The news in this publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
OCTOBER 1, 1924
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
NEWS LETTER
Published Weekly by the
University of North Caro
lina for the University Ex
tension Division.
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA TRESS
VOL. X, NO. 46
[JJitjrhil It mrdi H. C. Brangor.. 3. H. HobbH Jr.. L. R, Wliaon. E. W. D. D. Carroll. J. B. Bullitt, H. W. Odum.
Entered aa aecond-claaB matter Novomber 14,1914, atthePoatefBceat CbapelEIll, N. C.. under the act af Ausust 24, 1912
STATE COLLEGE PROPERTIES
The table which appears elsewhere
shows how the states of the Union rank
in the value of state-supported univer
sity and college properties, on a per
inhabitant basis. The accon^panying
column shows the total value of all col
lege-grade state-supported college prop
erties in each state. The data are for
the year 1922, the latest year for which
comparable data are available. For
North Carolina the statistics relate to
the University, the S^te College of
Agriculture and Engineering, and the
North Carolina College for Women,
and in other states to similar institu
tions of college grade. The table in
cludes all college properties, buildings,
grounds, farms, libraries, scientific ap-
naratus, machinery, and furniture.
Nevada First
Nevada, with state-supported college
properties valued at $11.65 per inhab
itant, ranks first in the United States.
Pennsylvania comes last with a value
of only 38 cents per inhabitant.* [How
ever, this does not mean that Pennsyl
vania is deficient in colleges and uni
versities. Penn State is the only college
receiving state support, while the Uni
versity of Pennsylvania and many other
large colleges are abundantly supported
by private endowments and incomes.
The same is true of Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, ('onnecticut,
Rhode Island and in other states which
rank low in state-supported college
properties but which rank very high in
college facilities. Brown, Princeton,
Yale, Harvard, Columbia, the Univer
sity of Pennsylvania, ^nd literally scores
of other large colleges in the North and
East, receive no &tate support. The
states which have such colleges and
universities are extremely fortunate,
at least the taxpayers are.
In the South and West college culture
is mainly state-supported and the table
gives a fair indication as to how south
ern and western states bulk up in col
lege facilities.
The West Leads
The states which have a clear lead in
state-supported college properties are
found mainly in the central west and far
-^est. Of the twenty-three states
which have state college properties
valued at more than three dollars per
inhabitant, two are iij the South, South
Carolina and Mississippi, three are in
the East, New Hampshire, Delaware,
and Vermont, while the other seventeen
are all in the West.
The states that rank below three
dollars in value of state college prop
erties per inhabitant fall mainly into
two classes: northern and eastern states
with excellent privately supported col
lege facilities, and southern states which
rank low not only in state-supported
colleges, but low also in privately sup
ported institutions of college grade. In
the South the low rank of the states is
not only apparent but real.
North Carolina
The rise of North Carolina in the
value of state-supported college prop
erties has been meteoric, and the table
covering the year 1922 is itself some
what out of date today, for since 1921
the state has been spending liberally
on college buildings as a part of its
general building program. At that
time two southern states were ahead
of North Carolina. At the present time,
as a result of her recent building ac
tivity, it is probable that North Caro
lina and South Carolina are about tied
for first place in the South in the value
of state-supported college properties on
a per inhabitant basis, The rank we
now enjoy among southern states, all
of which have inadequate college facili
ties, is entirely the result of our recent
building activity. We still rank below
the West in state college properties and
far below the North and East in general
college facilities.
As a matter of fact North Carolina
is just getting to the point where she
can with some degree of comfort care
, for her college students. When the
building program was begun in 1921 our
colleges were in a miserable situation.
Classrooms were overcrowded, student
beds were stacked three deep in the
dormitories, and hundreds of high-school
graduates were unable to find a college
that could take them. ■
The bulk of what has been spent so
far has been necessary'to make up for
generations of neglect on the part of
the state. Much money has gone into
remodeling old buildings which had be
come physically dangerous and practi
cally worthless, except for the senti
ment which goes with age and associ
ation. In 1920 the state architect esti
mated that it would require two million
dollars to enable the University to care
adequately for the needs of students it
then had, without adding a single stu
dent to its numbers.
Such wa^the general situation in all
state colleges when the new building
program began in 1921. The state col
lege plants will soon be where they can
take care of present needs, but to care
for the needs of the increasing thousands
who are being graduated from our high
schools is going to necessitate ^he con
tinuation of a building program ade
quate to care for the needs of the
rapidly increasing numbers who will be
seeking a college,education. The in
crease in high-school graduates in North
Carolina within recent years is probably
without parallel in the United States.
And the increase will continue una
bated, for our elementary and high
schools are just beginning to get under
a full headway of steam. Our fifty
thousand graduates annually will soon
become a hundred thousand, and more.
To care for the thousands who will be
seeking a college education will require
a permanent and adequate expansion in
college facilities andj college mainte
nance funds.
Some Interesting History
The value of state-supported college
properties in North Carolina is not to
be confused with state investments in
college plants. The situation at the
University presents some interesting
sidelights on the interest thejold state
took i,n her State University.
In 1V93 the Old East building, two
sections two stories high, was erected
through a loan by the state'of twenty
thousand dollars, which loanjwas finally
made a gift. Later on a third story and
a new section were added , by {private
subscription. This was the ^first State
University building to be erected in the
United States, and today it stands re
modeled and good for another century
or two of service. The next building to
be erected by the state was^the Chem
istry building in 1905, just one hundred
and twelve years later, and^at an ex
penditure of fifty thousand dollars.
Of the twenty-two buildings standing
on the campus in 1917 when the first
bond issue for new buildings was passed,
six buildings, excluding |a part of Old
East, were built by the state, all during
the preceding twelve years, while six
teen buildings, a part of Old East, and
the athletic field were erected through
private subscriptions and gifts.
The buildings erected‘by the state
are part of Old East in 1793, ^and from
1906 to 1917, Chemistry, Davie, Swain,
Caldwell, Infirmary, and Battle-Vance-
Pettigrew, at a total cost to the state
of $285,000.
The buildings erected through private
means are part of Old East, South,
Gerrard, Old West, Smith Dormitory,
Smith Hall, Person, , New ;East, New
West, Memorial Hall, Library, Pea
body, Y. M. C. A., Alumni, Carr, Gym
nasium, and Emerson Athletic Field.
The New Campus
In 1917 the state began to take a new
interest in her University, andjthe pas
sage by the Legislature of a five-hun-
dced-thousand-dollar bond issue for
new buildings marks the beginning of
the new University. Out of this bond
issue came Phillips Hall, the Power
Plant, the Laundry, Steele Dormitory,
and many improvements about the
campus. Thus from 1793 to 1921 the
State had invested $786,000 in Univer
sity buildings and permanent improve-
ments-
In 1921 when other southern states
were crying bankruptcy. North Caro
lina had the courage to bond herself
for sixty-five million dollars'for roads,
common schools, benevolent institu
tions, and colleges. Of that sum the
University received, for a two-year
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
The Department of Rural Social
Science of the University of North
Carolina is undertaking a field study
of county government and county
affairs within the state to cover a
period of three years. Three re
search students are being added to
the staff and will be provided with
traveling expenses in‘ order that
they may do first-haijd, out-door in
vestigating. The purpose is to dig
out the facts which directly concern
the people of the state and to inter
pret them by graphic and intelligible
means. Upon the basis of the in
formation thus assembled, a form
of county government will be worked
out which will place the county un
der a definite, responsive headship.
The effort will be to accomplish this
with as few changes as possible over
the present system of county com
missioners.
North Carolina has already at
tracted nation-wide attention by her
investigations into county affairs
and the practical program developed
thereby, and we shall look forward
with keen interest to this intensive
exploration into what is still an un
known land.—National Municipal
Review.
building period, $1,490,000. From that
sum came four modern dormitories,
three modern classroom buildings, and
many needed improvements about the
campus.
In 1923 the Legislature'continued the
general building program, the Univer
sity getting for a second two-year
period $1,660,000. Of this sum over
half has been spent to date on remodel
ing old buildings, in the erection of
three new dormitories, on permanent
improvements and on buildings under
construction, notably the Chemistry
building.
A new college term has already be
gun, and the University, along with
every other college in the state is
crowded to the hilt. The'.state recently
has been and is stillIfacedjwith the ne
cessity of making up for generations of
neglect. Her college building program
must be continued if she is to have col
lege facilities comparable ',with those
of other states, j and adequate to the
needs of her sons and daughters who
are seeking college training.—S. H. H.,
Jr. \
QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Many voters will not have time to
read the report of the State Ship and
Water Transportation Commission on
the Bill to be voted on November 4th.
A Port Terminals and Water Transpor
tation Bureau has been established with
headquarters at Raleigh. A main ob
ject of this Bureau is to give the folks
the facts about Port Terminals and
Water Transportation, and to do it in
simple abc ways. It has established a
question-and-answer column for busy
voters. The questions are those asked
and debated in the newspapers and
legislative sessions during the last two
years, and the answers are not propa
ganda. Mainly, but not entirely, these
are details of the Commission Report
and the Bill. Here are the questions
that will be answered in sections during
the next six weeks.
1 What is the Port Terminals bill
the voters are asked to vote for on
November 4? Where can a copy of the
bill be obtained?
2 What does the bill to be ratified
provide? What was the basis of the
bill?
4 Who are the State Commission on
Port Terminals and Water Transporta
tion? What are their duties? What is
their compensation? What money will
they have to spend?
4 Where will the money come from?
How much for port terminals? How
much for state-owned boats and barges?
5 What is a first-class ocean port?
Essential requirements?
6 Is such a port possible or practi
cable in North Carolina? How could it
rank with other ocean ports?
7 What is the maximum draft of
coastwise freighters? Of overseas
freighters? Could North Carolina hope
to develop ports equal to the business'"
of such water traffic?
8 Will it be necessary for the state
to own and operate boat lines?
9 Will the Commission employ en
gineers?'
10 Will the Commission create just
one or more than one port?
11 What places will be selected for
port terminals?
12 Will the port ‘terminal towns and
cities be benefited, and bow? Why do
not the coast cities of North Carolina |
now serve this state as the coast cities
of other Atlantic states serve those
states?
13 Will public port terminals Jaenefit
the Tidewater region alone? Will the
entire state be benefited?
14 Will state-owned terminals and
water transportation lower freight rates
in North Carolina? Have they done so
in other states? Has any state suffered
a loss by establishing terminals?
15 What states with ocean fronts d(»
not have port terminals? What disad
vantages do such states suffer, and
why?
16 What part may the federal gov
ernment be expected to have in the de
velopment of public port terminals in
North Carolina?
17 If established, will the port term
inals be self-supporting or not? What'
is the history of such terminals in other
states?
18 Will it be necessary for the state
to purchase or lease and operate ships,
vessels and boats? Has it been neces
sary in other states owning port term
inals?
19 Why does water transportation
lower freight rates?
20 Why are freight rates based on
port rates?
21 Why are freight rates in North
Carolina based on Norfolk and Charles
ton rates? Why not on Wilmington
rates?
22 What would be the effect of es
tablishing adequate public port term
inals in North Carolina?
23 What is the Inland Water Route
in North Carolina? How far completed?
If completed, what would be the effect
on business in the Tidewater towns and
cities?
24 What coastwise traffic would nat
urally flow into public port terminals
in North Carolina, and why? ♦
25 Have the states maintaining pub
lic port terminals been benefited by
coastwise traffic and open sea trade,
and how?
26 Is direct, throughfare railway
traffic from our own state ports to the
middle west necessary to lower freight
rates?
27 Does North Carolina at present
enjoy direct traffic with the Middle West
and the Lake cities? Why not, and
what penalties does the state therefore
pay? How will state-owned terminals
be instrumental in making such direct
traffic possible?
28 Will water transportation and
state-owned port terminals in North
Carolina lower freight rates all over the
state?' If not, what other relief is pos
sible?
29 What chance has North Carolina
to lower freight rates without state-
owned port terminals?
30 What chance at present has North
Carolina at direct traffic with the Mid
dle West and the Lake cities on a fair
and equal basis with Virginia?
31 Is it possible for port terminals
receipts to pay the interest and sinking-
fund charges on port terminals bonds?
What is the experience of other states?
' 32 Once the terminals are established,
how will further expansion and im
provements be provided for?
33 Why have boat lines been estab
lished and then failed to operate at a
profit?
34 Why does the northeastern part
of our state fail to receive the advan
tages of Norfolk rates?
35 Will the advantages of water
transportation show in a fairer freight
rate in any other respect than a shorter
rail haul?
36 Will towns closer to Norfolk than
to Wilmingtonbe directly benefited or
will they receive only the indirect bene
fit of increasing prosperity in North
Carolina?
37 Would the passage of the proposed
bill aid river traffic?
38 Provided the bill were passed,
would North Carolina ports be as close
and as cheap to middle-western pro
ducers as other Atlantic ports?
39 Why does not the Interstate Com
merce Commission lower freight rates
as conditions now stand?
40 If water competition is established,
will rates have to be lowered or can
the Interstate Commerce Commission
still discriminate against North Caro
lina cities?
VALUE OF STATE-SUPPORTED COLLEGE PROPERTIES
Per Inhabitant In 1922
Based (1) on Statistics of State Universities and State Colleges, Bulletin
No. 49, 1923, of the Federal Education Bureau, and (2) on the census estimate
of population for 1922.
The figures for each st^te cover (1) the total value of State University
and State College,plants, buildings, grounds, farms, libraries, scientific appara
tus, machinery, and furniture, for the year 1922, the latest year for which com
parable data are available, and (2) divided by the population so as to put the
states on a comparable basis.
In North Carolina the figures refer to the State College for Women, the
State College of Agriculture and Engineering, and the State University; and
in other states to similar state institutions of liberal learning and technical
training of college grade.
The total value of such state-supported college properties in North Caro
lina in 1922 was $7,799,703, or a per inhabitant value of $2.94, and our rank
twenty-fourth in the United States. In the South, only South Carolina and
Mississippi ranked ahead of North Carolina.
Department of Rural Social Economics, University of North Carolina
Rank State "Total Value
Value
Rank State Total Value Value
Per Inhab.
PerInhab.
1
Nevada
. $893,868 $11.66
25
Virginia
.. $6,451,036 $2.72
2
Wyoming
. 1,683,512
8.16
26
Oklahoma
... 6,423,068
2.56
3
Delaware
. 1,816,000
7.97
27
Florida
... 2,544,000
2.48'
4
Oregon
. 5,297,933
6.52
28
Texas
..10,611;661
2.16
6
Colorado
. 5,906,496
6.06
29
Illinois
. ..12,374,91()
1.85
6
Vermont
. 2,129,200
6.06
30
Ohio
...11,412,628
1.79
7
Minnesota
.14,749,640
6.00
31
West Virginia...
... 2,690,266
1.76
8
Utah
. 2,680,970
6.72
32
Rhode Island....
.. 1,039,613
1..69
9
Nebraska
. 6,948,748
6.26
33
New Mexico
... 619,120
1.68
10
New Hampshire
. 2,324,668
6.21
34
Georgia
... 4,810,796
1.62
11
Arizona
. 1,870,800
6.12
35
Connecticut
... 2,266,000
1.67
12
Iowa
.11,244,736
6.09
36
Indiana
... 4,575,660
1.53
13
South Carolina..
. 8,532,312
4.94
37
Maryland
.. 2,228,402
1.60
14
Washington ....
. 6,970,170
4.93
38
Missouri
... 5,087,036
1.48
16
California
.17,782,497
4.81
39
Alabama
.. 8,429,612
1.46
16
North Dakota ..
. 3,046,836
4.5$
40
Maine
.. 1,126,011
1.44
17
Wisconsin
.11,645,886
4.27
41
Tennessee
.V 3,288,486
1.38
18
Michigan
..16,626,004
4.26
42
New York
..11,553,244
1.08
19
Idaho
. .1,820,326
3.97
43
New Jersey
.. 3,028,442
.91
20
Kansas
. 6,678,061
3.79
44
Louisiana
.. 1,646,344
.86
21
Montana
2,193,912
3.70
45
Kentucky
... 1,927,748
.77
22
South Dakota...
. 2,381,900
3.67
46
Massachusetts..
.. 2,939,170
.74
23
Mississippi
. 6,696,663
3.,18
47
Arkansas
... 1,028,611
.67
24 North Carolina ...
i
7,799,70a
2.94
48
Pennsylvania....
....3,414,783
.38