290 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
A similar unit is desirable in the administration of public welfare. The adminis- 
tration of roads and schools can be made more effective when applied to a unit 
of considerable size. Many of the Virginia counties are too small to obtain 
the best results. 
The commission submitted with its report, and the legislature later 
enacted into law, (1) a bill whereby two or more counties may jointly 
support certain functions or officers, and (2) a bill to permit two or 
more adjoining counties to consolidate, when approved by a majority 
of the voters in each of the counties concerned.* 
A comprehensive survey of State and local government in Missis- 
sippi recently completed by the Brookings Institution recommends 
consolidations which would reduce the number of counties from 82 
to 40. 
In 1930 the Brookings Institution (122, pp. 21-26) studied State and 
local government in North Carolina. In its report it enumerated 
11 county consolidations which it believed should be immediately 
effected and indicated that it might be desirable to effect others later. 
In all except 1 of the 11 cases specified, it was proposed to unite 2 
adjacent counties; in 1 case the merging of 3 counties was proposed. 
If its recommendations were followed the number of counties would 
be reduced from 100 to 82. 
While the need for county consolidation may be greatest in the 
South, the agitation is not limited to the South. Alfred E. Smith 
(157), when Governor of New York, advocated the consolidation of 
counties in that State in the interest of economy, claiming that: 
The cost of supporting these units of government is increasing from $8,000,000 
to $10,000,060 yearly, and #he burden of that tax is the one which people in the 
rural communities find so heavy. 
The movement made no headway because of the opposition of the 
legislature, each county now being entitled to at least one representa- 
tive in the lower house. In fact, this is one of the chief obstacles in 
the way of consolidation in every State, but particularly where the 
rural population is now overrepresented in the legislature and is afraid 
to yield its advantage. 
County consolidation is also being agitated in a number of other 
States—among them Wisconsin, Michigan, Kansas, Montana, and 
Nevada. Reed (1585), in discussing the need for county consolidation 
in Michigan, says: 
The maintenance of even a rudimentary county government has become well- 
nigh impossible in certain sections of the State. ... The same difficulties con- 
front Wisconsin and Minnesota, without the compensating advantage of vast 
industrial development. They confront a large part of rural Indiana and Illinois, 
and even more menacingly Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Georgia, and 
other Southern States. In North Carolina 25 percent of the counties have less 
than $10,000,000 of assessed valuation, the minimum necessary to maintain the 
simplest county government. In Michigan the percentage is 31, in Minnesota 37, 
and in Tennessee 61. These figures are just run of the mine. ... The smaller 
the counties, the less they are able without State aid to perform the duties which 
law and custom impose on them. 
The consolidation of two or more contiguous counties is usually 
considered the easiest method of forming a larger administrative unit. 
This avoids the necessity of disturbing boundaries except to obliterate 
the dividing lines. Paul W. Wager, of the University of North Carolina, 
believes that this is not always the wisest plan, however. He believes 
8 Virginia, Acts of Assembly, 1932, ch. 367, 304. 
