The news in tliis publi
cation is released for the
press on receipt.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
'OCTOBER 31, 1928
TTER
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. XIV, No. 49
.1 Hoard. E. C. Branaon. S. H. Hobbs. Jr., P. W. Wa^er, L. E. Wll.oa, E. W. Kalrtt. D. D. Carroll. H. W. Odum.
HOME STATE STUDIES
En.oroda,aocood-cla., mat.orNo,.mbor «. 1914. at the Poatofiico a. Chap.l Hill, N. 0.. uudor th. act of Au^u.t 114. 1911.
HOME STATE STUDIES
We are presenting below a list of re
search studies that have been made by
teachers and students in the Depart
ment of Rural Social-Economics during
the college year 1927-28. Brief sum
maries of many of the studies have ap
peared from time to time in the News
Letter, as indicated. Most of these
studies are concerned with some phase
.of North Carolina, economic and social.
During the last fourteen years more
than seventeen hundred such studies
have been made in the department.
These reports are all properly filed
away, and are a part of the depart'
ment library, which contains the largest
collection of home-state data to be
found in any state.
U. S. Studies
1. Value of Agricultural Products
by States, 1926.—Paul W. Wager, Uni
versity News Letter, Vol. XIII, No,
45.
2. Value of Mineral Products by
States, 1926.-Paul W. Wager, Uni
versity News Letter, Vol. XIII, No.
46.
3. Farm Real Estate Values, 1927.
*—Paul W. Waget, University News
Letter, Vol. XIII, No. 48.
4. Negro Tenant Farmers in the
South, 1910 and 1926.—Paul W. Wager,
University News Letter, Vol. XIII,
No. 60:
6. Expenditures of State Highway
Departments, 1926.—Paul W. Wager,
University News Letter, Vol. XIV,
No. -3.
6. Automobile Fatalities by States,
1926.—Paul W. Wager, University
News Letter, Vol. XIV, 'W. 4.
7. Building and Loan Associations,
1926-27. —Paul W. Wager, University
News Letter, Vol. XIV,. No. 6.
8. Savings Deposits in Banks and
Trust Companies, 1926.— Paul W.
Wager, University News Letter, Vol.
XIV, No. 6.
9. Savings Depositors per 1,000
Population, 1926.—Paul W. Wager,
University News Letter, Vol. XIV,
No. 7.
10. Tangible Wealth in the United
States, 1926-—Paul W. Wager, Uni
versity News Letter, Vol. XIV, No. 8.
11. Theatre Admissions in the United
States, 1926-27.-Paul W, Wager, Uni
versity News Letter, Vol. XIV, No. 11.
12. Mortgaged Farms, 1910 and 1926.
—Paul W. Wager, University News
Letter, Vol. XIV, No. 13.
13 Bank Resources in the United
States, Vol. XIV, No. 16.
14. Public Library Service in the
United States, 1926.—Paul W. Wager,
University News Letter, Vol. XIV,
No. 18.
16. Developed Water Power in the
United States, 1921 and 1928. Univer
sity News Letter, Vol. XIV, No. 19.
16. Horses and Mules on Farms in
the United States, 1928, —Paul W.
Wager, University News Letter, Vol.
XIV, No. 20.
17. Dairy Cows in the United
States, 1928.-Paul W. Wager, Uni
versity News Letter, Vol. XIV, No.
21.
18. Income in the United States,
1926, —Paul W. Wager, University
News Letter, Vol. XIV, No. 22.
19. Forestry Facts—A Table Show
ing How the States Compare in Four
• Particulars, 1926. —University News
Letter, Vol. XIV, No. 24.
20. Building Construction in 1926.-
University News Letter, Vol. XIV,
No. 26.
21. Farm Labor in the United
States, 1928.—University News Letter,
Vol. XIV, No. 28.
22. Prisoners , in State and Federal
Prisons, 1923 and 1927.— University
News Letter, Vol. XIV, No. 30.
23. Farm-Owned Motor Vehicles,
1928.—University News Letter, Vol.
XIV, No. 33,
24. Buses as Common Carriers,
1928.—University News Letter, Vol.
XIV. No. 34.
26. Estimated Wealth of the United
States, 1927. —University News Letter,
Vol. XIV, No. 36.
26. Motor Vehicle Fatalities in
1927. —University News Letter, Vol.
XIV. No. 37.
27. Production of Lumber, 1926.—
S. H. Hobbs, Jr., University News
Letter, Vol. XIV, No. 39.
Korth Carolina Studies j
1. Tenancy Gains and Losses by;
Counties, 1910 to 1926.-PauI W. j
Wager, University News Letter, Vol !
XIII, No. 43.
2. White Public High-School Grad
uates, 1927.— University News Letter,
Vol. XIII, No. 44.
3. Rank of the Counties and Cities
in School Efficiency, 1926-26.— Paul W.
Wager, University News Letter, Vol.
XIII, No. 47.
4. Farms on Improved Roads, 1926.
— Paul W. Wager, University News
Letter, Vol. XIII, No. 49.
6. Ratio of Marriages to Divorces,
1923-1926.—Paul W. Wager, University
News Letter, Vol. XIV, No. 1.
6. Motor Cars -in North Carolina,
and Inhabitants per Car, 1927.—Univer
sity News Letter, Vol. XIV, No. 2.
7. County and School Indebtedness,
1926. —Paul W. Wager, University
News Letter, Vol. XIV, No. 9.
8. Assessed Valuations, Total and
per Capita, 1926.—Paul W. Wager,
University News Letter, Vol. XIV,
No. 10.
9. Rural White Graded Schools,
1926-27.—Paul W. Wager, University
News Letter, Vol. XIV, No. 12.
10. Mortgaged Farms in North
Carolina, 1910 and 1926.—Paul W.
Wager, University News Letter, Vol.
XIV, No. 14.
11. North Carolina Income Tax
payers, 1927.—University News Letter,
VoL XIV, No. 16.
12. Distribution of Doctors in North
Carolina, 1927.—Paul W. Wager, Uni
versity News Letter, Vol. XIV, No.
17.
13. Comparison of 1^6 and 1927 As
sessed Valuations.—University News
Letter, Vol. XIV, No. 23.
14. North Carolma’s Small Towns —
Valuations and Tax Rates, 1926. —Uni
versity News Letter, Vol. XIV, No.
26.
16. Assessed Valuations and Valua
tions Determined by State Equalizing
Board, 1927.—University News Letter,
Vol. XIV, No. 27.
16. School Attendance in North
Carolina, 1926-27. —University News
Letter, Vol. XIV, No. 29.
17. Fruits and Vegetables in North
Carolina, 1927.—University News Let
ter, Vol. XIV, No. 31.
18. Apportionment of Equalizing
Fund, 1927-28 and 1928-29.—University
News Letter, Vol. XIV, No. 32.
19. Facts concerning North Caro
lina, 1900, 1910, and 1927.—University
News Letter, Vol. XIV, No. 36.
20. . North Carolina Hospitals, 1926.
— University News Letter, Vol. XIV,
No. 38.
21. Cost of Transporting Pupils to
School, 1926-27.— University News Let
ter, Vol. XIV, Nos. 40 and 41.
22. Cost of Operating School Buses,
1926-27. —University News Letter, Vol.
XIV. No, 42.
County Studies
1. Caldwell County—A county geog
raphy for use in the elementary
schools. —Columbus Andrews.
2. Caldwell County: Resources,
Problems, and Possibilities.—Columbus
Andrews. *
3. Alamance County: Economic and
Social.—John W. Harden, University
of N. C. Bulletin, University Exten
sion Division.
4. Economic Status of Orange
County Prisoners. —Roy M. Brown.
6. Types of Farming and Farm Life
in Sixteen Counties of North Carolina.
— Clyde V. Kiser.
6. The Tax Burden on Farm Lands
—A Study of the Delinquent Tax List
of Orange, 1927.—Roy M. Brown.
7. Town and Country Cooperation
in Public Health Work in Rutherford
County, Tennessee.-Miranda Bradley,
Tennessee.
8. A Psycho-Social Study of Camden
County, North Carolina. —S. M. Eddle-
man.
During the year nine field studies
of county government were made,
making the total of such studies fifty-
seven to date. Each of these studies
represents three or four; weeks of res
idence at the respective county seats,
and each report contains one hundred
pages or more. The reports have been
typed and bound and are on file in the
Rural Social-Economics Seminar Li
brary.
KNOW YOUR HOME STATE
Not to know the glory that was
Greece and the grandeur that was
Rome is to be sadly crippled in
culture; but not to know the Home
State is to be even more sadly
crippled in competent citizenship.—
E. C. Branson.
The counties studied during the year
were Halifax, Franklin and Nash by
Clifton J. Bradley; Duplin, Sampson
and Greene by Edward A. Terry, and
Catawba, Davie and Orange by Messrs.
Bradley and Terry.
Special Studies
1. The Ecology of the Cotton Belt.
—Rupert B. Vance, Arkansas.
2. The Social-Economics of the
Cotton System.—Rupert B. Vance,
Arkansas.
3. Delinquent Boy Backgrounds-
A study of the boys in the three state-
supported training scbools.-CIyde V.
Kiser, Gaston county.
4 Countryside Contributions to the
Faculty of the University of North
Carolina.—Estelle Lawson, Orange
county.
6. Economic-Social Effects of Good
Roads, Automobiles and Auto-trucks
on Rural Communities.—S. M. Eddie
man, Rowan county.
6. Economic-Social Study of West
Chester, Pennsylvania. —Hugh Brinton,
Pennsylvania.
7. What a Country Town Can Do
for Its Trade Area.—Columbus An
drews, Caldwell county.
8. The Educational Efficiency of
the Small Town.—Ina V. Young, Dur
ham county.
9. One Hundred Country-Dwelling
Negroes and Their Grimes in Durham
City, N. C.—Hugh P. Brinton, Penn'
sylvania. ,
10. The Compounded School in s
Satisfying Country Civilization. —Win
nie L. Duncan, Orange county.
11. Forms of Farm Group Enter
prise.—Columbus Andrews, Caldwell
county.
12. Farm Colonies of Directed Farm
Owners.—S. M. Eddleman, Rowan
county.
13. Religious Consciousness in South
ern Rural Areas.-Louise Young, Ten
nessee.
14. The Rural Mind and Farm and
Home Demonstration Service. —J. Paul
McConnell, Virginia.
16. Social Doctrine as Applied to
the Mississippi Delta. —Louise- Young,
Tennessee.
16. The Farmer’s Occupation and
Farmer Personality.-S. M. Derrick,
South Carolina.
17. Farmer Attitudes toward Co
operative Enterprise-Based on the
documents of the Virginia-Carolina
Tobacco Growers Cooperative.—Sydney
Frissell, Virginia,
18. Farm Life and the Personality
of the Farm Child.—Lucy A. Studley,
Minnesota.
19. The College That Built a Town:
A School Rightly Related to Town and
Country Life.—K. Lee Barkley, Iredell
county. ■
20. Studies in Taxation, to be pub
lished as the North Carolina Club Year
book: The Historical Background of
the Tax Question, by Robert B, House;
' A Brief Analysis of Our Present Tax
System, b^ Paul W. Wager; The Dis
tribution of Governmental Functions,
by Clarence Heer; Equalizing the Bur
den of School Support, by Leroy Mar
tin; The Financial Condition of the
Counties, by Fred W. Morrison; An
Examination of the General Property
Tax, by Ralph C. Hon; The Tax Bur
den on Industry, by Hershai L, Macon;
The Tax Burden on Agriculture, byG. W.
Forster; Consumption Excise Taxes
for State Purposes, by S. M. Derrick;
Some Aspects of Municipal Finance,
by Miss Ina V. Young; The Use of the
License Tax, by Caesar Cone, 2nd;
The Assessment of Rural Real Estate,
by J. M. Mitchelle.
American corporations have offered
their stock for subscription by their
employes for reasons stated as follows:
(1) To create a demand for their
securities and to help meet their in
creasing requirements in capital. (2)
To reduce labor turnover, retain sea
soned employes, and stimulate interest,
loyalty, and efficiency in their workers.
(3) To have workers become capital
ists, make them less responsive to
radical agitation and more tractable
and obedient to their supervisors. (4)
To encourage saving arid develop a
means of enabling the workers to share
in the control of the corporatipn. (6)
To provide the workers an opportunity
for safe and profitable investment....
Three Main Policies
Corporations follow three main
policies in offering their employes
stock. Some buy their stock in open
market upon the employe’s order. For
those who are unfamiliar with such
transactions, the carrying out of the
purchase and transfer by the com
pany may be regarded as an important
service. Payment for the stock in
instalments by deductions from wages
or salaries is an additional favor. “In
some cases, too, while interest at
something like the prevailing commer
cial rate is charged on the diminishing
amounts unpaid, dividends on the pur
chased stock which more than balance
the interest charges are credited to
the subscriber’s account.’’
A second and more common policy is
that of “offering the stock, either pur
chased in the market or newly issued
from the corporation treasury, at a
price which is definitely below the cur
rent market price, sometimes con
siderably below it.”
may continue to be satisfied.... But all
are limited in duration, much the most
common term being five years.’’
Conclusions
In regard to broader aspects of
employe stock ownership the report
concludes that whether, employe owner
ship and control of industry will ever
become significant will depend (1) on
the employes’ capacity to buy. Thus
far the heaviest purchasing has been
done by the better paid employes and
executives. As long as incomes are
distributed according to present ratios
this is bound to be the case.
It will depend (2) on the willingness
of the present owners to sell. In many
companies 61 percent of the stock is
never traded but is kept safely in
managerial hands. Disposition of stock
in close corporations is always within
the control of the present owners and,
except for those concerns which de
finitely aim to have the employes own
the business, there is no chance of fhe
employes obtaining control. In other
companies, while the bulk of the capi
talization is for public sale, the voting
and managing shares are continuously
held by the group which controls the
company’s financial policy.
It will depend^(3) on the employes’
desire to have a controlling interest.
But at present their main emphasis is
on obtaining wages, hours, and working
conditions which constantly better
their status. Furthermore, if a
majority of the stock were owned by
the employes, control would not be pos
sible unless their stock was voted as a
block by trustees designated to look
after the interests of the employes.
Finally the report concludes: “From
the evidence at hand, it is clear, that
corporate stock ownership by employes
up to the present time has been, for
the most part, an ownership by the
superior employes and often by
. -. . . those
Th^ fHS.H r • J.I. I in the more responsible and better paid
1 he third policy is the most liberal [ positions; there has been no great re-
of all. Its distinctive feature consists distribution of wealth and income as a
in “allowing the employe some special It Nor is there anything to
reward or bonus in addition to the p"rofite\S’‘L’more
customary dividends of other owners, rank and file of workers than wages or
These gratuities, naturally enough, have, through their
most often are made to-depend also corporate stock, a much
upon service and conduct satlfaetor; l,Xnt‘’“^S^^^‘'’:hT“tg^ru‘r^“wrl^
to the employer, or upon the display of bring depends on the direction in which
a proper interest in his welfare. And movement spreads. Through era-
they show greater variety, both in ef- stock purchase plans, upwards of
t I- ■ J. .. iii ei a million recipients of wages and sala-
fective amount and m form, than one ries in the United States, in other
would have thought that human words, employes, have been added to
ingenuity could devise. Some take the number of owners of shares in
form of special wage bonuses for These employes
I • , ^ ior over one billion dollars’ worth of
stock-owning employes, at rates either securities of the companies by which
uniform or increasing with length of tliey are employed. Responsibility for
service.... Some depend upon the com- ’ ^ considerable investment and for
pany profits and some upon declared ■ expansion rests largely on the
^ ueciarea management which arranges details of
dividends. Some are uniform in amount
or in rate. Some increase from year
to year, as the stated conditions of
ownership and employment, or of prop
er interest in the employer's welfare,
stock purchase plans and exercises the
necessary 'control over their execu
tion.’’—Briefed from a review in In
formation Service, published by the
Federal Council of Churches of Christ
in America.
EXTENT OF EMPLOYE STOCK OWNERSHIP
The extent of employe stock ownership in 1927 among 316 companies in the
United States is summarized by the National Industrial Conference Board in the
following table:
Type of plan Number Total num-
and eligibility of com- ber of
of employes panies employes
Market
value of
shares
Active purchase plan 263,
Rank and file of employes 230,
Selected employes 23 42,661 3 629
Inactive purchase plan 61 236,207 3oi682.
Rank and file of employes 46 230,788 30^322
Selected employes 6 6 419 260
Profit-sharing bonuses, etc 11 60,392 38,846
Employe
stock
holders
and sub
scribers
2,439,849 736,641 $ 936,140,941
2,397,298 733,112 ^909,134,426
27,006.616
60,466,372
69,327,862
1,138,610
48,643,097
..2,736,448 806,068 $1,046,150,410
Name of Company
All plans 316,
An indication of the reiative importance of empioye stock ownership as
compared to other ownership in a few ieading companies in 1S26 is given in the
following table:
, Ratio (per
cent) of
present
and pro
spective
employe
holdings
to mar
ket value
of total
stock
now out
standing
Number
Ratio (per
Market
of em
cent) of
value
ploye
present -
of em
owners
and pro
ploye
and sub
spective
holdings
scribers
employe
and
stock- ,
sub
holders
scrip
to all
tions
present
stock
holders
EMPLOYE STOCK OWNERSHIP
Whether employe stock ownership
may be regarded as an investment or
as a speculation is a timely subject of
inquiry by Professor Willard C. Fisher,
College of the City of New York,
which the Journal of the International
Electrical Workers and Operators pub
lishes in June of this year as “one of
the most valuable pieces of research
the Journal has ever been ablj! to get.’’
American Telephone and Tele
graph Co 67,000 14.49 :&6,000,000 6.60
Bethlehem Steel Co., Inc 36,000 62.71 11,829,896 6.66
Eastman Kodak Co 16,000 67.64 20,617,000 8.44
International Harvester Co 12,000 64.64 16,240,000 7.16
Lehigh Valley Railroad Co 2,127 22.88 912,000 88
New York Central Lines 20,463 46.88 8,364,370 1.64
Pa. Railroad System 19,600 13.91 6,348,604 95
The Procter and Gamble Co.... 4,326 66.88 23,069,210 11.61
Standard Oil Co. of Calif 11,864 20.66 28,494,109 3.83
Standard Oil Co. (Indiana) 17,416 34.98 24,443,066 4.12
Standard Oil Co. (N. Jersey) ...19,136 43.70 36,288,000 4.I8
Swift and Company 13,000 27.66 20,000,000 11.39