyden, a student in
the University, presented a paper on
State Prison Reforms, Mr. Brunson
traced the development of prison re
form in North Carolina which he de
scribed as very recent. The first real
constructive action was the meeting in
Greensboro in November, 1922, of the
Citizens Committee of one hundred to
discuss prison reforms. He said that
several recommendations of this com
mittee had been enacted into legislation
by the 1923 General Assembly and then
went on to point out what had not been
done. The following is a summary of
the main recommendations made by Mr.
Brunson.
There should be on our state farm a
colony for women offenders who would
be placed there instead of in the cen
tral prison in Raleigh. The farm col
ony idea has been tried with marked
success in other states.
We need a better system of prison
industries. There should be at the cen
tral prison enough industries, and suffi
ciently varied, to teach every man and
woman a useful occupation. These folk
should be supplied with the means of
earning a decent living after leaving
prison.
Ajijng with the system of industries
should go a system of compulsory
education. More than 60 percent of
our prisoners are either totally illiter
ate or else they can barely read and
write.
There should b.e competent instruct
ors who understand the natures and
needs of prisoners. Salaries should be
large enough to attract and hold com
petent instructors. This would be an
economy for the state, for there wxJuld
be less crime.
The state prison should have a sys
tem of self-government. This plan al
so has been tried with notable success
in other states. It makes prisoners
better men after they quit their cells.
The system of paying prisoners for
their work is excellent, but the trouble
is that it does not make allowances for
those unable to work.
Under the present system a man
draws half his wages while in prison
and the other half on release. Just
what does the man receive who is un
able to work? An answer is found in
the case of John T.
He was released from the central
prison in Raleigh in April of this ytar»
with twenty cents in his pockets and
no ticket home. He had been physically
unable to work and therefore had, re-
! ceived no wages. There he was turned
i loose in Raleigh to shift for himself.
His case was called to the attention of
the Associated Charities.
This condition should be remedied.
Every prisoner should receive a mini
mum amount from the state with which
I to start anew. The present condition
I makes for danger to the community
' surrounding prisons. There should be
' a program of rehabilitation for dis
charged prisoners, with an agency for
the employment of prisoners released.
The system of Illinois is a fair example
of how well such a program would work.
THE COST OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
Per Inhabitant in the United States in 1922
Based on Bureau of the Census reports covering the Financial Statistics of
State Governments.
In Nevada the cost of running the state government amounted to $41.46
per inhabitant. Arkansas comes last with a cost of only $3.90 per inhabitant.
For North Carolina the entire state government cost $9.68 per inhabitant,
and we tie Nebraska for 33rd place. This includes our investment in roads and
the total expenditures on education during the year 1922.
S. H. Hobbs, Jr.
Department of Rural Social Economics, University of North Carolina
Rank State State Governmeftt cost
Rank State State Goverment cost
per Inhabitant
per Inhabitant
1917
1922
1917
1922
1
Nevada
.... 17.85* $41.46
25
Rhode Island
. 7.27
$11.84
2
Oregon
.... 6.82
35.31
26
New Hampshire..
. 6.36
11.66
3
South Dakota..
.... 8.05*
27.92
27
Idaho
. 7.03
11.61
4
Delaware
.... 6.37
24.89
28
Ohio
. 3.99*
11.36
6
Wyoming
.... 10.34
24.27
29
Florida
4.00
11.18
6
Michigan
7.09
24.07
30
Massachusetts. ...
. 8.60
10.81
7
Arizona
.... 13.02*
22.74
31
Virginia
. 4.46
10.62
8
Utah^
.... 10.69
19.08
32
Pennsylvania
. 3.66
9.89
9
California
.... 10.44*
19.02
33
Nebraska
. 4.77
9.58
10
North Dakota..
.... 7.63*
17.99
33
North Carolina...
. 2.19*
9.58
11
New Mexico ..
.... 8.17
17.78
35
Texas
. 6.00
9.48
12
Minnesota....
.... 8.63
17.06
36
West Virginia ....
. 2.86*
8.89
13
Maine
10.08*
16.91
37
Indiana
. 4.43
8.10
13
New Jersey...
.... 7.08*
16.91
38
Mississippi
, 3.06
7.86
15
Colorado
.... 6.36
16.69
39
Illinois
. 4.08*
7.83
16
Vermont
..., 10.17*
15.97
40
Kentucky
. 4.65*
7.71
17
Washington...
8.66
16.80
41
Oklahoma
. 4 61*
7 17
18
Montana
.... 8.39
13.99
42
Alabama
. 3.47
7.02
19
Connecticut...
.... 8.21*
13.97
43
Kan.aas
. 4 43*
R 40
20
New York ....
.... 8.39*
13.32
44
Tennessee ......
. 3.12
6.39
21
Iowa
.... 4.86-
13.27
45
Louisiana
. 4.13
,6.76
22
Wisconsin
.... 6.48*
12.92
46
Georgia
. 2.69
6.34
23
Missouri
.... 3.86
12.30
47
South Carolina
. 2.16
4.08
24-
Maryland
.... 7.93
12.06
48
Arkansas
. 5.66*
3,90
#—1918