The news in this publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
SEPTEMBFR 7, 1927
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 PRESS
VOL. XIII, No. 43
Editorixl lioai-d] E. C. Branson. S. H. Hobbo, Jr.. L. R. Wiison. E. W Knitrht. D. D, Carroll. J, B. Bullitt, H, W. Odum,
Entered as second-class matter November 14, 1914. at the Postofficc at Chapel Hill. N. C.. under the act of AuKUSt 24. 1912,
FARM TENANCY IN N. C.
FARM TENANCY
Tables pertaining to farm tenancy
have appeared in this publication from
time to time but the one wtiich appears
in this issue is the first time an attempt
has been made to show trends over the
fifteen-year interval 1910 to 1926. The
interval reaches far enough before
and after the war to register a general
movement rather than a war fluctua
tion.
In this fifteen-year period North
Carolina’s tenant farmers increased in
number from 107,287 to 128,264, an in
crease of 19.6 percent. In the same
period the total number of farms in
creased only 11.7 percent, while farms!
cultivated by owners increased only 6.6:
percent. Stated differently, the ratio
of tenants to all farmers was 42.3 in j
in 1910 and 46.2 in 1926. At this rate
of increase the state will soon have
more farm tenants than owner culti
vators.
Increase in Numbers
It will be noticed by the table that
forty-one counties witnessed a reduction
in the number of tenant farmers in the
fifteen-year period and fifty-nine coun
ties had increases. Three of the coun
ties in which tenancy decreased owe
part of the reduction to loss of terri
tory, Mitchell, Watauga, and Caldwell
each surrendering some territory to
form Avery. Since Avery did not exist
in 1910 it is credited with the average
rate of decrease of the three counties
from which it was created.
Henderson, rather than Mitchell, is
thus probably entitled to the distinction
of having the most rap\d reduction in
farm tenancy. Buncombe follows close
ly, and all of the first ten places are
held by counties beyond the Blue Ridge.
Of the forty-one counties which saw a
decrease in tenancy only six—Bruns
wick, Carteret, Hyde, New Hanover,
Tyrrell, and Jones—are eastern counties,
and they are tidewater counties which
do not engage extensively in cash-crop
farming.
Some of the piedmont counties lost
tenants; others made slight gains; only
Cleveland and Alamance witnessed sub
stantial increases—and of these Cleve
land is a big producer of cotton.
Large Gains in East
In nearly all of the eastern counties
there were big increases in farm ten
ancy. Probably no other area in the
nation experienced such an increase in
farm tenants as eastern North Caro
lina. In thirty-six counties there were
increases in excess of twenty-five per
cent, and in eighteen counties in excess
of fifty percent. Practically all of the
counties in the cash-crop belt had in
creases of from twenty to seventy per
cent. It is rather significant that the
greatest increases of all were in the
northeast tidewater counties—Chowan,
Washington, Martin, and Beaufort.
Dare's five-hunored-percent increase
loses its significance when it is observed
that its Leiianis increased in number
from one to six. Hoke county, like ■
Avery, was not in existence in 1910.
It IS credited with an increase equiva- ,
lent to that which took place in the
parent counties, Robeson and Cumber-
land.
The parallel column gives the per- ^
centage of farm tenants in each county
in 1925. Edgecombe leads with 83.3,
percent and Greene ranks second with
82.0 percent. In thirty-seven counties
more than fifty percent of the farmers
are tenants. On the other hand, there ,
are eight mountain counties and two
tidewater counties (Dare and Bruns
wick) with a farm tenancy ratio of
less than fifteen percent. Fifty-six
counties have less than the state aver
age of 46^2 percent of farms operated
by tenants, and forty-four counties‘are
above the atate average. Fifty coun
ties had 'a higher tenancy ratio in 1926
than in 1910, and fifty counties had a
lower ratio.
Remedies All Fail
Even though farm tenancy of the
sort which prevails in North Carolina is
generally acknowledged to be undesir
able, it is not decreasing. In fifty-nine
counties of the state it is increasing.
Consolidated rural high schools have
not solved' the problem, or even turned
the tide. A compulsory school law has
not changed the situation. The indus
trial development of western North
I Carolina is responsible for the loss of
i farm tenants in that part of the state.
[ The elimination of the state property
! tax, the coming of ihe county agricui-
; lural agents with their gospel of diver
sification, the ravages of the boll
weevil, the organization of the cotton
j cooperative association, the federal
I farm loan system and intermediate
[ credit banks—all of theSe things have
I failed to check the trend toward in
creasing tenancy. Possibly these in
fluences will begin to operate in time
but they have not begun, to register
yet. What remains to be done? Who
is giving thought to the problem, or
are we satisfied to let tenancy increase,
and, if so, how far? Who is there that
believes that agriculture can be effi
cient, satisfying, and wholesome except
where farmers own their homes and the
land they cultivate?—Paul W. Wager.
DAVIDSON’S HISTORY
There is an increasing interest in
local history in North Carolina and
many counties have recently appointed
county historians. This is altogether
desirable and will result, no doubt, in
the preservation of valuable historical
data that might otherwise be lost. It
will also stimulate tl\e writing of
county histories which will be immense
ly useful in the schools.
Davidson county has had a volunteer
historian for many years in the person
of Rev. Jacob Calvin Leonard, D. D.,
and the fruit of his labor is a Cen
tennial History of Davidson County
just off the press. Dr. Leonard is
pastor of the First Reformed Church
of Lexington. He has spent many
years gathering the material for this
volume and its publication gives the
county a historical record of which it
may feel justly proud.
The book is a handsomely bound
volume of over 600 pages and consists
of eighteen chapters, all of which con
tain a wealth of valuable historical
facts. The story of Davidson’s develop
ment and of the places filled by its
more conspicuous sons is simply and
interestingly related. The narrative
is supplemented by 60 full-page illus
trations. Among the subjects treated
rather comprehensively are countv offi
cers, banks, county newspapers, schools,
churches, and farms and farm products.
There is an entire chapter devoted to
Lexington', and another to Thomasville
and its industrial development. A
separate chapter is devoted to Daniel
Boone, also, who once lived in Davidson
county; and to General Nathaniel
Greene, who traversed Davidson county
in his historic march. Another inter
esting and instructive chapter deals
with racial origins of Davidson county
citizens. The final chapter upholds
Davidson as a unique county in a great
state.
Dr. Leonard’s volume is a valuable
contribution to the field of local history,
a field that has not yet received the
attention it deserves. It is hoped that
the historians of other counties will
emulate Dr. Leonard’s example.
AN AGRICULTURAL POLICY
The time has come in the life of
the American people, as it has come
before in the history of all great
nations, when we must deliberately
and wisely formulate a national
agricultural policy. We must make
up our minds as a people whether
we are going to continue to sacrifice
our agricultural development to our
temporary industrial growth, as we
have been doing, or whether we are
going to adopt the safer and wiser
course of bringing our agricultural,
industrial and corhmercial life into
a well balanced and cooperative re
lationship.
This issue is inescapable, even
though it may be postponed. It is
forced upon us by the indisputable
facts regarding the present situa
tion and tendencies of our agricul
ture. The agricultural situation
today is not merely the result of the
war. There is strong evidence that
our agriculture has been increasingly
lagging behind the rest of our econ-
omic/ life since the beginning
of the century, which marked the
commencement of our rapid indus
trial development. Whether you
look at agriculture as an industry,
as a business, as an occupation or as
a way of living, it is no longer possi
ble to ignore the great economic and
social problems which its situation
presents.—Virgil Jordan, in The
Fertilizer Review.
6. AN EFFECTIVE COUNTY ORGANIZATION
Practice in good systems already
established iniicates that a county
organization to be most effective
should make provision for a well-cen
tralized business and professional ad
ministration, without depriving the
people in each section of local initia
tive in school matters. The county
board and the county superintendent
should administer the general school
affairs and expend the county school
funds to equalize educational advantages
among all the children of the county.
Each school community should have
a representative appointed by the
county board or, if desired, elected
at an annual school meeting, to rep
resent the school before the county
board. Support should come principally
from county funds. The school funds
of the county should be expended by
the county board of edu^jation for the
general maintenance of all the schools. i
The local school community should usual-1
ly be given the right to levy taxes and is- j
sue bonds for extraordinary school pur-;
poses, such as acquiring additional land '
sites or erecting new buildings. This i
gives a measure of local autonomy.
This should be permitted only after a
county-wide tax sufficient for all ordin-,
ary school purposes for the entire'
county has been levied and collected. ‘
A good county system has an organi- >
zation for the management and support,
of its schools similar to that of the best i
] city systems. The county board of
'education is elected from the county at
j large in the same manner as the best
I city boards are elected It should have
! practically the same powers and duties.
Il determines the general educational
policies of the county. It familiarizes
itvelf with the educational needs of the
'entire county and locates schools where
[needed. It employs the county super
intendent of schools and authorizes the
I employment of assistants. The county
[ superintendent is its executive officer in
[exactly the same way that the city
! superintendent is the executive officer
of the city board of education. In
I selecting a superintendent the board
I should have authority to employ
I the best person obtainable -regard-
[ less of whether he is or is not a citizen
! of the county or even of the state. The
! board should be free, within reasonable
I limitations, to pay whatever salarv may
I be necessary to obtain the most efficient
i person. The county superintendency re-
; quires as much ability and professional
'experience as that of a city of the
i same population. It presents difficul
ties in size of territory, placement of
teachers, orjranization of supervisory
staff, school financing, location of build-
ing.s, and the like which are even
greater than city superintendents must
meet. The salary should be commen
surate with the responsibility. —U. S.
Bureau of Education.
EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT
The city managerial councilmanlc
form of government is the most ef
ficient and business-like method of
administration of the affairs of a
municipality.
This opinion was expressed Saturday
morning by C.O. Sherrill, city manager
of Cincinnati, where the new form
has met with decided success during
the two years it has been in use.
“Naturally”, Colonel Sherrill said,
“lam prejudiced in favor of the city
manager plan but I can say without
bias that it has proved a great success
in Cincinnati and that it has attained
great popularity there.
Most Business-Like
“It stands to reason that form of
government is most efficient because
if: is most business-like. It operates
like the administrative organization of
any large business firm.
“In any business organization of any
!,^ze you have a board of directors and
a general manager at the head. The
directors are named by the stock
holders and the general manager is
employed because of his training as
the most logical man fpr the particular
position he holds. In the city manager
form of government, the residents are
the stockholders, the councilmen are
the directors, and the city manager
is the general manager.
“Centralization of authority is the
biggest advantage of the city manager
form. That means facility of ad
ministration and efficiency of govern
ment.”—News and Observer.
HIGHWAYS HELP FARMERS
Crops, total value of which in North
Carolina last year was 8320,1)00,000,
and roads go hand in hand.
The good roads in this part of the
state have made it possible to. supply
the manufacturing cities from farms
located as many as 40 miles away or
farther.
Prior to the advent of good roads the
farmer who lives as much as ten miles
from town rarely took produce to
market unless his roads were in what
he would call prime condition, and
then it took him an entire day to make
the trip.
The town was then forced to get its
supplies from sources outside the state,
as it could hardly draw on more than
75 square miles of territory for local
production.
With the coming of good roads the
market gardens of the cities have
grown from the former area of 60 to
75 square miles to 1,000 to 1,200 square
miles or more.
Here we find diversified farming-
cotton, corn, tobacco, potatoes, wheat,
oats, and vegetables—all growing on
the same farm the same year.—A. P.
report of speech by \V. A. Graham
before Farmers’ Convention.
TENANCY GAINS AND LOSSES
Percent Increase in Tenants 1910 to 1925
In the following table the counties of the state are ranked according to the
decrease or increase in number of farm tenants between 1910 and 1926.
The county with the largest decrease comes first, and the county with the
largest increase appears last. The percentage of farms operated by tenants in
each county in 1926 is given in the parallel column. The state average is 45.2.
The net state increase for the fifteen-year period was 19.6 percent. Forty-
two counties had a tenancy increase in excess of this rate, seventeen counties
bad an increase at a lower rate, and forty-one counties witnessed a decrease in
the number of tenants.
The counties losing tenants are almost all in the western part of the state.
The counties showing increases in farm tenancy are generally in the eastern
half of the state.
Edgecombe and Greene have the highest tenancy ratios, 83.3 and 82.0 re
spectively. Dare is lowest with a percentage of 7.6.
Paul W. Wager
Department of Rural Social-Economics, University of North Carolina.
ANOTHER FIRST
North Carolina will be the first state
in the Union to be free from bovine
tuberculosis, it has been announced at
the State Department of Agriculture.
Commissioner William A. Graham au
thorized the statement that Ashe
County had agreed to cooperate in the
work of eradication. This, he said,
completes the list, that is, Ashe
County is the one-hundredth county to
join in. and by some time in 1928 the
work ought to be concluded. This will
mean that North Carolina will be the
first of all the states to complete the
work. Our state already has been
freed from the cattle tick, and this
present forward movement ought to
give us a fine showing throughout the
country.
“Work already has been completed
in eighty-five of the counties,” con
tinued Commissioner Graham, “and is
in progress in twelve. In the remain
ing three, it will begin very shortly.
I am extremely gratified at this show
ing-.••
“The highest number of infested cows
found was 736 in 1922, according to
figures furnished me by Dr. William
Moore, veterinarian for the Depart
ment.’’-Agricultural Review.
Percent Percent
of farms decrease and
Rank County occupied increase of
by ten- farm
ants tenants
1926 1910-1925
Decrease
1 Mitchell 10.2 64.8*
2 Henderson 9.0 62.0
3 Buncombe.. .....12.3 68.1
4 Watauga 10.2 47.1*
6 Haywood 20.7 44.9
6 Macon 16.3 42.6
^.7 Transylvania ...12.4 38.9
,8 Madison 29.1 37.9
9 Avery 9-6 36.4t
10 Alleghany 10.2 33 8
11 Brunswick 14.3 33.2
12 Cherokee 20.6 31.9
13 Alexander 16.3 31.5
14 McDowell 22.6 31.1
i 16 Caldwell 20.5 27.8*
16 Gaston 4l.3 27.7
,17. Graham 23.7 27.3
118 Wilkes 18.3 27.2
i 19 Swain 22.6 26.2
I 20 Polk 30.6 24.1
: 21 Ashe 1L3 22.1
[22 Mecklenburg ...56.3 20.8
j 23 Catawba 23.2 18.3
24 Chatham... 33.6 17.2
1 26 Yancey 25.7 16.8,
'26 Carteret 19 5 lo.7
27 Jackson i...l9^2 12.1
128 Hyde {...49.4 11.4
129 New Hanover...23.6 10.3
j 30 Lincoln 36.7 7.6
'30 Burke 22.9 7 6
32 Guilford ‘^3.6 7.1
33 Tyrrell 28.0..
34 Stanly 32.4 .
36 Rowan 32.6..
36 Jones 60.1..
36 Randolph 18.8..
38 Union 63.6..
39 Davie 40,2..
40 Orange 34.1..
41 Stokes 46.1..
6.4
5.6
5.4
4 8
4.8
3.0
2.7
2.6
2.2
Increase
42 Rutherford 46.0 1.7
43 Clay 30.5 1.9
44 Durham 66.7 3.7
46 Iredell 39.6 4.7
46 Cabarrus 62.3 6.2
47 Davidson 20.4 6.8
48 Montgomery 36.6 8.3
49 Yadkin 26.7 10.3
50 Rockingham 60.6 12.0
♦Decrease partly due to reduced territory.
tAverage decrease of the counties from which Avery was formed.
♦♦Increase in spite of reduced territory.
•r'’Average increase of the counties from which Hoke was formed.
•Percent Percent
of farms decrease and
Rank County occupied increase of
by ten- farm
ants tenants
1925 1910-1925
Increase
61 Forsyth 23.8 12.4
62 Caswell 66.0 13.2
53 Cumberland ...48.9 13.6**
64 Anson 67.9 14.3
65 Onslow 37.4 16.2
66 Vance 61.8 16.9
67 Wake 69.1 17.0
68 Surry 33.2 17.1
59 Perquimans . 61.9 19.7
60 Warren 66.6 20.7
61 Person 61.4 t 21.6
62 Currituck 47.3 22.6
63 Halifax 70.3 23.8
64 Craven 46.6 25.1
66 Hereford 69.5 25.2
66 Cleveland 56 6 27.0
67 Franklin 69.1 28.6
68 Lee 38.4 28.8
69 Pas(}uotank 52.3 31.9
70 Northampton ,.68.2 32.3
71 Robeson 66.8 32.6**
72 Granville 62.5 35.3
73 Camden 62.5 35.6
74 Moore 30 1 38.3
76 Duplin 44.6 40.6
76 Alamance 31.6 41.0
77 Pender 23.0 41.6
78 Pamlico 30.7 43.0
79 Wayne 72.1 43.4
80 Bertie 61.1 44.0
Si Greene 82.0 46.6
82 Johnston 66.7 48,9
83 Lenoir....'. 71.6 60*6
84 Gates 38,8 61.2
84 Wilson 77.1 51.2
86 Edgecombe 83.3 54.4
87 Hoke 63.2 64.9ft
88 Harnett 46.8 56.3
89 Pitt 76.9 67.3
90 Scotland 80.7 60.3
91 Nash 70.3 62.2
92 Sampson 42.5 65.1
93 Bladen 27.7 65.7
94 Richmond 64.3 66.8
95 Columbus 23.9 67.3
96 Beaufort 39.4 74.7
97 Martin 59.8 80.6
98 Washington ..,65.9 117.4
99 Chowan 63.0 117.8
100 Dare 7.6 600.0