]> <emph>Economic and Social Conditions of North Carolina Farmers. Based on a Survey of 1000 North Carolina Farmers in Three Typical Counties of the State. Prepared under the Direction of a Committee Appointed by the State Board of Agriculture Consisting of Representatives from the North Carolina College for Women, the North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, the University of North Carolina and the State Department of Agriculture in Co-operation with the U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics:</emph> Electronic Edition. North Carolina. Tenancy Commission. Ed. by Taylor, Carl C. (Carl Cleveland), b. 1884 Zimmerman, Carle Clark, 1897- Brown, B. F. (Benjamin Franklin, b. 1881 Funding from the Institute for Museum and Library Services supported the electronic publication of this title. Text transcribed by Apex Data Services, Inc. Images scanned by Elizabeth S. Wright Text encoded by Apex Data Services, Inc., Melissa Graham Meeks, and Jill Kuhn Sexton First edition, 2002 ca. 375K Academic Affairs Library, UNC-CH University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2002.

© This work is the property of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It may be used freely by individuals for research, teaching and personal use as long as this statement of availability is included in the text.

 Economic and Social Conditions of North Carolina Farmers. Based on a Survey of 1000 North Carolina Farmers in Three Typical Counties of the State. Prepared under the Direction of a Committee Appointed by the State Board of Agriculture Consisting of Representatives from the North Carolina College for Women, the North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, the University of North Carolina and the State Department of Agriculture in Co-operation with the U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics North Carolina. Tenancy Commission. Information compiled and collated by Carl C. Taylor, C.C. Zimmerman. 87 p. [Raleigh] s.n. 1922 Call number Cp630 T23e c.4 (North Carolina Collection, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

The electronic edition is a part of the UNC-CH digitization project, Documenting the American South.

The text has been entered using double-keying and verified against the original. The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines.

Original grammar, punctuation, and spelling have been preserved. Encountered typographical errors have been preserved, and appear in red type.

All footnotes are inserted at the point of reference within paragraphs. When the point of reference appears within a table, the footnote is inserted at the end of the table.

Any hyphens occurring in line breaks have been removed, and the trailing part of a word has been joined to the preceding line.

All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity references.

All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as ” and “ respectively.

All single right and left quotation marks are encoded as ’ and ‘ respectively.

All em dashes are encoded as —

Indentation in lines has not been preserved.

Running titles have not been preserved.

Spell-check and verification made against printed text using Author/Editor (SoftQuad) and Microsoft Word spell check programs.

 Library of Congress Subject Headings English North Carolina -- Social conditions. North Carolina -- Economic conditions. Agriculture -- Economic aspects -- North Carolina. Farms -- North Carolina. Farms -- North Carolina -- Statistics. Farm tenancy -- North Carolina. Farm tenancy -- Economic aspects -- North Carolina. Farmers -- North Carolina -- Economic conditions. Farmers -- North Carolina -- Social conditions. Farmers -- North Carolina -- Statistics. Tenant farmers -- North Carolina. Sharecroppers -- North Carolina. Social surveys -- North Carolina. 2002-11-06, Celine Noel and Wanda Gunther revised TEIHeader and created catalog record for the electronic edition. 2002-02-08, Jill Kuhn Sexton finished TEI-conformant encoding and final proofing. 2001-08-22, Melissa Graham Meeks finished TEI/SGML encoding 2001-08-17, Apex Data Services, Inc. finished transcribing the text.

[Title Page Image]

 ECONOMIC and SOCIAL CONDITIONS of NORTH CAROLINA FARMERS BASED ON A SURVEY OF 1000 NORTH CAROLINA FARMERS IN THREE TYPICAL COUNTIES OF THE STATE Prepared Under the Direction of a Committee Appointed by the State Board of Agriculture Consisting of Representatives from THE NORTH CAROLINA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND ENGINEERING THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE IN CO-OPERATION WITH THE U. S. BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS Information Compiled and Collated by CARL C. TAYLOR C. C. ZIMMERMAN TABLE OF CONTENTS THE AREA SURVEYED: The People . . . . . 8 The Land Farmed . . . . . 9 Farm Crop Practices . . . . . 11 Livestock Practices . . . . . 15 FAMILY FOOD SUPPLIES . . . . . 17 Milk and Butter . . . . . 19-20 Pork and Lard . . . . . 20-21 Eggs and Poultry . . . . . 22-23 Flour, Potatoes, Meal, and Molasses . . . . . 23-25 Garden and Orchard Products . . . . . 26 CASH INCOME . . . . . 27 CREDIT . . . . . 28 WEALTH AND EQUITY . . . . . 32 TENURE HISTORY . . . . . 35 THE HOMES: Houses . . . . . 39 Home Conveniences . . . . . 43 HEALTH AND SANITATION . . . . . 50 Contacts with Doctors . . . . . 51-52 Expenditures for Drugs and Doctor Bills . . . . . 53-54 Attendance at Births . . . . . 55-58 Water Supply . . . . . 59-62 Disposal of Waste and Garbage . . . . . 63-64 EDUCATION . . . . . 64 PAPERS AND MAGAZINES TAKEN . . . . . 67-71 BOOKS . . . . . 72-73 RELIGION . . . . . 74 RECREATION . . . . . 76 CHANGE OF RESIDENCE . . . . . 82 PER CENT HAVE AUTOS, BUGGIES, ETC . . . . . 83-84 EXCHANGE OF WORK . . . . . 84 OPINIONS ON COMMUNITY PROBLEMS . . . . . 86-87 PREFACE

This bulletin grew out of a resolution passed by the State Board of Agriculture at its annual meeting in December, 1921, as follows:

“WHEREAS, the alarming increase in tenancy presents one of the most serious problems now confronting the farmers of our State and other States. In 1880 only one American farmer in four was a tenant, whereas now practically two out of five are tenants, and the percentage is higher in North Carolina than in the country as a whole. Our public men as well as our agricultural leaders are now becoming aroused to the seriousness of this evil, and there is general demand for a thorough investigation of the whole problem, with a view to discovering precise facts and suggesting definite remedies: Therefore, be it

“Resolved by the North Carolina Board of Agriculture, That we hereby request four men in North Carolina who have given prolonged study to the question of tenancy and land ownership in this State and other States, and in foreign countries—namely, Mr. B. F. Brown, Director of our Division of Markets and Rural Organization; Dr. Carl C. Taylor, Head of the Division of Rural Economics, State College of Agriculture and Engineering; Professor E. C. Branson, Department of Rural Economics of our State University, and Dr. E. C. Lindeman, of a similar department of our State College for Women—together with two representatives of the Board of Agriculture, to come together and make plans for a thorough-going study and investigation of the whole subject of farm tenancy and proposed remedies, proceeding immediately with such studies and investigations as they are themselves prepared to carry out, and making plans for the coöperation of all these institutions in prosecuting such additional surveys and investigations as are deemed necessary.”

The committee thus appointed consisted at first of the above-named members, with Dr. Clarence Poe and Hon. C. C. Wright acting for the Board of Agriculture.

At a later date, the N. C. College for Women was represented by Dr. W. C. Jackson in the absence of Dr. Lindeman, and the University by Professor S. H. Hobbs, Jr., in the absence of Dr. Branson.

At the first meeting of the committee in Greensboro in March, 1922, it was agreed that the four institutions—the North Carolina College for Women, the State University, the State College of Agriculture and Engineering, and the State Division of Markets—should coöperate and secure, if possible, the coöperation of the U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. These arrangements were perfected, the survey made, and the bulletin written under them.

The schedules were the joint work of Dr. Branson, Dr. Taylor, C. C. Zimmerman, and C. O. Brannen; the field work was carried on by W. R. Anderson, C. H. Warren and J. A. Dickey, under the direction of C. C. Zimmerman, in charge; the schedules were compiled by C. C. Zimmerman, A. J. Honeycutt and J. A. Dickey, under the direction of Dr. Taylor; and the bulletin has been written by Dr. Taylor and C. C. Zimmerman, under the general supervision of the whole committee.

B. F. BROWN, Chairman,The Tenancy Commission. INTRODUCTION

The information gathered in this study is so detailed and is compiled in such tabular form that it demands some generalization to be usable by the average person. For that reason these few brief statements are made by way of introduction and as a suggestion of the many facts contained in the tables, if the reader cares to study them.

Since this is chiefly a study of the causes and effects of tenancy, it may seem that only the darker side of North Carolina rural life is portrayed in these statements and the following tables. This is undoubtedly the case, but tenancy in many of its aspects creates a dark side of rural life. These conclusions, we believe, are justified from the facts as we found them, and are about the same as any one will draw who is willing to study the tabulated data in detail.

Many people will be surprised to learn that the average amount of land being cultivated is less than eighteen acres per family. This is a small acreage upon which to make a living unless the most intensive methods of cultivation are used and exactly the right choice of crops is guaranteed.

That a wise choice of production is not being practiced, particularly for a long-time agricultural program, is indicated by the very great amount of exhaustive crops being planted in contrast to the very few improvement crops. Furthermore, it is clear from the data presented in the following tables that tenant farming is conducive to exhaustive crop farming more than owner-operator farming. The tenants and croppers in two of the three counties surveyed had over 99 per cent of all their land planted to crops which were strictly fertility-exhausting rather than soil-improving.

The tenants and croppers are almost wholly cotton and tobacco growers in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain counties. The landless farmers universally have fewer livestock than the landowners have. They produce less of their home food supply, and in addition to this they have a lower cash income. They thus not only are practicing a system of agriculture which is ruinous for the future but are not making even personal gain while they are doing it.

The crop lien is the curse of North Carolina agriculture. The landlords and owner-operators are by no means universally free from the crop lien and chattel mortgage, but the landless farmers are farming under this handicap in three times as great numbers as are the landed. Furthermore, the tenants and croppers use a much greater per cent of their credit for living purposes than the landlords and owners do. Their credit is not so much for the sake of an investment as it is for the sake of a stake to tide them over from season to season. This is not a business use of credit but a makeshift one year after another.

The great number of tenants and croppers whose fathers were tenants and croppers and the few owners who rose to ownership unaided make it clear that it is not easy to attain the status of a farm-owner in modern agriculture, and probably indicates that our numbers of tenants will continue to increase unless some means is discovered with which to assist them to the ownership of farms.

No matter how much disagreement there may be among persons as to the cause of tenancy, the effects are too clear to dispute. This is just as true of the social effects as it is of the economic effects. The landless families live in poorer houses, they live under worse sanitary conditions, have poorer health, lose more of their children by death than the owners do. They are more illiterate, fail to reach as high grades in school, take less papers and magazines, have fewer books in their homes, attend church and Sunday-school less, have fewer home amusements, attend community affairs less often.

Landless men may in many cases be accounted individually responsible for these differences, but the fact remains that our rural citizenship is less adequate because it is made up of people of this kind, and would be more adequate if these people could be made more prosperous and happy.

The following outstanding disparaging facts are set forth in bold relief, not because there are no bright spots in these peoples' lives, but that we may know these facts and if possible set about to remedy them.

Only .4 per cent of the crops grown by the black croppers of the Coastal Plain county are improvement crops.

There is only one cow for every 138 tilled acres among the white croppers and one cow for every 277 tilled acres among the black croppers of the Coastal Plain county.

The black croppers produce only 32.9 gallons of milk per year per family. This is but .07 of a quart per individual per day. Only 9 per cent of them produce milk at all.

The cash income of the white tenants and croppers of the Mountain county is less than 10 cents per day per individual.

Over 75 per cent of all the landless farmers surveyed used short-time credit to carry on their farming operations.

The equity holdings per family of the black croppers in the Piedmont county is $36.

Thirteen per cent of all the farm lands included in this survey are being farmed by insolvent men.

Seventy-five per cent of the landless farmers are sons of landless fathers.

Two per cent of all families surveyed are living in one-room houses. If the territory covered by the survey is typical, this means that something over 6,000 rural families in this State are living in one-room houses. If we include two-room houses, then over 42,000 rural families of the State are found to be living in these types of houses. Almost one-fifth of all the landless families surveyed are living in one- or two- room houses.

There is not a negro family or a white tenant or cropper family in the whole area surveyed that has an indoor toilet or bath tub.

Over 31 per cent of the fathers and mothers in the landless families can neither write nor read.

The average cropper had attained a school status of only third grade. The average negro had attained less than full first-grade education.

Over sixty-five per cent of all landless families surveyed take no papers or magazines whatsoever. Less than seven per cent of them take daily papers.

The average landless family for all surveyed attended less than two recreational events during the year of 1922.

 THE AREA SURVEYED

This survey included 1,014 farm families. Representative areas in three typical counties in the three major geographic sections of the State were covered. The areas were in Edgecombe County, in the Coastal Plain section; Chatham County, in the Piedmont section; and, Madison County, in the Mountain section. A fifteen-page schedule was used in the survey. Each family was interviewed personally and asked more than 700 questions about farm production, farm ownership, and farm life. The items contained in the following tables are as specific and as accurate as the persons interviewed could give. Because the volume of information is great, the tables are presented with the minimum of interpretation.

THE PEOPLE

The number of persons and the number of families surveyed is relatively unimportant in this study. Tables I to III are presented to show the scope of the survey and as basic tables from which all other data are interpreted.

TABLE I— Families and Persons by Tenure (For surveyed area)   Coastal Plain   Piedmont   Mountain   Total   Total   Landed Landless Landed Landless Landed Landless Landed Landless All Number of Families 78 261 181 154 231 109 490 524 1014 Per cent of Families 23.2 76.8 54.1 45.9 68.0 32.0 48.4 51.6 —— Number of Persons at Home 419 1316 856 834 1160 538 2435 2688 5123 Per cent of Persons at Home 24.2 75.8 50.7 49.3 68.3 31.7 47.6 54.4 —— Average Persons at Home per Family 5.37 5.05 4.17 5.42 5.02 4.94 4.97 5.14 5.05

TABLE II— Families and Persons by Color (For surveyed area)   Coastal Plain   Piedmont   Mountain   Total   Total   White Black White Black White Black White Black All Number of Families 203 136 190 145 340 —— 733 277 1014 Per cent of Families 59.9 40.1 56.8 43.2 —— —— 72.3 27.1 —— Number of Persons at Home 1003 732 860 830 1698 —— 3561 1562 5123 Per cent of Persons at Home 57.8 42.2 50.8 49.2 —— —— 69.7 30.3 —— Average Persons at Home per Family 4.95 5.02 4.53 5.72 4.99 —— 4.86 5.65 4.17

TABLE III— Per cent of Different Tenure and Racial Classes (For surveyed area)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 14.2 1.47 5.9 1.47 22.8 4.16 17.2 32.8 Piedmont 17.3 1.79 23.60 11.33 11.95 19.7 3.88 10.45 Mountain 20.3 —— 42.6 —— 20.9 —— 11.2 —— Total 17.25 1.08 25.72 4.28 18.78 7.98 9.94 14.97

THE LAND FARMED

The landless families were tilling 48.5 per cent of all cultivated land under the plow. The croppers were tilling 23.1 per cent of it and the tenants were tilling 25.4 per cent of it. Tables IV to VII give the detailed information for the three counties.

TABLE IV— Land in Farms by Tenure and Race (For territory surveyed)   Per Tenure     Per Race     Landed Landless Totals White Black Acres of all land 54,281 8,439 62,720 54,731 7,989 Per cent of all land 86.53 13.47 100 87.28 12.72 Acres tilled land 8,947 8,437 17,386 12,476 4,910 Per cent of tilled land 51.45 48.55 100 717 28.3 Average tilled acres per farm 18.2 16.1 17.1 17.0 17.4

TABLE V— Land in Farms per Different Tenure Types (For territory surveyed)   Landlord Operators Owner Operators Tenants Croppers Total Total acres 35,115 19,166 4,421 4,018 62,720 Total tilled acres 3,830 5,117 4,421 4,018 17,386

TABLE VI— Per cent of Tilled Acres Farmed by Each Tenure and Color Class (Per counties surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 19.80 1.63 5.84 1.840 21.54 4.74 14.87 29.74 Piedmont 22.35 1.60 23.73 11.82 9.52 19.80 3.24 7.94 Mountain 32.22 —— 47.83 .13 12.73 .60 5.80 .69 Total 26.01 .89 29.00 3.58 14.62 6.65 7.92 11.33   Landed Landless White Black   59.6   40.4   77.5   22.5  

TABLE VII— Per cent of Tilled Acres Farmed by Different Classes (For territory surveyed)   Per Tenure   Per Race     Landed Landless White Black Coastal Plain 27.90 72.10 60.78 39.22 Piedmont 61.40 38.60 59.70 40.30 Mountain 67.40 32.60 98.64 1.36 All sections 51.44 48.56 77.6 22.4

The outstanding facts apparent in Tables IV to VII are:

1. That all tenure classes are farming about the same amount of land per family—an average of just a little more than 17 acres.

2. Landless farmers have practically all the land under their direction in cultivation.

3. Landless men are farming the greatest percentage of land in the Coastal Plain and least in the Mountain section.

4. Negro farmers were farming a larger per cent of the land in the Piedmont than in either of the other counties.

 FARM CROP PRACTICES

An attempt was made to discover what differences, if any, there were between the landed and landless farmers in their farm practices. Complete records were taken on all crops, crop yield, animals, and home supplies produced on the farms. Tables VIII to X give the detailed information.

TABLE VIII— Amount of Exhaustive and Improvement Crops (Per counties surveyed)     Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers       White Black White Black White Black White Black COASTAL PLAIN Exhaustive 1,194 105 345.5 113 1,366 309 931 1,932   Improvement 99 —— 35.5 7 41 —— 39 8   Total 1,293 105 381.0 120 1,407 309 970 1,940   Per cent of exhaustive 92.3 100 90.7 94.0 97.0 100 96.0 99.6   Per cent of improvement 7.7 —— 9.3 6.0 3.0 —— 4.0 0.4 PIEDMONT Exhaustive 1,091 76 1,242 601 503 1,058 169 426   Improvement 108 10 29 33 7 4 5 ——   Total 1,199 86 1,271 634 510 1,062 174 426   Per cent of exhaustive 91.05 88.4 97.7 95.0 98.6 99.2 97.4 100   Per cent of improvement 8.95 11.6 2.3 5.0 1.4 0.8 2.6 —— MOUNTAIN Exhaustive 629 —— 2,007 6.5 866 46 440 59   Improvement 2,456 —— 2,555 6. 353 9 114 7   Total 3,085 —— 4,562 12.5 1,219 57 554 66   Per cent of exhaustive 20.4 —— 44.0 52 71.1 84.2 79.5 89.4   Per cent of improvement 79.6 —— 56.0 48 28.9 15.8 20.5 10.6

The following lists are the crops as they were classified for constructing Table VIII:

Improvement Crops Alfalfa Soy beans Cow peas Rye Hay Cultivated Pasture Exhaustive Crops Cotton Tobacco Corn Wheat Oats Peanuts Sorghum Potatoes Truck

TABLE IX— Amount and Per cent of Exhaustive Crops Per Tenure and Color Class (By county)   COASTAL PLAIN       PIEDMONT       MOUNTAIN         Landed Landless White Black Landed Landless White Black Landed Landless White Black Total acres exhaustive crops 1757 4538 3836 2459 3010 2156 3005 2161 2642.5 1413 3942 113.5 Total crops -A- 1899 4626 4051 2474 3190 2172 3154 2208 7659.5 1896 9420 135.5 Per cent exhaustive 94.0 99.4 82.4 99.5 94.4 99.1 95.5 97.7 34.5 74.5 42.7 83.8 Total exhaustive   6295       5166       4055.5     Total crop acres   6525       5362       9555.5     Per cent exhaustive   96.5       94.6       42.9    

The following facts are apparent in Tables VIII and IX:

1. The practice of using exhaustive crops is greatest among the croppers and least among the landlord operators. It runs as high as 99.6 per cent for the black croppers in the Coastal Plains and as low as 20.4 per cent for the landlord operators in the mountains.

2. The farmers of the Coastal Plain county are using 96.5 per cent of exhaustive crops and those of the Piedmont county are using 94.6 per cent exhaustive crops. Those of the Mountain county are using only 42.9 per cent exhaustive crops.

3. The landless farmers are following a system of farming which exhausts the soil to considerable degree greater than are the landed farmers.

4. The negro farmers are using a more exhaustive crop system than are the white farmers.

TABLE X— Per cent of Tilled Land Planted in Cotton, Tobacco, and Corn (By counties surveyed)   COASTAL PLAIN       PIEDMONT       MOUNTAIN         Landlords Owner Operators Tenants Croppers Landlords Owner Operators Tenants Croppers Landlords Owner Operators Tenants Croppers Cotton 7.55 2.62 10.50 20.36 4.64 6.17 6.52 2.23 —— —— —— —— Tobacco 3.34 1.46 4.97 8.57 1.45 1.61 1.64 1.18 .39 .67 .22 .12 Corn 7.24 2.75 9.60 14.64 17.75 18.56 15.05 4.59 6.93 22.50 10.68 5.74 Totals 18.13 6.83 25.07 43.57 23.84 26.34 23.21 8.00 7.32 23.11 10.90 5.86 Combined percentage by counties   93.60       81.39       47.25    

1. In considering crops which exhaust the soil it is generally assumed that such major crops as cotton, tobacco, and corn are the sole or only exhaustive crops. A comparison of Tables IX and X shows that the other minor exhaustive crops such as wheat, sorghum, and vegetables raise the per cent of all acres planted to exhaustive crops.

2. From Table X it is apparent that the use of exhaustive crops is highest in the county in which the tenancy rate is highest and lowest in the county in which the tenancy is lowest.

3. In the Coastal Plain county, where both the tenancy rate and exhaustive crops percentages are high, the landless farmers are leading in exhaustive crop farming.

A study was made of comparative crop yields. Tables XI to XIII present the comparative data for tenure classes for the three counties surveyed.

TABLE XI— Average Production Per Acre of Leading Cash Crops for Different Classes of Farms (Coastal Plain County) COTTON     TOBACCO     CORN     1 Negro Tenant 415 lbs. per @ 1 White Tenant 823 lbs. per @ 1 White Cropper 18.3 bu. per @ 2 Negro Cropper 383 lbs. per @ 2 White Cropper 802 lbs. per @ 2 White Tenant 16.9 bu. per @ 3 White Cropper 381 lbs. per @ 3 Negro Tenant 752 lbs. per @ 3 Negro Tenant 16.7 bu. per @ 4 White Owner 380 lbs. per @ 4 White Owner 751 lbs. per @ 4 Negro Cropper 14.3 bu. per @ 5 Negro Owner 378 lbs. per @ 5 Negro Cropper 720 lbs. per @ 5 Negro Owner 13.3 bu. per @ 6 White Tenant 367.5 lbs. per @ 6 Negro Owner 535 lbs. per @ 6 White Owner 11.1 bu. per @

TABLE XII—Average Production Per Acre of Leading Cash Crops for Different Classes of Farms (Piedmont County) COTTON     TOBACCO     CORN     1 White Owner 308.5 lbs. per @ 1 White Owner 585 lbs. per @ 1 White Owner 16.25 bu. per @ 2 Negro Owner 290 lbs. per @ 2 White Tenant 462 lbs. per @ 2 White Tenant 14.7 bu. per @ 3 White Cropper 286.5 lbs. per @ 3 Negro Tenant 439 lbs. per @ 3 Negro Owner 14.2 bu. per @ 4 Negro Tenant 273.5 lbs. per @ 4 Negro Owner 411 lbs. per @ 4 White Cropper 14.1 bu. per @ 5 White Tenant 270.5 lbs. per @ 5 Negro Cropper 409 lbs. per @ 5 Negro Tenant 14.02 bu. per @ 6 Negro Cropper 265.5 lbs. per @ 6 White Cropper 250.5 lbs. per @ 6 Negro Cropper 13.12 bu. per @

TABLE XIII— Average Production Per Acre of Leading Cash Crops for Different Classes of Farms (For Mountain County)* TOBACCO     CORN     1 White Tenant 632 lbs. per @ 1 White Cropper 25.8 bu. per @ 2 White Cropper 624 lbs. per @ 2 White Tenant 25.8 bu. per @ 3 White Owner 517 lbs. per @ 3 White Owner 25.4 bu. per @

*No cotton raised in this county.

From Tables XI, XII, and XIII it is apparent that the landless men do not suffer by comparison with land-owners in crop yields. In the case of tobacco production in the Coastal Plain county it is the landless men who produce the best yield. This is true probably because of the careful supervision which they receive from the landlords and because they use their whole families to assist in producing and caring for the crop. The negro owner-operator falls below the negro tenant probably for the same reason. None of the landless classes ranks high in the Piedmont county where this careful supervision is absent.

 LIVESTOCK PRACTICES

It is universally recognized that North Carolina needs more livestock on the farms of all sections of the State. The presence of animals indicate three significant things in farming and farm life. Work animals lessen the amount of human manual labor. Dairy stock assist in solving the home food supply problem. Stock cattle, swine, sheep, and goats furnish the basis of mixed and diversified farming and help to maintain soil fertility. It is when we measure North Carolina farming in these terms that tenant- and cropper-farming show up at their worst. Tables XIV to XVII give the ownership of livestock rather than the presence of livestock and so make cropper-farming appear worse than it is. The landlord generally furnishes the work animals for his croppers. Even so, the absence of other types of livestock is tragic and the small amount of horse power used by croppers is striking. The white tenants in the Coastal Plain county have only about two-thirds as many livestock per acre as the landlords have and about four-fifths as many as the owner-operators have.

TABLE XIV— Tilled Acres Per Farm Animal (Coastal Plain County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Work stock 6.75 6.55 11.2 10.0 12.9 12.88 194.0 388.0 Bulls, calves and stock cattle 92.3 52.5 4.75 —— 117.2 15.45 485.0 970.0 Cows 38.1 35.0 38.1 40.0 74.0 12.88 138.5 277.0 Hogs 2.5 1.88 .26 5.45 3.33 4.81 2.05 4.1 Goats and sheep 46.3 —— —— —— —— —— —— —— Poultry .397 .51 .04 .445 .44 .835 .33 .66

TABLE XV— Tilled Acres Per Farm Animal (Piedmont County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Work stock 11.1 7.15 8.54 8.8 8.5 10.74 —— 21.3 Bulls, calves and stock cattle 9.64 14.30 17.9 17.6 18.2 23.1 34.7 6.1 Cows 11.2 10.6 9.15 12.2 10.65 12.65 21.7 19.4 Hogs 6.06 7.84 4.17 7.45 4.48 9.25 8.28 10.93 Goats and sheep 66.6 —— 106. —— 31.95 —— —— —— Poultry .23 .27 .215 .37 .24 .27 .35 .555

TABLE XVI— Tilled Acres Per Farm Animal (Mountain County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Work stock 27.05 —— 16.5 —— 11.18 —— 188.5 —— Bulls, calves and stock cattle 10.0 —— 13.05 —— 27.10 —— 46.1 —— Cows 22.8 —— 14.6 —— 11.71 —— 11.6 —— Hogs 16.95 —— 11.98 —— 7.65 11.8 —— Goats and sheep 13.05 —— 55.7 —— 152.5 —— —— —— Poultry .737 —— .535 —— .359 —— .29 ——

From Tables XIV, XV, and XVI the following facts are apparent:

1. That the landless farmers have a poorer livestock ratio than farm owners have.

2. That the croppers own practically no animals. This is due to the fact that practically all their work stock are furnished by the landlords from whom they rent.

TABLE XVII—*Total Farm Animals, Excluding Poultry, Per Crop Acre by Tenure Class (For the area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain .61 .73 .50 .31 .41 .43 .40 .25 Piedmont .465 .429 .531 .387 .521 .323 .198 .164 Mountain 314 —— .335 —— .345 —— .199 ——

Total Landed Landless White Black Coastal Plain .41 .65 .341 .474 .301 Piedmont .415 .475 .329 .486 .314 Mountain .302 .300 .282 .31 ——

*Pasture is included in crop acreage. If this were not so the Mountain county would show a much better animal ratio.

The order in which all classes rank in livestock production is as follows:

1 Landlord operator Black Coastal Plain .73 2 Landlord operator White Coastal Plain .61 3 Owner operator White Piedmont .531 4 Tenant White Piedmont .521 5 Owner operator White Coastal Plain .50 6 Landlord operator White Piedmont .465 7 Tenant Black Coastal Plain .43 8 Landlord operator Black Piedmont .429 9 Tenant White Coastal Plain .41 10 Cropper White Coastal Plain .40 11 Owner operator Black Piedmont .387 12 Tenant White Mountain .335 13 Owner operator White Mountain .335 14 Tenant Black Piedmont .323 15 Landlord operator White Mountain .314 16 Owner operator Black Coastal Plain .31 17 Cropper Black Coastal Plain .25 18 Cropper White Mountain .199 19 Cropper White Piedmont .198 20 Cropper Black Piedmont .164

HOME-PRODUCED FOOD SUPPLIES

Farming should always be an enterprise the chief object of which is to make possible an adequate life for the families who farm. At many points in the Social Information will be found indexes to the standards of living of the families surveyed. The items of home-produced food supplies are presented here in order that they may be presented near the items of cash incomes. Farming is a combination of producing for the market and for home consumption. A detailed study was made of the chief items in the families food supplies. Only such items as sugar, salt, and spice were left out of the investigation.

Tables XVIII to XXI present the basic and summarized information.

TABLE XVIII— Living Raised and Bought Per Family (Coastal Plain County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Value living—raised $ 400 $ 514 $ 386 $ 474 $ 323 $ 200 $ 194 $ 156 Value living—bought 56 82 131 134 93 113 96 110 Total value $ 456 $ 596 $ 517 $ 608 $ 416 $ 313 $ 290 $ 266 Per cent living—raised 87.7 86.2 74.7 78.0 77.6 63.8 66.9 58.6 Per cent living—bought 12.3 13.8 25.3 22.0 22.4 36.2 33.1 41.4

TABLE XIX— Living Raised and Bought Per Family (Piedmont County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Value living—raised $ 517 $ 323 $ 467 $ 346 $ 328 $ 198 $ 257 $ 172 Value living—bought 71 82 154 186 62 115 98 114 Total value $ 588 $ 405 $ 621 $ 532 $ 390 $ 313 $ 355 $ 286 Per cent living—raised 87.9 79.7 75.2 65.0 84.2 63.2 72.4 60.2 Per cent living—bought 12.1 20.3 24.8 35.0 15.8 36.8 27.6 39.8

TABLE XX— Living Raised and Bought Per Family (Mountain County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Value living—raised $ 627 —— $ 545 —— $ 475 —— $ 410 —— Value living—bought 13 —— 24 —— 28 —— 34 —— Total value $ 640 —— $ 569 —— $ 503 —— $ 444 —— Per cent living—raised 98.0 —— 95.8 —— 94.44 —— 92.35 —— Per cent living—bought 2.0 —— 4.2 —— 5.56 —— 7.65 ——

TABLE XXI— Living Raised and Bought Per Family (Total area surveyed)   Landed Landless White Black Total Value raised $ 481 $ 270 $ 447 $ 213 $ 382 Value bought 70 86 62 121 78 Total value $ 551 $ 356 $ 509 $ 334 $ 460 Per cent raised 87.3 75.8 87.8 63.8 83.0 Per cent bought 12.7 24.2 12.2 36.2 17.0

1. The per cent of the total family food supply that is raised on the farm descends almost consistently from landlord to owner to tenant to cropper in all counties.

2. The per cent of total food produced at home is universally higher for the land-owning families than it is for the landless families and higher for the white families than for the negro families.

3. The total value of food supplies for families averages highest in the Mountain county, next in the Coastal Plain and lowest in the Piedmont.

Tables XXII to XLII present detailed analyses of different items of food supply.

TABLE XXII— Average Number of Gallons of Milk Produced Per Year Per Family (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 180.6 353 170.6 200 92.6 83.6 78.2 32.9 Piedmont 502 283.5 519.5 369 341 327.5 278 170.5 Mountain 609.9 —— 551.5 —— 521.2 —— 426.5 —— Total 482 316 549 352 308 177 222 65.3

TABLE XXIII— Per cent of Families Who Produce Milk (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 39.6 60.0 40.0 20.0 20.8 35.7 17.1 9.0 Piedmont 100. 83.3 98.7 89.5 92.5 97.0 92.4 91.0 Mountain 92.7 —— 99.8 —— 100. —— 94.6 —— Total 80.2 72.6 94.3 81.2 66.0 86.1 55.6 28.6

TABLE XXIV— Quarts of Milk Per Day Per Individual (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain .393 .438 .432 .33 .203 .152 .179 .0706 Piedmont .142 .691 1.17 .705 .819 .612 .586 .341 Mountain 1.5 —— 1.14 —— 1.12 —— 1.03 ——

TABLE XXV— Average Number of Pounds of Butter Produced Per Family Per Year (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 55.8 73.0 30.5 52.0 24.99 16.79 18.46 10.45 Piedmont 148.6 95.8 165.9 115.6 110.6 114.4 84.7 72.5 Mountain 125.1 —— 134.9 —— 115.4 —— 117.5 —— Total 114.1 94.0 135.5 107.8 78.5 77.8 60.8 23.4

TABLE XXVI— Per cent of Families that Produce Butter (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 37.5 60.0 40.0 20.0 20.8 35.7 13.8 7.1 Piedmont 94.8 66.6 92.1 100.0 87.5 92.5 75.8 74.5 Mountain 95.6 —— 98.6 —— 98.6 —— 94.8 —— Total 79.7 62.6 93.6 81.5 64.5 82.6 49.5 25.1

TABLE XXVII— Average Number Pounds of Pork Raised for Home Use (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 697 1025 912 580 597 328 375 337 Piedmont 654 502 532 412 360 368 405 201 Mountain 438 —— 438 —— 347 —— 282 —— Total 582 739 504 432 452 360 346 305

TABLE XXVIII— Per cent of Families Who Produce Pork (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 64.7 100.0 85.1 60.0 79.3 57.1 50.0 67.9 Piedmont 86.2 83.4 93.7 92.1 82.5 93.9 68.3 77.2 Mountain 89.9 —— 93.2 —— 97.2 —— 73.7 —— Total 81.7 90.9 92.7 88.4 86.8 87.6 60.6 70.2

TABLE XXIX— Average Number of Pounds of Lard Produced Per Family (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 150.0 350.0 176.0 160.0 121.5 66.0 73.8 59.1 Piedmont 91.0 51.7 65.5 51.8 44.9 37.6 52.0 24.6 Mountain 73.5 —— 66.4 —— 59.7 —— 43.1 —— Total 101.0 169.0 76.5 64.5 84.5 41.6 60.4 50.7

TABLE XXX— Per cent of Families Who Produce Lard (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 66.6 100.0 85.0 60.0 79.2 50.0 46.5 67.7 Piedmont 86.1 83.5 91.0 89.5 72.6 81.9 61.6 68.6 Mountain 89.7 —— 93.4 —— 92.1 —— 76.4 —— Total 82.1 91.0 91.1 86.1 84.6 76.2 58.7 72.0

TABLE XXXI— Average Number of Dozens Eggs Produced Per Family Per Year (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 104.5 83.0 86.9 148.0 106.5 48.5 90.0 41.5 Piedmont 78.9 60.0 33.8 32.7 64.8 41.3 42.6 29.4 Mountain 88.6 —— 71.4 —— 70.0 —— 66.6 —— Total 89.9 70.5 61.15 46.0 83.9 41.8 76.3 23.1

TABLE XXXII— Per cent of Families Who Produce Eggs (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 85.5 100.0 85.2 100.0 76.6 78.6 87.9 71.5 Piedmont 93.1 83.4 81.1 97.4 94.9 95.5 92.5 87.7 Mountain 92.8 —— 96.4 —— 98.5 —— 100.0 —— Total 91.0 91.0 90.6 96.6 85.9 92.5 92.5 74.9

TABLE XXXIII— Average Number of Poultry Produced Per Family (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 72.7 54.0 48.0 54.0 62.5 23.6 53.5 27.5 Piedmont 49.1 30.0 50.9 32.9 33.2 27.2 20.4 20.3 Mountain 56.5 —— 47.3 —— 43.2 —— 44.3 —— Total 58.5 40.8 48.0 35.5 49.2 26.6 46.4 26.2

TABLE XXXIV— Per cent of Families Who Raise Poultry (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 85.5 100.0 85.2 100.0 86.0 78.9 87.9 71.9 Piedmont 93.1 83.4 92.4 97.4 94.9 97.0 89.7 94.4 Mountain 94.1 —— 99.7 —— 100.0 —— 97.2 —— Total 91.5 91.0 97.6 97.6 94.1 93.7 94.9 88.5

TABLE XXXV— Average Number of Barrels of Flour Produced Per Family (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— Piedmont 1.17 .17 1.11 .34 .35 .19 —— —— Mountain 8.5 —— 2.6 —— 1.9 —— 2.2 —— Total 3.74 .14 1.92 .31 .79 .13 .77 ——

TABLE XXXVI— Per cent of Families Who Produce Flour (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— Piedmont 25.8 16.6 15.2 18.4 7.5 7.6 —— —— Mountain 62.4 —— 56.2 —— 46.5 —— 50.0 —— Total 33.2 .92 39.5 16.5 19.3 1.63 1.75 ——

TABLE XXXVII— Average Number of Bushels of Potatoes Produced Per Family (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 40.1 28.0 40.9 49.2 30.2 25.6 6.91 19.1 Piedmont 29.2 26.5 24.2 23.5 18.8 12.1 10.6 8.96 Mountain 19.9 —— 21.8 —— 18.8 —— 15.8 —— Total 28.4 27.1 24.0 26.5 23.6 14.6 10.5 16.5

TABLE XXXVIII— Per cent of Families Who Produce Potatoes (Irish and Sweet) (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 81.2 60.0 85.0 100.0 70.1 71.6 72.4 75.7 Piedmont 89.9 83.3 91.2 89.5 87.5 92.5 61.5 68.6 Mountain 92.5 —— 100.0 —— 100.0 —— 94.7 —— Total 88.5 72.6 97.6 90.6 95.1 98.9 78.9 73.5

TABLE XXXIX— Average Number of Bushels of Meal Raised Per Family (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 9.15 7.2 8.15 12.0 6.75 4.92 7.11 5.6 Piedmont 8.91 5.31 9.05 8.1 4.7 8.9 1.69 3.76 Mountain 21.7 —— 24.1 —— 21.7 —— 22.3 —— Total 13.9 6.15 18.6 8.55 11.95 8.19 12.3 5.25

TABLE XL— Per cent of Families Who Produce Meal (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 73.0 60.0 65.2 60.0 62.5 42.7 63.6 46.3 Piedmont 77.6 66.6 82.5 65.7 45.0 51.5 23.0 40.0 Mountain 95.5 —— 97.2 —— 100.0 —— 100.0 —— Total 84.5 63.6 90.6 65.0 72.7 50.0 71.5 44.7

TABLE XLI— Average Number Gallons of Sorghum Molasses Produced Per Family (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain .104 .48 2.55 3.0 .572 1.82 .102 .625 Piedmont 3.48 2.5 1.73 7.13 3.05 7.02 —— .315 Mountain 11.45 —— 15.9 —— 16.2 —— 6.2 —— Total 5.7 3.53 10.5 6.64 6.5 5.84 2.2 .55

TABLE XLI (a)— Per cent of Families Who Produce Molasses (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 2.04 20.0 1.5 20.0 5.2 7.15 1.74 6.25 Piedmont 19.0 16.6 13.9 29.0 14.9 39.4 —— 5.23 Mountain 5.8 —— 62.1 —— 79.0 —— 34.2 —— Total 2.97 18.3 4.41 27.9 35.0 33.7 12.8 6.1

TABLE XLII— Per cent of Families Who Raise Garden and Orchard Products (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 87.5 100.0 95.0 100.0 100.0 78.7 89.7 89.0 Piedmont 93.2 83.5 97.4 100.0 97.5 100.0 92.1 91.0 Mountain 92.6 —— 98.1 —— 100.0 —— 100.0 —— Total 91.1 91.0 98.5 100.0 99.7 96.3 97.5 89.3

In Tables XXII to XLIII the following general facts appear:

1. That the land-owning families are almost universally producing more home supplies than are the landless.

2. The order of priority generally runs landlord-operator, owner-operator, tenant, cropper. Where this order is violated it is most often because the owner-operator is out-producing the owner-landlord.

3. The Coastal Plain county is best in the production of pork, lard, poultry, eggs, and potatoes.

4. The Piedmont county is best in flour and about the same as the Mountain county in butter.

5. The Mountain county is best in milk, meal, and molasses, and about the same as the Piedmont county in butter.

6. Nevertheless the Mountain county farmers are producing the most home supplies, the Coastal Plain county next and the Piedmont county least.

7. The absence of milk is the most striking among all these items. The mountain farmers are the only ones that consistently produce more than a quart of milk per day per individual. This falls as low as .07 quart per day per individual for the negro croppers of the Coastal Plain county. This means less than three-tenths of a glass of milk per day per individual. This information is given in Table XXIV.

8. From Table XXVI it is seen that less than 50 per cent of the farmers of the Coastal Plain county produce butter. Over 92 per cent of the black croppers of this county do not produce butter and only three per cent of them buy butter.

9. The Coastal Plain county has an exceptionally good home production of pork and lard.

10. There are less than 50 head of all kinds of poultry per family for all families surveyed.

11. Home supplies should be considered in conjunction with cash income in order to gain an adequate appraisal of consumption habit.

 CASH INCOME

The last section presented the facts concerning home supplies produced by the different tenure classes. These facts, in conjunction with cash income, give a picture of the sources from which these people must get their food and other consumption goods. An appraisal of the consumption units of products produced on the farm for home consumption shows all of these people to be cash crop farmers. Tables XLIII to XLV show the amount of cash income these people get with which to purchase additional consumption goods.

TABLE XLIII— Annual Cash Income Per Family (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain $2385.85 $1996.00 $1129.50 $1670.00 $ 854.15 $ 711.07 $ 700.84 $ 640.59 Piedmont 994.70 379.00 604.17 536.15 336.35 374.24 364.74 208.60 Mountain 680.16 —— 261.84 —— 172.84 —— 155.89 ——

TABLE XLIV— Annual Cash Income Per Individual (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain $ 452.65 $ 226.81 $ 253.82 $ 253.03 $ 174.45 $ 118.51 $ 143.13 $ 125.64 Piedmont 252.55 84.33 124.27 92.19 73.92 64.40 64.74 36.87 Mountain 154.88 —— 49.49 —— 33.62 —— 34.24 ——

TABLE XLV— Daily Cash Income Per Individual (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain $ 1.255 $ .622 $ .695 $ .694 $ .478 $ .324 $ .392 $ .344 Piedmont .705 .23 .34 .252 .201 .176 .177 .101 Mountain .424 —— .135 —— .092 —— .093 ——

From Tables XLIII, XLIV, and XLV it is apparent:

1. That landless farmers have a lower cash income than land-owners. This fact coupled with the fact that they almost universally produce a smaller amount of home supplies indicates the conditions under which they live.

2. The cash income is from three to five times as high in the Coastal Plain county as in the Mountain county.

3. The cash income per person of white tenants and white croppers of the Mountain county is less than 10 cents per day and that for the negro croppers of the Piedmont county is barely 10 cents per day.

 CREDIT

The average farmer uses credit for three chief purposes: land purchases, operating funds, and store supplies. Tables XLVI to LIV show the per cent who use credit, the amount they used, the purpose for which they use it, and the sources from which they obtain it.

TABLE XLVI— Amount and Use of Short-Time and Intermediate Credit (For Coastal Plain County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Per cent use credit 83.5 100.0 90.0 100.0 92.2 78.6 89.6 97.4 Average credit per family $723.00 $734.00 $422.00 $723.00 $455.00 $401.00 $360.60 $314.00 Per cent for living 50.1 52.9 62.8 51.6 55.5 62.4 68.6 66.9 Per cent for fertilizers, seed, etc. 49.9 47.1 37.2 49.4 44.5 37.6 31.4 33.1

TABLE XLVII— Amount and Use of Short-Time and Intermediate Credit (For Piedmont County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Per cent use credit 34.5 83.2 58.2 81.6 82.0 97.0 61.6 91.1 Average credit per family $ 46.50 $173.00 $ 43.80 $124.00 $102.00 $128.00 $123.00 $110.00 Per cent for living 25.6 28.5 42.7 43.2 43.1 51.0 56.8 49.8 Per cent for fertilizers, seed, etc. 74.4 71.5 57.3 56.8 56.9 49.0 43.2 51.2

TABLE XLVIII— Amount and Use of Short-Time and Intermediate Credit (For Mountain County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Per cent use credit 2.9 —— 8.02 —— 5.6 —— 15.8 —— Average credit per family $ 15.95 —— $ 16.04 —— $ 5.00 —— $ 6.21 —— Per cent for living 54.6 —— 13.3 —— 100.0 —— 95.8 —— Per cent for fertilizers, tools, seed, etc. 45.4 —— 86.7 —— —— —— 4.2 ——

TABLE XLIX— Source of Short-Time and Intermediate Credit (For Coastal Plain County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Per cent from merchant 76.0 86.4 82.2 100.0 82.3 93.4 78.1 79.0 Per cent from landlord —— —— —— —— 11.6 6.5 18.1 20.5 Per cent from landlord who is merchant also —— —— —— —— 2.56 —— 2.75 —— Per cent from bank 21.1 13.6 16.6 —— 3.19 —— 1.05 —— Per cent from other sources 2.9 —— 1.2 —— .35 .1 —— .5

TABLE L— Source of Short-Time and Intermediate Credit (For Piedmont County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Per cent from merchant 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 95.8 62.0 62.6 25.8 Per cent from landlord —— —— —— —— 0.7 20.8 18.7 66.2 Per cent from landlord who is merchant also —— —— —— —— —— 17.0 —— —— Per cent from bank —— —— —— —— 2.7 —— 18.7 8.0 Per cent from other sources —— —— —— —— .8 —— —— ——

TABLE LI— Source of Short-Time and Intermediate Credit (For Mountain County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Per cent from merchant 100.0 —— 29.2 —— 100.0 —— 89.0 —— Per cent from landlord —— —— —— —— —— —— 4.2 —— Per cent from landlord who is merchant also —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— Per cent from bank —— —— 10.4 —— —— —— —— —— Per cent from other sources —— —— 60.4 —— —— —— 6.8 ——

TABLE LII— Source of Short-Time and Intermediate Credit (For area surveyed)   Land Owners Landless Whites Blacks All Per cent from merchant 81.4 78.0 79.7 78.4 79.27 Per cent from landlord —— 17.33 7.3 17.9 11.10 Per cent from landlord who is merchant also —— 2.54 1.3 2.2 1.63 Per cent from bank 14.7 1.83 9.4 1.2 6.40 Per cent from other sources 3.9 .3 2.3 .3 1.60

TABLE LIII— Some Aspects of Short-Time Farm Credit Land OwnersLandlessAllPer cent use credit37.175.858.2Average credit per family$137.50$224.10$182.40*Per cent “Restrictive” credit25.274.0756.53Per cent from bank14.71.836.40Per cent for living34.7560.050.9Per cent for fertilizers, tools, etc.65.2540.049.1

*“Restrictive Credit” is credit granted by some one who has power of restricting or controlling the activities of the ones to whom it is granted.

TABLE LIV— Per cent of Farmers Who Produce Crops Under Crop Lien or Landlord Credit (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 15.9 78.0 9.7 27.7 48.16 96.6 68.25 98.4 Piedmont 46.4 96.60 29.3 69.5 37.0 97.7 70.7 90.7 Mountain —— —— 5.2 —— —— —— 14.4 ——

Land Owners Landless White Black All Surveyed 25.2 74.07 37.3 90.1 56.53

Governor Bickett described the crop lien as “the boll weevil of North Carolina.” A total of $185,000 of credit was used by the 1,014 families surveyed or an average of $182.40 per family for the year. More than a half (50.9 per cent) of this credit went for food, clothing, and home supplies. The remainder was used for fertilizer, tools, and stock feed. The landless used 62.4 per cent of their credit for living purposes as compared to 43.8 per cent used for this purpose by the land-owners. This means that a larger per cent of the credit of the tenants and croppers goes for consumption goods than for production goods.

The Coastal Plain farmers use the vast majority of all credit—$436 to the family as compared to $93.50 for a Piedmont family and $10 for a Mountain family. In the Coastal Plain county only 7.7 per cent of all those surveyed did a cash business as compared to 25.4 per cent in the Piedmont county and 41.8 per cent in the Mountain county. Of the entire landless group surveyed 24.2 per cent do cash business as compared to 62.9 per cent of the land-owners who finance themselves.

Four-fifths (81 per cent) of all the credit comes from merchants, 11.1 per cent from landlords, 6.4 per cent from banks and 1.6 per cent from other sources—mainly neighbors and relatives.

Two kinds of this credit—that from merchants where a crop lien is given and that from landlords—may be called “restrictive” credit. In cases involving 56.53 per cent of all the credit of the 1,014 families surveyed the creditor may exercise “restrictive” powers over the sale of the farm product and may by indirect methods dictate the rate of interest charged. The landed classes use only 25.2 per cent of restrictive credit as compared to 74.07 per cent for the landless.

A survey of farm credit in North Carolina has recently been made by F. R. Yoder, H. L. Beardsley, and A. J. Honeycutt, representing the North Carolina Division of Markets, the State College of Agriculture and The United States Department of Agriculture. This survey found that the average interest charged by banks for short-time credit amounted to a little more than 6 per cent as compared to as high as 34 per cent of crop-lien credit for the colored cropper. The average cost of short-time credit for the whole state was found to be more than 25 per cent.

From this analysis of the short-time credit system of the farmers it can be seen that croppers and tenants as well as the landed classes are bearing an unusually high “restrictive” interest burden and this may be one of the reasons for their failure to attain farm ownership.

 WEALTH AND EQUITY

The total and itemized wealth and equity holdings of each farmer was obtained. His equity was calculated by subtracting his incumbrances and personal debts from his total wealth and capital holdings. Tables LV to LX give the facts in detail.

TABLE LV— Average Wealth and Equity (Coastal Plain County)   Owner Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Wealth per family $16,025 $11,639 $ 4,734 $4,568 $1,111 $ 440 $ 503 $ 219 Wealth per person 3,021 1,320 1,066 692.4 227.20 73.40 99.40 43.0 Equity per family 14,494 8,974 3,998 3,908 868 226 352 126 Equity per person 2,750 1,019 889 597 177.4 37.68 72.15 24.83 Per cent insolvent —— —— —— —— 6.5 28.5 24.2 18.75

TABLE LVI— Average Wealth and Equity Per Family (Piedmont County)   Owner Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Wealth per family $10,423 $3,342 $3,159 $2,054 $521 $406 $251 $108 Wealth per person 2,715 742.50 650 353 115.05 72.45 46.75 18.58 Equity per family 9,860 3,197 2,938 1,673 426 294 208 36 Equity per person 2,552 711 602 288 93.50 50.80 38.70 6.40 Per cent insolvent —— —— —— 2.63 2.5 —— 23.5 17.15

TABLE LVII— Average Wealth and Equity Per Family (Mountain County)   Owner Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Wealth per family $9,583 —— $3,550 —— $468 —— $338 —— Wealth per person 2,220 —— 667.20 —— 88.40 —— 74.30 —— Equity per family 9,390 —— 3,401 —— 452 —— 308 —— Equity per person 2,170 —— 664 —— 88 —— 67.60 —— Per cent insolvent —— —— —— —— —— —— —— ——

TABLE LVIII— Percentage Wealth and Equity Held by Landed and Landless (For area surveyed)   Coastal Plain   Piedmont   Mountain   Total     Landed Landless Landed Landless Landed Landless Landed Landless Per cent of families 23.2 76.8 54.1 45.9 68.0 32.0 48.4 51.6 Per cent of persons 24.2 75.8 50.7 49.3 68.3 31.7 47.6 52.4 Per cent of wealth 86.7 13.3 94.6 5.4 96.5 3.5 92.7 7.3 Per cent of equity 88.7 11.3 95.5 4.5 96.5 3.5 93.9 6.1

TABLE LIX— Percentage Wealth and Equity Held by White and Black (For area surveyed)   Coastal Plain   Piedmont   Mountain   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black Per cent of families 59.9 40.1 56.8 43.2 —— —— 72.3 27.1 Per cent of persons 57.7 42.3 51.0 49.0 —— —— 69.7 30.3 Per cent of wealth 89.5 10.5 87.1 12.9 —— —— 92.8 7.2 Per cent of equity 91.1 8.9 88.7 11.3 —— —— 94.1 5.9

TABLE LX— Average Amount Equity Held by Families of Different Tenure Classes (For area surveyed) Coastal Plain Piedmont Mountain*  Per FamilyPer IndividualPer FamilyPer IndividualPer FamilyPer IndividualLanded10,7702,0084,9001,0365,2701,050Landless40279.6026348.5040281.45Whites4,2508604,330957————Blacks601111.70714125————

There was too small a number of black farmers in the Mountain county to make percentages trustworthy.

The following conclusions are pertinent in relation to wealth and equity holding:

1. That while the land-owner families compose only 48.4 per cent of all the families surveyed, they own 92.7 per cent of the entire wealth of all families and 93.9 per cent of all the equity.

2. That while the white families compose only 73.3 per cent of all the families they control 92.8 per cent of the total wealth and 94.1 per cent of all the equity.

3. 16.4 per cent of all landless-men are insolvent; 27.4 per cent of all negro tenants, 25.6 per cent of all white croppers, 22.1 per cent of all negro croppers and 3.2 per cent of all white tenants were insolvent. Only one land-owner, a negro owner-operator in the Piedmont county, was insolvent.

4. In the Coastal Plain county where the tenancy rate is highest, the difference between the wealth and equity holdings of the landed and landless is greatest and in the Mountain county where the tenancy rate is lowest the difference between these classes in their wealth and equity holdings is least.

5. The equity holdings per family for the landed in the Coastal Plain county is $10,770. This is the highest for any section. The average for the landless families in the Piedmont is $263. This is the lowest for any section. The holdings for the negro croppers in the Piedmont county is only $36. This is an average of $6.40 per person for this class.

6. 13 per cent of all the farm lands included in the survey was being farmed by insolvent men.

 WHY SOME FARMERS ARE LANDLESS

Why is it that more than 117,000 farmers in North Carolina are landless? No question is more difficult to answer. There is one answer, vague though it is, which no one can deny as correct: these men thus far have been unable to climb the ladder of agricultural success to ownership. The assumption is that a prospective farmer will begin as a hired laborer or cropper on his father's or some other farmer's land, that he will soon become a share or cash tenant and will ultimately become an owner of some piece of land which he can call his own. If the so-called “Agricultural Ladder” by means of which men climb to land ownership is working according to the method by which the great majority of American farmers became land proprietors in the past there should be a constant stream of farmers making the steady ascent from laborer to cropper, from cropper to tenant and from tenant to ownership.

No one will deny that there is a great difference between men and that many a landless man has failed to climb the ladder to ownership because he was personally incompetent. Even his personal incompetency always has a history and is generally the result of some adequate causes. The Tenancy Commission could not possibly make an analysis of the personal characters of the thousand farmers it interviewed. It did attempt to ascertain something about each one's family history and especially attempted to gain a concrete knowledge of the farming history of each. Tables LXI to LXIV give the facts concerning these items.

TABLE LXI— Family History of Tenure Classes (Coastal Plain County)   Per Cent Whose Father Was Owner   Per Cent Whose Father Was Tenant   Per Cent Whose Father Was Cropper   Per Cent Whose Father Was Landless     White Black White Black White Black White Black Croppers 48.4 2.7 32.8 18.7 10.2 75.0 43.0 93.7 Tenants 40.3 —— 51.9 69.2 7.8 30.8 59.7 100.0 Owner operators 90.0 60.0 10.0 40.0 —— —— 10.0 40.0 Landlords 72.9 60.0 18.8 40.0 8.3 —— 27.1 40.0

TABLE LXII— Family History of Tenure Classes (Piedmont County)   Per Cent Whose Father Was Owner   Per Cent Whose Father Was Tenant   Per Cent Whose Father Was Cropper   Per Cent Whose Father Was Landless     White Black White Black White Black White Black Croppers 15.4 14.7 69.2 55.8 —— 29.5 69.2 85.3 Tenants 72.5 7.6 27.5 6.1 —— 86.3 27.5 92.4 Owner operators 84.8 18.9 15.2 78.4 —— 2.7 15.2 81.1 Landlords 98.3 —— 1.7 83.4 —— 16.6 1.7 100.0

TABLE LXIII— Family History of Tenure Classes (Mountain County)   Per Cent Whose Father Was Owner   Per Cent Whose Father Was Tenant   Per Cent Whose Father Was Cropper   Per Cent Whose Father Was Landless     White Black White Black White Black White Black Croppers 57.9 —— 36.8 —— 5.3 —— 42.1 —— Tenants 50.8 —— 47.8 —— 1.4 —— 49.2 —— Owner operators 82.7 —— 16.7 —— .6 —— 17.3 —— Landlords 94.4 —— 2.8 —— 2.8 —— 5.6 ——

From the Tables LXI to LXIII it is apparent:

1. That the tenure status of a person's father has considerable to do with the tenure status of the person himself. The present land-owners are sons of land-owners in 81 per cent of the cases, while landless men are sons of land-owners in only 30 per cent of the cases.

2. Only 19 per cent of the land-owners included in the territory surveyed arose to ownership out of landless families. Seventy per cent of the landless farmers are sons of landless farmers. These facts make it apparent that ownership on the part of the father is a great assistance to ownership on the part of the son and landlessness on the part of the father is a barrier difficult for the son to surmount.

3. A smaller per cent of the negroes than of the whites, both landed and landless, have come from owner families. In fact less than 10 per cent of all the negro farmers are sons of land-owning farmers. In spite of the fact that 19.2 per cent of all the negroes are land-owners.

A few generations ago a land-owner practically always gained ownership by climbing the agricultural ladder. The ascent was easy in those days because of the low price of land. The climb has become more and more difficult as the prices of the land have increased.

The result is that fewer men successfully make the climb. They either remain at the bottom as croppers or get stalled in the tenant stage. Oftentimes they rise to tenancy and then slip back to cropper. Sometimes they even attain ownership and then slip back to one of the lower tenure types.

Notwithstanding the fact that the ascent to ownership is difficult, 59 per cent of all white farmers surveyed and almost 20 per cent of all negro farmers surveyed are owners of land. An attempt was made to discover how these men obtained ownership of farms. Table LXIV gives the facts concerning the tenure history of the various tenure classes.

TABLE LXIV (a)— Per cent Who Have Attained Different Tenure Statuses (For area surveyed)   Coastal Plain   Piedmont   Mountain   All Surveyed   Total   White Black White Black White Black White Black Owners who have been Croppers 34.9 70.0 30.7 70.5 24.3 —— 27.8 65.8 32.6 Owners who have been Tenants 46.1 50.0 50.4 75.0 29.4 —— 38.4 65.8 41.0 Tenants who have been Croppers 59.7 85.6 47.5 72.7 56.3 —— 56.1 75.0 61.6 Tenants who have been Owners 10.4 7.15 5.0 —— 9.86 —— 9.3 2.56 8.1 Croppers who have been Tenants —— 5.38 —— 8.57 10.5 —— 3.67 15.0 7.82 Croppers who have been Owners —— .89 —— —— 10.5 —— 3.23 2.56 3.07

From Table LXIV (a) the following conclusions appear:

1. Less than 50 per cent of the present land-owners had ever been landless. The remainder started farming with ownership of land.

2. Less than 40 per cent of the present white owners were ever land-less farmers.

3. About two-thirds of the present negro farm owners started farming without ownership of land.

4. Only 27.8 per cent of the present white owners started at the bottom of the agricultural ladder, i. e., as croppers; 65.8 per cent of the present negro owners started as croppers.

5. 61.6 per cent of the present tenant farmers started as croppers. The remainder started either as tenants or started as owners and dropped into the tenant class.

6. 8.1 per cent of the present tenants had at one time attained ownership and then slipped into tenancy. This had been the experience of a greater per cent of the whites than of the negroes.

7. 7.8 per cent of the croppers had at one time been tenants and had dropped into the cropper class. This had been the experience of a much larger per cent of negroes (viz.: 15 per cent) than of the whites.

8. 3.07 per cent of the present cropper-farmers had at one time been owners.

9. It is not easy to climb this agricultural ladder from landlessness to ownership, nor has a very large per cent of the present land-owners obtained their ownership by that method alone.

Men who now own farms have gained their proprietorship by means of purchases, gifts, and inheritance. Even their purchases were often made by security which some relative furnished or by aid through other financial means than straight-out gifts. Land purchases are here considered, however, in the following table, as if they were made solely by means of assets which the purchaser had made by tenant and cropper farming or had been accumulated in other occupations. An attempt was made to discover the methods by which land-owners had come into ownership in Table LXIV (b).

TABLE LXIV (b)— Per cent of Land Wealth Acquired by Purchase and by Gift, Inheritance, and Marriage*   Coastal Plain       Piedmont       Mountain   Area Surveyed   Operator Landlord   Owner Operator   Operator Landlord   Owner Operator   Operator Landlord Owner Operator Land Owners   White Black White Black White Black White Black White White Purchase 22.5 32.0 48.0 19.6 74.7 80.4 54.4 87.5 26.2 36.3 41.0 Gift, inheritance and marriage 77.5 68.0 52.0 80.4 25.3 19.6 35.6 12.5 73.8 63.7 59.0

*Based on values at time of acquirement.

From Table LXIV it is apparent that the majority of land-ownership was not gained by individual effort in farming. Among the whites considerably more than one-half of their present wealth was given to them. In the case of the negro land-owners more than one-third of their wealth was given to them. This is not said by way of disparagement to these worthy citizens who own their farms, but rather to prove that even where men have reached the stage of ownership they did not always do it unassisted. It would seem therefore that we are not justified in expecting the present tenants and croppers to gain ownership without help. As a matter of fact only 19.7 per cent of the 436 white owners claimed to have gained ownership without assistance, either money or other property gifts and inheritance. A total of 270 of these owners or 61.9 per cent of them never were either tenants or croppers. In the Mountain county 70.6 per cent of the present owners started farming as owners. Furthermore, consideration should be given to the fact that most men inherited their wealth at about the age of thirty. At that time they got the deed to their land the value of which has since greatly increased. Inheritances or gifts at the time they were received constituted a much greater percentage of their wealth-holding than they do at the present.

Are the men who are now tenants and croppers ever going to be land-owners? Needless to say they will not if they are expected to gain ownership through methods by which the majority of present landholders gained ownership, namely, by inheritance and gifts. Most of them must make the climb by successful farming or not at all. Of the white owners surveyed, 166 had successfully made the climb and from them some suggestions can be gotten regarding the possibilities of the now landless group doing the same thing. The land-owners who have fought their own way became croppers at the average age of 22.4 years. They made the transfer to tenant-farming at the average age of 24.5 years, and became owners at the average age of 36.2 years. They climbed the ladder of agricultural success to some degree of ownership in the average of 13.8 year. The average age of the present cropper group is now 36.6 years. They have been farming for an average of 15.2 years and are still landless. The average age of the present tenant group is 38.2 years. They have been tenants for 8.5 years and have been farming for 15.8 years and are still landless. Both of these groups have passed the average age at which the present owners first attained ownership. Some of these men will undoubtedly some day become owners. The great majority of them never will unless they receive assistance from some source. Even those who will reach ownership will do so at a considerably later age than did the present group of owners. Land is higher priced now than then and it will therefore take the present landless men longer to accumulate enough capital to make the initial payment on a farm.

The number of tenants and croppers are increasing every year. A larger and larger percentage of farm land is being farmed by these landless farmers. Each year sees a higher per cent of all farm values under the direction of these men. North Carolina can not look with complacency on these facts. The late Governor Bickett said in his inaugural address “that he would neither rest nor allow the State to rest until every honest, industrious, and frugal man who tills the soil has a chance to own it.” This is but justice to these men. He further said, “Every consideration of progress and safety urges us to employ all wise and just measures to get the lands into the hands of the many.” This is a policy of wisdom and statesmanship on the part of the State.

 THE HOMES

Very careful and detailed studies were made of each of the 1,014 farm residences. The number of rooms in each house and the use of that room space was ascertained. Housing experts have generally accepted standards of minimum comfort to be one and one-half rooms per person and one and one-half persons per bedroom. This means that a normal house should include three rooms for each two persons and two bedrooms for each three persons. Tables LXV to LXXII give the information for the farm homes surveyed.

TABLE LXV— Average Number of Rooms Per Home (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 5.64 3.8 4.55 3.8 4.2 4.0 4.12 3.42 4.58 3.52 Piedmont 5.67 5.0 4.67 3.98 4.1 4.02 3.54 3.0 4.77 3.82 Mountain 5.02 —— 4.06 —— 3.64 —— 2.88 —— 4.03 —— Total 5.42 4.46 3.95 3.95 3.98 4.02 3.62 3.33 4.38 3.72

TABLE LXVI— Average Number of Persons Per Room (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain .93 2.3 .98 1.74 1.16 1.5 1.19 1.49 1.09 1.53 Piedmont .68 .90 1.04 1.46 1.11 1.45 1.52 1.9 .946 1.51 Mountain .87 —— 1.31 —— 1.41 —— 1.59 —— 1.24 —— Total .825 1.45 1.19 1.5 1.24 1.46 1.34 1.57 1.11 1.52

TABLE LXVII— Average Number of Persons Per Bedroom (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 1.63 2.59 1.62 2.75 1.89 2.15 1.91 2.28 1.8 2.3 Piedmont 1.23 1.59 1.6 2.02 1.47 2.16 2.19 3.0 1.49 2.24 Mountain 1.55 —— 2.44 —— 2.59 —— 2.74 —— 2.26 —— Total 1.47 1.87 2.06 2.1 1.99 2.16 2.16 2.44 1.89 2.27

TABLE LXVIII— Average Persons Per Bed (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 1.16 1.69 1.06 1.27 1.42 1.83 1.44 1.52 Piedmont .82 .93 1.1 1.39 1.24 1.5 1.49 1.62 Mountain .92 —— 1.25 —— 1.53 —— 1.48 —— Total .95 1.29 1.19 1.37 1.42 1.55 1.46 1.55

An average landless farmer had 3.74 rooms in his house as compared with 4.66 for the owners. The average white farmer had 4.38 rooms in his house as compared to 3.72 for a negro farmer. The homes of landless men had 1.38 persons per room as compared to 1.07 for the owner homes. The white homes had 1.11 persons per bed as compared to 1.52 for the negro homes. The landless homes had 216 persons for each 100 bedrooms, and 149 persons for each 100 bedrooms and 112 persons for each 100 beds in the homes of landowners.

The white homes had 189 persons for each 100 bedrooms and 121 persons for each 100 beds as compared to 227 persons for each 100 bedrooms and 153 persons for each 100 beds in the negro homes. All the homes surveyed had 199 persons for each 100 bedrooms and 128 persons for each 100 beds.

TABLE LXIX— A Classification of the Homes According to the Number of Rooms (For area surveyed)   Land Owners Landless Whites Negroes All Surveyed Per cent 1 room 1.4 2.5 2.2 1.4 2.0 Per cent 2 rooms 9.2 15.1 12.2 12.5 12.2 Per cent 3 rooms 17.6 31.5 20.5 35.9 24.7 Per cent 4 rooms 24.2 24.4 22.4 29.2 24.4 Per cent 5 rooms 13.1 14.5 15.2 10.3 13.8 Per cent 6 rooms 19.2 7.4 15.8 6.1 13.1 Per cent over 6 rooms 15.3 4.6 11.7 4.6 9.8

Table LXIX shows that 17.6 per cent of the landless farmers are living in homes of one and two rooms as compared to 10.6 per cent for the owners. 14.4 per cent for all whites and 13.9 per cent for all negroes lived in one- and two-room houses. 14.2 per cent of all families lived in houses with less than three rooms.

Large families housed in small homes often means that the family must eat in the kitchen, sleep in the sitting room or in other ways mix household functions.

TABLE LXX— Percentage of Families With Separate Sitting-Rooms (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 25.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 16.9 7.2 5.2 2.7 17.9 4.4 Piedmont 25.8 33.3 7.5 —— —— 3.0 —— —— 11.1 2.7 Mountain 23.2 —— 11.4 —— 12.7 —— —— —— 13.6 —— Total 24.6 27.3 12.6 2.3 11.7 3.75 2.75 2.04 17.8 3.5

TABLE LXXI— Percentage of Homes With Separate Dining-Rooms (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 68.7 60.0 60.0 20.0 20.8 14.1 34.5 20.5 40.4 21.3 Piedmont 74.1 33.3 44.2 05.5 80.0 19.7 07.7 11.8 57.8 14.5 Mountain 65.1 —— 46.9 —— 45.1 —— 21.1 —— 48.4 —— Total 69.0 45.5 47.5 6.97 42.5 18.75 26.6 18.38 48.4 17.4

TABLE LXXII— Percentage of Homes With Separate Parlors (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 22.9 60.0 10.0 20.0 5.2 7.1 6.9 .91 9.9 4.4 Piedmont 34.5 —— 13.9 2.6 5.0 3.0 7.7 —— 12.9 2.1 Mountain 11.6 —— 6.8 —— 4.2 —— 2.6 —— 10.6 —— Total 22.3 27.3 9.2 4.65 4.8 3.75 5.5 .68 10.7 3.7

Fifty-two per cent of the 490 land-owners had dining rooms separate from other rooms as compared to 28.8 per cent for the 524 landless. Only 48.4 per cent of the white families and 17.8 per cent of the negro families had dining rooms separate from other rooms. The percentage for all families surveyed was 39.

Ten and four-tenths per cent of the land-owners had parlors separate from other rooms as compared to 3.6 per cent for the landless. Only 10.6 per cent of all whites and 3.2 per cent of all negroes had separate parlors. Only 8.7 per cent of all houses surveyed had parlors.

Sixteen and a half per cent of all land-owners had family gathering rooms separate from other rooms as compared with 5.9 per cent for all landless. Only 13.6 per cent of all whites, and 3.6 per cent of all negroes were provided with such assembling rooms.

Bathtubs, indoor toilets, running water in these modern days, often make a home. The following Tables LXXIII (a) through LXXV give the percentages of homes of the various classes of farmers which have these conveniences.

TABLE LXXIII (a)— Percentage of Homes With Bath-Tubs, Indoor Toilets, Running Water, and Clothes Closets (For the Coastal Plain County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Bathtubs 8.3 —— 5.0 —— —— —— —— —— 2.4 —— Indoor toilets 6.6 —— —— —— —— —— —— —— 1.5 —— Running water 6.6 —— —— —— —— —— 1.7 —— 2.0 —— Clothes closet 2.3 40.0 5.0 —— —— 13.0 10.2 5.0 14.0 6.5

TABLE LXXIII (b)— Percentages of Homes With Bath-Tubs, Indoor Toilets, Running Water, and Clothes Closets (For the Piedmont County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Bathtubs 3.4 —— —— —— —— —— —— —— 1.05 —— Indoor toilets 1.7 —— —— —— —— —— —— —— .52 —— Running water 1.7 —— 1.7 10.5 —— —— —— —— 1.05 10.5 Clothes closets 38.0 —— 6.5 10.5 42.0 —— —— —— 22.1 10.5

TABLE LXXIV— Percentages of Homes With Bath-Tubs, Indoor Toilets, Running Water, and Clothes Closets (For the Mountain County)   Operator Landlords Owner Operators Tenants Croppers Total Bathtubs 1.5 .62 —— —— .588 Indoor Toilets —— 1.23 —— —— .588 Running Water —— 1.85 —— —— .882 Clothes Closets 8.7 13.0 5.63 2.94 7.35

TABLE LXXV— Percentages of Homes With Bath-Tubs, Indoor Toilets, Running Water, and Clothes Closets (For the area surveyed)   Land Owners Landless Whites Blacks Total Bathtubs 1.84 —— 1.23 —— .885 Indoor Toilets 1.24 —— .82 —— .591 Tunning Water 1.66 1.91 1.23 —— .885 Clothes Closets 13.01 8.4 12.9 4.64 10.63

No farm tenant has a bath-tub or an indoor toilet. No negro farmer has a bath-tub, an indoor toilet, or running water. Less than two per cent of the land-owners have either of these three conveniences.

Quite an elaborate analysis of home equipment and home conveniences was made. Tables LXXVI to LXXIX present the finding.

TABLE LXXVI— Per cent of Homes With Modern Conveniences (For the Coastal Plain County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Per cent other heat than fireplace —— —— —— —— 11.7 7.2 5.2 7.2 Per cent lights other than lamps 10.2 —— —— —— 3.5 —— 1.7 —— Per cent have washing machines 2.1 —— 5.0 —— —— —— —— —— Per cent have sewing machines 91.8 100.0 95.0 100.0 80.8 86.0 95.0 69.6 Per cent have vacuum cleaners —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— Per cent have kitchen sinks 10.2 20.0 —— —— 1.3 —— —— —— Per cent have telephones 12.5 —— 5.0 —— 1.3 —— 1.2 9.0 Per cent have refrigerators 16.6 —— 5.0 —— 2.6 —— 1.2 —— Per cent have rugs 83.5 40.0 25.0 20.0 39.0 14.3 34.6 10.0

TABLE LXXVII— Per cent of Homes With Modern Conveniences (For the Piedmont County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Per cent other heat than fireplace —— —— —— —— —— —— —— 5.9 Per cent lights other than lamps —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— Per cent have washing machines —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— Per cent have sewing machines 98.5 100.0 96.1 94.6 87.5 69.8 69.3 37.2 Per cent have vacuum cleaners —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— Per cent have kitchen sinks —— —— —— —— —— —— —— —— Per cent have telephones 41.5 —— 26.6 —— 7.5 —— —— —— Per cent have refrigerators 6.9 —— —— —— 5.0 —— —— —— Per cent have rugs 67.2 33.3 41.7 8.3 12.5 9.1 —— 3.3

TABLE LXXVIII— Per cent of Homes With Modern Conveniences (For the Mountain County)   Operator Landlords Owners Operators Tenants Croppers Per cent other heat than fireplace —— 3.7 2.7 —— Per cent lights other than lamps 1.4 0.6 —— 5.2 Per cent have washing machines 4.3 —— —— —— Per cent have sewing machines 84.0 86.3 66.2 50.0 Per cent have vacuum cleaners —— —— —— —— Per cent have kitchen sinks 2.8 0.6 —— —— Per cent have telephones 1.4 0.6 —— —— Per cent have refrigerators 1.4 —— —— —— Per cent have rugs 27.6 17.3 2.8 2.6

TABLE LXXIX— Per cent of Homes With Modern Conveniences (For the area surveyed) Land Owners Landless White Black Total Per cent other heat than fireplace 1.2 5.2 2.7 2.7 3.1 Per cent lights other than lamps 1.4 1.3 2.7 —— 1.4 Per cent have washing machines 1.0 0.19 0.82 —— 0.6 Per cent have sewing machines 91.4 71.6 84.8 72.4 80.7 Per cent have vacuum cleaners —— —— —— —— —— Per cent have kitchen sinks 1.86 0.19 1.2 0.36 0.98 Per cent have telephones 11.6 1.14 8.1 0.36 9.0 Per cent have refrigerators 3.9 0.97 2.5 —— 1.87 Per cent have rugs 35.6 15.2 30.2 10.6 24.6

It is significant to note that 96.9 per cent of all the homes are heated by fireplaces, 98.6 per cent are lighted by lamps, 99.4 per cent of the washing is done by tubs and wash-boards, and 19.3 per cent do all sewing by hand. Not one farm home has a vacuum cleaner, 99.02 per cent have no kitchen sinks, 91 per cent have no telephones, 98.13 per cent have no refrigerators and 75.4 per cent of the families live on bare wood floors.

Screens at the windows and doors are not only home conveniences but health facilities in that they keep flies and mosquitoes out of the house. Tables LXXX and LXXXI give the facts about screening.

TABLE LXXX— Per cent of Homes With No Screens (For the area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 33.4 80.0 60.0 40.0 68.8 85.6 43.2 95.5 52.2 91.9 Piedmont 48.2 50.0 68.3 86.8 70.0 92.5 92.3 94.2 64.3 89.7 Mountain 44.8 —— 75.3 —— 83.2 —— 94.7 —— 73.0 —— Total 42.9 63.7 72.0 81.4 74.5 91.3 67.0 95.3 64.9 90.8

TABLE LXXXI— Per cent of Homes Only Partly Screened (For the area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 20.8 20.0 15.0 40.0 2.6 7.15 25.8 .9 14.8 3.7 Piedmont 5.2 50.0 5.1 7.9 22.5 4.5 7.7 2.9 8.9 6.9 Mountain 10.2 —— —— —— 2.7 —— —— —— 2.6 —— Total 11.4 36.4 2.68 11.6 6.92 5.1 14.7 1.36 7.6 5.3

Tables LXXX and LXXXI show that 81.3 per cent of the homes of landless farmers have no screens as compared to 62.2 per cent for the homes of the land-owners. 64.9 per cent of the homes of the whites and 90.8 per cent of the homes of the negroes have no screens. Only 30.4 per cent of the land-owners, 12.0 of the landless, 27.5 per cent of the whites, 3.9 per cent of the negroes and 20.9 per cent of all surveyed had their houses completely screened.

Information was gathered on the number of windows and their conditions. Tables LXXXII and LXXXIII present the findings.

TABLE LXXXII— Per cent of Homes With Broken Window-Lights (For the area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 16.66 20.0 30.0 40.0 28.5 64.2 34.5 56.2 27.5 55.2 Piedmont 34.5 16.6 20.2 55.2 50.0 65.2 30.9 68.6 31.5 61.3 Mountain 15.9 —— 12.4 —— 33.8 —— 26.3 —— 19.1 —— Total 22.23 18.2 16.1 53.5 35.05 65.0 31.2 59.15 24.7 58.3

TABLE LXXXIII— Average Number of Window Frames Per Home (For the area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 9.5 10.6 7.7 5.4 7.18 5.85 7.35 5.4 7.83 5.64 Piedmont 10.2 7.84 7.7 5.76 6.82 5.77 5.0 3.83 5.39 5.39 Mountain 8.7 —— 6.17 —— 5.14 —— 3.9 —— 6.2 —— Total 9.41 9.1 6.75 5.48 6.35 5.78 5.87 5.2 7.15 5.5

Tables LXXXII and LXXXIII show that the average land-owner has 7.66 window frames in his home as compared to 5.79 for the landless, 7.15 for the whites, 5.5 for the negroes, and 6.68 for all 1,014 farm homes surveyed. 21.6 per cent of the homes of the land-owners, 45.6 per cent of the homes of the landless, 24.7 per cent of the homes of white farmers, 58.3 per cent of the negroes and 34.1 per cent of all 1,014 homes surveyed had broken panes.

Tables LXXXIV through LXXXVII give the per cent of farm homes with interior walls covered with tar paper, newspapers, plastering and ceiling.

TABLE LXXXIV— Per cent of Farm Homes With Tar-Papered Walls (For the area surveyed)   Owner Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain —— —— 5.0 —— —— —— —— —— 0.5 —— Piedmont —— —— —— —— —— 1.5 —— —— —— 0.68 Mountain —— —— 0.6 —— —— —— 5.0 —— 0.41 —— Total —— —— .38 —— —— 1.25 1.83 —— .054 .35

TABLE LXXXV— Per cent of Farm Homes With Newspapered Walls (For the area surveyed)   Owner Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 4.0 40.0 5.0 20.0 17.0 28.0 7.0 21.0 10.0 22.8 Piedmont —— —— 1.26 —— 5.0 1.5 —— —— 1.58 2.07 Mountain 5.8 —— 17.0 —— 17.0 —— 24.0 —— 10.4 —— Total 3.4 18.2 11.5 2.33 14.35 6.25 11.9 17.7 10.35 11.8

TABLE LXXXVI— Per cent of Farm Homes With Plastered Walls (For the area surveyed)   Owner Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 56.0 20.0 25.0 —— 35.0 21.0 19.0 17.0 35.0 17.0 Piedmont —— —— 3.8 —— —— 1.5 —— 3.0 1.58 1.36 Mountain —— —— 1.8 —— —— —— —— —— 10.4 —— Total 15.4 9.1 4.2 —— 14.35 5.0 10.1 13.6 10.35 8.71

TABLE LXXXVII— Per cent of Farm Homes With Ceiled Walls (For the area surveyed)   Owner Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 60.0 80.0 60.0 80.0 62.0 64.0 62.0 46.0 62.2 58.0 Piedmont 59.0 —— 38.0 29.0 14.0 41.0 54.0 15.0 41.1 29.6 Mountain 65.0 —— 49.5 —— —— —— 34.0 —— 46.5 —— Total 6.17 36.3 46.4 35.0 29.3 45.0 51.4 38.8 46.5 39.0

Tables LXXXIV to LXXXVII show that 57 out of every thousand landless farmers' homes are covered with tar paper, 135 with newspapers, 118 with plaster and 388 are ceiled. In the land-owners' homes 24 out of every thousand are covered with tar-paper, 80 are covered with newspapers, 80 are plastered and 508 are ceiled. The interior finish of the farm-owner homes is distinctly superior to that of the tenant homes.

Tables LXXXVIII through XC give the per cent of homes without porches, per cent with only one porch and the average number of porches per home.

TABLE LXXXVIII— Per cent of Homes Which Have No Porches (For the area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 2.0 —— 95.5 60.0 18.0 14.1 7.0 33.9 14.5 31.3 Piedmont 10.3 33.3 62.05 10.5 22.4 37.9 38.5 55.0 36.3 34.5 Mountain 7.3 —— 8.0 —— 12.6 —— 13.1 —— 9.4 —— Total 4.57 18.2 28.0 16.3 17.0 33.8 12.8 38.8 27.8 33.0

TABLE LXXXIX— Per cent of Farm Homes Which Have Only One Porch (For the area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 8.3 20.0 25.0 —— 35.0 64.2 46.5 45.5 30.6 45.8 Piedmont 13.8 50.0 5.7 60.5 35.0 42.4 61.5 45.0 17.9 48.3 Mountain 43.5 —— 51.8 —— 61.9 —— 65.8 —— 53.8 —— Total 24.0 36.4 35.3 53.4 45.2 46.3 55.0 45.5 38.1 46.4

TABLE XC— Average Number of Porches Per Home (For the area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 1.75 2.0 .705 0.8 1.28 1.07 1.36 .87 1.36 .93 Piedmont 1.72 1.17 1.4 1.13 1.2 .88 .69 .45 1.44 .86 Mountain 1.48 —— 1.255 —— 1.12 —— 1.8 —— 1.29 —— Total 1.67 1.55 1.31 1.09 1.21 .91 1.18 .78 1.35 .89

Tables LXXXVIII to XC show that for every one hundred landless homes there is a total of 104 porches as compared to 142 porches for every 100 land-owner homes. The land-owners have porches on 80.8 per cent of the houses as compared to 75.2 per cent for those of the landless farmers. The houses of the landless class have only one porch per house in 47.7 per cent of the cases as compared to 32.8 per cent in the case of the owners. For all homes surveyed, 22.2 per cent have no porches, the landless having no porches in 24.8 per cent of the cases and the land-owners having no porches in 19.2 per cent of the cases.

Tables XCI and XCII give the per cent of farm homes which have basements and sleeping porches. They are self-explanatory.

TABLE XCI— Per cent of Homes Which Have Basements (For the area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 2.1 —— —— —— —— —— —— —— .49 —— Piedmont 10.3 —— —— —— —— 4.55 —— —— 3.16 2.07 Mountain 8.70 —— 4.3 —— 4.24 —— 2.64 —— 5.0 —— Total 7.43 —— 2.68 —— 1.6 3.75 .92 —— 3.27 1.7

TABLE XCII— Per cent of Farm Homes Which Have Sleeping Porches (For the area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers   Total     White Black White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 6.3 —— 31.5 —— 2.6 —— —— —— 5.9 —— Piedmont 1.725 —— —— 2.64 —— —— —— —— .53 .69 Mountain 4.35 —— .62 —— —— —— —— —— 1.17 —— Total 4.0 —— 3.7 2.33 1.06 —— —— —— 2.32 .36

HEALTH AND SANITATION

A great many facts were ascertained about health and sanitation. Specific information was gotten concerning contacts with doctors; expenditure for services of the physician, drugs and patent medicine; medical attendance on mother at time of childbirth; percentage of still births; vaccination for smallpox; inoculation for typhoid; possibilities of contamination of the water supply; and disposal of the human excreta, garbage, and dishwater.

Tables XCIV to XCIX give the contact of the families with doctors.

TABLE XCIV— Per cent of Families Had a Doctor Call on Them the Previous Year (For the area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 83.3 80.0 65.0 80.0 76.7 64.2 84.6 54.9 Piedmont 41.5 33.3 40.5 31.6 41.5 42.5 84.6 57.7 Mountain 53.6 —— 49.4 —— 50.8 —— 63.2 —— Total 57.7 54.6 47.9 37.2 59.7 46.3 77.1 55.1

TABLE XCV— Per cent of Families Called at Doctor's Office the Previous Year (For areas surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 73.0 60.0 50.0 80.0 58.5 28.5 55.0 57.3 Piedmont 8.6 —— 4.5 5.3 12.5 21.2 31.0 0.6 Mountain 34.8 —— 31.4 —— 25.3 —— 39.5 —— Total 37.0 27.3 24.9 14.0 36.2 22.5 46.8 44.9

TABLE XCVI— Average Doctor Calls Per Family for the Past Year (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 7.3 5.0 2.9 1.0 3.3 1.3 4.7 1.4 Piedmont 3.0 1.5 1.3 0.71 1.55 1.6 2.8 2.0 Mountain 2.9 —— 3.5 —— 1.36 —— 3.9 —— Total 4.15 3.1 2.78 .745 2.21 1.65 4.29 1.53

TABLE XCVII— Average Trips to Doctor Per Family (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 4.0 3.8 2.3 3.2 2.8 0.86 3.0 1.91 Piedmont .35 —— .16 .16 .45 .45 .77 .21 Mountain 1.8 —— 1.7 —— 1.27 —— .47 —— Total 1.91 1.73 1.34 .51 1.71 5.52 1.85 1.50

TABLE XCVIII— Total Contacts With Doctor Per Family (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 11.3 8.8 5.2 4.2 6.1 2.16 7.7 3.31 Piedmont 11.6 1.5 1.46 .87 1.97 2.05 3.57 2.21 Mountain 4.7 —— 5.2 —— 2.63 —— 4.37 —— Total 6.05 4.8 4.06 1.26 3.39 2.09 6.13 3.2

TABLE XCIX— Average Distance to Doctor (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 3.7 2.2 2.6 1.0 4.3 3.5 3.3 3.5 Piedmont 8.6 7.8 8.4 7.5 8.8 8.7 8.15 8.2 Mountain 3.7 —— 4.5 —— 4.5 —— 4.5 —— Total 5.34 5.27 5.5 6.77 5.33 7.77 4.28 4.54

It may be pointed out in summarizing the Tables XCIV to XCIX that 50.5 per cent of the land-owners had a doctor call on them the preceding year as compared to 59.8 per cent for the landless, 57.7 per cent for the whites, 49.8 per cent for the negroes and 54.8 per cent for all surveyed. In addition to home visits by the doctor, 28.2 per cent of the land-owners made trips to the doctor's office as compared with 38.7 per cent for the landless, 33.8 per cent for the whites, 33.1 per cent for the negroes, and 33.2 per cent for all surveyed. This would seem to indicate a larger percentage of sickness in the homes of the landless than in the homes of the land-owners.

Home calls by the doctors and visits to the doctor's office should be considered in conjunction with each other. The land-owner families had the doctor call on them an average of 3.09 times per year and called at his office 1.24 times per year making a total of 4.33 contacts with the doctor per family per year. The landless families had the doctor call on them an average of 2.36 times per year and called at his office 1.5 times per year making a total of 3.86 contacts with the doctor per family per year. It would seem that although the landless families are sick more often than the families of land-owners, that they get less medical attention than the land-owners.

The same differences were found to be true between the whites and negroes, but the extreme poverty of the negroes makes it inadvisable to use contacts with the doctor as a fair comparison. An instance which supports this conclusion is a negro family consisting of father, mother and eight children in the Coastal Plain county who were just recovering from smallpox and who had had no medical attention during their sickness.

The average distance from the home to the doctors' office was 5.3 miles. The comparative distances for the land-owners and landless were 5.53 and 5.25 miles, respectively, and for the whites and negroes 5.27 and 5.82 miles respectively. The expenditure per family for medicine, drugs, patent remedies, and doctor fees is given in the Tables C to CIII.

TABLE C— Average Per Family Expenditure for Doctor Fees, Drugs, and Patent Medicines (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain $75.00 $27.00 $31.09 $14.08 $34.14 $19.00 $53.06 $19.00 Piedmont 28.05 11.03 15.00 18.45 28.04 24.00 28.13 20.00 Mountain 32.04 —— 16.30 —— 17.05 —— 27.03 —— Total $42.70 $19.20 $17.15 $18.10 $27.40 $23.25 $41.50 $18.85

TABLE CI— Average Per Family Expenditure for Doctor Fees and Drugs (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain $69.00 $22.00 $25.09 $13.00 $32.08 $13.00 $49.06 $15.00 Piedmont 26.00 10.00 12.20 13.85 26.00 19.00 20.07 17.00 Mountain 30.07 —— 13.90 —— 13.00 —— 25.00 —— Total $39.70 $16.00 $14.30 $13.80 $24.15 $18.20 $37.60 $15.40

TABLE CII— Average Per Family Expenditure for Patent Medicine (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain $ 6.00 $ 5.00 $ 6.00 $ 1.08 $ 2.06 $ 6.00 $ 4.00 $ 4.00 Piedmont 2.05 1.03 2.80 4.60 2.04 5.00 8.06 3.00 Mountain 2.00 —— 2.40 —— 4.05 —— 2.03 —— Total $ 2.96 $ 3.18 $ 2.95 $ 4.30 $ 3.29 $ 5.08 $ 4.00 $ 3.76

TABLE CIII— Per cent of Families Use Patent Medicine (For area surveyed)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black Coastal Plain 56.2 80.0 94.8 40.0 53.2 92.8 58.7 55.3 Piedmont 77.7 66.6 91.3 89.5 87.8 97.0 100.0 97.0 Mountain 47.9 —— 48.2 —— 57.8 —— 52.7 —— Total 60.0 72.7 64.2 83.7 62.4 96.3 61.5 66.1

A summary of the tables on expenditures for doctor fees and medicines shows that the landless families spend an average of five cents more per year for doctor fees and prescriptions than land-owner families do. When the average expenditure for patent medicines is added to the average expenditure for doctor fees and prescriptions, the average land-owner family spends sixty-seven cents more for health per year than the average landless family does.

A landed family spends an average of $26.42 for medical attention per year as compared to $25.75 for a landless family; $29.45 for white family; $19.98 for a negro family, and $26.84 average for all families. The use of patent medicines was general, 68 per cent of the landless class using them as compared to 64.5 per cent of the land-owner families; 62.3 per cent of the white families; 76.8 per cent of the negro families, and 65.6 per cent of all families. The average family spends $3.44 for patent medicines per year. The comparative expenditure is $3.02 for land-owner families; $2.30 for landless families; $3.15 for white families, and $4.19 for negro families. Tables CIV to CXIII give in detail the medical attendance on the mothers during childbirth and the number of stillbirths per family.

TABLE CIV— Attendance at Births (For the Coastal Plain County)   Operator Landlords   Owner Operators   Tenants   Croppers     White Black White Black White Black White Black