The news in this publi
cation is released fbr 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.
JANUARYill. 1928
CHAPEL HILL, N. C.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA PRESS
VOL. XIV, No. 9
Bditorial Board: E.^C. Branson. S. H. Hobbs. Jr., P. W. Wager, L. R. Wilson. E. W. Knight. D. D. Carroll. 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.
COUNTY INDEBTEDNESS I
The North Carolina Edacational Com-'
mission has just completed the most ex-!
haustive study of indebtedness of North i
Carolina counties and subdivisions there-
*of that has yet been made. The last
issue of the News Letter gave a sum-1
raary of the findings of this commission.
This week we are presenting a table
showing the indebtedness of each coun
ty and its subdivisions, exclusive of cities
and towns. That is, The figures shown
in the table cover county-wide indebt
edness and the debts of townships and
special districts. While the debts of
subdivisions do not rest equally on all
the taxpayers of a county they are
quite widely distributed ^nd cannot be
ignored in a consideration of count?
indebtedness. Municipal debt, on the
other hand, is an obligation, of a dis
tinct municipal corporation, is incurred
for distinctively urban purposes, and
is thus in quite a different category.
A county may assume the indebtedness
of townships and special districts, but
it is not likely to assume a city’s in
debtedness. All school indebtedness is
included in the figures given in the ta
ble. Tue commission reports that it
was irr.pofliible to obtain from all coun
ties and subdivisions of counties re
ports a-s of the same date. The range
is from June 30, 1926, to December 1,
1926.
The indebtedness shown in the table
includes both bonded and current debt.
Of course, much of that which was in
the form of current debt a few months
ago has now been funded. Sinking funds
have not been deducted. At the time
the study was made county-wide sink
ing funds amounted to $8,809,213 and
sinking .funds for districts and town
ships amounted to $1,160,499. Hence
the total net delit of the counties and
their subdivisions amounts to $184,264,-
041, instead of $188,723,763.
Analysis of Debt
The total county-wide bonded indebt
edness as’of 1926 was $97,704,928. Of
this total $6,883,260 or 6 percent was
incurred for schools and $76,113,760 or
78 percent' for roads and bridges.
Road indebtedness includes, however,
$16,141,741 todned to the state, which
will be repaid. Of the county-wide
current liabilities $19,664,026 is for
schools and $21,333,286 for purposes
other than schools. Nearly 16 million
dollars of the current school debt is
in the form, of long-time loans from
the State Special Building Fund, and is
equivalent to a bonded debt.
The total bonded indebtedness of dis
tricts and townships amounts to $49,-
027,729, of which $39,676,729 is for
school buildings and $8,266,600 is for
roads and bridges. The other snhall
items are for drainage districts, for
sewerage, for railroads, and for hospi
tals. The current liabilities of dis
tricts and townships amount to $1,093,-
785, and practically aJl of these short
term obligations are school debts.
Of the total county, township, and
district indebtedness shown in the table
$6^,062,150 represents indebtedness con
tracted for schools and $122,661,603
represents debts contracted for pur
poses other than schools.
Ranking the Counties
The average county in the state has
a county-wide debt of $1,386,022 and a
township and district debt of $601,216.
Excluding the debt of* towns and
cities the average county then has a
debt of $1,887,237. A, study of the
table reveals that,thirty-three counties
have a debt in excess of this amount
and sixty-seven less than this amount.
Only twenty-nine counties have less
than a million dollars of indebtedness.
Guilford county has the largest debt,
$7,463,043, and Currituck has the snuiil-
est, $164,666.
If we rank the counties on the basis
af per capita indebtedness, using esti
mated population for 1927, we find the
median county-has a per capita debt of
$60.95. Carteret has the heaviest per
capita debt, $197.20. This is equivalentto
a mortgage of $1000 on every family in
the county. Henderson, Jackson, Iredell,
Montgomery, Pamlico, and Brunswick
follow in the order named, each having
a per capita debt in excess of $100.
The citizens of Northampton county
are the least burdened by public debt,
the per capita in that county being only
$14.20. Incidentally, Northampton ranks
near the top in school efficiency. Other
counties might find it advantageous to
inquire into Northampton’s methods of
county administration. Currituck,
; Hoke, Gates, Camden, Allegany, and
Dare have each less aggregate debt than
Northampton, but not so small a per
capita debt.
The annual interest charge on the
bonded indebtedness of the average
county and its special districts is $78,-
635.05. If we assume an interest rate
of 63^ percent on the floating indebt
edness, the total annual interest charge
is $101,730.16. This helps explain why
county taxes are high. —Paul W. Wa
ger.
EQUALIZE,TAXES
Sore spots in our present system of
local taxation, as indicated by localities
where property levies are unbearably
high but where the taxpayer receives
very little in return for his money, was
the subject of a talk given by Dr.
Clarence Heer of the Economics Depart
ment at the regular meeting of the
North Carolina Club on Monday even
ing, December 11.
According to the speaker, there are
many reasons why certain counties
have intolerably high tax burdens
coupled with a low return in the shape
of governmental services. Waste,
extravagance, inefficiency and faulty
organization, all play a very important
role. But even if all these factors
were eliminated, there would still re
main wide differences in relative tax
burdens as between different local
areas. These inequalities, according
to the speaker, are due to the fact that
the state legislature requires the coun
ties to perform certain functions, such
as maintaining schools and highways,
without making sufficient allowance for
unavoidable variations in the cost of
performing these functions as between
one locality and another. Moreover,
not enough consideration is given to the
variations in the economic ability of
the counties to support the functions
which the state legislature imposes
upon them.
Unequal Burdens
As indicative of the fact that it costs
more to perform certain governmental
functions in some counties than it does
in others, the speaker pointed out that
the cost of financing the minimum six-
months school term, on a per inhabitant
basis, varies all the way from $3.99
per inhabitant in Caswell to $6.94
per inhabitant in Polk. Topographical
conditions, population density, and the
way in which population is distributed
are, according to the,speaker, mainly
responsible for these discrepancies.
Not only does the cost of producing
governmental services of like kind and
quality differ as between various coun
ties, said Mr. Heer, but far more
serious is the fact that the amount of
taxable wealth available to meet these
costs varies widely from county to
county. The poorest county in the
state is Clay. Its total taxable wealth
amounts to less than $469 per in- '
habitant. At the top of the scale is
Forsyth with taxable wealth averaging
around $1,831 per inhabitant. High
unit costs for producing governmental
services coupled with a low average of
taxable wealth per inhabitant neces
sarily prx)duces an excessively high
rate of property taxation.
The speaker indicated two possible
avenues of relief for the overtaxed
county. In the first place the state
may lighten the burden by taking over
some of the functions which it now re
quires the counties to perform. In the
second place the legislature, while al
lowing the counties to retain all of
their present functions, may advance
a larger share of the funds necessary
to finance these activities. North
Carolina is making progress in both of
these directions. By extending its sys
tem of state highways it is directly
relieving the counties of certain duties
which formerly devolved upon them.
Through ^the school equalization fund
it is furnishing the counties with funds
with which to equalize the educational
burden.
In spite of the progress which has
already been made, however, the in
equalities in tax burdens as between
A FREE UNIVERSITY
We cannot have a great system
of education in North Carolina un
less we continue to head that system
with a great University. We can
not meet the problems of_the pres
ent or conduct the research neces
sary to solve problems"of the rising
generations unless we have a great
free University. We cannot have a
citizenship whose minds are fresh
and pure, inspired by a desire to do
real civic service for the state un
less we, here in this great central
power plant, charge their minds
with a spirit of unselfish service.
We cannot have a state developing
along proper economic lines if our
University is to become a football
of politics. It must be free to view
our economic conditions and attempt
to' solve our economic problems
along natural lines, rather than be
ing compelled to be subservient to
any political views. It must not be
forced to trim its sails to meet any
popular whim, because truth is eter
nal and enduring, —E. B. Jeffress.
different localities within the state are
still enormous. The county tax rate
for schools is only 44 cents per hundred
dollars of assessed valuation in Meck
lenburg. It is $1.16 per $100 in Clay.
Although Clay’s tax rate is almost
three times as great as Mecklenburg’s
it receives much less for what it
spends. This is indicated by the fact
that the State Department of Public
Instruction gives the schools of Clay an
efficiency rating of only 48.6 ^whereas
the rating for Mecklenburg is 66.9.
Shift Revenues
The Speaker declared that the state
should go still further in its program of
equalization, but to do this will require
increased state revenues. What rev
enue source can logically be utilized
for this purpose? Two general sources
were suggested. First, taxable values
such as railroads and interlocal utilities,
which at present are taxed locally, are
not properly speaking local forms of
wealth. To allow this form of taxable
wealth to be monopolized by the
localities in which it happens to be
situated gives some counties an unfair
advantage over others. In illustration
of this condition the speaker pointed out
that one county of the state col
lects nearly 40 percent of its revenues,
from railroad, telegraph, express, and
other public utility property. Other
counties have no public service property
to tax. Taxes paid by public service cor
porations are added to the rates charged
for services rendered. A county which
happens to have much railroad property
within its borders may thus levy trib
ute on users of the railroad who live
in neighboring counties.
Another source of wealth at present
taxable locally but which, according to'
Mr. Heer, could ^more profitably
be taxed by the state i^ intangible
personalty, including stocks, bonds,
mortgages, and other credit instru
ments. The county is too small
a unit to successfully reach this exceed
ingly mobile and elusive form of
wealth, said the speaker. Since the
local governments are getting practi
cally no revenue from intangible per
sonalty they would have little to lose
in turning it over to the state.
In conclusion the speaker, said that
the only counties which would have to
increase their tax rates if the proposed
rearrangement were put into effect
would be the counties which now bene
fit from the existing illogical allocation
of taxable resources and where the pres
ent tax burden is consequently low.
The poorer, high-cost counties would
benefit, since the new state revenues
would be available for equalization
purposes.
put on a business basis (oh, wish di-: 3. Start 36 new pure-bred flocks of
vine!), and run not on an economical poultry.
basis, but on a basis looking forward ; 4. Replace 20 scrub bulls with 20
to bigger dividends in the future. ( pure-breds.
I should like to see the state make ; Place 26 registered heifers and
; some long-term investments and de-! cows in county,
velop some of its undeveloped resources. I 6. A legume on every plowed acre
I should like to see higher standards of every four years,
human values take the place of, or ' 7- . Improvement of,15 home orchards
take a place at least alongside of, the I pruning, spraying, fertilization, and
dollar mark. I should like to see an control of peach borer,
investment made in public health on a 8- Terrace 200 acres to prevent soil
much larger scale than we are now erosion,
making it. I should like to see another ^ 9. Build 10 hog houses.
investment made in public welfare in
proportions that would make our pres
ent efforts look little and mean. I
should like to see unfortunate mother
hood uplifted instead of degraded. 1
should like to see child welfare put at
least upon an equal plane with the wel
fare and improvement of other animals.
I should like to see the idea take root
; and finally dominate us as a people that
the wealth of nations is not measured
by bank balances, stocks, bonds, and
factories, but by how well a nation
conserves and develops its potential re
sources, and that the worth of all re
sources must be measured in terms of
human values. The state’s greatest
undeveloped resource is its children. I
should like to see us “put out” on the
country child for a while and see the
state’s wealth grow. —M. L. Wright,
in The North Carolina Teacher.
DAVIDSON S PROGRAM
The following objects were adopted
as definite goals for 1928 by the David
son County Board of Agriculture: '
One farm home improvement
demonstration in each township in the
county.
2. Build 26 standard poultry houses.
10. Build 10 self-feeders.
11. Conduct 40 hog feeding demon
strations.
12. Twelve organized clubs with a
membership of 200 boys.
13. Conduct more corn, cotton, to
bacco, and small grain demonstrations.
14. Build 6 silos in county.
16. Hold tobacco seed cleaning and
seedHreating deraonstirations.
16. Blood test at least 6 flocks of
poultry.
17. Hold “rooster exchange” day in
January.
18. Put on pure-bred bog sale in coun
ty- '
19. Cooperate with North Carolina
Guernsey Association in putting on
state Guernsey sale in Davidson coun
ty.
20. Cooperate with State College in
the organization of state-wide farmers’
organization.
The slogan adopted was “Richer Soils,
Convenient Homes, and Educated Peo
ple.’’—Lexington Dispatch.
COUNTY AND SCHOOL INDEBTEDNESS, 1926
Total and Per Capita Debt of Counties and Subdivisions
The following table is based.on a recent report of the State Educational
Commission entitled Financial Condition of Counties! It gives the total indebt
edness of each county and its subdivisions, exclusive of cities and towns. In
each instance the total includes both bonded and floating debt and does not
deduct sinking funds. The total amount in sinking funds amounts to onlv
$4,469,712. ■’
The total debt of the counties and their subdivisions, exclusive of cities and
towns, is $188,723,763, or $68.16 per capita. Guilford has the greatest aggregate
debt, $7,463,043, and Currituck the least, $164,666. Carteret has the largest
per capita debt, $197.20, and Northampton the smallest, $14.20.
Paul W. Wager
Department of Rural Social-Economics. University of North Carolina
Total Debt
Rank. County indebted- per
ness capita
1 Carteret $3,284,649 $197.20
LONG-TERM INVESTMENTS
I want the state and the nation to
levy such tax as necessary to provide
for the needy and unfortunate in no pe
nurious and niggardly way; I want a
system of education that will teach
people how to spend. I should like to
see the affairs of the state and nation
2 Henderson 2,962,686 149.60
3 Jackson 1,663,369 120.80
4 Iredell 4.843,087 119.10
6 Montgomery 1,690,600 118.76
6 Pamlico ..1,031,656 113.86
7 Brunswick 1,631,180 100.70
8 Rutherford 3,861,470 99.60
9 Swain 1,666,470 98.90
10 Rockingham 4,433,060 93.66
11 McDowell 1,831,186 98.60
12 Lenoir 3,273,476 91.60
13 Clay ' 477,746 90,80
14 Transylvania 1,006,636 ? 90.10
16 Mitchell 1,034,922 87,46
16 Beaufort 2,682,110 86.20
^17 Pasquotank 1,673,800 86.66
18 Cumberland 3,324,821 86.20
18 Perquimans 954,451 86.60
20 Craven 2,628,376 82.60
21 Jones 866,700 79.86
22 Tyrrell 386,140 79.40
23 Guilford 7,463,043 77.86
24 Lincoln .7.1,410,660 76.66
26 Graham 378,747 76.80
26 Macon.'. 1,011,476 76.60
27 Wilson 3,338,660. 74.90
28 Ashe .....1,673,667 74.4»
29 Poik 721,297 73.60
30 Duplin 2,499,900 73,10
31 Madison 1,466,810 73.00
32 Cherokee .,1,163,200 72.30
33 Gaston 4,687,086 70.60
34 Alamance 2,488,276 69.20
36 Bladen 1,460,960,,'.... 68.76
36 Buncombe 6,320,466 68.70
37 Washington 801,863 68.60
38 Scotland 1,073,273 68.06
39 Haywood 1,712,760 67.96
40 Wake 6,763,608 67.60
41 Edgecombe 2,87'3,460 66.90
42 Durham 3,200,342 66.60
43 Pitt 3,671,400 66.65,
44 Stanly 2,276,660 66.60
46 Randolph 2,030,225 63.80
46 Mecklenburg ...5,839,390 63.30
47 Greene 1,192,660 63.10
48 Hyde 628,174 63.00
49 Catawba 2,440,340 62.76
60 f!k>Inmbus 1,941,116 61.26
•Corrected to July 1, 1927
Total Debt
Rank County indebted- per
ness capita
61 Halifax $2,967,720 $ 60.66
62 Johnston 3,201,636 67.40
63 Yancey 1,016,240 67.36
64 Onslow 866,356 67.62
66 Avery 604,736 66.10
66 Surry 1,920.676 66.86
67 Stokes 1,168,400. 66.46
68 Granville 1,666,329 66.30
69 Lee 826.686 64.76
60 Harnett 1,841,217 64,60
61 Chatham 1,314,310 63.30
62 Wayne 2,666,165 62.90
63 Richmond 3,678,020 62.70
64 Davidson 2,106,970 62,66
66 Caldwell 1,073,671 61.16
66 Davie 700,960 61.10
67 Rowan 2,608,885 60.75
68 Martin 1,166,100 49.95
69 Watauga 706,682 49.90
70 Pender 727,890 49.20
71 Moore 1,232,490 48.’96
72 Forsyth 5,299,600...... 47.60
73 Franklin 1,290,482 46,80
74 Burke 1,132,719 45’76
76 Nash 2,134,960 46.16
76 Orange 910,840* 44,96
77 Person 902,640 ..... 44.66
78 Robeson 2,644,810 43.40
79 Sampson 1,732,914 42.20
79 Wilkes...., 1,463,664 42.20
81 Vance .1 1,110,769 42.10
82 Chowan 440,806 41.40
83 Bertie 1,017,932 41.26
84 Cleveland 1,624,960 40.00
86 Cabarrus 1,600,330 39.60
86 Caswell..; 639,726 38.90
87 Union 1,603,696 38.46
88 Hertford 636,824 37.60
89 Alexander 473,'696 37.40
89 New Hanover...1,806.100 37.41)
91 Anson 1,086,297 36.60
92 Yadkin 666,370 32.66
9^ Dare 168,066 31.60
94 Alleghany 231,466 81.30
96 Camden 166,000 30.66
96 Gates 282,010 26.60
97 Warren 625,640 23.30
98 Hoke 303,710.'>rf.. 23.26
99 Currituck 164,665 22,66
100 Northampton... 337,626 14.20