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.
OCTOBER 20, 1926
CHAPEL HILL, N C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XII, NO. 49
hI Kuaril: E. C. Branson. S. H. Hobbs. Jr.. L. E. Wilson, E. W. Knifrht. D. D. Carroll. J. B. Bullitt, H. W. Odum.
Entered as second-ctaBS matter November 14, 1914. at the PostofTice at Chapel Hill. N. C.. under the act of Au(;ust 24, 191K
UNITY IN FISCAL CONTBOL
Last week the News Letter carried a
synopsis of the report prepared by the
County Government Commission and
endorsed liy the State Association of
'.ounty Commissioners at their meeting
, August, This report submitted seven
,ajor conditions or functions, which
!nust be safeguarded if couniy govern
ment is to be operated with justice,
economy and efficiency. These seven
essential qualities of good county gov
ernment are: (1) Unity in the official
family in fiscal management; (2) ade
quate means of preserving the taxables;
(3) collectir\g the revenue with diligence
and dispatch; (4) properly safeguarding
the expenditures; (6) proper accounting
of all funds; (6) carefully preserving
the physical property; (7) providing
properly for the administration of
justice.
Each of these seven aspects of county
government will be the subject of a
brief article in the News Letter. This
week an attempt will be made to explain
what is meant by unity in fiscal man-
agement.
Curtailment of Powers
When our present state constitution
was adopted it was contemplated that the
board of county commissioners should
be the sole governing authority in the
county. And, for a period, this body
had control of schools, roads, elections
and every other activity of county
government. Gradually, however, the
powers of the county commissioners
have been taken from them and .given
to independent boards—the board of
education, the road board, the board of
elections, and others. These secondary
beards are in no sense subordinate,
they determine policy in their respec
tive fields, subject of course to state
restrictions.
The creation of the separate board of
education was, no doubt, an effort to
divorce school administration from local
politics. The separate road boards,
where they exist, have sometimes been
a benefit. Decentralization of power,
though sometimes resulting in an im
mediate gain, is contrary to sound prin
ciples of business. Divided respon
sibility means an obscurity of respon
sibility which defies popular control.
The Commission does not urge the
elimination of these other boards, but
it does believe that they should be sub
ordinated to the county board of com-
missionet’s, vi^ich alone has the tax-
levying power. It is an anomalous con
dition when the authority which must
provide the revenues cannot cfmtrol the
expenditures.
No Alministrative Unity
Decentralization does not stop with
the several board.=. The sheriff, the
clerk ot Superior Court, the register of
deeds, and the treasurer are the politi-
-cal peers of the commissioners. The
commissionere cannot compel obedience
from them, nor remove them if they are
recalcitrant. In the performance of
their work for the state (police and
court duties) they should be indepen
dent, but in matters of county adminis
tration they should be responsible to the
board of commissioners. Whenever an
officer receives or expends county money
he becomes a county administrative
officer, and as such should become
amenable to a unified fiscal control.
The commissioners themselves have
been guilty of loose and even illegal
governmental practices. Special tax
funds have been used for general pur
poses; the receipts from bond issues
have been used to pay currentexpenses;
sinking funds have been depleted; de
posits have been made without requir-^
ing bond; vouchers are issued without
money to cash them; and rarely is
there a serious effort to balance income
and expense. The monthly audit of
claims by the commissioners is no ade
quate control, for only a control at the
time liabilities are incurred can be
effective. The commissioners are even
more deficient as administrators. They
meet only once or twice a month. They
have no executive agent to act for
them. Except in those counties which
have an auditor or full-time chairman
there can be neither efficient adminis
tration nor sound financial control.
Recommendations
To quote the recommendations of the
Commission :
“Unity in the official family in fiscal
management may be maintained in the
following ways;
(1) By centering administrative au
thority in a business manager, who
is appointed by and acts for the
Board. He may be the chairman of
the Board, or he may be the auditor,
or some very capable citizen, to
supervise for the Board the receipts
and expenditures of the several depart
ments of the county government and
make reports to the Board of the condi
tion of each department of the county.
(2) By requiring all boards that ex
pend public funds to account .to the
Board of County Commissioners in a
business-like way for all funds received
and expended.
(3) By giving the commissioners au
thority to select all administrative offi
cers, so far as fiscal matters are con
cerned; such as supervisor of taxables,
collector of revenues, auditor, purchas
ing agent, treasurer, and superinten
dent of physical property.
(4) By a careful administration of a
county budget. There should be cen
tralized accounting of all funds, and
centralized purchasing of supplies, so
far as possible, and a continuity of busi
ness organization.’' —Paul W. Wager.
THE NORTH CAROLINA CLUB
The North Carolina Club at the State
University began its thirteenth year of
existence with an interesting meeting
Monday night, September 27.
The feature of the evening was an
address by Mr. R. D. W. Connor on
The Development Of Democratic Insti
tutions in North Carolina. This year
the club is considering the “Problems
of Democracy in North Carolina” and
Mr. Connor’s address furnished an ex
cellent background for the studies which
are to follow.
Mr. Connor reminded the members of
the club that their papers and discus
sions helped to mold public opinion in
the state, and that in at least a few in- '
stances governmental reforms bad their :
inception in the North Carolina Club. ■
He said that he felt that the program '
mapped out for the current year offered
an opportunity to render immense prac
tical services. !
In his address Mr. Connor reviewed I
the development of political democracy
in the state. It was a mistake, he said,
to think of democracy as an 18th cen-'
tury product. It is rather a 19th cen
tury product. The American Revolu-;
tion was not a democratic movement. 1
The colonists had set up English institu->
tions here; they were imbued with]
English traditions and ideals. They i
revolted from England because their;
constitutional rights as Englishmen ■
were being violated. North Carolina’s
first constitution in 1776 was written by ■
transplanted Englishmen, and in it the j
time-honored rights of Englishmen were '
guaranteed. '
That first constitution was far from a i
democratic instrument. A government
was set up based on property rights. ;
Only land owners could vote, and only i
large landowners could hold office.
Furthermore, none could hold office ex
cept orthodox Protestants. Atheists,
Jews, Catholics, and Quakers were
excluded.
About 1830 the democratic movement
gained headway throughout the world.
In England it resulted in the Reform
Bill of 1832. In America we had the
Jacksonian era. In North Carolina the
democratiemovement originated among
the Scotch-Irish of the Piedmont. They
were mostly small farmers and more
democratic in their views than the large
landholders of the East. Before 1830
the people of Western North Carolina
began to propose internal improvements
and public schools, but the East opposed
any increase in taxation. Representa
tion in the legislature was by counties,
and the West, because of its few coun
ties at that time, had little voting
strength. Whenever the legislature
created a new county in the west it
created another in the east to offset it.
All the state officials were elected by
the legislature, and the East controlled
the legislature. The West was helpless,
and not until it threatened to secede
did its demands receive any attention.
Archibald D. Murphey was the spokes
man for the West and a great champion
VALUE OF AN EDUCATION
“The educational advantages en
joyed by the people biographically
sketched in Who’s Who in America,
edition by edition, have furnished a
theme of widespread interest and of
continuous discussion.” There is a
deepening impression in favor of
higher education as^the determining
factor in the attainment of the
most desirable positions in life.
The recent edition of Who’s Who
contains the results of an exhaustive
investigation to determine the value
of an education in enabling one to
achieve outstanding success.
“The figures show that the num
ber attending college but not grad
uated, was 3,022, or 13.69percent of
those giving educational data, and
the total number of collegians, grad
uated and undergraduated, was 17,-
077, making 77.36 percent.
“In round numbers 77 out of every
100 persons giving educational (Jata,
whose names appear in the 1922-23
edition, attended college, and 64 out
of every 100 were college grad
uates.
“Academies, seminaries and secon
dary schools (regarded as of equal
educational rank) are credited with
1,674, or 7.13 percent of those fur
nishing educational data.
“Normal schools are credited with
1,182, or 5.36 percent, and common
or grammar schools 1,880, or 8.62
percent.
“It is interesting to note, in re
capitulation, that two persons out of
every 100 included in this tabulation
completed their preliminary educa
tion in normal schools; 6 out of every
100 completed their preliminary edu
cation in high school; 9 out of every
100 passed into active life from com
mon or grammar schools; 7 out of
every 100 attended academies,
seminaries or other secondary
schools; 64 out of every 100 were
college graduates; and 77 out of
every 100 completed their education
in college.”
Only a very small percent of all
people are college graduates, yet 64
percent of the notables listed in
Who’s Who furnishing educational
data are college graduates, and 77
percent attended college. It is in
controvertible argument in favor of
a college education.
AMERICAN NOTABLES
The 1926-27 edition of Who’s Who
contains the names of 385 persons who
give North Carolina as their state of
birth. There are now living in North
Carolina 306 persons who are listed in
Who’s Who. Thus North Carolina has
given birth to more people of more than
local name or fame than are now domi
ciled in the state. She seems to have
been a better seed-bed for breeding
Charlotte 16
Wilmington 12
Winston-Salem 11
Wake Forest 7
High Point 6
Davidson 5
Southern Pines 6
Wilson 6
In addition to the above there are
two town.s with four notables each,
three towns with three each, eight
. . . X.U 14. towns with two each, and forty-nine
notables than a plant-bed for maturing ’ •'
, Aif t u u towns with one famous citizen. Ihe
them. Many people who have left the
state have later risen to name and fame.
Possibly many of them left consciously
seeking for greener pastures. However,
our own pastures are now verdant, and
the ambitious and energetic can grow
to full stature here at home.
The table which appears elsewhere
shows the states’rank in. the ratios of
notables born in them, using the 1870
census of population as the base for
calculating the rates. The 1870 census
is the one nearest the birth of most of
the notables appearing in Who’s Who.
No basis of calculating the rank of the
states in this study is without its faults.
Manifestly the method chosen is the
fairest one. However, the rank of a
very few states that were doubling
their population every two or three
years around 1870, as North and South
Dakota, would be very different if based
on any later census of population. lor
, the older states there is no important
criticism of the method employed in
arriving at the rank of their contribu
tion of notable men and women.
North Carolina Notables
North Carolina, the state of birth of
386 notable men and women now living,
small towns are often represented by
persons arbitrarily included on account
of official position.
Of the non-educational centers Ashe
ville leads the state in outstanding
people. The rank of Raleigh and Chapel
Hill is easy to explain. Not counting
Duke University, Durham is repre
sented by two lawyers, one of whom is
a non resident, a de.aconess, and a
minister. Winston-Salem, the state's
largest city, has only eleven citizens of
more than local name and fame.
of democracy. Finally in 1834 the ques
tion of having a constitutional conven-
tion was submitted to the people. The
West voted solidly in favor of it; the
East voted solidly against it; but the
West won out. The Constitution was
thus revised in 1836 in line with the
democratic movement. The governor
was henceforth to be elected by the
people. Representation was to be based
on population—or at least in the Lower
House. Suffrage was broadened to in
clude all Christians instead of only
Protestants. In 1867 the last property
qualifications were removed. In 1868
the negro was enfranchised, but that
was not an internal development. In
1920 the suffrage was extended to
women, Politically the state has been
pretty thoroughly democratized. The
next steps must be in the direction of
social and industrial democracy, and in
providing equal opportunities to all.
N. C. CLUB YEAR-BOOK
The 1925-26 Year-book of the North
Carolina Club is off the press and ready
for distribution. This volume, which is
a collection of the papers read before
the North Carolina Club last year, is
entitled “Town and Country Interde
pendencies.” These studies point out
^the common interests of town and coun
try, how the town can be a service sta
tion for the country people, and how
the rural area sustains the town. Mutual
understanding and cooperation can help
both the town and the country to attain
ahigher level of prosf^rity and culture.
The chapter headings are as follows:
(1) Historical Background of Munici
pal Government in North Carolina.
(2) Leadership and the Reconcilia
tion of Town and Country Interests.
, . (3) The Federation of Agencies and
ranks thirty-eighth, having given birth institutions for Local Community Wel-
to 36 notables per 100,000 inhabitants ^ fare.
asofl870 Virginia ranks highest among ; (4) The Rural Mind: Is It a Myth?
\ . .4 Gvv.iiv. (6) Race Cooperation for Town and
the Southern states. South C^arohi a | Advancement.
and Kentucky rank just ahead ot North • ^0^ Town and Countryside under
Carolina Nine Southern states and One Local Government.
New Mexico rank below North Carolina^ | (7) ^o^^'p^blem.
The older and more settled states Should the Consoliifated School
largely predominate as the birthplaces gg Located in the Country or in the
of Who’s Who notables. The New Town or Village?
England and Middle Atlantic states | A Community Program for the
rank high. ' (n) a Community Program for the
The following table shows the num-Tchurch.
ber of people listed in Who’s Who living (12) A Community Program for the
in the larger 'towns and cities of the ^ Bank,
state:
Raleigh
Chapel Hill
Asheville 27
Greensboro 22
Durham *• 21
(13) The Community in North Caro-
I lina Historiography.
; (14) Inter-Community Relationships.
I Copies of the Year-book may be ob-
i tained by applying to the University
' Extension Division. There is no charge
I made to citizens of the state; to others
' the price is seventy-five cents.
NATIVE STATES OF NOTABLES IK WHO S WHO, 1926
Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants as of 1870
In thB following table the states are ranked according to number of nota
bles born therein per 100,000 inhabitants as of 1870. The parallel columns give
the number and ratios of each state. The rank of a few states like N.irth and
South Dakota and Colorado may be considerably ofii as their territory was increas
ing so rapidly in population about 1870.1880, the average time of birth of persons
listed in Who’s Who. The New England states rank high, as would be expected.
Along with them appear Western states that were sparsely settled but grow
ing rapidly around 1870.
North Carolina is the state of birth of 386 persons appearing in Who’s Who.
Her rank is thirty-eighth with a rate ot 36 native notables per 100,000 in
habitants as of 1870. Virginia, South Carolina, and Kentucky in the South
rank ahead of North Carolina. Ten states, all Southern except one, rank below
S, H. Hobbs, Jr.,
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University ot North Carolina
Rank State
6 Connecticut.
8 Rhode Island....
11 Utah..
14 Delaware.
THE EDITOR’S TASK
It is his desire and his business to
advocate that which will benefit bis
city. He is, in a very real sense, the jg iqew lorK
high priest of service, acquainting his ■ 17 Wyoming.
® . . ...L /-wTtlxr in
to build Up their town materially, due 19 Ohio
also to enrich themselves and others: 20 California..
spiritually. In his hand always is the 20 Kansas
axe of the pioneer, and on his bann
the proud device of “Forward!”
Selected. 24 Iowa..
Notables Rate
Notables
Rate
born
per 100,000
Rank State
born
per 100,000
in
population
in
population
state
as of 1870
state
as of 1870
... 11-
460
24 Wisconsin
... 698..
... 37-
308
26 New Jersey ...
.... 679..
64
... 79..
197
27 Maryland
.... 496-.
63
...2,060..
141
28 Michigan
.... 718...
61
... 163-
133
29 Arizona
6..
60
... 606-
113
29 Pennsylvania...
....2,129...
60
... 26-
108
31 Virginia
.... 706-
68
... 339-
107
32 Indiana
.... 914..
64
... 232.
107
33 Nevada
.... 20..
48
... 16.
100
34 West Virginia.
.... 196..
44
... 86..
98
36 Missouri
.... 726..
42
... 20.
95
36 South Carolina
. .. 283..
40
... 316..
96
37 Kentucky
.... 610..
39
... 106.
86
38 North Carolina.
.... 385..
36
... 633..
86
39 Texas
.... 274..
34
...3,666.
81
40 Tennessee
.... 419..
33
7-
78
41 Alabama
.... 296..
30
... 337.
77
42 Florida
.... 62..
28
.. 1,976.
74
43 Georgia
.... 326..
27
... 396..
71
44 Mississippi
.... 218-
26
... 268-
71
46 Arkansas
.... 120..
25
...1,608.
68
46 Louisiana
.... 166..
23
... 61.
67
47 New Mexico
7.
8
... 788.
66
— Oklahoma
8
-