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 the University Ex
tension Division.
FEBRUARY 3. 1926
CHAPEL HILL, N C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XII, NO. 12
Editorial Boards 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
THE COST OF STATE GOVERNMENT
The table which appears elsewhere
ranks the states of the Union according
to the per inhabitant cost of operating
and maintaining the general depart
ments of the various state governments
for the year 1924. The second column
shows the per inhabitant cost of operat
ing and maintaining the general depart-
inents of the state governments plus
interest charges on current and bonded
debt. In other words the second column
covers every current state government
cost for every purpose whatsoever.
At the outset it should be emphasized
that current governmental costs and
total expenditures for a fiscal year
should not be confused. Expenditures
for permanent improvements where the
funds are derived from bond sales are not
current governmental cost payments; but
interest on bonded debt and sinking
fund payments are current costs.
During the fiscal year ending June 30,
1924, our state government spent $51,-
933,498, but of this sum $32,670,011 was
for permanent improvements, mainly
for highways, the money being derived
from bond sales. Such an expenditure
is in no sense a current governmental
cost expenditure.
The Operating Cost
The cost of operating and maintain
ing the general state government was
$15,745,898, or $6.79 per inhabitant.
This is the basis upon which the states
are ranked elsewhere. Interest on debt
amounted to $3,494,219 and is a govern
mental cost payment. Public service
enterprises cost $23,370. Thus the total
cost of our state government for every
current purpose was $19,263,487 or $7.08
per inhabitant. The reason the states
' are not ranked on this basis is because
the bulk of our state debt has been in
curred for highway construction, and
the interest charge and sinking fund
account are specially provided for
through license and gasoline taxes. It
is both fairer and less confusing to com
pare the states on the basis of current
cost of the general state government,
since many states are not engaged in
the business of building highways on a
large scale.
We RanK Fortieth
If the states were ranked on the basis
of per inhabitant total expenditures for
both current and outlay purposes our
government would appear very ex
pensive. But when ranked according
to the only fair basis of comparison—
namely, what it cost to operate the
state government during the fiscal year
—North Carolina has relatively an in
expensive state government. The cost
for all general governmental purposes
in 1924 was $6.79 per inhabitant and our
rank was fortieth in the United States.
State government was cheaper in only
eight states, all Southern except Ohio.
In three of the states that rank below
ours the cost was within a few cents of
our cost, while the least expensive state
government in the United States is only
$1.11 per inhabitant less expensive than
North Carolina’s.
When the interest charge on current
and bonded debt is add^d to the cost of
operating and maintaining the general
departments—and most of this interest
charge is for highway debt and taken
care of by special automobile and gasoline
taxes—the cost then becomes $7.08 per
inhabitant. On this basis, which covers
every current cost for every purpose
whatsoever. North Carolina ranks 37th,
which is not so high in view of what we
are getting for our money.
The cost of operating and maintain
ing the general departments of the 48
state governments averages $9.00 per
inhabitant, which is $3.21 above the
average for North Carolina. The cost
of operating and maintaining the gen
eral departments plus interest on bonds
averages $9.60, which is $2.52 per in
habitant more th^n the cost in North
Carolina.
The point we wish to emphasize is
chat North Carolina’s state government
is not expensive compared with the cost
of state government in other states.
To be sure it is more expensive than it
was a few years ago when we had the
cheapest state government in the United
States. When one stops to consider
what we are getting for ohr increased
expenditures, and compares the cost
with that in other states, he is very
likpCly to conclude that we still have the
cheapest state government in the Union
—not quite the least expensive, but the
cheapest. —S. H. H.. Jr.
;STUDTING CAROLINA
We are presenting below a list of
research studies prepared under the
direction of the Department of Rural
Social-Economics during the college
year 1924-26. Brief summaries of many
of these studies have appeared in the
News Letter, as indicated. The studies
are usually concerned with some phase
of North Carolina: Economic and Social.
During the last eleven years around
fifteen hundred such studies have been
made by students in the Department of
Rural Social-Economics.
. U. S. Studies
1. Ratio of Marriages to Divorces 1923.
By states. News Letter, Vol. XI,
No. 6.
2. State-Supported College Properties.
Value per Inhabitant 1923. By
states. S. H. Hobbs, Jr. News
Letter, Vol. XI, No. 7.
3. State Support of College Culture
1923. By states. S. H. Hobbs, Jr.
• News Letter, Vol. XI, No. 8.
4. Boy Scouting in the United States.
By states. Edgar T. Thompson.
News Letter, Vol. XI, No. 10.
5. State Tax Burdens per Inhabitant
1922. By states. Edgar T. Thomp
son. News Letter, Vol. XI, No. 12.
6. Estimated True Wealth per Inhabi
tant 1922. News Letter, Vol. XI,
No. 14.
7. Motor Vehicle Fatalities 1923. By
states. L. P. Barnes, South Caro
lina. News Letter, Vol. XI, No. 16.
8. Per Capita True and Taxable Wealth
1922. By states. News Letter, Vol.
XI, No. 19.
9. Patents Granted in the United States
1924. By states. News Letter, Vol.
XI, No. 20.
10. A Democracy of Non-Voters 1920.
Non-voting by states. News Letter,
Vol. X, No. 43.
11. State Support of College Culture
per White Inhabitant 1921-1922. By
states. News Letter, Vol. X, No. 44.
12. Per Capita Bank Resources June,
1923. By states. News Letter,
Vol. X, No. 45.
13. Per Capita Value of Tax-Supported
College Properties 1922. By states.
News Letter, Vol. X, No. 46.
14. Per Capita Postal Savings in the
United States June 30, 1923. By
states. F. J. Wolfe, New Mexico.
News Letter, Vol. X, No, 47.
15. Does North Carolina Read? The
circulation of 47 magazines in 1924.
By states. Orlando Stone, Chatham
county. News Letter, Vol. XI,
No. 22.
16. Does North Carolina Read? The
circulation of “class” magazines
and women’s magazines in 1924.
By states. Orlando Stone, Chatham
county. News Letter, Vol. XI,
No. 23.
17. Does North Carolina Read? The
circulation of literary magazines in
1924. By states. Orlando Stone,
Chatham county. News Letter,
Vol. XI, No. 24.
18. Does North Carolina Read? The
circulation of daily newspapers in
the United States January, 1925.
By states. Orlando Stone, Chatham
county. News Letter, Vol. XI,
No. 25. '
19. Does North Carolina Read? Public
Libraries in the United States 1924.
By states. Orlando Stone, Chatham
county. News Letter, Vol. XI,
No. 30.
Does North Carolina Read? College
Libraries in the United States 1924.
By states. Orlandp Stone, Chatham
county. News Letter, Vol. XI,
No. 31.
21. Hospital Facilities 1923. By states.
News Letter, Vol. XI, No. 33.
22. Per Capita Cost of State Govern
ment 1923. News Letter, Vol. XI,
No. 34.
Manufacture in the United States
1923. By states. News Letter,
Vol. XI, No. 36.
N. C. Studies
Per Capita Bank Resources 1923.
COUNTY GOVERNMENT
Two full-time research students,
working in connection with the In
stitute for Research in Social Science
at the University, have made first
hand field studies of the governments
of twenty North Carolina counties.
The counties studied by Mr. Paul W.
Wager are; Alleghany, Alamance,
Ashe, Burke, Caldwell, Edgecombe,
Polk, Rutherford, and Surry. The
counties studied by Mr. Brandon
Trussell are: Alamance, Beaufort,
Chowan, Craven, Gates, Macon, New
Hanover, Pamlico, Perquimans, Pitt,
Stanly, and Washington.
The twenty separate reports, typed
and bound, cover twelve to fifteen
chapters each, and usually run around
one hundred pages. These studies are
made in the interests of better county
government in North Carolina and
are intended for guidance and not for
publication. They are now being
reviewed by the State Commission
on County Government.
By counties. A. G. Glenn, Watauga
county. News Letter, Vol. X,
No. 42.
2. Per Capita Bank Capital 1923. By !
counties. A. K. King, Henderson j
county. News Letter, Vol. XI,
No. 4.
3. Marriage and Divorce Rates 1923.
By counties. S. H. Hobbs, Jr. News
Letter, Vol. XI, No. 6.
4. Total Investment in Motor Cars and
Public Schools 1924. By counties.
Edgar T. Thompson. News Letter,
Vol. XI, No. 11.
5. Per Capita County Tax Burdens 1922.
Edgar T. Thompson. News Letter,
Vol. XI, No. 13.
6. Average Value of Land per Acre
1922. By counties. C. H. Yar
borough, Franklin county. News
Letter, Vol. XI, No. 15.
7. Federal Income Tax Returns 1922.
By counties. C. H. Yarborough,
Franklin county. News Letter, Vol.
XI, No. 17.
8. Federal Personal Income Tax Payers
1922. By classes. News Letter,
Vol. XI, No. 18.
9. Does North Carolina Read? The
rank by counties in reading eight
national magazines 1924. Orlando
Stone, Chatham county. News Let
ter, Vol. XI, No. 27.
10. Deaths per 1,000 of Population 1923.
By counties. C. H. Yarborough,
Franklin county. News Letter, Vol.
XI, No. 28.
11. Instruction Cost per Child Enrolled
in School 1923-1924. By counties.
News Letter, Vol. XI, No. 32.
12. Federal Income Tax Returns. Num
ber of Personal Returns and In
habitants per Return 1923. By
counties. S. H. Hobbs, Jr. News
Letter, Vol. XI, No. 38.
13. County Health Administration in
North Carolina. Z. B. Newton,
Cumberland county.
14. North Carolina Agricultural Organ
izations and Fairs. W. D. Allen,
Halifax county.
15. Rural Manufacture in North Caro
lina. R. A. Little, Pitt county.
16. History of Agriculture in North
Carolina. A. N. Stainback, Guil
ford county.
17. The Forest Resources of Western
North Carolina and Their Conserva
tion. C. L. Fouts, Franklin county.
18. State Public Health Administration
in North Carolina. L. P. Barnes,
South Carolina.
19. A Spiritual Awakening in North
Carolina. J. 0. Bowman.
Special Studies
1. The Small Town Functioning Prop
erly. J. A. Hunnicutt, Orange
county.
2. When a Small Town is Functioning
Properly. Edgar T. Thompson,
Orange county.
3. The Consolidated School as a Nucleat
ing Center of Community Life.
H. H. Huff, Virginia.
4. The Country Community. Brandon
Trussell, Texas.
6. ,The Consolidation of Rural Schools
and the Advantages of Consolida
tion. Brandon Trussell, Texas.
6. The University and Carolina Coun
try Life. W. H. Tyler, Chatham
county.
7. Real Property in Ireland. G. A.
Duncan, Ireland.
8. Cooperation and Communism. Roland
B. Eutsler, Virginia.
9. Cooperation and Commonwealth
Building. Mrs. A. G. McGill, Robe
son county.
10. What is Lacking in Country Life
Recreation? Miss Kate Fulton,
Mississippi.
11. Possible Centers of Country Com
munity Life. Miss Elizabeth Smith,
South Carolina.
12. Race Cooperation for Community
Advancement. Miss Mae Reel,
Pamlico county.
13. The Social Side of the Farmers’ Co
operative Marketing Movement.
Miss Jewell Sink, Davidson county.
14. Neighborhood and Community. Miss
Louise Harrison, Martin county.
15. A Satisfying Rural Home Life. Mrs.
L. M. Upchurch, Wake county.
16. The Consolidated School as a Possi
ble Disintegrating Force in the Com
munity. Miss Helen Scholtz, Guil
ford county.
County Studies
1. Alamance County; Industries and
Opportunities, by A. E. McIntyre, Ala
mance county.
2. Davidson County: Economic and
Social. Ten Chapters, a 3,000 edition
published and distributed, by Miss Jewell
Sink, Davidson county.
3. Mecklenburg County: Industries
and Opportunities,' by J. J. Rhyne, Gas
ton county.
4. New Hanover County: Facts about
the Folks, Food and Feed Production,
Natural Resources, by D. B. Koonce,
New Hanover county.
6. Orange County: Facts about the
Folks, Wealth and Taxation, by Miss
Elizabeth Branson, Orange County; His
torical Background, Farm Conditions
and Practices, by Miss Elizabeth Ellen
Bland, Orange county; Natural Re
sources, Schools, by MissAdaThompaon,
Orange county.
6. Pitt County: Wealth and Taxation,
Agriculture, by W. M. B. Brown, Pitt
county.
7. Robeson County: Facts about the
Folks, Wealth and Taxation, Schools,
Evidences of Progress, Problems and
Solutions, by F. LeV. Adams, Robeson
county; Historical Background, The In
dians of Robeson county, by W. D.
Coxe, Robeson county; Natural Re
sources, Agriculture, W. T. Sinclair,
Robeson county.
8; Union County: Schools, Agriculture,
by F. 0. Yates, Union county; Histori
cal Background, Facts about the Folks,
Wealth and Taxation, byJ. M. Redwine,
Union county.
9. Wayne County: Facts about’the
Folks, Schools, by Miss Elizabeth Col
lier, Wayne county; Food and Feed Pro
duction, Natural Resources, Wealth and
Taxation, by J. B. Lane, Union county.
WORK ANIMALS DECREASE
The horse is giving way to the tractor
on the farms ol tPe United States. Dur
ing the five-year period from 1920 to
1925 horses on tarms in the United
Stales decreased trom 19,767,161 to 16,-
636,769, a loss of 3,231,402 horses, or
16.3 percent. There was a small de
crease during this period in the number
of farms but not sufficient to account
for this large decrease in the number of
horses. A more significant fact was
the decrease during the five-year period
of nearly 63 percent in the number of
horse colts under two years of age on
the farms of the nation. One would
assume that the farmers contemplate
the substitution of tractors for horses.
This is particularly true in the North
and West.
In the South the mule has been and
still is the main source of power on the
farm. ^More than three-fourths of all
the mules in the United States are on
Southern tarms. Evidence that trac
tors are not displacing mules in the
South to the extent that horses are be
ing displaced in the North and West is
shown by the increase during the five-
year period of 6.6 percent in the num
ber of mules on farms. The increase is
due largely to the fact that the South is
the only geographic area of the United
States that showed a gain in the num
ber of farms during the last five years.
However, there were 44.6 percent fewer
mule colts under two years of age on
farms on January 1, 1926, than there
were on January 1, 1920. It looks as
if the mule in the South is beginning to
go the way of the horse in the North
and West, but not so rapidly, due to
peculiar factors in Southern agriculture
which prevent the use of trastors in
large numbers: the small size of our
farms, the nature of our crops, and the
limited intelligence of a large part of
our population.
To quote from Banker* Farmer: ‘ ‘With
6,000,000 less horses than ten years ago,
with the average age around ten years,
and with a growing demand for horses,
we are facing a grave situation regard
ing horse power.”
COST OF STATE GOVERNMENT
For the Year 1924
In the following table, based on Financial Statistics of State Governments
for 1924 issued by the Federal Census Bureau, the states are ranked according
to the per inhabitant cost of operating and maintaining the general departments
of the state governments. The second column shows the per inhabitant cost of
operating and maintaining the general departments plus all interest on current
and bonded debt, or total current cost expenditures for every purpose whatso
ever. Expenditures for outlay purposes are not included, but the annual coat
for interest on debt is included. Governmental costs and governmental expendi
tures, which include outlay payments for permanent improvements, should not
be confused.
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1924, our state government cost for
operation and maintenance was $15,746,898 or $5.79 per inhabitant, and our
rank 40th. The current cost for all state purposes, including interest on all debt,
was $19,264,000, or $7.08 per inhabitant, and our rank 37th.
United States average state government cost for operation and maintenance
was $9.00 per inhabitant, and for operation, maintenance, and interest $9.60 per
inhabitant. Arkansas, which ranks last, spends only $1.11 less per inhabitant
than North Carolina.
S. H. Hobbs, Jr.
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina
Per Inhab.
cost for
operation
Rank States and main
tenance of
General De-
' partments
1 Nevada...
2 Kansas . -
3 Delaware
4 Wyoming
6 California. ...
6 Utah
7 Arizona
8 Washington
9 Maine
10 Vermont
11 Minnesota ....
12 Illinois
13 Connecticut
14 New Jersey
16 Oregon
16 North Dakota...
17 New York
18 New Mexico,...
19 South Dakota...
20 Colorado
21 Massachusetts..
22 New Hampshire
23 Iowa
24 Michigan .......
Per Inhab.
cost for
operation
and main
tenance of
General De
partments,
plus interest
on Current
and Bonded
Debt
$26.32 $27.38
22.17 22.61
16.18 .... 17,52
14.47 .... 17.43
14.14 . . 16.66
13.92 14.88
13.56 14.01
13.13 13.69
13.09 13.97
12.57 12.83
12.34 12.81
11.84 ...... 12.03
11.38 11.88
11.19 11.66
11.06 14.29
11.04 24.45
11.00 12.00
10.45 10.84
10.44 14.80
10.41 10.90
10.29 10.78
10.02 10.31
9.74 10.08
9.63 10.47
Rank States
Per Inhab.
cost for
operation
and main
tenance of
General De
partments
25 Maryland .... $9.47 .
26 Wisconsin 9.20 .
27 Rhode Island... 8.82..
28 Virginia 8.71..
29 Idaho 8.24 .
30 Pennsylvania... 8.07 .
31 Texas 7.92..
32 Montana 7.82..
33 Indiana 7.67..
34 Louisiana 7.29..
35 Missouri 7.26..
36 Kentucky 6.46..
37 West Virginia.. 6.34..
38 Nebraska ,... 6.06..
39 Mississippi 6.04..
40 North Carolina.. 5.79 ,
41 Oklahoma.. ..^6.78..
42 Alabama 6.71..
43 Florida 6.56..
44 South Carolina. 6.26..
45 Ohio 4.86..
46 Georgia 4.73..
47 Tennessee 4.70..
48 Arkansas 4.68..
Per Inhab.
cost for
operation
and main
tenance of
General De
partments,
plus interest
on Current
and Bonded
Debt
$10.46
9.25
9.65
9.01
, 8.94
,. 8.33
7.97
8.43
. 7.64
. 7.66
, 7.74
, 6.63
, 7.32
. 6.06
. 6.50
. 7.08
. 5.88
. 6.09
. 6.01
. 6.47
. 5.10
. 4.80
. 5.04
. 4.77