FOREIGN TRADE THROUGH TEXAS PORTS Arrroved: Approved: Dean of the Graduate School FOREIGN TRADE THROUGH TEXAS PORTS DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By Wade James Hartrick, B. A., M. B. A. Austin, Texas May, 1949 PREFACE THE LIBRARY THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS While studying courses in Marketing, Transportation, and Economics, the writer was impressed with the importance and possibilities of expanding the area within which trade can flow. By increasing the trade area, greater and more varied physical resources are available for the economical production and distribution of goods to satisfy human wants. The fact that some of these resources are located in foreign countries is of small concern provided trade restrictions are kept at a minimum and responsible governments are in control. The foreign trade through the land and water ports of Texas represents a constructive effort to enlarge the trade area for the products produced and consumed in the hinterland. Although the political and physical conditions under which this trade moves are far from ideal, benefits to citizens of Texas and the remaining hinterland are substantial and widespread. In presenting this study, the writer hopes that the knowledge and importance of the subject may be more widely disseminated and that further studies of more detailed aspects will be encouraged. The nature and scope of the study have required the compilation of data from many and varied sources. The writer is most grateful for the personal services rendered by the library staffs of We University of Texas; College of Mines and Metallurgy; 21 Paso Public Library; and New Mexico College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts. However, much of the information essential to the study could not 595019 be secured from written sources. For this additional information, the writer is indebted to many individuals who have contributed of their time to develop important aspects of the foreign trade and/or to escort the writer through port facilities. While the writer appreciates the helpfulness of all these individuals, he is particularly indebted for this service to: J. Bussell Wait, former Fort Director, Port of Houston; William L. Fellsrath, Superintendent of Houston Public Elevator, Houston; T. H. Coley, Superintendent of Houston Wharf Company, Houston; F. H. Fredricks, Traffic Manager, Port of Beaumont; Edward Costello, Superintendent of Docks and Wharves, Fort of Beaumont; Victor Russell, Collector of Customs, Port Arthur; Lyle Vickers, Assistant Manager, Chamber of Commerce, Fort 4-irthur; W. C. Rettiger, Chief of River and Harbor Branch of Operations Division, Corps of United States Army Engineers, Galveston; G. Z. Koenig, Traffic Assistant, Galveston Wharves, Galveston; Forrest G. Robinson, Traffic Manager, Galveston Chamber of Commerce and Galveston Cotton Exchange and Board of Trade; Byrd Harris, Port Director, Fort of Corpus Christi; A. L. Rankin, Forwarder, Corpus Christi; F. W. Hofmokel, General Manager and Director of Fort, Brownsville; L. M. Hakes, Deputy Collector of Customs, Brownsville; Guy A. Belzons, Deputy Collector of Customs, San Antonio; E. H. Corrigan, Chairman, Laredo Port Commission; John Lewis, President, Customs Brokers Council, Laredo; A. R. Hahn, Assistant Collector of Customs, Laredo; Truett Evans, Cattle Buyer and Commission Man, EL Paso; G. B. Perry, Chief Clerk, Division Freight and Passenger Office, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, El Paso; Alfred J. J. Taylor, Assistant Collector of Customs, El Paso. Especially is the writer grateful to Dr. Robert V/. Drench whose interest in the subject made the undertaking possible and who has guided the efforts of the writer through the initial and final drafts. Professor E. G-. Smith, Dr. John R. Stockton, and Dr. Erich W. Zimmermann have given material assistance in planning the outline covering the phases of marketing, statistics, and economic background. Other members of the committee and my wife have given greatly appreciated suggestions and encouragement, strengthening my determination to finish the task. Wade Hartrick April, 1949 CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION Purpose and Scope 1 Terminology 5 Techniques 11 Limitations of the Study 12 Conclusions 1$ 11. POLITICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL SETTING Political Setting 30 Foreign trade implications of Texas boundary determinations 30 Statutory basis for foreign trade through Texas boundaries 33 Evolution in the designation of ports of entry and customs districts 35 Delineation of the hinterland 52 Geographical Setting of the Ports of Texas 60 Geography of the water ports 60 Geography of the border ports 69 Location relative to world trade routes 71 Geographical Setting of the Hinterland 73 Topography and soils 73 Drainage 77 Precipitation 79 Humidity 81 Growing seasons 82 Prevailing winds 84 111. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE HINTERLAND Early Development 87 Indian culture 87 Spanish influence 89 French contribution 90 Population 91 CHAPTER PAGE Westward expansion 91 Growth 97 Concentrations 100 Characteristics 104 Education 105 Labor force 106 Income 109 Transportation 11l Water transportation 11l Railroads 115 'Trails and roads 120 Air transportation 126 Pipe line transportation 130 Communications 132 Power 134 Production 139 Agricultural production 139 Mineral production 147 Lumber production 156 Manufacturing 158 IV. FOREIGN TRADE PRIOR TO 1900 Foreign Trade Prior to Statehood ... 173 Exports from Statehood to 1900 180 Total exports through Texas ports 180 Total exports by customs districts 183 Principal commodities exported 193 Imports from Statehood to 1900 206 Total imports through Texas ports 206 Total imports by customs districts 208 Principal commodities imported 215 Port Adaptations to Foreign Trade Prior to 19'00 .... 225 V. FOREIGN TRADE SINCE 1900 Export Trade since 1900 240 Total exports through Texas ports 240 Total exports by customs districts 253 Principal commodities exported 258 Destination of exports by continents 3-13 CHAPTER PAGE Destination of exports by countries 317 Comparison with coastal regions 336 Comparison with representative customs districts . . 340 Re-exports from Texas ports 343 Merchandise Shipped In-Transit and Transshipped .... 351 The legal aspects of shipping in-transit and transshipping 351 The flov; of merchandise in-transit and transshipped 353 VI. FOREIGN TRADE SINCE 1900 (Continued) Import Trade since 1900 360 Total imports through Texas ports 360 Total imports by customs districts 364 Principal commodities imported 369 Importation by continents 441 Importation by countries 444 Comparison with coastal regions 464 Comparison with representative customs districts . . 466 Relative Value and Growth of Exports and Imports . . . 469 Port Adaptations to Foreign Trade since 1900 473 Port adaptations in Galveston Bay area ........ 473 Port adaptations in Sabine Lake area 481 Port adaptations from Freeport to Brownsville .... 484 Adaptations of interior and border ports 488 VII. PORT FACILITIES, SERVICES, AND ADMINISTRATION Transportation Routes to Ports 491 Available water channels 491 Railroads serving the ports 49? Highways serving the ports 508 Pipe line installations 516 Air routes serving the ports 521 Terminal Facilities and Services 525 Anchorage available 525 Turning basins 528 Piers, wharves, and docks 533 Facilities for loading and unloading 553 Storage and warehousing accommodations 570 Bunkering fuel, electricity, and water supply .... 587 CHAPTER PAGE Services of laborers, stevedores, and pilots .... oCO United States customs services 607 Other services at ports 610 Administration of Port Facilities 616 Diversity of port authority 616 Systems of port administration 618 Objectives of port administration 623 VIII. SIGNIFICANCE OF FOREIGN TRADE THROUGH TEXAS PORTS Significance to Texas 627 Factor in industrial location 628 Significance to Texas producers and processors . . . 637 The ports as a major investment 646 Effect on employment and purchasing power 652 Significance to Remaining Hinterland 654 Significance to producers and processors 654 Significance in increased investments, income, and employment 657 National and Global Significance 658 National significance 658 Global significance . . . Future Significance 660 BIBLIOGRAPHY 665 TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Growth of Population in Hinterland of Texas Ports, 1830-1940 98 11. Percentage Relationship between Population in Hinterland of Texas Ports as Compared to United States Total, 1880-1940 98 111. Labor Force 14 Years Old and Over Available in Hinterland of Texas Ports, 1940 106 IV. Major Occupation Groups of Employed Workers 14 Years Old and Over in Hinterland of Texas Ports, 1940 .... 108 V. Income Payments Received by Individuals in Hinterland of Texas Ports, 1939 and 1946 110 VI. Farm Acreage, Production, and Income for United States and Hinterland of Texas Ports for Specified Items and Years 140 VII. Value of Mineral Products for Hinterland of Texas Ports in Specified Years 149 VIII. Lumber Produced in Hinterland of Texas Ports, 1942 . . . 157 IX. Number of Manufacturing Establishments, Value of Products, and Value Added by Manufacture within Hinterland of Texas Ports, 1939 160 X. Value of Domestic Commodities Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas and the United States for Years Ending June 30, 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1900 ~ 182 XI. Value of Domestic Exports from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years Ending June 30, 1850, iB6O, 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1900 184 XII. Value of Domestic Exports from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas Expressed as Percentages of Total Exports from Texas for Years Ending June 30, 18'50, iB6O, 1870, 1880, 18Q0, and 1900 185 TABLE PAGE XIII. Value of Principal Domestic Commodities Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years Ending June 30, iB6O, 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1900 194 XIV. Value of Principal Domestic Commodities Exported Expressed as Percentages of Total Domestic Commodities Exported from Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years Ending June 30, iB6O, 1370, 1880, 1890, and 1900 195 XV. Value of Principal Domestic Commodities Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years Ending June 30, 1370 and 1880 202 XVI. Value of Principal Domestic Commodities Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquar- ters Ports in Texas and United States for Years Ending June 30, 1890 and 1900 203 XVII. Value of Merchandise Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas and United States for Years Ending June 30, 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1900 207 XVIII. Value of Merchandise Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Forts in Texas for Years Ending June 30, 1850, iB6O, 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1900 209 XIX. Value of Merchandise Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas Expressed as Percentages of Total Imports into Texas for Years Ending June 30, 1850, iB6O, 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1900 210 XX. Value of Principal Items of Merchandise Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years Ending June 30, iB6O, 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1900 216 XXI. Value of Principal Items of Merchandise Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas Expressed as Percentages of Total Imports into Texas for Years Ending June 30, iB6O, 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1900 217 TABLE PAGE XXII. Value of Principal Items of Merchandise Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas and United States for Years Ending Tune 30, 1870 and 1880 . . . 222 XXIII. Value of Principal Items of Merchandise Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas and United States for Years Ending Tune 30, 1890 and 1900 . . . 223 XXIV. Value of Exports, Including Re-exports, from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas and United States, 1900-1947 241 XXV. Value of Exports, Including Re-exports, from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 ... 254 XXVI. Value of Exports, Including Re-exports, from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas Expressed as Percentages of Exports for Texas Ports for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 ... 255 XXVII. Value of Principal Domestic Commodities Exported from All United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 260 XXVIII. Value of Principal Domestic Commodities Exported from All United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas Expressed as Percentages of Total Exports from Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 261 XXIX. Value of Unmanufactured Cotton Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 ... 263 XXX. Volume of Unmanufactured Cotton Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 ... 264 XXXI. Value of Wheat Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 270 XXXII. Volume of* Wheat Exported from. United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 . 2?1 TABLE PAGE XXXIII. Value of Refined Mineral Oil Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Forts in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 ' 284 XXXIV. Volume of Refined Mineral Oil Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 285 XXXV. Value of Crude Mineral Oil Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 289 XXXVI. Volume of Crude Mineral Oil Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 290 XXXVII. Value of Iron and Steel Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 . . 303 XXXVIII. Value of Machinery and Vehicles Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 306 XXXIX. Value of Merchandise Exported to Continents of World from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 315 XL. Value of Merchandise Exported to Countries in Europe from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 318 XLI. Value of Merchandise Exported to Countries in North America from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 321 XLII. Value of Merchandise Exported to Countries in Asia from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 323 TABLE page XLIII. Value of Merchandise Exported to Countries in South America from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 324 XLIV. Value of Merchandise Exported to Countries in Africa from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 326 XLV. Value of Merchandise Exported to Countries in Oceania from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 327 XLVI. Value of Merchandise Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas to Principal Receiving Countries for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 329 XLVII. Percentages of Merchandise Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas that Was Exported to Principal Receiving Countries for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 330 XLVIII. Value of Merchandise Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas to Principal Receiving Countries, 1930 .... 332 XLIX. Value of Merchandise Exported from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas to Principal Receiving Countries, 1940 .... 333 L. Value of Exports from Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas, Atlantic Coast, Gulf Coast, and Pacific Coast of United States for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940, and 1947 .... 333 LI. Value of Exports from Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas, Nev; York, .New Orleans, and San Francisco by Decades, 1900-1940 . . 341 LU. Value of Exports of Foreign Merchandise (Re-exports) from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas and from All United States Customs Districts by Decades, 1900-1940 345 table PAGE LIII. Value of Exports of Foreign Merchandise (Re-exports) from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas and from Customs Districts of New York, New Orleans, and San Francisco for Decades, 1900-1940 350 LIV. Value of Foreign Merchandise Shipped In-transit and Transshipped from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas and from All United States Customs Districts for Decades, 1900- 1940 354 LV. Value of Foreign Merchandise Shipped In-transit and Transshipped from United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas and from Customs Districts of New York, New Orleans, and San Francisco by Decades, 1900-1940 358 LVI. Value of Imports into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas and United States, 1900-1947 . 361 LVII. Value of Merchandise Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 366 LVIII. Value of Merchandise Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas Expressed as Percentages of Imports for Texas Ports for Years 1900, 19-10, 1920, 1930, and 1940 ... LIX. Value of Items of Merchandise Imported into nil United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 370 LX. Value of Items of Merchandise Imported into All United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas Expressed as Percentages of Total Imports through Texas Ports for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 371 LXI. Value of Cane Sugar Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters-Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 378 LXII. Volume of Cane Sugar Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas TABLE XVI for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 379 LXIII. Value of Coffee Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 387 LXIV. Volume of Coffee Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 388 LXV. Value of Bananas Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 395 LXVI. Volume of Bananas Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 396 LXVII. Value of Jute Bagging and Burlap Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 ... 408 LXVIII. Value of Cattle Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 411 LXIX. Volume of Cattle Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 412 LXX. Value of Crude Petroleum Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 421 LXXI. Volume of Crude Petroleum Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 422 LXXII. Value of Paper Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 429 LXXIII. Volume of Standard Newsprint Imported into United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 430 TABLE XVII LXXIV. Value of Merchandise Imported from Continents of World to United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 19'00, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 443 LIDCV. Value of Merchandise Imported from Countries in Morth America to United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 445 LXXVI. Value of Merchandise Imported from Countries in Europe to United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 . . 44? LXXVII. Value of Merchandise Imported from Countries in Asia to United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 449 IXXVIII. Value of Merchandise Imported from Countries in South America to United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 451 LXXIX. Value of Merchandise Imported from Countries in Africa to United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920,’ 1930, and 1940 . . . 453 LXXX. Value of Merchandise Imported from Countries in Oceania to United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 ’ . . 454 LXXXI. Value of Merchandise Imported from Principal Countries Exporting to United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 456 LXXXII. Percentages of Merchandise Imported from Principal Countries Exporting to United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas for Tears 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 457 LXXXIII. Value of Merchandise Imported from Principal Countries Exporting to United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas, 1930 461 TABLE XVIII LXXXIV. Value of Merchandise Imported from Principal Countries Exporting to United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas, 1940 . . . 462 LXXXV. Value of Merchandise Imported into Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas, Atlantic Coast, Gulf Coast, and Pacific Coast of the United States for Years 1900, 1910, 19'20, 1930, 1940, and 1947 465 LXXXVI. Value of Merchandise Imported into Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas, New York, New Orleans, and San Francisco for Decades 1900-1940 467 LXXXVII. Charges for Pilotage of Vessels in Foreign Trade from Bar to Principal Ports of Texas 607 LXXXVIII. Wharfage Charges for Cotton, Coffee, Grains, and Bananas at Ports of Beaumont, Galveston, Houston, Corpus Christi, and Brownsville on January 1, 1942 616 LXXXIX. Carload Freight Rates on Baled Raw Cotton from Producing Centers in Texas to Houston, Galveston, and New Orleans, September 9, 1948 640 XC. Allocation of Costs for Existing Projects Providing Channels and Basins for Ocean-going Vessels at Texas Ports to June 30, 1947 647 XCI. Proposed Expenditures on Existing Projects Providing Channels and Basins for Ocean-going Vessels at Texas Ports for Year Ending Tune 30, 1948 .... 650 CHARTS CHART PAGE I. Ports of Entry and Gode Numbers for Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas, 1944 37 11. Customs Districts, Headquarters Ports, and Ports of Entry for Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas, 1944 38 111. The Primary and Secondary Hinterlands of Texas Ports 53 IV. Principal Minerals Produced within Hinterland of Texas Ports, 1943 150 V. Designation of Customs Districts, Ports of Entry, Subports of Entry, and Ports of Delivery Established in Texas for Years Ending Tune 30, 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1900 . . . ' 226 VI. Value of Exports and Imports for United States Customs Districts with Headquarters Ports in Texas, 1900-1947 470 VII. Designation of Customs Districts, Headquarters Ports, Ports of Entry, Subports, and Ports of Delivery for Years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 475 VIII. Crude Oil Trunk Pipe Lines in United States 518 IX. Principal Activities of United -States Customs Service 60S X. Sponsoring Organization, Governing Body, and Title of Active Manager for Administration and Opera- tion of the Principal Ports of Entry in Texas, 1947 621 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND SCOPE In the past century, the land and water ports of Texas have accommodated a growing movement of foreign trade. In 1850 the exports over Texas ports were valued at $25,000 while the imports were valued at $26,000. Each of these values represented less than 2/100 of 1 per cent of the total for the United States in that year. By 1947 the exports over Texas ports were valued at 1.4 billion dollars while imports were valued at 173-2 million dollars. The exports in the latter year represented 10.0 per cent of the national total and the imports, 3-0 per cent. In describing the economic importance of the water ports of Texas to the domestic and foreign trade, R. B. Johnson, Industrial Economist of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, states: The Texas port and waterway system is thus an. important factor in the economy of the Southwest. The excellent dispersal of the harbors along the coastline provides the region’s agriculture and industry with cheap and easy access to the markets of this country and of the world; the network of inland channels permits industrial plants along the seaboard to benefit from low-cost local and coastal barge shipments; and the inflow of capital to finance the development of port facilities and the building of plants and warehouses to utilize them fosters the growth of coastal communities. The extent of the contributions of the ports to the economy is not easily measured, but it is clear that the growth of industrial and trading centers in north coastal and southwest coastal Texas and the development of the resources of the southwestern region would have been less rapid had it not been for the services the ports have offered. Moreover, future operations of the region’s heavy industries and continuation of the rapid growth of coastal cities depend in part upon effective use of the port system. Although the foreign trade over the Texas ports has contributed greatly to the economic development of the state and the hinterland, no integrated study has been made of this phase of the economy. In this study, an effort has been made to discover and present such data as will greatly increase the general knowledge of this foreign trade movement. To accomplish this goal, this study purports to present the setting within which the foreign trade developed, the flow of the exports and imports, the physical facilities implementing the flow, and the significance of the foreign trade over the Texas ports. In describing the background within which the foreign trade has developed, attention is directed to the political, geographical, and economic aspects. The initial political aspect considered is the establishment of Texas boundaries adjacent to foreign soil and international waters. But the physical opportunity for foreign trade varies greatly from the legalization granted such trade. To describe these political permissions, consideration is given the statutory basis for foreign trade over Texas boundaries and the evolution in the designation of the ports of entry and customs districts. Furthermore, the hinterland of the ports is delineated in terms of political subdivisions in order to facilitate the compilation of data pertaining to the geography and economy of the ports and the hinterland. After determining the political setting of the foreign trade move' ment, the natural setting of the ports and hinterland is described. Among the features of the water ports considered are the depths and extensiveness of bodies of water available, the problems in providing satisfactory water channels, and the effects of fogs, winds, rain, temperature, and tides. At the land ports, topography is of prime importance in determining the gateways used and is considered in con June tion with the climatic features of those ports. For both the land and water ports, locations relative to world trade routes are given. In discussing the early economic development of the hinterland, an evaluation is given of the contribution made by the Indians and early settlers. After presenting the early economic development, more detailed studies are presented of the growth, concentration, and characteristics of the population followed by developments in the fields of transportation, communications, power, and production. In the latter field, particular attention is given to the production of agricultural lands, mines, forests, and manufacturing establishments. The subsequent discussion presents the flow of the foreign trade. The period prior to 1900 is designated as early foreign trade, covering the time in which Texas was under the rule of Spain, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, and the early years under the jurisdiction of the United States. Following the presentation of the exports and imports during the early period, a summary of the port adaptation to the early foreign trade movement is given. For the period after 1900, greater detail is presented for the exports and imports separately. Among the principal topics covered are the total exports by years from 1900 through 1947, the principal commodities exported by decades, the destination of the exports by continents and countries, the comparison with the export movement over coastal regions and representative customs districts, and the re-export movement over Texas ports. At this point another phase of the foreign trade movement is covered, namely, the movement of merchandise intransit and transshipped. Under this heading, the legal aspects, the nature, and the volume of these movements are considered. The discussion of imports in the main covers the same topics as covered under the discussion of exports. Included in the topics are the total imports by years from 1900 through 1947, the principal commodities imported by decades, the source of imports by continents and countries, a comparison with imports of coastal regions and representative customs districts, and the relative value of imports as compared to exports. Then, before passing to the subject of the current port facilities, summary consideration is given the port adaptations during the twentieth century. Among the principal physical port facilities implementing the foreign trade are the transportation routes to the ports and the terminal facilities and services. Special consideration is given the water channels, the railroads, the highways, the pipe lines, and airlines as important transportation routes to the ports. Discussion of the terminal facilities is centered on the anchorage space available, the turning basins, the piers, wharves, and the docks Also serving the ships at these facilities are the loading and unloading devices, the warehousing accommodations, the supply of bunkering fuel, electrical energy, and water required in terminal operations. In addition the services of laborers, stevedores, pilots, and the United States Customs Service are needed to operate the facilities and safeguard the rights of the United States government. Each of these is treated individually while a final discussion involves the diversity, the systems, and objectives of port administration in Texas. In the last chapter, a study had been made to determine the significance of the foreign trade movement over Texas ports. To make this evaluation, the significance to the state of Texas is considered first, followed by the impact on the remaining hinterland, the nation, and the world. Then in the closing paragraphs, an effort is made to evaluate the future significance of the ports, realizing.full well the hazards involved in extending trends for economic data. B. Johnson, "The Ports of Texas--A Resource of the Southwest," Monthly Business Review, September 1, 1947, p. 129. TERMINOLOGY The proper interpretation of data depends in part upon an understanding of the terms or expressions in which the data are described. To enable a better understanding of the information revealed in this study, the presentation of the meanings of several terms or expressions follows. Within the title of this treatise are two expressions commonly used but not always fully understood, namely, foreign trade and ports. The United States Department of Commerce characterizes foreign trade as follows: "The words ’foreign commerce’ or ’foreign trade’ mean com- merce or trade between the United States, its Territories or posses- 2 sions, or the District of Columbia, and a foreign country.” The meaning of port as used in the title refers to a land or water entrance. Abraham Berglund, in the book Ocean Transportation, characterizes a port as follows: "The word port is derived from the 3 Latin porta which means gate. Generically, it signifies an entrance." Berglund further limits the definition of ports to water ports in discussing ocean transportation. Ports in this capacity are described as follows: Geographically, a port is a point and not an extended coastline. Its area is restricted to a comparatively few miles of waterfront, generally located in some harbor, natural or artificial. It is a place where freight and passengers carried by steamers, sailing vessels, or other water craft, can'be landed or taken abroad. 4 Since the foreign trade of the United States can pass only over properly designated points along the land and water border, the meaning of ports under discussion in this study parallels the definition as established by the Bureau of Customs of the United States Treasury Department, stated as follows: The terms ’port’ and ’port of entry,’ as used in this volume, refer to any place designated by Executive order of the President or by act of Congress at which a customs officer is assigned with authority to accept entries of merchandise, to collect duties, and to enforce the various provisions of the customs and navigation laws.s The "ports” or "ports of entry" lie within areas known as customs collection districts. The Bureau of Customs of the United States Treasury Department defines a customs collection district as "the geographical area under the customs jurisdiction of a collector of customs." In the case of water ports, water and land areas known as harbors are necessary adjuncts. The water area of a harbor "accommodates the vessels of commerce while they are engaged in loading and unloading their traffic, making necessary repairs, and awaiting time of departure." The land area of a harbor includes "the space availa-7 ble on or near the shore for the movement and storage of freight." Back of the ports is the hinterland, those land areas which "feed or absorb" the exports and imports. In Chapter II of this study, the hinterland is delineated into two segments, the Primary Hinterland and the Secondary Hinterland. Comprising the Primary Hinterland are the five states of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and Nev; Mexico. With in the Secondary Hinterland are the fourteen states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, lowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan. In following the flow of the foreign trade over Texas ports, the two principal classifications of the movement, namely, exports and imports, are introduced. Exports of merchandise include commodities shipped to foreign countries with the following exceptions: 1. Gold and silver and evidences of debt. 2. In-transit and transshipment merchandise. 3- Bunker fuel, stores, supplies and equipment for vessels and planes. 4. Temporary exports.—ltems shipped out of the country temporarily, intended to be returned to the United States and not sold abroad, and items being returned to foreign countries after having entered the United States temporarily. 5. Merchandise having small value or no commercial value [ — includes] baggage of persons traveling abroad, ... parcel post shipments valued at less than $25.... 6. Shipments of military and naval supplies and equipment to the armed forces of the United States.s Included in the exports of merchandise were those made under the Lend- Lease program "in accordance with the provisions of the Lend-Lease Act of March 11, 1941, under which merchandise was procured and exported to various foreign countries whose defense the President deemed vital 9 to the defense of the United States." Exports of merchandise are "of two general types, exports of domestic or United States merchandise and exports of foreign merchandise.” The exports of domestic merchandise are described as follows: Exports of domestic merchandise include commodities which are the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States, and commodities of foreign origin which have been changed in the United States from the form in which they were imported, or have been enhanced in value by further manufacture in the United States. For example, "sugar refined in this country from imported raw sugar" would be a domestic Re-exports or exports of foreign merchandise are defined as follows: Exports of foreign merchandise include commodities of foreign origin which have entered the United States as imports and which, at the time of exportation, are in the sane condition as when imported. Included in the figures on exports of foreign merchandise is information on imported merchandise withdrawn from bonded storage warehouses for exportations. 1 Re-exports, however, are not to be confused with "in-transit and transshipment merchandise.*’ Whereas re-exports entered the United States as imports, the in-transit shipments ’’pass through the United States en route to destination in foreign countries” without ’’having been entered as an import.” The "in-transit figures” also include transshipments from one vessel to another in the same port inasmuch as 13 such shipments are not entered as imports. Imports of merchandise include shipments received into the United States with certain exceptions. Included in the exceptions are: 1. Merchandise not entering the United States Customs Area, [including:] a. Articles excluded from the United States by law as subversive, immoral, unsanitary, etc. b. Foreign merchandise entering the Foreign Trade Zone in the United States to be stored or manipulated under the provisions of the Foreign Trade Zone Act. c. Merchandise sent to public stores or a General Order warehouse, including cargo not entered in compliance with Customs regulations, merchandise unladen after the time limit set for the discharge of cargo, passengers’ baggage for which duties have not been paid, baggage not claimed within a reasonable time, etc. d. Bunker fuel, sea stores, ships’ stores, vessel supplies and vessel equipment purchased abroad by American or foreign vessels or aircraft and remaining on the vessels or aircraft. 2. In-transit merchandise. 3- Certain domestic merchandise returned from foreign countries, [including articles temporarily sent out of the country but] are not sold and do not enter into the trade of the country to which sent. 4. Gold, silver, and evidences of debt. 5. Merchandise having small value, or no commercial value. 6. Commodities entered under special provisions or commodities entered because of war conditions, not generally classified as imports. Additional terminology, sufficiently important to bear introduction at this point, includes several units of measurement. Were weights are involved, the ton of 2,240 pounds is used except where the ’’short ton” of 2,000 pounds is specified. Units of cotton are expressed in bales. The bale of ’’raw cotton" weighs "approximately 500 pounds per bale" while the bale of "cotton linters" weighs "approximately 600 pounds per bale." The unit used to measure "petroleum and products” is the barrel of 42 gallons. Bushels of wheat are consid- ered to weigh 60 pounds while bushels of corn, grain sorghums, and 15 corn weigh 56 pounds per bushel. States Department of Commerce, Navigation Laws of the United States, 1940, P- 599• Berglund, Ocean Transportation, p. 128. cit. States Treasury Department, Bureau of Customs, Customs Regulations of the United States, 1943 Edition, p. CR-1. cit. 7 Abraham Berglund, op. clt., p. 129. States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1944, Vol. I, Sec. A, pp. XI-XIX. 9 7 lbid., p. XV. IQ lbid., p. XIII. cit. ] 2 T - 1 - Loc. cit. 13 Ibid. , pp. XIX-XX. 14 Ibid., pp. VI and VII. TECHNIQUES In the development of the subject, the usual well-accepted techniques of research have been employed to secure and present the findings. Early port locations, omitted from current maps, were discovered in the early maps housed in the Archives Collection, of the University of Texas. Another problem of greater proportions was the determination of the ports and customs districts chronologically designated to serve the foreign trade over Texas boundaries. For the period during the Republic of Texas, these designations were secured from the publication The Laws of Texas as compiled and edited by H. P. N. Gammel. For subsequent designations, additional sources were used including various issues of the United States Statutes at Large, the United States Code, and the Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. The selection of the principal commodities exported and imported was another problem of considerable importance. The changing nature of the flow was the principal difficulty encountered. In some instances commodities of substantial importance in one of the years con 1 sidered dwindled to insignificance in other years. But all commodi ties representing $ per cent or more of the total imports or exports for any one of the years considered, were shown for the remaining years. In addition items of relative insignificance by themselves were included when those items contributed to the total for a given agricultural or manufactured product. For example exports of wheat flour were shown along with wheat while cotton seed, manufactured cotton goods, cotton seed oil, oil cake, and meal were shown along with unmanufactured cotton. Besides doing research in printed sources, the writer spent sev-17 eral weeks visiting the ports of Texas from El Paso to Beaumont. ' The purpose of this visit was to see the ports in operation and to discuss the foreign trade movement with port managers, customs officials, and middlemen. The response from the persons visited was most gratifying while the development at the ports was a fascinating revelation. , pp. XIV, XV. example imports of iron and steel in iB6O represented 23.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY One of the problems encountered in this study has been the one of keeping the data comparable. Data compiled by the government sources have been tabulated in the main according to customs districts whereas the emphasis of this study has been on the foreign trade movement over Texas ports. Fortunately, only two relatively minor exceptions have occurred wherein ports outside of Texas were assigned to customs districts served by one or more of the ports of Texas. The first exception occurred on March 3, 1913 when Columbus, Nev/ Mexico became a port 18 of entry in the El Paso Customs District. The second exception occurred on November 3> 1930 when Lake Charles, Louisiana was designated 19 a port of entry in the Sabine Customs District. A more difficult situation occurs when trying to compare data for one customs district with that of another. Frequent changes have occurred in the names, boundaries, and ports of entry allocated to the 20 various customs districts. Nor has stability in this respect been attained as indicated by the recent inquiries of the United States Treasury Department into the feasibility of consolidating the Sabine and Galveston customs districts. /mother adjustment in the presentation of data occurred in changing the statistical year used. After Texas entered as a state in 1845, one major change has occurred in this respect. For the years 1845 through 1918 "a fiscal year ending June 30 was used" while "a calendar 21 year" has been the basis for annual statistics "since 1919*” After the decision of Congress to change to the calendar year, some previous data were converted by the statistical staff to the calendar year basis. In presenting the foreign trade data in this study, the data based on the calendar year have been preferred although in each instance footnotes indicate the type of year used. The unceasing confiscation of merchandise moving illegally across the border also indicates that the recorded movement of merchandise does not reflect the whole. Besides the illegal movement, certain legal movements have passed unrecorded. For example, export data were required only of "any vessel bound to a foreign place" "up to and in-22 eluding 1892." Consequently, data on exports by land were acquired only through the courtesy of rail and other land carriers. S. G. Brock, Chief of the Bureau of Statistics of the Treasury Department, called attention to this defect in the law in 1891, stating: It does not appear that it would impose a greater hardship upon persons exporting goods to a foreign country over railways to furnish information in regard to the kinds, quantities, and values thereof than is now imposed upon them when exporting goods in The above discrepancy in collecting data has been modified whereby reports are required from aircraft in addition to the land vehicles However, data showing the destination of foreign merchandise in the United States are lacking. Furthermore, a regular tabulation of the data indicating the origin of merchandise shipped from the Texas ports is not available. Miscellaneous sources must be used to approximate the origin of merchandise shipped abroad and the destination of merchandise received at Texas ports. In estimating the future trends in the foreign trade movement, the study is subject to the usual limitations of like studies. Changing economic and political factors abroad as well as within the hinterland will determine the growth or decline of this trade. On the one hand, the continued development of competing products in foreign lands coupled with nationalistic trade controls, could materially restrict the movement of the foreign trade through Texas ports. On the other hand, tremendous economic pressures for increased trade are being created along the land and water ports of Texas which could make the more conservative estimates of future trade the least accurate. per cent of all imports over Texas ports but by 1900 represented only 0.1 per cent. visitation to the Port of Orange on the extreme eastern part of the state was cancelled in August 1947 when information revealed the port had not been activated since the cessation of hostilities. l%nited States Treasury Department, Bureau of Customs, Customs Regulations of the United States, 1943 Edition, pp. CR-1, CR-2. 19 Ibid., p. CR-5. detailed changes, see Chapter II under the topic '’Evolution in the designation of ports of entry and customs districts.” 21 United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1943, Vol. I, Sec. A, p. V. States Treasury Department, ’’Commerce and Navigation of the United States,” Year ending June 30, 1890, PP« LXXVII-DQCIX. 23 Ibid., p. LXXVIII. CONCLUSIONS The foreign trade through Texas ports has been a substantial factor in the development of Texas and the remaining hinterland. During the period of Spanish control, the economy was not self-supporting and depended upon importations to supplement the production of the Spanish missions. Under the government of Mexico and the Republic of Texas, the newly established colonists in the immediate hinterland looked pri marily to the sea for imports of coffee, sugar, and finished manufactures needed by a simple pioneering economy. In addition the colonial economy looked to the foreign markets beyond the sea to absorb the principal money crop, cotton. Thus foreign trade under the rule of Spain, Mexico, and the Republic of Texas was a major factor in the economic development of that part of the hinterland lying immediately behind the ports of Texas. Under the sovereignty of the United States, the influence of the land and water ports of Texas extended far beyond the immediate hinter land. The area including the five states of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico became particularly oriented to the ports of Texas, forming the Primary Hinterland. Beyond the Primary Hinterland, 14 additional states have found that the Texas ports serve economically as an alternate route for commerce with foreign markets. This Secondary Hinterland includes the states of Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, lowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. The internal extension of the hinterland in the past century can be attributed to three fundamental developments. First of all, the hinterland emerged from a pioneering economy to one with surpluses of raw and finished merchandise for the export trade. Second, a network of transportation facilities connected the interior with the ports as well as with the domestic centers of production and consumption. And, third, human ingenuity and effort overcame the natural barriers along the Texas Coast and Mexican border, providing channels for commerce with foreign countries and the necessary port facilities to accommodate the traffic. Each of these three basic developments formed inseparable links in the expansion of the hinterland, thereby enlarging the foreign trade of Texas ports. The surplus production resulted from the impact of a thrifty landhungry people upon the natural resources of the hinterland. The plains Indians were brought under control in the 1870’s with the aid of the Colt ’’six-shooter” invented in 1835 • Then the virgin prairie sod was turned with the use of the steel plow which supplanted the non-scouring and easily broken iron plow. Other mechanical introductions included the general use of windmills in the 1870’s and barbed wire in the 1880’s. Then, fortunately, drought resisting varieties of wheat, grain sorghum, and cotton were introduced into the plains country, assuring greater surpluses of these commodities for exportation. Large commodity surpluses also occurred from mineral discoveries. The first major discovery of oil and gas at Spindietop in 1901 stimulated a continued and successful search for these minerals. Sulphur, too, became sufficiently abundant to move in the export trade when the Frasch process, perfected in 1903, was later applied to known deposits of sulphur in Louisiana and Texas. Additional minerals which have found outlets in the foreign trade include potassium, particularly from mines in New Mexico; steel and iron products from iron ores in Texas and the Great Lakes region; and coal from Oklahoma. Other mineral exportations are in whole or in part the products of ores brought in from foreign countries but processed within the hinterland. Included in this group are copper, lead, antimony, zinc, and tin. Concurrently with the development of surplus products of mines, farms, and factories, transportation facilities improved markedly to act as a second factor in enlarging the hinterland and in increasing the flow of the products to and from Texas ports. Unfortunately, the pioneers did not have access to dependable cheap water transportation via the rivers of Texas and the animal-drawn vehicles plying the unsurfaced roads could not economically tap the potential surplus production of the present hinterland. Consequently the extension of the hinterland in the past century depended primarily upon the introduction of the railroad, supplemented by the use of pipe lines, highways airlines, and man-made waterways. These media of commerce serve not only to connect the interior with the water ports but also to open trade channels into Mexico. The third vital link in connecting the hinterland with the foreign markets of the world was the development of the necessary port facilities. At the land ports, the minimum of facilities was required to accommodate the continuous flow of cargo by rail, highway, and airline with Mexico. On the other hand expensive dredging operations have been required to cut and maintain deep-water channels through the alluvial bars along the Texas coast line and to canalize the shallow bays and rivers to the protected ports. To June 30? 1947 the cost of new work for providing channels and basins for ocean-going vessels at Texas ports was 49*6 million dollars while the maintenance cost was 46.2 million dollars. Although the cost for canalizing and maintaining the water channels involves large outlays of capital, the expenditures for terminal facilities far exceed that for the water channels. For example, the public and private facilities on the Houston Ship Channel alone are valued at approximately 116 million dollars or more than the total cost for dredging and maintaining the present deep-water channels and basins at all the ports of Texas. But the services rendered by these terminal facilities are commensurate with the cost. All forms of transportation which are utilized in moving the merchandise to and from the ports are provided access to the zones for discharging and receiving the cargo. Furthermore, spacious and specialized storage accommodations are available including grain elevators, cotton warehouses, general merchandise ware houses, transit sheds, tank farms, and acres of open storage space. Other outlays of capital are invested in docks and wharves, in mechanical devices for loading and unloading cargo, and in equipment for bunkering the ships while in port. In all instances the purpose of the installation of the port facilities was to handle the cargo and the transportation media more economically and efficiently. To bring about the desired efficiency, certain ports of Texas specialize in handling particular types of cargo. For example, Galveston and Brownsville have modern facilities for receiving banana cargoes while Corpus Christi specializes in receiving ores for local and inland smelters. Similarly Galveston maintains special equipment for receiving sugar and loading out sulphur while Texas City is noted as the only Texas port accommodating the Seatrain Lines. Such special ization in handling cargo extends to many other products including the major exports of grain, cotton, and petroleum products. In the above paragraphs attention has been called to the influential factors in the extension of the hinterland, including the role of surplus production, improved transportation, and adequate port facilities. In the paragraphs which follow, attention is directed to conclusions concerning the flow of the foreign commerce. In total value, the exports and imports have increased many fold since Texas became a state in 1845• In the first full fiscal year ended lune 30, 1847, no exports of value were recorded as compared to $29,826 in imports for the same year. By 1900, exports were valued at $105,293,000 and imports, $5,605,000. The trend continued upward during the twentieth century despite temporary retardations due to political and economic conditions of the world. All-time highs were reached in 1947 when the exports were valued at $1,448,400,000 and imports at $173,200,000. These latter values represented 10.0 per cent of the total exports and 3*o per cent of the total imports of the United States for that year. In the initial years of statehood, the import values exceeded the export values. The pioneer economy had little surplus production for exportation except cotton which ’was routed largely via New Orleans to foreign markets. On the other hand, domestic factories in the United States were unable to supply even the simple needs of the expanding domestic economy. Moreover wagon transportation from eastern states was costly compared to water-borne commerce from foreign markets. Consequently the tendency was to look to the import trade for the needs of the economy w T hile the surplus production of cotton entered the for- eign markets principally through a domestic port lying outside Texas. By 1860, the export values exceeded the import values. Cotton was taken to Galveston in quantities sufficient to justify lightering operations to ocean-going ships anchored beyond the alluvial bar. As the value of cotton and other exports increased, rail connections with growing factory centers to the north and east reduced the dependence upon importations of manufactures from foreign markets. These changes did not prevent an upward trend in import values but were influential in keeping imports well below the value of exports. The excess of the export values over the inport values since iB6O has been due principally to the exportation of the crude and processed products of five commodities, namely, cotton, mineral oil, wheat, sulphur, and iron. Raw cotton has continued to be the greatest single export since iB6O although the relative importance to the total value has declined from over 99 per cent in 1850 to 33«1 per cent in 1940. Nevertheless the total value of the cotton exported increased from §5,830,000 in iB6O to §482,072,000 in 1920 and then subsequently declined to §95,109,000 in 1940. Texas ports handled 60 per cent of the value of all cotton exported from the United States in 1930 and 44 per cent in 1940. The origin of the cotton is primarily in Texas and Oklahoma but ’’common movements” also originate in Arizona, New Mexico, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mexico. The major portion of the exportation is through Galveston and Houston, ports of the Galveston Customs District. A wheat surplus developed in the hinterland soon after the intro- duction of wheat to the plains in the 1870’s. However, exportation through Texas ports awaited the installation of terminal facilities at Galveston in the 1890’s. The value and volume of wheat exported through Texas ports has fluctuated widely although the trend has been upward. The origin of the wheat exports lies principally in the three states of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas while Galveston and Houston are the principal shipping ports. Large discoveries of mineral oil and natural gas in the hinterland after 1900 led to increased exports of crude and refined oils in addition to petroleum coke, petroleum asphalt, carbon black, and other refined products of lesser importance. The principal export item of this group has been refined oil valued at $3,021,000 in 1910, $123,- 469,000 in 1930, and $63,537,000 in 1940. In 1930 and in 1940 the exportation of refined oil represented 22 per cent of the total value of all exports from Texas ports. Compared to the nation, Texas ports handled only 4.3 per cent of the nation’s volume of refined oil exports in 1910 but 33.8 per cent in 1940. The principal ports for exporting these products are located on the ship channels of the Galveston and Sabine customs districts. Since the Frasch process was not applied to sulphur mines in Texas until 1912, exportation of sulphur in quantity came even later than the exportation of the products of mineral oil. From 1920 to 1930 the value of sulphur exports increased from $6,570,000 to sll,- 834,000. In 1940 the value was $9,928,000, accounting for 3-5 per cent of the value of all exports over Texas ports. For several years prior to 1932, 99 per cent of all domestic sulphur produced came from Texas. Since that year, Louisiana has shared in this production. The principal ports for exporting sulphur are Galveston and Freeport. Exportations of products of iron and steel, including machinery and equipment, did not gain prominence until after 1880. By 1900, 8.3 pei 1 cent of all exports through Texas ports were attributed to these commodities. For the years 1910, 1920, and 1930 the relative importance declined to range between 3*3 and 5.2 per cent. Increased preparations for war in 1940 was a major factor in increasing the export value to $45,603,000, accounting for 15-9 per cent of the total exports. Ports in all four customs districts receive these products in substantial quantities for exportation. These products should continue to be of considerable importance in the export trade since additional factories for producing and processing iron products have been added in the Primary Hinterland. Compared to the export trade, the articles imported have tended to be more diverse in nature and more changeable in relative importance. In iB6O manufactures of iron and steel accounted for 23.3 per cent of the total imports while manufactures of cotton represented 16.5 per cent. By 1900 each of these classifications represented less than 1.0 per cent of the total. Other items usually accounting for more than 5 per cent of the import total before 1900 were coffee, hides and skins, and living animals. Between 1890 and 1900 three other imported products gained in importance including copper and lead ores and refinements and raw jute and fiber. During the twentieth century, items in the import trade continued to be varied, showing marked fluctuations in value and importance relative to the Texas total. Data for the initial years of the decades 1900 through 1940 show r that not one import item accounted for as much as 5 per cent of the total for Texas ports in all years. Principal items imported included the tropical foods of coffee, cane sugar, and bananas; ores and/or metals of copper, lead, zinc, and antimony; crude petroleum; creosote oil; cattle; hides and skins; jute bagging; paper; and crude rubber. A study of the continents participating in the foreign trade move ment reveals that Europe, North America, South America, and Asia generally account for over 90 per cent of both exports and imports. By far the greatest receiver of exports from Texas ports during the twentieth century has been the continent of Europe followed by North America, Asia, and South America, in the order named. On the other hand, North America has been the principal source of imports, accounting for 79 per cent of the total in 1900 and 70 per cent as late as 1940. Europe, Asia, and South America have varied in relative importance although South America has in recent years tended to exceed Europe and Asia as a source of imports. Each of three countries in Europe and one in North America normally received 10 per cent or more of the exports from Texas ports. These countries were United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Mexico. Japan, Italy, and Spain received 4 to 10 per cent of the total in 1930 and 1940 while lesser but substantial quantities were received by the countries of Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, Cuba, China, Brazil, and Sweden. Sources of imports through Texas ports have come principally from the countries of Mexico and Cuba. Mexico supplied 78.9 per cent of the total in 1900 but declined as a source in subsequent years, accounting for 40.2 per cent in 1940. Cuba’s share of the import value rose from less than 1 per cent of the total in 1900 and in 1910 to 28.0 per cent in 1920 and then later declined to 14.2 per cent in 1940 reflecting principally importations of raw cane sugar. British India, Brazil, United Kingdom, Canada, and Colombia each supplied imports valued at 4*6 to 7-3 per cent of the total in 1940 but varied rather widely as sources of imports before that year. Consequently Mexico and Cuba remain as the two principal suppliers of imports received at Texas ports. A comparison of the foreign trade through Texas ports'with those of the Gulf Coast reveals relative gains for the Texas ports during the twentieth century. In 1900 the exports through Texas ports were valued at 42 per cent of those for the Gulf Coast but by 1947 the percentage had increased to 65 per cent. In the import trade, Texas ports increased the percentage of the value of imports received by the Gulf ports from 20 to 31 per cent. In the same period, relative gains in both exports and imports were also made by the Texas ports as compared to the ports of the Atlantic Coast. The relative increase in exports through Texas ports was from 11 to 18 per cent while imports increased from 0.8 to 5 per cent of the total for the Atlantic Coast. Comparison with the Pacific Coast shows Texas ports had a greater total exportation in both 1900 and 1947 than did the whole of the Pacific Coast. Yet exports at Texas ports fell from 147 per cent in 1900 to 134 per cent in 1947 of the value of exports from the Pacific Coast. However in the import movement, relative gains at Texas ports exceeded those at the Pacific Coast ports. Whereas Texas ports received only 9 per cent of the value in imports received on the Pacific Coast in 1900, the ratio was increased to 40 per cent in 1947- In accommodating the growing foreign trade movement, significant changes have occurred at the water and land ports of Texas. Many early settlements along the coast were established at points near the sea with the fond expectation of developing important water ports. Their choice was seemingly a wise one considering the necessity of lightering across the alluvial bars. However the tropical storms destroyed most of these hopes, forcing the virtual abandonment of several early sites, as in the case of Cavallo, Saluria, Port Bolivar, Sabine, and Indianola. Other ports like Sabine Pass, Port Aransas, and Point Isabel gained early prominence but were later overshadowed by ports located farther inland. Galveston was the lone exception of a port located on the Gulf which mastered the storms and continued as a major port. Fort development was also closely associated with the acquisition of deep-water channels. The first deep-water channel was completed in 1895 from Bolivar Roads to the rear of Galveston Island. Other major projects at Texas ports included the completion of deep-water channels to Port Arthur in 1899; Houston in 1915; Corpus Christi in 1926; and Brownsville in 1936. Other ports provided with deep-water channels were Orange, Beaumont, Sabine, Sabine Pass, Texas City, Port Bolivar, Freeport, Port Aransas, Port Ingleside, and Port (Point) Isabel. Once deep-water channels were available, the relative growth of individual ports depended upon the facilities provided, the schedules of vessels, and the cargo which could be attracted for the foreign trade movement. Land ports were established to serve the growing foreign trade movement. Along the border, major ports served the through movement of merchandise while a number of "accommodation ports”’ met the needs of local passenger traffic carrying purchases for personal consumption Among the ports established to serve the through traffic as well as the local traffic were the ports of El Paso, Presidio, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Laredo, and Hidalgo. Accommodation ports included such land ports as Rio Grande City, Roma, Ysleta, and Fabens. Back from the border and coast, other inland towns as San Antonio, Dallas, and Fort Worth have been designated as ports of entry, although the latter city was discontinued as a port of entry in 1940. Since the formation of the Republic of Texas, the ports have been organized under various customs districts. The present arrangement includes the El Paso, Laredo, Galveston, and Sabine customs districts. The ports of El Paso, Laredo, and Galveston have been designated as headquarters ports in their respective districts while Port Arthur is the headquarters port of the Sabine Customs District. As the foreign trade over the ports developed, direct and indi- rect values from the foreign trade movement have accrued to the state, the remaining hinterland, the nation, and the world. The development of foreign trade has been advantageous to Texas, first, because the ports have influenced the location of industries on or close to the deep-water channels; second, the producers and processors within the state have derived large returns from cheaper transportation to deepwater ports; third, the deep-water ports and facilities represent a tremendous capital investment within the state; and, finally, foreign trade through Texas ports has greatly enlarged employment and purchasing power directly and indirectly. The remaining hinterland also benefits greatly from the foreign trade movement through Texas ports. The foreign markets via these ports absorb the surplus production and give access to many needed products of foreign lands. The savings in transportation costs increase the profitableness of internal industries, encouraging greater investment in local productive facilities. Greater purchasing power results as personnel is required not only to operate the productive facilities but to service the personal needs of those working with these facilities. Benefits to the nation have been derived from the foreign trade movement at Texas ports in both war and peace. In war the ports have provided facilities for building military vessels and servicing their needs. In peace-time the added investment, employment, and purchasing power created by the foreign trade through Texas ports swell the national total. In doing so, demands for goods and services from all parts of the nation are increased, benefiting those industries and communities supplying those needs. More directly the tax load is made lighter. Industries dependent upon the foreign trade movement produce incomes which enlarge the revenue from income taxes. Other additions to the federal treasury result from increased importations of tariffbearing merchandise, further indicating the national importance of foreign trade through Texas ports. Global significance also attaches to the foreign trade movement. Products flow through the land and water ports, representing international specializations of labor and resources. Even under the restricted conditions of world trade, the exchange of these production specialties bring increased standards of living to all participants. Furthermore, Texas ports are strategically located in reference to certain world markets and production centers whereby savings are effected in transportation time and costs. Through these same avenues, allied nations receive military aid during times of war and expeditious relief in times of international emergencies. CHAPTER II POLITICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL SETTING Before attempting to explore the movement of foreign trade through Texas ports, a general understanding is needed of the political and geographical setting of the ports and hinterland. In presenting the political background, this chapter describes the boundary determinations, statutory regulations, and port designations. Then attention is devoted to the delineation of the hinterland, dividing it into primary and secondary areas. After defining the limits of the hinterland, consideration is then given its geographical characteristics. POLITICAL SETTING Foreign trade implications of Texas boundary determinations. As a republic and as a state, Texas has had boundaries conducive to foreign trade. On the Gulf of Mexico the boundaries have touched international waters on which the cominerce of nations have flowed. Land boundaries of Texas as a republic were contiguous with Mexico and the United States. Although considerable interest was shown from 1836- 1845 in regulating the commerce with Mexico and overseas countries, little effort was made to control the overland flow of commerce between the Republic of Texas and the United States. For all purposes of foreign commerce the boundaries were established by the Congress of the Republic of Texas on December 19, 1836. This body declared the boundary to begin ... at the mouth of the Sabine river, and running west along the Gulf of Mexico three leagues from land, to the mouth of the Rio Grande, thence up the principal stream of said river to its source, thence due north to the forty-second degree of north latitude, thence along the boundary line as defined in the treaty between the United States and Spain, to the beginning. l The above delineation of the boundary of Texas was recognized as the true boundary when Texas became a state, and in 1848 the Congress of Texas instructed the Texas delegation in the United States Congress to oppose the ratification of any treaty lessening the boundaries of Texas. As far as the boundary between the state of Texas and Mexico was concerned, this request seems to have been heeded for the Rio Grande River was still to be the boundary, commencing ’’three leagues from land, opposite the mouth of the Rio Grande” and extending to a point where the Rio Grande River ’’strikes the southern boundary of New 2 Mexico.” In order to agree upon a more precise line of demarcation, agreement was reached that the boundary should be "the middle of the river, 3 following the deepest channel, where it has more than one.” The Treaty of 1853 substantiated this boundary but specified the parallel of 31°47 T north latitude as the point in the Rio Grande River marking the northern boundary between Texas and As the years passed, Mexico and the United States were in fundamental agreement as to the boundary between them, but capriciousness of the Rio Grande River called for other treaties in 1884 and 1889- In the latter year the permanent International Boundary Commission between the United States and Mexico was established for the special 5 purpose of administering the Treaty of 1884 and subsequent treaties. In the Treaty of 1884, changes in the boundary were to be recognized when "effected by natural causes through slow and gradual erosion and deposit of alluvium and not by the abandonment of an existing river bed and the opening of a new A subsequent treaty, the Treaty of 1905, amended the Treaty of 1884 so as to provide for the new condition. The new provisions stipulated that ... the portions of land segregated by the change in the bed of the said rivers having an area of over two' hundred and fifty (250) hectares, or a population of over 200 souls, and which shall be considered as bancos for the purposes of this treaty and shall not be eliminated, the old bed of the river remaining, therefore, the boundary in such cases.? Care was taken in the inception of the International Boundary Commission to provide for the necessary staff to insure its success. By the Treaty of 1389 the Commission was to consist of two sections, one American and one Mexican, each composed of a commissioner, a con- suiting engineer, secretaries, and interpreters as provided in Article II of the Treaty of 1389- During the many years of existence, this Commission has been quite successful in solving the perplexing problems caused by a stream that is "alluvial in nature" and tends to "wander about over their flood plains." But the importance of the subject matter for decisions has greatly increased for whereas the Rio Grande River had few inhabitants near its "treeless and waterless" banks in 1845, today cities have been erected on both sides of the river. In one instance, the El Chamizal case, the river cut off an "area of about 600 acres" which is today "perhaps the most thickly 9 populated portion of the city of El Paso." This case is the only one which has defied settlement and is still the cause of international ill feelings and heated arguments in the Commission. As of this date this area is still under the jurisdiction of the state of Texas and the United States. I The Laws of Texas, 1822-1897, I, 1193-H94- 2 Charles A. Timm, The International Boundary Commission; United States and Mexico, p. 244• q cit. , p. 246. , Preface. 6 lbid., p. 248. , p. 253- Statutory basis for foreign trade through Texas boundaries. In the course of history, central governments have used legal enactments to impede or stimulate foreign trade issuing from ports under their authority. Texas under Spanish rule was no exception. Until Mexico gained her independence in 1821, Texas was required to trade with New Spain alone and under restrictions determined by Spanish decree. Not only was trade with other countries forbidden, but Texas could not trade with other Spanish dominions. While under the Mexican government, Stephen F. Austin encouraged the enactment of the decree of September 29, 1823 whereby imports from any country were exempted for seven years. Later decrees were more restrictive but much more favorable than under the Spanish domination and did encourage not only foreign trade but also the production of items moving in this trade. With the establishment of the Republic of Texas in 1836, the founders immediately took legislative action to establish seven districts for revenue purposes, thus indicating a willingness to open the boundaries to foreign trade. In 1845, Texas came under the jurisdiction of the United States, ceding her "ports and harbors" along with "other property and means pertaining to the public defence belonging to the said Republic of 12 Texas." Under the Constitution of the United States, "No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter*, clear, or pay duties, in another. This basic law of the United States cleared the statutory barrier to foreign commerce through Texas land and water ports. There were, however, certain regulations required of the foreign trade movements which were common to other states. No tax or duty 14 could be "laid on articles exported from any state." Neither could a state, ... without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress. To further clarify the position of the national founders, states were 16 forbidden to ’’lay any duty of tonnage." Neither could a state "de- fine and punish piracies and felonies, committed on the high seas," as 17 these prerogatives were delegated to the Congress of the United States. One other restriction could have been placed upon states excluding trade from Texas ports, that is by failure to designate specified ports for receiving foreign commerce. Had no land or water ports been designated in Texas, no legalized trade could have passed through its borders. For this reason, considerable attention must be devoted to the designation of ports of entry and customs districts in Texas. °As of 1940, on the Mexican side there were Cuidad Juarez with a population of 40,000; Matamoros, 11,400; Nuevo Laredo, 17,500. On the Texas side were El Paso, 97,000; Brownsville, 22,000; and Laredo, 40,000. Ibid., p. 17. , p. 132. Norval Richardson, Texas, The Lone Star State, p. 64. 1833, exports of cotton, "furs” (probably hides), and cattle were estimated by Alamonte to be $500,000. Even though most probably "a collection of guesses," it indicates the strides made under more favorable laws. Ibid., pp. 94-95* 12 The Laws of Texas, 1822-1897, I, 1303* A. Magruder, American Government, Appendix I, "Constitution of the United States," p. 8. Evolution in the designation of ports of entry and customs dis- tricts. Before presenting the evolution in the designation of ports of entry and customs districts, attention is directed to the current designations. At the present time, the ports of Texas lie within the four customs districts of Sabine, Galveston, Laredo, and El Paso which 18 are numbered from 21 to 24, in the order named. The ports of entry for each are shown in Chart I while the locations and designated areas are shown in Chart 11. Port Arthur, Texas is the ’’headquarters port” for the Sabine district which also embraces the ports of entry of Beaumont, Orange, and Sabine, Texas and Lake Charles, Louisiana. The ’’limits of the district" are defined as That part of the State of Texas from Sabine Pass north along State line to north boundary line of Shelby County; west to Neches River; down western shore of said river to north boundary of Jefferson County; westerly along said boundary to east boundary of Liberty County; south to Gulf. Also, the counties of Cameron and Calcasieu in the State of Louisiana. The Galveston Customs District has its ’’headquarters port” at the city of Galveston, while other ports of entry within this customs district are Dallas, Freeport, Houston, and Corpus Christi. For statistical purposes, data for Port Bolivar and Texas City are included under the Port of Galveston. The area covered by this district is designated more by exclusion than inclusion, in that the limits of the Abbreviations used: (CD), Customs District (HP), Headquarters Port (P), Port data for Port Bolivar and Texas City. G Formerly San Antonio. data for Port (Point) Isabel. Source of data: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1944, Vol. I, United States Import and Export Statistics, p. XXIII. customs district are defined as "’Die State of Texas, except districts 20 of Sabine, Laredo, and El Paso." Advancing from east to west along the southern border of Texas, Laredo is the next customs district encountered. Prior to November 22, 1939, this district was known as San Antonio. In addition to changing the name of the customs district to Laredo, the "headquarters port” was also changed to Laredo. Other ports of entry include those of Brownsville, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, San Antonio, .Hidalgo, Rio Grande City, and Roma. The area included covers "That part of the State of Texas lying west of 97° west longitude and east of the Pecos River, except those portions of the counties of Dallas, Aransas, and Refugio lying west of 97° west longitude and the counties of Tarrant, San — , . . AT ”21 Patricio, and Nueces.” The most westerly customs district is that of El Paso which has the ’’headquarters port” in the city by the same name. Other ports of entry within the district are Fabens, Presidio, and Ysleta, Texas and Columbus, New Mexico. The area included encompasses ’’The State of New Mexico and that part of the State of Texas lying west of the Pecos 22 River. ’’ Besides the ports serving land and water inodes of transportation ’’airports of entry” are designated whenever sufficient air cargo justifies the location of federal officers to service the trade. As of January 3, 1941, 4 of the 34 airports of entry designated by the Secretary of the Treasury were located in Texas. These 4 within Texas were located at the Municipal Airport, Brownsville, Texasthe Eagle Pass Airport, Eagle Pass, Texas; the Municipal Airport, El Paso, Texas; 2/ and the Laredo Airdrome, Laredo, Texas. + On October 26, 1943 "Laredo, Texas was revoked as an airport of but was later designated as a temporary airport of entry, a designation maintained in 26 February, 1949. Other airports in Texas have received designations as "landing right airports." Whereas airports of entry receive all aircraft in foreign commerce, landing right airports receive only those planes which have previously been granted a customs permit to land at the designated port. Among the Texas cities which have been designated from time to time as landing right ports are Dallas, Fort Worth, San 27 Antonio, and Houston. Prior to the present arrangement of ports and customs districts, numerous changes have taken place since Texas became a republic in 1836. The number of customs districts serving Texas ports has varied from a minimum of 1 to a maximum of ?• In addition changes have occurred in the names of the customs districts as well as in the ports of entry assigned to them. On December 27, 1835, the ’’General Council of the Provisional Government of Texas” passed "An Ordinance and Decree establishing and 28 imposing duties on importations and tonnage and for other purposes." Seven districts for revenue purposes ’were designated, namely, "District of Milam"; "District of Sabine”; "District of Galveston"; "District of Brazos"; "District of Matagorda"; "District of La Baca”; and the "District of Aransas." The ’’District of Milani” included ’’all that part of Texas from Balou’s Ferry, on the Sabine River, running with a line of the United States of America and Texas, until it strikes the Red River, (so as to . 20 include all the boundary of Texas)." ' Earles was "created’and established" as the port of entry for this district. The adjacent "District of Sabine" included "all that part of the Coast of Texas lying between the line of the United States of America on the River Sabine to the Western boundary line of Zavala’s Colony, including all bays, 30 harbours, rivers, creeks and inlets." The port of entry for this district was Sabine. The "District of Galveston Bay" had "Galveston Bay" as the designated port of entry. The area included in the district was "all that part of the coast of Texas between the Western line of Zavala’s Colony and Oyster Creek." Adjacent thereto was the "District of Brazos" with Brazos as the port of entry, serving "all that part of the coast of Texas, from the mouth of Oyster Creek to the entrance of Cedar Lake, into the Gulf." Beginning with Cedar Lake and extending "into the Gulf of Mexico, to the Western line of the jurisdiction of Matagorda" was the "District of Matagorda" with Matagorda as the designated port of entry. Continuing westward was the "District of La Baca" which had La Baca as the port of entry and served "all that part of the coast from the Western line of the jurisdiction of Matagorda to the Guadeloupe River." The most westward district was the "District of Aransas" with Copano as the port of entry. Then, to make sure no coast line was excluded between the Republic of Texas and Mexico, this district was to include "all that part of the coast from the Western line of the District of La Baca, as far as it may be necessary to include all the coast of the Government of Texas." It is significant to note that no provision was made for ports of entry along the land border. A few changes of importance were made by the Congress of the Re- public of Texas during the decade of its existence. In 1839, "La 31 Vaca” at the mouth of the "La Vaca River" was made a "Port of En- 32 try ,T> while the ’’City of Aransas” replaced Capano as the port of en- 33 try for the ’’District of Aransas.” Then in 1840 the decision was made to "annex the Port of San Luis to the Collectoral District of the Brazos,” removing this port from the "District of Galveston." As of 1841 the collectoral districts of Matagorda and La Vaca were consolidated into one, the "District of Port Calhoun." And finally, on January 29, 1845 the "District of Soda Lake" was created with Port Caddo , 34 as the port of entry. When Texas became a state, the Congress of the United States consolidated the customs districts of the state. The first legislation on the matter was approved on December 31, 1845, determining ’’That the State of Texas shall be one collection district and the city of Galveston the only port of entry, to which shall be annexed Sabine, Velasco, Matagorda, Cavallo, La Vaca, and Corpus Christi, as ports of 35 delivery only.” Regardless of this simplification into one customs collection district, the main entrances to the mainland, excepting the Rio Grande River, were covered by the established ports of delivery. Beginning on the east, the Sabine, Neches, Trinity, Brazos, Colorado, Guadalupe, San Antonio, and Nueces rivers were blanketed by this decree. On March 3, 1847 the new customs district of Saluria was created in ’’all that part of the State of Texas, south and west of the counties of Matagorda and Wharton, and including said counties.” The town of Saluria" was designated as the port of entry. Texas continued to be the name of the original customs district but Matagorda and Corpus Christi were deleted from its ports of entry for inclusion in the Saluria Customs District. Other ports of entry established under the 37 Saluria Customs District were Aransas and Copano. A ’’Collector” was provided for each port of entry, a ’’deputy collector” or ’’surveyor” for each port of delivery, and an ’’inspector” who would "inspect all 38 merchandise entitled to drawback under the provisions of this act.”"' The next two changes in the customs districts of Texas recognized the importance of the Rio Grande River and overland routes for foreign commerce. On March 3, 1849 the district of Brazos de Santiago was established from "all that part of the collection district of Saluria, south and west to the north side of Padre Island, in the Gulf of Mexi-39 co.” As Brownsville was still undeveloped, Point Isabel on the coast of the mainland was chosen as the port of entry. Brownsville superceded Point Isabel in this capacity as of June 16, The second change came on August 2, 1854 when the ’’District of Paso del Norte" was created to include "the county of El Paso in the State of 41 Texas and the Territory of New Mexico." The original port of entry for this customs district was Frontera, Texas, a little village lo- cated on the Rio Grande River a few miles northwest of the present 42 site of El Paso. In the following year Congress moved the port of entry from Frontera to Franklin. The name of Franklin was soon changed to El Paso and on March 3, 1863 this city was established as 43 the port of entry. 44 In 1860, just prior to the opening of the Civil War, La Salle replaced Saluria as the port of entry for the district of Saluria. During the Civil War from April, 1861 to April, 1865, the ports of Texas ’’were declared to be subject to blockade.’’ On the latter date, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed that the ports of Galveston, La Salle, Brazos de Santiago, (Point Isabel) and Brownsville, in Texas, are hereby closed, and all right of importation, warehousing, and other privileges, shall, in respect to the ports aforesaid, cease until they shall have again been opened by order of the President. These restrictions were retained until after the close of the Civil 46 War. In the year following the Civil War, 1866, the customs district of Corpus Christi was created from the district of Saluria. The new customs district was defined as ’’the counties of Nueces, Texas and the waters thereof included within the counties of Nueces, Starr, Zapata, Duval, Encino, Webb, La Salle, McMullen, Live Oak, Bee, Refugio, and San Patricio” with the towns of Corpus Christi and Aransas as the 47 ’’only port of entry" and "port of delivery," respectively. In the same Act, the Congress of the United States selected the town of Indianola to serve as the port of entry for the district of Saluria, replacing La Salle. Between 1868 and 1900 changes in the customs districts improved 48 principally the status of internal land-bound cities. San Antonio 49 and Houston were recognized as ports of delivery in 1868 and 1870, respectively. The former city was in the collection district of Saluria and the latter in what was termed the Galveston Customs District. Nevertheless, it was not until the fiscal year 1875-1876 that data for the original Texas Customs District were first recorded under the Galveston Customs District. Another inland town, Eagle Pass, displaced 50 Indianola as the port of entry for the district of Saluria in 1890. Then in 1892 Laredo became a subport of entry within the customs dis-51 trict of Corpus Christi. During the following year, ’'Aransas (Rockport)" was elevated from a port of delivery to a subport of entry and in 1898, Sabine Pass was "made a subport of entry and delivery in the customs district of Galveston." Between 1900 and 1914 one major and several minor changes occurred in the customs districts. Two minor changes occurred in 1904 and 1905 when in the former year Sabine Pass was discontinued as a 52 subport and in the latter year when Texas City became a subport. Both of the changes affected the Galveston Customs District as did the major one which followed. Tnis major change occurred in 1906 when the Sabine Customs District was established from an area formerly a part of the Galveston Customs District. The new customs district was delineated in 1906 in the same manner as described for 1944 with the exception that the counties of ’ 53 Cameron and Calcasieu, Louisiana were not originally included. After designating Port Arthur as the port of entry and Sabine as the subport, three other ports remained to be added at a later date, namely, Orange and Beaumont, Texas and Lake Charles, Louisiana. The last changes in customs districts for the period 1900-1914 occurred in 1913 when data for Houston were recorded under the heading “Interior Ports" rather than the Galveston Customs District. This arrangement was most tem- porary inasmuch as data for Houston were restored to the Galveston Customs District in each year thereafter. The year 1914 marks a turning point in the arrangement of customs districts in Texas and throughout the United States. By the Act of August 24, 1912, the President of the United States was ’’authorized to reorganize the customs service.” Under this authorization he could ’’abolish or consolidate collection districts, ports, and subports of 54 entry and delivery" with a view to a "reduction in expenses." More extensive than this initial authorization was a corollary one granted the President on August 1, 1914 which stated "the President is authorized from time to time to change the location of the headquarters in any customs-collection district as the needs of the service may re-55 quire." The report of the President, made on March 3, 1913, began by presenting a change in terminology designating '’customs-collection districts with district headquarters and ports of entry” in ’’lieu of all customs-collection districts, ports, and subports of entry and ports 56 of delivery now or heretofore existing.” In the President’s reorganization plan, major changes were effected in the customs collection districts in Texas. The customs collection districts of Brazos de Santiago, Corpus Christi, and Saluria were abolished. The name El Paso was substituted for Paso del Norte as a customs collection district and, of particular significance to this study, Columbus, New Mexico became a port of entry in the El Paso Customs District. This was the first instance wherein a port of entry outside the state of Texas was included under the jurisdiction of a headquarters port located in Texas. Another change on the border was the establishment of Eagle Pass not only as a headquarters port but also as the name of the 57 customs collection district ”in which Eagle Pass, Boquillas, Del Rio, and Presidio shall be ports of entry.” A creation by the President’s proclamation included the establishment of the customs collection district of Laredo which absorbed many of the ports from dissolved districts. Laredo, the town, became the headquarters port with Brownsville, Rio Grande City, Corpus Christi, Roma, and Santa Maria -2 as ports of entry. In the Galveston Customs District the only changes made involved the elimination of the subport of Velasco and the inclusion of the statistical data for Texas City with that of Galveston. Except for the change in terminology, Sabine Customs District was undisturbed because, as stated in the proc lamation, it was created a separate district on Tune 19, 1906 ”in consideration of the conveyance to the Government of Port Arthur Ship 59 Canal and other waterways.” Beginning in 1917 the Eagle Pass Customs District was abolished with Eagle Pass and Del Rio becoming ports of entry of the San Antonio Customs District. Moreover, Presidio and Boquillas were transferred 6 o to the El Paso Customs District. Also 1917 was the first year that the Laredo Customs District was changed in name to the San /Antonio Customs District with the town of San Antonio replacing Laredo as the headquarters port. Prior to 1917 San Antonio had been the port of entry in the Galveston Customs District. In the Sabine Customs District, the ports of entry of Orange and Beaumont were added temporarily in 1919 and permanently in 1927 with the exception that in 1935 data for Orange were omitted. Since November 3, 1930 Lake Charles, Louisiana has been a port of entry in the Sabine Customs District. This is the second instance in which an outof-state port of entry has been added to a customs collection district with headquarters in Texas. Few changes have occurred in the Galveston Customs District in the last three decades. Freeport was added temporarily in 1919 and permanently as a port of entry on June 15, 1937. Then Port Lavaca was abolished as a port of entry in 1922. A most recent and significant change occurred on November 22, 1939 when Corpus Christi was trans ferred from the San Antonio Customs District to that of Galveston. The present customs collection district of Laredo received this designation for the second time by Executive Order in 1939 although the first annual data were not classified under this heading until 61 1940. With this change, the town of Laredo became the headquarters port instead of San Antonio, which reverted to a port of entry. In the same year this customs district lost Corpus Christi to the Galveston Customs District. Other changes in the Laredo (San. Antonio) Customs District during the span of 30 years included the establishment of Hidalgo temporarily in 1919 and permanently in 1927 as a port of entry. Data for Roma were omitted for the years 1919 and 1923 through 1926. Both cities of Corpus Christi and Santa Maria had data omitted for the year 1919 and the latter city was discontinued in 1922 as a port of entry. Data for Port Aransas were recorded for the single year of 1919 while data for Fort Worth were given only for the years 1923-1939, inclusive. The customs collection district of El Paso lost one and gained two ports of entry within the last 30 years. Boquillas was discontinued in 1923 while Fabens and Ysleta were added as ports of entry on May 1, 1928 and June 15, 1937, respectively. In the foregoing discussion, a description has been given of the various changes in the port designations for customs districts which have their headquarters ports in Texas. In only two cases, Lake Charles, Louisiana and Columbus, New Mexico, are statistical data for ports of entry located outside of Texas given with headquarters ports located in Texas. The relatively small deviation permits a time analysis of the whole of the foreign commerce through Texas ports. On the other hand, the numerous changes in the ports of entry and the customs districts located within the state prevent comparison between data for the several customs districts without first ascertaining the ports included in each district for the period of time considered. cit. cit. cit. l?lbid., p. 6. lc> United States Department of Commerce, Navigation Laws of the United States, 1940, P« 310; and United States Code, 1940 Edition, Supplement V, January 3, 1941 to January 13, 194-6,” PP- 323-328. Laws of the United States, 1940, p. 310. 2 q Loc. cit. Pl Loc. cit. 22 Loc. cit. z> on January 10, 1946, the name of this airport of entry was changed to the Hio G-rande Valley International Airport. United States Code, 1940 Edition, Supplement V, January 3, 1941 to January 13, 1946, p. 327. States Code, 1940 Edition, Titles 17-33, P* 1651. 25pbid. } .Supplement V, January 3, 1941 to January 13, 1946, p. 328. 26 Personal interview with Alfred J. J. Taylor, Assistant Customs Collector, Port of El Paso, February 23, 1949. 27 t Loc. cit. O 0 °The Laws of Texas, 1822-1897, I, 104. 29 Ibid., pp. 104-105. phraseology "including all bays, harbours, rivers, creeks and inlets" was common to the last six customs districts defined. J This town is not to be confused with Port Lavaca located on the west side of Lavaca Bay. 32 The Laws of Texas, 1822-1897, 11, 77. 33 lbid., p. 393- 3^lbid. , pp. 558, 512, 1,081. -United States Statutes at Large, IX, 2. now extinct town of Saluria was located on the eastern tip of Matagorda Island across from Port Cavallo. J. H. Colton, Map of Texas, 1864. 37gvidence indicates that Aransas is not to be associated with either Aransas Pass or Port Aransas but rather as the current town of Rockport on Aransas Bay. United States Statutes at Large, XXVII, 434- Also Copano is no longer recorded by maps or the census but was located on the mainland of Refugio County contiguous to Copano and Aransas bays to the south. Colton, op. cit. States Statutes at Large, IV, 410* 3?lbid., IX, 409-410. 4 °lbid., XII, 39- 41 Ibid., X, 335- David Williams, Map of Texas, 1866. Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899, I, 9 Salle is not recorded on maps or by the Bureau of Census today but was located between the current towns of Port O’Conner and Indianola in Calhoun County. Colton, op. cit. States Statutes at Large, XIII, 753-754- 46 Ibid., p. 757. 47 Ibid., XIV, 30S. 43 Ibid., XV, 63. 49 Ibid., XVI, 278. 50 Ibid., XXVI, 470 , XXVII, 40-41. 5 2 Ibid., XXXIII, Pt. 1, p. 719. , XXXIV, Pt. 1, p. 302. A. Mallory, Compiled Statutes of the United States, 1913, 111, 2322. States Statutes at Large, XXXVIII, 623. op. cit., 111, 2323-2325. maps do not carry Boquillas currently due to its relative insignificance. It is located on the Mexican border in the southern portion of the Big Bend National Park. Further locating the village, Presidio lies to the west and Del Rio to the east. Maria is not located on current maps of Texas. A map published in 1908 shows the village to be on the banks of the Rio Grande River in the extreme southwest corner of Cameron County, Texas. Hammond’s Complete Railroad and County Map of Texas, 1908. op. cit., 111, 2324-2325- for the changes in customs collection districts beginning in 1917 were the annual issues of the following: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States; United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Customs, Customs Regulations of the United States, 1943 Edition. Executive Order of the President of the United States, November 22, 1939. CHART II CUSTOMS DISTRICTS, HEADQUARTERS PORTS, AND PORTS OF ENTRY FOR CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS, 19U 21. Sabine (CD): 23. Laredo (CD): c (P) d 01. Port Arthur, Tex. (HP) 01. Brownsville, Tex. 02. 03. 04. Sabine, Tex. (P) Orange, Tex. (P) Beaumont, Tex. (P) 02. 03. 04. 05. Del Rio, Tex. (P) Eagle Pass, Tex. ( Laredo, Tex. (HP) Hidalgo, Tex. (P) P) 05. Lake Charles, La. (P) 22. Galveston (CD) 07. 08. 10. Rio Grande City, Tex. (P) San .Antonio, Tex. (P) Roma, Tex. (P) 01. Galveston, Tex. (HP) b 24. El Paso (CD): 02. 03. 04. 05. Dallas, Tex. (P) Houston, Tex. (P) Freeport, Tex. (P) Corpus Christi, Tex. (P) 01. 02. 03. 04. 05. Columbus, N. Mex. El Paso, Tex. (HP) Presidio, Tex. (P) Fabens, Tex. (P) Ysleta, Tex. (P) (P) CHART I PORTS OF ENTRY AND CODE NUMBERS FOR CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN' TEXAS, 1944 a Delineation of the hinterland. No precise line of demarcation separates the hinterland of one port from that of another. However, certain political, topographical, and economic factors tend to delimit hinterlands with reasonable accuracy. State lines are used in delimiting the Primary and Secondary hinterlands because these boundaries approximate the area limits and facilitate the compilation of economic data. Predicated upon these areal determinations, studies can be made of their geography and economic development--important factors in the capacity of a hinterland to "feed or absorb" foreign commerce. The Primary and Secondary hinterlands of the Texas ports are presented in Chart 111. The Primary Hinterland includes those states which, experience shows, are particularly oriented to the ports of Texas. In the states of the Secondary Hinterland, economic and political factors permit Texas ports to share in the foreign commerce of those areas but only in competition with ports lying outside the state Beyond the Total Hinterland, comprising the Primary and Secondary hinterlands, the transportation costs to Texas ports are greater than to eastern or western ports. Consequently the states outside the Total Hinterland contribute a very small proportion of the exchange in foreign trade through Texas ports. In delineating the hinterland areas, consideration has been given to freight rates to and from the various ports and the flow of the traffic. The Corps of Engineers of the United States Army has given much attention to delimiting the ’’territory tributary” to ports in their port studies. Their findings indicate that freight rates on foreign commerce through ports influence to a large degree the direction of the flow. Nevertheless, this factor may not be the most potent one, especially where small freight rate differentials exist between ports. Under these circumstances the ports used are determined ’’more particularly by facilities available at the port for the handling and accomodation of traffic, the vessel lines operating to and from the port and other factors connected with the conduct and financ-63 ing of foreign trade.” In a recent port study by the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army, the Gulf ports of Texas and Louisiana are said to ’’serve the central sector of the United States, that is generally speaking the territory west of the Mississippi River and east of the continen-64 tai divide.** This areal determination results primarily because the Gulf ports ’’hold an advantage over the ports on either the Atlantic or Pacific Coast in that due to freight rate differentials a majority of 65 the traffic can move at less cost through Gulf ports.” From a ’’rail road rate viewpoint” all Texas Gulf ports ’’enjoy import and export class rates to and from points north of the Ohio River and extending as far east as Cincinnati which are on the same basis as the rates ap- 66 plying through Nevi Orleans and Mobile.” While this statement was made with particular reference to water ports, it is equally true for land ports including Laredo and El Paso. Even as late as Tune 20, 1946, the Interstate Commerce Commission authorized certain increases subject to the maintenance of previously established port differentials. As of that date the six all-rail class rates on exports in effect for merchandise shipped from Chicago, Illinois or Cincinnati, Ohio to New York were 3 cents per hundred 67 pounds higher than when shipped to southern ports. There were similar but larger differentials on all-rail class rates for imports 68 between the above cities. ° The Corps of Engineers also noted in another study that the port of Houston ’’serves an interior territory 69 embracing the Central States, including Michigan and Minnesota.” Therefore it seems reasonable to extend the eastern boundary of the competitive area served by Texas Gulf ports from the mouth of the Mississippi River north to Cairo, Illinois; from Cairo to Cincinnati, 70 Ohio; thence north along the state lines of eastern Indiana and eastern Michigan to the northern boundary of the United States. The competitive area on the west for Gulf ports extends from south to north along the western boundaries of the states of New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. Tills western boundary was 71 outlined by the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army. Later H. B. Cummings, General Manager of the Houston Port and Traffic Bureau, concurred in the following statement: Commodities that have origin or destination in the states west of New Mexico and Colorado and which move in considerable volume in foreign commerce through the Gulf Ports, generally have the same rates to and from the several Gulf Ports. However, much, if not most, of this traffic is competitive as between the Pacific Coast Ports and the Gulf Ports, the latter having the lower rates when their distances are the shorter. 72 Herein Cummings restates the prevailing principle that equal rates apply to foreign merchandise moving to all Gulf ports. However, since distances from Arizona and Utah to California ports are smaller than those to Texas Gulf ports, the advantage lies with the California ports. Even El Paso, Texas is farther from the eastern border of Ari-73 zona than is the port of entry of Nogales, Arizona. This necessarily places Arizona as well as Utah beyond the Secondary Hinterland. On the northern limits of this western boundary, foreign trade movements through Portland, Oregon and other Pacific ports are "on an equal basis with respect to import and export transcontinental freight 74 rates.” In ’’regions west of the Rocky Mountains” freight rates to Pacific ports are more favorable than to other ports of the United States. These favorable freight rates on the principal exports, grain and lumber, have been "instrumental in inducing a liberal movement of 75 these commodities" through the principal port of Portland, Oregon. Further clarifying the limits of the western boundary, the states which supported this movement were Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, all states west of the Rocky Mountains. Therefore, based upon the freight rate structure and the actual flow of the principal exports, the western boundary of the hinterland follows the western boundary of the states of New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. Having determined the exterior limits of the hinterland, attention is directed to evidence supporting the boundary between the Primary and Secondary hinterlands. This demarcation can be accomplished in part through a process of elimination and in part through inclusion Freight rates are not the only determining factor since all Gulf ports enjoy practically the same tariff on foreign trade items moving in and out of the Primary and Secondary hinterlands. Position and facilities at the ports become important determining factors in such circumstances. A report of the Corps of Engineers, relative to the Gulf ports, states that New Orleans holds a ’’favored position as the key port for the entire Mississippi-Missouri Basin territory by reason of its location at the mouth of the Mississippi River and its function as interchange point between ocean traffic and inland waterway traf-76 fic.” Consequently those states adjacent to the Mississippi and Missouri rivers tend to be oriented to the port of Nevi Orleans and lie 77 outside the Primary Hinterland of Texas ports by definition. By the method of inclusion, it is possible to determine those states from which foreign trade flows through Texas ports by an examination of the source of the three largest exports, namely, petroleum and petroleum products, wheat, and cotton. A study of the pipe lines bringing crude oil to the Texas Gulf refineries reveals that the states of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Louisiana contribute to this flow. Of these states, only Louisiana has been eliminated from the Primary Hinterland because of its relationship to New Orleans. Furthermore, a pipe line carries crude oil to New Orleans from the Shreveport area indicating a dual division of Louisiana’s oil production. 79 Studies of the grain movement through Texas ports indicate that the "bulk of the movement” originates in "Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and North Texas. From this group of states, only Missouri is eliminated from the Primary Hinterland because of the highly competitive position of Nev; Orleans in attracting the foreign trade originating in Missouri. Traffic by water can pass all the way from Kansas City to Nev; Orleans by boat. While it is true that these same barges could pass on to Texas ports via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway the proximity of New Orleans en route gives that city the initial advantage. The states of the hinterland from which cotton exports originate are limited by natural factors to Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkan- sas, and Louisiana. Texas alone furnishes by far the larger portion 81 of the total cotton exports. Of the other states, only New Mexico and Oklahoma can be considered as particularly oriented to Texas ports In review the states particularly oriented to Texas ports include Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma, that is, the Primary Hinterland. Comprising the Secondary Hinterland are the remaining states within the Total Hinterland, namely, the states of Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, lowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Having determined the states within the Primary and Secondary hinterlands, attention can now be devoted to the geography of the ports and the hinterland. oz The term ’’hinterland*’ is of German origin, meaning land back of the port or coast. These areas ’’feed or absorb water-borne traffic — in other words, export and import.” Abraham Berglund, Ocean Transportation, p. 129. In this study, the meaning must be enlarged to include the land back of land ports of entry as well as water ports. °3corps of Engineers, United States Army, The Port of Galveston, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 1, Revised 1928, p. 121. of Engineers, United States Army and United States Maritime Commission, The Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, Texas, Port Series No. 22, Revised 1946, p 7 265. 6^lbid. , p. 267. Port of Galveston, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 1, Revised 1923, p. 121. 67 The Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, Texas, Port Series No. 22, Revised 1946, 54- 68 Ibid., p. 53. B sCorps of Engineers, United States Army, The Port of Houston, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 2, Revised 1935, p. 117- preserve state lines as boundaries, the eastern side of Indiana will be utilized as the eastern boundary north from the Ohio River. Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, Texas, Port Series No. 22, Revised 1946, p. 265’. B. Cummings, '’Houston’s Geographical Position on the Gulf of Mexico,” Houston Port Book, May, 1946, p. 31* 73 Direct mileage from El Paso to the eastern border of Arizona is approximately 150 miles while Nogales lies approximately 125 miles west of this same border. Hammond ’s Nev; Supreme Illustrated Atlas of the World, pp. 33 and 64. of Engineers, United States Army, The Port of Portland, Oregon, Port Series No. 11, Pt. 1, p. 152. 7> Ibid., p. 147. Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, Texas, Port Series No. 22, Revised 1946, p. 268. 77 The Primary Hinterland includes those states which, experience shows, are particularly oriented to Texas ports. 7&A. E. Parkins and J. R. Whitaker, Our National Resources and Their Conservation, Second Edition, p. 444 and, for further discussion on pipe lines and the flow of petroleum in the hinterland, see sections on "Pipe line transportation," "Mineral production," and "Manufacturing" in Chapter 111 of this study. cit. Port of Galveston, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 1, Revised 1928, p. 122. The expansion of grain production in these states and the railroad facilities to Texas ports are discussed in Chapter 111 of this study. See sections on "Railroads" and "Agricultural production." CHART 111 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY HINTERLANDS OF TEXAS PORTS GEOGRAPHICAL SETTING OF THE PORTS OF TEXAS Geography of the water ports. Along the coast of Texas the canalized bays and river beds provide protected harbors for loading and unloading merchandise in the foreign trade. The natural embayments are the outcome of the ’’continuous and relentless struggle between the en-82 crouching waters of the Gulf and heavily loaded, large streams.” Serving as increased protection from the Gulf of Mexico, the ’’long narrow peninsular and island barriers” lie parallel to the banks of the coastal region. These barriers are also the product of "the conflict between the sea and land," brought about by the resistance of the prevailing winds, waves, and tides, "forcing back the sand and 83 silt, and molding them in their present forms." 0 In Chapter VII, "Port Facilities, Services, and Administration," a description is given of the channels and jetties which have been constructed to permit ocean-going vessels to utilize the protected harbors. Responsible for the alluvial flow of water and sediment to the Gulf are several moderately large rivers which are fed by surface streams in Texas, New Mexico, and Louisiana. On the east there is the combination of the Sabine and Neches rivers which empty into the Sabine Lake. The beds of these rivers have been improved, providing deep water channels to Orange and Beaumont. The two rivers drain approximately 200,000 square miles of surface, 197,300 square miles in 84 East Texas and the remainder in Louisiana. Both rivers "rise” in northeast Texas and flow in a southeasterly direction to Sabine Lake, the Sabine River traveling approximately 550 miles and the Neches River, 300 miles. While the average annual rainfall for this drainage area ranges between 40 and 60 inches, the discharge of water is most unpredictable, varying greatly from year to year as well as from season to 85 son. Before reaching the Gulf, the flow of water passes through Sabine Lake, finally reaching the Gulf by way of Sabine Pass. Inas much as Sabine Lake naturally has only "an average depth of about 6 86 feet,*’ canalization was necessary before vessels in foreign trade could be accommodated. To the west of the Sabine and Neches watershed and embayment lies another, the San Jacinto and Trinity river area. The basin of these two rivers is approximately 70 miles wide and covers an area of ap-87 proximately 21,000 square miles. The Trinity River originates in the vicinity of Fort Worth and Dallas and extends in a general southeasterly direction about 350 miles to Galveston Bay. The San Jacinto River basin is much shorter, lying within the Coastal Plain. The rainfall in the basin of the Trinity and San Jacinto rivers is 30 to 40 inches beyond the Coastal Plains and 40 to 50 inches with- in it. This basin is also plagued with floods and droughts due to the 88 erratic nature of the rainfall. While both rivers have been sur- veyed for the possibilities of increased navigation, only the San Jacinto and its tributary, Buffalo Bayou, have been developed for ocean-going ships. Galveston Bay, into which the Trinity and San Jacinto rivers flow, is a large irregularly shaped body of water, approximately 30 miles long and 17 miles in width at the widest part. The entrance to the Gulf is Bolivar Roads, a narrow body of water between Bolivar Penin-89 sula on the east and Galveston Island on the west. Since the natu- ral depth of the bay is 7 to 9 feet, canalization was required in order to accommodate ocean-going vessels. In an area of over 83,000 square miles 'within the central portion of Texas and the eastern edge of New Mexico, lie the Brazos and Colorado river basins. The area covered by the basins extends approximately 600 miles in a northwesterly direction from the Gulf into the 90 South High Plains where the average altitude is close to 4,000 feet. The mean annual rainfall varies from 14 inches in parts of New Mexico to over 40 inches near the coast. While the Colorado River has developed the usual embayment, the mouth of the Brazos River is quite immature in this regard, .emptying 91 directly into the Gulf approximately 6 miles below Freeport.' At the town of Matagorda, the Colorado River flows into Matagorda Bay which is protected by Matagorda Peninsula and Matagorda Island. The waters enter the Gulf by way of Cavallo Pass, a water passage between the 92 protecting peninsula and island. Between Matagorda Bay and Corpus Christi Bay are two lesser embay- ments, the San Antonio and Copano bays which are fed by the Guadalupe and Aransas rivers, respectively. Matagorda Island protects San /into nio Bay while St. Joseph Island protects Copano Bay. Currently these embayments are of little significance to the foreign trade movements. The next embayment to the south and west is Corpus Christi Bay which now carries foreign trade since ocean-going vessels may now exchange cargo at Corpus Christi. The bay is supplied with water from the Nueces River Basin which covers an area of approximately 16,500 93 square miles. The natural depth of Corpus Christi Bay is 8 to 14 94 feet throughout, requiring canalization for ocean-going vessels. Entrance from the Gulf is by way of Aransas Pass which severs the Pro-95 tecting islands of St. Joseph on the north and Mustang on the south. South of the undeveloped Corpus Christi Pass is Padre Island which extends over 150 miles along the coast to Brazos de Santiago Pass. At this pass, entrance is gained to the waters serving Port 96 Isabel and Brownsville, located at the mouth of the Rio Grande River. 'The basin of the Rio Grande River is approximately the size of 97 California and is located in Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, and Mexico. Beginning with tributaries over 13,000 feet in altitude and in areas where rainfall is as much as 35 inches, it crosses semiarid regions to reach the Gulf where the mean annual rainfall is approximately 25 98 inches. Despite the flow of water discharged by the Rio Grande River, the embayment is too shallow for ocean-going vessels without canalization. The above discussion completes the presentation of the land and drainage features of the coastal region of Texas, particularly as they permit or impede the flow of foreign commerce. Certain other physical features of the coast deserve consideration for they, too, stimulate or retard the flow of trade. Included in these features are the temperature and open season for navigation, the precipitation and presence of fogs, the tides, and the prevailing winds. In studies presented by the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army, each Texas Gulf port has been characterized as "navigable throughout the year." The location of the Texas Gulf ports is the major contributing factor inasmuch as all lie between 30-5 and 25.5 degrees latitude, a range of latitude similar to that of the peninsula 99 of Florida. Meteorological data on temperatures for the Texas Gulf ports show that the month of January maintains the lowest "daily mean minimum temperature" for any month of the year. Even during January the temperatures for the several ports are quite high: Beaumont, 44-9° F; Hous- ton, 43-3° F; Galveston, 48.3° F; and Corpus Christi, 48° F. While short cold periods do occur, the effects are mitigated by the warmth 100 of the surrounding water and land temperatures. Conditions of fog and rainfall vary considerably from port to port. From November to April, inclusive, fogs may occasionally be encountered in the Sabine Lake and Galveston Bay areas. They tend to be more dense at the harbor entrances and prominent points. The southerly winds bring the fogs inland, while the northerly winds tend to clear them away. At the ports located on the western side of the Texas Gulf Coast, the period of fogs begins in November and extends 102 only to March, one month less than for the Galveston Bay and Sabine Lake areas. Due to the relative position of the southern ports to the 103 Gulf, the east winds more often tend to bring fogs inland while opposing winds dissipate them rapidly. In all inland Texas ports, no great difficulty is experienced due to the brief duration of fogs. The heavier rainfall occurs at the more easterly Texas ports. In the Sabine Lake area, the mean annual rainfall is approximately 54 inches with Port Arthur receiving 53-39 inches and Beaumont, 53-66 104 inches. Proceeding westward toward the generally more arid regions precipitation declines. Mean annual precipitation for Houston and Gal' . 105 veston is 47-13 and 47-06 inches, respectively, but for Corpus 106 107 Christi and Brownsville, the readings are only 24-93 and 25 inches, respectively. In all Texas ports, the heavier rainfall tends to come in the summer months from May through September. Wo other physical factors affecting the movement of commerce to and from Texas water ports are the tides and prevailing winds. The maximum normal high tidal action occurs once a day when the moon's declination is greatest, north and south. However, when the moon is near the equator, there are two high tides daily, though small. At 108 the entrance to the jetties, the high tide may reach 2 feet though 100 the mean tidal variation at this point is 1.5 feet. Within the bays and along the river channels, the tidal effect is counterbalanced by a much more potent factor, the prevailing wind, which at times markedly disturbs the water level. In the Galveston Bay area, the east and southeast winds raise the water "from 2 to 4 feet above mean low tide" while "northerly and westerly winds force 110 the water out of the bay" to "2 or 3 feet below mean low water." In Corpus Christi Bay, "east and northeast winds raise the water from 0.5 to 2 feet, while north and w r est winds may depress it 0.5 to 1 111 112 113 foot." Also the inland ports of Brownsville, Houston, and are affected by the combination of the winds and tides. However, the rise and fall of the water level is not the most distressing feature attributable to the wind. Outright destruction of ships and port facilities may be expected from lune to October unless weather warnings are heeded. Maximum wind velocities for this period 115 116 at Galveston have reached 93 miles per hour, while Houston and 117 Corpus Christi have experienced gales of 80 and Q 0 miles an hour. Much effort is now being expended in order to ascertain the speed and direction of the Gulf storms. This meteorological information tends to prevent damage to shipping by suggesting anchorage or travel in safe waters. 1926, approximately 80 per cent of the cotton exported through Texas ports came from Texas. Loc. cit. 82 F. B. Plummer, "Cenozoic Systems in Texas," The Geology of Texas, I, 526-52?. William Simonds, The Geography of Texas, Revised Edition, pp. 17-18. Texas Planning Board, Development of Texas Rivers, pp. 7-8. minimum recorded annual discharge of the Neches and Sabine rivers were only 16 and 21 per cent, respectively, of the mean annual discharge. Loc. cit. 86 John F. Budd, Custom House Guide, 1942 Edition, p. 380. 87 ’"The Texas Planning Board, op. cit. , pp. 23-25. 88 ' In 1929 and 1935, Houston was subjected to damaging floods, inundating sections of Houston and silting the Houston Ship Channel temporarily. Ibid., pp. 24-29- Paul Goode, Goode T s School Atlas, 1946 Edition, pp. 80-81. 9°The Texas Planning Board, op. cit., pp. 42-43- 91 7 Goode, op. cit., p. 81. s New Supreme Illustrated Atlas of the World, p. 75- 93 The Texas Planning Board, op. cit., p. 84. of Engineers, United States Army, The Ports of Texas City and Corpus Christi, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 3, Revised 1935, P- 77- New Supreme Illustrated Atlas of the World, p. 75- McNally, World Atlas, Premier Edition, pp. 66-67. 97 The Texas Planning Board, op. cit., p. 97- 98 Ibid., p. 98. 99 Goode, op. cit., pp. 58-59. States Weather Bureau records show that Houston experienced its ’’lowest temperatures of record” with a 5 degree Fahrenheit reading. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1946, p. 151- Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, Texas, Port Series No. 22, Revised 1946, p. 3; and The Port of Galveston, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 1, Revised 1935, P- 3- 102 The Ports of Texas City and Corpus Christi, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 3, Revised 1935, P- 79- cit. Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, Texas, Port Series No. 22, Revised 194'6", PP- 3 and 72. Port of Galveston, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 1, Revised 1935, P- 3- Ports of Texas City and Corpus Christi, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 3, Revised 1935, P- 79- 107 The Texas Planning Board, op. cit. , p. 98. Ports of Texas City and Corpus Christi, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 3, Revised 1935, P- 78. Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, Texas, Port Series No. 22, Revised 1946, p. 2. Port of Houston, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 2, Revised 1935, P- 2. ~m~The Ports of Texas City and Corpus Christi, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 3, Revised 1935, P« 78. 112 Budd, op. cit., 1945 Edition, p. 57• Port of Houston, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 2, Revised 1935, P- 2. Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, Texas, Port Series, No. 22, Revised 1946, p. 71. 115 The Port of Galveston, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 1, Revised 1935, P- 4. Port of Houston, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 2, Revised 1935, P- 4. Ports of Texas City and Corpus Christi, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 3, Revised 1935, P* 79- Geography of the border ports. Physically the Mexican border presents no insurmountable barriers to foreign trade. Only the Rio Grande River separates Texas from Mexico. Behind this boundary on the Mexican and Texas sides roadbeds for highways and railroads have been built where traffic could support the expenditure through the sparsely settled areas. Even in the vicinity and to the west of the Port of Presidio, the various ranges of the Sierra Madre Occidental in Mexico and the Rocky Mountains in the United States have not presented any insolvable transportation problems. At El Paso the famous "pass to the north" gives 118 access in all directions from that city, ' even though encompassed by 119 mountains rising from 5,000 to 10,000 feet in height. From a point approximately 100 miles west of Del Rio to the mouth of the Rio Grande River, mountains are not encountered near either side of the Mexican border. However, the Mexican portion of the Pan American Highway and the National Railways of Mexico do encounter some difficult terrain in the Sierra Madre Oriental Mountains situated between Laredo and Mexico City. This eastern portion of the land border also progressively loses altitude from west to east. The Llano Estacado, with an elevation ranging between 2,000 and 5,000 feet above sea level, falls at the entrance of the Pecos River into the Rio Grande River with a drop in altitude of 1,000 to 2,000 feet. Rapidly the altitude continues to decline until at Laredo the level is approximately 500 feet above sea 120 level and at Brownsville the altitude approximates sea level. Temperature and rainfall along the land boundary rarely ever cause difficulty in transportation. At El Paso, snow is unusual and the ’’average normal daily temperatures for the coldest 14 days of the year” is 43° F while at San Antonio, a land port of entry, the reading o 121 is 51 F. North of El Paso the weather is 'much colder and the usual winter hazards of ice, sleet, and snow are common in the mountainous regions. During the rainy seasons of the year, occasional flash floods do endanger the bridges of the railroads and highways as 122 well as their roadbeds. Augmenting the damage is the force of the arroyos which is due to the steep declines of the terrain. 5. Highways 80 and 70 as well as the Southern Pacific Railroad extend from El Paso to California via valleys in the Rocky Mountains. The Santa Pe Railroad and U. S. Highway 85 follow the Rio Grande River north via Albuquerque and Santa Fe, New Mexico. U. S. Highway 54 and the Southern Pacific Railroad follow valleys between mountain ranges to connect with a continental highway and rail route at Tucumcari, New Mexico. U. S. Highways 62 and 80 follow passes to reach outlets via Carlsbad and Hobbs, New Mexico. Routes to points east include Highway 90 and the Southern Pacific Railroad which reach San Antonio via Alpine and Del Rio. To the northeast, U. S. Highway 80 and the Texas and Pacific Railroad serve as outlets by way of Fort Worth and Dallas. South into Mexico is a hard surfaced road and the National Railways of Mexico leading to Mexico City via Chihuahua. Map of the Southwest, Rand, McNally and Compahy, 1946; and "Railroad Mileage Map of the United States," ViTorld Atlas, Premier Edition, 1946, p. 19 O£. cit., p. 59- 12Q Ibid., pp. 58-59. i al Burton E. Livingston and Forrest Shreve, The Distribution of Vegetation in the United States, as Delated to Climatic Conditions, p. 239. Location relative to world trade routes. Before appraising the proximity of Texas Gulf ports to the world trade routes, it is important to review briefly which routes are considered as important. While students of ocean trade routes give different names to the major trade routes, they agree on the directions and destinations of the ocean traffic. Doctor Leslie A. Bryan, Professor of Transportation at Syracuse University, presents a classification and appraisal of these routes in his text published in 1939 on the eve of World War 11. Doc-123 tor Bryan’s classification of world trade routes is as follows: (1) the North Atlantic route, (2) the North Pacific route, (3) the South African route, (4) the South American route, (5) the South Pacific route, (6) the Panama Canal route, (7) the Suez Canal route, and (8) the Caribbean Sea route! While ships visiting the Texas Gulf ports ply all of the major trade routes, they particularly travel the North Atlantic route, the most important of all. The reasons are threefold. First, the major portion of exports through Texas ports flow to the eastern termini of the North Atlantic route, "the ports of Europe, Great Britain and Medi-125 terranean Africa.” The second reason is the cheapness of refueling at the Gulf ports. The third reason is the "effect of the arc of the great circle” on distances from Gulf waters to eastern termini of the North Atlantic route inasmuch as the "most direct route from Great Britain to the Panama Canal is only 323 miles shorter than by way of 126 Nev/ York City.” Doctor Bryan goes so far as to recognize the "Gulf ports” as the western termini of the North Atlantic route along with 127 "the eastern" ports of the North American continent. ' Texas Gulf ports also are favorably situated for participation in the trade of the Panama Canal and Caribbean Sea routes. The opening of the Panama Canal in 1914 gave great impetus to this movement. For example, ships sailing from New York to Sydney, Australia and Yokahama, Tapan save 3,932 and 3,768 nautical miles, respectively, by using the 128 canal. In addition the Panama Canal permits the delivery by the same vessel of foreign cargo to ports on the Atlantic, Caribbean, and Pacific coasts. With the continued economic development of the Caribbean and South American countries, the foreign trade movement through the Caribbean and Gulf regions should materially increase. The forces increasing the productive capacity, along with the broadened purchasing power, of these countries should be very effective in promoting the exchange of supplementary and complementary products. September of 1932, cloudbursts occurred in the Big Bend section of Texas and on the Mexican tributaries of the Rio Grande River, causing the river to rise to 52.20 feet at Laredo, the highest measurement on record there. Timm, op. cit., p. 19. 123 Doctor Bryan’s designation of ’’major” ocean routes is an enlargement of the ’’important" ocean routes prepared approximately a decade earlier by Professor Abraham Berglund. The latter author combines the North and South Pacific routes into one and omits, as relatively unimportant, the Caribbean and Panama Canal routes. Doctor Bryan justifies his inclusion of the latter routes on the basis of the relative growth of the Caribbean and Panama Canal routes in recent years. Berglund, op. cit., p. 107. A. Bryan, Principles of Water Transportation, p. 187. 125 _ / "In 1933, exports through Houston totaled cargo tons of 2,240 pounds. Of this total, 1,415,497 tons went to the countries of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and the Canadian Atlantic ports while the remainder was shipped "to various parts of the globe." The Port of Houston, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Pt. 2, Revised 1935, P. 118. 2 Bryan, op. cit., p. 188. 127 Ibid., p. 187. 12^Ibid. , p. 195. GEOGRAPHICAL SETTING OF THE HINTERLAND Topography and soils. The Primary and Secondary hinterlands of the Texas ports of entry embrace a large segment of the central portion of the United States. Within this area are portions of the Pocky Mountains on the west, the whole of the Great Plains Province, the major portion of the Central Lowland, and a large segment of the Coastal Plain. Of lesser magnitude in the hinterland are those physical divisions known as the Ozark Plateau, the Ouachita Province, and a 129 small segment of the Superior Upland. 130 Within the Primary and Secondary hinterlands are areas of 645,- 407 and 988,709 square miles, respectively, making a grand total of 131 1,634,116 square miles. Compared to the 3,022,387 square miles of the United States, the Total Hinterland represents 34«0 per cent of the domestic land mass. Lying back of the Texas Gulf ports are the Coastal Plains which extend inland to include such cities as San Antonio, Austin, Waco, Dallas, and Bryant (Oklahoma). The northern boundary of the Coastal Plains continues northeastward bypassing to the south of the Ouachita Province and Ozark Plateau to include the city of Little Rock, Arkan-132 sas and the southeastern tip of Missouri. While the major portion of the area is less than 500 feet in altitude, regions next to the 133 fault line vary between 500 and 1,000 feet in altitude. In the main, the soils adjacent to the Gulf Coast are "poorly drained," "dark colored," and of a "calcareous" nature. Between the Sabine Lake area and New Orleans, the soil is "marsh and swamp" near the Gulf. In the region from Corpus Christi to Brownsville, the cal-134 careous soils are supplanted by those of a sandy nature. Beyond the calcareous soils of the coast, the ’’yellowish sandy loams” appear. These soils are particularly predominate in eastern Texas, southern Arkansas, and western Louisiana. The next soil region includes a narrow belt lying next to the fault line with its "highly calcareous" black soils. Typical of these soils are the Black Prai-135 ries about Austin and Dallas. In the southern portion of the Coastal Plains, the "yellowish sandy loams" and "black soils" are replaced by "brown soils" with "calcareous subsoils." Leaving the Coastal Plains, the land elevation rises sharply, entering the Great Plains Province on the south at the Edwards Plateau and the Central Lowland at the northward extension of the "North Cen-136 tral Plains" of Texas. The Central Lowland has southerly limits in the vicinities of Abilene and Port Worth and extends in a northeasterly 137 direction to include the most fertile farm lands in the United States. The boundary skirts the Ouachita Province and Ozark Plateau to include northern Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana. On the west, the boundary is determined by an escarpment which separates the Central Lowland from the Great Plains and lies in general between the 97th and 100th 133 meridians. The altitude in the Central Lowland varies from approximately 750 139 to 2,000 feet while the principal soils are of the various shades of "brown." In Oklahoma and Texas, the "dark brown" to "dark chocolate brown" soils, with "clay" and "calcareous" subsoils, predominate. In much of lowa, Illinois, and Minnesota, the "dark brown silty soils" with "yellowish brown subsoils" prevail. Within the Great Lakes area, the tendency is toward brown soils of a silty or gravelly nature. Particularly is this true in the small segment of the Superior Upland region that extends below Lake Superior. The principal "black soils" with "highly calcareous subsoils" are found in the states of North and 140 South Dakota. West of the Central Lowland is the Great Plains Province which extends to the Rocky Mountains. The altitudes of this region range z 141 between 1,500 and 6,500 feet. The soils of this region are princi- 142 pally the rich "chestnut brown soils" with "calcareous" subsoils. However, substantial exceptions occur in the southern portion of the region and in the northern portion of Nebraska. One exception is in the area extending south of Abilene to a point on the Rio Grande River below the confluence of the Pecos River, where the "shallow, stony soils from limestone" are prevalent. Here the plateaus, in the later stages of maturity, merge into the Edwards Plateau, forming rough, marginal lands. Another exception occurs in the area along the Pecos River and south of this river to the Rio Grande, where the "gray or brown soils of arid regions" predominate. Also the "chestnut brown soils" give way to "sands" in substantial areas located in the northern portion of Nebraska and in Texas and New 143 Mexico in the vicinity of the southeast corner of the latter state. West of the Great Plains Province is the Rocky Mountain Region that covers major portions of Nev; Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and western Montana. The land is mainly ’’rough and mountainous" but includes rather large segments of the "gray or brown soils of arid regions." This is in contrast with the Ozark Plateau and the Ouachita Province, located.in southern Missouri, western Oklahoma, and northwestern Arkansas. In this area, the mountains are old and covered with sandy to 144 stony "silty loams" ranging from a "yellowish to reddish" color. M. Fenneman and Douglas W. Johnson, Physical Divisions of the United States (a map). areas given do not include the water surfaces of the Gulf of Mexico, bays, or the Great Lakes. Abstract of the United States, 1946, p. 3- 132]? e n n ein.a n and Johnson, op. cit. op. cit. , pp. 58-59- designation of soil regions are after C. F. Marbut and associates, Bureau of Soils, United States Department of Agriculture, ibid., pp. 66-67. H. Johnson, The Basis of the Commercial and Industrial Development of Texas Resources, p. 28. 136, Loc. cit. 137 Fenneman and Johnson, op. cit. 138 Nevin M. Fenneman, Physiography of Western United States, Fourth Edition, p. 2. 139 Goode, op. cit., pp. 58-59* , pp. 66-67. op. cit. , p. 4. I 2 * Goode, op. cit. , pp. 66-67. cit. Drainage. The Mississippi River and its tributaries drains part of the excess rainfall from all 19 states in the Primary and Secondary hinterlands. In 16 states the major portion of the excess water follows the Mississippi River system to the Gulf of Mexico. The Wabash, White, Ohio, and Illinois rivers receive the principal surface waters from Illinois and Indiana while the Wisconsin River is the principal outlet for the state of Wisconsin. The upper Mississippi, Croix, and Minnesota rivers finger out into Minnesota to direct most of the water flow from that state southward. One important exception occurs in the watershed of the Red River of the North which is the common boundary for the states of Minnesota and North Dakota and which flows north into Canada. The Missouri River with the assistance of such tributaries as the Kansas, Platte, Big Sioux, James, Cheyenne, Yellowstone, and Milk rivers drains the principal portion of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Missouri. In lowa, the Missouri River also supplements the drainage furnished by the Cedar and Des Moines rivers which flow directly into the Mississippi River. The Arkansas River and its tributaries of the White, Neosho, North Canadian, and Canadian rivers supply the principal drainage system for Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas although these streams also carry some surface water from Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. Like the Arkansas River, the Red River also flows into the Mississippi River. From the Panhandle of Texas the stream flows southeastward to form the southern boundary between Texas and Oklahoma before cutting the southwestern corner of Arkansas and continuing diagonally across the upper portion of Louisiana. Texas, New Mexico, and Michigan depend upon streams other than the Mississippi River and its tributaries to eliminate the excess rain fall. A number of short rivers which extend northwestward from the Texas Coast supply the major drainage for Texas. From east to west these relatively short rivers include the Sabine, Neches, Trinity, Brazos, Colorado, San Antonio, and Nueces Rivers. Tne Rio Grande River is relatively much longer and extends the length of the international border between Mexico and Texas before passing northward through the center of New Mexico and lower Colorado. This river and its tributary, the Pecos River, provide the principal drainage for New Mexico and the extreme western part of Texas. At the northeastern extreme of the hinterland, the state of Michi gan has tips of streams which thread their way to the tributaries of the Mississippi. However, the major portion of the state has short streams carrying surface water to the surrounding Great Lakes including Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and Lake Erie. Among these short rivers are the Sturgeon River which empties into Lake Superior; the Menominee, Muskegon, Grand, Kalamazoo, and Saint Joseph rivers which flow to Lake Michigan; the Shiawassee River flowing to Lake Huron; and the Raisin and Detroit rivers emptying into Lake Erie. Besides the rivers, the Great Plains Province has a supplementary drainage arrangement. In most of the plateau regions, the land slopes to depressed areas. The water drains from the sloping bolsons to playas located at the loxvest levels. Here the water forms lakes in wet weather and escapes only by evaporation or seeping into the soil. Fortunately, this method of surplus water disposal feeds the underground streams from which supplies of drinking and irrigation waters are obtained in many parts of the dry-land farming regions. , pp. 61-67. , pp. 70-85. Precipitation. Within the hinterland there is a great variation in the mean annual precipitation which ranges from 60 inches in the southeastern portion to less than 10 inches in the arid sections of the Great Plains Province. The general pattern shows a decline in the precipitation from the east to the west. The area receiving the greatest precipitation includes eastern Louisiana and southeastern Arkansas where the mean annual rainfall is between 50 and 60 inches annually. To the west, the mean annual precipitation declines from 50 inches at the mouth of the Sabine River to 40 inches in the Matagorda Bay area. This range in precipitation extends northward, including the northwest corner of Louisiana, the southwest corner of Arkansas, northern Arkansas, the lower half of Missouri, southern Illinois, and southern Indiana. From Matagorda Bay to Copano Bay, the range in mean annual precipitation is from 30 to 40 inches. This belt widens in extending northward, passing through such cities as Austin, Dallas, Oklahoma City, Wichita, and Lincoln, dust above the 36° latitude, the belt extends to the eastward to include the greater portions of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, lowa, and the northern half of Missouri. Passing through the central portion of the hinterland is the 20 to 30 inch rainfall belt. The belt originates on the Texas Gulf Coast between Copano Bay and Brownsville and follows a slightly crescent shaped pattern to include the cities of Corpus Christi, Abilene (Texas), Dodge City, Fargo, and Minneapolis. The belt, at the northern extremity of the United States, touches the Great Lakes to the east of Duluth and enters Canada just to the west of the Red River of the North. In the major portion of the Great Plains Province, the mean annual precipitation is less than 20 inches and, before the utilization of drought resistant crops and irrigation, this region was valuable only for grazing. Toward the Rocky Mountains, the average precipitation decreases to 10 inches annually and, in isolated areas, the rainfall averages less than 10 inches per year. Fortunately, the greater portion of the annual rainfall occurs during the growing season. States Department of Agriculture, "Precipitation and Humidity," Atlas of American. Agriculture, pp. 6-7. Humidity. In general the average relative humidity and precipitation follow similar patterns. The average relative humidity is highest along the Texas Coast and around the Great Lakes region while the lowest relative humidity prevails in the Great Plains Province and the Rocky Mountains. Inasmuch as the relative humidity varies between summer and winter, a comparison between readings for July and January is given. In the mid-summer month of July, the coastal region northeast of Corpus Christi Bay averages over CO per cent relative humidity while the coastal region southwest of this bay has an average relative humidity / 14S ranging from 50 to 60 per cent. The 50 per cent line of average relative humidity in July runs from a point on the Mexican border just east of the 100th meridian to the eastern portion of Oklahoma before bending northwestward to a position slightly west of the 100th meridian at the Canadian border. To the east of the 50 per cent line, the average relative humidity in the hinterland ranges from 50 to 60 per cent except around the Great Lakes where over 60 per cent prevails. To the west of the 50 per cent line, the average relative humidity declines to 4C per cent at the edge of the Rocky Mountains while falling as low as 20 per cent in the Rockies In the winter month of January, the average relative humidity is approximately 5 to 10 per cent greater in much of the hinterland than in duly. During the former month the whole of the Texas Coast has an average of 65 to 75 per cent relative humidity. The 60 per cent line during January approximates the location of the 50 per cent line during July except that in reaching northern Nebraska the 60 per cent line for January veers sharply westward across the Rockies without reaching the Canadian border. The 45 per cent line for January roughly follows the center of the Rockies north to the southern part of Wyoming where it too sharply turns to the west. East of the 60 per cent line, the average relative humidity in January ranges from 60 to 70 per cent except over parts of the Great Lakes and Texas Coast where over 70 per cent prevails. States Department of Agriculture, "Precipitation and Humidity,” Atlas of American Agriculture, p. 4s. C. Warren Thornthwaite, "Climate and Settlement in the Great Plains," Uli.mate and Man Yearbook of Agriculture, 1941, pp. 177-187. 1 / g Data for average relative humidity are based on readings made at 2 P.M. local time throughout the hinterland. Growing seasons. Data, prepared by the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, reveal that the lines determining areas with a given ’'average number of days without killing frost” do not follow smooth patterns. These lines vary with differences in altitude and the nearness to bodies of water, as well as changes in latitude. Internally, altitude and latitude are the major determining factors, causing the belts of various lengths in growing season to run from the 150 southwest to the northeast. The longest growing seasons occur near the Gulf and the southern part of Texas. Despite the warming effect of the Gulf waters, neither Texas nor Louisiana has areas free from killing frosts. Even as far 151 south as Brownsville, killing frosts are "liable in half the years.” Consequently growers of fruit and vegetable crops along the Rio Grande Valley must plant "in season" and, in the case of citrus crops, use smudges during unusually cold northers. The line of 200 frostless days is particularly significant inas-152 much as cotton is profitably grown as far north as this line. Cities which are close to this line are Lubbock, Oklahoma City, and Cairo on the Mississippi. To the west, the lack of the required rainfall prevents further extension of the crop while "poorly drained" soils and unfavorable harvesting weather preclude its profitable production near the Gulf. Along the southern border, cotton is a profitable crop in the irrigated sections of the upper and lower Rio Grande Valley. Between the frostless lines of 150 to 200 days lie the major winter wheat and corn producing areas. The line with approximately 150 frostless days begins north of Pueblo, Colorado, extends northeastward above Sioux City, and touches Lake Michigan above Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Where the mean annual rainfall is approximately 30 to 40 inches, corn is the principal crop as in northern Missouri, eastern Nebraska, lowa, Illinois, and Indiana. In the western portion of the belt with 150 to 200 frostless days, corn is precluded due to lack of sufficient moisture. However, winter wheat thrives under these conditions, growing mainly in the Texas Panhandle, northern Oklahoma, eastern Colorado, Kansas, and southwestern Nebraska. At the Canadian border, only 90 to ICO frostless days are available during the growing season. Between the lines designating the 100 and 150 frostless days, dairying and spring wheat production are the major farming activities. Wisconsin and Minnesota, in the eastern and humid portion, have developed the dairy industry while eastern Montana, northern South Dakota, and North Dakota are the principal producers of spring wheat. In the Rocky Mountains, the shortest growing seasons of the hinterland are found. The mountain ranges between the Canadian border and Santa Fe, New Mexico have less than 120 frostless days and many ranges are classified as having ’’under 90 days." The number of frostless days increase as one continues southward until in the Davis Mountains of West Texas there are 200 frostless days. 149 United States Department of Agriculture, ’’Frost and the Growing Season,” Atlas of American Agriculture, pp. 38-39- the higher altitudes of the western portion of the hinterland, a given frostless line must be farther south than in the interior since an increased altitude decreases the temperature. States Department of Agriculture, "Frost and the Growing Season," Atlas of American Agriculture, pp. 38-39- 152 / The profitable growth of cotton requires from 20 to oO inches of rainfall and 200 to 260 frostless days. C. Langdon White and Edwin J. Foscue, Regional Geography of Anglo-America, p. 237- Prevailing winds. In winter and summer the prevailing winds travel inland from the coasts of Texas and Louisiana. In the summer months these winds fro:n the Gulf extend inland as far north as the Great Lakes on the east, Nebraska in the central states, and the Rockies on the west. At these points opposing winds prove the stronger Lows over the Great Lakes draw currents of air -which travel northeast- ward over Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and the southeastern portions of lowa and Wisconsin. Particularly during the warm summer months, the winds from the Gulf carry much moisture inland and serve as the source of much of the rainfall. However, the relatively dry air currents from the Rocky Mountains lower the relative humidity in the Great Plains Province and limit the rainfall in these regions. During the winter months the prevailing winds from the coastal region are challenged more quickly by winds invading the hinterland from the Rocky Mountains and Canada. These northerlies extend at times as far south as Brownsville, proving hazardous to livestock in the northern states and fruits and vegetables in the Rio Grande Valley Average velocities of the winds in the hinterland range from 6 to / 154 lo miles per hour. Highest average velocities occur in the Panhandle of Texas where average velocities of 14 to 16 miles per hour prevail. The coastal regions rank second, having average wind velocities of 12 to 16 miles per hour. In the larger portions of the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma and the central portion of Texas, the average wind velocity ranges from 10 to 14 miles per hour. To the east and west of this belt, the average wind velocities fall between 6 and 10 miles per hour. The Pio Grande and Pecos river valleys, located inland from the Gulf storms of the coast, have particularly low average wind velocities ranging from 6 to 8 miles per hour. Damage to crops and property generally occur during periods of high wind velocities. Hurricanes on the coast harass shipping, destroy buildings, and flatten crops. Tornadoes occur frequently in East Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri during the summer months but the damage is usually confined to the narrow paths of the wind storm. In the Great Plains regions, the damages to crops and soil from the maximum velocities in the spring are widespread. Moreover the wind velocities tend to be greater during extended periods of dry hot weather while the soil becomes looser from lack of moisture and root growth. This combination leads to serious losses from wind erosion. In this chapter the discussion has centered around the political and geographical setting of the ports and the hinterland. In the chapter which follows, consideration is given the economic development which has taken place within the political and natural setting described above. 153 '' United States Department of Agriculture, ’’Temperature, Sunshine, and Wind,” Atlas of American Agriculture, pp. 31, 34« velocities calculated from readings taken at 3 P.M. CHAPTER III ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE HINTERLAND Within the confines of the hinterland of Texas ports, the topography, climatic conditions, and soils discussed in the previous chapter have not changed appreciably since the coming of the European explorers over four hundred years ago. But the productiveness and purchasing power of the region have expanded from a meager pittance produced by the Indians to an economy capable of supporting a population of approximately 50 million people at a high standard of living, involving the exchange of surplus production with adjacent states and foreign nations. To understand this phenomenal change requires a study of the peoples who have inhabited the region and their ability to establish communications, agriculture, manufacturing, mining, lumbering, commerce, and financial arrangements—in short, the economic development of the region. EARLY DEVELOPMENT Indian culture. Prior to 1820 the peoples contributing to the economic development of the hinterland of Texas ports were the Indians, Spaniards, and Frenchmen. When Vasquez de Coronado explored Texas and New Mexico in 1540, he found the Indians were utilizing the Rio Grande River for irrigating crops. 1 The scheme of communal ownership of water rights as practiced by the Indians was similar to the legal procedure followed in Spain where the government owned the rivers and streams and could "confer the exclusive use of a portion of the water on an 2 individual or a corporation." The development of the arid West depended upon the enactment of laws conforming to the Indian and Spanish approach rather than the "riparian rights" permitted under English Common Lav/ which provided that no individual or group of individuals could usurp the water supply of a stream. Notwithstanding this previous experience with irrigation projects, Spain did not materially change the system nor extend the area "under the ditch" during the 3 three centuries of Spanish domination. Further positive contributions of the Indians included the cultivation of a New World crop, Indian maize or corn. The Illinois Indians had vast acreages of this crop in the present corn belt and the Hopi Indians of Colorado had developed a quick-maturing strain, adapted 4 to the short growing season of that altitude. In addition the Indians provided much valuable information on the best sites for cities, roads, and railroads. Many of the present day cities were located on the sites of Indian villages while the early highways and railroads fol- lowed the Indian trails. On the negative side, the Plains Indians were the most formidable Indians to face or to fight that were found anywhere on the American frontier. This condition was especially true due to the mobility provided by the wild mustangs, the descendants of the Arabian horses left by the Spanish. By nature the Plains Indians were more ferocious, implacable, and cruel than other tribes and, since they had no permanent homes, subordination of offending tribes was more difficult than in 5 the case of the timber Indians. B. Plummer, "Water Resources," Texas Looks Ahead, I, 301. p Walter Prescott Webb, The Great Plains, p. 44-l« federal government of the United States enacted the Desert Land Act of 1877 and the Carey Act of 1894 to permit group ownership of water rights. Several western states had passed similar laws prior to the federal legislation. Fred Albert Shannon, America’s Economic Growth, pp. 37?-370. Langdon White and Edwin J. Foscue, Regional Geography of Anglo-America, pp. 341, 660. Spanish influence. This determined resistance of the Plains Indian was a contributing factor to the paucity of economic development under the three centuries of Spanish domination. 0 Therefore it was logical for the Spanish missions with headquarters at San Antonio to become primarily military outposts. Another retarding factor included the Spanish lack of interest and ability to cope with the semiarid treeless lands. Neither were they willing to relinquish the Spanish 7 exclusive commercial policy which silted the stream of commerce. While the Spanish did little to develop the economy, they left seeds for future progress and made indelible imprints upon the area. The early livestock industry of the Southwest was based upon the 8 cattle, sheep, and horses of Spanish origin. The laws of the region show Spanish influence, particularly those pertaining to water rights Q and the property rights of women. 7 Throughout the Southwest, architectural design has been, and continues to be, influenced by Spanish style. Also the names of cities, counties, and rivers bear enduring evidence of the period of Spanish domination. op. cit. , pp. 59, 60. °The period of Spanish domination falls between 1519 and 1821, the earlier date being the year Alvarez de Pineda mapped the ’’Gulf Coast” for Spain. The later date was the year of Mexican independence Norval Richardson, Texas, the Lone Star State, pp. 64-65. °White and Foscue, op. cit., p. 664. French contribution. Whereas Spain influenced the southwestern portion of the hinterland, France had a much larger and more diversified area under her control extending from eastern Louisiana to the Canadian border. In 1608 the French established their first permanent settlement at Quebec and before the end of that century had pushed their fur trading and land claims south to the mouth of the Mississippi River. Among the settlements established were St. Louis and New Orleans. Contrary to popular belief, they made efforts to colonize Illinois and Louisiana and by 1775 ’’there were several thousand French 10 in the Illinois region and about 14,000 in Louisiana.” Though the French disliked farming and preferred trapping and trading, they made several contributions to the agriculture of the hinterland. Innovations introduced by French settlers included blue-11 grass, white clover, and several varieties of orchard fruits. In eastern Louisiana they not only raised cotton, corn, rice, and tobacco but also experimented with sugar cane as early as 1720. About this same year, lead mines in southeastern Missouri were opened and ”200 12 French miners and 500 negroes were imported to exploit them.” Credit is also given the French for discoveries of coal in East Texas, based 13 upon a map of Texas published in Paris, France in 1818. Beginning on the eve of the year 1821 the tempo of events affecting the development of the hinterland was greatly accelerated. To the east a determined, land-hungry, and home-seeking population was not only poised on the rim of the hinterland but had ”spilled over” into lower Indiana and Illinois and was pushing its way westward along the Missouri, Arkansas, and Red rivers.ln rapid succession Louisiana, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri became states in 1812, 1816, 1818, and 1821, respectively. Not only were the people occupying the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 but they were asking admittance to Texas. On December 23, 1820 Moses Austin appeared before Governor Antonio de Martinez in San Antonio requesting permission to establish a colony of three 15 hundred families in Texas. Thus the hinterland suddenly took on new economic life and growth. In describing this growth, the various component parts of the economy will be considered separately. op. cit., p. 6>. Underwood Faulkner, American Economic History, p. 43* op. cit. , p. 120. POPULATION Westward expansion. The westward movement of settlers into the hinterland resembled a broad sweeping wave stretching from north to south. In some areas along the broad front, settlement was retarded by obstacles, while in others the movement advanced momentarily beyond the general line of approach. But any settlers venturing too far in advance of the broad movement were subject to destruction by the various tribes of Indians until the seventies when most of the Plains 1 tribes were brought under control. Between 1850 and iB6O the movement slowed down appreciably. The westward expansion touched the 20-inch rainfall line in close proximity with the ninety-eighth meridian and for approximately a decade there was a consolidation of the westward movement. Reports of Lewis and Clark in 1804-1806 and Zebulon M. Pike in 1805-1806 referred to the land east of the Rockies as incapable of inhabitation due to insufficient rainfall. Textbooks in use between 1850 and iB6O expressed the same opinion. Even Horace Greeley, writing of his trip across the 17 plains in 1859, was critical of its agricultural possibilities. The major difficulties to settlement in the Central High Plains were overcome in a large measure by the application of several innovations and adaptations to the Central High Plains. Among the devices utilized were the Colt ’’six-shooter,” the windmill, barbed wire, adobes for building, steel plows, and rail transportation. The adaptation of drought resistant plants also made the land more productive while liberalized land policies recognized the need for larger acreages in arid regions. The importance of these items to the development of the hinterland necessitates a brief explanation of their effectiveness The Colt ’’six-shooter,” invented in 1835 and used extensively by the Texas Rangers, is given much credit for conquering the Plains Indians, while the windmill, first produced in quantity during 1873, 18 pumped water for household and livestock use. In the following year 1874, Joseph F. Glidden produced a practical form of barbed wire which 19 came into general use around 1880. This device substituted for the rail and stone fences, impracticable on the High Plains due to the scarcity of the raw materials. For making houses, adobes were used with great success in the semiarid regions. The sun-dried clay bricks were poor conductors of heat and cold, providing comfortable homes in winter and summer. In this instance the light rainfall was an advantage, permitting the houses to last for many years without benefit of a plaster coating. Successful settlement on the dark heavy soils of the prairies was particularly dependent upon the invention of the steel plow by Jolin Deere in 1837 because the iron plows in early use would not ’’scour” in the dark soils and broke under the great stress placed upon them in 20 turning the prairie sods. Possibly more important to the semiarid regions was the introduction of drought resistant crops. Most of them have been greatly improved or replaced, but the first varieties opened the way to semiarid cultivation. For example, the Mennonites in 1873 introduced from Russia a strain of wheat called "Turkey," producing 21 successful crops in Kansas. Other widely used drought resistant crops include the African sorghums, known to produce on as little as 22 10 inches of annual rainfall. Upon the extension of railroads west of the Mississippi River, the establishment of progressive farm communities in the hinterland was materially quickened. Due to the rapid rise in the altitude and the lack of rainfall, river transportation was impossible or most difficult. Also the railroads took an active interest in the settlement of the country because the profitability of the railroads lay in the sale of land grants and the successful cultivation of contiguous farm lands. Literature, advertisements, and agents were sent to Europe to 23 compete for immigrants. Supplementing the efforts of the railroads were those of the steamship companies which gave publicity to the westward movement in order to attract passenger trade. Further encouragement toward settlement of the hinterland was given by the liberalization of land policies. The Mexican government enacted legislation in 1823, 1824, and 1825 favorable to settlement in Texas. Stephen F. Austin, the son of Moses Austin, was permitted to settle 800 families in Texas and by 1830 the total population in the 2/ colony was 4,248. At that time, Mexico became fearful of its colonization policy as settlers from the United States were more aggressive than the Mexicans in establishing homes and acquiring property. The result was the Decree of April 6, 1830 stipulating that "citizens of foreign countries lying adjacent to the Mexican territory are prohibited from settling as colonists in the states or territories of the Republic adjoining such countries." Furthermore it suspended all con-25 tracts not already completed and not in harmony with this law. Fortunate for the population movement, Stephen F. Austin was successful in his efforts to have the law repealed and additional migrations resulted. After the establishment of the Republic of Texas, its congress was most generous toward immigrants, granting 1,230 acres for heads of families and 640 acres for single men who came to the area before October 1, 1837• Later legislation reduced the acreage grants to 640 acres for heads of families and 320 acres for single men with the provision that they reside in Texas for three years before the title was completed. While the earlier laws were in a large measure designed to give protection to the new republic, it was the determination of the lawmakers to settle Texas with home makers and owners. To that end the Republic, and later the state of Texas, provided homestead privileges with an exemption provision securing the home from, seizure for 26 debt. The federal government, anxious to settle the western lands, also enacted liberal land policies. A part of the hinterland east of the Mississippi River was settled under the law of 178$ permitting anyone to buy 640 acres at one dollar an acre. This was changed in the law of 1800 whereby the price was increased to two dollars an acre but one could buy 320 acres or more, one-fourth in cash and the remainder in three annual installments. Further favoring the small farmer, the law of 1820 allowed one to purchase eighty acres of land at $1.25 per acre, Though free land did not come until the enactment of the Homestead Act of 1862, the small cash costs with future installments made it possible for even common laborers to own land within the span of a year or two. ' But the lack of even a small amount of cash was no real deterrent for the Preemption Act of 1841 permitted settlers to farm unappropriated lands free from interference until the region was opened i 28 for sale. As the more productive lands were settled, the land acts were liberalized to permit larger initial grants. The Desert Land Act of 1877 granted an entire section of arid land to anyone who would attempt its irrigation. In western Nebraska the Kincaid Act of 1904 permitted homesteads of 640 acres and the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 provided for acquiring 320 acres over a large area. The acreage provisions were further liberalized in 1916 with the enactment of the Stock-Raising Homestead Act which increased the allowable acreage to 640. 29 Regardless of these more liberal grants of acreage, the extension of home ownership of government lands has come almost to a standstill. 30 In 1945 all ’’homestead entries” for land in the states comprising the hinterland of Texas ports were only 4,144 acres as compared to an 31 average of 4-9 million acres per year during 1921-1925, inclusive. 32 Once again the further population of the remaining 157.2 millions of acres of federal lands within the hinterland of Texas ports will depend upon the regulations for distributing public lands and the advancement of the state of the arts in utilizing the progressively less desirable lands. cit. B. Stenzel, ’’Coals,” Texas Looks Ahead, I, 184. 4 Map of the ’’Distribution of the Population, 1820.” Faulkner op. cit., p. 203- op. cit. , p. 67. ■Avebb, op. cit., p. 44- 17 Ibid., pp. 152-160. 18 Ibid., pp. 171, 339. op. cit., p. 461. and Fescue, op. cit., p. 342. 21 Ibid., p. 557- 22 Ibid., p. 553- op. cit. , p. 413- op. cit. , p. 73 • 25 Ibid., p. 77- 26 Ibid., p. 189. op. cit., pp. 216-217. Preemption Act was repealed in 1891. Shannon, op. cit., pp. 247, 248, 368. Growth. The migrations described above have markedly increased 33 the populations of the Primary and Secondary hinterlands. From 1880 to 1940 the population for the Total Hinterland increased from 17,874, 111 to 43,765,557, a growth of 273 per cent in the period of 60 years. Source of data: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1946, pp. 6 and 7• Source of data: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1946, pp. 6 and 7- This percentage increase exceeds the 262 per cent growth for the total population of the United States during the same period. For Texas and the Primary Hinterland, the increments in population expansion are much greater. These five states, containing large areas of semiarid land, were not developed agriculturally and industrially as early as those about the Great Lakes and along the Mississippi River. Compared to the increment of 273 per cent for the Total Hinterland from 1880 to 1940, the population of Texas increased 403 per cent and the Primary Hinterland, 421 per cent. Throughout this 60 year period, the data at each 20 year interval show substantial increase over the previous figures. However the data indicate the percentage increase is becoming progressively less. In the period 1900-1920 the population of the United States increased 39*1 per cent as compared to 61.5, and 29-7 per cent for the Total, Primary, and Secondary hinterlands, respectively. For the following period, 1920-1940, the increase in the population of the hinterland for Texas ports continued to lag behind the gain for the United States as a whole. The Total Hinterland had an increase of 20.3 per cent or 4-3 per cent below that for the United States. Nevertheless the state of Texas showed more poxver in attracting and holding the population than any of the regions under consideration by increasing z 34 37*6 per cent in 1940 over that for 1920. Relative to the total population of the United States, the Total Hinterland accounted for 37-0 per cent in 1940; the Primary Hinterland, 33 9.3 per cent; and the Secondary Hinterland, 27-7 cent. The population in the state of Texas, being greater than that of the other four states in the Primary Hinterland combined, represented 4.9 per cent of the total United States population. Data for the years 1880, 1900, 1920, and 1940 indicate that the Primary Hinterland is continuing to increase its population relative to that of the United States. Percentages of the national total range from 5-8 per cent in 1880 to 9-3 per cent in 1940. Due to the loss of population in Montana, Nebraska, and the Dakotas between 1920 and 1940, the Secondary Hinterland has failed to hold its relative position with respect to the nation’s population, supporting 27-7 per cent of the population in 1940 as compared to 29-9 per cent in 1880. and Foscue, o£. cit., pp. 549, 666. homestead entry is a homestead claim allowed under the law but subject to certain conditions before the title can pass. 31 Compiled from, data supplied by the Department of Interior, General Land Office. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1946, p. 162. on Tune 30, 1944- 33see Tables I and 11. from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1946, pp. 6, 7. Region Population 1880 1900 1920 1940 United States Total ... 50,155,783 75,994,575 105,710,620 131,669,275 Total Hinterland 17,874,111 29,778,619 40,545,892 48,765,557 Primary Hinterland .. 2,901,737 6,044,606 9,760,747 12,207,400 Texas 1,591,749 3,048,710 4,663,228 6,414,824 Remainder 1,309,988 2,995,896 5,097,519 5,792,576 Secondary Hinterland 14,972,374 23,734,013 30,785,145 36,558,157 TABLE I GROWTH OF POPULATION IN HINTERLAND OF TEXAS PORTS, 1880-1940 Region Per Cent of United States Total Population 1880 1900 1920 1940 United States Total .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total Hinterland .. 35-7 39.2 38.4 37.0 Primary Hinterland .... .. 5-8 8.0 9.2 9.3 Texas .. 3-2 4.0 4.4 4.9 Remainder 2.6 4.0 4.8 4.4 Secondary Hinterland . . .. 29.9 31.2 29.1 27.7 TABLE II PERCENTAGE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POPULATION IN HINTERLAND OF TEXAS PORTS AS COMPARED TO UNITED STATES TOTAL, 1880-1940 Concentrations. Though the hinterland contained 37.0 per cent of the total population of the United States in 1940, it embodied only 29.7 per cent, or 27 of the 91 cities in the United States with populations over 100,000. Of the 27 cities the Primary Hinterland had 9 cities with populations over 100,000 while the Secondary Hinterland had 18 cities in that classification. These cities have developed in response to the need for processing and distributing points within the hinterland. In the Primary Hinterland, every state except New Mexico had one or more cities with a population over 100,000 in 1940. In Texas, Houston led with a population of followed by Dallas, San Antonio, and Fort Worth with populations of 294,734, 253,854, and // 36 177,062, respectively. The growth of Houston is attributed largely to the development of the Houston Ship Channel, making that city an ocean as well as an Intracoastal Canal port. In recent years the city is developing as an industrial and distributive center, increasing its 37 population more than tenfold between 1890 and 1940. Dallas serves primarily as a distributing and financial center, having one of the 12 38 .Federal Reserve Banks located within the city. Though situated only 32 miles west of Dallas on the Grand Prairie, Fort Worth has developed as a western market and industrial center. Large stockyards, packing plants, grain elevators, flour mills, and refineries are operated in 39 this city. In a similar fashion, San Antonio serves the needs of the country about it, being noted for its major wool and mohair market, meat packing, pecan processing, garment manufacturing, wholesaling, and retailing. Still within, the Primary Hinterland are Tulsa and Oklahoma City with populations in 1940 of 142,157 and 204,424, respectively. The activities of Tulsa are particularly dominated by the oil industry and it is called the "oil capital of the North American Continent." Not only is it an outstanding center of the "Mid-Continent Oil Province" but also leads as a publishing and trade association center for the petroleum industry. While supported by the petroleum industry, Oklahoma City is more diversified industrially than Tulsa, maintaining in addition large flour-milling, cottonseed oil extracting, and meatpacking industries. To the north of Tulsa and Oklahoma City lie the cities of Wichita and Kansas City, Kansas with populations of 114,966 and 204,424, respectively. Both cities are supported by the agricultural areas about them, Wichita ranking fourth nationally as a milling center and sixth as an interior market for grain besides supporting industries in meat-packing and in airplane, agricultural machinery, and oil field equipment production. The remaining city in the Primary Hinterland having over 100,000 population in 1940 is Denver, Colorado accommodating 322,412 people. While famous as a resort center, it is also a major point for the distribution and concentration of commodities for the Rocky Mountain base line cities. In addition it serves as the headquarters for many mining operations and is the principal financial center between the Missouri River and Pacific Coast. In the Secondary Hinterland lie the largest and most productive cities in the Total Hinterland of the Texas ports. However the foreign trade generated and absorbed by these cities are oriented equally or more so, to Nev; Orleans and the ports of the eastern seaboard. Four of these cities have populations over 500,000, namely, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and Milwaukee. Two of these cities, Chicago and St. Louis, rank first and second, respectively, as railroad terminals of the Both are commercial, industrial, and financial centers, each serving as the location for a Federal Reserve Bank. While Detroit is the major center for automobile production and other mechanical devices for consumers, Milwaukee specializes in processing agricultural products and the production of heavy machinery 42 for industry. Both of these cities are located on the Great Lakes and have access to coal, iron ore, and limestone, so essential to the steel industry. Other centers over 100,000 in population which rely largely upon industries supplied by agricultural products are Minneapolis, Kansas Oity (Missouri), St. Paul, Des Moines, Indianapolis, Omaha, and Peoria On the other hand, the cities dominated by industries producing metal products are South Bend (Indiana), Flint (Michigan), and Gary (Indiana). Additional large cities which specialize in other than processing metal or agricultural products are Grand Rapids, Duluth, and Nev/ Orleans. The latter city is the chief competitor of Texas ports, while Grand Rapids has gained fame as a center for manufacturing furniture. Advantageously located at the western tip of Lake Superior, Duluth has access to the iron ore, wheat, and lumber of the inland area. From the east, Duluth receives large quantities of coal. Nevertheless this city does very little processing and is quite aptly 43 termed the '’funnel” through which these commodities flow. Table 11. Abstract of the United States, 194-6, pp. 10-12. populations for Houston in 1890 and 1940 were 2'7,557 and 384,514, respectively. L. Prather, Money and Banking, Third Edition, p. 526. and Foscue, op. cit., p. 283. 4 °lbid., PP- 371, 562, 613. 41 Ibid., p. 452. 42 Ibid., pp. 451-452. 43 Ibid., pp. 442, 537. Characteristics. Basically the pioneers who populated the hinterland were required by nature to be hardy, industrious, frugal, and resourceful. The majority of the first settlers in Texas under the grant to Stephen F. Austin were principally farmers from Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Missouri. Other early settlers in northeastern Texas came from Kentucky but they were not associated 44 A with Austin’s group. As early as 1338, a German settlement was established in Austin County, Texas while later settlements included those at Nev/ Braunfels and Fredericksburg. By 1350 the Germans and Mexicans constituted the largest foreign-born elements in the state. However Tennessee and Alabama had contributed the greatest number of 45 individuals in interstate migration. Southern planters from the two latter states brought with them negro slaves, ancestors of most of the present negro population. Northern European stocks, particularly Germans, Scotch -Irish, and Scandinavians, contributed the major portion of the foreign immigrants to the northern states of the hinterland. Between 1830 and iB6O approximately two million Germans located on farms alongside the early French settlers in Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and other / z states of the Mississippi Valley. The Irish tended to settle in the cities while the Scandinavians settled in the northern states, particularly in the region around the Great Lakes, an area similar to their home countries of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Although famines in Ireland, political pressures in Germany, and general opportunities for economic betterment were largely responsible for the migration, these people have become recognized as the most thoroughly assimilated immi-47 grants in the United States. They have proved to be hard workers and have given character to the population. On the whole they threw off allegiance to their mother countries, learned to speak English, and took an active part in developing the resources of the country. op. cit., pp. 75, 82. , pp. 194-195. op. cit. , pp. 200-201. Education. Though the ’’median years of school completed” may not accurately describe the ability of a population to cope with the economic opportunities and problems of a given area, it does serve as a criteria of the willingness to discipline the mind and prepare for useful work. In 1940 the ’’median years of school completed for per-48 sons 25 years old and over” for the whole United States was 8.4 years. In the Primary Hinterland only one state, Nev; Mexico, fell below this figure. In this region the range was from 7.9 years for New Mexico to 8.9 years for Colorado while citizens of Texas 25 years old or over had completed 8.5 median years of school. In the Secondary Hinterland the range was from 6.6 years for Louisiana to 9-2 years for Wyoming with 5 of the 14 states in this region falling below the national average, namely, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Dakota, Missouri, and Wisconsin. These data reveal that in the Total Hinterland, 13 of the 19 states equal or excel the national average in "Median years of school completed by persons 25 years old and over." and Foscue, op. cit. , p. 345- L F + Data for the ’’median years of school completed per persons 25 years old and over” were secured from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1946, p. 127. Labor force. In 1940 the Total Hinterland of Texas ports had 19.2 million individuals in the labor force or 36.4 per cent of the total labor force in the United States. Of this number, 4.5 million and 14.7 million resided in the Primary and Secondary hinterlands, respectively. Texas alone had 2.5 million available laborers or 4.7 49 per cent of the total in the United States. Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1948, p. 177• Of the 19.2 million available laborers in the Total Hinterland, 1'7.6 million were employed although 1.1 million were employed on public emergency work. Another 1.6 million or 8.5 per cent of the total labor force were seeking employment as compared to 9-6 per cent for the nation. The five states of the Primary Hinterland had 3-9 million employed in other than public emergency work, accounting for 23.5 per cent of the number for the Total Hinterland and 3.6 per cent for the United States. Over one-half, 2.1 million people or 55-2 per cent of those from the Primary Hinterland actively employed in other than public emergency work, were located in Texas. The Secondary Hinterland had 12.6 million individuals employed in this manner which represented 76.5 per cent of the total for the Total Hinterland and 23.0 per cent for the nation. Of the 8.4 million people employed in agriculture in the nation, 50 4.1 million or 48.9 per cent were working within the Total Hinterland. Inasmuch as only 28.0 per cent of the nation’s employees were located in the Total Hinterland, the presence of 48.9 per cent of all agricultural workers indicates greater than average emphasis on farming as an industry. Data for both the Primary and Secondary hinterlands show both areas employed relatively large proportions of the employees in the agricultural industry. In the Primary Hinterland, 1.2 million or 29.9 per cent of the employees were engaged in farm work while 2.9 million or 23.2 per cent were similarly employed in the Secondary Hin-51 terland. a Data do not include those employed on public emergency work. Source of data: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1948, p. 177. In mining, the Total Hinterland accounted for 1.8 per cent or 295 of the 913 thousand workers for the nation. The number of employees in the mines of the Total Hinterland were divided rather evenly between the Primary and Secondary hinterlands with 136 thousand located in the former area and 159 thousand in the latter. In this industry Texas did not have one-half the employees for the Primary Hinterland since only 61 thousand of the 136 thousand employees worked in Texas. Indicative of the raw material economy in much of the Total Hinterland, 3.2 million or only 19.3 per cent of the nation’s employees in manufacturing were located in this region. The Primary Hinterland accounted for 360 thousand as compared to only 2.8 million manufacturing workers in the Secondary Hinterland. Of those employed in the Primary Hinterland, 212 thousand or 59 per cent were employed in Texas Despite the importance of agriculture, mining, and manufacturing in the economy of the nation and hinterland, more people were employed in ’’other” work including distribution, services, and construction. The Total Hinterland had 8.9 million employed in these activities. The Primary Hinterland had 2.1 million and the Secondary Hinterland, 6.7 million in other industries. Texas was particularly important in this respect, accounting for 1.2 million or 13.8 per cent of all "other” workers in the Total Hinterland. Table 111. s°See Table IV. 51 The ratios are based on employees in other than public emergency work. Region Total Employed Seeking ■ Work Except on Public Emergency Work On Public Emergency Work United States Total . ... . 52,789 45,166 2,530 5,094 Total Hinterland . 19,211 16,498 1,070 1,643 Primary Hinterland ... . 4,529 3,871 266 392 Texas . 2,455 2,138 117 199 Remainder . 2,074 1,733 149 193 Secondary Hinterland . . 14,682 12,627 804 1,251 TABLE 111 LABOR FORCE 14 YEARS OLD AND OVER AVAILABLE IN' HINTERLAND OF TEXAS PORTS, 1940 (In thousands of persons) (In thousands of persons) Region Agri- culture Miring Manufac- turing Other United States Total .. . 8,372 913 10,573 25,308 Total Hinterland . 4,088 295 3,189 8,926 Primary Hinterland . . 1,156 136 360 2,219 Texas 636 61 212 1 229 Remainder 520 75 148 990 Secondary Hinterland 2,932 159 2,829 6,708 TABLE IV MAJOR OCCUPATION GROUPS OF EMPLOYED WORKERS 14 YEARS OLD AND OVER IN HINTERLAND OF TEXAS PORTS, 194O a Income. Data for 1939 reveal the median income for wages and 52 salaries in the United States was $877. In the Primary Hinterland, only the state of Colorado surpassed this figure with a median wage and salary income of $BB4. Texas was lowest in this regard with $630, a decline of $254 below the national figure. This indicates that the typical earner in Texas and the Primary Hinterland received incomes substantially lower than those for the United States as a whole. In the Secondary Hinterland, the median wage and salary incomes received show greater extremes than in the Primary Hinterland. The lowest median wage and salary income was found in Arkansas with $412 or less than one-half of the national average. On the other extreme, Michigan received $1,126 or $251 above the national figure. Of the 14 states in the Secondary Hinterland, 7 had median wage and salary incomes above and 7 below the national median. The total income payments to individuals of the Total Hinterland in 1939 were valued at 23.5 billion dollars or 33.3 per cent of the 53 national total of 70.6 billion dollars. Of the national total, individuals in the Primary Hinterland received 4.8 billion dollars or 6.8 per cent as compared to 18.7 billion dollars or 26.5 per cent for individuals in the Secondary Hinterland. Individuals in Texas received 2.6 billion dollars representing 3.6 per cent of the national total and 53-4 per cent of the amount received in the Primary Hinterland. a income payments received by individuals includes ’’income received by residents of each state from business establishments and governmental agencies.” Source: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 194-8, p. 279- In the post-war year of 1946, individual incomes were more than double those received in 1939- Whereas the individuals of the nation received 70.6 billion dollars in 1939, they received 169.4 billion dollars in 1946 or 240 per cent of the 1939 figure. The percentage increase for the other areas under consideration were as follows: Primary Hinterland, 200 per cent; Secondary Hinterland, 244 per cent; and Texas, 264 per cent. In each instance, individual incomes increased more in the hinterland of Texas ports than for the United States. for median wage and salary incomes were secured from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, 194-6, p. 277. Table V. (In millions of dollars) Region 1939 1946 United States Total .. 70,601 169,373 Total Hinterland . 23,496 58,177 Primary Hinterland .. 4,784 12,459 Texas ,. 2,554 6,748 Remainder . . 2,230 5,711 Secondary Hinterland .. 18,713 45,718 TABLE V income payments received by in HINTERLAND OF TEXAS PORTS, 1939 AND 1946 a TRANSPORTATION The availability of transportation facilities within the hinterland is an important factor in creating a thriving domestic and foreign trade. The productive capacity of the hinterland depends upon an efficient transportation system to concentrate raw materials and disperse the finished products. Once a surplus in production is available for foreign trade, the direction of the movement is influenced greatly by the accessibleness of the ports of entry. In the following discussion a brief summary of the development of the various mediums of transportation in the Total Hinterland is given, providing further background on the economic basis of the foreign trade through Texas ports. Water transportation. The entrances into the hinterland via Texas ports have been most difficult due to the niggardliness of nature in providing navigable streams. Even access to the mainland was denied or impeded by the alluvial bars lying parallel to the coast line. This impediment required boats to partially unload prior to 54 crossing into the protected waters. Having gained entrance to the rivers, vessels encountered sandbars, snags, and later, the wreckage 55 of rafts and ships. Also Gulf storms were hazardous, destroying the 56 early port of Indianola in 1875 and again in 1886. In 1900 over 57 6,000 lives were lost when a hurricane struck Galveston. Despite the hardships of water travel, this method was preferable to land travel when roads were not available. In order to extend the navigable distance boats with light drafts were used, particularly during rainy seasons. The town of Jefferson, near Beaumont, had an early water route to New Orleans through Big Cypress Bayou, Caddo Lake, the Red River, and the Mississippi River. Without the aid of rainy seasons the Brazos River was navigable to Brazoria. Small boats traversed the Sabine River to Sabinetown, located near San Augustine, 58 while the Buffalo Bayou "afforded good navigation to Houston." Other streams offering limited navigability were the San Jacinto, Trinity, Colorado, Guadalupe, Nueces, and the Ric Grande. Early in the development of Texas a demand was created for deeper water channels in an effort to accommodate the larger vessels. As early as 1883 a project was begun to provide a channel to Galveston Port, the leading port at that time. By 1895 the jetty system was completed and "deep water" was available to the Galveston terminals. Another major undertaking was completed in 1899 when a deep-water canal from the Gulf to Port Arthur made connections with the Kansas City, Pittsburg and Gulf Railroad. Rivalry soon developed and by 1910 the Sabine-Neches system and the ports of Freeport, Port Aransas, and 59 60 Houston were improved. Further improvements continued until in 1945, there was "deep water" of 25 feet or more at the ports of Orange Beaumont, Port Arthur, Sabine Pass, Galveston, Texas City, Houston, Freeport, Ingleside Terminal, Port Aransas, Corpus Christi, Point Isa-61 bel, and Brownsville. It is largely at these ports that commodities in foreign trade are received and shipped. Another significant development in water transportation was the extension of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to include Texas waters. In 1913 a segment to a depth of five feet was completed, connecting Galveston and Corpus Christi. However it was approximately twenty years later that the link between Galveston and Lake Sabine was completed. This provided access to the Mississippi-Missouri-Ohio river system and the eastern Gulf ports. Once the canal across Florida is completed, entrance will be gained to the Atlantic Intracoastal Water way, extending to Cape Cod on the north. While the present project depth is 12 feet for the Texas portion of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, this goal has yet to be realized. According to the 1946 Report of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, the controlling depths along the Texas portion are as follows: 12 feet from Sabine River to Galveston; 11 feet from Galveston to Freeport; 10 feet from Freeport to Colorado River; 10 feet from Colorado River to Port O’Conner; 12 feet from Port O’Conner to Corpus Christi; not navigable from Corpus Christi to Brownsville. Given the above controlling depths, most Texas ports can receive any barge initiated at Kansas City, Minneapolis, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis. In no instance are these cities served by water channels via the Mississippi system which are greater than 9 feet in control-63 ling depth. From the Mississippi River to the Sabine River there 6 / is the controlling depth of 12 feet or more. As evidence of the growing importance of this waterway, remarkable progress has been made in the utilization of portions touching Texas ports. The traffic on the segment from the Mississippi River to the Sabine River increased from 3»9 million tons handled in 1937 to 15.4 million tons in 1945- Similarly the segment from the Sabine River to Galveston increased from 1.0 million tons handled in 1937 to 13.5 million tons in 1945- Though smaller in volume carried, the portion from Galveston to Corpus Christi increased in tons handled nearly 9 times from 1940 to 1945, beginning with 0.4 million tons handled in the former year and 3-4 million in the latter year. Among the products which contributed heavily to this tonnage were petroleum and 65 petroleum products, salt, sea shells, shrimp, and metal products. Other waterways developed in the hinterland have not been so directly oriented to Texas Gulf ports but have served the useful purpose of concentrating raw materials and dispersing finished products. The Great Lakes is a prime example in this regard, famous for bringing together the necessary ingredients for making steel products and for disseminating them to the domestic and foreign markets. In addition the Arkansas River has 373 miles of channel from its mouth to Fort Smith, Arkansas, with a controlling depth of 3 feet or more for 4 months and less than 3 feet for 8 months. Also the Red River is navigable to Alexandria with a controlling depth of 4-0 feet. Some very shallow boats continue up the stream to Shreveport and Fulton (Arkansas) , limited by the controlling depths of 4.0 and 1.0 to 2.0 feet, 66 respectively. 54 Richardson, op. cit., p. 94. 55 The Colorado River became unusable for navigation because a sunken raft closed its channel near the Gulf. Ibid., p. 214- 56 Ibid., p. 212. 57 / White and Foscue, op. cit., p. 320. 58 Richardson, op. cit., pp. 212, 214- 59 Ibia., pp. 457-458. u For a complete description of these improvements see Chapter VII ol oorps of Engineers, United States Army, ‘’Commercial Statistics, Water-borne Commerce of the United States for the Calendar Year 1945,” Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, 1946, Pt. 11, pp. 719-738. 62 Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, 1946, Pt. 11, p. 788. depths are as follows: Kansas City to St. Louis, 6 feet; Minneapolis to Baton Rouge, 9 feet; Chicago to Lockport, Illinois, 22 feet; Lockport to Grafton, Illinois at mouth of Illinois River, 9 feet; Pittsburgh to Cairo, 9 feet; St. Louis to Baton Rouge, 9 feet. Ibid., pp. 819, 831, 834, 857, 1,302, and 1,320. 64 Controlling depths: Harvey lock, near New Orleans, to Calcasieu River, 12 feet; Calcasieu River to the Sabine River has a controlling depth of 30 feet, much greater than the necessary 12 feet. Ibid., p. 1,377. Railroads. The coming of the railroads to the hinterland pro- vided a more versatile and dependable method of transportation than the rivers and canals. Trackage could be laid to connect economically productive areas regardless of natural waterways, and at the same time services were not appreciably affected by drought, floods, and changes of season. Trie first development in the hinterland took place in Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois. In 1840 a part of what was later the Michigan Central was in operation from Detroit to Ann Arbor and by 1800 extensions were touching the Mississippi River at ten places with a number of lines operating in Wisconsin, lowa, Missouri, Arkant • • m 68 sas, .Louisiana, and Texas. Construction on the first railroad in Texas began in 1852. This was the Buffalo Bayou, Brazos, and Colorado, ’’commonly called the Harrisburg Railroad and now a part of the great Southern Pacific system.” In 1855 it connected Harrisburg on Buffalo Bayou with Richmond on the Brazos River and in another five years it served Alleyton on the Colorado River. The city of Houston in an initial effort to become a rail road center financed the track from Houston to Harrisburg to connect with the Harrisburg Railroad. Then the trackage of the Houston and Texas Central was laid northward with the hope of making connections with water traffic on the Red River. By iB6O this railroad had reached Millican below Bryan and another railroad, the Texas and New Orleans, had joined Houston with Orange on the Sabine River. Further establishing Houston as the principal railroad center in iB6O was the 69 link joining Houston ana Galveston. Soon after iB6O service was being extended to the hinterland from east and west while lines from the north were extended southward to meet those radiating out from the Texas 'Gulf region. Access to the Atlantic and Pacific coasts was made possible by the famous joining of 70 the Central Pacific and Union Pacific railroads at Ogden, Utah in 1869. This connection joined Sacramento, California with Omaha, Nebraska. Another transcontinental line, the Northern Pacific, commenced construction in 1864 but its completion was delayed by financial diffi_ 71 culties until 1883- This line joined Tacoma, Washington on the 72 Pacific Coast to Duluth, Minnesota on Lake Superior. More important to the Texas Gulf ports was the construction of two other transcontinental railroads, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe and the Southern Pacific. Construction on the former railroad was begun in 1369 and the roadbed was extended westward over the old Santa 73 Fe Trail through Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico. Eventually, this railroad expanded its trackage to connect Chicago on the Great Lakes with San Francisco, El Paso, Amarillo, Lubbock, Oklahoma City, Wichita, 75 Fort Worth, Houston, and Galveston.' By 1883 the Southern Pacific had provided facilities to Nev; Orleans and San Francisco, serving El 76 Paso, San Antonio, Houston, Galveston, and Beaumont en route. Other railroads also extended their services to meet the needs of the hinterland. By 1867 the Kansas Pacific Railroad reached Abilene, 77 Kansas which then became a terminal point for cattle drives. In 1882 the Texas and Pacific Railroad joined the Southern Pacific at 78 Sierra Blanca, 92 miles east of El Paso. At the present time the Texas and Pacific Railroad operates on the trackage from El Paso to 79 Nev; Orleans by way of Sierra Blanca, Ballas, and Shreveport. The 80 Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad reached Denver in 1882, and later this system extended its services to connect Chicago and Galveston by way of Omaha, Billings, Cheyenne, Denver, Amarillo, Fort Worth, Dallas, and Houston. This railroad also served the grain belt in connecting Minneapolis, St. Paul, Omaha, St. Joseph, Kansas City, and St. 81 Louis with Chicago. Another system of great importance to the hinterland was the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad which gave Houston and Galveston access to such cities as Minneapolis and Chicago on the north, Denver and Tucumcari (New Mexico) on the west, and St. Louis and Memphis on the east. It was at Tucumcari that the connection was made with the Southern Pacific, providing a direct route to Chicago. At the present time the railroad which serves more Texas ports of entry than any other is the Missouri Pacific. This railroad provides transportation to Kansas City and St. Louis for each important water 82 port of Texas from Brownsville to Orange. In addition it exchanges a large volume of traffic with the National Railways of Mexico at Laredo, a land port of entry. The Missouri, Kansas and Texas railroad serves only the ports of Galveston Bay area but provides routes north by way of Dallas and Fort Worth to Kansas City and St. Louis. While the St. Louis-San Francisco and the St. Louis-Southwestern railroads do not touch any ports, they are concentrators of agricultural products in northeast Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas, and GO northwest Louisiana. In this respect they are valuable to Texas ports. In the northern portion of the hinterland, other railroads serve as concentrators and distributors of production. But in addition they serve to divert traffic from the Texas ports of entry. After the con- struction of the Northern Pacific Railroad two other parallel roads, 84 the Great Northern and the Milwaukee,'" were built east and west be' 85 tween Chicago and Tacoma (Washington). Then there is the case of the Illinois Central Railroad that provides the most direct route from 86 Chicago to the Gulf Coast at New Necessarily this railroad is highly competitive with those serving Texas ports. By 1930 the profitable extension of railroad trackage in the hinterland had reached a peak. In that year Texas had 17,069 miles of steam railroads as compared to 16,356 miles in 1940 and 15,696 miles in 1944- The Total Hinterland in 1944 had 123,850 of the 227,335 ’’miles of road” in the United States. On a relative basis this is 54• 5 pec cent of the total. Within the Primary Hinterland are 37,086 miles or 16.3 per cent of the total ’’miles of roads” and in the Secondary Hinterland are 86,704 miles or 38.2 per cent. While the mileage seemingly is adequate and sufficiently directed to serve Texas ports, the future contribution of these railroads will be determined by the equipment, rate structure, and service provided. o> lbid., pp. 1,378-1,386. , pp. 795, 805. 67 'Faulkner, op. cit., p. 329- o£ "Railroads in the United States in i 860,” Shannon, op. cit., p. 163. 69 / Richardson, op. cit., pp. 215, 216. 70 Shannon, op. cit., p. 363• 71 Faulkner, op. cit., p. 455- 72 Shannon, op. cit., p. 363- 73 Loc. cit. McNally, World Atlas, Premier Edition, p. 19- op. cit. , p. 'McNally, op. cit., p. 19- 77 Shannon, op. cit., p. 357- op. cit., p. 349- op. cit. , p. 19- SO Shannon, op. cit., p. 3&4• G. Smith, Marketing Maps of the United States, p. 25. 82 In addition, the Missouri Pacific Railroad serves the coastal water ports of Louisiana including New Orleans. McNally, op. cit., p. 19. Smith, op. cit., pp. 28, 29, 30. Trails and roads. Inasmuch as the natural waterways into the interior of the hinterland were inadequate, great dependence was placed upon land travel. In the eastern portion where rivers, trees, mud, and rocks existed, the approach was quite tedious. West of the twenty- inch rainfall line, most of these problems decreased in magnitude and trails were more easily established. Some of the early routes of travel in Texas included the old military road from Red River through Dallas, Waco, and Austin; the old San Antonio-Nacogdoches Road by way of Bastrop and Crockett; a road from Indianola to San Antonio; and one leading from the vicinity of Dallas toward Houston. During the rainy seasons even empty stagecoaches bogged down in them. In the effort to provide all-weather roads, Houston followed the lead of eastern road builders in starting 89 a plank road but this particular road was never completed. Despite these handicaps, stagecoach and freighter services continued to increase not only in Texas but throughout the hinterland. In 1857 a semimonthly mail and passenger service was inaugurated between San Antonio and San Diego, California. A more famous coach service, the Butterfield mail line, was instituted in 1853 carrying passengers and mail between St. Louis and Memphis on the east to San Francisco on the 90 west. Beginning in the vicinity of the Missouri River towns was the Santa Fe Trail, the route over which .much freight as well as passengers and mail were transported to Santa Fe, New Mexico. In 1846 over 91 400 wagons moved southwest over this route. As an outgrowth of the cattle economy in Texas, rather well defined trails were followed to northern and eastern markets or to northern grazing lands. The Chisholm Trail originated at Kingsville, Texas near Corpus Christi and reached Abilene, Kansas by way of Austin 92 Fort Worth, and Oklahoma City. Originating near Brownsville, Texas was the Western Trail leading to Nebraska through the present cities of San Antonio, Coleman, Woodward (Oklahoma), and Dodge City. A -western branch of this trail, the Potter Trail, began at Albany, Texas and proceeded to Cheyenne, Wyoming by way of Matador and Amarillo. The third of the famous trails was the Goodnight and Loving Trail over which cattle were driven from San Angelo, Texas to Pecos, Texas and thence up the Pecos River to Fort Sumner, New Mexico. Here the Goodnight Trail moved northeast by way of Clayton, New Mexico to join the Potter Trail while the Loving Trail continued northward to Pueblo, Colorado. The earliest authenticated cattle drive was in 1842 when Edward Piper drove 1,000 head of cattle to Ohio where he fed and sold them. After the Civil War the number of drives increased because in 1865 a $4 cow in Texas was worth $3O to $5O in northern markets. In 1866 it was estimated that 260,000 cattle crossed Ped River en route to the 93 northern markets. These drives continued until the latter part of the nineteenth century but were meeting with increasing resistance. Northern farmers were fencing their farms and objecting to the Texas fever transmitted by passing cattle. Also railroad transportation was n 94 entering the southwest, making drives uneconomical. Although progress in road construction was being made before 1900, rapid progress evolved with the use of automobiles and trucks. Texas 95 had a few automobiles in cities by 1900 but popular use was not pos-96 sible until Henry Ford started production in 1907. The demand for better roads caused Congress to pass the Federal Aid Road Act in 1916 97 and the Federal Hignway Act of 1921. Under both acts Congress made appropriations for highway improvements in all states, proportioned on land area, population, and mileage of rural mail routes. To secure this aid each state had to establish a state highway commission and spend "out of its own treasury every year as much money as it receives 98 from the national treasury.” States immediately took advantage of this opportunity to match national funds. In 1917 Texas passed a motor registration lav/ to raise funds and created the Texas Highway Department, conforming to the requirements of the Federal Aid Road of 1916. In an attempt to foster through state highways, the Federal Highway Act of 1921 re- quired that not in excess of 7 per cent of a state’s road mileage was to benefit from Federal Aid and this designated mileage must be exclusively controlled by a state agency as to design, construction, and 99 maintenance. Further assisting the program of building good roads has been the increased purchasing power of families permitting the ownership of cars, the production of more serviceable motor vehicles, and the increased road tax on gasoline consumption. The tax per gallon in Texas is four cents'^ 0 shile the extreme taxes required by states of the hinterland are 2.0 cents for Missouri and 7*5 cents for Oklahoma. The program has brought fruitful results. Besides the many local and state roads, national highways run north and south as well as east and west at frequent intervals. Joining Detroit, Minneapolis, and 101 Seattle is U. S. Highway 10, ' while U. S. Highway 40 connects Baltimore, St. Louis, Denver, and San Francisco. Another famous route is U. S. Highway 60 serving Norfolk, Louisville, Enid, Amarillo, and Los Angeles. Further south is U. S. Highway 80 beginning with Savannah on the east and ending with San Diego on the west. From north to south, five national highways cross the hinterland. The U. S. Highway 85 goes from El Paso north via Denver to connect with the Canadian Highway 35 leading to Regina. Four of these high- ways have their termini in Canada and Texas ports of entry. The U. S. Highway 85 enters the Mexican highway to Chihuahua by way of Denver and El Paso. Farther east U. S. Highway 83 serves the plains cities of Bismarck, Pierre, Garden City, Abilene (Texas), Laredo, and Brownsville. The highly publicized U. S. Highway ST serves to connect Canada with the Pan American Highway at Laredo via Fargo, Wichita, Fort Worth, and San Antonio. Beginning near the same point at the Canadian border is the U. S. Highway 75 which leads south through Omaha, Tulsa, Dallas, Houston, and Galveston while U. S. Highway 71 extends southward from the Canadian border through Kansas City, Texarkana, and Hew Orleans. In the Total Hinterland 719,233 miles of surfaced road were in operation in 1943 or 50-6 per cent of the national total. In the Primary Hinterland, there were located 141,112 miles or 9*9 per cent of the national total while in the Secondary Hinterland, 578,126 miles or 40.7 per cent were in use. Also the Total Hinterland had 12,645,411 or 41-5 per cent of the registered motor vehicles in the United States in 1944- Of these motor vehicles 3,125,836 were in the Primary Hin-102 terland and 9,519,575 were in the Secondary Hinterland. In addition there are adequate funds to maintain and extend this mileage. In Texas alone the total highway fund available in 1944 was 103 99-9 millions of dollars. In the Primary and Secondary hinterlands the funds available were 186.5 and 510.8 millions of dollars or 9-2 per cent and 25-1 per cent of the national total, respectively. This gives the Total Hinterland the tremendous sum of 697-4 millions of dollars or 34-3 per cent of the national total for operating and extending public highways. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad. 85 Smith, op. cit., pp. 31-32. 86 T , . , Ibid., p. 23. 87 , Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1940, P- 500- 88 Richardson, op. cit., p. 214- 89 This road was begun in 1852, the same year the Buffalo Bayou, Brazos, and Colorado Railroad was begun. Ibid., pp. 214-215- 9 °lbid., p. 217- op. crt., p. 336. Showing Cattle Trails as Used from 1866 to 1895 for Driving Cattle on to Shipping Points or When Trailing to Northern Markets." Clovis News Journal, December 28, 1939, P- 14« op. cit., pp. 211, 216, 21?. barbed wire was discovered in 18'74 and the Kansas Pacific Railroad entered Abilene, Kansas in 1867 • 95 Richardson, op. cit., p. 453- 96 z Shannon, op. cit., p. 607• 97 S. E. Forman, The Rise of American Commerce and Industry, p. 400 98 Ibid., p. 409. 99 'Richardson, op. cit., pp. 453~455« cent, by constitutional requirement, goes to public schools of data on location of highway: Texas Highway Commission, Texas Official Highway Map, Summer Edition corrected to June 1, 1946. from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1946, pp. 489, 491- 103 Data on total highway funds available include federal funds. Ibid., p. 486. Air transportation. In the early phases of developing air transportation, Texas and the Total Hinterland tended to lag behind the eastern states. It was in the East that the research on controlled 104 air flight was first conducted in 1903- Moreover the first experiment of the United States Post Office Department in carrying mail by heavier-than-air craft was from Nassau to Mineola, Long Island in 105 1911. Nevertheless interest in the new form of transportation was soon apparent in Texas. On March 3, 1910 Otto Brodie thrilled the spectators by flying over the Dallas Pair Park. Then in 1916, by permission of the Postmaster General, a load of mail was carried from Dallas to Fort Worth. Beginning with the First World War the government recognized the climatic and topographical advantages and focalized the training of its army pilots in Texas. In later years greater investments were made by the government in Texas training facilities. Near San Antonio in 1930 the government spent $11,000,000 to complete Randolph Field, "the West Point of the Air." Then in 1941 a training field for naval 107 aviators was constructed at Corpus Christi at a cost of $44,000,000. In addition training schools were established at many locations through out the state, including those at Lubbock, Wichita Falls, San Angelo, Midland, El Paso, and Houston. In the early 1920’s many of the larger cities constructed, and. equipped flying fields. Moreover the government was moving westward with air-mail service. In the northern part of the hinterland an airmail route was established between New York and San Francisco by way 108 of Chicago in 1920. During this same year the Chicago-St. Louis and Chicago-Minneapolis routes were opened. On July 1, 1924 the "world’s first" regular night service was inaugurated between Chicago 109 z and Cheyenne, Wyoming. Beginning in 1926 the National Air Transport provided the first regular air-mail service for Texas by establishing a route from Fort Worth and Dallas to Chicago by way of Okla-110 homa City. In 1925, 1926, and 1930 Congress enacted legislation providing material aid to air transportation, laying the foundation for extended mail,, passenger, and express services. By the Air Mail (Kelly) Act of 192 p and its amendment in 1926, the contracts for carrying air mail were let by competitive bidding. lll Under the Air Commerce Act of 1926 the Department of Commerce was charged with the responsibility of fostering air commerce by encouraging the establishment of safety de-112 vices and airway facilities. Then in 1930 the Watres Act provided 113 for the letting of the air-mail contracts without competitive bidding. Under this arrangement many companies were unable to attain contracts while others found it advantageous to consolidate in order to receive the generous subsidies for air-mail transportation. Under this and later arrangements, the current pattern of commercial airlines developed rapidly. At the current stage of scheduled flying, the Total Hinterland is well supplied with airlines and terminal facilities. On January 1, 1946 Texas ranked first in "total airports" with 373 of the 4,026 in the United States. But the state ranked second to California in airports capable of serving the needs of the "largest aircraft now in use and those planned for the immediate future." Under this classification, California had 96 airports to 94 for Texas and 831 for the nation. The data also reveal that the Primary and Secondary hinterlands have 176 and 146 airports of this larger type, respectively. Among the airports of Texas, four are ports of entry including El Paso, Brownsville, Laredo, and Eagle Pass. Brownsville ranks as one of the three most important airports in the nation for receiving and 115 discharging foreign commerce. Other airports in Texas have received designations as "landing right airports." The latter airports serve only those planes previously granted permits to land at the designated ports. Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Houston are among the cities that have received such designations. Other important air terminals in the Primary Hinterland are Amarillo, .H.buquerque, Denver, Wichita, Tulsa, and Oklahoma City. Focal air terminals in the Secondary Hinterland include Minneapolis-St. Paul Detroit, Chicago, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, Little Rock, 116 Shreveport, and New Orleans. Benefiting from the central location within the nation, the hinterland is served by all transcontinental airlines. These four airlines are as follows: Northwestern Airlines; United Airlines; Trans 117 World Airline; and American Airlines. ' The American Airlines and Braniff Airways make connection with the Pan American Airlines at Mon terrey and Laredo, respectively. Other flights of the Pan American Airlines to Mexico City originate in Houston and Corpus Christi. One other connection with Mexico City is provided at El Paso where the 118 Lamsa airline meets the American and Continental airlines. Other airlines making major contributions in through flights include the Braniff Airways which radiate out from Houston and other Texas cities to Chicago and Denver. Then there is the Chicago and Southern with routes from Houston to Chicago and to Detroit by way of Memphis. Houston also has a route to the Atlantic Coast by using the Eastern Airlines while Dallas may utilize the services of the Delta Airlines to Savannah or Miami. Several other lines serve as feeders including the Pioneer Airlines, Continental Airlines, Colonial Airlines, and Mid-Continent Airlines. R. Johnson, Grover G. Huebner, and Wilson G. Lloyd, Transportation, Economic Principles and Practices, p. 261. H. Frederick, Commercial Air Transportation, p. 6. chardson, op. cit., p. 459- 10? Loc cit 1 Oft J. Parker Van Zandt, "Air Transport," Transportation and National Policy (prepared for National Resources Planning Board), p. 332 op. cit. , p. 7» 110 , Richardson, op. cit., p.. 460. Johnson, Huebner, and Wilson, op. cit. , p. 282. Frederick, op. cit., pp. 8-9. 113 Ibid., p. 12. 114 / Compiled from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1946, p. 529. H>The other two are Miami and New York. Aviation Air Traffic Guide, June 1947, P- 241. ' , p. 240. HsThe full name of the Lamsa airline is Lineas Aereas Mexicanas 3. A. Pipe line transportation. The first successful transmission of 119 gas by pipe line occurred in Texas in 1909, though the first pipe line for carrying petroleum was placed in operation at Corsicana in 120 1896. Regardless of the early usage, the extensive utilization of pipe lines as a mode of transporting gas, oil, and gasoline has come 121 about since 1920. Pipe lines of the hinterland in 1939 carried crude oil from the principal fields in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming. The flow was mainly in two directions, one toward the Gulf Coast and the other 122 to the cities on the Great Lakes and in the Middle Atlantic states. The importance of the movement by pipe line is indicated by the amount of petroleum products that travels in this fashion. In 1940, 341.8 millions of barrels of crude oil were received at Texas refineries by pipe line as compared to 51.0 millions of barrels brought by tank 123 cars, boats, and trucks. To meet an emergency during World War 11, two large pipe lines were constructed and operated under the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in which Texas oil fields were connected with the Atlantic Coast. The 24-inch pipe line called the Big Inch was extended 1,254 miles from Longview, Texas via Norris City, Illinois to Philadelphia and New York. The second pipe line, a 20-inch line called the Little Inch, was extended 1,475 miles, connecting Beaumont, Texas with New- Jersey. During the war 223 million barrels of crude oil and 84 million barrels of refined products were transported by the Big Inch and 124 Little Inch, respectively. While barge services may again prove more economical in moving crude oil, there is indication that gas lines are more in demand than ever. The Big Inch and Little Inch may serve this purpose if the op-125 position of coal interests in the East permit. Not only have additional requests been made for gas from Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, but major pipe lines have been initiated. In 1944 the 24-inch pipe line from Corpus Christi to Cornwell, West Virginia was completed for use of the Tennessee Gas and Transmission Company to "supplement 126 insufficient supplies of gas in the Appalachian area.” Other requests for pipe lines are coming not only from such distant states as Wisconsin and Minnesota but also from Mexico to "carry Texas natural 127 gas to the industries of Monterrey." To further emphasize the importance of gas lines, one need only observe those radiating out from the Panhandle Field north and east of Amarillo. This "greatest single gas reserve in Texas and the largest gas field in the world" furnishes gas by pipe line to Denver, Boise City, Indianapolis, Chicago, St. Paul, and Kansas City as well as to New Mexico and such cities as 128 Dallas and Fort Worth in Texas. H. Fancher, ’’The Natural Gas and Gasoline Industry,” The Resources of Texas, p. 166. H. Power, ”The Oil Industry,” The Resources of Texas, p. 141 !21g. Lloyd Wilson, ’’Petroleum Pipe Line Transportation,” Transportation and National Policy (prepared for National Resources Planning Board), p. 459- 122 T Loc. cit. 123 power, op. cit., p. 141. G. White, F. S. Lott, A. T. Coumbre, and A. L. Clapp, "Crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products,” Minerals Yearbook, 1944, p. 1073- by Inch,” Fortune, December 1945, P« 274- COMMUNICATIONS Because of the isolated condition of the early settlements, improved communications served not only as a source of enjoyment but as a basis for greater economic activity. The extension of postal services was a particular boon to the isolated farmers in the hinterland. Not only could farmers and business men learn of the availability of markets but they could register letters beginning in 1854, secure money orders in 1864, have rural free delivery after 1897, and could 129 utilize the parcel post for ordering by mail beginning in 1913- Approximately ten years after the practicability of the telegraph had been demonstrated in 1837, this method of communication became available to the hinterland. In 1847 Chicago was linked with New York by telegraph lines. The interior of the hinterland was spanned when the Western Union, aided by government subsidies, extended its lines KZ 130 to the Pacific in 1861. Entrance of telegraph lines to Texas came by way of New Orleans, services having been extended to Galveston by 1854- In the year 1865 extensions were made to Austin and San Antonio and by 1875 Fort Worth, Dallas, Corpus Christi, and Brownsville bene-131 fited by telegraphic services. ' The telephone is a more recent innovation than the telegraph but has gained greater acceptance. It was not until 1892 that long distance telephone service reached Chicago, and 1915 before the first transcontinental line between New York and San Francisco was.established. In Texas, Galveston opened the first telephone exchange in 1879- Then telephone lines were extended to Houston in 1883 and rapidly spread over the state until the end of the century "practi-132 cally every town in the state had its own telephone exchange." Though the first wireless message was sent from Europe to America 133 on December 12, 1901, it was not until November 2, 1920 that daily 134 broadcasting was initiated by KDKA at Pittsburg. In that same year radio broadcasting was introduced in Texas with the erection of the 20-watt station TO owned by the city of Dallas. By 1940 Texas had 55 broadcasting stations representing an investment of approximately 135 |2,750,000. Further indicating the extension of communication services, the Total Hinterland had 773,772 miles of free-delivery routes in 1944, representing 54 per cent of the national total. In that same year there were 17,416 post offices, or 42 per cent of the nation’s total, also telephone service was on a broad base in 1944 inasmuch as the Total Hinterland had 31 per cent of the business telephones and 35 per cent of the residential telephones in the nation. Moreover there were 33 millions of the 103 millions of miles of the nation’s telephone "I 3 A wires located in the Total Hinterland. S. Lott and H. Backus, "Natural Gas," Min er ad. s Yearbook, 1944, PP- 1063, 1064. on March," Business Week, March 10, 1945, PP» 113-114. 1 Fancher, op. cit., pp. 160-161. op. eit. , pp. 486-487. , pp. 334-335- 131 Richardson, op. cit., pp. 449-450• 132 Charles M. Thompson and Fred M. Tones, Economic Development oi the United States, pp. 450-451* POWER Since the first settlers inhabited the hinterland there has been a great transformation in the known power resources and the ability of man to adapt them to his use. Other than human strength, the pioneers depended mainly upon oxen, horses, and mules for power. Little did they realize that the wind on the plains would be harnessed to pump the water and generate electricity; that there were large quantities of gas, oil, and coal that would be utilized within the hinterland and throughout the nation for power and fuel; that water power, though limited on the plains area, would provide a substantial means for gen-137 erating electricity. History has substantiated these statements but the availability of power in the future will depend upon the willingness to conserve, the discovery and application of more efficient techniques in use, and the ability to uncover unknown reserves. Examining the known sources, one discovers that the power of the 138 hinterland rests heavily upon "non-renewable fund resources." In this classification are the oil, gas, and coal resources, while the wind and water resources belong to the ’’flow” classification. To date, wind as a source of power has not been highly developed and water power is limited by the scarcity of rainfall over the central portions of the hinterland. Moreover favorable sites in the west are far from 139 existing load centers. The paucity of the water power available in the hinterland is re vealed in data for both the developed and potential water power. In 1941 the Primary and Secondary hinterlands had 0.3 and 2.7 million horsepower in developed water power, amounting to 1.5 per cent and 14.4 per cent of the United States total of 18.9 million horsepower. Stated another way, the Total Hinterland encompassing 54.0 per cent of the land area has only 15.9 per cent of the total developed water power in the United States. From the standpoint of potential water power available, the hinterland fairs even worse. While the national potential is 42.8 million horsepower, the Total Hinterland has only 141 5-4 million or 12.5 per cent of the national total. Indicating the inaccessibility to industrial centers, the two states with the largest potentials are Montana and Colorado with 1.3 and 0.6 million potential horsepower, respectively. Despits the lack of water power, the hinterland has developed a large power capacity. For example, the Total Hinterland has installed 30.5 per cent of the nation’s electric generating capacity for public use, the Primary and Secondary hinterlands accounting for 5.8 and 24.7 per cent, respectively. Following the expected pattern, the Total Hinterland had per cent of the nation’s generating capacity which was powered by internal combustion engines but only 15.1 per cent of the nation’s capacity powered by water. Texas alone furnishes 9-6 per cent of the generating capacity powered by internal combustion engines However, steam is the most used prime mover for generating electricity in the United States, accounting for 34-6 of the 50.3 million kilo- watts for the whole nation in 1944. By this method of generation, the Total Hinterland supplied 35-8 per cent of the nation’s capacity in 1944. 142 Since power generation involves mainly the use of coal, lignite, gas, and oil, one might well raise the question as to how long will these nonreplacable resources last. According to a special report by the United States News, known petroleum reserves in the United States 143 would last only 15 years at the average rate of consumption. On the other hand, the estimated ’’proved oil reserves in the United States” have tended to increase rather than decrease. In 1945 the ’’proved oil reserves” were 20.5 billions of barrels as compared to 17.3 billions of barrels in Over one-half of these known reserves were in Texas alone, the state having 11.4 billion of the 20.5 145 billion barrels of oil reserves in the nation on January 1, 1945- An estimation of the reserves of natural gas and coal is even more difficult to make than those for petroleum. Nevertheless no great concern is expressed that supplies will be exhausted in the near future. One recent publication describes this reserve of gas in the following manner: To estimate the reserves of natural gas is even more difficult than to estimate the reserves of petroleum, and therefore to forecast the potential life of the stores of gas still available would be futile. Some students claim the recently proved fields of the Panhandle of Texas are ample to furnish supplies for the next century at current rates of consumption. More conservative-minded students place the estimates of potential supplies at much lower figures. Which ever may prove to be the more nearly correct, it is evident that even the most optimistic estimates are for relatively short periods of It is particularly significant to note that the largest stores of this natural gas are found in the states of the hinterland and that Texas and Oklahoma rank first and third in the current national production. The reserves of bituminous coal and lignite within the hinterland are much greater than, previously thought. The Rocky Mountain and Semi arid Plains area alone are credited ’’with 60 percent of the total for 147 the entire country.” The small interest in these reserves arises from their low grade, close proximity to gas, and, in some cases, in-148 accessibleness to industrial centers. In recent years much work has been done to expand the usefulness of lignite as a fuel. One example is the successful operation of The University of Texas power plant with this fuel. 4 '' Inaccessibility, however, has yet to be solved. For instance, the cannel coal of Webb County, Texas ”is one of the best as far as quality is concerned, but its exploitation suf- fers from the lack of a large dependable market at a reasonable dis-150 tance.” As industrialization in the hinterland progresses, new and enlarged markets for these coals will be established. 133 Ibid., p. 452. 131 op. cit., p. 617. 135 Richardson, op. cit. , p. 543. from Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1946, pp. 462, 472. A. E. Parkins and J. R. Whitaker, Our Natural Resources and Their Conservation, Second Edition, p. 303- Erich W. Zimmermann, World Resources and Industries, p. 160. lj 9parkins and Whitaker, op. cit. , p. 313* Data on ’’developed water power 1 ’ give the capacity of actual installation, January, 1941- Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1946, p. 482. 141 The data on potential horsepower reflect the 24-hour horsepower available 90 per cent of the time. Loc. cit. Abstract of the United States, 194-6, p. 476. Basic Wealth of U. S. Fading?” United States News, July 4, 1947, PP- 36-39- Lott, Coumbre, and Clapp, op. cit., p. 1073- cit. and Whitaker, op. cit., p. 459. 147 Ibid., p. 434- 148 Huge reserves in Montana and New Mexico particularly fall in this classification. 149 Stenzel, op. cit., p. 184. PRODUCTION Agricultural production. Within the framework of the geographical, human, and cultural aspects of the hinterland, a predominantly agricultural economy has developed. Much already has been presented depicting this agrarian expansion since it was so closely associated with the extension of the population and the transportation facilities Supplementing the foregoing discussion, this section presents primarily the productive attainments and shifts within the economy. An examination of available area devoted to farming in 1940 reveals that 67 per cent or 712 million of the 1,061 million acres of 151 the nation’s farms lay within the Total Hinterland. The Primary and Secondary hinterlands accounted for 291 and 421 millions of acres or 27 per cent and 40 per cent of the United States total, respectively. The state of Texas had 138 million acres or 13 per cent of the nation’s farm lands. The income from farms of the hinterland, including crops, livestock, and livestock products, amounted to 11.0 billion dollars in 1943 on 57 pen cent of the national total. The Primary and Secondary hinterlands received 2.7 and 8.3 billions of dollars or 14 and 43 per cent of the United States total, respectively. Although Texas had 13 per cent of all farm lands, the income from farms represented only 6 per cent of the total, emphasizing that much of this state was not in. • 1 O tensively farmed. a lncludes data for 52 crops. receipts for "government payments" and "value of products consumed by persons on farms." G lncludes income from livestock products. sBales of 500 pounds each. Source of data: United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1944, pp. 11, 72, 393, 399, 407, and 429- To further analyze the nature of the production, the total income from farms is broken down into the major components of crops on the one hand and livestock and livestock products on the other. The data reveal that the Total Hinterland received 11.0 of the 19-3 billion dollars of income from farm crops, relatively, 57 pen cent of the national total. In both the Primary and Secondary hinterlands the return from livestock and livestock products exceeded that received from crops. In the Primary Hinterland, livestock and livestock products accounted for 59 pen cent of the total farm income of 2.6 billion dollars for this region. The Secondary Hinterland showed an even greater preponderance of the return from livestock and livestock products in that 71 per cent of its farm income was derived from this source. This livestock industry developed from small beginnings of a cen-153 tury ago. The first of the drives of Texas longhorn cattle from South Texas to northern markets began prior to the Civil War. The era was ended by 1885 hue to the introduction of barbed wire, windmills, Hereford cattle, quarantine restrictions against Texas fever, and the determination of cowboys, migrating farmers, and immigrants to _ 155 take out homesteads after 1802. The effort to discover more eco- nomical methods of producing beef cattle has led to breeding and feed- ing experiments with many breeds of cattle, including the shorthorns, Durhams, Aberdeen Angus, and more recently, crosses with the Brahma 156 cattle. Other livestock of major importance to the national economy tend to be concentrated within the hinterland. Of the 9 states in the nation with over 1 million milk cows and heifers in 1944, 6 were in the Secondary Hinterland about the Great Lakes while the seventh one was Texas, located in the Primary Hinterland. Hogs are concentrated in the corn producing states of lowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, and Missouri. lowa alone had 15 million hogs on farms in 1944 compared to 84 million in the nation, 54 million in the Secondary Hinterland, and 8 million in the Primary Hinterland. As a state, Texas far surpasses any other state as a producer of sheep. In 1944 this state had 10.2 of the 45*8 million stock sheep and lambs in the nation, while the western states of Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico 1 accounted for an additional 10.5 million." In addition to having large livestock concentrations, the hinter-158 land contributes a large share of the nation’s cereal production. For the years 1932-1941, the mean annual production of corn for the nation was 2,349 million bushels. Of this mean annual production, 1,708 million bushels, or 73 per cent, were produced by the Total Hinterland with most of the production centered in lowa and adjacent states. The Primary Hinterland produced 171 million bushels or only 7 per cent of the nation’s mean annual production with Texas and Kansas leading in this region. A similar concentration is true for the production of wheat. For the years 1932-1941, the Total Hinterland produced 71 per cent of the mean annual crop of 738 million bushels for the nation. However, this production required 82 per cent of the average acres seeded to reach 159 this goal. Of the national total, the Primary and Secondary hinterlands accounted for 206 and 315 million bushels of wheat or 28 per cent and 43 per cent of the national total. The leading states according to rank were Kansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Montana, and Nebraska. Of these five states, North Dakota and Montana are largely spring wheat producers while the other three are winter wheat states. Since wheat is one of the principal exports through Texas ports, this concentration of wheat production within the Primary and Secondary hinterlands has particular significance. In addition the ecology for wheat has markedly changed since 1859 when no state west of the Mississippi River was included in the five leading producers. Revealing the shift westward, Kansas ranked sixth in 1889, second in 1909, and first in $ Also the Texas Panhandle showed marked increases in wheat production after 1910. Wheat not only grew in the arid plains region but the climate and soil were conducive to the pro- duction of high-protein wheat. This wheat belt which ranges from Hockley and Crosby counties on the south to Oklahoma on the north normally produces 65 to 75 per cent of the state total. Whieat production in Texas was 10.4 million bushels in 1910, 20.4 million bushels in 1920, and 38.4 million bushels in 1930. The average production for the state during 1936-1945 was 41-3 million bushels although a new annual record was set in 1947 when 124.3 million bushels were produced 161 in the state. Another cereal of prime importance domestically is oats, a crop grow principally in the corn belt. For the years 1932-1941 the four hinterland states of lowa, Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin produced an average of 508 million of the nation’s 1,019 million bushels. Despite the displacement of horses by tractors on the farms, the demand for this crop has not materially lessened in the past 15 years for oats are widely accepted as a food for humans and other animals. While the nation exports some oats each year, the imports have exceeded the 162 exports from 1929 to 1942. Closely integrated in the economy of the hinterland is cotton. This crop has particular significance to this study since it is one of the three leading exports through Texas ports. Between 1932-1941, Texas alone produced on the average 3*4 million bales of cotton, ac- counting for 27 per cent of the nation’s 12.5 million bales of cotton 163 lint. Other hinterland states contributing appreciable amounts to the national total were New Mexico, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Missouri, and Arkansas, the latter being the only state contributing more than one million bales annually. ' Compared to the nation’s production, the Total Hinterland averaged 52 per cent or 6.5 million bales of cotton, while the Primary and Secondary hinterlands produced 4.2 and 2.2 million bales or 34 per cent and 18 per cent of the nation’s average, respectively. While cotton has been the chief crop in Texas ’’since the colonial era,” its expansion west of the rich eastern soils has taken place since 1880. In 1900 the crop was first raised in Lubbock County located above the cap rock and by 1926 ”seventeen counties lying 165 wholly or in part within the High Plains produced about 500,000 bales.” While the principal crops of the hinterland have been discussed, there are others sufficiently important to deserve mention. ' Rice production in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas has reached sizable proportions and like most other agricultural crops the production is being materially mechanized. Cane sugar production has been centered in 166 Louisiana but acreage has been uecreased since the low prices in 167 the 1930’5. More important has been the sugar produced from sugar beets. California ranked first, Colorado second, Michigan third, Montana fourth, and Nebraska fifth as producers of beet sugar in the years 1932-1941. In the northern corn growing states from lowa to Ohio, the rela-168 tively new but important crop of soybeans is cultivated. Indicating its rapid expansion, the total production in 1929 was 9-4 million bushels as compared to 195•8 million in 1943- In the greatest year of exports, over 11 million bushels of soybeans were shipped to foreign 169 markets. The crop’s usefulness in producing plastics, paints, and edible oils insure increased demand and production in the future. Credit for the great advance in agricultural production in the hinterland may be attributed largely to the mechanization of the agricultural processes, research and its application, and the establishment of educational facilities for adult as well as future farmers. Determined effort has been made in every major crop and livestock industry to mechanize the operations. The goal is greater production with less cost per unit. Not only has this mechanization come to the farmers with large acreage but emphasis since 1936 has been to mechanize small farms by supplying small combines, tractors, and other machinery. In utilizing machinery and petroleum products as producing agents, larger proportions of the total product are available for con- sumption outside of the productive process. Research in disease and insect control is continuing with outstanding achievements in plant and animal protection. Moreover, the science of hybridization has also attained gratifying successes for 170 increasing both plant and animal production. lor improving animal life, the utilization of superior germ plasm through artificial insemination has great potentialities. Furthermore the efforts to adapt 171 foreign plant and animal life are paying dividends. In all this growth the government has encouraged the dissemination of agricultural information in addition to its research activities. County agents, agricultural colleges, and publications have been particularly effective. , p. 182. 151 See Table VI for the principal data presented in this section. The percentages and data for individual states were compiled from the following source: United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1944, pp. 11, 72, 393, 399, 407, and 429- 152 Compiled from Agricultural Statistics, 1944, op. cit., p. 429- called Texas longhorns, they were the wild descendants of Spanish cattle abandoned near Brownsville, Texas. 154 "There is an authentic record of the driving of cattle from Texas to Ohio in 1846, and by iB6O they were regularly driven to eastern lowa and sent from there to Chicago by rail." Shannon, on. cit., p. 250. wire was introduced to the Central Plains in the 1880’s while Hereford cattle, imported by Henry Clay in 1817, were found adaptable to Texas in the 1870’s. Faulkner, oc. cit. , p. 237- and Foscue, op. cit., pp. 300-301. Statistics, 1944, op- cit. , pp. 298, 309, 337• Table VI. (jo.niplied from Agricultural Statistics, 1944, op. cit. , p. 11. ■^^Shannon, op. c it. , p. 380. Abstract of the United States, 1948, P- 656; Richardson, op. cit., p. 394; Texas Almanac and Industrial Guide, 1945-1946, p. .Statistics, 1944, oj. cit., pp. 48, 49* Table VI. 164 Agricultural Statistics, 1944, op. cit., p. 72. 165 Richardson, op. cit., pp. 395-396. Louisiana produced an average of 308 thousand short tons from 1932-1941 while Florida, the only other producing state, produced 57 thousand short tons. Agricultural Statistics, 1944, op. cit. , p. 94- Shannon, op. cit., p. 349- and Foscue, op. cit. , p. 3sl. 169 7 Agricultural Statistics, 1944, op. cit., p. 134- Item United States Total Hinter- land Primary Secondary Hinter- land Hinter- land All Land in Farms, 1940 (million acres) . 1,061 712 291 421 Average Harvested Acreage, 1932-1941 (mil. acres) a 330 232 68 164 Income from Farms, 1943* Total Income (mil. dol.) .... . 19,252 11,003 2,670 8,333 Crops (mil. dol.) • 7,903 3,500 1,110 . 2,390 Livestock (mil. dol.) c . 11,349 7,503 1,560 5,943 Average Production, 1932-1941- Corn (mil. bu. ) ■ 2,349 1,708 171 1,537 Wheat (mil. bu.) 738 521 206 315 Cotton Lint (thous. bales) $ . . 12,474 6,463 4,214 2,249 TABLE VI FARM ACREAGE J PRODUCTION, AN© INC Ol'S FOR UNITED STATES AND HINTERLAND OF TEXAS PORTS FOR SPECIFIED ITEMS AND YEARS Mineral production. History records many examples wherein the production and utilization of minerals have given superiority to those nations competing for foreign markets as well as for political survi-172 val. In this section, attention is devoted to the initial requisite for this superiority, the production of minerals in the hinterland. Under the section on manufacturing, a description is given of the progress made in fabricating these minerals into implements for production, distribution, and consumption. In value the Total Hinterland produced 3*4 billion dollars or 41 per cent of the 8.5 billion dollars of the national mineral product in 1944- Mineral production in the Primary and Secondary hinterlands contributed 2.0 and 1.4 billions of dollars, respectively. The state of Texas produced 1.3 billion dollars or 16 per cent of the national total in 1944, indicating a large concentration of production in this state. In each of the years 1940 to 1944 Texas ranked first in the nation as a producer of minerals with Pennsylvania a close second. This production in Texas was most heavily concentrated in petroleum, natural gas, and natural gasoline inasmuch as these products accounted 173 for 1.2 of the 1.3 billion dollar production in that year. In order to present a comparison based on a relatively long period, Table VII provides the data on the value of the production of minerals for the years 1911-1944* During that period the Total Hinterland produced 44 pen cent of the nation’s mineral product.as compared to 41 per cent in 1944- The loss of 3 per cent was the result of an approximate gain of 1 per cent in the Primary Hinterland and an approximate loss of 4 per cent in the production of the Secondary Hinterland. Within the Primary Hinterland the principal minerals produced are petroleum, natural gas, natural gasoline, sulphur, zinc, copper, potas-17/ sium salts, coal, gold, and molybdenum. Of lesser importance to the Primary Hinterland is the production of cement, sand and gravel, salt, helium, magnesium, and clay products. In the Secondary Hinterland a similar group of principal minerals are produced. Of particular significance are iron ore, lead, zinc, coal, copper, bauxite, and sulphur. In presenting the minerals in more detail, the principal ones in the Primary Hinterland will be considered first. Source of data: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbook, 1944, pp. 33-36 and 40. The fuel minerals, including natural gas, natural gasoline, petroleum, and coal, were treated under the sections on ’Tower" and "Pipe lines." While the emphasis in those sections stressed reserves and transportation, attention is now directed to their production. In the production of petroleum and natural gasoline, Texas leads all states in the nation, having produced 44.6 per cent of the national output of 1.7 billion barrels in 1944. California, a state outside of the hinterland, ranked second with 18.6 per cent of the national total while there was produced in Louisiana 7-7 per cent, Oklahoma 7-4 per cent, 175 and Kansas 5-9 pen cent of the national total. a other minerals of importance to Texas are cement, sand and gravel, salt, helium, magnesium, and clay products. Source: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbook, 1944, pp. 40 and 76-77• Other states in the hinterland producing less than 5 but more than 1 per cent of the national total were Illinois, Nevi Mexico, Wyoming, Arkansas, and Michigan. Changes in relative positions since 1935 indicate that Texas has increased 5-2 per cent; Louisiana, 2.7 per cent; and Illinois, 4.2 per cent of the national total. On the other hand, California and Oklahoma have declined 2.3 and 11.2 per cent, respec-176 tively, from 1935 to 1944- Natural gas production follows a pattern similar to that of petro leum. Of the national product of 3-2 trillion cubic feet in 1943> Texas contributed 15 per cent, Louisiana 16 per cent, and Oklahoma 5 177 per cent. Other hinterland states contributing more than 50 bil- lion cubic feet were Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, and Wyo-178 ming. Production of another product, natural gasoline,' has paralleled petroleum in expansion with an increase of 9 per cent in 1944 over that of 1943* The total production in 1944 was 3«0 billion gallons and the principal contributing states were Texas, California, 179 Louisiana, and Oklahoma, three of which lie in the hinterland. While bituminous coal of a low grade is most plentiful in the hinterland, production and utilization are very moderate. Of the 620 million tons of coal and lignite produced nationally in 1944, the Total Hinterland produced only 148 million tons, contributed mainly by 180 Illinois and Indiana. Approximately 100 per cent of the sulphur mined in the United States comes from two states, Texas and Louisiana. Of the 3*2 million long tons produced in 1944, 80 per cent was produced in Texas and 20 181 per cent in Louisiana. So efficient is the Frasch process, per- fected in 1903, that production is available for exportation. Domes- tically, this product is abundantly used in producing gasoline, chemi-182 cals, pulp, paper, and fertilizer. Another chemical, potash, is utilized primarily for agricultural, chemical, and export purposes. The four states of New Mexico, Utah, California, and Maryland produced 835 thousand tons of ’’merchant able potash salts” in 1944- Nevertheless, New Mexico, the only state of the hinterland, produced 85 per cent of the total. Large reserves estimated at 75 million tons are located in the "Texas-New Mexico 184 field” near Carlsbad. Magnesium, the newest and lightest of the industrial metals, is 185 economically produced in large quantities in Texas and Michigan. During the war the capacity of plants was extended beyond peace-time needs. By December, 1944, 232,000 tons or 79 per cent of the nation’s productive capacity was shut down. Nevertheless, 157,100 short tons were produced in 1944 using various types of raw materials including "sea water, dolmite, magnesite, underground brines, and residues from 186 potash manufacture." The state of Arkansas was responsible for producing approximately 187 97 per cent of the crude bauxite in the United States in 1944- As conversion into aluminum requires large quantities of cheap electricity, this process has been performed outside the hinterland in the 188 states of Tennessee, Washington, New York, and North Carolina. 0 In May, 1948 the Aluminum Company of America announced plans to construct "a multi-million-dollar plant" at Port Lavaca for producing aluminum from "purified aluminum ore." This plant will use natural gas rather 189 than water power as a source of energy. Despite the war demands, domestic lead production of 394,443 tons in 1944 did not attain the 660,525 ton average for 1925-1929- The mining of lead ores is centered principally in southeastern Missouri; the Tri-State area at the junction of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri; and the western states of Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and Montana. Inasmuch as southeastern Missouri alone furnished 41 per cent and the Tri-State area furnished 7 per cent of the domestic production, the hinterland is in a favorable position regarding this metal. Moreover, Mexican lead producers are most anxious to sell in the markets of the 190 United States. Zinc production in the United States is more widely distributed than lead. Nevertheless the Tri-State area of Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas was the principal contributor to the national production in 1944. In that year this area supplied 190,270 tons of the 713,642 tons produced nationally. Utilization of the metal is principally for 191 galvanizing and the production of brass products and zinc-base alloys. Copper mining is performed principally in the Rocky Mountain states and Michigan. The states of Arizona, Utah, Montana, New Mexico Nevada, and Michigan produced 96 per cent of the national total of 192 972,549 tons in 1944- Production for this year was 11 per cent below that of 1943 but 10 per cent above the average for 1925-1929- defining operations are tending to move westward, although 5 of the 11 plants were still centered on the Atlantic seaboard in 1944- Within the hinterland, 5 refineries were in operation in 1944 including locations at El Paso, Texas; Hurley, New Mexico; Great Falls, Montana; and 193 "on the Great Lakes.” The production of iron ore is located principally in the Great Lakes area with the three hinterland states of Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin supplying 34 per cent of the 94 million gross tons pro- duced in the United States in 1944* By states, this production was 69 per cent for Minnesota, 14 per cent for Michigan, and 1 per cent 194 for Wisconsin. Due to the rapid exhaustion of the high-grade ores, less desirable ones are being worked. In East Texas two companies recently have begun mining operations for iron ore. In 1944 the Lone Star Steel Company of Daingerfield, Texas shipped high-grade ore to blast furnaces in Illinois and steel furnaces in the Birmingham district. The other firm, the Sheffield Steel Company, also shipped iron ore to blast furnaces in Illinois 195 besides making shipments to its own steel furnaces in Houston. Wile the total production of iron ore in Texas for 1944 was only 306,185 tons, there is a determined effort to increase the output for use in the local furnaces of the Lone Star Steel Company and the Sheffield Steel Company. Other principal mineral products of the hinterland include helium, salt, molybdenum, gold, and the building materials of stone, sand, gravel, and cement. Of great military and medicinal importance is the extraction of helium near Amarillo, Texas. In this area is located 196 the greatest .known reserve of this gas in the United States. Abundant amounts of common salt (Na Cl) are produced in Michigan, Louisi- ana, and Texas with each state producing over one million tons in 1944 In Colorado is concentrated the greatest production of the steelalloying element, molybdenum. Also this state is one of the five 197 leading states in the production of gold. ' Throughout the hinterland are sources of sand, gravel, stone, and calcareous stone for cement production. Texas, particularly, has large quantities of these building materials. 170 ' In 1933 less than 1 per cent of the corn acreage in lowa was planted with hybrid seed. In 1943, 99-3 per cent of its total acreage was planted with hybrid seed. Agricultural Statistics, 1944, op* cit. P* 39* 171 ' The importation of soybeans from the Orient in 1804 is only one example. White and Foscue, op. cit. , p. 351* , op. cit. , pp. 330-431* 1 States Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbook, 1944, pp. 33-36, 76-77. 17ZF See Chart IV. 175 Minerals Yearbook, 1944, op. cit., p. 1076. ffilbid., p. 1081 177 Ibid., p. 1029. liquefied petroleum. 77 Minerals Yearbook, 1944, op. cit., p. 1177 I^°lbid. , p. 830. 181 Ibid., pp. 1361-1362. 122 White and Foscue, op. cit., pp. 302-304- Yearbook, 1944, op. cit. , p. 1460. , pp. 1458-1464. 185 •'Other producing states are Connecticut, New York, Ohio, Wash ington, and California. Ibid., p. 757- 186 Ibjd., pp. 7>6-765. Georgia, and Virginia are also producers of bauxite. 18S Minerals Yearbook, 1944, op. cit. , p. 680. lg9 The El Paso Times, May 17, 1945, P- 1- Yearbook, 1944, op. cit., pp. 157-164- 191 ibid., pp. 186, 192. 192 ' The states are named in the order of their rank. Yearbook, 1944, op- cit., pp. 132, 135, 136 , p. 536. 195 Ibid., pp. 533, 555. 196 Almon E. Parkins, The South, Its Economic-Geographic Development, p. 439• Region Value of Mineral Products 1944 1911-1944 Value (mil. dol.) % of U.S. Total Value (mil. dol.) % of U. S. United States 8,452 100.0 139.139 100.0 Total Hinterland 3,421 40.5 60,675 43.6 Primary Hinterland . . . 2,005 23.7 31,375 22.6 Texas 1,319 15.6 14,309 10.3 Remainder 686 8.1 17,066 12.3 Secondary Hinterland . 1,416 16.8 29,300 21.1 table vii VALUE OF MINERAL PRODUCTS FOR HINTERLAND OF TEXAS PORTS IN SPECIFIED YEARS Region Principal Mineral Products in Order of Value, 1943 Primary Hinterland: Colorado .... Molybdenum, coal, zinc, gold Kansas .... Petroleum, natural gas, zinc, coal New Mexico .... Petroleum, potassium salts, copper, natural Oklahoma gas .... Petroleum, natural gas, zinc, natural m a Texas gasoline .... Petroleum, natural gas, natural gasoline, Secondary Hinterland: Arkansas sulphur .... Bauxite, petroleum, coal, natural gas Illinois .... Coal, petroleum, stone, sand, and gravel Indiana .... Coal, cement, petroleum, stone Iowa .... Coal, cement, stone, clay products Louisiana .... Petroleum, natural gas, natural gasoline, Michigan sulphur .... Iron ore, petroleum, salt, natural gas Minnesota .... Iron ore, manganiferious ore, sand, gravel, Missouri stone .... Lead, coal, cement, zinc Montana .... Copper, petroleum, coal, zinc Nebraska .... Cement, sand, gravel, stone, petroleum North Dakota .... Coal, sand, gravel, natural gas, clay South Dakota products .... Gold, stone, raw clay, cement Wisconsin .... Stone, iron ore, zinc, sand, gravel •Wyoming .... Petroleum, coal, natural gas, iron ore CHART IV PRINCIPAL MINERALS PRODUCED WITHIN HINTERLAND OF TEXAS PORTS, 1943 Lumber production. Data on lumber production for 1942 reveal that the Total Hinterland contributed 6.9 billion board feet or 19-0 z 198 per cent of the national product of 36.3 billion board feet. Of the national product, the Primary and Secondary hinterlands accounted for 1.7 and 5*2 billion board feet, respectively. Stated in relation to the national total, the Primary Hinterland supplied 4-7 pan cent and the Secondary Hinterland, 14-3 pen cent. Of the 1.7 billion board feet produced in the Primary Hinterland, the major portion of 1.3 billion board feet was contributed by the state of Texas. To understand the trends in regional dominance as well as the nature of the production, the total lumber product is subdivided into hardwood and softwood. In 1850 New England was the center of softwood production. Rapidly the center shifted by way of the North Atlantic states to the Lake states in the hinterland which were producing "about one-half of the annual output" of the softwood lumber of the country by the early ’nineties. The shift was next southward with 199 southern states reaching their peak in 1909- The final shift was to the Pacific Coast where in 1942 Washington, Oregon, California, and 200 Nevada produced over one-third of the national product. The effect of this shift in the hinterland is revealed by its production data. Source of data: United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1944, pp. 530-532. In 1942 the Total Hinterland produced only 4-5 billion board feet of softwood or 15.4 per cent of the national total. Leading states in this production were the southern states of Texas, Arkansas, and Loui- 201 siana where over 95 per cent of the softwood cut was yellow pine. Production in Texas alone was 4*l per cent of the national total, indicating the basis for prevailing softwood industries. The transition of the hardwood production followed a pattern simi- 202 lar to that of softwood with the exception of the final step. The concentration of the hardwood production did not pass from the south-203 ern states to the Pacific Coast. Consequently the southern states of the hinterland located near the Mississippi River still contribute substantially to the production of hardwood lumber. The principal contribution in hardwood comes from the Secondary Hinterland rather than the Primary Hinterland with the states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri each supplying 240 million or more board feet annually. The principal hardwoods contributed by the states of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas were oak, red gum, aspen, cottonwood, and tupelo, the latter coming primarily from Louisiana. In Wisconsin and Michigan the trees furnishing 204 the sources of hardwood lumber were the maple, birch, and oak trees. A comparison of the production of softwood and hardwood within the hinterland reveals that 4.5 billion board feet of softwood was produced as compared to 2.4 billion board feet of hardwood. Nevertheless, the Total Hinterland contributed a greater proportion of the nation’s hardwood than softwood, the percentages being 34.9 and 15-4 per 205 cent, respectively. Yearbook, 1944, op. cit., pp. 91, 636, i 486. 198 See Table VIII. and Whitaker, op. cit., p. 239- 2 QQ Agricultural Statistics, 1944, op- cit♦, PP« 530-531* 201 Ibid., pp. 530-533. Region Total Softwood Hardwood Million Bd. Ft. % of u. s. Million Bd. Ft. % of U.S. Million Bd. Ft. % of U.S. United States .. 36,332 100.0 29,510 100.0 6,822 100.0 Total Hinterland 6,915 19.0 4,535 15.4 2,380 34.9 Primary Hinterland ... . 1,719 4.7 1,494 5.1 225 3.3 Texas .. 1,384 3.8 1,205 4.1 179 2.6 Remainder 335 0.9 289 1.0 46 0.7 Secondary Hinterland . . 5,196 14.3 3,041 10.3 2,155 31.6 TABLE VIII LUMBER PRODUCED IN HINTERLAND OF TEXAS PORTS, 1942 Manufacturing. In the preceding discussion, particular attention has been devoted to some of the basic requirements for the successful establishment of manufacturing enterprises within the hinterland. Among these were the availability of agricultural, forest and mineral raw materials, the proximity to fuel and power, as well as the availability of manpower, transportation facilities, and a consuming public. History has shown the adequacy of these factors in the Great Lakes region but until recent years capital has been dubious of establishing major manufacturing enterprises in close proximity to Texas ports. Shifts toward the Gulf Coast and general expansion throughout the hinterland have occurred during World War 11. However some of these manufacturing plants are proving uneconomical in peace-time operations. In 1939 the Total Hinterland had 57,778 manufacturing establishments or 31«4 per cent of the national total. The Primary .Hinterland accounted for 10,046 establishments as compared to 47in the Secondary Hinterland. Furthermore, the Primary Hinterland with 21.3 per cent of the land space and 9-3 per cent of the population produced only 4.5 per cent of the national value of manufactured products and only 3.1 per cent of the value added by manufacture. The state of Texas had 5,376 manufacturing establishments which contributed 453 million dollars in the value added by manufacture but this was only 1.8 per cent of the national total. The Secondary Hinterland, reflecting the concentration of indus- try around the Great Lakes, produced 28.6 per cent of the 56.8 billion dollars in national value of products manufactured. In value added by manufacture, the Secondary Hinterland accounted for 29.3 per cent of the national total of 24.7 billion dollars. The states in the Secondary Hinterland which contributed most to the manufacturing process 207 were Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Source of data: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Manufactures, 1939, Vol. 111, Reports for States and Outlying Areas, pp. 44-45• Throughout the hinterland there has been a growing tendency to introduce manufacturing plants which would utilize the raw materials at hand. In treating these manufacturing industries, initial consideration will be given the processing of petroleum, petroleum products, and chemicals. The petroleum industry is not only the largest manu- facturing segment in Texas but contributes most heavily to the exports through Texas ports. The importance of chemical manufacturing is found in the possibilities that this industry may produce in quantity for the foreign as well as the domestic market. The processing of petroleum and petroleum products is a recent industry, particularly in Texas where the first refinery was erected A 208 at Corsicana in 1897- Nevertheless Texas manufactured in 1939 more petroleum products than any other state by refining 402 million barrels of the 1,250 million barrels of crude petroleum refined in the nation. In this achievement, the state used 13 million barrels of natural gasoline, 4,782 tons of soda ash, 182,474 tons of sulphuric acid, 31,554 tons of caustic soda, and 46,738 tons of fuller’s earth, 209 all of which are produced in quantity in Texas. Data depicting the nature of the petroleum products in Texas re- veal that the preponderant proportion was in gasoline, naptha, kero-210 sene, fuel oils, and lubricating oils. Gasoline production in Texas alone represented 32.2 per cent of the 24-4 billion gallons man- 211 ufactured nationally. Other petroleum products manufactured in quantity in Texas included road oils, asphalt, greases, and ’’other refinery products." Expressed in monetary units, all manufactured petroleum products in Texas were valued at more than 693«8 million 212 dollars as compared to 2,461.1 million dollars for the nation in 1939- Further placing Texas in a position to export petroleum and its products is the close proximity of the refineries to Texas ports. In 1940 the Texas Gulf Coast had 30 refineries which accounted for 25 per cent of the total refining capacity in the United States. The principal refineries were located at Beaumont, Port Arthur, Texas City, Corpus Christi, and on the Houston Ship Channel. Lake Charles, Louisiana is another center for refineries and statistically contributes petroleum in foreign trade through the Sabine Customs District. Since 1940 further expansion has been made in refinery capacity along the Louisiana Texas Gulf Coast. For example, in the single year of 1941 it was estimated that 100 million dollars were expended for this pur-213 pose. Particular attention has been called to the refinery facilities along the Louisiana and Texas Gulf Coast due to the foreign trade implications. Within the hinterland are states that refine primarily for local and interstate distribution. Those states processing one billion or more barrels of crude petroleum in refineries in 1939 were Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, 214 Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. Petroleum, natural gas, and natural gasoline are also being utilized to provide the components of tire fabrication in the Primary Hinterland. During World War II the "total estimated expenditures of the Government's rubber program in Texas'* amounted to approximately 40 per cent of the amount spent in the entire nation. Among the cities producing the intermediary products for rubber production are Velasco, Corpus Christi, Ingleside, Texas City, Houston, Baytown, 215 Port Neches, and Borger. 216 /mother component used in tire manufacture is carbon black, a 217 substance made from the imperfect combustion of natural gas. In recent years Texas has taken the lead over Oklahoma and Louisiana, the 218 other two principal producers. In 1940 Texas produced 480 million of the 569 million pounds of carbon black produced in the United States. Indicating that tire manufacturers believe the Primary Hinterland has profitable possibilities, the General Tire and Rubber Company has built a 3 million dollar plant in Waco, Texas while the B. F. Goodrich Company has plans for a 6 million dollar rubber tire manufactur-219 ing plant in Miami, Oklahoma. The chemical industries though closely associated with petroleum products are being diversified and expanded at a rapid rate in Texas and the Southwest. Dow Chemical Company alone has spent over million dollars in the Freeport-Velasco enterprise. Among other companies investing in the chemical industries in Texas were the Monsanto Chemical Company to the extent of 20 million dollars and the Carbide 220 and Carbon Chemicals Corporation, 15 million dollars. The tendency is to increase rather than decrease investments. The industries destroyed at Texas City are being rebuilt, indicating the war-time expansion of the chemical industry in the Gulf states is not a temporary one. Among the chemicals produced in large quantities on the Gulf Coast are styrene for plastic and rubber, ethylene dibromide for making anti-knock motor fuel, caustic soda, soda ash, chlorine, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphate fertilizer, toluene, acetic acid, formaldehyde, and 221 sulphuric acid. Many other chemical combinations are being made and others are planned for future production. Although production in the chemicals and plastics will be most competitive, mass production is expected to more than supply the domestic market and to compete 222 favorably in foreign markets. Closely dependent upon the chemical industries is the production of pulp and paper products. The states of the hinterland leading in the manufacture of one or both of these items were Michigan, Louisiana 223 Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana. With the exception of Louisiana, the boundaries of each state touch the Great Lakes. Recent developments in Texas and Louisiana indicate that this section of the hinterland will support a pulp and paper industry of major proportions. 224 The first sulphate paper pulp was manufactured at Orange, Texas. But the problem of resin in yellow pine vias thought to preclude the use of this wood for manufacturing newsprint until it was discovered that resin occurs only in trees over 25 years of age. Since most of the older trees have been removed for lumber, Texas and Louisiana have a most valuable stand of lumber from which to produce newspaper print. In 1937 the Champion Paper and Fibre Company established a large pulp 225 mill near Houston with a capacity of 100 tons daily, supplying 22 6 paper for use in Life magazine. “ But the "South’s first newsprint mill" was opened by Southland Paper Mills, Incorporated at Lufkin, Texas in 1940. During the first year of operation this plant produced 227 31 million tons of newsprint valued at 1.6 million dollars. Since 1940 substantial expansion of facilities has been made to the pulp and paper industry in Texas and Louisiana, indicating that the industry is on a sound economical base. As raw sugar is a major import through Texas ports, the refinement of the foreign and domestic product has interest to this study. Texas has one refinery located near Houston at Sugarland, Texas. This plant uses primarily raw sugar from Cuba inasmuch as the ’’large refinery there found it cheaper to import Cuban raw sugars” than to 228 raise the product However, cane sugar refining in Louisiana far excels that in Texas. In 1939 Louisiana refined 66.7 million dollars worth of cane sugar to rank second only to New York 229 in the nation. Beet sugar refining takes place in another section of the hinterland which is in close proximity to the sugar beet acreage. ’ The number of sugar beet refineries located within the hinterland in 1939 were as follows: Michigan, 13; Colorado, 13; Nebraska, 7; Montana, 5; Wyoming, 5; Minnesota, 2; and 1 each for South Dakota, Indiana, lowa, Kansas, and Wisconsin. In total value of product, Michigan and Montana ranked second and third in the nation. In ’’value of products” from beet-sugar refineries in 1939, these two states processed products worth I>.O and 10.8 million dollars, respectively, as compared to 230 134.5 million dollars for the nation. Within the interior of the hinterland, concentrations of given industries have been founded upon the availability of the raw materials essential to these industries. Utilizing the available iron ore, limestone, and coal, the Great Lakes region has become the principal supplier of pig iron, steel, and the various metal products into which they are made. However two states outside the hinterland, Pennsylvania and Ohio, lead as the greatest producers of steel. States in the hinterland that have contributed most to the blast and steel fur-231 nace operations are Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. Of particular significance to the Primary Hinterland was the establishment of blast 232 furnaces and a steel mill at Houston in 1942. This plant, owned by the Sheffield Steel Corporation of Texas, is the first large integrated steel and finishing plant developed in the Southwest. Included in the products are structural shapes, hot plates used in shipbuilding hot-rolled sheets, merchant steel bars, reinforcing bars, wire rods, and wire products. The fuel used to fire the furnaces is a mixture of Oklahoma high and low volatile coals and the iron consists of a mixture of approximately 75 per cent East Texas ore and 25 per cent iron 233 and manganese ore from Mexico. Another blast furnace for producing pig iron has been constructed at Daingerfield, Texas by the Lone Star Steel with the aid of an investment of $21,469,000 by the Defense Plant Corporation. This company planned to depend upon the East Texas ores and in part upon coals mined in Oklahoma. While various difficulties prevented the early operation of the plant, more recent efforts have brought the plant into production. Trie hinterland of Texas ports also supports smelting and refining plants for the more important nonferrous metals. In 1944, sof the 11 plants producing refined copper were located within the hinterland. Two refineries were located on the Great Lakes and one refinery was located at each of the following cities: Great Falls, Montana; El 234 Paso, Texas; and Hurley, New Mexico. In Texas City, Texas is located the ’’Government-owned Longhorn smelter,” the most productive tin 235 refinery in 1944* Ores bearing lead and zinc are treated in several locations within the hinterland but the ’’largest zinc-lead ore reduction plant in the United States” is located at Cardin, Oklahoma. This plant treats ores from the Tri-State area. In Texas, refineries for zinc are operated at Corpus Christi and Amarillo and a smelter for processing lead 236 ores is located at El Paso, Texas. The manufacturing of automobile and farm machinery has tended to concentrate in the Great Lakes region and northern farming belt. De- 237 troit is recognized as the automotive center of production even 238 though the recent tendency is to decentralize assembly plants. Agricultural machinery is produced mainly in Illinois and lowa. As examples, the International Harvester plant is located in Chicago and the tri-cities of Davenport-Rock Island-Moline have become a production center for manufacturing machinery including the John Deere 239 brands. Cereal processing is widely distributed throughout the agricultural area. Nevertheless certain centers stand out. Corn processing is centered at Chicago with northeastern Illinois selling its corn as grain rather than feeding it to livestock. In addition, Kansas City, St. Louis, St. Joseph, Omaha, and Battle Creek are important cornprocessing centers. Of the three major flour milling centers in the United States, two are located in the hinterland, namely, Minneapolis and Kansas City. Other important centers of flour production in the , . 2AO hinterland are Des Moines, Wichita (Kansas), Fort Worth, and Omaha. Another cereal, milo maize, is to be processed into starches, dextrose sugar, and other commodities in the Corn Products Company plant located at Corpus Christi. This plant is not only located near a deep- water channel but also has access to large supplies of starch-bearing 241 grains produced in the southwest. Although the distribution of meat packing is quite general throughout the hinterland, definite centers have developed. The principal processing states in 1939 were Illinois, lowa, Minnesota, Kansas, 242 Missouri, and Nebraska. Concentrations of the industry are located in Chicago, St. Joseph, Kansas City (Missouri), Des Moines, Wichita, Omaha, Kort Worth, and St. The oil content in cottonseed and soybeans has given rise to the crushing of these two seeds in substantial quantities. The value of "cottonseed oil, cake, meal, and linters" produced in Texas for 1939 was 44-4 million dollars or 25.7 per cent of the national total. Other states in the hinterland contributing more than 5 million dollars in "cottonseed oil, cake, meal, and linters" were Arkansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. Idle production of "soybean oil, cake, and meal" was valued at 43-9 million dollars in 1939, approximately one-fourth 244 of the value of "cottonseed oil, cake, meal, and linters." Nevertheless, the importance of this manufacture to the hinterland lies in the rapid extension of the industry, the many uses in plastics and chemical preparations, and the fact that the two northern states of Illinois and lowa produce approximately 50 per cent of the national 245 total. Despite the great production of cotton and wool in the hinterland, the manufacture of cloth from these commodities is very small. Reasons for the lag have grown out of the need of certain requisites, namely, adequate capital, reservoirs of skilled workmen, and close proximity to the principal consuming markets. In 1939 Texas was the only state in the hinterland that produced over 10 million dollars worth of "cotton broad woven goods." In the production of "cotton yarn" and "cotton thread," not one state in the hinterland was important enough to have data listed separately. In the production of "cotton narrow fabrics," Illinois, alone, had a separate listing, hav ing produced slightly less than 1 million dollars worth in this clas-247 sification. In woolen and worsted manufactures, the whole hinterland had a total of 15 processing plants producing woolen and worsted manufactures. But in no case did a single state have sufficient volume to 248 warrant separate listing in the Census of Manufactures in 1939* In the three preceding chapters, information has been presented to prepare the reader for a better understanding of the flow of the foreign trade through Texas ports. The political and geographical setting has been given in addition to the economic development of the hinterland. In the next three chapters, the detail of the foreign trade movement is described, beginning with Chapter IV, Foreign Trade prior to 1900. 2°2p a rkins and Whitaker, op. cit., p. 239* 203 In 1942 over 93 per cent of the lumber produced in Washington, Oregon, California, and Nevada was softwood. Statistics, 1944, op • cit. , pp. 532-533- Table VIII. See Table IX Abstract of the United States, 194-6, op. cit., pp. 483-484- op. cit., p. 135* States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Manufactures, 1940, Vol. 11, Pt. 1, p. 871. 210 Production in Texas included 7.8 billion gallons of gasoline, 1.1 billion gallons of kerosene, 6.1 billion gallons of fuel oils, 109.6 million gallons of naptha, and 363-7 million gallons of lubricating oils. 211 Manufactures, 1940, Vol. 11, Pt. 1, op. cit., p. 870. 2] 2 This figure does not include 3-3 million dollars of asphalt produced in Texas and three other lesser states. Separate data for the individual states were not given. Ibid., pp. 868-870. H. Johnson, **What Texas Has Done Industrially,** Texas Looks Ahead, Vol. I, The Resources of Texas, pp. 305-306. 1940, Vol. 11, Pt. 1, op. cit., p. 871. 215 Plat Texas Has Done Industrially,' 1, op. cit., pp. 315' 316. ' °Tire manufacturers used 88 per cent of the domestic production in 1940. Ibid., p. 317. actures, 1940, Vol., 11, Ft. 1, op. cit. , p. 822. 218 Ibid., p. 823. "What Texas Has Done Industrially," op. cit., pp. 317 319- ~ 220 Ibid., pp. 297-298, 300-301. 221 Ibid. , pp. 296-322; Elmer 1. Johnson, ’’Chemical Industries in the Post-War World,” Texas Looks Ahead, Vol. I, The Resources of Texas PP- 323-334. 222 Johnson, ’’Chemical Industries in the Post-War World,” op. cit. p. 334. 1940, Vol. 11, Pt. 1, op. cit. , pp. 635-636, 641-642. and Foscue, op. cit. , p. 264. 225 y The investment was 10 million dollars. Johnson, "What Texas Has Done Industrially,” op. cit. , p. 304- 226 . , Hichardson, op. cit., p. 437- 'White and Foscue, op. cit., p. 266. ppo Ibid., pp. 289-290. 229 Manufactures, 1940, Vol. 11, Pt. 1, op. cit., p. 185- 23 °Ibid., pp. 178, 185. States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Manufactures, 1939, Vol. 11, Pt. 2, pp. 181-186. 2>2 Johnson, "What Texas Has Done Industrially,” op. cit., pp. 319 321. 233 Doc. cit. 1939, Vol. 11, Pt. 2, op. cit. , p. 135- 2 Yearbook, 1944, op. cit., p. 722. 236 Ibid., pp. 195, 292, 296-297, 315. 237 White and Fescue, op. cit., p. 440. 238 An assembly plant of the Ford Motor Company is located in Dallas. 239 'White and Fescue, op. cit., pp. 374. 24 °Ibid., pp. 283, 364, 369, 370, >62. 2/1 Port of Corpus Christi, March 1947, P- 9» 1940, Vol. 11, Pt. 1, op. cit., pp. 54~55» 2/ 3 + white and Foscue, op. cit., pp. 388, 3&9, 370, 449, 1940, Vol. 11, Pt. 1, op. cit., pp. 758, 759, 763. “ *sin 1937 the value of "soybean oil, cake, and meal" manufactured was only 24.3 million dollars as compared to 43*9 million dollars in 1939. Loc. cit. 240 Ibid., pp. 287-290. 24 7 The production was $979,920. 1940, Vol. 11, Pt. 1, op. cit., p. 323- TEXAS PORTS, 1939 Manufac tures, 1939 Value i of Value Added by Establishments Products Manufacture % of Million % of Million % of Region Number U.S. Dollars U.S. Dollars U.S. United States .. 184,230 100.0 56,842 100.0 24,683 100.0 Total Hinterland .. 57,778 31.4 18,803 33.1 7,998 32.4 Primary Hinterland . . .. 10,046 5-5 2,554 4.5 775 3.1 Texas .. 5,376 2.9 1,530 2.7 453 1.8 Remainder .. 4,670 2.6 1,024 1.8 322 1.3 Secondary Hinterland .. 47,732 25.9 16,249 28.6 7,223 29.3 TABLE IX NUMBER OF MANUFACTURING ESTABLISHMENTS, VALUE OF PRODUCTS, AND VALUE ADDED BY MANUFACTURE WITHIN HINTERLAND OF CHAPTER IV FOREIGN TRADE PRIOR TO 1900 Concurrent with the colorful exploration and settlement of Texas, foreign trade was initiated under the exacting and depressing controls of Spain. Then a period followed in which the present area of the state was successively brought under the governments of Mexico, the Republic of Texas, and the United States. These political changes and the ensuing instability tended to discourage the growth of foreign trade through Texas ports. Under the government of the United States, political stability became a reality and increasing surpluses in the expanding hinterland created economic pressures to open adequate trade routes to foreign ports. Nevertheless efforts to effect adequate land avenues and water channels were not successful until the latter part of the nineteenth century. Consequently, the foreign trade through Texas ports was in its infancy prior to 1900. FOREIGN TRADE PRIOR TO STATEHOOD While under Spanish rule the province of Texas was considered as an extension of New Spain. Consequently, the ’’exclusive commercial policy” of Spain was applied to the province of Texas, requiring that 2 Texas "should trade with New Spain only." These restrictions on trade, coupled with restrictions on the settlements in Texas, prevented the development of legal foreign trade except as officially arranged. Under the direction of the officials of New Spain, corn and other 3 provisions were sent to the missions and military outposts in Texas. Records indicate that the caravans crossed the Rio Grande River at El Paso, Eagle Pass, Laredo, and Brownsville. The vehicles used were 4 wagons and carts drawn by oxen or mules. In addition to the legal trade, a "considerable illicit trade" developed with Louisiana. The Indians could not legally buy firearms from the Spanish but purchased these items from the French trading posts. Furthermore, the strict "exclusive commercial policy" and other restrictions on colonists, "impoverished her settlements and 5 compelled men of enterprise to violate the law." One of the usual violations was for settlers to trade with trading posts located near the borders of Texas. Under the rule of Mexico (1821 to I 836) changes took place which increased the volume and altered the direction of the trade. Natchitoches, Louisiana was the favorite trading post for Texas and most shipments into the colonies by land originated there. In contrast to the forced trade with Mexico during the Spanish rule, there seems to have been virtually no trade between Texas and Mexico. Among the few items received were ’’small quantities of salt” and ’’Mexican horses” from Mexico while the Anglo-Americans carried on ’’occasional illicit 6 trading in tobacco” in Mexico. Trade by water increased during the Mexican rule in spite of the undeveloped harbors and the pirates that operated in the Gulf of Mexico. 1 Even the first group of colonists, under the leadership of 8 Stephen F. Austin, arrived by boat. But the vessels used in the settlement and early trade of Texas were only ’’small schooners.” Larger ships were not justified because the trade was small and the water was shallow at the bar, so much so that ’’even small vessels had to be partly unloaded to cross the bar.” The smallness of vessels and the inadequate harbor facilities also contributed to the ’’frightful” loss 9 of life and property by shipwreck. From 1821 to 1836 the most used ports lay on the coast between Galveston Island and Fort Aransas. Those most frequently mentioned included Matagorda at the mouth of the Colorado River, Brazoria on the lower Brazos River, and Galveston after Methods of transporting the products to the ports included the use of barges on the rivers and bayous, while ox carts were principally used by Products exported were predominately agricultural in nature. Stephen F. Austin in 1829 stated the chief possibilities for export 12 from Texas were "cotton, beef, tallow, pork, lard, mules, etc." Ac- tual exports from Galveston in 1832 included "parcels of hides, pelts, 13 wool, mohair, cattle, and other farm products." The imports were principally "foodstuffs and manufactured goods" from the North Atlan- 14 tic Coast. The omission of cotton from the list of important exports from Galveston in 1832 was due to the late introduction of the crop into Texas. Jared. L. Groce is credited with bringing the first cotton seed 15 to the colonies from Virginia in 1825. In the same year, he brought 100 slaves and also built the first cotton gin. By 1834 the production of cotton had increased so rapidly that "it was estimated that the crop of cotton brought six hundred thousand dollars. In spite of the political uncertainty of the Republic of Texas, settlement and economic growth continued. In the southern part of the Republic, the hostility of the Mexicans as well as the Indian depredations retarded settlement. But, along the coast north of Corpus Christi and in the interior, the settlers were rapidly "appropriating most of the great prairie region of Texas." The principal crops of the settlers in the interior were "corn, wheat, and other grain." Cotton was not grown in the interior because of the "inaccessibility of markets" and "the widespread notion" that cotton would not thrive 17 on the prairie soil. The prospects of continued foreign trade were early considered by the government of the new Republic. On December 27, 1835 the General Council of the Provisional Government of Texas passed "an Ordinance and Decree establishing and imposing duties on importations and ton-18 nage and for other purposes.” The seven districts designated for 19 revenue purposes were the districts of Milam, Sabine, Galveston, 20 Brazos, Matagorda, La Baca, and Aransas. Other signs of increased interest in foreign trade were the improvement of harbor facilities and the establishment of additional trading posts. Inst prior to the granting of statehood to Texas, the 21 two most serviceable ports were Galveston and Matagorda. Commerce through the new Port of Galveston "increased by leaps and bounds," 22 while the new Republic of Texas was being rapidly colonized. The few trestle piers that existed at Galveston prior to 1836 were inadequate to accommodate the increasing flow of traffic. This deficiency was corrected by the "liberal policy of donating waterfront sites to any and all individuals who would agree to immediately erect wharves thereon. Matagorda, like several "ambitious towns" on the shores of the protected bays between Galveston and Corpus Christi, hoped to become a progressive seaport. Seemingly the location was a good one. The port was protected by Matagorda Peninsula and Matagorda Bay. In addition the site was located on the mouth of the Colorado River, a stream that was navigable in rainy seasons. But the lack of drainage in the rich bottom lands at the mouth of the Colorado River long prevented agricultural development, and the initial impetus for port development 24 was dissipated. Similarly, during the period of the Republic the ports of Cox’s Point and Dimmit’s Landing on Lavaca Bay had aspira- tions of becoming important seaports, only to have time disprove the 25 expected development. Other ports which later developed into important exporting centers were established during the period that Texas was a republic. Included were the ports of Houston, Indianola, and Corpus Christi. Houston was settled in 183& as a trading post on Buffalo Bayou, a water-26 way which was later developed into a major trade channel. The second port, Indianola, was established on Lavaca Bay in 1844. This port 27 later became "an important town and the second seaport in Texas." In 1839 the trading center of Corpus Christi was established by 28 Colonel H. L. Kinney at the mouth of the Nueces River. Between the Nueces and Rio Grande rivers lay the much disputed territory, claimed by Mexico and the Republic of Texas. Though the fear of violence from Indians and Mexicans prevented the settlement in this country, limited trade continued between Mexico and the Republic of Texas. At first Colonel Kinney engaged in the "precarious vocation of Mexican trader and smuggler." Then Mirabeau Buonaparte Lamar, Presi- dent of the Republic of Texas, issued a ’’Proclamation of Trade with 29 the Mexicans." ' The "brisk trade" that developed brought other traders to Corpus Christi and in 1844 the city was laid out under the 30 direction of Colonel Kinney. The land ports along the Rio Grande River, though claimed by the Republic of Texas, continued under the control of Mexico. The Republic of Texas was unable to enforce her claims to this area. For example, during the whole period of the Republic, the Mexicans held com-31 plete control over the area around El Paso. rule was substituted for Spanish rule when New Spain (Mexico) gained her independence in 1821. 1714 the French sent an expedition to the province of Texas with the intention of developing trade with New Spain. The party was arrested because positive orders were in effect ‘’against the introduction of foreign goods or the admission of foreigners for any reason ’whatsoever." Rupert Norval Richardson, Texas, the Lone Star State, pp. 27, 64. Book of Texas," Book of Knowledge, XXI, 185. old Spanish carts and wagons were "without a particle of iron in their construction," and their wheels were "hewn from a single block of wood." Nevin 0. Winter, Texas, the Marvelous, p. 187. op. cit., p. 64. , p. 94. lBl6 to 1823, Jean Lafitte, the ’’notorious pirate chief,” made Galveston his headquarters for ’’depredations on the Spanish main.” In 1823, the United States Government requested his removal. Port Book of the Port of Galveston, pp. $-6. a Stephen F. Austin assembled the colonists in New Orleans and arrived at the mouth of the Brazos River on December 31, 1821, and settled in ”what is now Washington County” on January 7, 1822. Jesse A. Ziegler, Wave of the Gulf, p. 1. op. cit., p. 94- "According to old records the earliest movement of traffic through the port [Galveston] took place in 1832, by which time a small settlement comprising 300 people existed on the island." Port Book of the Port of Galveston, p. 6. 11 Rafts and row boats transferred products from the "Galveston bayshore" to the island. Loc. cit. 1 2 Richardson, op. cit., p. 94- 13 J Port Book of the Port of Galveston, p. 6. cit. 15 op. cit. , p. 1. 1 A ±o Loc. cit. op. cit. , pp. 198-199- 18 The Laws of Texas, 1822-1897, I, 104. first customs collector of the "District of Galveston" was Gail Borden who developed the process of condensing milk while customs collector at Galveston. Port Book of the Port of Galveston, p. 6. 20 ‘The coastal areas covered by these districts were described in Chapter 11. 21 x ßichardson, op. cit., p. 212. 22p O rt Book of the Port of Galveston, p. 10. 23poc. cit. recent years, this rich, level land has been utilized for rice cultivation "on a large scale." Winter, op. cit., p. 165. cit. 26 Ibid., p. 127. 27 Ibid., p. 165. PS Coleman McCampbell, Saga of a Frontier Seaport, p. 5. EXPORTS FROM STATEHOOD TO 1900 Total exports through Texas ports. When Texas officially became 32 a state on December 29, 184 b, the relation of her commerce with the United States changed from foreign trade to domestic trade. Consequently, the thriving trade with New Orleans and cities on the Atlantic Coast was removed from the category of foreign trade from Texas ports, even though the same commodities were later exported from other ports to Europe. The year ending June 30, 1847 was the first full fiscal year for reporting foreign trade. During that year no exports for Texas ports 33 were reported. The harbors were not equipped to receive ocean-going vessels and the trade flowed primarily to New Orleans and the Atlantic Coast. Furthermore, resistance to reporting exports had developed prior to statehood and continued to be a source of difficulty during early statehood. In the prior period of Mexican rule, instances of clashes between customs collectors and exporters were not uncommon. Some of this resistance could be attributed to the inconvenience in arrangements for 34 reporting, but in the main the colonists "were loath to pay customs 35 duties no matter how convenient the system of collection might be." This distaste for customs collectors continued into the period of early statehood. W. W. Mills, who was customs collector at Paso del Norte from 1863 to 1869, reported that of the "thirty or more young men" employed in the customs service during that period, "seven of 36 them met violent deaths, four while in the service." Beginning with statehood, the value of the exports from Texas 37 ports increased rapidly. From $25,000 in 1850 the exports increased to $105,293,000 in 1900. The greatest relative change occurred in the decade between 1850 and 1860 when the exports increased from $25,000 to $5,857,000, an increment of over 200 times. a Less than 2/100 of 1%. Source of data: United States Treasury Department:’ "Commerce and Navigation of the United States,” Executive Documents, 1845-1898; Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1399-19037 Despite the Civil War and its aftermath, the beginning of each decade showed substantial gains in exports over the former decade. During the Civil War, Texas was practically free from conditions suffered by the other southern states which were converted into battlefields. Cotton was grow in Texas throughout the war and the "situation of Texas on the border of Mexico made the marketing of the crop much easier than in the other states." J In 1863 the Confederate government ’’began to impress cotton to be hauled to the Rio Grande and 39 exchanged for necessary supplies.” This overland movement was neces sary because the Federal government had declared the principal ports A/ 40 of Texas "to be subject to blockade" beginning in April, 1861. The percentage increase of the exports from Texas ports during early statehood was greater than that for the exports of the United States as a whole. In 1850 less than 2/100 of 1 per cent of the total 41 exports for the United States passed through Texas ports. By 1900 Texas ports moved 3103,293,000 worth of exports into world channels compared to $1,370,764,000 for all the ports of the United States. Expressed as a percentage, Texas ports handled 7-7 pei* cent of the total export trade of the United States. While the value of exports of the United States increased with each decade, the proportion of the total handled by Texas also increased each decade with the exception of 1880. In that year Texas ports handled 2.3 per cent of the United States total as compared to 3.2 per cent in 1870. 29 ±bid., pp. 5-7- 30 Richardson, op. cit., p. 199- 31 R. B. Price, ’’Houston’s Relationship to the Cities of the Great Southwest: El Paso, Texas,” Houston Port Book, November, 1935, P- 32. chard son, op. cit. , p. 167. States Treasury Department, "Commerce and Navigation, of the United States," Executive Documents, Vol. V, No. 17. example of severe inconvenience was the ruling of George fisher, customs collector for the Mexican government in 1831. Fisher required that shipmasters of vessels leaving the ports "east of the Colorado" must secure clearances at Anahuac, located at the head of Galveston Bay. The required overland journey of approximately 200 miles brought protests that resulted in open battles on the lower Brazos River. Richardson, op. cit., p. 101. ci_t. W. Mills, Forty Years at El Paso, 1858-1898, P« 78. 37s e e Table X. J. Wortham, A History of Texas, V, 124. Year Texas United States Value ($000) Value ($000) % of U. S. 1850 25 a 136,947 I860 5,857 1.6 373,189 1870 16,167 3-2 499,092 1880 19,024 2.3 823,946 1890 29,700 ■3-5 845,294 1900 105,293 7.7 1,370,764 TABLE X VALUE OF DOMESTIC COMMODITIES EXPORTED FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS AND THE UNITED SPITES FOR YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890, AND 1900 Total exports by customs districts. Presented in Table XI are the values of the exports for each customs district and the total for all customs districts with headquarters ports in Texas. In Table XII, the values in Table XI are expressed as percentages of the total export trade through Texas ports, giving the relative positions of the customs districts in handling exports. a Prior to 1875, the Galveston Customs District was called the Texas Customs District with the headquarters port at Galveston. designated as a customs district as of this date. c ln 1914, data for Paso del Norte were first listed under the present name of the customs district, El Paso. Source of data: United States Treasury Department: ’’Commerce and Navigation of the United States,” Executive Documents, 1845-1898; Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899-1903- a Prior to 1875, the Galveston Customs District was called the Texas Customs District with the headquarters port at Galveston. designated as a customs district as of this date. G ln 1914, data for Paso del Norte were first listed under the present name of the customs district, El Paso. Source of data: United States Treasury Department: "Commerce and Navigation of the United States,” Executive Documents, 1845-1898; Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899-1903* Before 1900 the major portion of the exports from the ports of 42 Texas were handled by the Texas Customs District, later named the Galveston Customs District. The total exports from this district increased from $25,000 in 18'50 to $85,607 in 1900. However, the total exports of other customs districts continued to account for an ever greater proportion of the total exports through Texas ports as revealed in the decline in the percentage of the exports attributed to the Galveston Customs District. In 1850 this customs district accounted for all of the exports from Texas ports, as compared to 81.3 43 per cent in 1900. While the Texas Customs District accounted for all of the exports from Texas ports in 1850, two other customs districts with headquarters ports in Texas were officially designated for this same year, namely, the Saluria Customs District and the Brazos de Santiago Customs District. Neither of the two latter customs districts recorded exports in In iB6O the Galveston Customs District accounted for $5,772,000 or 98.5 per cent of the $5,857,000 in exports over Texas ports. The Saluria District recorded exports of $85,000, representing 1.5 per cent of the total. Again the Brazos de Santiago Customs District had no exports of record and neither did Paso del Norte, a customs district established on August 2, 1854- Of the $5,857,000 in total exports for the year, cotton amounted to $5,830,000 or 99•5 per cent of the value. Cotton exports from the Galveston Customs District accounted for $5,747,000 and the Saluria Customs District, $85,000. By 1870 the exports for the Galveston Customs District were valued at $14,870,000 as compared to $5,772,000 in 1860. Despite this increase in value of exports, the Galveston Customs District accounted for 91.9 per cent of the total exports for Texas which was a decline of 6.6 per cent from a decade earlier. Again the principal export was cotton, accounting for over 99 per cent of the value of the exports from the Galveston Customs District. All of the four other customs districts contributed to the export trade in 1870. The Brazos de Santiago Customs District ranked second with exports valued at $576,000. This value was 3*6 per cent of the total for Texas ports and was divided among several export items. Iron steel, and manufactures of iron and steel accounted for $8'3,000; wheat flour, $68,000; all live animals, $38,000; cotton goods, $35,000; and mineral oil, $24,000. Wile the Saluria Customs District exported approximately the same value as did the Brazos de Santiago Customs District in 1870, the only item of importance was cotton. Of the $483,000 in total exports by the Saluria Customs District, $450,000 was recorded for cotton. Each of the remaining customs districts of Corpus Christi and Paso del Norte accounted for less than 1 per cent of the exports for Texas ports. The Corpus Christi Customs District recorded exports valued at $144,000 with exports of all live animals accounting for $90,000 of this amount. The principal item exported through the Paso del Norte Customs District was cotton goods, accounting for $47,000 of the $94,000 in exports for the customs district. Export statistics for 1880 show that all customs districts except 45 Paso del Norte made gains in total exports over the year 1870. The Galveston Customs District exported merchandise valued at §16,713,000, representing 87-8 per cent of the total exports for Texas ports. The concentration was primarily in cotton and cotton seed products. Cotton exports alone accounted for §16,713,000 of the value, while exports of oil cake and meal were valued at an additional §171,000, leaving only §37,000 for the value of other exports from that customs district. The Brazos de Santiago Customs District again ranked second in 1880 with exports valued at §1,155,000. Only §4,000 of this value was attributed to unmanufactured cotton, while exports of cotton goods were valued at §302,000. The remainder of the exports from this customs district was divided between several items, including the following as principal components: iron, steel and manufactures of iron and steel, §109,000; Indian corn, §45,000; wheat flour, §41,000; all live animals, $32,000; mineral oil, §30,000; and wood and manufactures of wood, §27,000. The Saluria Customs District ranked third in exports for 1880, contributing a value of §613,000 or 3*2 per cent of the state total. Two products accounted for the major portion of the exports for the district. Exports of all live animals were valued at §308,000, while unmanufactured cotton exports amounted to §244,000. The exports of the Corpus Christi Customs District in the same year were valued at $543,000, a value $70,000 below that for the Saluria Customs District. Manufactured cotton goods was the principal export, being valued at $170,000. Two other principal exports of the district included $91,- 000 in all live animals and $BB,OOO in unmanufactured cotton. Though the Galveston Customs District declined to 81.9 per cent of the total exports for Texas ports in 1890, the export value of 424,327,000 was a 46 per cent increase over the $16,713,000 value in exports for this district in 1880. Cotton and cotton seed products were again the principal exports, unmanufactured cotton accounting for $22,821,000 in export value and oil cake and meal, $1,207,000. Another $220,000 in value was attributed to wood and manufactures of wood, while wheat flour exports from the customs district were valued at $24,000. The movement of exports other than cotton and cottonseed products from the Galveston Customs District was small in actual value as well as in the proportion to the district total. For each of the other ex-46 porting districts in 1890, exports of items other than cotton and oil cake and meal exceeded the value exported by the Galveston Customs District. The record shows the exports in this classification for the exporting customs districts to be as follows: Corpus Christi, $2,529,000; Saluria, $1,450,000; and Brazos de Santiago, $656,000. The latter customs district had no exports of unmanufactured cotton, cottonseed oil and meal. The intensity of cotton cultivation imme- diately behind the ports of the Galveston Customs District was greater than that in the other districts. Ranking second in exports for 1890, the Corpus Christi Customs District was responsible for 10.4 per cent of the total exports for Texas ports. Of the $3,091,000 value exported by this district, iron, steel and manufactures of iron and steel accounted for $711,000; unmanufactured cotton, $562,000; bituminous coal, $324,000; all live animals, $234,000; wood and manufactures of wood, $233,000; mineral oil, $92,000; and cotton goods, $68,000. Other exported items amounting to values between $25,000 and $50,000 included cottonseed oil, wheat flour, and Indian corn. In the same year, 1890, the Saluria Customs District had exports to the value of $1,626,000, representing 5-5 per cent of the Texas total. The principal products of export were valued as follows: all live animals, $630,000; iron, steel, and manufactures of iron and steel, 3270,000; wood and manufactures of wood, $237,000; unmanufactured cotton, $176,000; and mineral oil, $54,000. The exports for the .Brazos de Santiago Customs District declined in actual value from 1880 to 1890. In the former year the value of exports for the district was $1,155,000 as compared to $656,000 in 1890. In percentage, the district exported only 2.2 per cent of the total exports for Texas ports. The principal product exported was manufactured cotton, valued at $224,000. Other products, with values ranging between $20,000 and $51,000, included wheat flour, iron, steel, and manufactures of iron and steel, wood and manufactures of wood, Indian corn, and mineral oil. With the exception of Brazos de Santiago, a precipitous increase in exports was recorded for each customs district in 1900 as compared to 1890. In 1900 the Brazos de Santiago Customs District handled exports valued at $169,000, representing only 0.2 per cent of the value of all exports from Texas ports. Values of individual items exported were small. Manufactured cotton goods, wheat flour, Indian corn, and mineral oil were the principal exports, ranging in value from $lO,OOO to $27,000. The Galveston Customs District led other customs districts in 1900 with exports valued at $85,607,000, more than tripling the value of $24,327,000 in 1390. However the abrupt increases for other customs districts caused the Galveston Customs District to export 81.3 per cent of the total exports from Texas in 1900 or slightly less than the 81.9 per cent for 1890. While continuing to be the important exports from the Galveston Customs District in 1900, unmanufactured cotton and cottonseed products were substantially supplemented by exports of other agricultural products. Unmanufactured cotton accounted for $63,271,000 in export value in 1900, a value more than twice that of all exports from Texas ports in 1890. Values of exports of oil cake and meal exports amounted to $4,176,000 while cottonseed oil accounted for $2,194,000 in export value. Whereas wheat was not exported by any Texas port in 1890, the Galveston Customs District exported this grain bo the value of $9,328,000 in 1900, accounting for over 99-9 pe:r cent of all wheat exported by Texas ports in that year. The district also exported $2,897,000 of the $3,038,000 worth of Indian corn exported from Texas ports. Although the exportation of Indian corn meal from the district 47 was small, wheat flour exports had a value of $855,000. Further indicating the trend toward diversification of exports, the district exported live animals to the value of $672,000 while exportations of wood and manufactures of wood accounted for a value of $985,000. Second to the Galveston Customs District in exports for 1900 was the Saluria Customs District. This customs district exported merchandise to the value of $7,313,000, representing 6.9 per cent of the exports for Texas ports in 1900. Of major importance was the exportation of iron, steel, and manufactures of steel which accounted for $3,336,000 in export value. Wood and manufactures of wood accounted for $880,000; cottonseed oil, $551,000; unmanufactured cotton, $227,- 000; and all live animals, $163,000. Exported items having values ranging from $50,000 to $lOO,OOO were bituminous coal, mineral oil, Indian corn, and manufactured cotton. The two remaining customs districts of Paso del Norte and Corpus Christi recorded nearly equal values in exports for 1900, the former accounting for exports valued at $6,104,000 as compared to $6,100,000 for the Corpus Christi Customs District. Each of the two customs districts did s*B per cent of the total export business for Texas ports. Further similarity could be found in most of the important items of export for each district. From the Paso del Norte Customs District, the values of principal exports were as follows: iron, steel, and manufactures of iron and steel, §2,567,000; bituminous coal, $658,000; wood and manufactures of wood, §535,000; all live animals, §143,000; and manufactures of Cotton, §140,000. Only unmanufactured cotton and cottonseed oil need be added to the above list to include the exports in the Corpus Christi Customs District with values of over $lOO,OOO. The enumeration of these export values for the latter customs district in 1900 are as follows: iron, steel, and manufactures of steel, $2,856,000; bituminous coal, $263,000; wood and manufactures of wood, $433,000; all live animals, $124,000; manufactures of cotton, $202,000; unmanufactured cotton, $224,000; and cottonseed oil, $133,000. the system used by the Confederacy, all or a portion of the cotton produced had to be sold to the Confederate government. The impressed cotton in the main was carted overland to the Mexican border Much of this cotton, ironically, was shipped ultimately to the North. Richardson, op. cit., pp. 263-264. States Statutes at Large, XIII, 753-754- Table X. expression ’’ports of Texas” is used advisedly. From 1847 to 1900, all ports of entry for customs districts with headquarters ports in Texas were located in Texas. In 1854 the "Territory of New Mexico" was included as a portion of the Paso del Norte Customs District hut no port of entry was established in New Mexico until the year 1913 when Columbus, New Mexico became a port of entry in the El Paso Customs District. designation of ports, subports, and ports of delivery under each customs district for the years 1850, iB6O, 18'70, 1880, 1890, and 1900 are presented in Chart V. on values of merchandise exported in the period, 1845-1900 are based upon fiscal years ending June 30. Sources of data include the following: ’’Commerce and Navigation of the United States," Executive Documents, 1845-1898; and United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899-1903. Paso del Norte Customs District had no exports of record for 1880. Paso del Norte Customs District did not have any exports of record in 1890. 47 'lndian corn meal exports from the Galveston Customs District in 1900 was valued at $BO. (In thousands of dollars) Year Ending Tune 30 Customs District 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 Brazos de Santiago ... .... nil nil 576 1,155 656 169 Corpus Christi .... b b 543 3,091 6,100 Galveston (Tex.) a .... .... 25 5,772 14,870 16,713 24,327 35,607 Faso del Norte c .... b nil 94 nil nil 6,104 Saluria • • • • 1111 35 483 613 1,626 7,313 Texas Total .... 25 5,857 16,167 19,024 29,700 105,293 TABLE XI VALUE OF DOMESTIC EXPORTS FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890, AND 1900 Customs District Year Ending June 30 1850 % I860 $ 1870 % 1880 1890 % 1900 Brazos de Santiago ... 0.0 0.0 3.6 6.1 2.2 0.2 Corpus Christi b b 0.9 2.9 10.4 5-8 Galveston (Tex.) a .... .. 100.0 98.5 91-9 87.8 81.9 81.3 Paso de] Norte c b 0.0 0.6 nil nil 5.8 Saluria 0.0 1.5 3-0 3-2 5-5 6.9 Texas Total .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TABLE XII VALUE OF DOMESTIC EXPORTS FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL EXPORTS FROM TEXAS FOR YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 1850, 1860, IS7O, 1880, 1890, AND 1900 Principal commodities exported. The nature and value of the va- rious commodities composing the export trade from iB6O to 1900 are shown in Table XIII. For the year 1850, no data for items of export XS were given by customs districts. Historical accounts and the export data for 1860 reveal that one commodity, cotton, was the major export over Texas ports. The 127,220 hales of unmanufactured cotton exported in iB6O were valued at ;|5,83O,OOO» This value was 99-5 per cent of the total value 49 of exports through Texas ports. ' In 1870, 143,296 bales of cotton were exported. The value of this cotton was f 15,275,000 or 94-5 per cent of the total exports over Texas ports for that year. Based on 500 pounds to the bale, the cotton in 1870 was valued at 21 cents a pound, as compared to 9 cents a pound in iB6O. a Data for items exported were not given by customs districts in 1850. than fl,ooo in value. c Data for this item were not listed separately for this year. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, "Commerce and Navigation of the United States,” Executive Documents, 1845-1898; Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899-1903- a Less than 1/2 of 1%. for this item were not listed separately for this year. c Data for items exported were not given by customs districts in 1850. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, "Commerce and Navigation of the United States," Executive Documents, 1845-1898; Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899-1903* Moreover the cotton production in Texas did not suffer so severely as did the production in the South generally, and the demand following 50 the Civil ’War stimulated prices. Although Texas exports in 1870 in- creased to 143,296 bales from 127,220 in iB6O, exports for the United States declined for the same period from 3,812,345 bales to 2,095,323 bales. The value of unmanufactured cotton exports from Texas ports con-52 tinned to increase each decade from 1880 to 1900. Likewise, the number of bales exported increased each decade as follows: 299,900 53 bales in 1880; 472,705 bales in 1890; and 1,577,643 bales in 1900. Though the value and number of exported bales of unmanufactured cotton showed increases for each decade, the rise did not keep pace with the relative position in the value of other exports. Data for each succeeding decade revealed unmanufactured cotton represented a smaller percentage of the total exports through Texas ports. The 88.5 per cent for 1880 declined to 79-3 P©r cent in 1890 and in 1900 unmanufactured cotton represented only 60.5 per cent of the total value of exports over Texas ports, a considerable decline from the 99•5 per cent of iB6O. An analysis of exports to 1900, other than unmanufactured cotton, reveals that Agricultural products and their manufacture made up the major part of the remaining portion. Exports of minerals did not attain any position of prominence, and iron, steel, and wood and their 54 manufactures did not total 10 per cent of the whole until 1900. However, the exports of manufactures of cotton and cotton seed became more important toward the latter part of the century. In 1870 the total of all these manufactures of cotton and cotton seed did not represent 1 per cent of the $16,167,000 in total exports from Texas ports. By 1900 these products represented 7-1 per cent of the $103,- 293,000 in total exports from Texas for that year. In 1870 manufactured cotton goods valued at $99,000 were exported whereas exports of manufactures of cotton had no, or insignificant, value. By 1880 exports of manufactured cotton goods represented a value of $488,000; oil cake and meal, $171,000; cottonseed oil, $13,- 000; and cotton seed, $l,OOO. In 1890 the value of oil cake and meal exported surpassed that for manufactured cotton goods with a value of $1,207,000 for the former and 8294,000 for the latter. Then, at the beginning of the twentieth century, oil cake and meal ranked first in importance of the manufactures of cotton and cotton seed; cottonseed oil, second; and manufactured cotton goods, third. The value of oil cake and meal for the year 1900 had risen to $4,177,000 in value, an equivalent of 4-0 per cent of the total exports over Texas ports. The exportation of wheat, wheat flour, and corn did not attain prominence until the last decade of the nineteenth century. In iB6O, 1870, and 1880, Texas ports were importing, not exporting, wheat and 55 corn. Both wheat and corn were grown in the central portion of 56 Texas prior to 1890 with wheat as a secondary crop to corn. But in each case, the cotton economy was absorbing greater quantities of the grain than were being produced. In addition the drought resisting 57 wheat called ’’Turkey” was not introduced to Kansas until 1873- The spread of strains of this wheat and the utilization of dry-land farming methods were being initiated on the plains of Texas, Kansas, and 58 Oklahoma at the turn of the twentieth century. In dollar value, wheat exports were nil in 1890 but amounted to $9,328,000 in 1900. This dollar value represented 8.9 per cent of the value of all exports over Texas ports for 1900. In physical units, Texas ports handled during the year a total of 13,561,881 bushels of wheat assigned to foreign destinations. Even though $65,000 worth of corn was imported in 1880, corn to 59 the value of 345,000 was exported. In 1390 the value of corn exports had increased to $70,000 and in 1900 rose to $3,038,000, a value equivalent to 2.9 per cent of the total exports from Texas ports. While corn meal remained a minor export, wheat flour exports in- 60 creased toward the latter part of the nineteenth century. In 1900 the value of wheat flour exported was $946,000, a marked increase over the 8106,000 figure for 1890. Adding the value of wheat and wheat flour exported in IROO, one has a value of $10,274,000, representing 9.8 per cent of the $105,293,000 exports over Texas ports in that year The exportation of live animals from Texas ports increased from a value of 47,000 in 1860 to 41,103,000 in 1900. Cattle, the principal live animals exported, were in abundance on the plains of Texas. Millions of pounds of beef were ”fed to hogs or dumped into the sea, after it had been cooked to render out the tallow. After the Texan 62 Revolution, cattle were shipped in considerable numbers to New Orleans 63 and by 1370 the exportation of live cattle had already begun. Though the export of fresh beef dates from 1876, the exportation of live cattle continued. The resistance to the cattle drives after 1885 also added impetus to this export movement which provided a new outlet for 64 cattle. The data reveal that no mineral oil was exported in iB6O. Completion of the first producing well in the United States did not occur until 1859 and the "first producing well in Texas was completed during the winter of 1866-67." By this latter date, "two thousand barrel gushers were no novelty in the Pennsylvania fields," but the small amount of oil produced by the Texas wells "did not justify the expense 65 of sinking the wells." As late as 1889, the production of oil in Texas was "less than five hundred barrels" annually while Pennsylvania produced "nearly twenty million barrels" in that year. Not until 1396 did Texas produce more than "one thousand barrels annually." This production came mainly from Corsicana, where oil was discovered in 1895- In 1898 the first refinery in Texas was erected at Corsicana, and by 1900 Texas produced 829,560 barrels of oil. Comparatively, Texas was still a 66 small oil producing state at the turn of the century. Inasmuch as Texas was slow in developing its oil resources, the exports of this product from Texas ports were small before 1900 and were supplied mainly by other states. In 1870 only a value of §24,000 67 of crude and refined mineral oil was exported over Texas ports. This total represented 366 barrels of mineral oil, 342 of which were refined. In 1880 only refined mineral oil was exported. During that year, 3,424 barrels of the refined product valued at §35,000 passed into foreign trade channels via Texas ports. In 1890 the exported volume of crude mineral oil exceeded that of the refined product. Exports for that year included 33,605 barrels of crude mineral oil and 5,409 barrels of refined mineral oil. The total value of the refined and crude product was $166,000. For 1900 the actual value and volume of mineral oil exported from Texas ports had declined. In that year, 14,355 barrels of refined and 3,619 barrels of crude mineral oil were exported, the total value being $131,000. Exports of bituminous coal over Texas ports were nil or less than $l,OOO in value for the years iB6O, 1870, and 1880. In 1890 bituminous coal exports amounted to $324,000 or 1.1 per cent of the total exports over Texas ports. Data for 1900 reveal that $1,001,000 or 1.0 per cent of the total value in exports from Texas ports were in bituminous coal. Exports of iron, steel, and manufactures of iron and steel from Texas ports did not materialize until the latter part of the nineteenth century. While none were reported for iB6O, $lOB,OOO were reported for 1870, and $137,000 for 1880. Then in 1890 the exports of iron, steel, and manufactures of iron and steel barely passed the million dollar mark, representing 3-4 per cent of all exports from Texas ports. Another marked increase occurred in 1900, when the value of the exports of iron, steel, and manufactures of iron and steel reached $8,774,000 and accounted for 8.3 per cent of the value exported by way of Texas ports. Wood and manufactures of wood did not account for as large a portion of the total exports over Texas ports as did iron, steel, and manufactures of iron and steel. Nevertheless, the trend was similar. Small exports of wood and manufactures of wood occurred in iB6O, 1870, and 1880. In 1890 the value exported increased to $726,000 and further increased in 1900 to $2,840,000, this latter value representing 2.7 per cent of the total exports for Texas ports. The values of the principal exports from Texas ports are compared to the values of the same exports for the nation in Tables XV and XVI. Source of data: United States Treasury Department: ’’Commerce and Navigation of the United States,” Executive Documents, 1845-1898; Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899-1903. a Less than $l,OOO. b Less than 1/2 of 1%. Source of data: United States Treasury Department: "Commerce and Navigation of the United States," Executive Documents, 1845-1898; Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899-1903- As of 1870 exports of unmanufactured, cotton from Texas ports represented only 6.7 per cent of the $227,027,000 in total exports for the United States. In 1880 this percentage increased to 8.0 per cent; in 1890, to 9-4 per cent; and in 1900, to 26.3 per cent. Texas ports by 1900 had become a substantial outlet for unmanufactured cotton pro- duced in the United States Also Texas ports were handling an increasing proportion of the oil cake, meal, and cottonseed oil produced for export from the United States. In 1890 oil cake and meal exported from Texas ports was valued at $1,207,000, which accounted for 15.0 per cent of the £8,000,000 in oil cake and meal exported from all United States ports in that year. By 1900 Texas ports handled 24.9 per cent of the total oil cake and meal exported by the United States, even though the United States total value in 1900 was 316,757,000 as compared to $8,000,000 in 1890. In cottonseed oil exports, the ports of Texas handled less than onehalf of 1 per cent of the United States total in 1890, but by 1900 Texas ports were accommodating 20.3 per cent of the total exports of cottonseed oil from the United States. Of the manufactured cotton, the Texas ports handled less than 5 per cent of this merchandise exported by the United States in the years 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1900, indicating that Texas ports were relatively insignificant in handling this manufactured product. Similarly, exports of cotton seed over Texas ports were not only small absolutely but also relatively. In 1890 Texas ports received and forwarded less than one-half of 1 per cent of the cotton seed exports from the United States and 3.8 per cent of the United States total in 1900. Exports of live animals from Texas ports in 1870 accounted for $150,000 or 14.4 per cent of the $1,044,000 in live animals exported by the United States. The percentage for 1880, 1890, and 1900 de- dined to less than 3 per cent, indicating a definite downward trend. In 1880 wheat and corn exports of Texas ports were relatively insignificant but became relatively important in the United States export trade in 1900. In that year Texas ports accounted for 12.7 per cent of the 473,237,000 in wheat exported and 3*6 per cent of the §85,206,000 in corn exported from the United States. The importance of Texas ports in handling the processed products of corn meal and wheat flour was not as great as for the basic commodities. Corn meal exported through Texas ports represented less than one-half of 1 per cent of the total United States exports in this commodity for 1890 and 1900. This low percentage was true for wheat flour in 1890 though in 1900 Texas ports accounted for $946,000 of the value in wheat flour exported for that year, an amount equivalent to 1.4 per cent of the $67,761,000 of wheat flour exported for that year. In the exportation of iron, steel, and manufactures of Iron and steel, the Texas ports showed substantial gains in the percentage of the United States exports of these products. In 1870 and 1880 Texas ports handled approximately 1 per cent of the United States total. By 1890 the percentage had increased to 4-0 per cent, and by 1900 to 7*2 per cent. This increase in percentage becomes all the more significant considering that United States exports of iron, steel, and iron and steel products in 1900 were valued at §121,916,000 as compared to §25,544,000 in 1890. By 1900, 5-6 per cent of the wood and manufactures of wood produced in the United States for export used channels via Texas ports. This percentage compares with 2.6 per cent for the year 1890. Bituminous coal showed a greater tendency than wood and manufactures of wood to use Texas ports as an outlet to world trade. In 1890 Texas ports transferred to foreign channels 9-2 per cent of the value of all exports of bituminous coal and in 1900, 8.4 per cent. As for mineral oil, Texas ports had to wait until the discovery of Spindietop in 1901 and subsequent discoveries before any appreciable proportion of the United States exports of this product flowed from Texas ports. In 1900 only three-tenths of 1 per cent of the mineral oil exported passed through Texas ports. 4 °”Commerce and Navigation of the United States,” Executive Documents, 1845-1898• 49 See Table XIV. 50 y During the Civil War unmanufactured cotton in the North "was worth from thirty cents to one dollar per pound.* 1 Richardson, op. cit. , p. 264. and Navigation of the United States,** Executive Documents, 1845-1398. 52 See Table XIII. Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899-1903 "Commerce and Navigation of the United States," Executive Documents, 1845-1393. Tables XIII and XIV. Table XX. 56 Richardson, op. ci_t. , p. 211. 57 C. Langdon White and Edwin J. Foscue, Regional Geography of Anglo-America, p. 342. In 1899 Kansas ranked fifth of all the states in wheat production. By 1909 Kansas was second and in 1929, first. 59 >7 Tables XIII and XX. "In 1873, the Texas Star Flour Mills was organized in Galveston the oldest now in Texas.” Mimeographed data released by F. G. Robinson, Traffic Manager, Galveston Chamber of Commerce, August 21, 1947 • op. cit., p. 311- cit. -'Ernest L. Bogart and Donald L. Kemmerer, Economic History of the American People, p. 517* 6^lbid. , p. 520. L. Drake discovered oil in Pennsylvania on August 28, 1859, while the first producing well in Texas came in at Oil Springs in Nacogdoches County during the winter of 1866-67. Wortham, op. cit., pp. 180-182. / / Ibid., pp. 181-183. 6 ?See Table XIII. (In thousands of dollars) Year Ending Tune 3C Commodity i860 1870 1880 1890 1900 Unmfg. Cotton . 5,830 15,275 16,841 23,559 63,722 Oil Cake & Meal nil nil 171 1,207 4,177 Cottonseed Oil . c c 13 64 2,878 Mfg. Cotton Goods .... . nil 99 488 294 459 Cotton Seed . c c 1 b 13 Wheat nil nil nil nil 9,328 Wheat Flour nil 70 43 106 946 Indian Corn nil b 45 70 ' 3,038 Indian Corn Meal . nil b 1 2 1 All Live Animals 7 150 440 878 1,108 Iron and Steel, and Mfg. of nil 108 137 1,020 8,774 Wood, and Mfg. of .... b 25 47 726 2,840 Bituminous Coal b nil nil 324 1,001 Mineral Oil, Crude & Refined nil 24 35 166 131 Other Exports . 20 416 762 1,284 6,877 Texas Total • 5,857 16,167 19,024 29,700 105,293 TABLE XIII VALUE OF PRINCIPAL DOMESTIC COMMODITIES EXPORTED FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, iB6O, 1870, 1880, 1890, AND 1900 a Commodity Year Ending June 30 I860 1870 % 1880 * 1890 % 1900 % Unmfg. Cotton . 99.5 94-5 88.5 79-3 60.5 Oil Cake & Meal nil nil 0.9 4-1 4.0 Cottonseed Oil b b a a 2.7 Mfg. Cotton Goods nil 0.6 2.6 1.0 0.4 Cotton Seed b b a a a Wheat nil nil nil nil 8.9 Wheat Flour nil a a a 0.9 Indian Corn nil a a a 2.9 Indian Corn Meal nil a 8 a a All Live Animals . a 0.9 2.3 3-0 1.1 Iron and Steel, and Mfg. of nil 0.7 0.7 3.4 8.3 Wood, and Mfg. of a a a 2.4 2.7 Bituminous Coal a nil nil 1.1 1.0 Mineral Oil, Crude & Refined . nil a a 0.6' a Other Exports . 0.3 2.6 4.0 4-3 6.5 Texas Total . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TzABIE XIV value of domestic commodities exported expressed as PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL DOMESTIC COMMODITIES EXPORTED FROM CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS ENDING TUNE 30, iB6O, 1870, 1880, 1890, AND 1900° Commodity 1870 1880 Texas U.S. Total ($000) Texas U.S. Total ($000) Value ($000) % of U.S. Value ($000) I 0 of J.S. Unmfg. Cotton . 15,275 6.7 227,027 16,841 8.0 211,536 Mfg. Cotton Goods .., 99 2.6 3,786 488 4.9 9,982 All Live Animals .... 150 14.4 1,044 440 2.8 15,882 Iron and Steel, and Mfg. of 108 1.0 11,005 137 1.1 12,612 Other Exports 535 0.2 256,230 1,118 0.2 573,934 Total , 16,167 3.2 499,092 19,024 2.3 823,946 TABLE XV VALUE OF PRINCIPAL DOMESTIC COMMODITIES EXPORTED FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS AND UNITED STATES FOR YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 1870 AND 1880 Commodity 1890 1900 Texas U.S. Total (#000) Texas U.S. Total ($000) Value (#000) % of U.S. Value (#000) % of U.S. Unmfg. Cotton .. 23,559 9.4 250,969 63,722 26.3 241,833 Oil Cake & Meal .... .. 1,207 15.0 8,000 4,177 24.9 16,757 Cottonseed Oil 64 b 5,291 2.878 20.3 14,128 Mfg. Cotton Goods . . 294 2.9 9,999 459 1-9 24,003 Cotton Seed b 75 13 3.8 346 Wheat nil nil 45,276 9,328 12.7 73,237 Wheat Flour 106 b 57,036 946 1.4 67,761 Indian Corn 70 b 42,658 3,038 3.6 85,206 Indian Corn Meal ... 2 b 897 a b 2,148 All Live Animals ... 878 2.6 33,637 1,108 2.5 43,584 Iron & Steel, and Mfg. of .. 1,020 4.0 25,544 8,774 7.2 121,916 Wood, and Mfg. of .. 726 2.6 28,277 2,840 5.6 50,597 Bituminous Coal .... 324 9-2 3,536 1,001 8.4 11,939 Mineral Oil, Crude & Refined b 51,402 131 b 75,612 Other Exports .. 1,284 0.5 282,715 6,877 1-3 541,697 Total .. 29,700 3.5 845,294 105,293 7.7 1,370,764 TABLE XVI VALUE OF PRINCIPAL DOMESTIC COMMODITIES EXPORTED FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS AND UNITED STATES FOR YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 1890 AND 1900 IMPORTS FROM STATEHOOD TO 1900 Total imports through Texas ports. For the first full fiscal year of statehood which ended June 30, 1847, Texas ports received the 68 value of $29,826 in imports. " While small compared to the value of $146,545,638 in imports received by the whole United States, the im- port figure is in sharp contrast to the lack of any recorded exports 69 from Texas ports for that year. In 1350 the value of imports by way of Texas ports temporarily declined to $26,000, but by iB6O had in- creased to $1,062,000.7 a Data for 1850 include all imports, not merchandise alone. b l5/1000 of 1%. Source of data: United States Treasury Department: "Commerce and Navigation of the United States," Executive Documents, 1845-1898; Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899-1903. The general trend in the value of imports for Texas ports and for the United States as a whole continued upward between 1850 and 1900. Only in the year 1890 did imports through Texas ports fail to show an increase over the year a decade earlier. The data for 1890 reveal that the value of imports into Texas was $3,016,000, as compared to $3,367,000 in 1880. By 1900 the value of imports over Texas ports had increased to $5,605,000. Though the value of the imports into the United States had increased 4.8 times from 1850 to 1900, the value of imports into Texas had increased 216 times. Despite the marked increase, the imports by Texas ports continued to represent less than 1 per cent of the total for the United States. When compared to the exports for Texas ports, the figures on Texas imports were also small, because in 1900 the export value was over 100 million dollars and represented 7-7 per cent of the total exports for the United States. As in the case of exports, the government data for imports were for years ending June 30 for the period 1845 to 1900. 69 "Commerce and Navigation of the United States," Executive Document s, Vol. V, No. 17. 70 See Table XVII. Year Texas United States Value ($000) Value _(fooo) % of U.S. 185O a 26 b 178,138 i860 1,062 0.3 354,609 1870 1,468 0.3 435,959 1880 3,367 0.5 667,955 1890 3,016 0.4 731,469 1900 5,605 0.7 849,941 TABLE XVII Value OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS AND UNITED STATES FOR YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890, AND 1900 Total imports by customs districts. During the nineteenth cen- tury, the rank and relative importance of customs district in the import trade were subject to much change. For the year 1860 the Texas Customs District, later called Galveston, was the only importing cus-71 toms district. Consequently the Brazos de Santiago and Saluria customs districts had no imports of record while the Texas Customs District received all of the $26,000 of imports. In iB6O the Texas Customs District entered imports valued at $533,000, representing 5C per cent of the $1,062,000 in imports for all Texas ports. The Brazos de Santiago Customs District accounted for imports valued at $407,000 or 38.3 per cent of the Texas total while the Saluria Customs District entered imports valued at $122,000. No imports were recorded for the Paso del Norte Customs District. An analysis of the products imported through the several customs districts in iB6O reveals that the two principal items imported by the Texas Customs District were manufactures of iron and steel valued at $241,000 and coffee valued at $195,000-For the Brazos de Santiago Customs District, the values of the principal imports included the following: manufactures of cotton, $171,000; living animals, $lOO,OOO and earthen wares and China stone, $26,000. Of the $122,000 in import values for the Saluria Customs District, $79,000 were for living animals entered and $20,000 for Indian corn. a Prior to 1875, the Galveston Customs District was called the Texas Customs District with the headquarters port at Galveston. designated as a customs district as of this date. °ln 1914, data for Faso del Norte were first listed under the present name of the customs district, El Paso. Source of data: United States Treasury Department: "Commerce and Navigation of the United States," Executive Documents, 1845-1898; Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899-1903* a Prior to 1875, the Galveston Customs District was called the Texas Customs District with the headquarters port at Galveston. °Not designated as a customs district as of this date. G ln 1914, data for Paso del Norte were first listed under the present name of the customs district, El Paso. Source of data: United States Treasury Department: "Commerce and Navigation of the United States,” Executive Documents, 1845-1898; Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899-1903. For the year 1870 the Brazos de Santiago Customs District led in imports, having entered the value of $561,000 or 38.3 per cent of the $1,468,000 for all Texas ports. Values of the principal commodities imported by the Brazos de Santiago Customs District in this year were as follows: hides and skins, $281,000; living animals, $72,000; manufactures of cotton, §45,000; and sugar, $31,000. Following closely in importance for the year 1870 was the Texas Customs District which imported $509,000 in merchandise or 34.7 pen cent of the Texas total. Again the principal imports for this customs district were coffee valued at $196,000 and manufactures of iron and steel valued at $162,000. The only other item of importance was salt, imported at a value of $44,000. During this same year the Corpus Christi Customs District entered the value of $204,000 in imports, representing 13-9 per cent of the total for Texas ports. The two principal items of import were hides and skins valued at $84,000 and living animals valued at $70,000. Through the Paso del Norte Customs District, imports entered in 1870 to the value of $150,000. This value was 10.2 per cent of the total for Texas ports and was principally attributed to $52,000 in Indian corn, $23,000 in living animals, and $21,000 in wheat flour. In the same year the Saluria Customs District accounted for only $44,000 or 3-0 per cent of the total exports for Texas. The principal items were $12,000 in hides and skins and $12,000 in Indian corn. By 1880 the Brazos de Santiago Customs District had increased its relative position to 45-3 per cent of the total imports for Texas ports. The total imports for the customs district were $1,529,000 as compared to the $3,367,000 for all ports in Texas. Once again the principal imports were hides and skins valued at $506,000 and manufactures of cotton valued at $409,000. Other imports of importance were as follows: manufactures of iron and steel, $71,000; raw fleece, wool and hair, $46,000; manufactures of flax, $40,000; and living animals, $33,000. In 1880 the Galveston Customs District declined slightly in relation to the other ports. The importation of $1,095,000 was equivalent to 32.5 per cent of the total for the state. Repeating the performance of 1870 the Galveston Customs District entered the major portion of the coffee, manufactures of iron and steel, and salt. The coffee imports were valued at $404,000; manufactures of iron and steel, $476,- 000; and salt, $89,000. The Corpus Christi Customs District entered imports valued at $454,000 in 1880 or 13.5 per cent of the total for the state. Hides and skins alone accounted for $300,000. The import value of raw fleece, wool, and hair amounted to $95,000; living animals, $26,000; and Indian corn, $21,000. The two customs districts entering the least imports in 1880 were Paso del Norte and Saluria. The Paso del Norte Customs District entered imports valued at $197,000. Principal imports for this district included $96,000 for living animals, $26,000 for Indian corn, $12,000 for wheat flour, and $ll,OOO for hides and skins. The total imports for the Saluria Customs District were only $94,000 with $45,000 recorded for imports of hides and skins and $16,000 for Indian corn. In 1890 the Corpus Christi Customs District replaced the Brazos de Santiago Customs District as the principal importing district. In that year the Corpus Christi Customs District entered $1,210,000 in imports or 40-2 per cent of the state total. Hides and skins accounted 73 for of the total with goat skins predominating. Living animals imported were valued at $35?000. Minerals became important with imports of copper ore and refinements contributing $103,000 and lead and manufactures of lead adding $59,000 to the value of imports for the district. 'The second customs district in importance of imports in 1890 was Paso del Norte, doing 17.9 per cent of the import business for the state ports. The two principal items accounting for the $541,000 in imports for the customs district were living animals valued at $142,- 000 and hides and skins valued at $134,000. The Saluria Customs District imported $519,000 or 17.2 per cent of the total for Texas ports in 1890. Bituminous coal gained prominence in accounting for $140,000 of the total. Imports of hides and skins valued at $193,000 and living animals valued at $56,000 were ad' ditional principal imports for the district in 1890. Ranking in fourth place, the Galveston Customs District received imports valued at $416,000 in 1890 or 13.8 per cent of the state total Of prime importance were the imports of manufactures of iron and steel which accounted for $167,000 of the total. Coffee imports, amounting to $404,000 in 1880, had dropped to $34,000 in 1890. Imports of cement valued at $53,000 entered by way of the Galveston Customs District, the only customs district to receive cement that year. In 1890 the Brazos de Santiago Customs District had fallen to fifth place as an importing customs district. The decline in the imports of hides and skins and manufactures of cotton was the contributing factor. Whereas manufactures of cotton in 1880 had accounted for .§409,000 in imports, the 1890 figure was "less than $1,000." In 1880 hides and skins imported for the district amounted to $506,000 as com- pared to $132,000 in 1890. Somewhat offsetting these declines was the increase in living animals imported from a value of $33,000 in 1880 to $140,000 in 1890. By 1900 the Brazos de Santiago Customs District had declined in importance until the total imports for the district were less than 1 per cent of the total for Texas ports. Hides and skins formed the principal class of imports, accounting for $23,000 of the $42,000 in imports for the year. The remaining 99-3 per cent of the total imports in 1900 was quite evenly divided between the other four customs districts. No district had less than 20 per cent of the total while none had more than 30 per cent. The Corpus Christi Customs District ranked highest with 29.0 per cent of the $5,605,000 in merchandise imported by all Texas ports. Of the $1,626,000 in imports for the Corpus Christi Customs District in 1900, the chief import was copper ore and refinements valued at $660,000. Other large items were raw jute and fiber, other than flax, which accounted for $327,000 of the total, while hides and skins accounted for $323,000 of the value. Other items of importance included imports of coffee to the value of $59,000 and lead ore and base bullion, valued at $29,000. The $1,453,000 in imports entered by the Galveston Customs District in 1900 represented 25.9 per cent of the total for Texas ports. The value of raw jute and fiber, other than flax, contributed $463,000 of this total. In addition coffee imports were valued at $285,000 and cement, $186,000. Dor 1900 the Paso del Norte Customs District received $1,259,000 of merchandise as imports, representing 22.5 per cent of the total imports for Texas ports. The principal items were living animals, lead ore and base bullion, and coffee. Values of these imports were as follows: living animals, $453,000; lead ore and base bullion, $356,000; and coffee, $173,000. In 1900 the Saluria Customs District had imports valued at $1,225, 000. This value was 21.9 per cent of the total for Texas ports in that year. Lead ore and base bullion was the chief import, amounting to a value of $525,000. Hides and skins continued to be important imports for the district, being valued at $278,000. Also relatively large imports of bituminous coal continued and accounted for $145,000 of the $148,000 of bituminous coal imported over Texas ports in 1900. Tables XVIII and XIX for data on imports and Chart V for the ports assigned to individual customs districts. of data for values of products imported by customs districts: '’Commerce and Navigation of the United States,” Executive Documents, 1845-1898. 73 Goat skins imported by the Corpus Christi Customs District in 1890 were valued at $517,645• (In thousands of dollars) Customs District Year Ending Tune 30 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 Brazos de Santiago ... , . . . nil 407 561 1,529 330 42 Corpus Christi . . . b b 204 454 1,210 1,626 Galveston (Tex.) a .... .. . 26 533 509 1,095 416 1,453 Paso del Norte 0 ,.. . b nil 150 197 541 1,259 Saluria nil 122 44 94 519 1,225 Texas Total ,... 26 1,062 1,468 3,367 3,016 5,605 TABLE XVIII VALUE 02 MERCHANDISE IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS FORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 1850, iB6O, 1870, 1880, 1890, AND 1900 Customs District Year Ending Tune 30 18?0 % I860 % 1870 % 1880 % 1890 % 1900 % Brazos de Santiago . . . 38.3 38.2 45.3 10.9 0.7 Corpus Christi b b 13-9 13.5 40.2 29.0 Galveston (Tex.) a .... .. 100.0 50.2 34.7 32.5 13.8 25.9 Paso del Norte 0 b nil 10.2 5-9 17.9 22.5 Saluria 11.5 3.0 2.8 17.2 21.9 Texas Total .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TABLE XIX VALUE OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL IMPORTS INTO TEXAS FOR YEARS ENDING PUNE 30, 1850, iB6O, 1870, 1880, 1890, AND 1900 Principal commodities imported. An analysis of the nature and values of the various commodities imported into Texas from iB6O to 1900 shows that several products were important in this trade, while 74 many others played a minor role. No one product accounted for a major portion of the whole as in the case of unmanufactured cotton for exports. In the years iB6O and 1900, only two products accounted for as much as 5 per cent of the total imports into Texas for both years. These two products were coffee and living animals and both were approximately half as important in the 1900 total as they were 40 years earlier. a other than furs. and refined copper. c ore and ’’base bullion.” than flax. eEarthen stone and China wares. ~Brown and refined sugar. and manufactures of lead. itemized for the year. i-Less than 81,000. Source of data: United States Treasury Department: ”Commerce and Navigation of the United States,” Executive Documents, 1845-1898: Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899-1903- a other than furs. °ore and refined copper. G ore and "base bullion." sother than flax. stones and China wares. 1 Brown and refined sugar. SLead and manufactures of lead. itemized for the year. I Less than 0.1 of 1 per cent. Source of data: United States Treasury Department: "Commerce and Navigation of the United States," Executive Documents, 1845-1898; Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899-1903- in weight the coffee importation into Texas was 2,012,000 pounds in I 860; 1,905,000 in 1870: 2,979,000 in 1880; 212,000 in 1890; and 75 7,311,000 pounds in 1900. The trend in the amount of coffee imported was upward though weights for years like 1890 were abnormally low. Live animals imported were mainly cattle, though the number of cattle imported was not separated from other live animals in 1860, 1870, and 1880. In 1890 the number of cattle imported into Texas was 76 18,805 head as compared to 56,566 head in 1900. While coffee and live animals retained a relatively high position among imports into Texas, severe], other products varied in importance during the period. Principal ones showing gains were hides and skins, copper ore and refined copper, unrefined lead, raw jute and fiber other than flax, cement, and bituminous coal. Imports of hides and skins valued at $2,000 in iB6O increased to a value of $1,037,000 in 1890 but dropped to $634,000 in 1900. The value of the imports of hides and skins in iB6O was 0.2 per cent of the Texas total, 34-3 pen cent in 1890, and 11.3 per cent in 1900. For the years 1870, 1880, and 1890, the value of imported hides and skins exceeded the value of any other commodity imported into Texas. The imports of copper ore and refinements, unrefined lead, and raw jute and fiber other than flax did not show any marked growth until the latter part of the period. While copper ore and refinements were imported during each year considered, only in the years 1890 and 1900 were moderate importations made. In 1890 imports of copper ore and refinements were valued at $123,000 and represented 4-1 per cent of the total imports for Texas ports while in 1900 the imports of these commodities were equivalent to 12.0 per cent of the total. By ’weight imports of ore and unrefined copper into Texas were 1,836,000 pounds in 1890, while 37,000 pounds of refined but unmanufactured copper were 77 imported in the same year. ' For 1900 imports of 0,718,000 pounds of refined copper entered by way of Texas ports. Comparable data for copper ore and unrefined copper imported during this year were not available. 78 Raw jute ’ to the value of $25,000 was imported in 1870 but for the years iB6O, 1880, and 1890, there were no imports. Then in 1900 the imports of raw jute became a principal one, being valued at $817,- 000 and equivalent to 14.6 per cent of the total imports for Texas. Prior to 1900 the value of imports of unrefined lead was not large enough for separate itemization by customs districts. But in 1900 lead ore and ’’base bullion” were imported to the value of $910,- 000, an equivalent of 16.2 per cent of the value of all imports into Texas for that year. Measured by weight, 48,422,000 pounds of lead ore and ’’base bullion” were imported. During this same year no imports of pigs, bars, and unmanufactured lead were imported though small volumes had entered in the years iB6O, 1870, 1880, and 1890. While of lesser importance, imports of cement and bituminous coal increased in value toward the end of the nineteenth century. In 1890 the value of cement imported equaled $53,000 or 1.3 per cent of the value of all imports over Texas ports. -By 1900 the value had increased to $186,000 and represented 3«3 per cent of Texas imports. In manufactures of iron, steel, and cotton, the trend in imports varied inversely with the trend in exports. While the exports of these manufactures increased toward the end of the century, the imports became insignificant. In 1860 the manufactures of iron and steel were valued at $248,000 and represented 23-3 per cent of the total imports for that year. By 1900 these manufactures were valued at $4,000 and accounted for only 0.1 per cent of total imports. Similarly, the value of imports of the manufactures of cotton dropped from $175,000 in iB6O to $45,000 in 1900 or from 16.5 per cent to 0.8 per cent of the total. Many other items were imported during the period from 1845 to 1900, supplementing the more important ones discussed. Imports of Indian corn, wheat, and wheat flour followed the reverse trend of their exports. In 1870 Indian corn imports were valued at $79,000 and represented 5-4 per cent of the total imports through Texas ports. In this same year wheat flour valued at $21,000 was imported, representing 1.4 per cent of all imports for the year. By 1900 the imports of corn, wheat, and wheat flour had declined to less than $l,OOO each, and each accounted for less than 1/10 of 1 per cent of the total Imports of sugar were recorded for each year considered but were less than 1 per cent of total imports except in 1870 when they were $43 } 000, an equivalent to 2.9 per cent of the total. Raw fleece, wool, and hair entered in larger quantities during the years 1870, 1880, and 1890. For 1880 these products accounted for 4-3 per cent of the total imports but by 1900 represented less than 1/10 of 1 per cent Other imported products that represented at least 1 per cent of the total imports in one year were salt, manufactures of flax, and earthen wares. When the position of the principal imports is considered in relation to the total for the nation, no one commodity, with the possible 79 exception of Indian corn, represented as much as 5 per cent of the 80 total United States imports of that commodity in the years considered. The value of several commodities imported did exceed 5 per cent of the United States total for the commodity in one or more years. Among the commodities falling in this classification were living animals, copper ore and refinements, lead ore and "base bullion," refined lead, raw jute and fiber other than flax, cement, salt, and wheat flour. In 1870 Texas ports imported living animals valued at $168,000, accounting for 2.6 per cent of the $6,420,000 in living animals im- a other than furs. d ore and refined copper. G ore and "base bullion." Mother than flax. e Earthen stones and China wares. -Brown and refined sugar. SLead and manufactures of lead. a Not itemized for the year. iLess than 0.1 of 1 per cent. OLess than $l,OOO. Source of data: United States Treasury Department: "Commerce and Navigation of the United States," Executive Documents, 1845-1898; Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899-1903. a other than furs. b ore and refined copper. G ore and ’’base bullion.” d other than flax. stones and China wares. Brown and refined sugar. SLead and manufactures of lead. b Not itemized for the year. LLess than 0.1 of 1 per cent. JLess than $l,OOO. Source of data: United States Treasury Department: ’’Commerce and Navigation of the United States,” Executive Documents, 1845-1898; Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the? United States, 1899-1903- ported by the nation. By 1880 the percentage had grown to 4.3 per cent; in 1890 to 5«5 per cent; and by 1900 Texas ports entered 10.0 per cent of the national total of $4,531,000. In actual number of cattle entered, Texas imported 18,805 of the national total of 30,692 / / / / 31 head in 1890 and 56,566 of the 181,006 head in 1900. Texas ports handled none or a comparatively small amount of the nation’s imports of raw jute and fiber other than flax in the years 1870, 1880, and 1890. But in 1900 Texas ports entered 14.6 per cent of the $23,726,000 of these products imported into the United States. Texas ports did not enter significant amounts of lead and copper in 1870 and 1880, although by 1890 imports of copper ore and refinements through Texas ports accounted for 23.6 per cent of the §520,000 in value imported by the nation. .By 1900 the Texas share had decreased to 4-4 per cent of the national total of $15,490,000. In the case of lead ore and "base bullion,” Texas ports entered a value of §910,000, or 29.1 per cent of the $3,129,000 total imported by the tion in 1900. Refined lead and manufactures, imported in the same year, were nil but had amounted to $74,000 in 1890, or 11.2 per cent of the national total of $658,000. Three other commodities accounted for 5 per cent or more of the total national imports for the given commodity in at least one of the years of 1870, 1880, 1890, and 1900. Only in 1900 did cement imports over Texas ports account for over 5 per cent of the national total. In that year 5-6 per cent of all cement imports entered by way of Texas ports. Likewise, salt imports through Texas ports excelled the 5 per cent mark in only one of the years, namely, 1880. In that year salt valued at $93,000 was imported over Texas ports or 5.1 per cent of the national total. The remaining commodity in the "5% classification" was wheat flour. Though total imports for the nation -were small, Texas imported 5.6 per cent of the total value in 1870, 48.2 per cent in 1880, and 20 per cent in 1890. In 1900 Texas imported "less than $1,000" in wheat flour. Tables XX and XXI. and Navigation of the United States,” .Executive Documents, 1345-1898; Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1899-1903- 76 t Loc. cit. of copper ore and unrefined copper are expressed in the weight of refined copper contained in the ore and unrefined copper. 78 ' Includes raw jute and fiber other than flax. 7sln the year 1890 the importations of Indian corn into Texas and the whole United States were each less than §l,OOO, preventing an accurate calculation of the percentage imported through Texas ports. In the remaining years of 1870, 1880, and 1900, Texas ports imported 50.0 per cent to 99-9 per cent of the total Indian corn for the nation. 80 See Tables XXII and XXIII. and Navigation of the United States,” Executive Documents, 1845-1893; Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States 1899-1903. (In thousands of dollars) Year Ending lune 30 Items of Merchandise I860 1870 1880 1890 1900 Hides & Skins a 2 377 876 1,037 634 Coffee .. 195 198 404 38 528 Animals, Living 179 168 160 373 464 Copper 0 12 2 i 123 675 Lead, h h h h 909 Lead, Refined® 17 i 74 nil Raw lute & nil 25 nil nil 817 Cement h h h 53 186 Mfg. of Iron & Steel 248 164 548 171 4 Mfg. of Cotton • 175 46 409 12 45 Indian Corn 22 79 65 i 1 Raw Fleece, Wool, & Hair .. 14 50 144 21 1 Bituminous Coal 8 1 8 145 148 Salt 14 44 93 12 12 Mfg. of Flax 12 9 40 14 h Earthen Wares® -p 35 10 16 13 37 Sugar 1 43 9 9 19 Wheat 3 12 8 i i Wheat Flour 21 14 1 i Other Imports Texas Total • 336 . 1,062 202 1,468 573 3,367 920 3,016 1,125 5,605 TABLE XX VALUE OF PRINCIPAL ITEMS OF MERCHANDISE EXPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS BINDING JUNE 30, iB6O, 1870, 1880, 1890, AND 1900 Items of Merchandise Year Ending June 30 I860 * 1870 1880 % 1890 % 1900 Hides & Skins a 0.2 25.7 25-7 34.4 11.3 Coffee .. 18.4 13.5 12.0 1.3 9.4 Animals, Living .. 16.8 11.4 4.8 12.4 8.3 1.1 0.1 i 4.1 12.0 Lead, Unrefined 0 h h h h 16.2 Lead, .. Raw Jute & Fiber® 0.6 1.2 i 2.5 nil nil 1.7 nil nil 14.6 Cement h h 1.8 3-3 Mfg. of Iron & Steel •• 23.3 11.2 16.3 5.7 0.1 Mfg. of Cotton 3.1 12.1 0.4 0.8 Indian Corn 2.1 5-4 1.9 i i Raw Fleece, Wool, & Hair .. .. 1.3 3-4 4.3 0.7 i Bituminous Coal 0.8 0.1 0.2 4.8 2.6 Salt .. 1.3 3-0 2.8 0.4 0.2 Mfg. of Flax 1.1 0.6 1.2 0.5 h Farthen Wares® 3.3 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.7 .Sugar 1 0.1 2.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 Wheat .. 0.3 0.8 0.2 i i Wheat Flour 1.4 0.4 i i Other Imports Texas Total ■ • 12.8 , . 100.0 13.8 100.0 17.0 100.0 30.5 100.0 20.1 100.0 TABLE XXI VALUE OF PRINCIPAL ITEMS OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED INTO' UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS EXPRESSED aS PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL IMPORTS INTO TEXAS FOR YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890, AND 1900 Items of Merchandise 1870 1880 Texas U.S. Total ($000) Texas u. s. Total (8000) Value ($000) % of U.S. Value ($000) % of U.S. Hides & Skins 8 377 2. 6 14,402 876 2. 9 30,002 Coffee 193 0.8 404 0.7 Animals, Living 168 2.6 6,420 160 4.3 3,740 2 1.0 200 i i 1,006 Lead, Unrefined 0 h h h h h h Lead, 17 0.5 3,675 j 327 Raw Jute & 25 1.8 1,377 nil nil 5,076 Cement h h h h h h Mfg. of Iron & Steel 164 0.5 32,665 548 1.0 53,616 Mfg. of Cotton . 46 0.2 23,380 409 1.4 29,929 Indian Corn 79 97.5 81 65 99.9 65 Raw Fleece, Wool, & Hair . 50 0.7 6,743 144 0.6 23,728 Bituminous Coal 1 0.1 1,110 8 0.5 1,594 Salt • 44 3.0 1,443 93 5.1 1,837 Mfg. of Flax 9 i 16,254 40 i 22,481 Earthen Wares 8 10 0.2 4,389 16 0. 3 5,650 43 0.1 55,665 9 i 74,718 Wheat 12 1.4 879 8 1.5 534 Wheat Flour 21 5.6 375 14 48.2 29 Other Imports 202 i 242,666 573 0.2 353,262 Total . 1,468 0.3 435,959 3,367 0.5 667,955 TABLE XXII VALUE OF PRINCIPAL ITEMS OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS AND UNITED STATES FOR YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 1870 AND 1880 Items of Merchandise 1890 1900 Texas U.S. Total ($000) Texas U.S. Total ($000) Value ($000) % of U.S. Value ($000) % of U.S. Hides & Skins a . 1,03? 4.7 21,882 634 1.8 35,974 Coffee 38 i 78,267 528 1.0 52,468 Animals, Living Copper 0 373 5.5 6,767 464 10.0 4,531 123 23.6 520 675 4.4 15,490 Lead, Unrefined 0 h h h 909 29.1 3,129 Lead, Refined® 74 11.2 658 nil nil 28 Raw lute & Fiber 0, nil nil 17,656 817 14.6 23,726 Cement 53 2.4 2,173 186 5-6 3,313 Mfg. of Iron & Steel . 171 0.5 37,439 4 i 17,808 Mfg. of Cotton 12 i 29,919 45 0.1 42,296 Indian Corn j — _ j 1 50.0 2 Raw Fleece, Wool, & Hair . 21 0.1 15,264 1 i 20,261 Bituminous Coal • 145 4.7 3,083 148 3-3 4,476 Salt 12 1.3 951 12 1.9 626 Mfg. of Flax 14 i 25,862 h h h Earthen Wares® 13 0.2 7,030 37 0.4 8,646 Sugar 1 9 i 84,574 19 i 85,478 Wheat j i 112 j — _ 240 Wheat Flour 1 20.0 5 j — — — 4 Other Imports Total • 920 . 3,016 0.2 0.4 449,302 781,469 1,125 5,605 0.2 0.7 531,440 849,941 TABLE XXIII VALUE OF PRINCIPAL ITEMS OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS AND UNITED STATES FOR YEARS ENDING JUNE 30, 1890 AND 1900 PORT ADAPTATIONS TO EOREIGN TRADE PRIOR TO 1900 Within the period from 1845 to 1900, some of the ports of Texas were favored more than others as handlers of foreign trade. Some ports made substantial gains as shippers and receivers of foreign trade, others rose and declined in usefulness during the period, and 82 a few ceased to exist either as ports or villages. On December 31, 1845 when Texas became a state, the Texas Cus- toms District included the Port of Galveston and the subports of Sabine 83 84 Velasco, Matagorda, Cavallo, Lavaca, and Corpus Christi. The dis- trict was believed to include the important ports in Texas at that time. Noticeable is the lack of a single land or water port south and west of Corpus Christi, the disputed area between Mexico and the Repub- II records the complete changes in designations of customs district's and subdivisions. Abbreviations for Chart V include the following: customs district, CD; port of entry, P; subport, SP; and port of delivery, PD. b lncludes data for Sabine and Sabine Pass. °Lavaca was spelled ”La Vaca” originally. also includes data for Rockport. e Though Brazos de Santiago was created as a customs district on March 3, 1849, no export data were given for this customs district for the year ending June 30, 1850. Source of data: United States Statutes at Large. lie of Texas. Only one port was located east of Galveston, namely, Sabine at the entrance of Sabine Pass. Thus, the principal ports of Texas lay between Galveston and Corpus Christi. During the remainder of the nineteenth century, the ports in the 85 Sabine Lake area were in their infancy. By 1900 the village of Sabine had replaced Sabine Pass as the subport in the area but Orange, Beaumont, and Port Arthur, ports of importance in the twentieth century, had not gained prominence. Orange, formerly under names of Greens Bluff and Madison, was established about 1850. as early as 1858 86 Orange had a small shipyard but the principal industry was lumbering. The village of Beaumont, bearing a French name meaning "beautiful hill," was established in 1828 but was still "a sawmill town" when 87 Spindietop was discovered "just beyond town limits" in 1901. As late as 1895 Port Arthur was the site of an unoccupied house. Between that year and 1899 the Kansas City, Pittsburg and Gulf Railroad was completed from Kansas City to Port Arthur and a canal was dug "by which ocean-going ships could steam from the Gulf to the end of 88 the rails at Port Arthur.*' In the Galveston Bay area, Galveston remained the principal port during the nineteenth century. As early as 1854 the Galveston Wharf 89 Company 'was formed to assume ’’ownership and control of the waterfront properties.” Objectives of the new organization were to ’’expand 90 and build more efficient facilities.” By 1871 nearly all wharves had been rebuilt and provided with storage warehouses. Then by 1890 the waterfront had been bulkheaded, the mud flats were filled in, and tracks for switching had been extended to all of the piers. Between 1890 and 1900 the slip plan was adopted, the waterfront was extended, and additions were made to the warehouses and piers. To accommodate the growing export movement of wheat, corn, and other grains, Elevator ”A” was constructed. This elevator had a capacity for storing 1,500,- 000 bushels of grain and the facilities for loading two ships at once 91 at a total rate of 75,000 bushels per hour. In addition to increasing and modernizing the terminal facilities 92 at Galveston, efforts were made to deepen the channel to the Gulf. In 1869 local funds were used to construct a jetty one mile into the Gulf. Beginning one year later the federal government began a small program with federal appropriations but "little was accomplished" until 1889 when a federal appropriation of $6,200,000 was made "for the construction of a jetty system and for channel deepening." By 1895 the jetty system was complete and ’’deep water” was available to the 93 Galveston terminals. From 1845 to 1900 the participation of Houston in the foreign trade movement was principally an indirect one. Buffalo Bayou was early a traffic lane for barges and sailing vessels to Galveston, New 94 Orleans, ana Nev; York. Prior to deepening the waterway from the Gulf to Galveston, ”a large barge traffic was built up on the channel 95 handling cotton from the warehouses to shipside at the Galveston Bar.” ’’Shallow draft side-wheel steamers” were common on Buffalo Bayou in 96 97 the ’’sixties and seventies”' when Commodore Charles Morgan used the channel for a line of steamers operating between New York and Clinton, a village located approximately three miles below the present Houston Turning Basin. Efforts to make Buffalo Bayou more serviceable were begun in 1866 when ’’the Houston Direct Navigation Company was founded and began its initial operation of deepening the bayou and dredging a canal across Q 8 what is known as Morgan’s Point.”'' Approximately 8200,000 in local funds were devoted to this purpose. Commodore Morgan later purchased Houston’s interest in the Houston Direct Navigation Company and ’’put to work a large engineering force to deepen the channel across the bay and dredge a cut through Morgan’s point.” When Commodore Morgan had to reopen the channel at Morgan’s Point ’’after the great storm of 1875," ho claimed the channel as his own and placed a log-chain across the canal, charging a toll for all ships. Even though Morgan’s ships only used the channel for regular runs from iB6O to 1875, his toll charge remained until 1891, 99 when Morgan was paid for his expenditures. The United States government' first made expenditures on the Houston Ship Channel in 1872 by dredging a cut through Redfish Reef in Galveston Bay. However, Congress did not make any major decision to aid in the construction of the channel until the close of the nineteenth century. By the River and Harbor Act of March 3, 1899, Congress approved ’"a project for the construction of the Houston Ship Channel to a depth of 25 feet” but active construction did not begin 101 until after 1900. To the end of 1900 Houston remained only a port of delivery, a designation received on July 14, Other ports in the Galveston Customs District failed to develop large population centers or export trade. Velasco continued as a subport from 1845 to 1900 while Lavaca lost the designation of subport on September 25, 1890. At this time Lavaca became a port of delivery in 103 the Saluria Customs District. Less fortunate were the villages of Cavallo and Saluria. The latter was first designated as the headquar-104 tens port of the Saluria Customs District on March 3, 1847, but like Cavallo had no designation as a port, subport, or port of de-105 livery in 1900. In the Saluria Customs District, La Salle replaced Saluria as the port for the district but lost all designations on duly 28, 1866, when 106 Indianola was made port for the district. But by this time the im- 107 portance of Indianola was declining though natural misfortune hastened the downfall. In 1875 a Gulf storm destroyed the village. Determined citizens rebuilt but another storm in 1886 again destroyed the village as well as the hopes of the citizenry in a successful port 108 at the site. On September 25, 1890 Eagle Pass was designated as a port of en-10Q try "in lieu of Indianola, Texas.” ' This border port was settled in October, 1849, but the "first real boom" came during the Civil War. Wile the Gulf ports were blockaded, Eagle Pass became an important point for exporting cotton into Mexico. While the cotton export trade faded after the Civil War, a trade route developed ’’from Durango and Chihuahua northward to San Antonio and St. Louis." Transportation was by means of caravans and the route was an "active competitor of the Santa Fe Trail." Also caravans moved from Chihuahua via Eagle 111 Pass to New Pork, taking about 40 days en route. Before 1900 the Southern Pacific Railroad was extended to Eagle Pass, removing the 112 economic value of caravans. Other than towns designated as headquarters ports, no other towns had designations as either ports or subports in the Saluria Customs 113 District during the period 1845 bo 1900. Matagorda and Copano, how. ever, were designated as ports of delivery in the Saluria Customs Dis trict by Congressional act on March 3, While neither became important in the foreign trade, both maintained the designation of port of delivery through 1900. The only inland port of delivery for the district was established . 115 at San Antonio on June 5, 1868. This city had been the focal point for overland trade with Mexico beginning under the Spanish rule. Early trails from Mexico City, Chihuahua, Durango, and Juarez led through such border cities as Brownsville, Laredo, Eagle Pass, and El Faso to n San Antonio. ' To meet the demands of the foreign traffic carried by these trails and the railroads which supplemented them, San Antonio 117 remained a port of delivery through 1900. Two towns, originally given designations in the Saluria Customs District, were transferred on July 28, 1866, to the newly formed Cor-118 pus Christi Customs District. Corpus Christi, which had been only a port of delivery in the Saluria Customs District, became the headquarters port of the new customs district. Aransas, later known as Rockport, continued in the new district with the same designation as that held in the Saluria Customs District, namely, a port of delivery. Not until the year 1893 was ’’Aransas (Rockport)” designated as a subport. As early as 1845 the United States government erected ’’several buildings and wharves” at Corpus Christi where General Taylor had head quarters for the occupation of the disputed area between the Nueces 120 and the Rio Grande rivers. At this time only ’’vessels of light draft” could negotiate Aransas Pass and the waters of Corpus Christi Bay. The usual procedure was to lighter the freight across the bay to 121 the Gulf. 122 Then in 1874 private capital completed an eight-foot channel from Corpus Christi to the Gulf, traversing ’’practically the same 123 route as the present deep channel.” Though a temporary aid to the port, the channel could not be maintained. In 1879 Federal engineers 124 recommended the improvement of Aransas Pass but favored Harbor Island rather than Corpus Christi as the most suitable place for terminal 125 facilities. Private capital tried to maintain Aransas Pass but, unable to do so, relinquished all rights to the government in 1899* Further developments in the twentieth century were necessary before Corpus Christi could become a deep-water port. The inland border town of Laredo was added to the Corpus Christi 127 Customs District as a subport on lune 3, 1892. ' As early as 1789 the town had "several thousand" Mexican inhabitants. Incorporation of the town under the Texas laws was effected in 1852 but the "entire American population" remained less than 50 people as late as 1881 when the International and Great Northern Railway was built from San Anto-128 nio to Laredo. Foreign trade with Mexico was further stimulated 129 with the construction of the international tramway bridge across the Rio Grande River and the connection of domestic railroad trackage with the Mexican National Railroad. Both projects were completed in the "eighties," stimulating the flow of foreign commerce at that point 130 and justifying the designation of Laredo as a subport in 1892. Beginning in 1845 the policy of the United States government was to bring under control all the disputed region lying between the Rio Grande and the Nueces rivers. This policy led to the establishment of the Paso del Norte Customs District with headquarters on the famous 131 Santa Fe Trail which led across the border into Chihuahua, Mexico. From 1855 to 1900 El Paso was the only port for the customs district. Here the Santa Fe Trail met the ”San Antonio to San Diego stage coach service” established in 1857• One year later the Butterfield Overland Mail Company established a ”twice-a-week” stage coach service from St. 132 Louis to San Francisco, building a station at El Paso. During this same period of time, "the products of the mines, crudely worked, in Northern Mexico, were brought to El Paso and ex- 133 changed for merchandise or money.” To protect the free flow of the traffic with surrounding states and enforce international order, a 134 military post was officially created at El Paso in 1849- ’ Much of the early trade of El Paso merchants and contractors consisted in fur- nishing the '’military posts (forts) in northwest Texas and southern 135 New Mexico” with ’’corn, flour, beef, hay, fuel, etc.” Like most of the Rio Grande border towns, El Paso did not grow materially until after the coming of the Southern Pacific Railway in 1881. As the only port in the Paso del Norte Customs District, El Paso became important in receiving and shipping goods. By 1900 some 22.5 pen cent of the value of imports and 5.8 per cent of the value of 137 exports of Texas ports were received and shipped at this point. Like El Paso in the Paso del Norte Customs District, Brownsville was the principal port of the Brazos de Santiago Customs District for the major portion of the period 1845 to 1900. Point Isabel, located on the mainland behind Padre Island, was the first port for the cus-133 toms district created in 1849- Brownsville, located 26 miles far-139 ther inland, was incorporated in 1850 and then replaced Point Isabel in iB6O as the only port in the customs district. This distinction continued throughout the remainder of the nineteenth century, identifying the foreign trade of the Brazos de Santiago Customs Dis-141 trict with that of the Port of Brownsville. In 18p0, the year of incorporation, Brownsville had no export or import trade. But for the years iB6O, 1870, and 1880, Brownsville imported approximately 40 per cent of the value of all imports for Texas ports. During this period, Brownsville was the port of entry for ’’not only the Valley supplies but for all goods destined as far northwest 142 and west as the States of Chihuahua, Durango, Zacatecas.” Further description of the trade is presented by historian Frank C. Pierce, as follows: Prior to 1882, the Gulf of Mexico, off Brazos de Santiago and the mouth of the Rio Grande, was constantly speckled with large and small steamships from all points of the globe. It was not uncommon to see from thirty to forty large steamships each month. During the years 1861 to 1867, frequently more than 200 vessels were off the mouth of the river. At Matamoros, large wagons capable of stowing six or eight tons, drawn by from 10 to 20 animals were common sights; while the principal plaza of Matamoros, Arreros, was usually packed with these large wagons, Consequently, the imports largely became exports into Mexico. An analysis of the foreign trade data for 1870 and 1880 shows that the values of imports had a close relationship to the values of exports. In 1870 the imports were valued at $561,000 as compared to exports of $576,000. Then in 1880 the imports were valued at $1,529,000 as compared to exports valued at $1,155,000. In no other customs district were the imports and exports as evenly balanced. By 1890 the exports and imports for Brownsville dropped markedly while foreign trade in other customs districts experienced marked gains. In the year 1882 the yellow fever epidemic ravaged Brownsville and Matamoros, largely isolating the lower valley. Only two "light draught” steamers, "The Steamship Manteo” and the "Tugboat Luzon," 144 supplied the Valley with "its all” from 1882 to 1904. Still another factor was of prime importance. Railroads were built to Laredo, Eagle Pass, and El Paso by 1882 but Brownsville was not connected to the network of railroads in the United States or 145 Mexico by 1900. Consequently, the foreign trade circumvented the port, reducing the imports in 1900 to 0.7 per cent and exports to 0.2 146 per cent of the total value for Texas ports. The downward trend in foreign trade through the Brazos de Santiago Customs District was in direct contrast with the marked increases in merchandise handled by other customs districts at the close of the nineteenth century. This growth reflected basic changes that had occurred in the hinterland prior to 1900. Political stability had been obtained; exportable surpluses were growing; a transportation system had spanned the interior of the United States and enlarged the hinterland of the ports; and, finally, initial steps were being taken to bring deep-water channels to the ports. This foundation, laid prior to 1900, became the basis for continued growth in the foreign commerce through the ports of Texas in the twentieth century. 82 See Chart V for ports assigned to customs districts. spelling was "Idatagordo. ” spelling was ”La Vaca.” approximately four miles north of the village of Sabine Pass on the water channel called Sabine Pass. 86 Wortham, op. cit. , pp. 281-282. °7"The Book of Texas," op. cit., pp. 217, 220. 88 Mimeographed data supplied by the Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce, 1948. name is Galveston Wharves. Port of Galveston on the Gulf of Mexico, p. 1. Book of the Port of Galveston, p. 10. 91 Ibid., pp. 10, 11, 41. to 1869, the natural effective depth of the water was 12 feet at the outer bar and 9 feet at the inner bar, necessitating the lightering of ’’all cargoes except those of the smallest boats.” Wortham, op. cit., p. 243 • 93port Book of the Port of Galveston, p. 11. Groce, son of the first cotton planter in Texas, moved 100 bales of cotton ’’down Buffalo Bayou by schooner” to New Orleans in 1826. Ziegler, op. cit., p. 92. 95 7> Port Houston, November, 1924, p. 5- oA ' The first steamer to visit Houston was the ’’Laura” in 1837. ’’The Book of Texas,” op. cit. , p. 206. 97 Commodore Morgan owned the principal shipping facilities which served the ports of Texas. His chief competitor, Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt, was bought out after operating between 1840 and 1842. Ziegler, op. cit., p. 92; Port Houston, November, 1923, p. 14. 9°Ziegler, op. cit., p. 93- , p. 95; Port Houston, November, 1923, P- 14 lOOport Houston, November, 1923, p. 14- 01 Ibid. , November, 1924, pp. 5-6. States Statutes at Large, XVI, 278. 1Q3 Ibid. , XXVI, 470. IQ^lbid. , IX, 182. was located on the east bank of Cavallo Pass on Matagorda Peninsula while Saluria was located on the west bank of the same pass on Matagorda Island. Both villages were abandoned and omitted from maps as early as 1866. J. H. Colton, Map of Texas, 1864; J. Davis Williams, Map of Texas, 1866. States Statutes at Large, XIV, 308. completion of the "San Antonio and Mexican Gulf and Indianola railroads" in iB6O was a contributing factor. Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide, 1945-1946, p. 92. op. cit. , p. 212. United States Statutes at Large, XXIV, 470. the blockade by Union troops and ships of all Southern ports on the Gulf and elsewhere, Eagle Pass became, not an important port, but the most important port in all the South.” Eagle Pass, Typewritten release by Eagle Pass Chamber of Commerce, 1948. op. cit. , p. 187- 119 The Southern Pacific Railroad built a cut-off from the main line to Spofford, Texas, in 1882. Eagle Pass, Typewritten release by Eagle Pass Chamber of Commerce, 1948. U 3see Chart V. States Statutes at Large, IX, 182. 115 Ibid., XV, 63. of the latest routes established was the "practical route" from San Antonio to El Paso, discovered in March, 1849, by scouting parties of the United States Army. Richardson, op. cit., p. 200. Chart V. States Statutes at Large, XIV, 308. February 8, 1893, ’’Aransas (Rockport)” was ’’constituted a subport” in the Corpus Christi Customs District. Ibid., XXVI, 77• Wortham, op. cit. , p. 278. 121 Fort of Corpus Christi, November, 1945, pp. 17-18. 122 This early channel was known as the Morris and Cummings Cut. Ibid., p. 17- 123 On May 31, 1874, the Morgan steamship Gussie entered the harbor. Previously Morgan steamers had to be loaded and unloaded by lighters at Aransas bar. McCampbell, op. cit., p. 29- lsland is located just behind Mustang and St. Joseph islands at the mouth of Aransas Pass. Corps of Engineers, United States Army, Port and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Houston, 1941, P- 28. of Corpus Christi, October, 1947, p. 7* , March, 1947, p. 6. 1 27 'United States Statutes at Large, XXVII, 40-41* 3 op Richardson, op. cit., p. 348. op. cit. , p. 258. op. cit., p. 348; Wortham, op. cit. , p. 258. Chapter II for the evolution of the headquarters port for this customs district. J 2price, op. cit., p. 32. op. cit. , p. 24. 134 military post has never been abandoned and is currently known as Fort Bliss. El Paso, Texas, p. 24. op. cit. , p. 24. op. cit. , p. 158. Tables XII and XIX. de Santiago Customs District was created March 3, 1849• United States Statutes at Large, IX, 409-410. 139 >7 Fort Brown was located at the site in 1848. The town was named .Brownsville in honor of Major Frederick Brown.. Wortham, op. cit., pp. 272-273. States Statutes at Large, XII, 39. 141 See Chart V. C. Pierce, A Brief History of the Lower Rio Grande Valley pp. 12$-126. 143 Ibid., p. 126. cit. 14 ? Ibid., pp. 126-127. 146 See Tables XII and XIX. Customs District and Subdivisions Year 1850 i860 1870 1880 1890 1900 Texas . CD CD CD — —- •— — Galveston , — — — — CD CD CD Galveston P P p p P P Sabine . SP SP SP SP SP SP Velasco . SP SP SP SP SP SP Cavallo . SP SP — — — — — — — Lavaca 0 . SP SP SP SP SP __ Houston . - - — PD PD PD PD Saluria . CD CD CD CD CD CD Saluria P — — __ — Matagorda . PD PD PD PD PD PD Aransas . PD PD — — — — Copano . PD PD PD PD PD PD Corpus Christi . PD PD — — — — — San Antonio — — PD PD PD PD Lavaca . — — — — — PD Indianola . — — P P P — Eagle Pass __ — — - — — P La Salle . — p — — — — — Brazos de Santiago . CD e CD CD CD CD CD Point Isabel P — — — — -- — Brownsville . — P P p P P Paso del Norte . -- CD CD CD CD CD El Paso P P P P P Corpus Christi -- CD CD CD CD Corpus Christi . — — P P P P Laredo • — — — — — — — SP — * PD PD PD SP CHART V DESIGNATION OF CUSTOMS DISTRICTS, PORTS OF ENTRY, SOBPORTS OF ENTRY, AND PORTS OF DELIVERY ESTABLISHED IN TEXAS FOR YEARS .ENDING- JUNE 30, 1850, 1860, 18?0, 1880, 1890, AND 1900 a CHAPTER V FOREIGN TRADE SINCE 1900 In this chapter an analysis is presented of the export trade and the merchandise shipped in-transit and transshipped. Attention is first directed to the total exports from Texas ports and the individual customs districts with headquarters ports in Texas. Then an analysis is made of the principal commodities entering export channels. Subsequently, consideration is given the destination of the exports in terms of continents and principal countries while in a later discussion a comparison is made of the flow of exports from Texas ports with that of representative ports and coastal regions of the United States. Then separate attention is given to the exportation of foreign merchandise, commonly termed re-exports, before considering the legal aspects and flow of merchandise in-transit and transshipped. EXPORT TRADE SINCE 1900 Total exports through Texas ports. In the twentieth century, the economy of the hinterland continued to produce ever larger surpluses for export. In 1900 the total export volume of 106 million dollars was the lowest for any one year of this century, while in 1947 the total exports from Texas ports were valued at 1.4 billion dollars, the 2 largest annual value to date. a Data for years 1900-1913 cover fiscal years ending June 30. Heading for years 1900-1912 was ’’Exports of Merchandise by Customs Districts.” blncludes data for Columbus, Nev; Mexico after March 3, 1913 and Lake Charles, Louisiana after November 3, 1930. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900-1903; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1904-1906; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Statistics, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1907-1909 United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910-1912; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1913-1944; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States, January-December, 1947, May, 1948. A 1 though the trend was unmistakably upward, the 14-fold increment was not attained by a continual upward trend. In 1907 the export value exceeded 200 million dollars for the first time. However in 1903 the value was 198 million dollars or slightly below the 200 million dollar mark. Then in all years subsequent to 1908 the export value never fell below 200 million dollars and in 1920 the ports of Texas had total exports valued at 831 million dollars. One of the factors responsible for this approximately 8-fold in- 3 crease between 1900 and 1920 was the rise in the price level. Particularly was this true in the latter part of the period during World War I. In the year 1920 cotton, wheat, and petroleum products ac- 4 counted for more than 85 per cent of the exports over Texas ports. In each case the price index for that year was far above that for the prewar year, 1913- Considering 1913 as the base year, the 1920 index for cotton and cotton seed prices was 256; wheat, 252; and petroleum products, 250. Another factor contributing to the enlargement of the total export value between 1900 and 1920 was the increased production of the three major export commodities. Profitable cotton production had ex- tended to the South while the center of wheat production had 7 moved westward.' Expansion of the acreage in the Panhandle of Texas was ’’largely responsible for increasing the average annual output [of Texas] of from about 10,000,000 bushels for the decade from 1900 to 8 1910 to approximately 22,000,000 for the decade of the twenties.” Also the production of petroleum, the third major export, made a tremendous growth between 1900 and 1920 in Texas and Oklahoma. In 9 1900 neither state had a major oil producing field. By 1920 Texas oil fields produced 21.9 per cent of the crude petroleum of the United States while Oklahoma accounted for 24.0 per For the years 1921 through 1929, the total export value for Texas ports continued at a high level, averaging 689.2 million dollars per year. This average was higher than the export value for any year prior to 1920 or for any year after 1929 until 1945. Factors contributing to this increased total export value from 1921 to 1929 were mainly the increased production of the major commodities exported from the hinterland and the vigorous demand abroad. While prices of the major commodities were markedly lower on the average for 1921-1929 as compared to 1918-1920, the prices in the period from 1921-1929 were still higher than prices for the years immediately prior to 1918. Of the six states in 1929 which produced 52.1 per cent of the total wheat in the United States, five were located in the hinterland of Texas ports. Two of the states, Kansas and Oklahoma which ranked first and fifth respectively, were located in the Primary Hinterland. The other three states, located in the Secondary Hinterland, were North Dakota, Nebraska, and Montana. Ilie production of cotton did not increase materially for the 12 whole United States in the decade 1920-1929 over 1910-1919- But the location of production had continued to shift to the west and to the hinterland of Texas ports. From 1921-1926 ’’the boll weevil was 13 spreading over the Southeastern States and causing so much damage." But in the plains country, cotton production continued to expand with- 14 out any serious ravages of the boll weevil. Further developments of the oil industry within the hinterland was a major reason for the increase in exports over Texas ports from 15 1920-1929. The average production for the five states in the Primary Hinterland for 1926-1930 was 527 million barrels or 58 per cent of the 896 million barrel average for the whole United States. Texas accounted for an average of 246 million barrels while Oklahoma pro-1 duced an average of 236 million barrels. During the period 1920-1929 the flow of exports through Texas ports was also encouraged by a general wave of international recovery and prosperity. This "acceleration occurred during the 1920’s under the stimulus of post-war reconstruction needs and liberal foreign 17 loans furnished by the United States." Monetary and exchange difficulties were also at a minimum in that an international gold-bullion 18 standard -was generally adopted before the end of the period.’ Furthermore, the period was relatively free from the "mercantilism" and ’’economic nationalism” of the 1930’5, including ’’protection against 19 imports” and "control over the purchase of foreign exchange.” The effect of prices during 1921-1929 on the value of exports varied with the commodity considered. Cotton prices averaged 19-5 cents per pound during this period as compared to 13-4 cents from 1913-19'17 and 30.1 cents for 1918-1920. The average prices for the period 1921-1929 fell 10.6 cents per pound below the 1918-1920 level . 20 but averaged 6.1 cents per pound above the years 1913-1917- Prices of wheat showed an average of $1.31 per bushel for 1921- 19'29 as compared to $2.33 for 1918-1920 and $1.34 for 1913-191?. The decline from the 1913-1920 average was more marked for wheat than was true for cotton. Also, in contrast to the cotton prices, average wheat prices for the period 1921-1929 were below the average for 1913- 21 1917. Consequently the average prices of wheat during 1921-1929 did not tend to inflate the average export values for this period over the preceding periods. As indicators of the change in the price of refined mineral oil, both kerosene and gasoline prices fell markedly from the 1918-1920 average to the 1921-1929 average. Gasoline prices continued to fall during the period 1921-1929, while kerosene prices remained relatively stable after the initial decline. The average price per gallon for gasoline during 1913-1920 was 19.0 cents as against 12.4 cents for kerosene. By 1929 the price of gasoline was comparable to the price of kerosene. In that year the price of gasoline had declined to 7.7 22 cents per gallon as compared to 7*4 cents per gallon for kerosene. During the 1930’s the value of exports from Texas ports reflected the attack of and partial recovery from a world economic paralysis. By 1932 the export value had dropped to 314 million dollars, less than the 324 million dollar value for 1913 and considerably less than half the value for the peak years of 1920 and 1928. A substantial recovery followed with the years 1937-1939 showing between 420 and 449 million dollars in export values. The factors effecting this decline in the early 1930’s were in a large measure the reverse of those responsible for the substantial position of export values for 1921-1929. Extreme economic nationalism at home and abroad sponsored measures under which debtor nations were unable to make international payments. The nations generally devalued their currencies and restricted imports by enacting higher tariffs, import quotas, and controls over foreign exchange. In the United States the passage of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act ’’dealt a body blow at international trade,” giving this nation ’’the dubious distinction of simultaneously being one of the world’s primary creditors and hav- 23 ing one of the world’s highest tariffs.” World prices of wheat and cotton were also demoralized in the early 1930’s with large world surpluses. The average world stock of wheat for the years 1932-1934 was 513 million bushels as compared to z 24 an average of 312 million bushels for the years 1936-1939. Reflect- ing the abnormal surplus, average prices of No. 2 hard winter wheat in the United States dropped from $1.17 per bushel in 1929 to $.49 in 25 1932. Average world stocks of cotton also were larger for the years 1932-1934 than for any year during 1920-1929. In 1932 the monthly average stocks of cotton in the world were 28.7 million bales of which the United States held 18.9 million bales. The decline in cotton prices ’'received by farmers” in the United States was from 17.8 cents 26 per pound in 1929 to 5-8 cents in 1932. The total production of crude petroleum in the United States and 27 the world did not increase materially during the early 1930’5. However, the states of the hinterland, particularly Texas, increased their position relative to the United States as a whole. Tne five states in the Primary Hinterland produced an average of 601 million barrels of crude for the years 1931-1935, accounting for 68 per cent of the national total for this period. For the period 1926-1930 the Primary Hinterland had produced 528 million barrels of crude petroleum 28 or 59 pen cent of the national total. While the increased production of petroleum within the hinterland tended to stimulate exports, the decline in prices more than offset the gains in production. Crude oil prices at wells in Kansas and Oklahoma declined from $1.23 per barrel to $.57 in 1931 and $.Bl in 1932. Tae wholesale prices of gasoline at Oklahoma refineries dropped from 7-7 cents per gallon in 1929 to 4*5 cents in 1932 while wholesale kerosene prices made a similar decline, falling from 7-4 cents per 29 gallon in 1929 to 4-8 cents in 1932. From the low of 314 million dollars in 1932, the value of exports over Texas ports increased to 449 million dollars in 1937 but subse- 30 quently declined to 420 million dollars in 1939- Among the factors responsible for the recovery from the 1932 low were the enactment of 31 the Reciprocal Trade Agreement beginning in 1934, efforts toward 32 rearmament after 1935, attempts to stabilize the international cur- 33 rency exchange, and a general upward swing in the international. business cycle. From 1940 to 1944 factors related to the Second World War were in a large measure responsible for the lower values in exports moving from Texas ports. The increased domestic need for raw materials to prepare for and wage war was a definite factor curtailing United 34 States exports. Moreover, the submarine menace in the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico necessitated the use of convoys in ocean transportation. On the whole the protected sea lanes originated on the East 35 and West coasts, forcing much oil, wheat, cotton, and other commodities to cross the country by rail, barge, or pipe line before entering 36 export channels." Because of the war emergency, the water ports of Brownsville, Corpus Christi, and Orange suspended the movement of foreign trade. Upon the close of the war Texas ports rapidly regained the export movement diverted during ’World War 11. In 1946 and 1947 new records were established for the value of export trade from the ports of Texas In the former year Texas ports handled exports valued at 1.2 billion dollars while in the latter year the value was 1.4 billion dollars, reflecting the inflated prices as well as the increased movement of merchandise. In the twentieth century the proportion of the total national export handled by Texas ports varied rather widely and showed no definite long-term trend. The extreme low was experienced in the year 1943 when Texas ports handled only 2.8 per cent of the national export 30 value as contrasted with 21.4 per cent in 1933- ‘ From 1900 to 1907 the percentage rose from 7-4 per cent to 14-5 per cent and then remained above 10.0 per cent for all years until 1915- World War I continued to adversely affect the relative position of Texas ports. The lowest level was reached in 1918 when Texas ports handled 4-6 per cent of the national export value. Beginning in 1920 the relative position of Texas ports increased to 10.1 per cent of the national value of all exports. Not until twenty years later did Texas ports handle less than 10.0 per cent of the national total. The peak percentage for this period was 21.4 per cent realized in 1933- The effect of World War II was similar to that of World War I but more pronounced. From 1940 through 1945 the value of exports from Texas ports was always less than 10.0 per cent and reached the lowest mark at 2.8 per cent in 1943- In the post-war years of 1946 and 1947 Texas ports again did 10.0 per cent or more of the national export business. exports for Columbus, New Mexico after March 3, 1913 and Lake Charles, Louisiana after November 3, 1930* 2 See Table XXIV. B. Cox, Cotton Markets and Marketing (Preliminary report to the Pace Committee—National Cotton Council on Project II), pp. 75-76. Table XXVIII. States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Survey of Current Business, 1942 Supplement, pp. 17 19. is believed to be the first year cotton was grown above the cap rock at Lubbock, Texas. Rupert Norval Richardson, Texas, the Lone Star State, pp. 395-396. 1899 the center of wheat production was located at "a point 70 miles west of Des Moines, lowa, and before 1930 it was west of the Missouri River.” Fred Albert Shannon, America’s Economic Growth, pp. 379-380. 8 Richardson, op. cit. , p. 394- sThe Nacogdoches and Corsicana oil fields were the principal discoveries in Texas by 1900. In that year, the total production for the state was only 829,560 barrels. Major production in Oklahoma began in 1905- Louis J. Northam, A History of Texas, V, 183; Texas Business Review, February, 1946, p. 1. 1920, the production of crude petroleum in the United States was approximately 450 million barrels. Texas Business Review, February, 1946, p. 1. H"ln 1929 the newer wheat country of the far West and Southwest grew 32.6% of the nation’s crop.” Shannon, op. cit., p. 380. 12 The average annual production for the decade 1910-1919 was 12.7 million bales as compared to 12.8 million bales during the decade 1920-1929. United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, .1944-45, P- 713- op. cit. , p. 76. 1926 seventeen counties lying wholly or in part within the High Plains produced about 500,000 bales.” Richardson, op. cit., p. 396. 15 By 1930 the value of the exports of petroleum and petroleum products exceeded 23 per cent of the total for Texas ports as compared to 11 per cent in 1920. See Table XXVIII. Abstract of the United States, 1944-45, p. 784- 17 American investments abroad "in 1912 stood at $1.9 billion, grew to $8 billion by 1922 and to $l5 billion by 1931-” Paul V. Horn, International Trade and Practices, p. 96. 1 A "By the end of 1928, ten years after the Armistice, all the leading countries were adhering to this new type of gold standard." Stephen Enke and Virgil Salera, international Economics, p. 48. ~l°lbid. , p. 61. on Cotton prices are those ’’received by farmers." Survey of Current Business, 1940 Supplement, p. 153- mWheat prices are for No. 2 hard winter wheat at Kansas City. Ibid., p. 107. 22 Prices quoted are wholesale prices for gasoline at Oklahoma refineries and wholesale prices for kerosene at Pennsylvania refineries. Ibid., pp. 120-121. and Salera, op. cit., p. 61. 2/ *Survey of Current Business, 1940 Supplement, p. 107. 25 Based on prices at Kansas City. Survey of Current Business, 1940 Supplement, pp. 153-154- 27 Tne average production of crude petroleum for the years 1931- 1935 was 1,460 million barrels for the world and 889 million barrels for the United States. The average production for 1926-1930 was approximately the same, being 1,316 million barrels for the world and 896 million barrels for the United States. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1944-45, P- 784- 28 Loc. cit. 29 Survey of Current Business, 1940 Supplement, pp. 119-121. 30 See Table KKIV. 31 By October 14, 1939, the United States had signed 25 reciprocal trade agreements. Asher Issacs, International Trade, p. 257- began rearming in 1935 while Great Britain and France began in 1933- Enke and Salera, op. cit., pp. 66-68. Tripartite Currency Agreement of 193$ pledged each member nation to inform the other members "of the price at which it would sell gold without limit for 24 hours." Ibid., p. 61. 3 ■ "an 1930 the United States exported 87.8 million bushels of wheat as compared to 14.4 million bushels of wheat in 1940. Exports of wheat over Texas ports declined from 32.7 million bushels in 1930 to 1.7 million bushels in 1940. See Table XXXII. use of the Panama Canal was restricted to military use for much of the war period. 1939 Texas ports handled 13-2 per cent of the total exports from the United States. For the years 1941-1944 Texas ports never handled as much as 4-0 per cent of the total exports from the United States. See Table XXIV. 37 See Table XXIV. Texas b United States Value of Total Year ($000,000) U.S. ($000,000) 1900 106.0 7.6 1,394.5 1901 119.9 8.1 1,487.8 1902 116.0 8.4 1,381.7 1903 125.5 8.8 1,420.1 1904 169.4 11.6 1,460.8 1905 146.6 9.6 1,518.6 1906 193.9 11.1 1,743.9 1907 273.5 14.5 1,880.9 1908 198.2 10.7 1,860.8 1909 225.0 13.5 1,663.0 1910 216.7 12.4 1,745.0 1911 269.5 13.2 2,049.3 1912 261.4 11.9 2,204.3 1913 323.8 13.1 2,465.9 1914 289.2 12.2 2,364.6 1915 271.0 9.8 2,768.6 • 1916 236.1 5-4 4,333.5 1917 332.2 5-3 6,290.0 1918 269.8 4.6 5,919.7 1919 569.4 7.2 7,920.4 1920 831.6 10.1 8,228.0 1921 641.3 14.3 4,485.0 1922 52S. 5 13.8 3,831.8 1923 634.0 15.2 4,167.5 1924 706.8 15.4 4,591.0 1925 765.9 15.6 4,909.8 1926 667.8 13.9 4,808.7 1927 68O.5 14.0 4,865.4 1928 834-1 16.3 5,128.4 1929 745.0 14.2 5,241.0 1930 555.0 14.4 3,843-2 1931 345-7 13.3 2,424.3 1932 314.3 19.5 1,611.0 1933 359.0 21.4 1,675.0 1934 345.9 16.2 2,132.8 1935 357.9 15.7 2,282.9 TABLE XXIV VALUE OF EXPORTS, INCLUDING RE-EXPORTS, FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS AND UNITED STATES, 1900-1947 a TABLE XXIV (Cont’d) Year Texas United States Total ($000,000) Value ($000,000) % of 'U.S. 1936 358.3 14.6 2,456.0 1937 449.0 13.4 3,349.2 1938 437.5 14.1 3,094.4 1939 420.1 13.2 3,177.2 1940 290.1 7.2 4,021.1 1941 201.6 3.9 5,147.2 1942 278.4 3.4 8,079.0 1943 363.5 2.8 12,964.9 1944 512.5 3.6 14,258.7 1945 711.2 7.3 9,805.9 1946 1,210.0 12.4 9,739-5 1947 1,448.4 10.0 14,456.4 Total exports by customs districts. After considering the ex- ports of Texas ports as a whole the relative importance of the individual customs districts is analyzed. In all years considered the Galveston Customs District handled the major portion of the exports from Texas ports. In 1900 this district exported 85-7 million dollars worth of merchandise, accounting for 80.7 per cent of the 106 million 39 dollars in exports for all Texas ports. Even though the Sabine Customs District was created out of the Galveston Customs District in 1906, the latter district continued to export approximately 80 per cent of the total exports in 1910 and 40 1920. In 1920 the Galveston District exported merchandise valued at 649 million dollars, representing 78.1 per cent of the total for Texas ports. By 1930 the relative importance of the G-alveston Customs District had declined to 71.5 cent. Another decline was experienced in 1940 when the Galveston Customs District handled 65.8 per cent of the total exports for all customs districts with headquarters ports in Texas. a For year ending June 30. d Not designated as a customs district for this year. c Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. d lncludes data for Columbus, New Mexico after March 3> 1913 and Lake Charles, Louisiana after November 3, 1930. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 194 C. a For year ending June 30- designated as a customs district for this year. c Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. data for Columbus, New Mexico after March 3, 1913 and Lake Charles, Louisiana after November 3, 1930. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. The Sabine Customs District continued to show increased relative Importance as an exporting district. Exports to the value of 20 million dollars in 1910 represented only 9-3 per cent of the Texas total. Por 1940 this customs district exported merchandise valued at 52 million dollars, an equivalent to 17-9 per cent of the total. The Laredo Customs District,created in 1913, exported merchandise to the value of 56 million dollars in 1920, accounting for 6.7 per cent of the Texas total. In 1930 the export value from this customs district had increased to 82 million dollars. This value was 14.7 per cent of the Texas total. Though the dollar volume for 1940 declined to less than one-half that for 1930, the relative proportion continued at approximately 14 per cent. The El Paso Customs District had exports valued at 6.5 million 42 dollars in 1900. By 1920 the total value was 13-7 million dollars but by 1940 the total value had declined to 7-8 million dollars. The relative position of this customs district as an exporter also declined during the twentieth century from 6.2 per cent of the total in 1900 to 2.7 per cent in 1940- Three customs districts were discontinued by 1920 including the 43 customs districts of Corpus Christi, Brazos de Santiago, and Saluria. However, not all these customs districts declined in importance before being discontinued. The Corpus Christi Customs District, represented by the ports of Corpus Christi, Laredo, and Aransas, gained in exports from 6.2 to 11.6 million dollars between the years 1900 and 1910 but the position relative to other customs districts remained slightly less than 6 per cent of the total for Texas ports. The Erazos de Santiago Customs District remained insignificant as an exporting district in 19'00 and 1910. The exports of this customs district represented 0.2 per cent or less of the Texas total for these years. The export record for the Saluria Customs District showed a marked decline in total and relative exports from 1900 to 1910. In 1900 the total exports for the district were 7-4 million dollars, representing 7.0 per cent of the Texas total. By 1910 the total value of exports for the customs district declined to 4-6 million dollars, accounting for only 2.1 per cent of the total exports from the four customs districts. For the war and post-war years of 1941 through 1947, the Galveston Customs District consistently led the remaining customs districts in value of exports. Second place was held each year by the Laredo Customs District. With the exception of 1943 the Sabine Customs District ranked third and the SI Paso Customs District ranked fourth. In 44 1943 the two latter customs districts exchanged ranks. During the war years of 1941 through 1945 the Laredo and El Faso customs districts progressively increased their export values over each preceding year. However, the war adversely affected the value of exports from the Galveston and Sabine customs districts. In 1941 the Galveston Customs District had only 83 million dollars in export trade as compared to 191 million dollars in 1940. Similarly, exports from the Sabine Customs District declined from 52 million dollars in 1940 to 35 million dollars in 1941- Not until 1944 did the Galveston Customs District surpass its 1940 exports. Then in 1945 the Sabine Customs District exceeded its 1940 export total. This upward trend continued for all four customs districts through 1947- Without exception, the greatest value of exports in the history of each customs district and the United States came in 1947* In that year the total for Texas ports was 1.4 billion dollars with the Galveston Customs District accounting for 837 million dollars or 58 per cent of the total for Texas ports. The second ranking customs district was Laredo with an export value of 394 million dollars, which represented 27 per cent of the total. Of the remaining 15 per cent of the total for Texas ports, the Sabine Customs District handled 12 per cent while the El Paso Customs District accounted for only 3 pen cent. In value, the Sabine Customs District handled 173 million dollars worth of exported merchandise as compared to 44 million dollars for the El Paso Customs District in 1947- Ports assigned to each custom district for the years considered are shown in Chart VII. For a complete discussion of port assignments, refer to Chapter 11. 39 Data are presented in Tables XXV and XXVI. States Statutes at Large, Vol. XXXIV, Pt. I, p. 302. was San Antonio Customs District in 1920 and 1930- data for this customs district was given under the name of Paso del Norte until 1913* customs districts of Corpus Christi, Brazos de Santiago, and Saluria were discontinued in 1913* Commerce and Navigation of the United States; Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States. (In millions of dollars) Customs District Year 1900 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b 20.2 113.1 66.4 51.8 Galveston .. S>.7 173.1 649.2 396.7 191.0 Laredo 0 b b 55.6 81.7 39. 5 El Paso 6.5 7-0 13.7 10.2 7.8 Corpus Christi , . 6.2 11.6 b b b Brazos de Santiago . . 0.2 0.2 b b b Saluria 7-4 4.6 b b b Texas Total. . . . . 106.0 216.7 831.6 555-0 290.1 TABLE XXV VALUE OF EXPORTS, INCLUDING RE-BX>ORTS, FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 Customs District Year i9oo a % I9io a % 1920 % 1930 % 1940 % Sabine b 9-3 13.6 12.0 17.9 Galveston .. SO.7 80.0 78.1 71.5 65.8 Laredo 0 b b 6-7 14.7 13.6 31 Paso 6.2 3.2 1.6 1.8 2.7 Corpus Christi . 5-9 5.3 b b b Brazos de Santiago . . 0.2 0.1 b b b Saluria 7-0 2.1 b b b Texas . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TABLE XXVI VALUE OF EXPORTS, INCLUDING RE-EXPORTS, FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS EXPRESSED aS PERCENTAGES OF EXPORTS FOR TEXAS PORTS FOR EEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 Principal commodities exported. In a large measure, the products exported from Texas ports reflected the surpluses available from the economic specialization within the Primary and Secondary hinterlands. Approximately 80 per cent of the total exports were derived from the cotton, grain, sulphur, and oil economies, mainly confined to the Pri-45 mary Hinterland. Trie principal contribution of the Secondary Hinterland was additional grain and the manufactures of iron, including machinery and vehicles. That the major portion of the exports over Texas were concentrated in a few items is further indicated by the small number of items which individually comprised as much as 5 per cent of the total value for any one of the years 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940. These classifications of major export commodities include raw cotton; wheat; refined mineral oil; crude mineral oil; iron, steel, and manufactures 46 of iron and steel; and machinery and vehicles. The combined percentage of the export values for these six classifications, as compared to the total for Texas ports, were as follows: 1900, 78.9 per cent; 1910, 84-4 per cent; 1920, 89-2 per cent; 1930, 88.0 per cent; 1940, 78.5 per cent. For the five years considered, these six classifications accounted for 78.5 per cent to 89.2 per cent of the total exports over Texas ports. As in the nineteenth century, raw cotton was the chief product exported. In 1900 the export value of this staple was 64 million dollars, representing 60.5 per cent of the total for Texas ports. a For fiscal year ending Tune 30. D Cottonseed oil cake and meal. c lncludes cleaned or milled rice and uncleaned, rough, or paddy rice. oil includes refined motor, fuel, illuminating, and lubricating oil. e lncludes crude and processed sulphur. iron and steel and manufactures of iron and steel other than ore, machinery, and vehicles. and manufactures of copper. coal. listed. than $5OO. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. a For fiscal year ending Pune 3C. oil cake and meal. °lncludes cleaned or milled rice and uncleaned, rough, or paddy rice. oil includes refined motor, fuel, illuminating, and lubricating oil. e lncludes crude and processed sulphur. iron and steel and manufactures of iron and steel other than ore, machinery, and vehicles. and manufactures of copper. minous coal. x Not listed. than 0.1 per cent. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, .Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. This value was more than doubled in. 1910 when raw cotton exports equalled 77.1 per cent of the 216 million dollar export business. By 1920 the value of cotton exports through Texas ports had increased to 482 million dollars but had declined relatively to 58.3 per cent of the total. The total and relative value of cotton exports continued to decline in 1930 and 1940. During the latter year raw cotton accounted for 95 of the 287 million dollars in exports from Texas ports. Due to price changes, the shifts in the volume of cotton exports 47 through Texas ports did not parallel the value. Beginning in 1900 with 1.6 million bales, the volume continued to increase for each initial year of the following decades through 1930 when 3-9 million bales of cotton were exported from Texas ports. Whereas the peak export volume of 3*9 million bales for these years occurred in 1930, the peak value was recorded for 1020 when only 2.8 million bales of cotton were exported. An explanation lies in the difference in prices for the two years. Indicative of the price difference was that the nation’s farmers in 1920 received an average price of 2>.4 cents per 48 pound as compared to 10.4 cents in 1930. Both volume and value declined in 1940 as compared to 1930. The volume declined from 3*9 million bales in 1930 to 1.7 million bales in 1940 while the value declined from 299 million dollars to 95 million dollars for the same years. Falling prices were responsible for the value falling proportionately more than the volume. In 1940 farmers a For year ending June 30. designated as a customs district for this year. G Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. Source of data.: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. a For year ending lune 30. G ln 1900 the Sabine Customs District had not been created. Tne ports were a part of the Galveston Customs District. G Not designated as a customs district for this year. San Antonio. e lncludes linters but not cotton mill waste. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and 'Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. received on the average only 9.4 cents per pound for cotton as com- 49 pared to 10.4 cents per pound in 1930. ' A comparison of the value and volume of cotton exports over Texas ports with those for the whole United States shows that relative gains were made by Texas ports under both headings for the years 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930. In 1900 Texas ports handled 26 per cent of the value and 26 per cent of the volume. By 1930 Texas ports handled 60 per cent of the value and 59 per cent of the volume of the United States exports in raw cotton. From 1930 to 1940 Texas ports not only declined in the total value and volume of raw cotton handled but also lost ground relative to the whole of the United States. In value Texas ports handled only 44 per cent of the 217 million dollar export value of cotton for the United States in 1940 as compared to 60 per cent of the 497 million dollar export value for the nation in 1930. Similarly, Texas ports handled only 43 per cent of the 3.8 million bales of exported cotton for the United States in 1940 as compared to 59 per cent of the 6.6 million bales exported in 1930. A comparison of the importance of customs districts in the expor- tation of raw cotton indicates this trade flows chiefly through the 50 Galveston Customs District. For each of the initial years of the decades from 1900 through 1940, this customs district handled not less than 87 per cent of the value and number of bales of cotton exported from Texas ports. Much greater concentration occurred in the years 1900, 1920, and 1940, when the Galveston Customs District handled over 99 per cent of all the value and number of bales of cotton exported from Texas ports. The two chief ports for handling cotton are Galveston and Houston Until 1915 deep water was not available to Houston, handicapping this port as a handler of foreign trade. But in recent years keen competition has developed between these two ports as exporters of cotton. For the years 1924-1933 the average annual tonnage of cotton handled by the Port of Galveston in the foreign trade was 57-1,255 short tons as . si compared to 503,347 short tons for the Port of Houston. On the average the Port of Galveston continued to lead the Port of Houston in shipments of cotton in the foreign trade for the years 1934-1933- During this period Galveston handled an average of 370>930 52 short tons of cotton as compared to 357>493 short tons for Houston. Data for the year 1945 indicate the two ports continue to export approximately the same proportion of the cotton from Texas ports. In that year the Port of Houston led with exports of 152,452 short tons 53 of cotton as compared to 147>944 short tons for Galveston. The origin of the cotton exports from Texas ports are mainly from the states of Texas and Oklahoma, both within the Primary Hinterland. Texas ranks first in importance and Oklahoma, second. Other states from which ’’common movements” of cotton originate include Arizona, New Mexico, Louisiana,and Arkansas. Some foreign cotton for reexport originates in the northern portion of Mexico where transporta-56 tion to water is cheaper via a Texas port rather than a Mexican port. Several other cotton and cottonseed products augmented the total value of exports, particularly in the early part of the twentieth century. The two principal ones were the products of the cottonseed oil mills, namely, cottonseed oil and cottonseed oil cake and meal. The export value of the latter product was the larger and ranged between 4 and 6 million dollars for the years 1900, 1910, and 1920. By 1940 the value had dropped to 3 thousand dollars, representing less than 0.1 per cent of the total for Texas ports. Exhibiting a similar trend, the exports of cottonseed oil declined from a value of 2.9 million dollars in 1900 to 35 thousand dollars in 1940. In 1920 the value of the export of this product represented less than 0.1 per cent of the total for Texas ports, a position retained in the years 1930 and 1940. Neither the exportation of cotton seed nor cotton goods reached 1 per cent of the total for Texas ports in the years considered. The relative value of cotton seed exports was so small as to remain below 0.1 per cent of the total for the initial year of each decade. Furthermore, the relatively insignificant export values of manufactured cotton goods in relation to the large export values of raw cotton indicate the lack of industrial development in the cotton textile indus-57 try in the hinterland. In agricultural exports, the grains ranked second to cotton in importance. Of greatest value in the grain export trade during the 53 years 1900 to 1947 were wheat, rice, and corn. Wheat, the most im- portant of the three, entered foreign markets via Texas ports in sub- stantial though fluctuating values in the form of grain and flour. On comparing the value and volume of wheat exported from Toxas ports, one is impressed with the lack of trend and extreme variations. In 1900, 13.6 million bushels were exported at a value of 9-3 million dollars, which was 3.9 per cent of the total exports over Texas ports. Both volume and value declined sharply in 1910 when 4-9 million bushels of wheat, valued at 5*2 million dollars, were exported. This decline was contrary to the rise of over 100 per cent in export values for the 59 whole of Texas ports. In 1920 the increased productive capacity of the hinterland found outlets in the war-torn countries of Europe at high prices, establishing a new level in export values for wheat. In that year 48 million bushels of wheat were exported abroad at a total value of 133 million dollars, accounting for 16.1 per cent of the total value of exports over Texas ports. This extremely high value of wheat exports was augmented by a high level of prices as well as an increased volume of exports. Average prices of wheat in 1920 were higher than for any other year of the twentieth century prior to World War 11. In that year the sales of 60 No. 2 hard winter wheat at Kansas City averaged $2.44 a bushel. From the high level of 1920 the value of wheat exports dropped to 33 million dollars in 1930. While declines in both price and volume were responsible, price reduction was the major contributing cause. From $2.44 a bushel in 1920, the average wholesale price of No. 2 hard 61 winter wheat at Kansas City had declined to 90 cents a bushel. By 1940 outlets for wheat in Europe were closing due to the successes of the German armed forces. National exports of wheat had declined precipitously in value and volume, but Texas ports suffered a a For year ending June 30. b Not designated as a customs district for this year. c Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. than $5OO. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. a For year ending Tune 30. b ln 1900 the Sabine Customs District had not been created. The ports were a part of the Galveston Customs District. °Not designated as a customs district for this year. a Named San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. s Less than 500 bushels. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, .Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. decline of even greater proportions. Only 1.7 million bushels of wheat, valued at 1.5 million dollars, were exported from Texas ports. This depressed value of wheat exports represented only 0.5 per cent of the total exports over Texas ports as compared to 6.0 per cent in 1930 and 16.1 per cent in 1940. In 1947 the wheat exports over Texas ports were again reflecting the bountiful harvests of the hinterland and the high demand for wheat abroad following another destructive global war. Port facilities on the Texas Coast were pressed to capacity to load ships for foreign destinations and railroads were resorting to the use of open gondola cars in addition to box cars to transport the grain to ship side. A comparison of the volume and value of wheat exports from Texas ports with wheat exports for the nation also reveals no stable trend or relationship. In 1900 Texas ports moved 13 per cent of the 102 million bushels of wheat exported by the nation. In 1910 the relative position of Texas ports declined to 10 per cent but in 1920 increased to 22 per cent. This upward trend continued into 1930 when Texas ports handled 33 million of the 88 million bushels of wheat exported by the nation. In that year Texas ports accounted for 37 per cent of the national exports of wheat. Then the dangerousness of the sea lanes destroyed the position of Texas ports as exporters of wheat in 1940 when the relative position of Texas ports declined to 12 per cent, a lower figure than the 13 per cent for 1900. In value, the relative wheat exports from Texas ports equaled or were slightly greater than the relative volume when compared to the national total. In 1900 and 1920 the relative volume and value were equal, being 13 per cent in the former year and 22 per cent in the latter year. For 1910, 1930, and 1940, the relative value exceeded the relative volume by approximately 1 per cent, indicating the unit value of wheat exported at Texas ports slightly exceeded that for the 64 nation as a whole. By far the larger share of the exports of wheat by volume and value moved over the ports of the Galveston Customs District. This customs district accounted for over 99 per cent of the value and vol-65 ume of wheat exports from Texas ports in 1900 and 1940. 1n.'1920 the customs district handled 47 million bushels valued at 128 million dollars, accounting for 96 per cent of the total volume and value exported from Texas ports. Smaller proportions of the wheat exports for Texas ports were handled by ports of the Galveston Customs District in 1910 and 1930. Of the 5 million bushel total in 1910, the Galveston Customs District handled 49 per cent as compared to 83 per cent of the 33 million bushel total in 1930. 66 All other customs districts, except Brazos de Santiago, ° handled wheat exports in one or more of the 5 years considered. In the year 191 C the Corpus Christi Customs District handled 2 million of the 5 million bushels of wheat exported to rank second to the Galveston Customs District. Each of the remaining customs districts handled wheat exports of less than 250 thousand bushels in 1910. In the years 1920 and 1930 the Sabine Customs District ranked second to the Galveston Customs District as an exporter of wheat. In 1920 the Sabine Customs District had exports of 1.8 million bushels of wheat, representing 3*B per cent of the total for Texas ports in that year. In 1930 the export shipments of wheat amounted to 3-8 million bushels or 11.6 per cent of the total for Texas ports. Only in the year 1930 did the San Antonio Customs District ship an appreciable amount of wheat when 1.3 million bushels were exported from this customs district, amounting to 5.6 per cent of the total for Texas ports. Wheat exports from the El Paso Customs District accounted for less than 1 per cent of the total except in the year 1910 when this district shipped 75 thousand bushels, representing 1.5 per cent of the total for Texas ports. A consideration of the importance of individual ports reveals that the Port of Galveston is the principal receiver of grains for export while Houston is second. The average annual volume of ’’grain and preparations” exported over the Galveston customs District for 1924~ 1933 was 692,975 short tons as compared to 125,035 short tons for the Port of Houston. For the period 1934-1936 the Port of Houston declined as a handler of foreign exports of grain and preparations, receiving 49,895 short tons for export as compared to 365,335 short tons 6*7 for the Port of Galveston. For the year 1945 the Port of Galveston continued to lead the ports of Texas in the exportation of wheat as well as other grains. In that year exports of wheat from Galveston were 1,196,729 short tons as compared to 266,087 for Texas City. ° Third in rank of Texas Gulf ports was Houston with exports of 203,568 short tons of wheat while Port Arthur ranked fourth with 192,928 short tons. No other Texas 69 'Gulf port had exports of grain in 1945- Trie origin of the wheat exported over Texas ports lies principally in the three states of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, all of which are within the Primary Hinterland. "Lighter shipments" come from Nebraska, New Mexico, Colorado, and Missouri while occasional shipments come from other states as far west as Montana and Idaho, as far 70 north as the Dakotas, and as far east as Minnesota. Wheat flour is the principal preparation of wheat exported from Texas ports. The exports of this commodity approximately doubled in value between each of the years 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930. In 1900 the export value was 946 thousand dollars as compared to 7.4 million dollars in 1930. But in 1940 the export value of wheat flour dropped to 893 thousand dollars, an even greater proportionate decline than 71 for all commodities exported over Texas ports. In 1900 wheat flour exports from Texas ports represented 1.4 per cent of the 67.8 million dollar export of wheat flour for the nation. This percentage of the national total was less than that for any successive decade thereafter. The peak percentage for the years considered came in 1930 when Texas ports had 10.7 per cent of the wheat 72 flour exports for the nation valued at 69.4 million dollars. All customs districts shared in the foreign trade of wheat flour for the years 1900, 1920, 1930, and 1940. In 1910 the Sabine Customs District alone did not have any wheat flour exports. The greatest movement was through the Galveston Customs District which accounted for over 99 per cent of the total for Texas ports in 1910, 85-4 per cent in 1920, 96.4 per cent in 1930, end- 87-4 per cent in 1940. Exports from each of the other customs districts were generally less than 5 per cent of the total. Exceptions occurred in 1920 when the exports over the San Antonio Customs District accounted for 11.1 per cent of the total for Texas ports and again in 1940 when the Sabine Customs District handled 7.5 per cent of the total. .Among the Gulf ports of Texas, Houston ranked first in 1945 as an exporter of wheat flour. In that year exports from Houston were 145,- 443 short tons as compared to 92,934 short tons for Galveston. Beaumont and Corpus Christi were the only other Gulf ports of Texas export ing wheat flour in 1945- Beaumont handled 9,073 short tons while Corpus Christi moved 9,501 short tons for that year. As in the case of the wheat exports, the wheat flour exports 73 originated mainly in the states of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas but export shipments were also received from the states of Minnesota, Mis- souri, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, and North Dakota. Actual shipments were received from these latter states for 74 export through the Fort of Galveston in 1947* Exports of corn over Texas ports have tended to decline in recent decades. In 1900 corn valued at 3-0 million dollars was exported, representing 2.9 per cent of the total exports from Texas ports. The relative proportion of corn exports compared to the total value declined to less than 0.5 per cent, a position this grain held in 1920, 1930, and 1940. In 1900 the corn exports over the Galveston Customs District were 95.3 per cent of the 3*o million-dollar value in corn exports over Texas ports in that year. All other customs districts participated in the trade ranging from $17,323 for the Brazos de Santiago Customs District to $60,266 for the Saluria Customs District. As the corn, exports declined in significance, the Mexican border customs districts of Laredo and El Paso surpassed the exports of Gal-75 veston. By 1930 exports of corn over the Laredo Customs District were valued at $1,152,823 as compared to $207,211 for El Paso and $3,428 for Galveston. In 1940 the Laredo Customs District was responsible for the total exportation of corn from the Texas ports. In that year corn valued at only $475 was exported. While corn exports have been declining, rice exports have been increasing in the recent decades. The extensive production of this product in the hinterland did not materialize until the end of the nineteenth century when ’’the crop became firmly established in southwestern Louisiana and southeastern Texas after it was found rice could 76 be grown profitably by irrigation on the coastal prairies.” By 1905 rice cultivation had extended to "the prairies of eastern Arkansas." Then the production spread westward to the "prairie lands along the Gulf Coast of Texas" where more than 440,000 acres were devoted to rice cultivation in 1947, thus ranking Texas second only to 77 Louisiana as a rice producing state. In 1910 rice production in the hinterland did not exceed the domestic demand. Consequently no surpluses were available for exportation. However by 1920 Texas ports had exports of rice valued at 2.5 million dollars or 0.3 per cent of the value of all exports for Texas ports. By 1930 the value had increased to 4.6 million dollars, representing 0.8 per cent of the total exports for Texas ports. Continued export strength was shown in 1940 when rice exports were valued at 8.2 million dollars or 2.8 per cent of the total exports for Texas. Like the value, the volume of rice exports over Texas ports has increased during recent decades. Exports in 1920 weighed 29.0 million pounds but were approximately four times as large in 1930 when 114.6 million pounds were exported. Then the latter weight was more than doubled in 1940 when 280.3 million pounds of rice moved over Texas 78 ports into the export trade. When compared to the national value and volume, the rice exports from Texas ports have also made significant gains in recent decades. In value, Texas ports handled only 6.7 per cent of the rice exported from the nation in 1920 as against 54-3 P er cent in 1930, and 83.5 per 79 cent in 1940. For each of these years the relative volume of rice exported over Texas ports as compared to the volume for all United States ports varied less than 2 per cent from that of the relative value. Two customs districts accounted for the major exportation of rice, namely, the Galveston and Sabine customs districts. In 1920 the Galveston Customs District moved 25-7 million pounds of rice into export channels or 88.6 per cent of the 29.0 million pounds exported over all Texas ports. In 1930 the Sabine Customs District exceeded the Galveston Customs District as an exporter of rice in volume and value. In that year exports of rice over the Sabine Customs District amounted to 60.1 million pounds valued at 2.4 million dollars as compared to 54*5 million pounds valued at 2.3 million dollars for the Galveston Customs District. In 1940 the Galveston Customs District again took the lead with the exportation of 153*5 million pounds of rice valued at 4*B million dollars. For that same year exports of rice over the Sabine Customs District were 128.5 million pounds valued at 3*4 million dollars. Principal ports in the exportation of rice from Texas included Houston, Galveston, and Beaumont. In 1945 Houston lead with rice ex- ports of 44,488 tons as compared to 28,807 tons for Galveston and 3,512 tons for Beaumont. No other water port of Texas participated in SO the export movement in 1945- The principal sources for the rice exports were the states of Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana although several cars of rice for the export trade have been received at Galveston from California and Shaw' nee, Oklahoma. Shipments from the Sabine Lake area come principally from Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas while the shipments from the Gal-81 veston Bay area are mainly from Texas and Arkansas. The development of the rice industry and exportation parallels the oil industry, an industry of vast importance to the export trade of Texas ports. In the first place, the production of rice and mineral oil began in Texas in the latter part of the nineteenth century but the major development occurred in the twentieth century when the states of the hinterland became principal producers and exporters of both commodities. The second important similarity occurs in the es- tablishment of facilities for processing both commodities within the hinterland, mainly in the vicinity of the ports. In the instance of rice, over 99 per cent of the exports was "milled rice," ready for 82 table consumption. The processing of oil, although much more complex than the "milling" of paddy rice, developed extensively in the hinterland, particularly in the Texas coastal area, which is well 83 suited to successful refinery operations. R. B. Johnson, Industrial Economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, describes the advantages of the Texas coastal area for refining as follows: It is excellently suited for successful refinery operations. Its seaboard provides ready access to cheap ocean transportation, and its inland waterways provide a communications network between refineries and industrial consumers. Prolific oil fields are located within the area and in adjacent Eastern and Southwestern Texas, and abundant supplies of natural gas are available for use as fuel and as a source of chemicals. In addition, the base materials of heavy acids and other chemicals used in refining are located near the coast. The growth of the oil industry and the refinery processes started from small beginnings in 1900, necessarily limiting the early output 85 for distribution abroad. Exports of refined oil were valued at only 125 thousand dollars in 1900 but by 1930 this value was 123-5 million dollars, an increment of approximately a thousand-fold. Whereas the value of exports of refined oils in 1900 represented only 0.1 per cent of the value of all exports over Texas ports, the value in 1930 represented 22.3 per cent. In 1940 the refined oils continued to account for slightly more than 22 per cent of the total export value even z 86 though the value had declined to 03-5 million dollars. In addition to increasing the total exports of refined oils, Texas ports also gained relative to the refined oil exports for the nation. In value, refined oil exports from Texas ports were 0.2 per cent of the national total in 1900; 3-4 per cent in 1910; 17.3 per S 7 cent in 1920; 28.2 per cent in 1930; and 31*3 per cent in 1940.' Also Texas ports made gains in volume of refined oil exports rela tive to the nation as a whole. In 1900 Texas ports handled only 14.4 thousand barrels of refined oil exports, which was less than 0.1 per cent of the 19.5 million barrels for the United States. By 1910 the volume over Texas ports had increased approximately 100 times and represented 4.8 per cent of the nation’s 29.8 million barrels. Continuing the upward climb in relative position, Texas ports shipped 25.2 a For year ending June 30. designated as a customs district for this year. c Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. than $5OO. e lncludes refined motor, fuel, illuminating, and lubricating oil. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. a For year ending June 30. l9OO the Sabine Customs District had not been created. The ports were a part of the Galveston Customs District. c Not designated as a customs district for this year. San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. e lncludes refined motor, fuel, illuminating, and lubricating oil i'Less than 50 barrels. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, .Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. per cent of the export volume of refined oils in 19’20; 30-0 per cent in 1930; and 38.8 per cent in 1940. A shift has occurred in the importance of customs districts exporting the refined oil. In 1900 when Corsicana had the principal refinery in Texas, the more important exporting customs districts were El Faso, Corpus Christi, Brazos de Santiago, and Saluria. The Galveston Customs District, which at that time included the Sabine Customs District, shipped less than. 50 barrels of refined oil in the export trade. But by 1910 the Sabine Customs District was the most important 90 district in exporting refined oils. For in that year the exporta- tion of refined oil from the Sabine Customs District was 1.4 million barrels of refined oil or over 97 per cent of the total for all Texas ports. In 1920 the Sabine Customs District continued to lead in the exportation of refined oil. From this customs district Is.B million of the 16.5 million barrels for Texas were exported. The Galveston Customs District accounted for 628.9 thousand barrels or 3*B per cent of 91 the total for Texas ports. By 1930 the Galveston Customs District surpassed the Sabine Customs District as an exporter of refined oil. In that year 26.1 million barrels of refined oil valued at 75•7 million dollars were exported over the Galveston Customs District as compared to 9*9 million barrels worth 46.2 million dollars which were exported through the Sabine Customs District. The lead of the Galveston Customs District was not maintained in 1940 as only 11.8 million barrels of oil were exported from this customs district as compared to 12.3 million barrels for the Sabine Customs District. As in the years 1920 and 1930 the Laredo and El Paso Customs Districts shipped less than 2 per cent of the volume and value of refined oil exported from Texas ports. Relative positions of the water ports in the exportation of refined oil for 1945 show that Houston led with 5,344,987 tons while / 92 Fort Arthur was second with 2,09C,74C tons. Other ports with refined oil exports of over 100,000 tons included Texas City with 798,- 437 tons; Corpus Christi, 784,989 tons; Beaumont, 654,725 tons; Galveston, 338,386 tons; and Ingleside, 276,065 tons. While exports of refined oil were shipped from Freeport, Port Isabel, Port Aransas, and 93 Brownsville in 1945, the quantity was less than 100,000 tons. Though the value of crude oil exports has been decidedly less than that for refined oil, the trend in the exports of this product has been upward, both in total value and relative to the total export value over the Texas ports. In 1900 crude oil exports were valued at only 6 thousand dollars as contrasted with 19-9 million dollars in 1940. Expressed as a percentage of the total exports for Texas ports, the 1940 value represented 6.9 per cent of the total exports in contrast to less than 0.1 per cent in 1900. Indicating the persistency of the upward trend, both the value and relative position of crude oil were either maintained or increased over the initial year of each pre-94 vious decade between 1900 and 1940. The volume of crude oil exported also showed an upward trend but not for each initial year of each decade. In 1920 the volume exported was 400.4 thousand barrels as compared to 509-7 thousand barrels in 1910. While a smaller volume in 1920, the price of $3-40 per ’barrel at the well sufficiently increased the value to a point more than 95 three times the value for 1910. Ey 1930 the volume of crude oil exported from Texas ports was 2.0 million barrels or more than 5 times the volume for 1920. Another precipitous increase occurred between 1930 and 1940. In the latter a For year ending Tune 30. °Not designated as a customs district for this year. °Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. than 3500. e lncludes data for crude petroleum and natural gasoline. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. a For year ending lune 30. bln 1900 the Sabine Customs District had not been created. The ports were a part of the Galveston Customs District. c Not designated as a customs district for this year. d Named San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. data for crude petroleum and natural gasoline. -‘■Less than 50 barrels. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. year exports of crude oil were 14-4 million barrels, a volume approxi mately 7 times as great as for 1930. Crude oil exports from the Texas ports also have gained relatively to the crude oil exports of the nation. In 1900 crude oil exports from Texas ports were approximately 0.1 per cent of the value and volume of the crude oil exports for the nation. By 1920 the proportion for Texas ports was 5.0 per cent of the volume and 6.3 per cent of the value. Despite the continued rise in value and volume of the nation’s exportation of crude oil in 1930 and 1940, Texas ports continued to increase their position relative to that of the nation. The volume of the national exportation of crude had risen from 3.0 million barrels in 1920 to 23.7 million barrels in 1930 and 53.2 million barrels in 1940. Nevertheless crude petroleum exported from Texas ports accounted for 8.6 per cent of the national export volume in 1930 and 27.0 per cent in 1940. Similarly the national value of crude oil exports had risen from 29.0 million dollars in 1920 to 32.2 million dollars in 1930 and 71.0 million dollars in 1940. In 1930 Texas ports accounted for only 9-4 per cent of the value but in 1940 Texas ports accounted for 28.0 per cent of the value. As in the case of refined oil, shifts took place in the importance of customs districts in the exportation of crude oil. In 1900 the Saluria Customs District moved 3?611 of the 3>619 barrels exported while ports of the Galveston Customs District did not have any exports of crude oil. By 1910 the Sabine Customs District, which, had been created out of the Galveston Customs District, was the principal ex- porting district, having handled 508.8 of the 509-7 thousand barrels 96 of crude oil in that year. With the discoveries of the oil fields near the Houston Ship Channel, the Galveston Customs District became the principal district for exporting crude mineral oil, a position this district continued to 97 hold in 1920, 1930, and 1940- In 1920 the Galveston Customs District handled 308.1 thousand of the 400.4 thousand barrels of crude mineral oil exported from Texas ports. In the same year exports of crude mineral oil from the Sabine Customs District were 89-8 thousand barrels. By 1930 exports of crude mineral oil over the Galveston Customs District were 1.3 million barrels valued at 2.1 million dollars. The Laredo Customs District, including the Port of Corpus Christi, ranked second by exporting 386.5 thousand barrels valued at 426 thousand dollars. While in third place, the Sabine Customs District accounted for 314.2 thousand barrels of crude mineral oil worth 43® thousand dollars In the same year exports of crude mineral oil from the customs district of El Paso were less than 50 barrels. While the crude mineral oil exports for the Laredo Customs Dis- trict declined in 1940, the remaining three customs districts showed 98 marked gains as compared to 1930- The increment in volume for the Sabine Customs District was more than a 13-fold gain, an increase from 314-2 thousand barrels to 4-1 million barrels. The Galveston Customs District maintained the lead with 10.1 million barrels, representing more than 7 times the volume for 1930- However, Laredo and El Paso customs districts had export volumes of less than 100 thousand barrels each. The importance of the Port of Corpus Christi in the export trade of crude mineral oil is revealed in the tonnage of crude petroleum handled by the Texas Gulf ports in 1945- In that year exports of crude mineral oil from Corpus Christi were 122,879 tons or 51.5 pen cent of the 218,894 tons exported over Texas Gulf ports in 1945- Other Texas Gulf ports participating in the exportation of crude mineral oil included Beaumont with 35,969 tons; Texas City, 13,354 tons; Brownsville, 12,989 tons; Port Aransas, 12,091 tons; Port Arthur, 11,700 tons; and Freeport, 9,912 tons. The combined tonnage of the ports in the Galveston Customs District was 158,236 tons or 72 per cent of the total for Texas Gulf ports. The Texas Gulf ports of the Sabine Cus-99 toms District had exports of crude mineral oil of 47,669 tons or 22 per cent of the total while Brownsville of the Laredo Customs District 100 accounted for 5 per cent of the total. A product of crude mineral oil that in recent decades has become important enough in the export trade for separate listing is that of 101 petroleum coke. ' Texas ports shipped abroad 61,453 tons of this product in 1930 and 87,546 tons in 1940. This volume represented 70 per cent of the total exported from the United States in 1930 but only 33 per cent in 1940. The total value of this exported product from Texas ports was 554 thousand dollars in 1930 and 1.3 million dollars in 1940. The principal exporting customs district was the Sabine Customs District in both 1930 and 1940- From this district, 54,807 tons of petroleum coke valued at 4491,725 were exported in 1930 and 84,507 tons valued at 41,276,155 were exported in 1940. Compared to the total for Texas ports, the Sabine Customs District handled 89 per cent of the value of all petroleum coke exported in 1930 and 98 per cent in 1940. Port Arthur was the principal port supplying the export trade. In 1945 this port handled all of the 43,029 tons of petroleum coke ex-102 ported oy Texas Gulf ports. The only other customs district with exports of more than 1 per cent of the value or volume of petroleum coke from Texas ports in 1930 and 1940 was the Galveston Customs District. In the former year the petroleum coke exported from this customs district weighed 6,642 tons and was valued at $62,319• In 1940 the volume declined to 2,879 tons valued at $19,350. In volume the Galveston Customs District handled only 11 per cent of the petroleum coke exported from Texas ports in 1930 and 3 per cent in 1940. Another petroleum product sufficiently important for separate 103 listing in the export trade is petroleum asphalt. Exports of this commodity over Texas ports weighed 55,941 tons in 1930 and 51,791 tons 104 in 1940. The value of the 1930 exportation was 1.3 million dollars as compared to 866 thousand dollars in 1940. The 1930 export volume of petroleum asphalt was 15-3 per cent of the 366,419 tons exported by the nation. In 1940 the national exports of the product declined to 231,441 tons with Texas ports supplying 22.4 per cent of this volume. The value of the exports from Texas ports in 1930 was 18.1 per cent of that for the nation as compared to 21.6 per cent in 1940. The leading customs district in the exportation of petroleum asphalt was the Sabine Customs District. The exports of petroleum asphalt from this customs district were 53,354 tons in 1930 and 51,560 tons in 1940. Expressed as a relative, the Sabine Customs District handled 95.4 per cent of all the petroleum asphalt exported from Texas ports in 1930 and 99.5 per cent in 1940. While small quantities were exported by the Laredo and El Paso customs districts in 1930 and 1940, the major portion of the balance was exported by the Galveston Customs District for both years. Closely associated with the petroleum industry is the production of carbon black from the "sour gas” of the oil fields, particularly in 105 the Panhandle of Texas. This commodity, used largely in manufacturing tires, paints, and varnishes, has gained in importance in the past two decades as an export from Texas ports. In 1900 and 1910 the exports of carbon black from Texas ports were nominal or nil. In 1900 only the Brazos de Santiago Customs District had exports of carbon black with the small value of $27• No exports were recorded for the ports of Texas in 1910 even though the national exportation was valued at $679,607. By 1920 a small supply of carbon black was exported from Texas ports. In that year carbon black to the value of $19,066 was exported, $18,332 of which was exported over the San Antonio Customs District. In 1930 the state of Texas produced 271.7 million pounds of carbon 107 black or 71-5 per cent of the national total. ' ' Exports from Texas ports for that year were valued at 1.8 million dollars which was 31.6 per cent of the national exportation of 5.8 million dollars. The production and exportation of carbon black had increased still further by 1940. That year the state of Texas produced 430 million pounds which was 84.4 per cent of the 568.8 million pounds produced in the United States. In the same year carbon black exports from Texas ports were valued at 5-4 million dollars. This value represented 68.8 per cent of the 7.8 million dollars of carbon black exports for the nation but only 1.9 per cent of the total of all exports from Texas ports for that year. The principal movement of the carbon black exports has been through the Galveston Customs District. Exports valued at 1.8 million dollars passed over this customs district in 1930, representing more than 99 per cent of the value of carbon black exports from Texas ports. Even though carbon black exports from Texas ports had increased greatly by 1940, the Galveston Customs District handled 97-6 per cent of the total. Nevertheless, all of the remaining customs districts received carbon black for export in 1940. Approximately 1 per cent of the total was exported over the Sabine and El Paso customs districts while less than 1 per cent was exported over the Laredo Customs District. Exportation of items classified as ’’other petroleum products” has gained in prominence, adding to the total value of exported petroleum products. For the year 1900 no export value was recorded for these products. In 1910 Texas ports had exports of "other petroleum products" valued at 2.4 million dollars which represent 1.1 per cent of the total export value for these ports. In 1920 and 1930 the value was less than 0.5 per cent of the total exports for Texas ports, but in 1940 the value had risen to 8.1 million dollars which was equiva-108 lent to 2.8 per cent of the total exports for Texas ports. The appearance of sulphur in the export trade of Texas ports was during the second decade of the twentieth century. Prior to 1903 109 Italy had a virtual monopoly on the free sulphur supply of the world although Spain joined with Italy in furnishing the United States with "its supply of sulfur. 11l The date 1903 is significant because in that year Herman Frasch perfected a process for bringing the known but previously inac-112 cessible sulphur deposits in Louisiana to the surface. But "paying quantities" of sulphur were not produced in Texas until in 1912. The 113 first mines were located at Freeport in Brazoria County. Later ex- tensive deposits were discovered and mining facilities erected at Gulf in Matagorda County and Newgulf in Wharton County. All these mines lay within a hundred mile radius of Galveston to which the major por-115 tion is hauled by rail prior to loading on the vessels. With the application of the Frasch process to the Texas deposits, Louisiana declined as a producer of sulphur. For a number of years prior to 1932, "over 99 percent of all domestic sulphur" produced "came from Texas. After 1932 Louisiana became more important as 117 a producer of sulphur. This concentration of sulphur production in the two states continues high, representing "over 99 percent" of the 118 total output for the nation.' The exportation of sulphur over Texas ports did not wait until Texas mines were commercially developed in 1912. Louisiana mines in 1910 supplied sulphur exports from Texas ports valued at 776 thousand dollars. By 1920 Texas ports had exports of sulphur valued at 6.6 million dollars or 73*0 per cent of the national value of 9*o million 119 dollars. The concentration was even more pronounced in 1930 when exports of sulphur over Texas ports were valued at 11.8 million dollars, representing 91.2 per cent of the national exports of 13.0 million dollars. While the total value of sulphur exported increased to 13.8 million dollars for the nation in 1940, exports of sulphur over Texas ports declined in value to 9*9 million dollars or 71-8 per cent of the national total. 120 z zz The tonnage of sulphur exported by Texas ports was 556,064 tons in 1930 and 554,399 tons in 1940. The major portion of this ton-121 nage was crude sulphur instead of processed sulphur. Only 8,079 tons or 1.5 per cent of .the 1930 exports were processed while 10,107 tons or 1.8 per cent of the 1940 exports were processed. The export value of the processed sulphur in 1930 was $30.28 a ton as compared to $21.13 a lon lor the crude product. Export values remained relatively constant for processed sulphur which declined only $.02 a ton to reach $30.26 in 1940 while export values for crude sulphur dropped $3-45 a 122 ton to a level of $17.68. By far the larger portion of the exported sulphur moved by way of the Galveston Customs District. This customs district handled 513,642 tons or 93.7 per cent of the crude sulphur exports from Texas ports in 1930- In 1940 the Galveston Customs District handled over 99 per cent of the 544,292 tons of crude sulphur from Texas ports. However, a slightly smaller proportion of the sulphur in the processed form moved from this customs district as the 7,445 tons of processed sulphur exported in 1930 was 92.2 per cent of the 8,079 tons for all Texas ports In 1940 the Galveston Customs District had exports of 9,357 tons of the processed sulphur or 92.6 per cent of the total for Texas ports. All of the remaining customs districts had exports of crude and processed sulphur in 1930- With the exception of the Sabine Customs District in 1940, all again participated in the exportation of the crude and processed forms. In this latter year the Sabine Customs District did not have any exports of crude sulphur but did have 505 tons of the processed product for export. Though also relatively small, a greater proportion of the processed sulphur was exported by the remaining customs districts as compared to the exports of crude sulphur. 'flie superiority of the loading equipment located close to the principal sulphur mines at Galveston helped make this port the major 123 exporter of sulphur. Data for 1945 show that the Port of Galveston handled 469,235 tons of the 354,522 tons of sulphur exported from 124 Texas Gulf ports in that year. Only three other Texas Gulf ports moved sulphur into export channels in 1945• Freeport had exports of 125 82,329 tons; Houston, 2,873 tons; and Texas City, 85 tons. Texas ports have also made substantial progress in the exporta-126 tion of iron, steel and products of iron and steel. Even as early as 1900, a value of 3*9 million dollars of these products were exported over Texas ports accounting for 3-7 per cent of the total export value. Under conditions of post-war demand and high prices in 1920, the value increased to 11.6 million dollars which was only 1.4 per cent of the total exports for Texas ports. The slump to 4.5 million dollars in 1930 was due primarily to the low prices and inactive world demand. By 1940 the export value had risen to 16.8 million dollars which repre-127 sented 5-9 per cent of the total export value for Texas ports. Compared to the United States total value of exports of iron, steel, and products of iron and steel, Texas ports tended to decline in relative importance in the first few decades but later showed some a For year ending Tune 30. designated as a customs district for this year. c Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930* than e lncludes iron and steel and manufactures of iron and steel other than ore, machinery, and vehicles. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940". strength. In 1900 when the national export value for these commodities was 66.4 million dollars, Texas ports accounted for 5-9 per cent of the national export value. The relative proportion for Texas ports declined to 2.7 per cent in 1910; 1.8 per cent in 1920; 2.2 per cent in 1930; end 2.9 per cent in 1940. No pattern developed to indicate a continued relationship in the relative importance of the customs districts in the exportation of iron, steel, and iron and steel products. In 1900 the El Paso, Corpus Christi, and Saluria customs districts each had export values ranging between 1 and 2 million dollars. These three customs districts were still the most important in 1910. For 1920 the Laredo and Sabine customs districts each had exports valued between 4 and 5 million dollars while the Galveston and El Paso customs districts had export values ranging between 1.0 and 1.5 million dollars. The Laredo Customs District continued in 1930 and 1940 to be one of the principal customs districts exporting iron, steel, and products of iron and steel, exceeding the other districts in this respect in 1920 and 1930. In 1940 Galveston took the lead with exports valued at 9.9 million dollars. The El Paso Customs District was in fourth place in this year, the same position this customs district held during each 128 of the years 1920, 1930, and 1940. Houston and Galveston were the only two water ports with exports of iron, steel, and manufactures of iron and steel in 1945• Houston led with exports of 64,930 tons as compared to 6,157 tons for Galves- ton. The principal items were bars, rods, sheets, and similar items of which Houston exported 43,276 tons and Galveston, 4,907 tons. Houston also had exports of 10,877 tons of iron and steel billets; 4,524 tons of iron and steel rails; 4,367 tons of iron and steel nails and wire; 1,775 tons of iron and steel pipes and fittings; and 111 tons of pig iron. Other iron and steel exports from Galveston included 754 tons of iron and steel nails and wire, 291 tons of iron and steel 129 billets, and 205 tons of iron and steel pipes and fittings. ‘The value of exports of machinery and vehicles from Texas ports have been consistently larger than the exports of iron, steel, and manufactures of steel. Even when the export value of the latter products declined sharply between 1920 and 1930, the export values of machinery and vehicles made a stable advance from 18.7 million dollars to 24.6 million dollars. Another advance was made in 1940 when the export value of machinery and vehicles rose to 28.8 million dollars compared to 16.8 million dollars for iron, steel, and manufactures of 130 iron and steel. Relative to the value of all exports from Texas ports, machinery and vehicles declined in 1910 to 2.0 per cent and in 1920 to 2.3 per cent after being 5-7 per cent in 1900. An upward relative trend was resumed in 1930 when 4-4 per cent of the export value of all Texas ports was machinery and vehicles. By 1940 the export value of these products represented 10.0 per cent of the 287-3 million dollars in a For year ending June 30. designated as a customs district for this year. c Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1'920 and 1930. than Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. 131 exports from Texas ports. Since 1900 the export value of machinery and vehicles over Texas ports has been less than 5 per cent of the national export value for machinery and vehicles. The Texas ports handled 7-3 per cent of the 81.5 million dollar export value of machinery and vehicles for the nation in 1900; 3.5 per cent in 1910; 1.9 per cent in 1920; 3.0 per cent in 1930; and 2.2 per cent in 1940- In the latter year the national exportation of machinery and vehicles was valued at 1.3 billion dollars, the highest value of all five years considered. In the exportation of machinery and vehicles, the customs districts serving the border between the United States and Mexico have become the more important, particularly the customs district in which Laredo has been located. By 1910 the Corpus Christi Customs District, which included the land port of Laredo, and the El Paso Customs District had 3-5 million of the 4-4 million dollars worth of machinery and vehicles exported from Texas ports. By 1920 the San Antonio Customs District alone handled 13-3 million of the 18.7 million dollar export business in machinery and vehicles. The importance of the land ports in the exportation of machinery and vehicles was even more pronounced in 1930 when the combined exports of the San Antonio and El Paso customs districts were valued at 24.3 million dollars of the 24.6 million dollar total for Texas ports in that year. Even though the Galveston Customs District had an export value of 4.0 million dollars in machinery and vehicles in 1940, the Laredo and El Paso customs districts handled 24.4 of the 28.8 million dollar export trade in these items for that year. The source of the iron, steel, machinery, vehicles, and other manufactures of iron and steel in the export trade is principally from centers within but, in some cases, without the hinterland. Laredo, the prime receiver of these items for export, is the gateway for ’’practically all the automobiles and automobile parts going to Mexico.” Much of these items originate in the Great Lakes region. Houston furnishes a large volume of well drilling equipment and supplies, steel 132 pipes, reinforcing bars, and angle irons exported via Laredo while "much mining machinery" from Colorado reaches Mexico through the same port. Items of iron and steel manufacture also are received from Gary, Indiana, and Youngstown, Ohio, the latter a city outside the Secondary Hinterland. Also from outside the hinterland, Laredo receives for export electrical equipment from Schenectady, New York, as well as other points in northeastern United States, indicating the wide area from 133 which these items originate. Other land and water ports had similar sources with some modifi cations. For example, Hidalgo received steel and angle iron for export from San Antonio and Pittsburg as well as Houston. Also tractors and agricultural machinery from the mid-west and oil drilling equipment from Houston were exported at this point. At Houston, steel, ma chinery, and vehicles are unloaded for export from the canal barges 134 serving the G-reat Lakes and Mississippi River System. Galveston had steel tanks arriving from Kansas City, Missouri, and a regular movement of '’rail, steel beams, and wire rods for making nails” from - i 1 35 Colorado. A minor but substantial export from Texas ports is in the form of copper and copper manufactures. The value of these exports in 1900 was 590 thousand dollars. In 1930 and 1940 the exports of copper and copper manufactures were valued at more than 2 million dollars for 136 each year. Compared to the total value of exports over Texas ports exports of copper and copper manufactures dropped from 0.6 per cent in 1900 to 0.1 per cent in 1920 but more than regained the loss by 1940 when 0.7 per cent of the value of all exports from Texas ports was recorded for copper and copper refinements. In 1900 and 1910 the export value of copper and copper refine- ments from Texas ports was equal to 1.0 per cent of the national, ex- portation of these products. By 1920 when the nation had exports of 133-5 million dollars worth of copper and copper manufactures, Texas ports handled only 0.3 per cent of the total. By 1930 and 1940 exports of these items from Texas ports were approximately 2.0 per cent 137 of the export value of these products for the nation. In 1900 and 1910 the El Paso Customs District was the principal exporting customs district of copper and copper manufactures. In 1900 the El Paso Customs District handled 558 of the 590 thousand dollars worth of the total copper and copper manufactures exported from Texas ports. The ratio still favored the El Paso Customs District in 1910 when this district accounted for copper exports of 757 thousand dol, . 138 lars as compared to 808 thousand dollars for Texas ports. In 1920 Galveston replaced El Paso as the leading customs district in the exportation of copper and copper manufactures. The Galveston Customs District handled the major portion of the copper and copper manufactures for export from Texas ports in 1920, 1930, and 1940. The 1930 value for the Galveston Customs District was 2.0 million or 87.0 per cent of the 2.3 million dollars of copper and copper manufactures exported from all Texas ports. Again in 1940 the Galveston Customs District had exports of 2.0 million dollars worth of copper and copper manufactures or 94-3 P® r cent of the value exported by all 139 Texas ports in that year. 140 Dor the years 1920, 1930, and 1940 the Laredo Customs District ranked second to the Galveston Customs District as an exporter of copper and copper manufactures. The El Paso Customs District ranked third and the Sabine Customs District ranked fourth. For 1940 the value of these exports for the Laredo Customs District was 87 thousand dollars while these exports over the El Paso Customs District were valued at 35 thousand dollars. For this same year the Sabine Customs District did not have any exports of copper and copper manufactures. The major source of the exports of copper and copper manufactures is the Phelps Dodge Refining Company of El Paso, Texas. The principal forms in which the copper is shipped from this source are copper in-141 gots and copper wire bars. The shipments into foreign trade are through the ports of Houston and Galveston with Houston receiving ap-142 proximately 75 per cent and Galveston, 25 per cent of the total. In 1948 approximately 7 million pounds of these manufactures were being exported per month from the Phelps Dodge refinery. This volume is more than 5 times the annual volumes of 16.0 million pounds exported from the ports of Texas in 1930 and Ip. 3 million pounds exported in 143 1940. The exportation of bituminous coal over Texas ports has tended to decline relative to total exports. At the beginning of the twentieth century, bituminous coal exports were valued at 1.0 million dollars 144 and represented 1.0 per cent of the total exports from Texas ports. In 1920 when fuel was greatly in demand, bituminous coal exports reached a value of 1.2 million dollars but dropped to 0.1 per cent of the total export value for Texas ports. Cheap fuel oil and mechanized production of more suitable grades of coal in the East lessened the demand for coal from Texas ports. By 1940 bituminous coal exported over Texas ports was valued at only 1 thousand dollars and represented an insignificant portion of the total. The exportation of coal will likely continue as an insignificant export from Texas ports unless mechanized handling to ship side can be effected or unless fuel prices increase sufficiently to make exportation economically possible. Other exports besides those discussed individually accounted for less than 10 per cent of the total from Texas ports for each of the 5 years considered. Within this classification were items which entered the export trade sporadically or in relatively small quantities. Some of the items falling within the classification "other exports" are briefly mentioned below. .Among the minor export items handled by the Port of Galveston are spelter (zinc), potash, lead, beans, peas, onions, lard, meat, and hominy grits. The spelter originates in "Texas, Oklahoma, and Illinois" while lead originates "in Texas." From the mines at Carlsbad, New Mexico, potash moves to the coast to enter foreign trade channels. From points farther north in Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana, dried beans and peas are shipped regularly to deep water. The cities of Sherman, McKinney, Garland, and Floresville, Texas, send regular shipments of onions while lowa and Wisconsin send lard, meat, and 145 hominy grits for exportation. At several ports on the coast, oats in bags from Texas and Oklahoma were being shipped abroad. Soy beans and "soybean oilcake meal" from the northern corn belt are entering world markets in increasing quantities via Texas ports. Houston, Galveston, and Beaumont had exports of barrel staves and "wooden headings" for barrels. Brownsville is initiating an expansion program for sending fresh and canned grapefruit and oranges abroad. In this new venture, problems arise in the transportation of the semi-perishable commodity in addition to the strong competition in world markets. l9OO, 1910, 1920, and 1930, the total exports of the products of cotton, grain, sulphur, and oil accounted for 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the total exports. In 1940 domestic efforts toward preparedness for war reduced the relative proportion of these commodities in the export trade to less than 80 per cent. See Tables XXVII and XXVIII. not include iron ore, machinery, and vehicles. Tables XXIX and XXX. / rt 4 Survey of Current Business, 1942 Supplement, p. 165. cit. s°See Tables XXIX and XXX. data compiled for hearing before Interstate Commerce Commission by F. G. Robinson, Traffic Manager, Galveston Chamber of Commerce. 52_ LOG. Clt. States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Merchandise Movement through Texas Gulf Ports Calendar Year Ended December 31> 1945 (mimeographed copy issued by the Houston District Office, 1946), Sheet No. 1. 54 as far east as Crowley, Louisiana, can ship more cheaply to Texas ports than to New Orleans. Personal interview with G. Z. Koenig, Traffic Assistant, Galveston Wharves, August 21, 1947- 55 on origin of cotton to Texas ports was based upon records kept by the Traffic Division of Galveston Wharves. Christi handles Mexican cot bon on a re-export basis. Personal interview with Byrd Harris, Port Director, Port of Corpus Christi, August 29, 1947- 1939 Texas was the only state in the hinterland that produced over 10 million dollars worth of "cotton broad woven goods" while no state in the hinterland was important enough to have a separate listing in the production of "cotton yarn" and "cotton thread." United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Manufactures, 1940, Vol. 11, Pt. 1, pp. 237-290. lndian maize and the small grain sorghums called milo, hegari, and kafir. Tables XXVII, XXVIII, XXXI, and XXXII. 60 Survey of Current 'Business, 1942 Supplement, p. 120. 61 By dividing the bushels of wheat exported in 1930 into the declared value, one arrives at a higher export value per bushel of $1.02 ° 2 See Tables XXXI and XXXII. production in the United States established a new high in 1947 with 1.4 billion bushels. Average wholesale prices of No. 2 hard winter wheat in Kansas City exceeded the '52.44 level established in 1920 by averaging $2.60 per bushel. Survey of Current Business, February, 1948, P* 3-28. based on data in Tables XXXI and XXXII. 65 Tables XXXI and XXXII. Port of Brownsville was the only port in the Brazos de Santiago Customs District after 1900. 'Mimeographed data, compiled for the Interstate Commerce Commission by F. G. Robinson, Traffic Manager, Galveston Chamber of Commerce Aft °Data on export values for Texas City are recorded under that for Galveston in the publication Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. 69 7 Merchandise Movement through Texas Gulf Ports Calendar Year Ended December 31, 1945, op. cit., Sheets No. 1, 15. 7°Personal interviews with G. Z. Koenig, Traffic Assistant, Galveston Wharves; William L. Fellrath, Superintendent of Houston Public Elevator; and Edward R. Costello, Superintendent of Docks and Wharves, Beaumont, Texas, August 19-20, 1947- 71 See Table mil. 72 Commerce and Navigation of the United States; Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. 73 ' opinion of G. Z. Koenig, '.Traffic Assistant of Galveston Wharves, and Edward R. Costello, Superintendent of Docks and Wharves at Port of Beaumont. of stores of wheat flour awaiting shipment abroad revealed brands manufactured in the Panhandle of Texas, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Minneapolis, Minnesota. In some instances, the flour was sacked only in coarse jute bagging rather than the conventional finely-woven cotton sacks. Personal observation at ports, August 18- 29, 1947. '-'The Laredo Customs District was named the San Antonio Customs District in 1930. r? A ' Extensive cultivation of rice in Texas did not occur until about 1898 when an irrigation system was first used around Beaumont and Orange. William A. Faught, "The Rice Industry in Texas," Monthly Business Review, November 1, 1947, p. 159- Texas, California, and Arkansas are the four principal rice producing states of the nation. Ibid., pp. 159-160. data secured from Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1940- 7sData for 1940 reveal that over 99 per cent of the rice exported from Texas ports was milled or cleaned rice while less than 1 per cent was rough or uncleaned rice. Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1940. So The addition of the Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana, to the Sabine Customs District in 1930 was the primary factor in increasing the rice exportation from the Sabine Customs District. The importance of this port as an exporter of rice is shown by the data for 1945• In that year Beaumont and Lake Charles were the only ports exporting rice from the Sabine Customs District and Lake Charles exported 65,774 tons of rice compared to 3,512 tons for Beaumont. Merchandise Movement through Texas Gulf Ports Calendar Year Ended December 31, 1945, op. cit., Sheets No. 1, 15; United States War Department, Office of the Chief Engineers, Commercial Statistics, Water-borne Commerce of the 'United States for the Calendar Year 1945 (Part 2 of the Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, 1946), p. 698. 81 ' Personal interviews with G. Z. Koenig, Traffic Assistant, Galveston Wharves, and Edward R. Costello, Superintendent of Docks and Wharves, Port of Beaumont, August 20-21, 1947- S 2 Rice milling facilities in Texas are located at Houston, Beaumont, Orange, Bay City, and El Campo. Directory of Texas Manufactures, p. 202. °^i n 194-6 Texas had a refinery capacity of "1,492,015 barrels of crude daily" which "represents of the Nation’s total." Texas plants actually processed 29.1 pen cent of all crude processed in the United States in 1946. The investment in oil refineries in Texas is "estimated, at more than $825,000,000." Texas Oil and Gas, 1947, Yearbook of the Texas Petroleum Industry, Eighth Edition, August, 1947, p. 29. B. Johnson, "The Petroleum Industry and the Southwest," Monthly Business Review, March 1, 1947, p. 39- 85 hefined oil includes refined motor, fuel, illuminating, and lubricating oil. See Tables XXVII and XXVIII. S7 See Table XXXIII. p-C> Calculated from original source of data in Table XXXIV. no °'See Table XXXIV. 90 Spindietop was discovered 4 miles south of Beaumont in 1001. The original well produced ’’seventy-five thousand to one hundred thousand barrels a day.” Within four years from the discovery, approximately 1,200 wells were drilled on the 200 acre tract comprising the Spindietop dome. Wortham, op. cit., pp. 183-184- 91 The Humble field, located ’’about sixteen miles north of the city of Houston,” produced 15-5 million barrels in 1905. Also the Goose Creek field was opened up in 1908 at a location approximately 25 miles east of Houston. The shift in production preceded the shift in the source of refined exports of oil. op 7 ''Data for Houston include foreign shipments from all points along the .Houston Ship Channel. Charles, Louisiana, of the Sabine Customs District handled 438,415 tons of refined oils in 1945, which is less than 5 pen cent of the total tonnage of refined oils exported over the water ports of Texas. 94 See Tables XXVII, XXVIII, XXXV, and XXXVI. price of |3«40 a barrel was for ’’crude petroleum, Oklahoma- Kansas, 33.0 to 33.9 degrees, at the well.” Survey of Current Business, 1942 Supplement, p. 15 6. Tables XXXV and XXXW 97 The addition of the Port of Corpus Christi to the Galveston District in 1939 also enhanced the position of that customs district as an exporter of crude mineral oil. Major oil discoveries were made close to Corpus Christi in the 1930’5. Port of Corpus Christi, November, 1945, P- 13. 98 The Port of Corpus Christi was assigned to the Laredo Customs District in 1930 but was part of the Galveston Customs District in 1940. 99 Lake Charles, Louisiana, a port of the Sabine Customs District, did not handle any exports of crude petroleum in 1945- Commercial Statistics, Water-borne Commerce of the United States for the Calendar Year 1945, op- cit., p. 698. chandise Movement through Texas Gulf Ports Calendar Year Ended December 31, 1945, op- cit., Sheets No. 4, 15* coke is the "final residue" when crude petroleum is distilled. J. Russel Smith and M. Ogden Phillips, Industrial and Commercial Geography, Third Edition, p. 112. IQ^ e rchandise Movement through Texas Gulf Ports Calendar Year Ended December 31, 1945, op- cit., Sheets No. 3, 15- enormous production of petroleum has furnished a new source of asphalt which now competes with the "apparently inexhaustible" supply from the famous asphalt lake of Trinidad. In 1940 the American refineries produced 5,347,000 tons of petroleum asphalt used chiefly in the paving and roofing industries. Smith and Phillips, op. cit., p. 116. asphalt is weighed in long tons of 2,240 pounds each almanac and State Industrial Guide, 1947-1948, p. 265. 1 06 in 1945 Texas ranked first as a producer of carbon black. In that year, 721 million pounds were produced in Texas or 68.5 per cent of the national production. Texas Oil and Gas, 1947, Eighth Edition, op. cit., pp. 36-37. 10 ? Ibid., p. 37. 108 See Tables XXVII and XXVIII. Book of Texas," Book of Knowledge, ?XI, 126. source of sulphur in .Spain was iron and cupreous pyrites. Smith and Phillips, op. cit., p. 306. Book of Texas," Book of Knowledge, XXI, 126. llPjn Frasch process, ’’water heated to about 300° P- is pumped down into the sulfur beds, and compressed air is forced down through a second pipe, which forces the molten sulfur (over 99% pure) up through a third pipe to the surface of the earth, where it flows into bins and solidifies." Smith and Phillips, op. cit. , p. 309- 113 -'Richardson, op. cit. , p. 440. Book of the Port of Galveston, p. 49- 115 T log. cit. 1 “I / of Current Business, 1942 Supplement, p. 216. II 7 'ln 1940 the monthly average sulphur production for Texas was 553,209 long tons as compared to 128,234 long tons for Louisiana. Ibid., p. 102. Ibid., p. 216. otherwise stated, data were secured from the annual publications, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. tonnage is expressed in long tons of 2,240 pounds as secured from the publication Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. 121 Processed sulphur includes crushed, ground, refined, sublimed, and flowers of sulphur. 1 22 Only three companies currently produce sulphur in Texas, namely Texas Gulf Sulphur Company; Jefferson Lake Sulphur Company; and the Duval Texas Sulphur Company. The only operating company in the state of Louisiana since 1937 has been the Freeport Sulphur Company. Personal interview with G. Z. Koenig, Traffic Assistant, Galveston Wharves and Survey of Current .Business, 1942 Supplement, p. 216. ■^3g ee description of sulphur loading facilities in Chapter VII. for sulphur exports from Texas 'Gulf ports were expressed in short tons of 2,000 pounds. Merchandise Movement through 'Texas Gulf Ports Calendar Year Ended December 31> 1945, op. cit., Sheets Ko. 4, 15. 125 Lake Charles, Louisiana, of the Saoine Customs District was insignificant as an exporter of sulphur in 1945 • Only 56 short tons were exported by that customs district in that year. Commercial Statistics, Water-borne Commerce of the United States for the Calendar Year 1945, op• cit., p. 698. 120'This heading excludes ore, machinery, and vehicles. See Tables XXVII, XXVIII, and XXXVII. 127 See Tables XXVII and XXVIII. 12S See Table XXXVII. -I^Merchandise Movement through Texas Gulf Ports Calendar Year Ended December 31, 1945, op- cit. , Sheets No. 6”, 7, 16. 13 °See Table XXVII. 1^1 See Table XXVIII. is the home of Sheffield Steel of Texas with complete equipment for making steel, iron bars, sheet metal, and other basic products of iron and steel. Also located in Houston is the Hughes Tool Company which manufactures oil drilling equipment for world-wide sale or rent. Several other fabricators of steel and iron and manufacturers of oil drilling equipment are located in Houston, including the Wyatt Metal and Boiler Works, Reed Roller Bit Company, and Mosher Steel Company. 33p e rsonal interviews with E. H. Corrigan, broker and Chairman of the Laredo Port Commission, and A. R. Kahn, Assistant Customs Collector for Port of Laredo, August 26, 1947- 13 4 Over 100 automobiles were shipped by barge from the "Great Lakes Region” to Houston for export in the summer of 1947- Personal interview with T. H. Coley, Superintendent of Houston Wharf Company, August 19, 1947. 135 -"Personal interview with G. Z. Koenig, Traffic Assistant, Galveston Wharves, August 21, 1947* 136 See Table XXVII. 137 .Exports of copper and copper manufactures over Texas ports accounted for 2.2 per cent of the national total in 1930 and 1.9 per cent in 1940. otherwise stated, data for export of copper and copper manufactures were derived or calculated from the publications foreign Commerce and 'Navigation of the United States and Commerce and Navigation of the United States. Galveston Customs District had exports of 15.8 million pounds of refined copper (not including manufactures) in 1930 and 15-3 million pounds in 1940. This volume represented more than 98 per cent of the refined copper exported from Texas ports in those two years. San Antonio Customs District in 1920 and 1930. 1^1 Copper wire bars are approximately 99-9 per cent pure copper and ready for use in the manufacture of copper wire. 1947 over 99 pen cent of all export shipments from the Phelps Dodge Refining Corporation were sent through the ports of Houston and Galveston. 143 Personal interviews with Jay Malone, Shipping Foreman, Phelps Dodge Refining Corporation, July 30, 1948, and T. H. Coley, Superintendent of Houston Wharf Company, August 19, 1947- Tables XXVII and XXVIII. (In thousands of dollars) Commodity Year 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Cotton, Raw 63,722 166,918 482,072 299,578 95,109 Cotton Goods 459 337 4,748 605 335 Oil Cake & ... . 5,667 4,672 907 3 Cottonseed Oil .. 2,879 1,982 214 101 35 Cotton Seed 13 52 205 i i Wheat 9,328 5,151 132,759 33,432 1,476 Wheat Floui* 946 2,074 4,868 7,416 893 Corn ■. 3,038 3,315 935 1,364 j Rice® .. i i 2,497 4,635 8,179 Mineral Oil$ Crude . . 6 513 1,813 3,035 19,871 Refined Oil$ 125 3,021 89,997 123,469 63,537 Petroleum Coke i i i 554 1,296 Petroleum Asphalt . . . i i i 1,314 866 Carbon Black j nil 19 1,831 5,383 Other Petrol. Prod. . nil 2,414 956 1,988 8,056 Sulphur® . i 776 6,570 11,834 9,928 Iron & Steel 1 3,938 2,737 11,582 16,816 Mach. & Vehicles .... 5,952 4,437 18,749 24,649 28,787 590 808 488 2,318 2,122 Coal, Biturn. 1,001 313 1,189 107 1 Other Exports . 15,976 62,661 30,997 24,000 Total . 105,293 216,489 826,994 554,588 287,336 TABLE XXVII VALUE OF PRINCIPAL DOMESTIC COMMODITIES EXPORTED FROM ALL UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 Commodity Year 1900 a % I9io a % 1920 % 1930 % 1940 % Cotton., Raw ... 60.5 77.1 58.3 54.0 33.1 Cotton Goods ... 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 Oil Cake & Meal 0 4.0 2.6 0.6 0.2 j Cottonseed Oil ... 2.7 0.9 J J j Cotton Seed j J j i i Wheat ... 8.9 2.4 16.1 6.0 0.5 Wheat Flour 0.9 1.0 0.6 1-3 0.3 Corn ... 2.9 1.5 0.1 0.2 J Rice 0 i 0.3 0.8 2.8 Mineral Oil, Crude .... j 0.2 0.2 0.5 6.9 Refined Oil$ 0.1 1.4 10.9 22.3 22.1 Petroleum Coke i i 0.1 0.5 Petroleum Asphalt i i 0.2 0.3 Carbon Black j nil j 0.3 1.9 Other Petrol. Prod. ... 1.1 0.1 0.4 2.8 Sulphur 0 . 0.4 0.8 2.1 ' 3-5 Iron & Steel* 3.7 1.3 1.4 0.8 5.9 Mach. & Vehicles ... 5.7 2.0 2.3 4.4 10.0 Copper® 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.7 Coal, Bi turn.* 1 1.0 0.1 0.1 J j Other Exports Total • • • ... 100.0 7.4 100.0 7.3 100.0 5.9 100.0 8.6 100.0 Table xxviii VALUE OF PRINCIPAL DOMESTIC COMMODITIES EXPORTED FROM ALL UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL EXPORTS FROM TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 (In thousands of dollars) Customs District Year 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b 10,645 101 3,590 221 Galveston .. 63,271 155,921 479,875 261,980 94,887 Laredo 0 b b 2,065 34,008 nil El Paso 83 32 nil nil Corpus Christi 224 204 b b b Brazos de Santiago . . . nil b b b Saluria 227 65 b b b Texas Total •• 63,722 166,918 482,073 299,578 95,108 0. 3. Total .. 241,833 450,447 1,136,409 496,798 217,391 TABLE XXIX VALUE OF UNMANUFACTURED COTTON EXPORTED FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 (In thousands of bales) Customs District Year 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b 143 1 66 4 Galveston 1,569 2,114 2.734 3,387 458 d 1,654 Laredo c c • 22 d nil El Paso nil 1 1 nil nil Corpus Christi 3 c c c Brazos de Santiago . . . . nil nil c c c Saluria 1 c c c Texas Total 1,577 2,262 2,758 3,911 1,658 U. S. Total 6,044 6,263 6,159 6,591 3,843 TABLE XXX VOLUME OF UNMANUFACTURED COTTON EXPORTED FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 e (In thousands of dollars) Customs District Year 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine ... b 217 4,821 3,735 nil Galveston ... 9,328 2,576 127,746 27,770 1,476 Laredo c b b 192 1,916 nil SI Faso ....... ... nil 93 d 'll d Corpus Christi ... nil 2,000 b b b Brazos de Santiago . . .. ... nil nil b b b Saluria d 264 b b b Texas Total ... 9,328 5,150 132,759 33,432 1,476 U. S. Total ... 73,237 47,80? 596,975 88,093 11,206 TABLE XXXI VALUE OF WHEAT EXPORTED FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 (In thousand bushels) Customs District Year 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b 200 1,772 3,792 nil Galveston .. 13,562 2,400 46,562 27,037 1,656 c c 77 1,817 nil El Paso nil 75 e 9 e Corpus Christi nil 2,012 c c c Brazos de Santiago nil nil c c c Saluria e 211 c c c Texas Total .. 13,562 4,898 48,411 32,655 1,656 U. S. Total . . 101,950 46,680 218,287 87,774 14,379 TABLE XXXII VOLUME OF WHEAT EXPORTED FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 (In thousands of dollars) Customs District Year 1900& 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine ... b 2,784 86,499 46,215 35,200 Galveston d 161 3,236 75,704 27,306 Laredo 0 .. b b 203 960 737 El Paso .. 30 16 58 590 294 Corpus Christi 23 33 b b b Brazos de Santiago ... 10 1 b b b Saluria .. 62 25 b b b Texas Total _1_2_5 3,020 89,996 123,469 63,537 U. S. Total .. 67,741 89,671 519,326 433,195 203,411 TABLE XXXIII VALUE OF REFINED MINERAL OIL EXPORTED FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 e (In thousands of 42-gallon barrels) Customs District Year I9oo a I9io a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b 1,335.0 15,330.5 9,915.1 12,256.7 Galveston f 22.3 623.9 26,095.0 11,336.0 c c 16.5 262.7 93.2 El Paso 3.2 2.0 3.7 305.4 160.6 Corpus Christi . .. . 3.6 5.0 c c c Brazos de Santiago 1.2 0.2 c c c Saluria 6.3 3.2 c c c Texas Total . . . 14.4 1,417.7 16,479.6 36,573.2 24,351.5 U. S. Total . . . . 19,466.7 29,335.9 65,273.3 122,167.4 62,678.0 TABLE XXXIV VOLUME OF REFINED MINERAL OIL EXPORTED FROM UNITED STABS CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS IQOO, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940® (in thousands of dollars) Customs District Year 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b 509 755 438 5,332 Galveston nil 3 1,051 2,171 14,396 Laredo 0 b b 7 426 72 31 Paso d d d d 71 Corpus Christi nil nil b b b Brazos de Santiago .... nil nil b b b Saluria 6 d b b b Texas Total 6 513 1,813 3,035 19,871 U. S. Total 7,364 5,277 23,990 32,153 71,048 'TABLE XXXV VALUE OF CRUDE MINERAL OIL EXPORTED EROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940® (In thousands of 42-gallon barrels) Year Customs District 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b 508.8 89.8 314.2 4,142.5 Galveston nil 0.7 308.1 1,334.3 10,105.8 Laredo 11 c c 2.5 386.5 48.7 El Paso f 0.2 f f 62.9 Corpus Christi nil nil c c c Brazos de Santiago ... nil nil c c c Saluria 3.6 f c c c Texas Total •• 3-6 509.7 400.4 2,035.0 14,359.9 U. S. Total .. 3,167.2 4,021.5 8,044.9 23,704.2 53,198.1 TABLE XXXVI VOLVIC OF CRUDE MINERAL OIL EXPORTED FROA! UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 194O e (In thousands of ( io liars) Year Customs District 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine ... . b 10 4,262 276 2,279 Galveston d 189 1,427 945 9,928 Laredo 0 .. • . b b 4,711 2,488 3,705 El Paso .. . 1,010 1,160 1,182 745 904 Corpus Christi . 1,830 926 b b b Brazos de Santiago . • • • 8 11 b b b Saluria .. . 1,090 441 b b b Texas Total .... • .3,93.8 _2,737 11,582 4,454 16,816 U. S. Total .... . 66,428 99,834 649,902 201,764 584,354 table xxxvii value of iron and steel 6 exported from united states CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS FORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 (In thousands of dollars) Customs District Year 1900 a ' 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b 13 2,385 14 289 Galveston 7 144 750 373 4,019 b b 13,261 20,606 21,698 El Faso . 2,026 1,579 2,353 3,656 2,781 Corpus Christi . 1,038 1,952 b b b Brazos de Santiago . 1 15 b b b Saluria . 2,880 734 b b b Texas Total .... . 5,952 4,437 13,749 24,649 28,787 U. S. Total .... . 81,490 128,054 993,409 832,735 1,312,051 TABLE xxxvin VALUE OF MACHINERY AND VEHICLES EXPORTED FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AUD 1940 Destination of exports by continents. In the preceding discus- sion, attention has been directed to the nature, volume, value, and source of the exports through Texas ports. In the following discus sion, the destination of the exports by continents and countries is presented beginning with the year 1900. By far the greatest receiver of exports from Texas ports during the twentieth century has been the continent of Europe followed by North America, Asia, and South America in the order named. No foreign trade with Oceania and Africa were recorded for the initial years of the century and neither continent received as much as 2 per cent of 146 the trade from Texas ports in 1930 or 1940- Trade with Europe was well established in 1900 when exports valued at 82.1 million dollars were sent to that continent. This export value was 77 per cent of the 106.0 million dollar export value in 1900. In 1910 the exports to Europe were increased to a value of 185.3 million dollars which, expressed relatively, was 85 per cent of the total. When Texas ports had exports of merchandise valued at 831.5 million dollars in 1920, Europe received the slightly smaller percentage of 84 per cent. By 1930 the growing importance of other continents, particularly Asia, North America, and South America, reduced the relative position to 71 per cent. Further reduction in the relative importance came in 1940 when Germany, a major receiving country of Europe, was boycotted because of her aggressive war policy. In that year Europe received exports from Texas ports valued at 156.2 million dollars, representing 54 per cent of the 290.1 million dollar total of exports over Texas ports. a Less than $lOO,OOO. for all years, except 1930, equal the totals of exports for the customs districts with headquarters in Texas. For 1930, the total of exports for customs districts with head quarters in Texas was 555.0 million dollars. The discrepancy is 18.6 million dollars or 3.4 per cent. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign and Domestic Commerce of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. The position of North America as a receiver of exports from Texas ports was far below that of Europe and was subject to widespread fluctuations. In 1920, while shipments to restore Europe were in progress, exports to North America fell to 12 per cent of the Texas total even though the value of exports to North America was 96.7 million dollars. The economic and political pressures lay in the opposite direction in 1940 when war activities in Europe directed a larger percentage of the foreign trade to the North American continent. In the latter year Texas ports had exports of merchandise valued at 74.1 million dollars to the North American continent which represented 26 per cent of the total exports over Texas ports. From a meager 1.8 million dollar trade in 1900, the continent of Asia increased the value of merchandise receipts to 62.5 million dolz 147 lars in 1930 and 40.0 million dollars in 1940- Percentage wise, Asia imported approximately 2 per cent of the export value from Texas ports in 1900 but 11 per cent in 1930 and 14 per cent in 1940. This increase crowded the position of North America, particularly in 1930. Very little if any trade from Texas ports entered the continents of South America, Oceania, and Africa at the beginning of the twentieth century. In the case of Oceania and Africa, the volume of exports from Texas ports to either continent did not equal 2 per cent for the years considered. In 1940 Oceania received merchandise from Texas ports valued at 4.8 million dollars as compared to 4.6 million dollars for Africa. In each instance, the value imported by these continents ’was between 1 and 2 per cent of the total exports from Texas ports. South America fared some better than either Oceania or Africa. The value of exports from. Texas ports rose to 15-5 million dollars in 1930 and 9*B million dollars in 1940- These values show marked increases over the 1900 value of less than $lOO,OOO. Relatively, the value of South American imports from Texas ports in 1930 and again in 1940 represented approximately 3 pen cent of the total value for all exports from Texas ports. data compiled by the Traffic Division of Galveston Wharves, Personal interview with G. Z. Koenig, Traffic Assistant, Galveston Wharves, August 21, 1947• 12 + 6 3ee Table XXXIX. The completion of the Panama Canal in 1914 was a major factor in stimulating trade with Asia from "nil” in 1910 to 18.9 million dollars in 1920. (In millions of dollars) Continent Year 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 Europe ... 82.1 135.3 699.8 392.0 156.2 Asia 1.8 nil 18.9 62.5 40.6 North America . . . ... 22.1 31.0 96.7 72.6 74-1 South America .. . ... a 0.2 6.6 15.5 9.8 Oceania nil nil 3.2 3.1 4.8 Africa nil 0.2 6.3 9.3 4.6 To tai ... 106.0 216.7 831.5 555-0 290.1 TABLE XXXIX VALUE OF MERCHANDISE EXPORTED TO CONTINENTS OF FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 Destination of exports by countries. Within the various conti- nents, individual countries showed marked differences in importance as importers of merchandise from Texas ports. In the continent of Europe, the three countries of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany were more prominent in this respect than the countries of Spain, Netherlands, Italy, and Belgium which received important but lesser values. Other countries receiving relatively insignificant proportions of the 148 total were Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and Russia of Europe. On trie whole, the United Kingdom has been the greatest consistent receiver of exports from Texas ports in the twentieth century. Prior to World War I, Germany’s imports from Texas ports exceeded those for France and closely trailed the lead of the United Kingdom. For example in 1910, Germany’s importation of merchandise valued at 58-5 mil- a Less than $lOO,OOO. of Europe. Source of data: United States 'Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Com, merce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. lion dollars was double the 29-1 million dollar value imported by France and was only 4-3 million dollars under that for the United Kingdom. Following World War I, the United Kingdom in .1920 imported over half of the 699-9 million dollars in imports of Europe from Texas ports. Exports to France were valued at 95-2 million which nearly doubled the 57-3 million dollars in exports going to rebuild the German economy. Even Italy with imports of 58.8 million dollars exceeded those for Germany in that year. Particularly marked gains were made by Spain and Belgium, each of which had imports from Texas ports of less than 6 million dollars in 1910 but more than quintupled the 1910 figure in 1920. The sharp decline in export values to European countries from 699-9 million dollars in 1920 to 392.0 million dollars in 1930 was largely due to the 299-2 million dollar decline for the United Kingdom In that same year both France and Germany slightly exceeded the 85-0 million dollar importation of the United Kingdom. Values for Belgium, Italy, and Spain in .1930 declined markedly as compared to 1920 while the Netherlands made a sharp increase in imports of merchandise from Texas ports. By 1940 the influence of World War II had curtailed the exports of Texas ports to Europe. No important European country imported from Texas as much in 1940 as in 1930. Germany received none of the exports in 1940 while France, Belgium, and the Netherlands imported less in that year than one-third the 1930 value. Ilie United Kingdom ac- counted for imports valued at 77-2 million dollars or 49 per cent of the 156.2 million dollars imported by Europe from Texas ports in 1940 The loss of European markets during the Second World War was a primary factor in the decline of exports from Texas ports during the period 1940 through 1945- Likewise the tremendous shipments of grain, 14° fertilizer, coal, ' carbon black, sulphur, cotton, petroleum products, machinery, and vehicles to Europe since the end of the war has been the principal factor in surpassing the pre-war value of foreign trade over Texas ports. On the North American continent, Mexico imported more merchandise from Texas ports than all other countries combined. In 1900 Mexico imported 95 pen cent of the 22.0 million dollar importation by the North American continent. This great concentration tended to decline as the twentieth century developed. Mexico imported 73 per cent of the exports from Texas ports to North American countries in 1930 but z 150 only 60 per cent in 1940. Cuba and Canada were the only other countries in North America receiving appreciable exports from Texas ports. By 1900 Cuba was already a factor in this trade while as late as 1910 exports from Texas a Less than $lOO,OOO. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign. Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. ports to Canada were less than $lOO,OOO. Nevertheless, exports to Canada closely paralleled exports to Cuba in 1930 and 1940. In 1930 Cuba received merchandise from. Texas ports valued at 4.9 million dollars while Canada received merchandise valued at 5.0 million dollars. In 1940 Cuba imported the larger value of 11.5 million dollars as compared to 10.0 million dollars for Canada. Even though the ’’open door” policy in China hud been enunciated in 1399, the trade of Texas ports with Asia did not gain importance until after the completion of the Panama Canal in 1914- In 1920 Tapan, China, British India, and Hong Kong were all importing products from Texas ports. In that year Japan led with imports valued at 7.6 million dollars and increased the lead with importations valued at 41-2 million dollars in 1930 and 28.3 million dollars in 1940. In comparison, China ranked second with imports from Texas ports valued at 6.1 million dollars in 1920; 16.0 million dollars in 1930; and 6.6 million dollars in 1940. British India received merchandise valued between 3 and 4 million dollars from Texas ports in each of the years 1920, 1930, and 1940 while Hong Kong received merchandise valued at approximately 1 million dollars in 1920 and 1930 but decreased to less than $lOO,OOO 151 in 1940. The small export trade with South America has been confined largely to countries facing the east coast of South innerica and the Caribbean Sea. Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia were the more important although Uruguay, Venezuela, and Chile imported small values of a Less than $lOO,OOO. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. a Less than $lOO,OOO. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. the exports from Texas ports. For the years 1920, 1930, and 1940, Brazil led with values ranging from 3.6 to 8.2 million dollars while Argentina was second with values ranging from 1.9 to 4*4 million dollars. The value of Colombian imports from Texas ports has shown increasing strength in recent decades, reaching 1.6 million dollars in 1940. While Uruguay showed imports of merchandise from Texas ports valued at 1.2 million dollars in 1930, this country like Venezuela and Chile tended to receive less than one-half million dollars in merchandise. The whole of the remaining countries of South America received merchandise valued at less 152 than a million dollars from Texas ports. No country on the continent of Africa received exports from Texas ports in 1900. The receipts were small in 1910 when merchandise valued at 187 thousand dollars was exported to this continent. Of this amount, British South Africa received the value of 104 thousand dollars or 56 per cent of the total. British South Africa continued to lead in 1920, 1930, and 1940, receiving 30 per cent or more of the total received by the continent. Egypt showed strength in receiving merchandise valued at 1.5 million dollars from Texas ports in 1920 but the value declined to 0.6 million dollars in 1930 and 0.3 million dollars in 1940. Other African countries did not consistently import large values of merchandise from Texas ports. a Less than $lOO,OOO. Source of data: United States 'Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. a Less than $lOO,OOO. Source of data: United States 'Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. For the continent of Oceania, Australia and New Zealand were the principal receivers of Texas exports. As late as 1910 the whole of Oceania received less than $lOO,OOO in exports from Texas ports, all of which entered Australia. This country continued to lead, importing two-thirds or more of the imports of the continent from Texas ports in 1920, 1930, and 1940. New Zealand has shown a growing tendency to import from Texas ports and in 1940 imported merchandise valued at 1.6 million as compared to 3-2 million dollars for Australia. Other parts of Oceania have not shovm any tendency to import merchandise from Texas ports. In reviewing all. the countries which have received imports from Texas ports, 4 countries stand out inasmuch as each received 10 per cent or- more of these exports except in years influenced by the world wars. These countries were the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Mexico. Each of the three additional countries of Japan, Italy, and Spain received 4 per cent to 10 per cent of the total in 1930 and 1940 Though usually importing lesser quantities, the countries of Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, Cuba, China, Brazil, and Sweden deserve men-155 tion for substantial importation from Texas ports. The first 4 countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Mexico, consumed 85-9 per cent of the value of the exports from Texas ports in 1900, 75.8 per cent in 1920, and 50.0 per cent in 1940. In the latter year Germany received none of the exports from a Less than Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. were based on value of merchandise. than 0.1 per cent. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. Texas ports. In addition shipping difficulties reduced the supplies to France. Mexico on the other hand enhanced her position as an importer from Texas ports during World War II as compared to 1930- As the twentieth century progressed, other countries increased or began importations from Texas ports which reduced the relative importance of the four major importing countries. In 1900 Italy did not import any merchandise from Texas ports while Spain had less than 4100,000 and Tapan, 1.8 million dollars in imports from Texas ports. By 1930 the importation from Texas ports was valued at 41*2 million dollars in Japan, 34-6 million dollars for Italy, and 22.1 million dollars for Spain. In that year these three countries received 17.6 per cent as compared to less than 2 per cent in 1900 of the total exports from Texas ports. The relative position was even greater in 1940 when 19.5 per cent of all exports from Texas ports entered ports in these three countries. A survey of the customs districts handling the shipments to foreign countries indicates certain patterns of routes were followed. For 156 example the Laredo and El Paso customs districts handled over 93 per cent of all the merchandise sent to Mexico in 1930 and 1940. The Laredo Customs District alone accounted for 31 per cent of the total in both 1930 and 1940. Consequently land routes, principally by Laredo, are the major avenues by which exports reach Mexico, one of 157 the four major countries receiving exports from Texas ports. a The name of the present Laredo Customs District was San Antonio in 1930. Source of data: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1930. a Less than $lOO,OOO. Source of data: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 194-0. With an inland location adjacent only to the Mexican border, the El Paso Customs District had few if any shipments destined for countries other than Mexico. In 1930 all shipments from the El Paso Customs District were sent directly to Mexico. With the exception of "less than $100,000" in merchandise exported to the United Kingdom and to "all other countries" in 1940, Mexico again received all exports from the El Paso Customs District. The Laredo Customs District had at least one deep-water outlet in both 1930 and 1940. Consequently, the Laredo Customs District had other than land routes over which exports could be sent. In 1930 when Corpus Christi was a deep-water port in the Laredo Customs District, merchandise valued at 35-7 million dollars was shipped to destinations 159 other than Mexico. The United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan each received merchandise valued between 5-3 and 9-5 million dollars in 1930. Smaller values of merchandise were shipped to Italy, Spain, and "other ports." With the inactivity of the Port of Corpus Christi and the loss of trade with Germany in 1940, the shipments from the Laredo Customs District were largely directed toward Mexico. The whole of the shipments to countries other than Mexico in 1940 were valued at 3-3 million dollars or 8 per cent of the total exports for the district. Less than SIOO,OOO worth of merchandise was sent to the United Kingdom while Japan received merchandise valued at 1.1 million dollars. The remaining merchandise valued at 2.2 million dollars was exported to ’’all other” countries. Exportations from the Galveston Customs District have been directed mainly toward countries in Europe and Japan. The five princi-160 pal receiving countries m Europe accounted for 67 per cent of the exports from the Galveston Customs District in 1930 and 54 per cent in 1940. Japan alone received 8 per cent of the exports from the Galveston Customs District in 1930 and 13 per cent in 1940. Consequently the Galveston Customs District, which accounted for a greater proportion of the exports of Texas ports than the other three combined, looked across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe as the market for the major portion of the exports and secondarily to Japan via the Panama Canal and Pacific Ocean. While the Sabine Customs District had trade with all the five principal receiving countries of Europe and Japan, the concentration of the exports to these countries was not so great as for the Galveston Customs District. The five principal receiving countries of Europe imported only 41 per cent of the 66.4 million dollars in exports from the Sabine Customs District in 1930 and 50 per cent of the 51 • 8 mil- lion dollars in exports in 1940. Inasmuch as Japan and Mexico also received small values of the exports from the Sabine Customs District, approximately half of the trade of the Sabine District was with countries other than the seven principal countries receiving exports from Texas ports. In 1940 a number of countries received the remaining exports from the Sabine Customs District which were valued at 22.5 thousand dollars. Some of the more important include Cuba which received exports valued at 3-7 million dollars; Brazil, 2.9 million dollars; Canada, 2.5 million dollars; British South Africa, 1.7 million dollars; Netherlands, 1.0 million dollars; Argentina, 1.0 million dollars; and Belgium, 0.9 million 161 dollars. In resume, cargoes from Texas ports have crossed in the main the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the land routes into Mexico. Whether Germany, Tapan, and Italy will resume their positions as importers after World War II is yet to be seen. Nevertheless, indications are that once again these countries are to become moderately strong industrial nations. Should this industrialization materialize, the use of exports from Texas ports should be resumed unless the pattern of the industrialization either at home or abroad alters the previously established exchange process. 148 See Table IX. was loaded at various ports in 1946 and 1947 to meet the fuel needs particularly of European countries. Railroads granted reductions "on export coal" from "Oklahoma coal mines and also from northern Mexico mines." On August 19, 1947, personal observation was made of coal being loaded at Houston for destinations in France and Belgium. Corpus Christi was loading coal out to Sweden, Finland, and other European countries in 1946. Corpus Christi Port Book, June, 1946, p. 49. Table XLI for source of data. Table XLII 1^2 See Table XLIII. 153 >J See Table XLIV. 1^4 See Table XLV. 155 Tables XLVI and XLVII. San Antonio Customs District in 1930- 1^7 See Tables XLVIII and XLIX. 153 ' In 1930 Corpus Christi was a deep-water port assigned to the San Antonio Customs District which was later called the Laredo Customs District. Though Corpus Christi had been assigned to the Galveston Customs District by 1940, the Port of Brownsville in the meantime had been developed into a deep-water port. 139 rp ne importance of the exports of Corpus Christi in 1930 is indicated by the relatively large shipments of cotton made from that port. During the 1929-30 cotton season, 373,510 bales were exported while >27,927 bales in the 1930-31 cotton season were exported. Corpus Christi Port Book, June, 1946, pp. 47-48- United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain were the five principal receiving countries of Europe. (In millions of dollars) Country of Europe Year 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 Belgium .... 4-6 5-3 29.0 19.1 5.2 France .... 16.2 29.1 95.2 89.6 23.4 Germany .... 25.3 58.5 57.3 87.5 nil Italy .... nil 13.0 58.8 34.6 13.9 Netherlands .... 6.2 3.5 14.O 24.6 4-5 Norway .... nil c.6 1.9 1.7 1.1 Portugal .... nil 0.2 1.1 3.3 2.2 Spain . . . . a 5.9 35-2 22.1 14.3 Sweden .... nil 0.4 8.4 7-7 2.7 Switzerland .... nil nil 5.3 a 1.6 Russia 0 United Kingdom . . .... nil . ... 28.4 2.6 62.8 nil 384.2 0.3 85.0 .6.6 77.2 All Other .... 1.3 3-5 9-5 16.5 3.5 Total .... 82.1 185-4 699.9 392.0 156.2 TABLE XL VALUE OF MERCHANDISE EXPORTED TO COUNTRIES IN EUROPE FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 (In millions of dollars) Country Year of North America 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 Canada nil a 1.0 5.0 10.0 Newfoundland nil a a 0.2 0.1 Mexico 21.0 26.5 86.2 56.7 44.8 Cuba . 1.0 4-3 7.5 4.9 11.5 All Other . a a 1.9 5.8 7.7 Total . 22.0 31.0 96.7 72.6 74.1 TABLE XLI VALUE OF MERCHANDISE EXPORTED TO COUNTRIES IN NORTH AMERICA FROM UNITED SPATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 (In millions of dollars) Country of Asia Year 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 British India .. .... nil nil 3.2 3-4 3-3 China .... nil nil 6.1 16.0 6.6 Hong Kong . . . . nil nil 1.1 0.9 a Japan . . . . 1.8 nil 7.6 41.2 28.3 All Other .... nil nil 0.9 1.0 2.4 . 1 IM ■ .1 1 ■1 1 ■ ■— 11 Total .... 1.8 nil 18.9 62.5 40.6 TABLE XLII VALUE OF MERCIIANDISE EXPORTED TO COUNTRIES IN ASIA FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 (In millions of dollars) Country of Year South America 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 Chile nil nil nil 0.4 0.2 Argentina 0.1 2.0 4.4 1.9 Brazil nil nil 3.6 8.2 4-7 Colombia nil nil 0.3 0.7 1.6 Uruguay nil nil 0.5 1.2 0.3 Venezuela nil a a 0.5 0.4 All Other nil a 0.2 0.1 0.7 Total a 0.2 6.6 15.5 9.8 TABLE XLIII VALUE OF MERCHANDISE EXPORTED TO COUNTRIES IN SOUTH AMERICA FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AID 1940 (In millions of dollars) Country of Africa Year 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 British South . zlfrica . . . .... nil 0.1 2.1 2.8 2.2 Egypt . . . nil nil 1.5 0.6 0.3 All Other .... ’••• nil a 2.7 5.9 2.1 Total .... .. . nil 0.2 6.3 9.3 4.6 TABLE XLIV VALUE OF MERCHANDISE EXPORTED TO COUNTRIES IN AFRICA FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 (In millions of dollars) Country of Year Oceania 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 Australia nil a 2.5 2.4 3-2 New Zealand .... nil nil 0.1 0.7 1.6 All Other nil nil 0.6 nil nil Total nil a 3.2 3.1 4.8 TABLE XLV VALUE OF MERCHANDISE EXPORTED TO COUNTRIES IN OCEANIA FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 (In millions of dollars) Country Year 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 United Kingdom ... .... 28.4 62.8 384.2 85.O 77.2 France .... 16.3 29.1 95-2 89.6 23.3 Germany .... 25.3 58.5 57-3 87.5 nil Mexico .... 21.0 26.5 86.2 56.7 44.8 Japan .... 1.8 nil 7.6 41.2 28.3 Italy 13.0 58.8 34.6 13.9 Spain 5.9 35-2 22.1 14.3 All Other .... 13.2 20.9 107.1 138.3 • 88.3 Total .... 106.0 216.7 831.6 555.0 290.1 TABLE XLVI VALUE OF MERCHANDISE EXPORTED FROL UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS TO PRINCIPAL RECEIVING COUNTRIES FOR TEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 Country Per Cent 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 United Kingdom . . . . ... 26.8 29.0 46.2 15.3 26.6 France .... 1>.4 13.4 11.4 16.1 8.0 Germany ... 23.9 27.0 6.9 15.8 nil Mexico .... 19.8 12.2 10.4 10.2 1S4 Japan .... 1.7 nil 0.9 7.4 9.8 Italy 6.0 7.1 6.2 4.8 Spain b 2.7 4.2 4.0 4-9 All Other ... 12.4 9-7 12.9 25.0 30.5 Total . .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TABLE XLVIII FLECK;TAGES OF MERCHANDISE EXPORTED FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS IHAT WAS EXPORTED 'TO PRINCIPAL RECEIVING COUNTRIES FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 a (In millions of dollars) Customs District Country Sabine Galveston Laredo a El Paso Total United Kingdom . 8.8 70.9 5.3 nil 83.0 'France 10.4 69.7 9.5 nil 89.6 Germany 4.1 75.6 7.8 nil 87.5 Mexico 0.3 0.2 46.O 10.2 56.7 Japan 0.6 34.7 5.8 nil 41.1 Italy 1.4 32.0 1.2 nil 34.6 Spain 2.2 18.3 1.5 nil 22.0 All Other 38.6 95-3 4.6 nil 138.5 Total 66.4 396.7 81.7 10.2 555-0 table xlviii VALUE OF MERCHANDISE EXPORTED FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS TO PRINCIPAL RECEIVING- COUNTRIES, 1930 (In millions of dollars) Country Customs District Sabine Galveston Laredo El Paso Total United Kingdom . . . ... 11.8 65.4 a a 77.2 France ... 4.1 19.3 nil nil 23.4 Germany nil nil nil nil Mexico ... 0.3 0.5 36.2 7.7 44.7 Japan ... 3-1 24.2 1.1 nil 28.4 Italy 1.6 12.3 nil nil 13.9 Spain 8.4 6.0 nil nil 14 • 4 All Other ... 22.5 63.3 2.2 a 88.0 Total ... 51.8 191.0 39-5 7.7 290.0 TABLE XLIX VALUE OF MERCHANDISE EXPORTED FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS TO PRINCIPAL RECEIVING COUNTRIES, 1940 Comparison with coastal regions. Much attention has been devoted to analyzing the export movement from the ports of Texas without comparing the performance of these ports with other areas and ports of the United States. In the following discussion such a comparison is 1 2 made between the ports of Texas and those on the Atlantic Coast, 163 the Gulf Coast, ana the Pacific Coast. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Texas ports had exports of merchandise valued at 106.0 million dollars as compared to 963.6 million dollars for the Atlantic Coast, 254-4 million dollars for the Gulf Coast, and 72.2 million dollars for the Pacific Coast. Expressed relatively, the Texas ports had export values which represented 11 per cent of the exports from the Atlantic Coast, 42 per cent "I Li of the Gulf Coast, and 147 per cent of the Pacific Coast. In 1920 export values were enlarged by the inflated price level and increased demands abroad. In that year Texas ports had exports of merchandise valued at 831-6 million dollars as compared to 4-9 billion dollars for the Atlantic Coast, 1.7 billion dollars for the Gulf Coast, and 511-2 million dollars for the Pacific Coast. For comparative purposes, the value of the exports from Texas ports in 1920 represented 17 per cent of the value of the exports from the Atlantic Coast, 49 per cent of the Gulf Coast, and 163 per cent of the Pacific Coast. By 1930 Texas ports had exports of merchandise valued at 530.5 a lncludes re-exports. year ending June 30. G lncludes data for Columbus, New Mexico, beginning with 1914 and Lake Charles, Louisiana, beginning with 1930. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States, January-December, 1947, May, 1948. . million dollars which represented 31 per cent of the value exported by the Atlantic Coast, 6? per cent of the Gulf Coast, and 123 per cent of the Pacific Coast. As compared to 1920 the value of exports from Texas ports had made a 14 per cent gain over the value of exports from the Atlantic Coast, 18 per cent gain over the Gulf Coast, but a 40 per cent loss as compared to the Pacific Coast. The submarine menace in the Gulf and the loss of Germany, France, Italy, and Spain as principal importing countries markedly decreased the relative standing of Texas ports during the Second World War. This adjustment had begun by 1940 when Germany was no longer importing from Texas ports. In that year Texas ports had 290.1 million dollars worth of exports, representing 12 per cent of the value of exports from the Atlantic Coast, 55 per cent of the exports from the Gulf Coast, and 80 per cent of the exports from the Pacific Coast. The severe decline in the value of exports from Texas ports in 1940 placed the Pacific Coast ports in advance of the Texas ports. But despite the marked decline for Texas ports in 1940, exports from these ports still did not fall below their 1900 relative level when compared to the Atlantic Coast and the Gulf Coast. That is, the value of the exports from Texas ports in 1900 were 11 per cent of those for the Atlantic Coast as compared to 12 per cent in 1940. Similarly, the value of exports from the ports of Texas represented 42 per cent of the value exported from the Gulf ports in 1900 but 55 per* cent in 1940. With the close of the Second World War a great need has arisen for grain, cotton, oil, and equipment throughout the world. In sup- plying these needs, Texas ports regained the importance lost during the war. Compared to the Atlantic Coast in 1947, the value of exports from Texas ports were 18 per cent of the export value of that coastal region. In the same year exports from Texas ports represented 65 per cent of the value of exports from the Gulf Coast, and 134 per cent of the exports from the Pacific Coast. lol See Tables XLVIII and XLIX. 162 Includes data for the Port of Columbus, Mew Mexico, beginning with 1914 and the Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana, beginning with 1930 Texas ports are not all included in the ports of the G-ulf Coast as the Laredo and El Paso customs districts extend inland whereas the ports of the G-ulf Coast end at Brownsville. Table L. (In millions of dollars) Year Customs Districts Texas Ports 0 Atlantic Coast Gulf Coast Pacific Coast 1900 b 106.0 963-6 254.4 72.2 1910 b 216.7 1,018.1 399.1 73.2 1920 831-6 4,904.6 1,683.5 511.2 1930 550.5 1,800.8 822.4 449-3 1940 290.1 2,374.0 521.7 362.6 1947 1,448.4 7,912.2 2,242.8 1,081.1 TABLE L VALUE OF EXPORTS FROM CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITi HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS, ATLANTIC COAST, GULF COAST, AND PACIFIC COAST OF UNITED STATES FOR XEaRS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940, AND 1947 a Comparison with representative customs districts. After comparing the value of exports from Texas ports to the value of exports from coastal regions, comparisons may also be made with a prominent customs district from each coast. Customs districts chosen include New York on the Atlantic Coast, New Orleans on the Gulf Coast, and San Francisco on the West Coast. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the value of Texas exports was 20 per cent of the 518.8 million dollar export trade of the New York Customs District; 91 per cent of the 115.9 million dollar export trade for the New Orleans Customs District; and 263 per cent of the 40.4 million dollar export trade for the San .Francisco Customs District. Particularly significant was the smaller value of exports from the whole of the Texas ports in 1900 than from the single customs dis-165 trict of New Orleans. J By 1910 the value of exports from Texas ports more than doubled the value for 1900 and exceeded the value of exports from the New Orleans Customs District by 76.4 million dollars. Also the value of exports from the New York Customs District was increased only 26 per a lncludes re-exports. year ending June 30. c lncludes data for Columbus, New Mexico, beginning with 1920 and Lake Charles, Louisiana, beginning with 1930. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. cent over 1900 compared to a 105 per cent increase for Texas ports while exports for the San Francisco Customs District suffered a de cline of 23 per cent. Data for 1920 show the value of exports from Texas ports was still in excess of the value of exports for the New Orleans Customs District and over three times the value of the exports from the San Francisco Customs District. However, the value of exports from the New/- York Customs District since 1910 has increased relatively more than the value of exports from Texas ports. Nevertheless, the value of exports from Texas ports in 1920 was 25 per cent of the 3-3 billion dollar export value for the New York Customs District or 5 per cent greater than the 20 per cent ratio in 1900. The value of exports from all of the customs districts considered dropped in 1930 with the decline in world-wide business activity. For this year the value of exports from Texas ports was 40 per cent of the 1.4 billion dollar export value for the New York Customs District, 203 per cent of the 273-4 million dollar export value for the New Orleans Customs District, and 376 per cent of the 147-6 million dollar value for the San Francisco Customs District. That is, in 1930? Texas ports were doing more than twice the export trade of the New Orleans Customs District, nearly four times the export trade of the San Francisco Customs District, and two-fifths the foreign trade of the New 1, York Customs District. In 1940 the value of the export trade from the New York Customs District alone showed a gain over 1930- The protection given shipping from the Fort of New York was one of the major reasons. Expressed relatively, the value of the exports from Texas ports in 1940 was equivalent to only 15 per cent of the export value from the New York Customs District or 5 per cent less than in 1900. Also, the value of exports from Texas ports in 1940 represented a smaller percentage of the value of exports from the San Francisco Customs District than in 1900. In 1940 Texas ports had exports valued at 255 per cent of the export value for the San Francisco Customs District as compared to 263 per cent in 1900. Though the value of exports from Texas ports declined relative to the New Orleans Customs District, the Texas ports did not fall below the New Orleans Customs District in value of exports as in the year of 1900. While data by ports were not available for 1947, the data by coastal regions for this year show Texas ports to have made a marked recovery since the Second World War, indicating the slump in 1940 was a temporary one. Should Texas ports follow the trend in the post-war years similar to that of the pre-war years, these ports will increase their position relative to that of the New York, New Orleans, and San Francisco customs districts. 166 Re-exports from Texas ports. The value of re-exports over Texas ports has fluctuated rather widely since 1900. In 1905 the reexports from Texas ports were valued at 1.0 million dollars as compared to 691 thousand dollars in 1900. But in 1910 the values of reexports had declined to 255 thousand or less than one-half the 1900 167 figure. A large value of 4.6 million dollars in re-exports was recorded for Texas ports in 1920 but the value was only 375 thousand dollars in 1930. Once again the re-export pendulum swung upward to increase the re-exports to 2.7 million dollars in 1940, indicating the variable character of the movement. Compared to the total export movement from Texas ports, the reexport movement was small. In 1900 the re-exports valued at 691 thousand dollars represented less than 1 per cent of the 106.0 million dollars in total exports. Even when the re-exports were valued at 4-6 million dollars in 1920, this value still represented less than 1 per cent of the 831.6 million dollars in total exports for the year. The same percentage of less than 1 per cent continued to apply in the years 1930 and 1940. The re-exportation from Texas ports did not account for as large a percentage of the exports as was true for all other ports of the United States. For example the national re-exports in 1900 were valued at 23.7 million dollars and represented 1.7 per cent of the total exports for the nation in that year. Later the re-exports of the na- a For year ending June 30. b Not designated as a customs district for this year. c Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. $Le ss than $5,000. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 19'20, 1930, 1940. ’ ' tion accounted for 2.0 per cent of the total national exports in 1910; 1.8 per cent in 1920; 1.6 per cent in 1930; and 2.2 per cent in 1940- Inasmuch as the re-exports from Texas ports were ’’less than 1 per cent” of the total exports over Texas ports, the national re-exportation consistently bore a larger ratio to the total value of exports for the nation. jin examination of the re-exportation by customs districts reveals those customs districts with land ports on the Mexican border tended to account for the major portion of the re-exportation over Texas ports. In 1900 the El Paso Customs District alone accounted for 416 thousand of the 691 thousand dollars in re-exports from Texas ports. In the same year the Galveston Customs District had re-exports valued at only 50 thousand dollars. Although the Laredo and El Paso customs districts continued to move the major portion of the re-exports from Texas ports, the Galveston Customs District had an unusually large value for re-exports in 1920. In that year the re-exports from the Galveston Customs District were valued at 2.1 million dollars while the Laredo and El Paso customs districts accounted for 2.5 million dollars in reexports. Re-exports from the Sabine Customs District were less than jOOO in this same year. Re-export data for 1930 showed the El Paso Customs District lead' ing with a value of 188 thousand dollars in this trade. Other reexport values for the other customs districts included 160 thousand dollars for Laredo, 26 thousand dollars for Galveston, and less than 5 thousand dollars for Sabine. In 1940 when the re-export movement had increased in value to 2.75 million dollars, the Laredo Customs District led with re-exports valued at 1.52 million dollars. The Galveston Customs District was second with 826 thousand dollars; El Paso, third with 397 thousand dollars; and the Sabine Customs District did not have any re-exports of record. While data for public release did not reveal the nature of the re-export movement, three sources are believed to account for the major portion of this trade. 'First, a minor source arose from a rather steady flow of equipment and machinery, moving to the land border 163 ports for repair and re-exportation. ' A second and major source was the importation of ores of lead, copper, and antimony which were later re-exported as refined metal. United States Customs bonded warehouses are maintained at Laredo and El Paso to serve this trade. At the El Paso Smelting Works in El Paso, a United States Customs bonded warehouse is maintained with a United States Customs store-169 keeper in charge. Weights of lead and copper can be re-exported which are equivalent to the weights received in ore imported from Mexico subject to a 99 per cent drawback if import duties have been 170 paid. A similar arrangement is maintained at Laredo where lead and antimony ores are refined and re-exported in part. A third source of re-exports arises from the regular importation of commodities at various points in the United States which in turn are re-exported at the ports of Texas. The explanation for this procedure is as follows: In the case of non-dutiable commodities, there is little incentive to handle a movement through the United States in the form of an in-transit shipment. Rather than have the commodity retained in Customs custody while it is in transit from one foreign country to another, it is frequently easier to enter the goods through Customs at the time the goods enter the country and to handle the shipment out of the country as a reexport. Merchandise originating in Canada and European countries enter the northern and eastern ports to be re-exported at the southern land ports to Mexico or by water to countries in the Caribbean area. The development of re-export trade at water ports usually is found where ports become terminals for receiving and dispensing goods to other ports of the world. Texas water ports are relatively isolated from the cross currents of world traffic. In addition much of the cargo from the ports are direct shipments in which full loads of cargo of such items as oil, sulphur, wheat, and cotton go directly to foreign ports. The large volume of the direct oil shipments and the geographical isolation from ocean routes are the primary factors ac- counting for the negligible re-export trade from the Sabine Customs District. Relative to the export trade handled, the ports of New York and San Francisco have much larger values of re-exports than Texas ports. For example, the export value from New York in 1900 was approximately five times the value of exports from Texas ports. Yet the re-export value from New York was over 1$ times that for the Texas ports. In 1940 the ratio was even larger in favor of the New York re-exports. In that year the New York export value was approximately seven times that for Texas ports while the re-export value for New York was over 172 17 times that for Texas ports. Also, the Port of San Francisco showed a greater tendency to reexport than did the ports of Texas. In each of the years 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930, the exports over Texas ports were two or more times larger than exports for the Port of San Francisco. Yet, in each of these years the value of re-exports from San Francisco exceeded that for the Texas ports. In 1940 this relationship was reversed in that Texas ports had re-exports valued, at over three times that for San Francisco while the exports from Texas ports were valued at less than three times that for San Francisco. With the exception of 1910 New Orleans also had a greater ratio of re-exports to the total exports than was true for Texas ports. The exception occurred in 1910 when New Orleans had re-exports valued at a For year ending June 30. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. only 73 thousand dollars as compared to 255 thousand dollars for Texas ports. Normally, re-exports from New Orleans were of greater value than those for Texas ports even though the export value from Texas ports exceeded those for New Orleans. But in 1940 when re-exports from New Orleans were valued at only 1.88 million dollars as compared to 2.75 million dollars for Texas ports, New Orleans still had a larger ratio of re-exports to exports than did Texas ports. 16 >See Table LI. °Re-exports or exports of foreign merchandise are defined as follows: ’’Exports of foreign merchandise include commodities of foreign origin which have entered the United States as imports and which, at the time of exportation, are in the same condition as when imported Included in the figures on exports of foreign merchandise is information on imported merchandise withdrawn from bonded storage warehouses for exportations.” Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1944, Vol. I, Section A, p. XIII. 167 'Data secured from Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States and Commerce and Navigation of the United States. Resume is given in Table LII. 1 In an 31 Paso warehouse, the writer observed a number of refrigerators which were being re-exported after required repairs had been made. Such entries for repair and re-exportation were common for various types of machines. with Alfred J. J. Taylor, Assistant Collector, El Paso Customs District, August 4, 1943. 170 As of August 4, 1948, importations of copper and lead were temporarily duty free. Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1944, Vol. I, Sec. A, p. XX. 172 ' See Tables LI and. LIU for basic data used in comparisons. (In millions of dollars) Customs Districts Texas New New San Year Ports 0 York Orleans Francisco 1900 b 106.0 518.8 115.9 40.4 1910 b 216.8 652.0 140.4 31.2 1920 831.6 3,283.9 712.4 225.8 1930 555-0 1,384-3 273.4 147.6 1940 290.1 1,944.9 223.4 113.7 table li VALUE OF EFFORTS FROM CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS Di TEXAS, NW YORK, NEU ORLEANS, AND SAN FRANCISCO BY DECADES, 1900-194O a (In millions of dollars) Customs District Year 1900 a 19io a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b nil d d nil Galveston ... 0.05 0.02 2.13 0.03 0.83 Laredo e b b 0.98 0.16 1.52 El Paso ... 0.42 0.11 1.49 0.19 0.40 Corpus Christi ... 0.10 d b b b Erazos de Santiago . . . ... 0.04 d b b b Saluria ••• Q-°8 0.12 b _b b Texas Total ••• 0-69 0.26 4.60 0.38 2.75 U. S. Total ... 23.72 34.90 147.54 62.01 86.97 TABLE LU VALUE OF EXPORTS OF FOREIGN MERCHANDISE (RE-EXPORTS) FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS AND FROM ALL UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS FOR DECADES, 1900-1940 (In millions of dollars) Year Customs Districts Texas New York New Orleans San Francisco 1900 a 0.69 10.90 1.20 0.88 1910 a 0.26 17.70 0.07 O.65 1920 4.60 79.09 5.97 5.57 1930 0.3S 26.11 1.08 1.54 1940 2.75 46.94 1.88 0.87 TABLE LIII VALUE OF EXPORTS OF FOREIGN MERCHANDISE (RE-EXPORTS) FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS AND FROM CUSTOMS DISTRICTS OF NEW YORK, NW ORLEANS, AND SAN FRANCISCO FOR DECADES 1900-1940 MERCHANDISE SHIPPED IN-TRANSIT AND TRANSSHIPPED The legal aspects of shipping in-transit and transshipping. In the United States, provision is made by law for foreign merchandise to pass through the United States en route to a foreign country without 173 the payment of United States duties. Such merchandise is said to be "in-transit" and "remains in Customs custody or under bond at all times while in the United States." In presenting data on in-transit movements, the United States Department of Commerce also includes "transshipments within a port as well as in-transit shipments between 174 United States seaports or border ports." Transshipments occur when foreign merchandise is transferred from one vessel to another in a port of the United States for immediate shipment to a foreign country. If the goods must be entered into a bonded customs warehouse awaiting transportation or smelting in bond, the merchandise is not recorded as transshipped but imported awaiting re-exportation at a later date. An exception is made if the merchan-175 dise is stored in a General Order warehouse awaiting transportation inasmuch as the items are not recorded as an import at the time of en-176 try into the General Order warehouse. In recording the data for transshipments and in-transit shipments credit is given the customs district where such shipments leave the United States. Published data do not include a break-down by customs districts showing the country of origin, the country of destination, and the commodities moved in this trade. Usually non-dutiable commodities passing through the United States will not be recorded with the in-transit shipments inasmuch as "it is frequently easier to enter the goods through Customs at the time the goods enter the country and to handle the shipment out of the country as a reexport.” On the other hand, commodities passing through the United States and subject to the 177 payment of duties will usually appear in the "in-transit figures.” May 21, 1900, the Revised Statutes of the United States were amended to read as follows: ’’See. 300$. All merchandise arriving at any port of the United States destined for any foreign country may be entered at the custom house, and conveyed, in transit, through the territory of the United States, without the payment of duties, under such regulations as to examination and transportation as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe.” United States Statutes at Large, XXXI, 181. 174 foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1943, Vol. I, pp. XVII-XVIII. 175 Order warehouses are premises ’’owned or leased by the United States government and used for the storage of merchandise undergoing examination by the appraiser, under seizure, or pending final release from customs custody." Frank Henius, Dictionary of Foreign Trade, p. 488. Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1943, Vol. I, pp. XVII-XVIII. , 1930, pp. V, 500; 1940, P. 915; 1943, Vol. I, pp. XVIIXVIII. The flow of merchandise in-transit and transshipped. Since 1900 the importance of merchandise shipped in-transit and transshipped from Texas ports has been growing in total value and in relation to the 178 total exports from Texas ports. Transshipped and in-transit merchandise valued at only 0.7 million dollars entered foreign countries from Texas ports in 1900, a value less than 1 per cent of the exports for that year. By 1930 the value had increased to 12.7 million dollars and was equal to 2.3 per cent of the value of exports. While a lower value of 9«1 million dollars was moved in-transit and transshipped via Texas ports in 1940, this value was equivalent to 3»2 per 179 cent of the total exports from Texas ports. In addition the trend is for Texas ports to handle an increasing proportion of the national value of products moved in-transit and transshipped. Texas ports moved only 0.7 per cent of the national value of merchandise moved in-transit and transshipped in 1900, 4-3 per cent in 1930, and 3-2 per cent in 1940. This rise in the proportion for Texas ports occurred despite an increase in the value of national transshipments and movements in-transit from 93.6 million dollars in 19'00 to 283-9 million dollars in 1940. The major portion of the merchandise moved in-transit or transshipped from. Texas ports in 1900 was via the El Paso Customs District, indicating at least 0.45 million of 0.73 million dollars of this mer- a For fiscal year ending June 30. designated as a customs district for this year. G Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. d Less than 45,000. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. chandise reached Mexico. By 1910 the Corpus Christi Customs District handled the major portion of this movement while the El Paso and Galveston customs districts handled the principal portion of the remainder For both 1920 and 1930 the Galveston and Laredo customs districts handled over 99 per cent of the value of merchandise moved from Texas ports in-transit or transshipped. The Galveston Customs District led in 1920 with shipments valued at 1.8 million dollars while the Laredo Customs District had a greater margin in 1930 with shipments valued at 10.3 million dollars. In both years the Sabine Customs District had no part in the movement while the El Paso Customs District moved less than 1 per cent of the total. The importance of customs districts in the value of goods moved in-transit and transshipped was again readjusted in 1940 when the Galveston Customs District ranked first in moving merchandise valued at 4.7 million dollars; El Paso, second, with a value of 2.6 million dollars; Laredo, third, with a value of 1.8? million dollars; and Sabine, fourth, with a value of less than Wile the data for publication do not record the source and destination of merchandise shipped in-transit and transshipped, shipments from the El Paso Customs District must enter Mexico while the major portion of the movement from the Laredo Customs District likewise enters Mexico. However, movement from the Galveston and Sabine customs districts could be for destinations throughout the world. Furthermore, in the case of transshipments at the water ports, the cargo may never have touched United States soil but was transferred from one vessel to another. Many of the items moved in-transit at Texas ports come from Canada, Mexico, or other foreign countries via New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The traffic from the Port of Nev; York is particularly heavy and diverse in nature while Canada originates ’’machinery, cereals, clothing and woolen goods” which moves in-transit through Texas ports. Merchandise received in San Francisco and Los Angeles 180 is regularly shipped in-transit to Mexico via El Paso. Merchandise from Mexico also moves in quantity in-transit from border ports to ocean ports of Texas. Cotton from Mexico entering along the border from Brownsville to El Paso is moved in bond to the water ports located along the Texas Coast from Brownsville to Houston for entrance into foreign trade channels. To comply with the sanitation laws of the United States, the cotton must be fumigated at the border or compressed in high-density bales at the first opportunity. Cotton entering at or near Brownsville can be fumigated and compressed in the high-density presses located at that point. In 1947 this 181 cotton was destined for Prance and other European countries. The Port of Hidalgo also received cotton from Mexico which was compressed at Harlingen (Texas) before continuing in-transit to ”Cor-182 pus Christi or Houston” for movement abroad. Among other ports receiving cotton from Mexico for in-transit shipment to Texas water ports were El Paso, Fabens, Eagle Pass, and Laredo. In each instance 183 fumigation facilities were available at the ports. Although not recorded as an in-transit movement for the Texas ports, a number of items, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables, move in-transit from ports on the Mexican border to Canada. Fresh tomatoes, strawberries, lettuce, and onions are prominent among the goods moving in-transit to Canada. In addition chewing gum produced in Monterrey and Mexico City moved in quantity through the United States to Canada in 1947 as well as to various points in the United 184 States. In value of merchandise moved in-transit and transshipped, Texas ports surpass the customs districts of New Orleans and San Francisco while falling far below the New York Customs District in this respect. In 1940 the value of this movement was 193-6 million dollars for the Nev; York Customs District; 1.7 million dollars for the New Orleans Customs District; 2.5 million dollars for the San Francisco Customs 185 District; and 9-1 million dollars for Texas ports. While the movement from Texas ports is not nearly as large as that for the New York Customs District, the rate of growth has been a For year ending lune 30. klncludes data for Columbus, New Mexico after March 3, 1913 and Lake Charles, Louisiana after November 3, 1930. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. greater. In 1900 the value of merchandise moved in-transit or transshipped from Texas ports equaled only 1.9 per cent of the 33.4 million dollar movement from the New York Customs District. By 1940 the movement from Texas ports was valued at 9«1 million dollars or 4-7 per cent of the value of the same movement from the Nev; York Customs District. The latter percentage relationship existed despite a gain of 15.0 million dollars for the New York Customs District and a loss of 3.6 million dollars for Texas ports in the value of in-transit and transshipment movements from 1930 to 1940. In the above chapter, that portion of the foreign trade since 1900 has been presented which covers the movement of merchandise as exports, in-transit, and by transshipment. The following chapter continues the discussion of the twentieth-century foreign trade by presenting the import movement, the relation of exports and imports, and the port adaptations. on exports, including re-exports, do not include "intransit and trans-shipment merchandise." Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1943, Vol. I, p. XI. Table LIV. 1 d-Q "Personal interviews: A. R. Kahn, Assistant Collector of Customs, Port of Laredo, August 26, 1947; Alfred I. J. Taylor, Assistant Collector of Customs, Fort of El Paso, 1947-1948. 181 Personal interview with A. R. Kahn, Assistant Collector of Customs, Fort of Laredo, August 26, 1947- 182 Personal interview with John L. Cross, Acting Deputy Collector of Customs, Fort of Hidalgo, August 27, 1947- principal menace eradicated by fumigation is the pink boll worm. ° interviews: John L. Cross, Acting Deputy Collector of Customs, Port of Hidalgo, August 27, 1947; A. R. Kahn, Assistant Collector of Customs, Port of Laredo, August 26, 1947- 185 Table LV. (In millions of dollars) Customs District Year 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine .. . b nil nil nil d Galveston ... 0.10 0.62 1.81 2.39 4.66 Laredo 0 b b 1.23 10.30 1.87 El Paso ... O.45 0.76 0.01 d 2.57 Corpus Christi .... nil 2.67 b b b Brazos de Santiago nil 0.01 b b b Saluria ... 0.18 0.32 b b b Texas Total ... ... 0.73 4-3S 3.05 12.69 9.10 U. S. Total . . . •98.55 150.40 266.21 263.57 283.85 TABLE LIV VALUE OF FOREIGN, MERCHANDISE SHIPPED IN-TRANSIT AND TRANSSHIPPED FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS HID FROM ML UNITED' STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS FOR DECADES 1900-1940 (In millions of dollars) Year Customs Districts New York New Orleans San Francisco 1900 a 0.73 38.38 2.33 0.44 1910 a 4.3s 53.94 1.97 0.75 1920 3.05 117.60 0.82 6.79 1930 12.69 178.63 3.24 5.82 1940 9.10 193.62 1.71 2.48 TABLE LV value of foreign merchandise shipped in-transit AND TRANSSHIPPED FROM UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS AND FROM CUSTOMS DISTRICTS OF NEW YORK, NEW ORLEANS, AND SAN FRANCISCO BY DECADES, 1900-1940 CHAPTER VI FOREIGN TRADE SINCE 1900 (CONTINUED) IMPORT TRADE SINCE 1900 In analyzing the imports through Texas ports, consideration is given first to the import movement as a whole and second to the important aspects of the flow by customs districts, by principal commodities, and by continents and countries of origin. After determining the sources of the imports by continents and countries, a comparison of the growth of the import trade through Texas ports is made with that of the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coastal regions. Further analysis shows the growth of the import trade through Texas ports in relation to 3 of the representative ports of the coastal regions, namely, New York, New Orleans, and San Francisco . Total imports through Texas ports From 1900 to 1947 the imports by way of Texas ports continued to increase many times in dollar value and several times relative to the total imports of the United States. From a value of 5-6 million dollars in 1900, the imports over Texas ports rose to 173-2 million dollars in 1947, an increase of over 30 times the former value. Compared to the total of United States imports, Texas ports accounted for 0.7 per cent of the import trade of the nation in 1900 and 3-0 per cent of the total in 1947- 1 for years 1934-1947 are for Imports for Consumption. Data for years 1900-1913 cover fiscal years ending June 30. data for Columbus, New Mexico after March 3, 1913 and Lake Charles, Louisiana after November 3, 1930. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900-1903; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1904-1906; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Statistics, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1907- 1909; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 19'10-1912; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1913-1944; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States, January-December, 1947, May, 1948. From 1900 to 1905 the value of imports over Texas ports nearly doubled. Following this sharp growth to 10.2 million dollars, the import trade did not decline to a lesser value even in the difficult years of 1932 and 1933* Importations through Texas ports continued to increase immediately prior to and after the opening of hostilities of the First World War. Imports for 1912 were valued at 16.0 million dollars. By 1913 this value had increased to 20.4 million dollars and by 1914 to 31-1 million dollars. Though the years 1915 and 1916 showed downward tendencies, the import values for 1917 and 1913 surpassed all previous records to attain 32.0 and 43*5 million dollars for the 2 years, respectively. Following the First World War, new highs in import value were reached in 1920 with imports valued at 55«0 million dollars and again in 1924 when imports of >B-4 million dollars were received. Not in any year between 1917 and 1930 hid the import value fall below 30 million dollars while in 5 of these years the value exceeded 50 million dollars. Then the world-wide depression of the 1930’s seriously impaired the dollar value of imports. By 1931 the value had dropped to 21.0 million dollars and reached a low in 1932 and 1933 at values between 14 and 15 million dollars. Beginning in 1934 imports rose rapidly to 43.6 million dollars in 1937- This addition was followed by a temporary decline to 35-9 million dollars in 1938. By 1939 the demands in preparation for Second World War were pushing the value of imports still further upward. Each succeeding year the value rose until in 1944 another peak was reached with imports of 157-9 million dollars. The import values for 1945 and 1946 were less than the 157-9 million dollars for 1944 but still more than double the value for any year prior to 1941- This slight decline was more than offset in 1947 when imports through Texas ports rose to a new all-time high of 173-2 million dollars. Within the same interval from 1900 to 1947, the value of imports for the whole United States had also increased materially. From 850 million dollars in 1900, the national imports had risen to 5.7 billion dollars in 1947* By 1906 Texas ports accounted for 1.0 per cent of the nation’s imports and returned to 0.9 per cent in only 1 year there after, namely, 1909- Not until the Second World War did imports through Texas ports pass the 2.0 per cent mark to finally reach the peak of 4«S per cent in 1942. Following 1942 the value of imports through Texas ports declined relative to imports of the nation, reaching 3-0 per cent for both 1946 and 1947- I See Table LVI. Year Texas 13 United States Total ($000,000) Value ($000,000) % of U.S. 1900 5.6 0.7 850.0 1901 5.2 0.6 823.2 1902 5.3 0.6 903.3 1903 6.4 0.6 1,025.7 1904 5-4 0.5 991.1 1905 10.2 0.9 1,117.5 1906 12.4 1.0 1,226.6 1907 15.0 1.0 1,434-4 1908 11.8 1.0 1,194.3 1909 11.3 0.9 1,311.9 1910 15-5 1.0 1,556.9 1911 15.3 1.0 1,527.2 1912 16.0 1.0 1,653.3 1913 20.4 1.1 1,813.0 1914 31.1 1.6 1,893.9 1915 26.7 1.6 1,674.2 1916 27.3 1.2 2,197.8 ■ 1917 32.0 1.2 2,659.4 1918 43.5 1.5 2,945.7 1919 39.4 1.0 3,904.4 1920 55.0 1.0 5,278.5 1921 38.0 1.5 2,509.1 1922 45.0 1.4 3,112.7 1923 49.5 1.3 3,792.1 1924 58.4 1.6 3,610.0 1925 50.9 1.2 4,226.6 1926 54.6 1.2 4,430.9 1927 51.0 1.2 4,184.7 1928 46.9 1.1 4,091.4 1929 48.2 1.1 4,399.4 1930 32.9 1.1 3,060.9 1931 21.0 1.0 2,090.6 1932 14.5 1.1 1,322.8 1933 14-1 1.0 1,449.6 1934 23.2 1.4 1,636.0 1935 33.0 1.7 2,038.9 1936 33.1 1.4 2,424.0 TABLE LVI VALUE’ OF IMPORTS INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH BEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS AND UNITED STATES, 1900-1947 a TABLE L7I (Cont’d) Year Texas' 10 United States Total (#000,000) Value (1000,000) % of U.S. 1937 43-6 1.5 3,009.9 1938 35.9 1.8 1,949.6 1939 38.7 1.7 2,276.1 1940 40.7 1.6 2,540.7 1941 76.7 2.4 3,222.0 1942 133.2 4.8 2,769.3 1943 149.3 4.4 3,390.0 1944 157.9 4.1 3,877.9 1945 142.5 3.4 4,135.9 1946 147.2 3.0 4,908.9 1947 173.2 3.0 5,739.2 Total imports by customs districts. In the early 1900’s the value of imports was fairly well distributed between the existing customs districts but toward the latter part of the period under study, the Galveston Customs District emerged as the principal importing customs district. This shift took place in part because Houston and Galveston grew as good ports of entry but in addition because of the change in the relative importance of the items imported. Whereas cattle, hides, skins, copper, lead, and coffee were the principal imports in 1900, cane sugar, coffee, bananas, jute bagging, and petroleum products lead the list in 1930- Since the Galveston Customs District became the principal receiver of the latter group of products, this district materially increased its position relative to 2 the remaining districts. Indicating the general dispersion of the imports in 1900, 4 of the 5 customs districts had import values ranging between 1.2 and 1.6 million dollars which represented a range of 21.9 to 29-0 per cent of the 5-6 million dollars in imports received in that year. These districts included the Galveston, El Paso, Corpus Christi, and Saluria customs districts. In the same year the Brazos de Santiago Customs .District accounted for only 42 thousand dollars in imports which was 3 less than 1 per cent of the total for Texas ports. The import value for 1910 continued to be distributed in the main between the same 4 customs districts of Galveston, El Paso, Corpus Christi, and Saluria 'which accounted for 98-9 per cent of the 15.5 million dollar import value for Texas ports. Each of the 2 remaining customs districts of Sabine and Brazos de Santiago did less than 1 per cent of the total. The 2 leading customs districts in the import trade in 1910 were the Saluria and El Paso customs districts which received together 70.1 a For year ending June 30• b Not designated as a customs district for this year. °Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. d only 442,000. Q lncludes data for Columbus, New Mexico after March 3, 1913 and Lake Charles, Louisiana after November 3, 1930. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. a For year ending June 30. d Not designated as a customs district for this year. °Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. data for Columbus, New Mexico after March 3> 1913 and Lake Charles, Louisiana after November 3, 1930. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. per cent of the total imports for the year. The Galveston Customs District was in third place with 16.1 per cent while Corpus Christi was fourth with 12.7 per cent. Each of the remaining customs districts of Sabine and Brazos de Santiago received less than 1 per cent of the total imports over Texas ports for 1910. The Galveston Customs District took a substantial lead as an importing district in 1920, having imported 30.3 million of the 55.0 million dollars worth of imports over Texas ports. The San Antonio Customs District was second with 10.3 million dollars in imports; Sabine was third with 8.8 million dollars; and El Paso was fourth with 5.1 million dollars. The large values of the importation of crude oil and sugar for the year placed the Galveston Customs District in the lead while crude oil importation alone was responsible for the rise in 4 the relative position of the Sabine Customs District. The imports of the Galveston Customs District in 1930 represented 66.2 per cent of the total imports received at Texas ports. This percentage was increased to 70.2 per cent in 1940. For the same 2 years the Laredo and El Paso customs districts each received between 10.6 and 15-4 per cent of the total while the Sabine Customs District lagged, accounting for approximately 5 per cent in each During the water transportation difficulties of the Second World War, the Laredo Customs District exceeded the Galveston Customs District in the receipts of imports according to value. In 1943 the Laredo Customs District entered merchandise valued at 91-3 million dollars as compared to 41.6 million dollars for the Galveston Customs District. However, the latter customs district regained the lead following the Second World War and in 1947 received imports of merchandise valued at 95-2 million dollars as compared to 57-2 million dollars for the Laredo Customs District. Also the land-bound El Paso Customs District more than tripled the value of imports from 1940 to 1943 while during the same period the imports at the Sabine Customs District decreased to less than one fifth the 1940 value. In 1947 the El Paso Customs District continued to increase the value of imports over the 1943 level and the Sabine Customs District more than regained the lost import values of the war 6 period. Unless new economic adjustments reverse the pattern, the rank of the customs districts in the post-war period will be Galveston, Laredo, El Paso, and Sabine, in the order named. 2 In 1910 cane sugar, coffee, bananas, jute bagging, and petroleum products represented 2.9 per cent of the total imports as compared to 63.2 per cent in 1920. 3 See Tables LVII and LVIII. Asee Tables LVII, LVIII, and OX. 5 See Tables LVII and LVIII. (In millions of dollars) Customs District Year 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b 0.1 8.8 1.7 2.1 Galveston ... 1.5 2.5 30.8 21.7 28.6 Laredo 0 b b 10.3 4.4 5.7 El Paso ... 1.3 4.4 5-1 5.1 4.3 Corpus Christi ... 1.6 2.0 b b b Brazos de Santiago . d 0.1 b b b Saluria ... 1.2 6.4 b b b Texas Total® . .. ... 5.6 15.5 55.0 32.9 40.7 TABLE LVII VALUE OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 19'10, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 Year 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Customs District % % % % % Sab ine b 0.5 16.0 5.2 5.1 Galveston .. 25.9 16.1 55-9 66.2 70.2 Laredo 0 b b 18.8 13.2 14.1 El Paso .. 22. > 28.8 9-3 15.4 10.6 Corpus Christi .. 29.0 12.7 b b b Brazos de Santiago . .. 0.7 0.6 b b b Saluria .. 21.9 41.3 b b b Texas Total 0 - . . . .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TABLE LVIII VALUE OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF IMPORTS FOR TEXAS PORTS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 Principal commodities imported. Among the individual commodities which represented 5 or more per cent of the total imports in 1900 were 7 such items as coffee, cattle, hides and skins, copper, and lead. In 1910 neither copper nor coffee accounted for a level of 5 per cent of the total importation but another mineral, zinc, and another tropical a Data for 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930 are for "General Imports 1 ’ while data for 1940 are for "Imports for Consumption." paper and manufactures of paper. c lncludes jute bagging and burlap. or creosote oil. e lncludes unmanufactured India rubber, gutta percha, and substitutes. 2lncludes copper ore and manufactures of copper. lead ore and manufactures of lead. zinc ore and manufactures of zinc. i-For fiscal year ending June 30. JLess than $5OO. listed separately for this year. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 19'10; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940.' " a Data for 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930 are for ”General Imports” while data for 1940 are for ’'lmports for Consumption.” paper and manufactures of paper. o lncludes jute bagging and burlap. d Dead or creosote oil. e lncludes unmanufactured India rubber, gutta percha, and substitutes. Includes copper ore and manufactures of copper. lead ore and manufactures of lead. zinc ore and manufactures of zinc. year ended Tune 30. than 0.1%. K Not listed separately for this year. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. product, crude rubber, were added to the list. The crude rubber imports were added only temporarily. By 1920 the value of the importation of this product accounted for less than 1 per cent of the total. The 2 principal products imported in 1920 were cane sugar and crude petroleum while copper was the only other product imported with a value equivalent to 5 per cent of the total. Diversification of imports was more pronounced in 1930 than in 1920. Three additional products of the tropics were added in 1930 to those with individual import values of 5 or more per cent of the total In addition to cane sugar, coffee was reinstated to the list while bananas and the jute bagging and burlap were added from 2 widely sepas rate tropical regions of the world/ Another new addition to the 5 per cent list was paper and manufactures of paper while cattle and lead were reinstated. Though much less important in 1930 than in 1920, petroleum and petroleum products continued within the 5 or more per cent group in 1930. The important products imported in 1940 continued in the main to be the same as those in 1930- Included were the tropical products of cane sugar, coffee, bananas, and jute bagging and burlap. Other individual classifications accounting for $ or more per cent of the total imports over Texas ports were paper and paper manufactures, cattle, and crude petroleum. Less significant items which individually ac- counted for 1 to 5 per cent of the total import value in that year included hides and skins, creosote oil, copper, and antimony. Due to the wide diversity of imports entering Texas ports, the value of many items did not represent individually as much as 5 per cent of the total in one of the years considered. In 1900 this miscellaneous group was valued at 2.3 million dollars and represented 40.2 per cent of the total. In the subsequent years of 1910, 1920, 1930? and 1940, the percentage represented by miscellaneous imports was considerably less, ranging between 18.8 and 26.8 per cent of the total. The extreme fluctuation in the importance of imported commodities prevents reference to a single item as the most important during the whole of the period 1900 through 1947• Imports of cattle alone amounted to more than 5 per cent of the total for 4 of the > years considered, yet in 1920 cattle accounted for only 433 thousand dollars or 0.8 per cent of the imports over Texas ports. Another classification, hides and skins, was valued at over 10 per cent of the total imports for Texas ports in 1900 and 1910 but declined to 1.1 per cent of the total in 1940. Furthermore, this latter classification was the only one accounting for as much as 1 per cent of the total imports in each of the initial years of the decades of 1900 through 1940. Although important only in the last few decades, several tropical products have developed into stable and material items of importation. One of these, cane sugar, was imported in small value in 1900 but grew in importance to account for the greatest value of any item imported for the years 1920 and 1930- In 1940 cane sugar continued to be of importance, ranking third among the imports over Texas ports in that year. Consequently, in presenting cane sugar as the first in the series on the imports through Texas ports, the product is designated as one of the more important imports, not the most important. Several factors have led to the increased importation of cane sugar over Texas ports. First of all, the demand has increased since 1900. With the increment in population one could expect an increase in the demand for sugar but in addition the consumption per capita has increased. In 1900 the per capita consumption in the United States 9 was 72.0 pounds as compared to 103.0 pounds per capita in 1930- Another reason lies in the progress made in economically growing sugar cane in Cuba, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico where American capital was applied to the industry at the beginning of the twentieth century. Moreover economies in the sugar beet industry did not keep pace with the economies developed in the sugar cane industry. Consequently, sugar cane became the source of a growing proportion of the sugar pro- IC duced in the twentieth century. In the early years of the twentieth century, sugar cane was grown along much of the northern Gulf Coast of Texas with one of the larger plantations located near Sugar Land, Texas. ll The early sugar mill at that location was operated "in pre-Civil War days," using the "open 12 kettle process, similar to that in vogue in Louisiana." .But a transition was also taking place in the first quarter of the twentieth century, greatly curtailing the growth of sugar cane in Texas. "Increased cost of wages, insect infestation and lack of ade-13 quate tariffs" were given as the principal reasons for the decline. In addition sugar cane grown on the Gulf Coast has to be planted each season, is susceptible to frost, yields fewer tons per acre, and has a 14 lower sugar content per ton as compared to Cuban cane. By 1925 the application of favorable economic factors in Cuba had caused "demand to fall behind supply." Subsequently that country began "the legal 15 restriction of the output of her sugar factories." The above limitations forced the owners of the large sugar plantations in the "Fort Bend-Brazoria area" to devote the acreage to other crops. Furthermore the Imperial Sugar Company of Sugar Land. Texas abandoned the conversion of sugar cane into sugar in 1927 despite the vertical integration which had formerly been applied to a 16 large acreage. Today "cane-sugar production, even with tariff aid, only attains importance in the southern third of Louisiana, a coast 17 strip in eastern Texas, and a few locations in Florida." The adaptations to the new economic conditions led to the impor- tation of raw sugar and the establishment of the first modern refinery 18 at Sugar Land in 1908. In 1938 this refinery had a capacity "in 19 excess of one million, five hundred thousand pounds a day." A sec- ond refinery, the Texas Sugar Refining Company, was located at Texas City with access to "400 lineal feet of piers" for importing "raw sugar from Cuba." This refining plant had a capacity in 1924 for pro-20 ducing "approximately one million pounds of refined sugar per day." However, this latter plant was subsequently closed during the depres-21 sion and "has not been in operation since 1932." Importations of sugar over Texas ports reflected the economic changes which took place during the twentieth century. Without a modern refinery within the Texas coastal region in 1900, Texas ports received the importation of 0.7 million pounds of sugar valued at 19 thousand dollars which represented only 0.3 per cent of the total value of imports. By 1910 the volume of imports had more than doubled 22 to 1.5 million pounds with a value of 49 thousand dollars. Then in 1920 the peak value of 18.5 million dollars of sugar imports was reached. The two causal factors lay in the increased volume and higher price for sugar. The volume imported in 1920 was 148.3 million pounds, over nine times that for 1910. In addition the average wholesale price for raw sugar had risen from 3-5 cents a pound be-23 fore the First World War to 13.0 cents in 1920. With both the Imperial Sugar Company and the Texas Refining Company in operation in 1930, the cane sugar imports rose to 314-9 million pounds. However, the import value declined to 4-8 million dol lars due to the sharp drop in sugar.prices. Whereas the value of cane sugar imports had represented 33-7 per cent of the total imports for Texas ports in 1920, cane sugar imports represented only 14.6 per cent of the total for Texas ports in 1930. By 1940 the volume of cane sugar imported had declined to 283-2 million pounds or 28.3 million pounds less than for 193 C. Nevertheless, the import value increased 220 thousand dollars to become 5-0 million dollars in 1940. The decline in volume was expected with the suspension of the refining operations of the Texas Refining Company at a For year ending June 30. designated as a customs district for this year. c Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. sLess than $5OO. e ßrown and refined cane sugar. for 1940 are for ’’lmports for Consumption.” Other data are for ’’General Imports.” Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. a For year ending lune 30. “Not designated as a customs district for this year. c Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. than 50,000 pounds. e ßrown and refined cane sugar. for 1940 are for "Imports for Consumption.*' Other data are for ’’General Imports.” Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. Texas City in 1932. However, the increased value in 1940 was not the result of an increased price level for sugar in 1940. On the contrary the average wholesale price of raw Cuban sugar had dropped from 3-4 cents a pound in 1930 to 2.8 cents a pound in 1940. The answer lies in the increased importation of refined rather than raw cane sugar. This movement made considerable progress ’’during the latter part of 1930” when the ’’Hershey corporation” began importing ’’their sugars moving from Cuba to points in Texas.” In addition Hawaiian sugars, ’’refined in the Hawaiian Islands,” were imported in + 25 increasing amounts. During the first years of World War 11, imports of cane sugar over Texas ports were sharply curtailed. In 1943 only 161.7 million pounds were imported through Texas ports. By 1944 cane sugar imports had increased to 417-1 million pounds with a value of 12.6 million dollars. The 1944 volume was 133-9 million pounds above that for 1940 . 26 while the 1944 value was 7-6 million dollars above the 1940 value. A comparison of the imports of cane sugar through Texas ports with that for the whole United States reveals a small but growing importance of the ports of Texas. In 1900 Texas ports received less than 0.1 per cent of the value and volume of the cane sugar imports for the nation. The percentage had increased to 1.8 per cent in 1920, to slightly less than 5 per cent in 1940, and over 5 per cent in 1944 Prior to the development of the cane sugar trade with Cuba, the small imports of sugar were divided among the various customs districts with the Galveston Customs District leading in 1900 and the Saluria Customs District in 1910. By 1920 the Galveston Customs District was the principal importing district for cane sugar, a position which has been maintained. Of the 143.3 million pounds of cane sugar imported over Texas ports in 1920, the Galveston Customs District received 84 per cent or 124.6 million pounds. Subsequently, this concentration increased to over 98 per cent in 1930 and 1940. Then in 1944 the Galveston Customs District accounted for all of the 417.1 million pounds of cane sugar imported through Texas ports. Within the Galveston Customs District, the ports of Galveston and Texas City have been the principal ones used by importers of cane sugar. The importations at Texas City were mainly for the refining operations of the Texas Sugar Refining Corporation until the cessation of its operations in 1932. However sugar "in large volumes*’ were ’'also imported through Texas City to other sugar refineries located in the interior.” 1 The Port of Galveston has continued as the principal port for receiving foreign shipments of cane sugar since the Imperial Sugar Company of Sugar Land, Texas, began processing foreign raw cane sugar. As early as 1931 the imports of sugar were received at a pier where special scales were provided for the use of customs authorities in weigh- ing the sugar when passing through the warehouse to waiting cars along- 28 side. In 1945 the Port of Galveston received 305-6 million pounds of raw sugar as compared to 10.7 million pounds for Texas City and 10.0 million pounds for Houston. No refined sugars were imported at 29 these ports for that year. The origin of the sugar imports was primarily from Cuba for both the refinery at the Imperial Sugar Company and the Texas Sugar Refining Corporation during the operation of the latter company. However, other sources were also used. Among the sources used by the Imperial Sugar Company were ’’Porto Rico, Honolulu, the Philippines and various 31 Latin-American countries. ” The preference for importing Cuban sugar has been based upon the nearness of the source to Texas ports and the preference in tariff granted. Prior to 1934, 96 degree sugar from Cuba paid a tariff of 2.0 cents per pound as compared to 2.5 cents per pound for sugars from other foreign sources. With modifications in the years 1934, 1939, and 1942, the preferential treatment has continued. As of June 1946, 96 degree sugar from Cuba paid a tariff of 0.75 cent per pound as compared to 0.9375 cent a pound for other countries. Furthermore, the import quotas initiated in 1934 have protected Cuba as a major source 32 of raw sugar for the United States. Another tropical product of importance in the import trade over Texas ports is coffee. The coffee plant, unlike sugar cane and beets, is not grown commercially in the United States and the coffee bean 33 consequently has been given a ’’duty-free status.” Accordingly the importation of this commodity depends upon the domestic demand for the product, the availability of the product, and the legal restrictions placed upon the flow into the United States. The demand for coffee has tended to increase in the United States since 1900. For the period 1900 to 1913 the average annual importation was 10.5 pounds per capita. Small but positive gains were recorded for subsequent periods including World War I; the post-war depression, 1919-1923; inflation, 1924-1929; depression, 1930-1934; and recovery, 1935-1937- In the latter period an average of 13-4 pounds 34 per capita were imported into the United States. In order to further stimulate coffee consumption in the United States, a promotional campaign was inaugurated by the Pan American Coffee Bureau for the period 1938-1941- Partially due to the efforts of this campaign, coffee consumption had risen to approximately 17 35 pounds per capita in 1941- Th-© per capita demand for coffee con- tinned high during the Second World War and subsequent years. In the year 1947 imports of coffee for consumption were 17.9 pounds per . , 36 capita. The supply of coffee during the twentieth century has tended to be greater than the demand. The high prices that prevailed in the coffee market from 1837 to 1896 encouraged an enormous planting of coffee trees in Brazil, the principal producing nation. By 1897 the production was so large that the price fell while the yield kept on increasing into the twentieth century. In an attempt to restore prices and control the amount of coffee available' in world markets, the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo ’’prohibited planting, bought coffee, 37 held it for higher price, and became overloaded.” So important was the coffee economy to Brazil that the Brazilian Federal Government then gave assistance to the demoralized industry by borrowing millions of dollars abroad in order to buy coffee and systematically destroy the surplus production by burning or dumping in the sea. The attempt at valorization failed in the end as other nations 3o increased their production and exportations. In 1937 Brazil despaired of further attempts to valorize world coffee prices and with-39 drew artificial attempts to maintain prices. The state of chronic overproduction was intensified with the closure of important European markets at the outbreak of World War 11. To prevent serious political as well as economic repercussions, the Inter-Amerlean Coffee Agreement between the United States and the principal coffee producing nations was "signed at Washington on Nov. 40 28, 1940, and ratified by the United States on Feb. 3 5 1941*” Under this agreement, ’’the basic annual quotas for participating countries total 15,545,000 bags of o 0 kilograms net, or equivalent quantity, and the basic annual quota for nonparticipating countries is 355,000 bags.” Originally the Inter-American Coffee Agreement was to expire on October 1, 1943, but extensions were granted. However, the new extension, beginning on October 1, 1945, called for the suspension 41 of quotas. The importation of coffee via Texas ports in the 1900’s has been subject to considerable change in value and volume. In the year 1900 Texas ports received for importation 7-3 million pounds of coffee valued at 528 thousand dollars. Further declines in value and volume were suffered in 1910 and 1920. In the latter year only 0.4 of a million pounds of coffee valued at 92 thousand dollars were imported. While the 1900 value of coffee imports represented 9-4 per cent of the value of all imports over Texas ports, the coffee import value of 1920 42 represented only 0.2 per cent of the total. In 1930 and 1940 the coffee imports of Texas ports showed considerable gains. In 1930 the import volume of 22.7 million pounds was over 3 times the volume for 1900 while the import volume of 107.1 million pounds in 1940 quadrupled the volume in 1930. Also the value of coffee imports increased relative to total imports over Texas ports. In 1930 coffee imports -were equal to 6.9 per cent of the total for Texas ports but by 1940 had reached 16.9 per cent. In comparison to the total coffee imports for the nation, Texas ports did not import a large proportion of the total although considerable gains were shown for the years 1930 and 1940. In each initial year of the decades considered, the volume of coffee imports into the whole United States increased despite declines for Texas ports in 1910 and 1920. While the nation's coffee imports increased from 788.0 million pounds in 1900 to 1,297-0 million pounds in 1920, importation at Texas ports dropped markedly, representing only 0.9 per cent of the national import volume in 1900 but less than 0.1 per cent in 1920. Data on coffee imports for 1930 and 1940 reveal Texas ports gained relative to the nation in the importation of coffee. The 22.7 million pounds of coffee imports over Texas ports in 1930 accounted for 1.4 per cent of the 1.6 billion pounds imported by the nation. In 1940 Texas ports imported 107-1 million pounds or 5-2 per cent of the 2.1 billion pounds of national coffee imports. a For year ending June 30. D Not designated as a customs district for this year. °Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. Ofess than $5OO. e Data for 1940 are for ’’lmports for Consumption.” Other data are for ’’General Imports.” Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, .Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. a For year ending Tune 30. designated as a customs district for this year. c Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. a Less than 50,000 pounds. e Data for 1940 are for "Imports for Consumption." Other data are for "General Imports." Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. During the emergency of the Second World War, the ports of Texas tended to gain in importance as receivers of the coffee needs of the nation. In 1943 Texas ports received 117.5 million pounds or 5-3 per cent of the 2.2 billion pounds of national coffee imports while in the following year Texas ports received 185-4 million pounds or 7*l per cent of the 2.6 billion pounds of coffee imported over all United States ports. One of the principal reasons for this expansion in coffee receipts at Texas ports during the war years was the increased movement of coffee over the land ports of the Laredo Customs District. Whereas the Galveston Customs District had received over 98 per cent of the coffee imports via Texas ports in 1930 and 1940, this customs district received only 51-1 per cent of the imports over Texas ports in 1943 and 62.5 per cent in 1944- The Laredo Customs District received 48-5 per cent of the total in 1943 and 37-4 per cent in 1944- The remainder, representing less than 1 per cent of the total, was received by the El Paso Customs District in each year. Difficulties of water transportation in the Caribbean Sea in addition to the loss of European markets forced coffee in Mexico and Central America to use protected water routes or wholly land routes to the United States. Neither did the extreme concentration of the importation of coffee over the Galveston Customs District in 1930 and 1940 exist in the early years of the twentieth century. In 1900, 4of the 5 customs districts received coffee imports. While the Galveston Customs District led in 1900 with an importation of 4-3 million pounds valued at 285 thousand dollars, the El Paso Customs District received 2.2 million pounds of coffee with a value of 173 thousand dollars. The total value of coffee imports for the Corpus Christi and Saluria customs districts combined in 1900 was less than 100 thousand dollars while the Brazos de Santiago Customs District had no coffee imports of 43 record for the year. The Galveston Customs District received approximately one-half of the declining value and volume of coffee imports in the years 1910 and 1920. The second position was lost by the SI Paso Customs District to the Saluria Customs District in 1910. Nevertheless, the El Paso Customs District had regained second place in 1920, a position which this customs district also held in 1930 and 1940. However, the coffee imports were so centered on the Galveston Customs District in 1930 and 1940 that the El Paso Customs District received less than 2 per cent of the total volume and value. Prior to the dislocation of trade routes during the Second World War, coffee imports were centered on the Port of Houston within the Galveston Customs District. Houston was not only the principal receiver of coffee imports but also became an industrial center for coffee processing and distributing. In this development Houston had certain economic deterrents. Included among the obstacles in the early 1930’s were the lack of "green coffee import houses” and a "green coffee market" at Houston. Interior processors tended to buy from established green coffee markets. Furthermore, cheap barge rates from New Orleans to points on the Missis- sippi coupled with the "rail rate disadvantage" of Houston in reaching "the territory between the Mississippi River and the Rockies" was a decided deterrent. The lack of established green coffee markets and the "rate disadvantage" were the principal reasons why "about fifty per cent of the green coffee used by Texas plants" was "purchased in 1 k the New Orleans coffee While the above factors were serious obstacles in the early 1930’5, other factors were favorable to the development of Houston as a coffee processing center. Regular and dependable steamship services were in effect with "the principal coffee producing countries of the world, namely, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Mexico and Venezuela." Furthermore the same ocean rates "applicable to New York and New Orleans" were in effect on shipments which were being received at Houston from Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico. In addition Houston was roasting in the early 1930’5, "approximately 13,000 tons of green coffee annually, forming a wonderful consuming nucleus itself for a green 45 coffee market." The more favorable factors outweighed the less favorable ones as Houston continued to develop as a coffee importing center. In 1940 the Port of Houston received 95-4 million pounds of coffee imports or 89 per cent of all the coffee imported over Texas ports and 4*6 per 46 cent of the coffee imports for the United States. Recent additions and plans for additions in plant facilities at Houston indicate the faith that the coffee industry has in the port as a processing and distributing center. In May, 1943 the Duncan Coffee Company had two large processing plants in Houston and "used the Port 47 of Houston almost exclusively.” The roasting facilities of Maxwell House at Houston were expanded in 1947 while the company of Monarch Coffee and Tea has plans to "add a roaster to its warehouse and dis-48 tribution facilities” in 1948. Other coffee importers, processors, and distributors located at Houston include the Sunset Coffee Company and <l. A. Folger and Company The Sunset Coffee Company recently moved its ’’plant and roaster” to larger quarters while the facilities of the J. A. Folger and Company have been expanded several times since the initial plant was erected in Houston in 1938. According to R. E. Atha, President of the I. A. Folger Company, the initial plant in the past ten years has been expanded "three times--each time doubling the capacity” and that the present plant is "one of the most modern coffee plants in the United States. ” While no great quantities of coffee were imported at other Texas ports during peace time, several coastal and internal cities have "coffee roasting and packaging" facilities. Of the 42 establishments listed by the 1946 edition of the Directory of Texas Manufacturers as engaged in this industry, 13 are located in the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. San Antonio has 4; El Paso, 3; Beaumont, 2; Fort Arthur, 2; and Corpus Christi, 2. Several other Texas cities have 1 plant each including Galveston, Austin, Marshall, Wichita Falls, Faris, Deni-50 son, Lubbock, and Abilene. While coffee was a stable item of trade over Texas ports even before the days of the Republic of Texas, the highly perishable banana was not imported in quantities until the early part of the twentieth 51 century. Like coffee the banana has a ’’duty-free status” and is not grown commercially in the United States. Nevertheless, the banana is ”a great starch food” and therefore ”a rival of the potato, the sweet 52 potato, rice and cassava.” With the exception of cassava, these foods are grown commercially in the hinterland of Texas ports and are in competition with the banana for the American food dollar. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the people in the United States have greatly increased the consumption of bananas. While the number of bunches was not given in 1900, the value of banana imports for that year was 5-9 million dollars as compared to 11.6 million dollars in 1910. In the latter year the United States consumed 38.2 million bunches of this fruit. Subsequent records show 39-3 million bunches were consumed in 1920; 62.7 million bunches in 1933; 52.3 mil/ 53 lion bunches in 1940; and 00. l million bunches in 1947- ' Despite the tropical origin the retail price of bananas has declined sufficiently to permit consumption on a small scale even by those with low incomes. In 1920 the average retail price ”in 51 large cities of the United States” was 12.6 cents per pound. The average retail price had dropped to 9-7 cents per pound by 1929; 6.5 cents a pound in 1932; and 6.3 cents per pound in 1939- During. World War 11, the price rose above 10 cents a pound but returned to a point be-55 low the 10-cent level in 1948. Due to the perishable nature of the banana, this fruit requires careful and expeditious handling under proper refrigeration and ventilation. These precautions begin with the harvesting operations'on the 56 plantations and must be followed until the product is consumed. Inasmuch as bananas cannot be stored, careful planning must be made in 57 planting and harvesting the crop to assure a year-round supply. a For year ending June 30. designated as a customs district for this year. c Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. than $5OO. for 1940 are for ’’lmports for Consumption.” Other data are for ’’General Imports." Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. a For year ending June 30. designated as a customs district for this year. c Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. than 500 bunches. e Data for 1940 are for "Imports for Consumption." Other data are for "General Imports." units given. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 19'00; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. During the twentieth century a few Texas ports have geared their facilities and operations to receive and expeditiously distribute an increasing proportion of the banana imports of the nation. In 1900 Texas ports did not receive any part of the national importation of bananas valued at 5-8 million dollars. While small importations of bananas were received at Texas ports in 1910 and 1920, the volume and value of the imports were each less than 1 per cent of the volume and 58 value of banana imports of the nation. By 1930 the importation of bananas over Texas ports had become significant in volume and value. In that year banana imports over Texas ports were valued at 2.1 million dollars, representing 6.3 per cent of the value of all imports over Texas ports and 6.1 per cent of the value of all banana imports for the nation. Of the 62.7 million bunches of bananas imported by the United States in 1930, 3.8 million bunches or 6.1 per cent were imported at Texas ports. Even though the value and volume of banana imports dropped for the nation in 1940 as compared to 1930, both the value and volume increased for Texas ports. Banana imports for the nation declined in value from 34-8 million dollars in 1930 to 29.1 million dollars in 1940. Nevertheless the imports of bananas at Texas ports increased from a value of 2.1 million dollars in 1930 to 2.7 million dollars in 1940. In volume the national importation of bananas declined from 62.7 to >2.3 million bunches for the same ten-year period while the banana imports at Texas ports increased from 3-3 to 5.6 million bunches During the Second World War, Texas ports received even a larger portion of the national volume of bananas. Of the 24.7 million bunches imported the nation in 1943, 7-6 million bunches or 30.9 per cent of the total were received at Texas ports. In 1944 Texas ports received 6.0 million bunches or 18.9 per cent of the 31.7 million bunches imported by the nation. While national banana importations decreased in 1943 and 1944 as compared to 1930 and 1940, the flow into Texas ports increased markedly. The exigencies of the Second World War explain part but not all of the shift in banana importations to Texas ports. Necessarily, banana imports were considered luxuries and the ships in the banana trade were pressed into other duties more essential to the war effort. In addition one of the more serious submarine menaces developed in the Caribbean Sea, in the path of the banana boats. Another major factor in the shift to Texas ports lay in the development of Mexico as the principal supplier of bananas for the 59 United States trade. ' Furthermore, the Port of Brownsville as well as the Port of Galveston secured equipment to handle banana cargoes and finally, the rail and truck service through the land ports made it possible for these vehicles to load at the banana plantations in Mexico. Once loaded, cargoes were not disturbed until the point of consumption or wholesaling was reached inasmuch as 62 no fumigation or duty payments were required at the Mexican border. Only 3 of the 4 customs districts received imports of bananas in 1930 and 1940. The principal importing customs district for these 2 years was Galveston which received 2.0 million bunches in 1930 and 2.9 million bunches in 1940. Compared to the total banana imports for Texas ports, Galveston handled 53 per cent of the total volume in both 63 1930 and 1940. The remainder of the banana imports for 1930 and 1940 were di-64 vided between the Laredo and 21 Paso customs districts. In 1930 imports of bananas over the El Paso Customs District totaled 1.5 million bunches as compared to 243 thousand bunches for the Laredo Customs District. This position was reversed in 1940 with the Laredo Customs District receiving 1.6 million bunches as compared to 1.1 million for the El Paso Customs District. During the war years the same 3 customs districts accounted for all the bananas received at Texas ports. The Laredo Customs District continued to surpass the Galveston Customs District in banana imports. In 1943 the Laredo Customs District received 6.6 million bunches or 86 per cent of the 7.6 million bunches imported over Texas ports. Compared to the national imports for the year, the Laredo Customs Dis- trict handled 27 per cent of the 24.7 million bunches of bananas imported in that year. In the same year the El Paso Customs District was second with the importation of 1.0 million bunches of bananas while the Galveston Customs District accounted for the relatively in-65 significant number of 15-1 thousand bunches. The Laredo Customs District continued to receive the major portion of the bananas imported over Texas ports in 1944- In that year 5.1 million bunches or 84 per cent entered by way of the Laredo Customs District while the El Paso Customs District accounted for 917 thousand bunches or over 15 per cent. The Galveston Customs District received only 25 thousand bunches or less than 1 per cent of the total 66 for Texas ports. A consideration of banana imports at the individual ports reveals that the Port of Galveston exceeded all other Texas ports in the importation of bananas prior to the Second World War. In 1930 this port already had been equipped with modern electrically driven conveyors for unloading while "trains exceeding the speed of local passenger trains" transported the cargo to the final destination. Use of the port was made "by two of the largest banana companies in existence, the Fruit Dispatch Company, Marine and Shipping Division of the United 67 Fruit Company, and the Southern Banana Corporation." In 1940 all of the bananas imported in the Galveston Bay area were entered over the Fort of Galveston. In that year 65,199 tons of bananas were imported at Galveston while none were imported at the 68 Fort of Houston. In the post-war import trade the Fort of Brownsville is making a definite bid for a substantial portion of the banana imports. Although the port was completed in 193 b and vias closed to foreign trade during the Second World War, the port now has available modernized banana escalators and conveyors necessary to move the fruit to waiting trucks 69 and railroad cars for transportation to points in the interior. In 1945 the ports of Brownsville and Galveston were the only water ports receiving banana imports. In that year imports at the Fort of Brownsville included 80,892 tons of bananas as compared to 886 tons for the Fort of Galveston. In the succeeding year of 1946 Brownsville continued to lead by receiving 96,427 tons of bananas as compared to 70 2,774 tons for the Fort of Galveston. In this struggle for the post-war banana trade, the land ports of Laredo and El Paso will also try to hold as large a portion of the war time trade as is economically possible. However, the cheapness of water transportation is expected to cause the major portion of the banana imports to enter by way of the water ports. The principal sources of the bananas imported over Texas ports have been Mexico and the Central American countries of Guatemala, Hon-71 duras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Panama. Within the past two 72 decades Mexico has become the principal supplier for the United States. Not only have the land ports of Laredo and El Paso received bananas in substantial quantities from Mexico but in addition the Port of Brownsville received the major portion of the banana imports from that country in 1947 although some shipments were also being received from 73 countries in Central and South America. The destination of bananas entering Texas ports has been extended far into the interior of the United States, in several instances beyond the Secondary Hinterland. ’’Bananas are shipped from Galveston to all points in the Southwest, Middle West and West, as far east as Memphis, Louisville and Chicago; north to Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Des Moines and Cheyenne and west to Denver, Salt Lake City, Reno and - • Phoenix.” Trucks at Brovmsville have carried 20,000 pound cargoes of bananas as far west as Los Angeles and as far north and east as 75 Chicago. Some of the other principal cities receiving the truck loads of bananas were St. Louis, Detroit, Minneapolis, and Kansas City. In previous years loads have gone as far north along the western por-76 tion of the hinterland as Montana. Out from Laredo the bananas move mainly by rail and in lesser volume by truck. Included in the domes- 77 tic territory served is the ’’whole of the middle west.” Another popular fruit of growing but of much lesser importance in 7S the import trade is the pineapple. Although the fruit is highly desired, importation is limited by unsolved problems in production and distribution. While bananas reach the market in all seasons of the year, fresh pineapples have been, reaching the ports of Texas mainly during the months of June and July. Furthermore, proper care and expeditious transportation are needed en route from the states of Vera 79 Cruz and Oaxaca in Mexico where much of this import is grown. As a result of the efforts to meet the economic demands for pineapples in this country, several attempts are being made to process the fruit in Texas. At the Port of Corpus Christi, pineapples from the state of Vera Cruz are received by boat during the summer months for 80 reshipment by truck to quick freezing plants in Port Lavaca, Texas. At Brownsville pineapples from the ’’fertile Loma Bonita country in Oaxaca” were being processed in the ’’Lower Pio Grande Valley plants" 81 in addition to being shipped to fresh fruit markets. Should the problems of transporting, processing, and distributing pineapples be overcome, importations from Mexico should increase markedly. Some pineapple importers believe the Mexican pineapple im-82 ports will overtake the importations from Hawaii in the near future. Should such an increase materialize, the Texas ports will be advan- tageously located to receive a large portion of the pineapple imports from Mexico. While bananas and pineapples may be imported from the tropics in this hemisphere, jute fiber and manufactures must circle approximately one-half the globe to enter ports of the United States. ’’Practically all the world’s supply of jute” comes from the Ganges Valley in the O' northern and eastern portions of the province of Bengal in India. Within this area is found the combination of factors considered neces- sary for the economical production of this crop, including "a fertile soil with good drainage, very heavy rainfall throughout a long season, 84 bright sunshine, and a large labor supply." The principal demand for jute fiber, bagging, and burlap lies in the use "for making bags and other wrapping materials." "Approximately three-fourths of bags made are used as containers for agricultural products such as mill feeds, potatoes, sugar, flour, rice, and wheat." Other important uses of jute burlap are for making coverings 85 for cotton bales and for foundation fabrics in floor coverings. 86 Wile "there is no production of jute fiber in the United States," the importation of the fiber and its manufactures are resisted by the textile producers in the United States, particularly cotton producers and manufacturers. The imports of this commodity in 1938 are estimated to have been "equal to approximately 190,000 bales of cotton, and on the basis of current yields, to the production from 585,000 acres of 87 cotton." Nevertheless, the Jute Bag Manufacturers’ Association success- fully resisted the efforts made in 1929 to raise the existing duties 88 on jute manufactures in the Hawley-Smoot tariff bill enacted in 1930- Among the arguments presented were those that indicated the cotton farmer would be adversely affected should jute products be severely penalized with high tariff rates. The cotton farmer would necessarily pay higher prices for cotton bagging and covering which did not have the necessary characteristics needed for this purpose. In addition should jute production become unprofitable in India, additional acreage would be devoted to cotton in competition with cotton exports from 39 the United States. The realism in the latter argument is definitely a factor in 1948 when "India and Pakistan together expect a 22 per 90 cent increase" in cotton production over 1947- In accordance with the determination to hold the tariff rates at the level of the Fordney-MeCumber Tariff Act of 1922, jute bagging "suitable for covering cotton" bears a tariff of 0.3 of a cent a pound while woven jute fabrics "not bleached, printed, stenciled, painted, dyed, colored or rendered non inflammable" bear a tariff of 1 cent per 91 pound. Under these rates the comparative cheapness of jute bagging and burlap have enabled this product to displace cotton for "coarse 92 bagging" material. The 2 principal jute products imported through Texas ports were jute bagging and burlap. During the years 1900, 1910, and 1920, the value of these products imported into Texas ports was rather insignificant, approximating 1 per cent, or less, of the total for the United States. By 1930 imports of jute bagging and burlap at Texas ports were valued at 3.8 million dollars or 11.5 per cent of the value of all imports over Texas ports. Then the importation declined in 1940 to 2.8 million dollars although the total for all imports for Texas 93 ports had increased as compared to 1930. The Second World War greatly affected the movement of jute bag- ging and burlap from India. In 1943 no imports of these items were received at Texas ports although by 1944 jute and jute bagging valued 94 at 1.1 million dollars were received. This latter value was small compared to the imports valued at 3-0 million dollars in 1930 and 2.8 million dollars in 1940. The Galveston Customs District was the principal receiver of the jute bagging and burlap. With the exception of 1930, this customs district received approximately 100 per cent of the jute bagging and burlap imported through Texas ports in the initial years of the decades from 1900 to 1940. Within the Galveston Customs District, the ports of Houston and Galveston were the principal receivers of jute products. The Port of Galveston exceeded the Port of Houston in this respect for the period 1924-1933 by importing an average of 26,811 tons of jute manufactures annually as compared to 12,329 tons for Houston. During the period a For year ending June 30- °Not designated as a customs district for this year. G Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. than $5OO. e Data for 1940 are for "Imports for Consumption.” Other data are for "General Imports.” Source of* data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 194-0. 1934-1938 the positions were reversed with Houston importing an aver- age of 26,136 tons of jute manufactures annually while Galveston im/ 95 ported only 4,695 tons. As indicated, the principal source of the jute products is the Ganges Valley in India. But since the bagging and burlap rather than the raw jute were imported in greater quantities, a manufacturing process occurred prior to importation. This process takes place in the main at the jute mills of Calcutta, India, where approximately 300,000 workers are employed. Prior to the concentration of the jute mills at Calcutta, the world center of jute mills had been located at 96 Dundee, Scotland. Much of the burlap imported at Texas ports is used as coverings for cotton bales. Within the state of Texas, 10 companies manufacture "bagging” and "cotton bale covering." Five of these companies are located in Houston while 3 ere located in Dallas and the 2 remaining manufacturers are located in Waco and Galveston. Bags of "burlap, hemp, and jute, etc." are also made in Texas where 14 manufacturing plants are engaged in this business. Six are located in Houston, 5 in 97 Dallas, 2 in Fort Worth, and 1 in Galveston. To the south of the Texas border, particularly in the Mexican provinces of Chihuahua and Coahuila, the cattle industry provides a surplus of live animals for exportation from Mexico. Ilie United States, on the other hand, does not export cattle extensively but is an importer of substantial numbers of cattle, especially from Canada 98 and Mexico. Animals weighing ’’under 175 pounds” come chiefly from Canada while Mexico supplies the larger portion of those "weighing 99 from 175 to 700 pounds.” While the number and value of cattle imported through Texas ports have varied considerably, the trend has been upward prior to the embargo in 1947, resulting from the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease among herds in eastern Mexico. In 1900 cattle imported at Texas ports numbered 56,566 and were valued at 557 thousand dollars, accounting for 9.9 per cent of the value of all Texas imports in that year. The number of cattle in 1910 increased to 143,691, accounting for a value of 2.5 million dollars or 16.2 per cent of the value of all imports through Texas ports. The importance of cattle imports via Texas ports dropped markedly in 1920 when only 11,021 cattle, valued at 433 thousand dollars, were imported. The number and value rose in 1930 and 1940. In the latter a For year ending June 30. sNot designated as a customs district for this year. G Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. sLess than $5OO. e Data for 1940 are for ’’lmports for Consumption.” Other data are for ’’General Imports.” Source of data: United States Treasury Department, 'Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, .Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. a For year ending June 30. designated as a customs district for this year. c Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. d Data for 1940 are for "Imports for Consumption." Other data are for "General Imports." Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. year 262,976 cattle with a value of 3-5 million dollars were imported at Texas ports. This value represented 8.5 per cent of the value of all imports at Texas ports during that year. The importations through Texas ports continued at a high level during the Second World War when 289,213 head were imported in 1943 and 219,374 head were imported in 1944* Due to the increase in value per head, the importations in 1944 were valued at 8.3 million dollars as against 3-5 million dollars in 1940. 101 While cattle importations over Texas ports have tended to be a substantial portion of the cattle imports of the nation, wide variations in this respect have occurred. In 19-10 for example, 143,691 head of the 195,938 head of cattle imported nationally were received at Texas ports. On the other hand, Texas ports received only 11,021 head of the 379,114 head imported in 1920. In the years 1930, 1940, 1943, and 1944, Texas ports imported not less than 38 pen cent nor more than 66 per cent of the number of cattle imported by the nation. In these same years the values of the cattle imports over Texas ports represented not less than 20 per cent nor more than $4 per cent of the national value of cattle imports, indicating that the cattle imported at Texas ports were valued at less per head on the average than all cattle imported into the United States. The two customs districts located on the Mexican border, the El Paso and Laredo customs districts, are the principal receivers of cattle imports. Usually the El Paso Customs District enters over 60 per cent of the number while the Laredo Customs District enters less than 40 per cent. While importations of cattle do occur at the Galveston Customs District, the number and value are relatively insignif-102 icant. Due to the competition between the Mexican cattle industry and the ranchers of the United States, tariffs and quotas have been applied. By the Tariff Act of 1922 imported beef cattle weighing less than 1,050 pounds were charged 1-J- cents per pound while cattle weighing over 1,050 pounds were assessed 2 cents per pound. These rates were increased 1 cent a pound in each classification under the Tariff Act of 1930 although the weight dividing the 2 classifications was 103 changed to 700 rather than 1,050 pounds. On January 30,1943 tariff rates on Mexican cattle "weighing 200 pounds or more but less than 700 lb. each 1 ' were reduced to 1-|- cents per pound. Tariff rates on beef cattle "weighing 700 lb. or more each'’ already had been reduced to 2 cents per pound on January 6, 193& and again to l-g cents per pound on January 30, 1943• However, quotas limited the total importations in the latter clas sification "to 155,799 head per calendar year" from January 1, 193& to December 31, 1938- For the years January 1, 1939 to January 29, 1943, the quota in this classification was raised to ”225,000 head per calendar year.” In each instance the rate on entries in excess of quotas were ’’bound against increase at 3/ per pound.” However, the importation of Mexican cattle was further restricted effective April 1, 1939 when Canada was permitted to export to the United States 86.2 per cent of the quota of cattle weighing 700 pounds or over as compared to 13-8 104 per cent for other countries including Mexico. However, this restriction on Mexican cattle was removed beginning January 30, 1943 105 when all quotas were removed during the national emergency. Under the General Trade Agreements signed at Geneva, October 30, 1947, the tariff rate on all cattle was to be ij- cents per pound with entries in excess of quotas paying 2-J- cents per pound. The quota on calves weighing less than 700 pounds was established at 200,000 head per year, and on cattle weighing 700 pounds or more each, 400,000 head 106 per year. However, these tariff rates and quotas will not be applicable until the present embargo against the importation of Mexican cattle has been lifted. The cattle imported ’’from Mexico throughout the years have been mainly stocker and feeder cattle for further finishing in the United 10? States.” Principally yearling steers ranging from ’’plain to good cattle” are imported. If imported in the fall, the cattle usually go to feed lots while cattle imported in the spring are pastured during the summer before going to feed lots in the fall. These cattle are shipped to many states in the Middle West and a large number go to 108 California. Many go as far north as Montana for grass feeding ~ while 109 states as far east as Illinois receive a number for lot feeding. Much has been done in recent years to improve the herds on the ranches of northern Mexico. The principal method of improvement is to import bulls of good stock for crossbreeding with the local herds. The Hereford breed predominates at the present time although the mulley Aberdeen Angus is gaining in popularity. The crossbreeding with ’’Zebu (Brahman) bulls,” a growing practice in Texas, has not become common 110 in northern Mexico. Nevertheless, an interest in the practice of crossbreeding with Brabnan cattle was responsible for an importation of Brahman bulls from Brazil into eastern Mexico in 1946, an unfortunate undertaking inasmuch as the dreaded foot-and-mouth disease ’’broke out shortly after they reached the mainland. The subsequent epidemic forced the United States to prohibit the importation of cattle from Mexico. The seriousness of the disease and the possible impact on the cattle industry in both nations have caused the United States to send personnel and equipment to Mexico to assist in the eradication and control program. By September 1947 the United States alone had spent "about $2l million" in this campaign which has tended toward control rather than eradication of the disease from Mexican soil. The subsequent embargo has caused "a surplus of three quarters of a million cattle" on Mexican ranches while the beef shortage becomes more acute in the United States. Should the embargo continue for some time, permanent channels may develop whereby the cattle will be partially fattened and slaughtered in Mexico for domestic consumption or sales abroad. However, powerful economic forces will tend to restore the flow of cattle to the United States once the embargo is lifted. The lack of grain in Mexico for fattening and conditioning is a serious handicap. Furthermore the northern ranches are great distances from Mexico City and the population centers of Mexico where purchasing power is still low per capita. In addition the beef cattle population of the United States has not increased in proportion to the people thereby creating an economic vacuum within which cattle from Mexico will tend to be drawn once the 113 embargo is lifted. Mexico also supplies the major portion of the hides and skins received at Texas ports. Even though the value of cattle imports has tended to increase, the imports of hides and skins from this source have decreased. Nevertheless for the year 1920 the value of the imports of hides and skins over Texas ports exceeded the value of the 114 cattle imported. In the latter year the imports of hides and skins were valued at 1.4 million dollars as compared to 433 thousand dollars for cattle. While cattle imports continued to increase in value for 1930, 1940, and 1944, the imports of hides and skins declined to 921 thousand dollars in 1930, 444 thousand dollars in 1940, and 221 thousand dollars in Whereas the imports of hides and skins in 1900 and 1910 exceeded 10 per cent of the value of all imports over Texas ports for those years, the proportion had dropped to 1.1 per cent in 1940 and to less than 1 per cent in 1944. A comparison with the value of the imports of hides and skins for the nation reveals that Texas ports imported less than 2 per cent for the years 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940. In 1940 Texas ports accounted for 0.8 per cent of the national imports of hides and skins valued at 50.2 million dollars. With Mexico as the principal source of the hides and skins received at Texas ports, one is not surprised to find that the Laredo and El Paso customs districts handled over 99 per cent of the total for the years 1920, 1930, and 1940. During the Second World War, the Galveston Customs District also received a portion of these imports. In 1944 hides and skins imported at the Galveston Customs District were valued at 81 thousand dollars as compared to 140 thousand dollars 116 for Laredo and no value for El Paso. The principal types of hides and skins received at Texas ports 117 are goat, sheep, and reptile skins. These skins were free of duty under the Tariff Act of 1930 and "are bound at that status under trade agreements with Central and South American countries, effective at various dates from 1936 to 1943-" Cattle skins have declined in importance as imports inasmuch as the United States is "the world's largest 118 producer” of cattle hides and charges a duty of 5 per cent ad valorem under the trade agreements made effective with Argentina in 1941 and Uruguay in 1943- Previous to these agreements the Tariff Act of 119 1930 required a duty of 10 per cent ad valorem on all cattle hides. Whereas cattle, hides, and skins were among the earliest imports through Texas ports, the importation of crude petroleum did not become important until the twentieth century was well under way. For the years 1900 and 1910 crude petroleum importations were nil or valued at ’’less than ssoo. ” By 1920, 28.4 million barrels, valued at 16.1 million dollars, were imported. This total represented 29.3 per cent of all imports through Texas ports for the year and 28.9 per cent of 120 the total value of all imports of crude petroleum for the nation. While the importation of crude petroleum was abnormally high in 1920 due to the post-war demands for petroleum products, the movement continued to be important in the foreign trade of Texas ports. In 1930 the volume of crude petroleum imports was less than one-tenth of the 1920 volume. Nevertheless the value of 1.9 million dollars accounted for $.B per cent of the total imports through Texas ports in that year. The volume, value, and relative importance of crude oil imports were all increased in 1940 as compared to 1930. A volume of 7.5 million barrels, valued at 5-5 million dollars, was received at Texas ports in 1940. Comparatively, this value represented 13-5 per cent of the total imports over Texas ports and 17.1 per cent of the national imports of crude petroleum. The importation of crude petroleum through Texas ports continued during the early part of the Second World War but was discontinued by 1944. Even by 1943 the imports had dwindled to 336 thousand barrels a For year ending June 30. designated as a customs district for this year. c oustoms district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. than $3OO. e lncluded unfinished topped oil and other unfinished oils. f Data for 1940 are for ’’lmports for Consumption." Other data are for "General Imports." Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. a For year ending Tune 30. designated as a customs district for this year. c Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930._ O-Less than 500 barrels. e lncludes unfinished distillates or topped oils. for 1940 are for "Imports for Consumption." Other data are for "General Imports." Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Co:mmerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. with a value of 256 thousand dollars. Although Texas ports failed to import crude petroleum in 1944, other ports of the nation imported , 121 44.8 million barrels valued at 49-0 million dollars. In the fol- lowing year importations of crude petroleum was discontinued not only 122 at Texas ports but for the whole nation. The import movement of crude petroleum was resumed in 1947 'when 123 99-3 million barrels were imported for all United States ports and this movement may be expected to continue. This prediction is econom- 124 ically sound despite the import excise taxes required since 1932 and the large exports of crude petroleum by way of Texas ports. In the first place the heavy crude petroleum imported from Latin America ”is more suitable for making heavy petroleum products, whereas domestic petroleum is a better source of gasoline and light petroleum 125 products.” Venezuela, our principal source of imported crude 126 petroleum, particularly produces oil with the above stated qualities. Furthermore, the receipts of petroleum represent in the main ad- vantageous ”intracompany transfers or transactions between affiliated 127 companies.” This latter practice is possible because of the ’’af- filiation of Latin American producers and refineries with United 128 States companies engaged in refining and marketing domestic crude.” For example the ”Hoyal Dutch Shell group” controls the Shell Union Oil Corporation which operates oil wells in Venezuela, Mexico, Texas, and 129 Oklahoma but also has a large refinery and tank farm on the Houston 130 Ship Channel. Along the Houston Ship Channel, the greatest proportion of the imported crude petroleum is received. Nearly all of the remaining imports are reported by the Sabine Customs District. In 1920 the latter customs district received 12.0 million barrels of crude petroleum as compared to 16.1 million barrels for the Galveston Customs District. For the years 1930, 1940, and 1943, imports of crude petroleum over the Sabine Customs District continued to decline in importance relative to the Galveston Customs District. By 1940 the Sabine Customs District received less than one-tenth of the volume of imported crude 131 petroleum received by the Galveston Customs District. Then in 1943 the Galveston Customs District was the only customs district with 132 ports in Texas which received any imports of crude petroleum. Another organic compound imported in much lesser quantities and 133 values than crude petroleum is creosote or dead oil. In volume Texas ports received 11.8 million gallons of creosote oil in 1910, 2.1 million gallons in 1920, I>.l million gallons in .1930, and 8.1 million gallons in 1940. During the war year of 1944 no imports of this product were received at Texas ports. Furthermore, the water ports of Texas had not received the usual imports of creosote oil as late as 1946. However, coastwise shipments were sent to the ports of Galveston and Houston in the latter year, accounting for 17,411 tons of in-134 tracoastal shipping. In value, creosote imports into Texas ports varied between 500 thousand and a million dollars for the years 1910, 1920, and 1940- For the year 1930 the value rose to 1.7 million dollars, representing 5-3 per cent of the value of all imports over Texas ports and 22.3 per cent of the value of all creosote imports for the nation. Creosote imports for 1940 were valued at 836 thousand dollars which represented only 2.1 per cent of the total imports for Texas ports but 21.5 per cent of the creosote imports for the nation. The principal customs districts receiving creosote imports were Galveston and Sabine. All of the value of creosote imports through Texas ports entered by way of the Galveston Customs District in 1910 and 19'20. By 1930 the Sabine Customs District received creosote valued at 268 thousand dollars as compared to 1,472 thousand dollars for the Galveston Customs District. Similarly in 1940 the Sabine Customs District received the minor share of creosote imports. In that year the Galveston Customs District received creosote imports valued at 547 thousand dollars as compared to 289 thousand dollars for the Sabine Customs District. The principal portion of the creosote imported into the United States was supplied by Great Britain and Japan. Of the portion received at Texas ports, the water ports of Galveston and Houston accounted for the major part. For the period 1924-1933 the Port of Houston received an average of 14,337 tons of creosote annually as compared to 46,963 tons for the Port of Galveston. The relative positions were reversed for the years 1934-1933 ’when the Port of Houston received on the average 15,222 tons of creosote imports as compared to 135 7,371 tons for the Port of Galveston. Inasmuch as the United States has not produced sufficient quanti- 136 ties of creosote to meet domestic needs during times of peace, the Tariff Act of 193 C required no duty on this item. This duty-free status was bound in the United States trade agreement with Belgium in 137 1935. But despite the duty-free status of creosote oil during the Second World War, domestic production had to be increased markedly to meet the increased war demands and to make up the loss of Japan and the United Kingdom as principal sources. However, the United States under normal times is again expected to be an importer of creosote. Data for 1947 indicate this trend. In this year the United States imported 34.5 million gallons of creosote as compared to 39.0 million 138 gallons in 1940. The importation of creosote, however, has not been so essential as the importation of increasing quantities of paper, particularly 139 standard newsprint. Production of standard newsprint in the United States ”gradually decreased” from 3-2 billion pounds in 1925 to 1.4 billion pounds in 1944- At the time the production of newsprint has been decreasing, consumption has been increasing. Consumption in the United States has ’’risen irregularly” from 4 billion pounds in 1921 to 140 over 8 billion pounds in 1937 and to 8.6 billion pounds in 1946. To meet this deficit between consumption and production, imports into the United States increased from 1.5 billion pounds in 1920 to 5-5 billion 141 pounds in 1940. Texas ports did not receive for importation appreciable amounts of standard newsprint in 1910 or 1920. However in 1930, 86.5 million pounds were received at Texas ports. This amount was increased to 104-9 million pounds in 1940. Although an important import over Texas ports, this volume represented only 2 per cent of the volume of standard newsprint imported by the nation. The total value of all paper and manufactures of paper imported through Texas ports has become significant with the increased importation of standard newsprint. In 1920 when Texas ports had no imports of standard newsprint, the value of all imports of paper and manufactures of paper was only 83 thousand dollars. However, by 1930 'the volume of standard newsprint imports was 86.5 million pounds and the 142 import value of all paper imports had risen to 2.4 million dollars. A slight decline in value occurred in 1940 when a value of 2.2 million 143 dollars in imports of paper and manufactures of paper occurred. a For year ending June 30. °Not designated as a customs district for this year. °Customs district was designated as Sam. Antonio in 1920 and 1930. sLess than $5OO. e Paper and manufactures of paper. for 1940 are for ’’lmports for Consumption.” Other data are for ’’General Imports.” Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and .Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. a For year ending lune 30. b Not designated as a customs district for this year. c Customs district was designated as San Antonio in 1920 and 1930. a Less than 50,000 pounds. e Data for 1940 are for "Imports for Consumption." Other data are for "General Imports.” Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. ' ' ' ' ' ~ “‘‘ During the Second World War, the importation of standard newsprint over Texas ports ebbed and then ceased altogether. In 1943 Texas ports received for import only 62 thousand pounds with a value of less than 2 thousand dollars. In the following year Texas ports did not receive any imports of standard newsprint. This lack of imports of standard newsprint was temporary as the trade was again flowing to Texas ports in 1945, 1946, and 1947. The importation of standard newsprint has been principally via the Galveston Customs District although the Sabine and Laredo customs districts have participated in a limited manner. Of the 86.5 million pounds imported in 1930, the Galveston Customs District accounted for 79-8 million pounds or 92 per cent of the total. Similarly, in 1940 this same customs district had imports of 91*1 million pounds or 87 per cent of the 104.9 million pounds imported over Texas ports. Within the Galveston Customs District, the Port of Houston is the principal receiver of paper imports. For the period 1924-1933 imports of "paper" at Houston averaged 31*9 million pounds annually while "newsprint paper" imports averaged 102.4 million pounds annually for 145 1934-1938. This concentration of newsprint imports at the Fort of Houston continued after the Second World War with this port receiving 34-6 million pounds of newsprint in 1946 as compared to none for the ports of Galveston and Texas City which are located in the Galveston Customs District. Other water ports of Texas accounting for imports of newsprint in 1946 included Beaumont and Port Arthur which received 8.9 million pounds each and the Port of Corpus Christi which received 2.2 146 million pounds. The source of the imports of standard newsprint paper has been mainly from the North American countries of Canada, Newfoundland, and Labrador. These 3 countries supplied over 9$ per cent of the total 147 newsprint imports of the nation in 1940- In 1947 ships bearing im- ports of newsprint from Newfoundland regularly discharged cargo at the 148 ports of Beaumont and Houston. The amount of newsprint imported over Texas ports in the future will depend upon the development of newsprint production within the hinterland as well as the demand. At Lufkin, Texas the Southland Paper Mills has successfully initiated a sulphate pulp process for making "the first American newsprint" from common yellow pine. So successful has the venture been that substantial additions to the original plant have been made, accounting for a total investment of 149 approximately 10 million dollars. By lune 1948 the Southland Paper Mills was not only competing for the domestic market but was shipping 150 "some newsprint to Mexico." In the early years of the twentieth century the two minerals of copper and lead were also important imports but declined in relative importance prior to the Second World War. Copper imports in 1900 represented 12.0 per cent of the value of imports over Texas ports in that year but declined to 0.4 per cent in 1930 and 1.4 per cent in 1940. A similar decline was recorded for the lead imports which were valued at 16.2 per cent of the value of all imports over Texas ports 151 in 1900 but declined to 0.5 per cent in 1940. From 1900 to the Second World War, the United States has tended 152 to export more copper than was imported. That is, prior to the Second World War, ‘'domestic production supplied the needs of the United States” and "imports were mostly under bond for smelting, refining, and export.” "Some taxable copper has entered the United States and a large share of it was re-exported as manufactured articles with benefit . , , , ~153 of drawback." Under the Tariff Act of 1930, "copper ores, concentrates, matte, blister, refined, and scrap are duty-free." However under the Revenue Act of 1932, an import-excise tax of 4 cents a pound was imposed. Duty' free exceptions were made on all copper which was "the product of Cuba and the Philippines, and that imported for smelting and refining in bond and export." Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade signed at Geneva on October 30, 1947, the duty-free exceptions remained while the import excise tax "has been reduced from 4 cents per pound of contained copper to 2 cents per pound." But in order to encourage the importation of copper for post-war needs, the "excise tax has been suspended from April 30, 1947 through March 31, 1949 by Pub-155 lie Law 42, 80th Congress." The copper ore and concentrates imported at Texas ports have been destined principally to the El Paso Smelting Works at El Paso where a 156 ’’bonded smelter” and "United States customs warehouse" are located. In 1948 shiploads of copper and lead ores were received at Corpus Christi for entry at the Port of El Entries are also made from Mexico at the ports of Laredo, El Paso, and Nogales (Arizona) for refinement in bond at the El Paso Smelting Works. In 1930 the El Paso Customs District received 1.0 million of the 1.7 million pounds of the copper content in copper ores imported through Texas ports. In that same year the San Antonio Customs District received the remainder. Then in 1940 the El Paso Customs District accounted for all of the 5-3 million pounds of copper content in copper ore imported through Texas ports although, as indicated above, the original physical entry did not necessarily occur in the 31 Paso Customs District. Not only has the importation of copper ore into Texas ports become relatively unimportant to the total imports for all Texas ports, but in addition these imports of copper ore represented less than .1 per cent of the total copper ore imported by the 158 nation in 1930 and 1940« While the United States has produced domestically more copper than has been used, the domestic lead consumption has exceeded the 159 domestic production. With Mexico as the principal supplier of imported lead, the ports of Laredo and El Paso have become the principal locations for importation through Texas ports. For refining, the lead ores go principally to plants of the American Smelting and Refin-161 ing Company located at El Paso and Amarillo. Another import move- ment of lead ore began in October 1947 when the first of regular shipments from South Africa was received at the Port of Corpus Christi for smelting at El Since 1900 the imports of lead ores and unmanufactured lead over Texas ports have varied rather widely. .From 24'thousand tons in 1900, the volume increased to 32 thousand tons in 1910. Then a decline to 5 thousand tons occurred in 1920 but was increased to 15 thousand tons in 1930. Despite a large increase of lead imports nationally in 1940, the Texas ports received only 3-5 thousand tons of lead imports in 163 that year. -Alien lead ores and unmanufactured lead imports were at the peak for the nation in 1943, Texas ports received 224 thousand tons with 219 thousand tons entering by way of the Laredo Customs Dis-164 trict. While no import-excise tax applies to lead imports, the Tariff Act of 1930 required a duty of 1.5 cents per pound on the lead contained in "lead-bearing ores, flue dust, and mattes of all kinds." Un der the same act, lead bullion or base bullion lead in pigs and bars, 165 et cetera were dutiable at 2.125 cents per pound on "the lead con- tained therein.” Under the trade agreement with effective January 30, 1943, the rate on ore was reduced to .75 of a cent per pound while the rate z 166 on bullion, bars, etc. was reduced to 1.0625 cents per pound. In a further removal of the barriers to lead imports during the Second World War, the duty on lead scrap was suspended by Congress effective March 14, 1942 for ’'the duration of the emergency.”^ 0 ' Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade signed at Geneva on October 30, 1947, no further concessions were granted on lead duties inasmuch as the removal of duties ’’would probably result in a significant increase 163 in lead imports from Mexico and Peru.” 169 Zinc, a metal usually found in lead ores, was relatively unimportant as an import through Texas ports prior to the Second World War. In the years 1900, 1920, 1930, and 1940, the value of imported zinc represented less than 1 per cent of the value of the total imports over Texas ports. An exception occurred in 1910 when zinc valued at 915 thousand dollars was imported via Texas ports. This value represented 5.9 per cent of the value of the total imports into Texas ports 170 for the year. Prewar capacity for smelting zinc in the United States "was sufficient to provide for all domestic needs as well as for the smelting 171 of foreign ores for re-export." Nevertheless, a new plant of significance to the import trade of Texas ports was established on the 172 Gulf Coast of Texas in 1942. In that year the American Smelting and Refining Company placed "a large electrolytic zinc plant in operation" at the Port of Corpus Christi. The average production of this plant is 2,500 tons of zinc and 20 tons of cadmium a month while sul-173 phuric acid is a by-product. For smelting in part at this plant, the Texas ports received 164 thousand tons of zinc content in zinc bearing ores valued at 4.8 billion dollars in 1943. In addition, 45 thousand tons of zinc content were received at Texas ports in the form of zinc blocks, pigs, etc., I’ 7 4 valued at 4.1 million dollars. ' ' Inasmuch as Mexico, Canada, and Peru are the leading sources of zinc ore, the refinery at the Port of Corpus Christi should be in a good position to serve the post-war im-175 port trade. Zinc, like lead, has been protected against foreign importations by tariff duties. Under the Tariff Act of 1930, zinc-bearing ores were dutiable at 1.5 cents per pound on the zinc content. Under the trade agreement with Canada, effective January 1, 1939, the duty was reduced to 1.2 cents per pound. Further reduction became effective on January 30, 1943 under the trade agreement with Mexico whereby the duty was reduced to .75 of a cent per pound of contained zinc. The latter reduction was to be effective only until 30 days after the ter-177 mination of the ’’unlimited national emergency.” However, under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade signed at Geneva on October 30, 1947, the rate of .75 of a cent per pound on "zinc ores and concen-178 trates” became the new rate. The increased demands for antimony during the Second World War also have stimulated the importation of antimony ores through Texas ports. This tin-white metal was greatly needed as an alloy to give 179 hardness and the peculiar property of expansion upon solidification. In the years 1910, 1920, and 1930? no importations of this ore were received at Texas ports, but in 1940 antimony ore valued at 886 thou- 180 sand dollars was imported at Texas ports. This value represented 43.7 per cent of the 2.0 million dollar value in antimony ore imported 181 by the nation. By 1943 the importation of antimony ore had increased many times for the nation and Texas ports. Much of the antimony ore was received from Mexico by way of the Laredo Customs District which was the only Texas customs district to receive the ore. This customs district alone accounted for 23.2 million pounds of 57-7 million pounds of antimony content received by the nation in that year. The value of the 182 antimony imports over Texas ports was 1.8 million dollars. In 1944 the Laredo Customs District again was the only customs district in Texas to receive the ore. In that year Laredo received 20.4 million pounds of antimony content or 60 per cent of the 33-8 million pounds imported by the nation. The ore was processed mainly 183 in the antimony smelters located near Laredo and Amarillo. Another type of smelter was located on the Gulf Coast of Texas during the Second World War and smelted even a greater value of ore 184 than that of antimony. Cut off from the principal sources of tin, namely, the British Malaya and the Netherlands Indies, the United States government began operating a 50,000-ton smelter at Texas City 185 in April 1942, using Bolivian and African tin. By 1943 the Galveston Customs District in which Texas City is a port of entry received 16.4 thousand long tons of tin in the form of tin ore with a value of 19.3 million dollars or 77 per cent of the value of tin ore received 186 by the nation. This condition in tin imports is similar to that in the First 187 World War when 2 tin smelters were established on the East Coast. These 2 plants continued to operate successfully until England lowered tin prices and concurrently levied a tax on Nigerian tin ores ’’shipped 188 outside the Empire.” K Wether the tin smelter at Texas City can survive during the post-war period will depend in a large measure upon the agreements with England and the decisions of the International Tin - + 18 9 Committee. / importations at the El Paso Customs District increased from 4*3 million dollars in 1940 to 14-7 million dollars in 1943 end then to 18.0 million dollars in 1947. Ilie record of import values at the Sabine Customs District for the same period was 2.1 million dollars for 1940, 450 thousand dollars for 1943, and 2.9 million dollars for 1947. 7 f lncludes the ore and manufactures of copper and lead. See Tables LIX and LX. CJ Bananas came mainly from the lands facing the Gulf of Mexico and the larger body of water, the Caribbean Sea, while jute was grown in the Bengal region of India at the delta of the (Ganges River. George B. Roorback, Problems in Foreign Trade, First Edition, p. 206. A. Dowell and Oscar B. Jesness, The American Farmer and the Export Market, pp. 108-109. W. Zimmermann, World Resources and Industries, p. 264. 11 Sugar Land, Texas, is located 22 miles southwest of Houston. Texas Official Highway Map, Spring Edition, corrected to January 1, 1948. }-2jesse A. Ziegler, Wave of the Gulf, p. 326. 13 Ibid., p. 325. Russell Smith and M. Ogden Phillips, Industrial and Commercial Geography, Third Edition, p. 539- op. cit. , p. 271. 40,000 acres were included within the "Sugarland" properties alone. Ziegler, op. cit., pp. 325-326. and Phillips, op. cit., p. 539* 1 ft In May, 1928 the Imperial Sugar Company of Sugar Land, Texas had been "in the sugar refining business for 20 years.” Houston Port and City, May, 1928, p. SO. op. cit. , p. 325. 20 Houston Port Book, November, 1924, p. 59. 21 Corps of Engineers, United States Army, Port and Terminal Facil ities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, P- 53- 22 See Tables LXI arid Lm. price quoted as ’’before the First World War” was for 1913* All prices quoted were for 96° centrifugal raw Cuban sugar, including duty, at Nev/ York. United States Department of Commerce, .Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Survey of Current Business, 1942 Supplement , p. 125. 2 / 1930 the wholesale price for 96° centrifugal raw Cuban sugar including duty, at Nev/ York was 3»4 cents per pound. 2sr. Starley Tevis, ’’Handling Sugar through Port Houston,” Houston Port and City, November, 1932, p. 35- 2°Tables LXI and LXII; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Foreign Cominerce and Navigation of the United States 1943 and 1944- Port Book, November, 1924, p. 59 2g Port Book of the Port of Galveston, 1932, p. 51- 2Q 'United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Merchandise Movement through Texas Gulf Ports Calendar Year Ended December 31, 1945♦ Book of the Port of Galveston, 1932, p. 51- 31 Ziegler, op. cit., p. 325- States Department of State, United States Import Duties, pp. 205-207. 33 Ibid., p. 332. Statistics, July-December, 1941, p. 15- 3 data showed average coffee consumption in the United States in 1941 was 17-13 pounds per capita. Loc. cit. of the per capita consumption for 1947 was based upon an estimated population of 140 million people in the United States, 37 ■Smith and Phillips, op. cit., p. 550. Salvador, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Netherlands East Indies were the principal nations taking advantage of the attempt of Brazil to valorize world coffee prices. Ibid., p. 548. , p. 550- States Department of State, United States Import Duties, p. 332. quotas were "subject to increase or decrease to adjust supplies to domestic requirements in the United States." Ibid., PP.' 332-333. otherwise stated, data on coffee may be found in Tables LIX, LX, LXIII, and LXIV. Tables LXIII and. LXIV. R. Aston, ’’Houston as a Coffee Port,” Houston Port Book, May, 1933, P- IS- cit. Port of Galveston in the same year imported 660 thousand pounds or 0.6 per cent of the total for Texas ports. F. G. Robinson, Statement before the United States Secretary of the -Treasury in Behalf of the Galveston Chamber of Commerce, the City of Galveston and the Texas City Chamber of Cormierce, in Opposition to the Proposed Removal of the Galveston Customs District Headquarters from Galveston to Houston, Texas, 1947, Exhibit No. 5- ; 7 + 'The Duncan Coffee Company also has a processing plant in Corpus Christi. E. Atha, ’’Rapid Growth Shown in Coffee Industry,” Houston Port Book, May, 1948, p. 41- , p. 42. of Texas Manufacturers, 1946, PP- 63-64. 51 / United States Import Duties, 1940, op. cit., p. 327 $ Smith and Phillips, op. cit., p. 482. s’see Table LXVI; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Summary of the Foreign Commerce of the United States, 1947 p. 26. States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1944-45, p. 428. observation in El Paso retail stores in summer of 1948 s°Cool, moist air has been found more satisfactory than dry, cold air. Personal interview with Fred Simpson, fleet operator of banana trucks from Port of Brownsville, August 27, 1947- are harvested from 12 to 15 months after the rhizomes are planted. The Story of the Banana, p. 24. BSee 8 See Tables LKV and W/I. States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foodstuffs Trade with. Latin America, p. 22. 6o Personal observation of banana unloading and distribution facilities of the Port of Brownsville, August 27, 1947• 61 Personal interview with A. R. Kahn, Assistant Collector of Customs, Port of Laredo, August 26, 1947- Personal interview with John Lewis, President of Customs Broker Council, Port of Laredo, August 26, 1947* 63 Tables LXV and LXVI. Designated as the San Antonio Customs District in 1930* 65 Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1943? passim. , 1944, passim. 67 Port Book of the Port of Galveston, 1932, pp. 51-52. 6%. G. Robinson, op. cit. , Exhibit No. 5- 69 7 Fersonal observation of the banana handling facilities and personal interviews with F. W. Hofmokel, 'General Manager and Director of the Port of Brownsville, August 27 and 28, 1947- 70 Data are based upon mimeographed commercial statistics released by the United States War Department, Corps of Engineers, Office of the District Engineer, Galveston District, Galveston, Texas. 71 ' These countries were specifically named as the principal sources of bananas entering the Port of Galveston in 1931- Port Book of the Port of Galveston, 1932, p. 51. ? 2 As late as 1932 Mexico shipped only 4.5 million of the 49-5 million bunches of bananas imported into the United States. By 1938 Mexico led all nations shipping to the United States by sending 1>.5 million of the 59-2 million bunches received at United States ports. Foodstuff Trade with Latin America, op. cit., p. 21. 73 Personal interview with F. W. Hofmokel, General Manager and Director of the Port of Brownsville, August 28, 1947* Book of the Port of Galveston, 1932, p. 51- r the return trip from Los Angeles, the trucks brought ’’grapes peaches, plums, tangerines, and lemons.” 'personal interview with Fred Simpson, owner and manager of trucks operating out of the Port of Brownsville, August 27, 1947- 77 'Personal interview with John Lewis, President of the Customs Brokers Council of the Port of Laredo, August 26, 1947- ?sln the years 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930, the importation of pineapples over Texas ports did not exceed 10 thousand dollars for any one year. In 1940 Texas ports received pineapples valued at 135 thousand dollars. See Table LIX. 79 Carloads of fresh pineapple are frequently destroyed at the border ports of entry due to lack of care en route or slow transportation. Po Corpus Christi Port Book, June, 1946, p. 23. 81 The El Paso Times, June 13, 1948, p. 13- cit. and Phillips, op. cit. , p. 727. E. Klimm, Otis P. Starkey, Norman F. Hall, Economic Geography, p. 192. 85 Our 100 Leading Imports, p. 15. So sO Lqc. cit. tural Imports and Exports in delation to American Agriculture , p. 14. 88 Poorbach, op. cit., p. 204. oq 7 Dowell and Jesness, op. cit., pp. 146-147• States News and World. 'Report, August 20, 1948, p. 56. 91 / z Roorbach, oc. cit. , p. 205; United States Import .Duties, 1946, op. cit., pp. 261 and" 263. 92 Agricultural Imports and Exports in Relation to Artier 1 can Agriculture, p. 14. 93see Tables LX and LOTI. az foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1943 and 1944. data supplied by F. G. Robinson, Traffic Manager, Galveston Chamber of Commerce and Galveston Cotton Exchange and Board of Trade, August 21, 1947. 96 ' Our 100 Leading Imports, p. 15; Smith and Phillips, op. cit., p. 727. 97 / Directory of Texas Manufacturers, 1946, p. H. op ' ’’Aside from a limited movement of breeding stock in 1945 and 1946, largely to European countries, United States exports of live cattle have been insignificant for many years.” United States Department of State, Analysis of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Signed at Geneva, October 30, 1947, p. 142. 99 Agricultural Imports and Exports in Relation to American Agriculture, May, 1945, p. 10. 100 See Tables LX, LXVIII, and IXIX. Cour tierce and Navigation of the United States, 1943 and 1944, passim; Tables Livin''and LXIX. 1 no The Galveston Customs District had no imports of cattle in 1910, 1920, and 1930. Data for the year 1940 show Galveston Customs District imported only 105 head valued at approximately 2 thousand dollars. See Tables LOTH and LXIX. and Jesness, op. cit. , p. 204. States Import Duties, 1946, op. cit. , pp. 213-214. After the removal of the quota in 1943, Mexico became the principal supplier of dutiable cattle. In 1946 all imports of live cattle amounted to ’’nearly 516,000 head, of which Mexico supplied 85 percent in number and 75 percent in liveweight.” Analysis of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Signed at Geneva, October 30, 1947, op. cit., p. 142. 106 t Log. cit. stuffs Trade with Latin .America, op. cit. , p. 28. 1 08 Personal interview with Truett Evans, Cattle Buyer and Commission Man, El Paso, Texas, August 14, 1948. Mexican steers are fed out in the corn belt of Illinois, some cattle feeders object to the poor record of gains made by the Mexican cattle. Personal interview with Dr. L. E. Hartrick, local cattle feeder, Urbana, Illinois, August, 1946. 110 Personal interview with Truett Evans, Cattle Buyer and Commission Man, El Paso, Texas, August 14, 1948- Report, September 2, 1947, P* 25- , pp. 24-2 s. number of cattle, other than dairy cattle, on United States farms in 1900 was >0.6 million head as compared to 46.0 million head in 1940* Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1944-45, p. 6>B. Table LIX. Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1944, passim. cit. 117 'Previously goat and kid skins predominated as the principal kinds of hides and skins imported but in 1944 reptile skins accounted for 112 of the 221 thousand dollar value in hides and skins received at Texas ports. The Laredo Customs District alone received 97 per cent of the value of the reptile skins imported at Texas ports in that year. Loc. cit. Our 100 Leading Imports, p. 14. States Import Duties, 1946, op. cit. , p. 305. 120 See Tables LX, LXX, and LXXI. 1 21 Foreign. Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1943 and 1944. 122 United States Department of Commerce, Office of Domestic Commerce, United States Petroleum Refining, War and Post War, p. 62. 123 break-down for Texas ports was not available. Summary of the Foreign Commerce of the United States, 1947, p. 34- 12Z H While no tariff on crude petroleum was effective under the Tariff Act of 1930, the Revenue Act of 1932 imposed import excise taxes on crude petroleum of 0.5 of a cent per gallon. In subsequent reciprocal trade agreements with Venezuela on December 16, 1939, the tax was reduced to 0.25 of a cent a gallon but imports at the lesser rate were subjected to quotas. Under a later agreement with Mexico on January 30, 1943, "the quota limitations were superseded.” United States Import Duties, 1946, op. cit., pp. 357-361. •'Paul R. Olson and Charles A. Hickman, Pan American Economics, pp. 28-29. 1 Mexico, and Colombia are the three main sources of imported crude petroleum. Our 100 Leading Imports, p. 19- Analysis of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Signed at Geneva, October 30, 1947, op. cit., p. 175 ♦ 128 Olson and Hickman, op. cit., p. 231. 129 Zimmermann, op. cit., p. 524- 130 Houston Port Book, November, 1946, P- 50. 1 3 1 See Table LSI. Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1943, passim. r; re osote is the principal coal-tar material imported into the United States. The uses vary with the degree of refinement from "road tars and pitch, fuels, explosives, wood preservatives, resins, plastics, dyes, colors, photographic chemicals, medicinals, flavors, and perfumes." Our 100 Leading Imports, p. 35- OK3me rcial Statistics, Calendar Year Ending December 31, 1946 (mimeographed), passim. 135 data received from F. G. Robinson, Traffic Manager, Galveston Cotton Exchange and Board of Trade, August 21, 1947• lOO Leading Imports, p. 35 • States Import Duties, 1946, op. cit. , p. 331* of the Foreign Commerce of the United States, 1947, p. 37. 1947 the United States imported paper and manufactures of paper valued at 363 million dollars. Of this value, imported standard newsprint paper represented 343 million dollars or 94 per cent. 140 Analysis of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Signed at Geneva, October 30, 1947, op. cit., p. 173 • 141 See Table LXMII. I/O Of the $2,355,063 in imports of paper and manufactures of paper in 1930, newsprint alone accounted for a value of $2,324,073- 143 "See Tables LXXII and LXXIII. of standard newsprint were arriving in 1947 by boats serving the ports of Beaumont and Houston. Personal interview with F. H. Fredricks, Traffic Manager, Port of Beaumont, August 20, 1947- 12 5 data supplied by F. G. Robinson, August 20, 1947- cial Statistics, Calendar Year Ending December 31, 1946 (mimeographed) , op. cit. , passim. 1470ur 100 Leading Imports, p. 9- interview with F. H. Fredricks, Traffic Manager, Port of Beaumont, August 20, 1947- Business Week, December 4, 1943, P« 60. from Ed Holden, Manager, Angelina County Chamber of Commerce, Lufkin, Texas, dated June 18, 1948. 1^1 See Table LX. exception occurred in 1932 when 164 million short tons of copper content in "all forms of copper" were exported as compared to imports of 196 million tons. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1944-45, p. 770. Analysis of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Signed at Geneva, October 30, 1947, op- cit., p. 182. IQO Leading Imports, p. 12. of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Signed at Geneva, October 30, 1947, op- cit., p. 182. EI Paso Smelting Works is a subsidiary of the American Smelting and Refining Company with world-wide mining interests. The Phelps Dodge Refining Corporation also has a large copper refinery at El Paso but this plant receives no imported ores, only ores from the company’s mines in Arizona. 1 interview with Alfred J. J. Taylor, Assistant Customs Collector, Port of El Paso, August 4, 1948. Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1930 and 1940, passim. the period 1935-1939 the United States produced domestically an average of 633,815 short tons of lead but consumed 636,522 tons per year. Our 100 Leading Imports, p. 36. lbo ln 1940 Mexico was the source of ores with a lead content of 48,296 tons as compared to 22,339 tons supplied by Peru, the next largest supplier. Loc. cit. 1^1 Interviews with John Lewis, President of Customs Brokers Conn- cil, Port of Laredo, August 26, 1947 and Alfred J. J. Taylor, Assistant Customs Collector, Port of El Paso, August 4, 1948. of Corpus Christi, October, 1947, P- 27. United States imported 39-5 thousand tons of lead ore and unmanufactured lead in 1930 as compared to 129-6 thousand tons in 1940 Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1930 and 1940, passim. lo^lbid. , 1943, passim. classification included "lead bullion or base bullion, lead in pigs and bars, lead dross, reclaimed lead, scrap lead, anti- monial lead, antimonial scrap lead, type metal, Babbit metal, solder, all alloys or combinations of lead not specially provided for." United States Import Duties, 1946, op. cit. , p. 197- •L^Loc. cit. lOO Leading Imports, p. 36. and Hickman, op. cit. , p. 239- and Phillips, op. cit., p. 221. 17 °See Table LX. 171 Analysis of General Agreement o_n Tariffs and Trade Signed at Geneva, October 30, 1947, Qf• cit., p. 181. 1 zinc smelter is located near Amarillo, Texas. Business ~eek, April 24, 1943, p. 20. of Corpus Christi, March 1947, p. 13, and November 1945, p. 2/ + . 1 Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1943, passim. lOO Leading Imports, p. 68. ”zinc-bearing ores of all kinds, except pyrites containing not more than 3 per centum zinc.” States Import Duties, 1946, op. cit., p. 197• and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Signed at Geneva, October 30, 1947, op. cit., p. 181. 179 Antimony was one of the fourteen raw materials listed by the Army-Navy Munitions Board as ’’persistently strategic.” Olson and Hickman, op. cit., p. 134* Table LIX. 181 Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940, passim. 182 . n „ Ibia., 194>, passim. 188 interview with John Lewis, President of Customs Brokers Council, Port of Laredo, August 26, 1947; Business Week, April 24, 1943, P- 20. 1940 British Malaya and the Netherlands Indies were the source of 108.6 long tons of the 127.8 long tons of tin imported by the United States. Our 100 Leading Imports, p. 7• (In thousands of dollars) Commodity Year 1900 1 1910 1 1920 1930 1940 Cane Sugar 19 49 18,537 4,794 5,014 Coffee 528 131 92 2,258 6,861 Bananas 32 8 2,139 2,667 Pineapples k 1 nil 8 135 Paper 0 1 79 83 2,356 2,190 Jute Bagging 0 . . . . 33 248 j 3,797 2,787 Cattle 557 2,506 433 2,100 3,473 Hides & Skins . . . . 634 1,976 1,382 921 444 Crude Petroleum .. nil j 16,130 1,917 5,507 Creosote .... k 621 597 1,740 836 Crude Rubber 0 .... J 4,679 465 332 290 Copper 1 674 34s 2,787 127 574 Lead§ .. 909 967 547 1,740 204 Zinc 11 j 915 73 1 172 Antimony Ore ..... j nil nil nil 886 Other Imports .... •• 2,250 2,905 13,853 8,670 8,687 Total .. 5,605 15,457 54,987 32,900 40,727 TABLE LIX VALUE OF ITEMS OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED INTO ALL UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 194O a Item of Merchandise Year 19001 _ % 19101 % 1920 £ 1930 1940 % Gane Sugar . 0.3 0.3 33.7 14.6 12.3 Coffee . 9.4 0.8 0.2 6.9 16.9 Bananas nil 0.2 j 6.5 6.6 Pineapples Paper b k J nil j 0.3 j 0.5 0.2 7.2 5.4 Jute Bagging 0 0.6 1.6 j 11.5 6.8 Cattle . 9.9 16.2 0.8 6.4 8.5 Hides & Skins . 11.3 12.8 2.5 2.8 1.1 Crude Petroleum . . . nil J 29.3 5.8 13.5 Creosote Oil k 4.0 1.1 5.3 2.1 Crude Rubber® J 30.3 0.8 1.0 0.7 . 12.0 2.3 5.1 0.4 1.4 . 16.2 6.3 1.0 5.3 0.5 Zinc h j 5.9 0.1 j 0.4 Antimony Ore J nil nil nil 2.2 Other Imports Total • 40.2 . 100.0 18.8 100.0 100.0 26.3 100.0 21.3 100.0 TABLE LX VALUE OF ITEMS OF MERUMdIsE IMPORTED INTO ALL UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL IMPORTS THROUGH TEXAS PORTS FOR TEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 a (In thousands of dollars) Customs District Year i9oo a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b nil nil nil nil Galveston 13 d 15,277 4,624 5,014 Laredo c b b 104 5 nil El Paso 2 4 3,156 165 d Corpus Christi .... 3 3 b b b Brazos de Santiago 1 2 b b b Saluria 40 b b b Texas Total ... 19 49 18,537 4,794 5,014 U. S. Total ... .. 35,478 106,463 1,008,736 129,538 113,253 TABLE LXI VALUE OF CANE SUGAR® IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 f (In million pounds) Year Customs District 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b nil nil nil nil Galveston 0.5 d 124.6 311.5 283-2 Laredo 0 b b 0.8 0.1 nil El Paso 0.1 0.1 22.9 3.3 d Corpus Christi 0.1 0.1 b b b Brazos de Santiago .. d 0.1 b b b Saluria d 1.2 b b b Texas Total 0.7 1.5 148.3 314.9 233.2 U. 3. Total . 3,305.1 4,095.2 8,028.7 6,939.3 5,829.1 TABLE LXII VOLUME OF CANE SUGAR** IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEX.I3 FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 f (In thousands of dollars) Customs District Year 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b d nil nil nil Galveston 285 71 43 2,235 6,853 Laredo b b d d nil El Faso 173 2 49 23 8 Corpus Christi 59 1 b b b Brazos de Santiago ... d b b b Saluria 11 57 b b b Texas Total 528 131 92 2,258 6,861 U. S. Total .. 52,468 69,194 252,451 209,472 126,771 TABLE LXIII VALUE PF COFFEg DEPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS FORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 e (In million pounds) Customs District Year 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b d d nil nil Galveston ■ • 4-3 0.7 0.2 22.5 107-0 Laredo 0 b b nil d nil El Faso 2.2 d 0.2 0.2 0.1 Corpus Christi .. 0.7 d b b b Brazos de Santiago . . nil d b b b Saluria 0.1 0.7 b b b Texas Total . 7-3 1.4 0.4 22.7 107.1 U. S. Total .. 788.0 871-5 1,297-4 1,399.3 2,055-1 TABLE LXIV VOLUME OF COFFEE IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS IROO, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 e (In thousands of dollars) Year Customs District 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine . . . b 9 nil nil nil Galveston nil 23 nil 1,266 1,686 Laredo 0 b b 8 119 489 El Paso nil d nil 754 492 Corpus Christi .... nil d b b b Brazos de Santiago nil d b b b Saluria nil nil b b b Texas Total ... nil 32 8 2,139 2,667 U. S. Total ... ... 5,878 11,643 19,088 34,794 29,085 TABLE LXV VALUE OF BANANAS IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSIOW DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 f (In thousands of bunches) Customs District Year 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b 39 nil nil nil Galveston nil 139 nil 2,018 2,934 Laredo 0 . . . b b 7 248 1,558 El Paso ... nil d nil 1,547 1,072 Corpus Christi nil nil b b b Brazos de Santiago . nil d b b b Sainria . . . nil ni ] b b b Texas Total . . . . nil 173 7 3,312 5,564 U. S. Total .... •p 38,157 39,320 62,731 52,336 TABLE LAVI VOLOAE OF BANANAS IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 e (In thousands of dollars) Customs District Year 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine ... b nil nil nil nil Galveston • . • • 33 245 nil 3,600 2,787 Laredo 0 .. . • . . b b d 197 nil El Paso .. d d nil nil nil Corpus Christi nil d b b b Brazos de Santiago . . . nil nil b b b Saluria .. • • nil 3 b b b Texas Total .... 33 248 d 3,797 2,787 U. S. Total .... .. 1,64> 24,764 98,053 56,658 46,177 TABLE LXVII VALUE OF JUTE BAGGING AND BURLAP IMPORTED INTO WITTD STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 e (In thousands of dollars) Year Customs District 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b nil nil nil nil Galveston d nil nil nil 2 Laredo 0 . b b 227 742 1,353 1,018 2,453 31 Paso • . 452 1,989 206 Corpus Christi 3 nil b b b Brazos de Santiago . 1 497 b b b Saluria 101 20 b b b Texas Total . . . . • , 557 2,506 433 2,100 3,473 U. S. Total .... .. 2,257 3,000 27,419 6,564 16,589 TABLE LXVIII VALUE OF CATTLE IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEAW4RWB PORTS LI FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940® Year Customs District 1900 a l?10 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine b nil nil nil nil Galveston 1 nil nil nil 105 Laredo c b b 5,872 26,808 72,199 El Paso . 46,015 142,245 5,149 Corpus Christi 456 nil b b b Brazos de Santiago . . 274 nil b b b Saluria 9,820 1,446 b b b Texas Total . 56,566 143,691 11,021 85,328 262,976 U. S. Total . 181,006 195,933 379,114 226,273 630,211 TABLE LXIX VOLUME OF CATTLE IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 d (In number of cattle) (In thousands of dollars) Customs District Year 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine . . b d 7,832 713 548 Galveston nil nil 8,136 1,203 4,959 Laredo 0 b b 162 1 nil El Paso nil nil nil nil nil Corpus Christi nil nil b b b Brazos de Santiago . .. nil nil b b b Saluria nil nil b b b Texas Total .... • • d 16,130 1,917 5,507 U. S. Total .... . . 220 610 55,799 83,942 32,211 TABLE LXX VALUE OF CRUDE PETROLEUM 6 IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH H&JIQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 f (In thousands of 42-g£ illon bar rels) Year Customs District 1900 a I9io a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine ... b nil 12,000 952 536 Galveston nil nil 16,098 1,738 6,991 Laredo 0 .. b b 310 1 nil El Paso .. . . . nil nil nil nil nil Corpus Christi .... nil nil b b b Brazos de Santiago nil nil b b b Saluria .. nil d b b b Texas Total ... nil d 28,408 2,741 7,52? U. S. Total ... • • 57 326 106,175 88,359 43,085 TABLE LXXI VOLUME OF GRUBE PETROLEUM® IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 f (In thousands of dollars) Customs District Year 1900 a 19io a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine .. . b d nil 151 81 Salveston 1 25 2 2,185 1,924 Laredo 0 .. b b 78 19 185 El Paso .. > . . • d 49 3 1 d Corpus Christi d 1 b b b Brazos de Santiago .. d d b b b Saluria . . 3 b b b Texas Total • . 1 79 S3 2,356 2,190 U. S. Tot a]. . 3,796 17,537 84,687 147,461 132,611 TABLE LXXII VALUE OF PAPER® IMPORTED INTO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR ■YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 194O 1 (In million pounds) Customs District Year 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Sabine nil nil 6.0 3.8 Galveston 0.1 nil 79.8 91.1 Laredo 0 b nil 0.7 10.0 El Paso nil nil nil nil Corpus Christi nil b b b Brazos de Santiago ... nil b b b Saluria • * nil b b b Texas Total . . 0.1 nil 36.5 . 104.9 U. S. Total .. 92.9 1,459.7 4,559-3 5,525.1 TABLE LXXIII VOLUME OF STANDARD NEWSPRINT IMPORTED INTO UNITED STAINS CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH .WWARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 e Importation by continents. From the continent of North America has come the major portion of all the imports over Texas ports during the twentieth century. In 1900 the North American continent was the source of imports valued at 4-4 million dollars or 79 per cent of the total imports. This percentage relative to all Texas ports was increased to 80 per cent in 19'10 and 92 per cent in 1920. In the latter year the imports of 18.5 million dollars in sugar imports, mainly from 190 Cuba, was a major influence. While continuing as the major source of imports through Texas ports in 1930 and 1940, the North American continent supplied a smaller percentage of the total. In 1930 this continent provided imports valued at 18.9 million dollars or only 57 per cent of the value of imports via Texas ports. The war in Europe was already adversely affecting imports from those countries in 1940 resulting in greater imports from North and South America. In that year North America was the source of imports valued at 28.3 million dollars or 70 per cent of the value of 40.7 million dollars in imports received at Texas ports. This trend continued into the Second World War when in 1944 Texas ports received imports from North America valued at 113.4 million dol-191 lars accounting for 72 per cent of the imports received. Over 99 per cent of the remaining imports over Texas ports was received from the continents of Europe, Asia, and South America. Imports from Europe exceeded those from either Asia or South America for the years 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930. However, circumstances surrounding the Second World War forced Europe in 1940 to relinquish a For fiscal year ending dune 30. than $50,000. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930,“ 1940. second place to South America. In that year South America was the source of imports valued at 6.1 million dollars, an amount equal to the combined values received from Europe and Asia. The two remaining geographical divisions of Oceania and Africa were only minor sources of imports over Texas ports. In 1900 no imports were received from these continents. Oceania continued in 1910 as a nonexporter to Texas ports while less than 50 thousand dollars in import value were attributed to Africa. For any one of the years 1920, 1930, and 1940, these two continents did not send to Texas ports values of imports in excess of 0.1 million dollars. Smith and Phillips, op. cit., p. 217. 1 86 Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1943, passim. 187 The American Smelting and Refining Company built a tin smelting plant at Perth Amboy, New Jersey and the National Lead Company with an English firm established another plant on Long Island. Smith and Phillips, op. cit. , p. 217. 188 Nigerian tin ores were needed to mix with Bolivian tin ores to avoid costly smelting. Loc. cit. 189 However, new technology and economies in mining in Bolivia could make the United States independent of the English influence. 190 X/ See Table LXXIV. 191 foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1944, passim. (In millions of dollars) Year Continent 1900 a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Europe ... 0.5 2.0 1.5 7.1 2.5 Asia ... 0.4 0.1 1.4 4.0 3.6 North America . . ... 4-4 13.2 50.4 18.9 28.3 South America . . a 1.6 2.7 6.1 Oceania nil nil 0.1 b b Africa b b 0.1 0.1 Total ... 5-6 15-5 55.0 32.9 40.7 TABLE LXKIV VALUE OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED FROM CONTINENTS OF WORLD TO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS Li TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 Importation by countries. From the continent of North America, Mexico has been the only country which has consistently and substantially contributed to the imports at Texas ports since 1900. Mexico was the source of imports valued at 4.4 million dollars in 1900 and 13-2 million dollars in 1910. No other country of North America ini-192 tinted imports valued at over 3100,000 in either of these years. By 1920 imports of sugar from Cuba served to establish that coun try as a regular source of imports over Texas ports. In that year imports valued at 15-4 million dollars were received at Texas ports from Cuba. While the imports received from Cuba declined to 4*9 million dollars in 1930 and 5.8 million dollars in 1940, these import values represented not less than 20 per cent of the imports received from the North American continent in those years. Small values of imports were received from Newfoundland and Canada a For fiscal year ending June 30. b Less than $lOO,OOO. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. ' ' in 1930 and 1940. Newfoundland excelled Oanada for the year 1930 by exporting merchandise to Texas ports valued at 1.2 million dollars. The position of the two countries was reversed in 1940 when Canada led with exports to Texas ports valued at 2.1 million dollars. From the continent of Europe, the United Kingdom has through war and peace been the most reliable source of imports via the ports of Texas. In 1900, 1910, and 1930, Germany equaled or excelled the United Kingdom but declined to less than $50,000 in the war-affected 193 years of 1920 and 1940. With two exceptions, no other country besides Germany and the United Kingdom had imports for Texas ports valued at more than $50,000 in the years 1900, 1910, and 1920. One of the exceptions occurred in 1910 when Texas ports received imports from France valued at 0.1 million dollars while the other exception occurred in 1920 when the Netherlands sent merchandise valued at 0.6 million dollars to Texas ports. Imports from the continent of Europe for 1930 were divided between a number of countries besides Germany and the United Kingdom. Among the other countries which sent merchandise valued from 0.1 to 1.5 million dollars were Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Russia of Europe. In 1940 the United Kingdom was the only country of Europe which sent merchandise valued at as much as 0.2 million dollars. On the continent of Asia, British India usually supplied the a Less than $50,000. of Europe. c For fiscal year ending June 30- Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, .Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. major portion of the imports at Texas ports. In 1900 and 1910 British India sent approximately all the imports received from Asia. In 1920 when jute bagging and burlap received at Texas ports were valued at ’’less than $500," British India made no contribution to the import movement. Again in 1930 and 1940 the value of imports originating in British India closely paralleled the importation of jute bagging and burlap. In 1930 British India was the source of imports valued at 3-6 million dollars while imports of jute bagging and burlap were valued 194 at 3-3 million dollars. Then in 1940 both the total imports of jute bagging and burlap and the total imports from British India by , 195 way of Texas ports were valued at 2.8 million dollars each. Lesser imports to Texas ports from the continent of Asia were supplied by China, Hong Kong, and Japan. China contributed imports valued at 0.3 million dollars in each of the years 1920, 1930, and 1940 while Hong Kong supplied consistently ’’less than '3100,000" in all the years considered. Imports from Japan also were "less than $lOO,- 000" except in 1920 when the value increased to 1.1 million dollars. From the continent of South America, imports at Texas ports have been received from an expanding group of countries. In 1900 only Argentina and Brazil contributed in a small way to the import total while in 1910 Brazil alone sent merchandise for importation at Texas ports. In the latter year, Brazil was the source of ’’less than a Less than .3100,000. b For fiscal year ending lune 30. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of St at i s 11c s, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. $100,000” in imports over Texas ports as compared to 300,000 dollars 196 in 1900. Importations in 1920 were received from three South American countries, namely, Colombia, Uruguay, and Argentina. The latter country originated imports valued at 1.5 million dollars while the other two countries sent merchandise valued at ’’less than $100,000." Further additions to the list in 1930 included the countries of Chile and Venezuela. Ey 1940 the importance of coffee imports at Texas ports placed Brazil and Colombia in the leading positions as suppliers of imports. In that year Colombian exports to Texas ports were valued at 3*o million dollars while Brazil supplied imports valued at 1.9 million dollars. Other countries of South America which accounted for 100 to 500 thousand dollars worth of imports in that year were Chile, Argentina, and Venezuela. Importations to Texas ports from countries on the continent of Africa have not been material. In 19'00 none of the imports arriving at Texas ports originated on that continent. Then in 1910 only British South Africa was a source of merchandise from Africa and the value was only 1 thousand dollars. In 1920 and 1930 the country of British South Africa did not originate any imports for entry at Texas ports and only small entries from other countries of Africa were recorded for those years. The values of imports from all countries of .Africa were 6 thousand dollars in 1920 and 62 thousand dollars in 1930. a Less than $lOO,OOO. b For fiscal year ending dune 30 Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 19’30, 1940. Importations from Africa were only slightly better in 1940. In that year British South Africa accounted for 89 thousand dollars of the 95 thousand dollars worth of merchandise received from the African 197 continent. The record of the imports from countries of Oceania was even less impressive than that for the continent of Africa. In 1900 and 1910 no imports were received at Texas ports from any country of Oceania. While this geographical division sent merchandise to Texas ports valued at 0.1 million dollars in 1920, the imports ’were valued at only 1 thousand dollars in 1930 and 17 thousand dollars in 1940. Of the merchandise received in 1930, Australia and New Zealand accounted for 193 the whole but in 1940 Australia was the sole source. A review of the sources of imports via Texas ports reveals that Mexico has been the principal source for all the initial years of the decades from 1900 through 1940. In 1900, 1910, and 1920 a substantial majority of the imports were received from that country. Diversification of the import sources in 1930 reduced the lead of Mexico but despite this reduction 10.3 million dollars of imports originated in Mexico in that year or more than double the value originating in Cuba, the second ranking country. By 1940 increased imports from Mexico and the elimination of a number of European countries from those sending imports enhanced the position of Mexico as a source of imports. Whereas Mexico was the a Less than $lOO,OOO. b For fiscal year ending June 30. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. a Le ss than $lOO,OOO. b For fiscal year ending June 30. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. source of 31-2 per cent of all imports over Texas ports in 1930, the 199 percentage had risen to 40.2 per cent in 1940. From a small beginning in 1900 Cuba now ranks in second place as a source for imports through Texas ports. That country in 1900 and 1910 initiated less than 1 per cent of the imports at Texas ports but the influx of high-priced sugar imports in 1920 was mainly responsible for Cuba becoming the source of 28 per cent of all the imports in that year. While this percentage declined to 15-1 per cent in 1930 and 14.2 per cent in 1940, Cuba easily ranked in second place as a source of imports for those years. Individual countries, other than Mexico and Cuba, have generally accounted for less than 10 per cent of the total of the imports of 200 Texas ports. Imports from Brazil were valued at 0.3 million dollars accounting for s*l per cent of all imports in 1900 when all coffee imports were valued at 0.5 million dollars. The percentage declined to less than 0.1 per cent in 1910 when the value of coffee imports at Texas ports declined to 131 thousand dollars in 1910. When coffee imports increased in 1930 and 1940, Brazil again be- came a substantial source of imports, accounting for 6.6 per cent of 201 the total in 1930 and 4-7 per cent in 1940. Colombia also showed a a Less than #lOO,OOO. b For fiscal year ended lune 30. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of_ the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. Percentage based on value of merchandise. Pe s s than 0.1%. c For fiscal year ending Tune 30. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. marked gain from 1930 to 1940 when that country became a major source of coffee imports. Whereas Colombia was the source of only 0.1 per cent of all imports in 1930, that country was the source of 7.3 per cent of the imports in 1940. The importance of British India as a source of imports closely paralleled the ingress of jute bagging and burlap at Texas ports for the years 1920, 1930, and 1940. In 1920 a value of ’’less than $500” in these products was received at Texas ports while imports from British India for the year was ’’nil.” In 1930 jute bagging and burlap imports were valued at 3*B million dollars and British India in the same year was the source of imports valued at 3*6 million dollars, accounting for 10.8 per cent of all imports for the year. For 1940 the imports of jute bagging and burlap were valued at 2.8 million dollars, the same value for all imports received from British India which accounted for 6.8 per cent of the imports over Texas ports. A change in the importance of Canada in the import trade through Texas ports has taken place since 1920. Increased shipments of newsprint to Texas ports were largely responsible for the upward trend. Imports from Canada in 1940 were valued at 2.1 million dollars and accounted for 5-2 per cent of imports via Texas ports. In that same year, imports of paper, principally newsprint from Canada, were valued at 2.2 million dollars as against 83 thousand dollars in 1920 when imports from Canada accounted for only 0.1 per cent of the total imports at Texas ports. One of the most consistent sources of imports has been the United Kingdom. That country accounted for 1.0 to 4*6 per cent of the imports over Texas ports for all the initial years of the decades from 1900 through 1940. While Germany has surpassed the United Kingdom as a source of imports in 1910 and 1930, both world wars have adversely affected the status of Germany as a source of imports. The demand for commodities supplied by the principal sources of imports indicate that these countries will continue to furnish the 202 major portion of Texas imports. The embargo against cattle from Mexico will adversely affect that country 1 s position while the cheap production of newsprint in Texas by the sulphate process may alter the status of Canada as a source of imports. On the other hand, increased imports of bananas, coffee, and minerals from Mexico will largely offset the adverse effect of the cattle embargo while the competitive position of the new sulphate process for making newsprint has yet to be established. After presenting the principal countries originating the imports received at Texas ports, attention is now directed to the customs districts receiving the imports from the individual countries. From Mexico, the Laredo and El Paso customs districts receive the major por tion of their imports. In 1930 and 1940 over 95 per cent of all imports received by the El Paso Customs District were derived from that 203 source. The Laredo Customs District in 1930 received from Mexico imports valued at 3*B million dollars, accounting for 87 per cent of the 4-4 million-dollar value in imports received in that year. The concentration was even greater in 1940 when Mexico was the source of 5*2 million dollars or 91 per cent of all the imports through the Laredo Customs District. The remaining imports via the Laredo Customs District were widely distributed among the other important sources of imports. However, of this group, Brazil and Colombia did not send imports for entry at the ports of the Laredo Customs District in 1930 while Brazil alone was _, 204 missing as a source in 1940. Imports through the Galveston Customs District in 1930 and 1940 originated in all the principal countries sending imports to Texas ports. In both 1930 and 1940 Cuba was an important source, accounting for imports valued at 3-0 million dollars in 1930 and 5.7 million dollars in 1940. While of minor importance as a source of imports over the Galveston Customs District in 1930, Mexico exceeded all nations in 20p 1940 as a source of imports via this customs district. Of the remaining countries sending imports to the ports of the Galveston Customs District, British India and Brazil were the only- a Less than $lOO,OOO. Source of data: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1930. a Less than Source of data: United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1940. ones in 1930 originating imports valued at as much as a million dollars. In the main the coffee imports accounted for the value of 2.2 million dollars in imports from Brazil while jute and jute bagging largely accounted for the 3-4 million-dollar value of imports from British India. In 1940 Mexico and Cuba were the principal sources of imports through the Galveston Customs District. Mexico supplied the value of 7-0 million dollars in imports while Cuba furnished 5*7 million dollars. The remainder of the imports for 1940 were distributed somewhat evenly between the other principal countries. From the countries of British India, Brazil, Canada, United Kingdom, and Colombia, imports ranging in value from 1.5 million dollars to 2.8 million dollars were received. Of that group of countries, British India led in sending imports valued at 2.8 million dollars while Colombia displaced Brazil for second place by sending imports valued at 2.5 million dollars. Sources of the small value in imports received at the Sabine Customs District were rather widely distributed among several countries, particularly countries in North America, South America, and Europe. Of the imports valued at 1.7 million dollars received over the Sabine Customs District in 1930, values of 0.8 million dollars were received from Europe, 0.8 million dollars from North America, and 0.1 million dollars from South America. In 1940 imports valued at 0.5 million dollars came from Europe, 0.5 million dollars from North America, and 206 1.1 million dollars from South America. While countries initiating shipments for importation over the Sabine Customs District varied in relative importance, the principal countries for 1930 included Mexico, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, Belgium, and Venezuela. For 1940 the principal sources of imports for this customs district included the United Kingdom, Chile, 207 Colombia, and Venezuela. 192 'See Table LAXV. 1 93 see Table LXXVI. 194 See Table DOTH. Table OTII. 196 See Table LXXVIII. 1 9? See Table LXXIX. 198 See Table LXXX. 199 See Tables LXXXI and UWC.II. the years considered, British India was the only exception when imports originating in that country in 1930 were valued at 3-6 million dollars and represented 10.8 per cent of all imports over Texas ports for that year. See Tables LXXXI and LXXXII. 201 Coffee imports over Texas ports increased from a value of 92 thousand dollars in 1920 to 2.3 million dollars in 1930 and 6.9 million dollars in 1940. 202 The more important of the imports include cane sugar, bananas, coffee, paper, jute bagging and burlap, cattle, and crude petroleum. The principal sources of imports are the countries designated in Table LXXXI. 2 was the source of 9S per cent of the imports over the El Paso Customs District in 1930 and 96 per cent in 1940. Tables LXXXIII and LMIV. 205 See Table LjQQCIV. Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1930 and 1940, passim. (In millions of dollars) Country of North America Year I9oo a 1910 a 1920 1930 1940 Canada b b b 0.9 2.1 Newfoundland .... nil nil 1.2 0.5 Mexico . • 4-4 13.2 34.9 10.3 16.4 Cuba b b 15.4 4-9 5.8 All Other b b b 1.6 3.5 Total .. 4.4 13.2 50.4 18.9 28.3 TABLE LXKV VALUE OF K3RALADISE IMPORTED FROM COUNTRIES IN NORTH AMERICA TO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 (In millions of dollars) Country of Europe Year 1900 c 1910° 1920 1930 1940 Belgium .. . . a a a 1.4 0.1 France . . . . a 0.1 a 0.6 0.1 Germany .... 0.2 1.0 a 1.7 a Italy . . . . a a a 0.2 a Netherlands ... a 0.6 1.4 a Norway .... nil a nil 0.1 a Portugal . . . . a a nil a a Spain . . . . a a a 0.2 a Sweden .... nil a a 0.4 a Switzerland ... .. . . a a a a a Russia^ 3 . . . . nil a nil 0 1 nil United Kingdom .... 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.9 All Other 0 2 0.2 Total .... 0.5 2.0 1.5 7.1 2.5 TABLE LOTI VALUE OF MERUiLINDISE IMPORTED FROM COUNTRIES IN EUROPE TO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEAD- QUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, IQ2O, 1930, AND 1940 (In millions of dollars) Country of Asia Year 1900 b 1910 b 1920 1930 1940 British India . . ... 0.4 0.1 nil 3.6 2.8 China nil a 0.3 0.3 0.3 Hong Kong ... a a a a a Japan ... a a 1.1 a a All Other nil nil a 0.1 0.3 Total ... 0.4 0.1 1.4 4.0 3.5 TABLE LXXVII VALUE OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED FROM COUNTRIES ® ASIA TO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS IROO, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 (In millions of dollars) Country of South America Year 1900 b 1910 b 1920 1930 1940 Chile nil nil nil a 0.5 Argentina . . . a nil 1.5 0.2 0.3 Brazil ... 0.3 a nil 2.2 1.9 Colombia ... nil nil a a 3.0 Uruguay nil nil a a a Venezuela nil nil nil 0.1 0.3 All Other nil nil nil a a Total ... 0.3 a 1.6 2.6 6.1 TABLE LXXVIII VALUE OF MERCHANDISE imported from countries in SOUTH AvIERICA TO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR "YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 (in millions of dollars) Country of Africa Year I9oo b 1910 b 1920 1930 1940 British South Africa . . . nil a nil nil a Sgypt nil nil nil a a All Other . nil nil a a a — ■” — Ml ■- Total nil a a a a TABLE LXXIX VALUE OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED FROM COUNTRIES IN .AFRICA TO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN' TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 (In millions of dollars) Country of Year Oceania 1900 b 19io b 1920 1930 1940 Australia .... nil nil a a a New Zealand . . . .... nil nil nil a nil All Other .... nil nil 0.1 nil nil Total .... nil nil 0.1 a a TABLE LXXX VALUE OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED FROM COUNTRIES IN OCEANIA TO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 (In millions of dollars) Country Year 1900 b 19io b 1920 1930 1940 Mexico . . 4.4 13.2 34.9 10. 3 16.4 Cuba a 15.4 5.0 5.8 British India ... .. 0.4 0.1 nil 3.6 2.8 Brazil .. 0.3 a nil 2.2 1.9 Canada a a 0.9 2.1 United Kingdom .. .. 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.9 Colombia nil nil a a 3.0 All Other •• °-3 1.4 4.1 10.1 6.8 Total .. 5.6 15.5 55.0 32.9 40.7 TABLE LXXXI VALUE OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED FROM PRINCIPAL COUNTRIES EXPORTING TO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 Country Year 1900 c % 1910° % 1920 % 1930 % Mexico 78.9 85-5 31.2 40.2 Cuba b 0.2 28.0 15.1 14.2 British India .... 6.9 0.8 nil 10.8 6.8 Brazil 5.1 b nil 6.6 4-7 Canada b b 0.1 2.8 5.2 United Kingdom . . . 3.2 4.6 1.0 2.5 4.6 Colombia nil nil 0.1 0.1 7.3 All Other 5-9 8.9 7.4 30.9 17.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 TABLE LXXXII PERCENTAGES OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED FROM PRINCIPAL COUNTRIES EXPORTING TO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1940 (In. millions of dollars) Country Customs Districts Sabine Galveston Laredo El Paso Total Mexico . . 0.6 0.9 3-8 5-0 10.3 Cuba a 5.0 a a 5-0 British. India . . . nil 3.4 0.2 nil 3.6 Brazil nil 2.2 nil nil 2.2 Canada 0.2 0.7 a a 0.9 United Kingdom .. 0.1 0.6 a a 0.3 Colombia nil a nil nil a All Other 0.3 9.0 0.2 a 1O.0 1— 1 ■ " ■■■ — ■ 1 - ' Total . 1.7 21.3 4-4 5.0 32.9 TABLE LXXXIII VALUE OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED FROM PRINCIPAL COUNTRIES EXPORTING TO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS, 1930 (In millions of dollars) Country Customs Districts Sabine Galveston Laredo El Paso Total Mexico a 7.0 5-2 4.1 16.4 Cuba a 5.7 a nil 5-8 British India ... nil 2.8 a a 2.8 Brazil nil 1.9 nil a 1.9 Canada a 1.9 0.2 a 2.1 United Kingdom .. . 0.3 1.5 a a 1.9 Colombia • 0.3 2.5 0.2 nil 3.0 All Other . 1.4 6.2 0.1 0.1 6.8 Total 2.0 29.5 5-7 4.2 40.7 table lxxxtv VALUE of merchandise IMPORTED from principal countries EXPORTING TO UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS, 1940 Comparison with coastal regions. Upon comparing the imports through Texas ports with those over the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts, one discovers the imports over Texas ports are much smaller but are growing at a more rapid rate. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the imports over Texas ports were valued at $.6 million dollars and represented 0.8 per cent of the imports at the Atlantic Coast, 20 per cent of imports at the Gulf Coast, and 9 per cent of the imports at the Pacific Coast. By 1947 Texas ports were receiving imports equal to 5 per cent of the imports at the Atlantic Coast, 31 per cent of imports at the Gulf Coast, and 40 per cent of imports at the Pacific Coast. In each instance, material gains were made in relation 208 to the imports for the 3 coastal regions of the United States. Should th© growth in imports from the peak in 1920 to 1947 be compared, one will discover that imports at Texas ports more than tripled in value while imports for any single coastal region did not as much as double in value. A consideration of the imports for the year 1940 as compared to 1930 reveals that all coastal regions of the a For fiscal year ended Tune 30. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Coinmerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States 1920, 1930, 1940; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Summary of the Foreign Commerce of the United States, 1947, May, 1943. United States declined in values of imports while Texas ports received 24 per cent more imports. A greater relative increase in import values for Texas ports occurred from 1940 to 1947- In the latter year Texas ports received imports valued at 4-3 times the value of imports in the former year. 2 °7100. cit. 208 See Table LXXXV. (In millions of dollars) Year Customs Districts Texas Atlantic Coast Gulf Coast Pacific Coast 1900 a 5-6 693.1 27.8 60.1 1910 a 15.5 1,227.2 68.7 88.7 1920 55.0 3,801.6 339.5 391.5 1930 32.9 2,041.2 197.7 343.4 1940 40.7 1,738.1 163.1 252.0 1947 173.2 3,647.7 557.1 425.6 TABLE LXXXV VALUE OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED INTO CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS FORTS IN TEXAS, ATLANTIC COAST, GULF COAST, AND PACIFIC COAST OF UNITED STATES FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940, AND 1947 Comparison with representative customs districts. In further analyzing the growth of imports through Texas ports, a comparison is made with the value of imports received at the customs districts of New York, New Orleans, and San Francisco, important customs districts located on separate coasts of the United States. Such a comparison again reveals that the total imports at Texas ports are small but growing at a more rapid rate than imports at the three representative 209 customs districts. In actual value of imports, Texas ports rank far below the customs districts of New York, New Orleans, and San Francisco. The New Orleans Customs District, which received the least imports of the representative customs districts in 1900, had imports valued at 17.5 million dollars or 3.1 times that for the combined ports of Texas in that year. Although the imports over Texas ports increased 7-3 times from the value of 5.6 million dollars in 1900 to 40.7 million dollars in 1940, each of the three representative customs districts had imports in excess of imports received at Texas ports. In 1940 the San Francisco Customs District received imports valued at 96.5 million dollars, the least value of imports received by any of the three representative a For fiscal year ended June 30. data for Columbus, New Mexico after March 3, 1913 and Lake Charles, Louisiana after November 3, 1930. Source of data: United States Treasury Department Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States 1910; United States Department of Commerce, 'Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940. customs districts. Yet this value was 2.4 times the value of imports received at Texas ports in that year. Nevertheless, importations over Texas ports are increasing more rapidly than importations at the three representative customs districts. From 1900 through 1940, imports over Texas ports have increased 7-3 times in value. In the same period of time, imports at the New York Customs District increased only 2.3 times; the New Orleans Customs District, 5-8 times; and the San Francisco Customs Dis trict, 2.1 times. This favorable trend in imports for Texas ports is true not only for the whole of the period from 1900 through 1940 but is also true for the decade 1930 to 1940. In 1940 Texas ports received importations valued at 40.7 million dollars as compared to 32.9 million dollars in 1930. In this same 10-year interval, imports at all three of the representative customs districts declined. Particularly was this true for the San Francisco Customs District which received imports valued at only 98.5 million dollars in 1940 as compared to 155-6 million dollars in 1930. Although the value of importations at Texas ports have increased more rapidly than imports at the 3 representative customs districts, the trend does not indicate that the imports through Texas ports will surpass those for the representative customs districts in the near future. The total imports at Texas ports in 1940 represented only 3-3 per cent of the importations at the New York Customs District in that year. And, while the gap between importations at Texas ports and the customs districts of New Orleans and San Francisco is much less, the importations at the two latter customs districts also will tend to grow, even though at a slower pace than importations at Texas ports. 2 ° 9 See Table LXXXVI. (In millions of dollars) Year Customs Districts m b Texas New York New Orleans San Francisco I9oo a 5.6 537-2 17.5 47-9 1910 a 15.5 936.0 55.7 49.4 1920 55.0 2,392.6 274.1 211.9 1930 32.9 1,469.2 137.6 155.6 1940 40.7 1,241.8 x-wa. .x 1 . Tgry 1 je :a .-t 1 rr kt-b st.: 101.3 98.5 TABLE LXXXVI VALUE OF MERCHANDISE IMPORTED INTO CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS, NEW YORK, NEW ORLEANS, AND W FRANCISCO FOR DECADES 1900-1940 RELATIVE VALUE AND GROWTH OF EXPORTS AND IMPORTS During the period 1900 through 1947, the values of exportations over Texas ports have always exceeded importations. The export value of 106.0 million dollars in 1900 was approximately 19 times the import value of 5»6 million dollars in the same year. Expressed in terms of dollar differences, the export value was 100.4 million dollars above the import value. From 1900 through 1920, the difference between export values and import values continued to increase. In 1920 the export value had risen to 831.6 million dollars or 776.6 million dollars 210 above the import value for that year. After the decline in exports for 1921 and 1922, the difference between the value of exports and imports continued to exceed 550 million dollars until the marked decline in exports in 1930 and 1931• Although imports also fell in those years, the amount of the fall in import values was much less. This shift forced the values of imports and exports closer together. The range in the difference between the value of imports and exports for the period 1930 through 1939 was between 299-8 million dollars in 1932 to 405-4 million dollars in 1937- During the Second World War, conditions forced the differences in the value of exports and imports to the lowest figure since 1900. Products normally exported at Texas ports were forced to use ports located on protected sea lanes. At the same time imports by way of Mexico were increasing materially. Under these circumstances the difference between imports and exports was only 124.9 million dollars as compared to 100.4 million dollars in 1900. Despite the continued disruption in ocean shipping after 1941 and the increase in imports, the value of exports continued to gain markedly relative to the value of imports. This difference continued even after the close of hostilities in 1945, reaching an all-time peak of 1.3 billion dollars in 1947- ’While the trend in the absolute difference between the value of imports and exports increased from 1900 through 1947, the relative increase in import values exceeded the relative increase in export values. Values of imports in 1947 were 31 times the value of imports in 1900. During the same interval of time, values of exports increased only 14 times. Ail indication of the relative gain of imports as compared to the relative gain of exports may be shown by comparing the values of the 2at given intervals. In 1900 import values represented only 5«3 per cent of the value of exports as compared to 11.9 per cent in 1947- While the trend shows a greater relative increase in imports than exports, the data from year to year have shown wide fluctuations in the relationship. Imports were valued at 7.1 per cent of the total exports in 1910, showing a 1.8 per cent increase over 1900. Then import values declined to 6.6 per cent of the export values in 1920 and 5-9 per cent in 1930. Despite the decline in 1920 and 1930, neither percentage fell below the 5-3 per cent value of 1900. Just prior to the disruptions caused by Second World War, imports in 1939 were valued at 38.7 million dollars or 9*2 per cent of the value of exports for the year. During the early part of the Second World War, the abnormal decreases of exports and increases of imports unduly increased the percentage in the favor of imports. For example, imports in 1941 were valued at 76.7 million dollars or 38*0 per cent of the exports for the year. That the ratio for 1941 was too high under peace-time conditions is shown in the percentage for 1947- In that year the value of imports equaled 11.9 per cent of the value of exports. This percentage may be further reduced with additional peace-time adjustments. However, the post-war relationship may be expected to be slightly above the 9-2 per cent figure of 1939 inasmuch as imports have tended to increase faster than exports. Under the flow of the foreign trade since 1900, specific consideration has been given the exportation, importation, movement intransit, and transshipment of merchandise over Texas ports. .During this same period the ports of Texas were undergoing changes to meet the needs of a thriving foreign trade. To acquaint the reader with a brief summary of the basic changes and adaptations of the ports is the purpose of the following discussion. By this acquaintance, Chapter VII which gives the detailed description of the current port facilities can be better appreciated. 210 See Chart VI CHART VI VALUE OF EXPORTS AND IMPORTS FOR UNITED STATES CUSTOMS DISTRICTS WITH HEADQUARTERS PORTS IN TEXAS, 1900 - 19h7 PORT ADAPTATIONS TO FOREIGN TRADE SINCE 1900 At the turn of the twentieth century, the available water channels for entering ocean-going vessels along the coast of Texas were newly created. Only the ports of Galveston and Port Arthur had water channels capable of accommodating ocean-going vessels. So recent was the completion of the deep-water channel to Port Arthur that the city 211 had not been designated as a port of entry in 1900. In addition the Port of Galveston had not ’’effectually solved the problem of deep 212 water” until the completion of the jetty system in 1895- Port adaptations in Galveston Bay area. The twentieth century- had not passed its initial year before the foremost port in Texas was sorely beset by a tropical hurricane. The onrush of wind and water from the Gulf entered the city of Galveston on September 8, 1900, and before subsiding the next day had destroyed ’’fully half of the .improve-213 ment values” and ’’approximately five thousand lives.” While other storms had occurred on the Texas Coast with severe loss of life and property, the Galveston storm greatly emphasized the advisability of locating port cities inland from the Gulf or adequately protecting the exposed port cities against the ravages of Gulf storms. 214 Unlike the twice destroyed town of Indianola, the citizens of Galveston decided to rebuild, emphasizing protection against future Gulf storms. In the process, the commission plan of government was introduced to eliminate the ineffectiveness of the past political gov-215 ernment. Then a seawall "seventeen feet high and seven and a half miles long was built.” Behind the seawall, sand was pumped onto the island under houses, sidewalks, and street car tracks which had been elevated on scaffolds or stilts. The program of restoration was pursued so aggressively that the Port of Galveston arose above the disaster ’’within a few short years” to become a greater city and port than before the storm of 1900. Unlike Port Isabel which lost the designation of port and headquarters port to Brownsville, the Port of Galveston continues as headquarters 217 port for the Galveston Customs District. Credit in large measure Abbreviations: CD, customs district; HP, headquarters port; P, port of entry; SP, subport; PD, port of delivery. Before 1914, functions of ports of entry and subports corresponded to that of headquarters ports and ports of entry in 1914 and thereafter. Charles, Louisiana. c Data for Port of Galveston included data for Port Bolivar beginning in 1911 and the Port of Texas City beginning in 1914 Aity listed under another customs district for this year. Source of data: United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1900; United States Department of Commerce and Labor, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1910; United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States, 1920, 1930, 1940 is due to the sound approach used in restoring the city and harbor. Despite a Gulf storm of even greater severity in August, 1915, rela-218 tively small loss of property and damage resulted. At the present time the United States Corps of Engineers believes the present seawall 219 is adequate to protect the city against future storms. The continued faith of the United States Congress in the Port of Galveston led to large additional expenditures for channel and harbor improvements. On the seawall alone the United States government spent $2,435, 190-o9 in addition to $710,274*77 contributed locally. Furthermore, the federal government has spent $15,681,559•24 on "Galveston Harbor” and $6,162,712.13 on ’’Galveston Channel” in "new work” and "maintenance” to June 30, 1946. Matching the belief of the federal government in the Port of Galveston, the local business interests and city government provided terminal facilities "considered adequate for 221 existing commerce.” Regardless of the successful determination to rebuild the Port of Galveston, the calamity suffered by this port and the knowledge that Gulf storms decreased in intensity on traveling inland gave foundation to the dreams of inland ports while destroying the incentive for locating other major ports at the edge of the Gulf. This trend developed not only in the Galveston Bay area but throughout the Gulf Coast of Texas. In the Sabine Lake area, the ports of Sabine and Sabine Pass became minor ports compared to Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange while the ports of Port Aransas and Port Isabel were by-passed at great expense to establish major ports at Corpus Christi and Brownsville. Within the Galveston Bay area, the trend to develop internal ports in the twentieth century was also in evidence. While the tragedies of the Galveston disaster were vivid memories, Texas City "was 222 settled late in 1900 after the disastrous storm.” The Galveston storm was not the sole determining factor, however, as Congress had already approved a deep-water channel to the location of Texas City by 223 the River and Harbor Act of March 3, 1399- Soon after the settle-224 merit of the city, the channel was opened to the Gulf but major improvements to the Port of Texas City came many years later. A protective pile dike to the north of the Texas City channel was completed in 1915 while the rubble mound dike was completed in 1934- Two years later, dredging in the channel and harbor basin finally reached 32 feet in controlling depth. In all, the total cost of constructing and maintaining the Texas City Channel and Harbor was $5,953,079.16 to June 30, 1946. Of this total, $5,924,338.48 was ap- propriated by Congress while ’’contributed funds” were valued at $2B,- - Zrt 225 /40.08. In recognition of the growing importance of the port, Texas City was ’’made a subport of entry in the customs collection district of 226 Galveston” on February 17, 1905. Although data on foreign trade of 227 the port have been included with that for Galveston since 1914, the port has continued to grow in importance despite the damaging effects of the ’’disastrous explosion and fire” in the harbor and at the Mon-228 santo Chemical Company in the spring of 1947- Another inland port of the Galveston Bay area, the Port of Hous- ton, has made even greater forward strides since 1900 than the Port of Texas City. Houston was designated as a subport in 1900 but was ap-229 proved as a port of entry on August 1, 1914. ' This latter designa- tion occurred in the same year that the Houston Ship Channel was com- 230 pleted to the depth of 25 feet, a depth that soon proved inadequate. On March 2, 1919 Congress authorized the deepening of the channel to 231 30 feet and again on August 30, 1935, to 34 feet. In realizing the ambition of becoming an inland port, the local interests contributed heavily to the construction and development of the Houston Ship Channel, Turning Basin, and terminal facilities. For the channel development alone, local interests contributed $1,365,000 232 to $20,851,769,90 for the United States government. However, local interests spent much more than the above stated amount to provide proper terminal facilities. From 1908 to 1917, the city of Houston issued bonds in the amount of $3,150,000 for port and channel development . Also bonds to the value of $11,923,000 were voted by Harris County during the years 1911 to 1930 and ’’these funds were expended by the Navigation and Canal Commissioners in developing the channel in cooperation with the United States Engineers, in constructing a railroad which would make it possible for all the railroads of Texas to enter the Ship Channel area on an equal basis, in constructing a 3,500,000- bushel capacity grain elevator, and in constructing a modern system of 233 wharves and docks.” The entrance of Harris County into the development of the Houston Ship Channel and terminal facilities broadened the taxable base to in- elude the cities and area along Buffalo Bayou and San Jacinto River 234 which also had many industrial sites interested in shipping by water. Effective July 1, 1945, Harris County became the sole owner of the public facilities along the Houston Ship Channel within the county. On that date the "Harris County Houston Ship Channel Navigation District” received from the city of Houston "all of its port facilities for an 235 agreed appraised price of With the political and financial support of the interests along the 25-mile channel to Galveston Bay, the Port of Houston will be in a favorable position to foster additional improvements. In contrast to the growth of the industrial sites at Galveston, Texas City, and Houston in the Galveston Bay area, the Port of Port Bolivar did not develop into a significant port. The location is on the tip of Bolivar Peninsula, requiring a circuitous land or water route to internal urban centers. In addition the land space for industrial sites is narrow and unprotected from the Gulf storms. Without the anticipated development, the United States Chief of Engineers recommended that the original "project be curtailed." Instead of providing a channel 30 feet deep, one of 20 feet ’was suggested "since 236 lesser dimensions are adequate for existing commerce.” 211 The ’’canal by which ocean-going ships could steam from the Gulf to the end of the rails at Port Arthur” was ’’finished in IS99*" Mimeographed data released by the Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce, 1948." 21 2 "'Bort Book of Port of Galveston, 1932, p. 11. historians estimate the Galveston flood and hurricane destroyed between five and eight thousand lives while the author quoted uses the more conservative figure of five thousand. Nevin 0. Winter, Texas, the Marvelous, pp. 170-174* 214^ e port of Indianola was destroyed by a Gulf storm in 1875 and 1886. The site was abandoned after the second storm. 215 The ’’Galveston Plan” or commission form of government was so successful that hundreds of municipalities throughout the United States have since adopted this form of government. Winter, op. cit., p. 175- Qi / ’’The Book of Texas,” Book of Knowledge, XXI, 124. 217 See Chart VII. On August 15, 1947 A. L. Wiggins, Undersecretary of the United States Treasury, held a hearing in Washington, D. C., to determine the advisability of merging the Galveston and Sabine Customs Districts, locating the headquarters port at Houston instead of Galveston and Port Arthur. This proposal was vigorously protested by interests in Galveston and the port cities of the Sabine Customs District. One year later, the proposed merger had not been effected. ’’Customs Office Removal Protested,” The Houston Post, August 16, 1947, p. 1. Pl 8 1 Winter,. op. cit., p. 177• 21Q Personal interview with W. C. Rettiger, Chief of River and Harbor Branch of the Operations Division, Corps of Engineers, United States Army, Galveston, Texas, August 21, 1947- 220 " The expenditures for the seawall include the cost of the original project, the extension authorized July 27, 1916, and upkeep to June 30, 1946. 221 United States War Department, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Annual Report of the Chief of the Engineers of the United States Army, 1946’, ' Pt. I, Vol. I, pp. 1,114-1/119. J. Wortharn, A History of Texas, V, 331* Report of the Chief of the Engineers of the United States Army, op. cit., Pt. I, Vol. I, p. 1,119- 224^ O rtham, op. cit., V, 331* 225 imnual Report of the Chief of the Engineers of the United States Army, 1946' op. cit. , Pt. I, Vol. I, pp. 1,119-1,121. States Statutes at Large, Vol. 33, Pt. I, p. 719* 227 'See Chart VII. 228 Business Week, May 31, 1947, p. 21. States Statutes at Large, Vol. 33, Pt. I, p. 623. 230 By the River and Harbor Act, passed by Congress March 3, 1899, the Houston Ship Channel was to be dredged to a depth of 25 feet but serious effort was not made ’’until 1910 when local interests proposed to share with the Government half of the cost of the construction.” Port Houston, November, 1924, PP- 5-6. z Report of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, 1946, op. cit., Pt. I, Vol. I, pp. 1,124-1,128. 232 Contributions to June 30, 1946. 233 Houston Port Book, May, 1948, p. 60. Customs District Year and Subdivisions 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 Sabine — — CD CD CD CD Port Arthur — P P HP HP Sabine SP P P P Orange -- — — P P Beaumont , P P Lake P P Galveston . . CD CD CD CD CD Galveston 0 P P HP HP HP Houston . . . PD PD P P P Sabine Pass . . SP — — W — — Velasco . . SP SP — — — Texas City — SP c C ■ c Port Lavaca d P Freeport — — — P Corpus Christi d d d d P Dallas — P P P Saluria . . CD CD — M — — Eagle Pass P P d d d San Antonio . . PD PD d d d Matagorda . . PD PD — — — Copano . . PD PD — — — — Lavaca . . PD PD d — — Brazos de Santiago . . . . . . CD CD — — —- — Brownsville P P d d d Corpus Christi . . CD CD — — Corpus Christi P P d d d Laredo . . SP SP d d d Aransas (Rockport) . . SP SP __ -- — Laredo . — — — M — CD San Antonio — CD CD — Laredo d d P P HP' San Antonio d d HP HP P Brown.svilie d d P P P Del Rio — — P P P Eagle Pass d d P P p CHART VII HESITATION OF CUSTOMS DISTRICTS, HEADQUARTERS PORTS, PORTS OP ENTRY, SUBPORTS, AND PORTS OF DELIVERY FOR YEARS 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, AND 1940 a CHART VII (Cont ’d) Customs District Year and Subdivisions 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 Hidalgo — — — — — — p P Rio Grande City .. — p p P Roma . . . . — — p p P Corpus Christi . . . . . . . d d p p — Ft. Worth . . . . — — — p — Santa Maria . . . . -- p -- -- El Paso — am. CD CD CD Paso del Norte . . . . CD CD — — El Paso . . . . P P HP HP HP Ysleta — — — P Fabens . . . . — — — — P P Boquillas . . .. -- — p — — Presidio . . . . — — p p P Columbus . . . . — p P P Port adaptations in Sabine Lake area. The established ports of Sabine and Sabine Pass were, like Port Bolivar, destined to relative insignificance. Both were served by deep water before the interior 237 cities of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange. In addition the local interests at Sabine Pass had resisted the initial effort of Arthur E. Stilwell to dredge a canal from Sabine Pass to Port Arthur, securing an order ’’forbidding the further excavation of the canal in Sabine Lake.” Regardless of the latter handicap, the determination to estab-238 lish inland ports prevailed. The discovery of oil at Spindietop in 1901 emphasized the need for inland ports near the source of the oil. In addition, refineries developed in the Sabine Lake area to serve the interior oil fields of Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. In recognition of the growing importance of Port Arthur as a shipping center, the city was made headquarters port by the Sabine Customs District created June 19, 1906, while 239 Sabine Pass was eliminated as a subport in favor of the Port of Sabine. Under the reorganization of the customs district in 1914, Beaumont and Orange were still not given port designations but Sabine at this time received the designation of port in lieu of the former designation of 240 . subport. Not until 1926 were the ports of Beaumont and Orange 241 designated permanently as ports of entry. In developing the channels and harbors in the Sabine Lake area, large sums have been spent. The total cost of the Sabine-Nech.es Water-2/ 2 ’ way to June 30, 1946 included $19,835,675.16 expended by the United 243 States government and $353,500.00 in ’’contributed funds.” Yet the ports of this region have not matched the growth of the ports in the Galveston Bay area. Inasmuch as both, groups of ports have approximately equal protection against storms and enjoy equal freight rate structures, other factors are responsible. One of the deterring factors lies in a less advantageous location relative to the larger urban centers of Texas, a fact which limits the cargo mainly to petroleum products. In addition the time and expense of calling at the Sabine ports for the small volume of general cargo available has not warranted regular shipping services except in the case of the Port of Beaumont where general cargo in relatively large 244 volumes is still handled. Unless the ports of the Sabine Lake area can develop sufficient general commerce to attract regular shipping services, the ports will be dependent mainly upon the continued volume and value of the products of the petroleum industry. the cities of Harris County located on the Houston Ship Channel are Harrisburg, Clinton, Lynchburg, Baytown, and Goose Creek. Port Book, May, 1943, p. 60. 236 Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, 1946, o 1 . cit. , Pt. I, Vol. I, p. 1,123- 237 'The original project to improve the water channel of Sabine Pass was adopted by Congress on March 3, 1875• In addition Sabine Pass was the only port given a customs designation in 1900. In that year Sabine Pass was a subport in the Galveston Customs District. Chart VII; Corps of Engineers, United States Army and Maritime Commission, The Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, Port Series No. 22, Revised 1946, p. 5. avoid excavation in the forbidden Sabine Lake, Stilwell was forced to purchase a strip of land adjacent to the Sabine Lake in order to effect a canal to Port Arthur. By 1898 the canal was completed to a depth of 20 feet. Wortham, op. cit. , V, 261. 239 United States Statutes at Large, Vol. 34, Bt. I, p. 302. A. Mallory, Compiled Statutes of the United States, 1913> 111, 2,324-2,325. 241 In 1919 the ports of Orange and Beaumont were added temporarily as ports of entry. See Chapter II for detail on port designations 242 The Sabine-Neches Waterway includes Sabine Pass and the canals serving the ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange. Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, 1946, op. cit., Pt. I, Vol. I, p. 1,094. 243 Ibid., p. 1,099. Port adaptations from Freeport to Brownsville. Along the Texas coast line southwest of the Galveston Bay area, the competition for the foreign trade movement resulted in the loss of port designations by several established ports in the 1900’s. The ports of Velasco, Lavaca, Matagorda, Copano, Santa Maria, and "Aransas (Rockport)" lost their port designations while the ports of Freeport, Corpus Christi, and Brownsville became more firmly established as distributing points 245 for foreign trade. Increased drafts of ships required deeper water channels and also emphasized the economy of ships with greater volumes of cargo but fewer ports of call. The winning ports in the struggle for existence secured the deep-water channels and made aggressive efforts to secure the necessary volume of trade to attract shipping services. The Port of Corpus Christi was the first of the major inland ports southwest of Galveston Island to accommodate modern ocean ves- seis. After the Aransas Pass Harbor Company "relinquished its rights to the United States on March 27, 1899,” a program of jetty construction was pursued by the government until a depth of 23 feet was obtained from the Gulf through the channel of .Aransas Pass. However, lightering cargo from Aransas and Harbor Island to points on the mainland was not conducive to a thriving trade by water. To correct the situation, John Nance Garner, then Congressman from the 246 Fifteenth District, initiated proceedings for the first improve- ments of the channel from Aransas Pass to Corpus Christi under the 247 River and Harbor Acts of March 2, 1907, and June 23, 1910. The modest improvements under the above River and Harbor Acts did not permit vessels drawing 23 feet of water to use the Corpus Christi Channel. This depth of water was authorized by the River and Harbor Act of September 22, 1922. To secure the benefits of the Act, Congress required that terminal and wharfage facilities should be constructed in addition to adequate sea-wall protection. To effect these requirements bonds were voted and the Nueces County Navigation Commis-248 sion was created to act on port matters. On September 14, 1926, the 2s-foot channel and Port of Corpus Christi were opened to commerce. Since that date Congress has seen fit to increase the depth of the channel to 34 feet and to lengthen 249 the Industrial Canal and add another turning basin. Total expendi- tures on the ’’Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway" to Tune 30, 1946, amounted to $13,692,097-96 with local contributed funds accounting for 250 only $152,555.09. To the south of the Port of Corpus Christi, the modern Port of Brownsville was officially opened to commerce on May 16, 1936, approximately 10 years after the official opening of the Port of Corpus 251 Christi. Once again the major port was located inland despite the 252 initial advantages of ports nearer the Gulf. Work on the Browns- ville Channel began in 1934 and by the time of the official opening in 1936, an effective depth of 25 feet had been attained. In 1939 contracts were awarded to dredge the jetty entrance at Brazos de Santiago Pass to 31 feet and the Brownsville Channel and Turning Basin to 253 30 feet. Further dredging operations since 1940 have deepened the 254 channel to 32.5 feet. Included in the "Brazos Island Harbor" project is the channel and turning basin at Port (Point) Isabel as well as the Brownsville Ship Channel and Turning Basin. Expenditures on the whole of the project bo June 30, 1946 totaled 86,994,954.76, representing $5,311,697*06 in 255 United States funds and 81,683,257*70 in contributed funds. The third major port established southwest of Galveston Island was the Port of Freeport located 6 miles inland from the mouth of the 256 nearby Brazos River. In 1899 the United States government "took over the jetties and other privately built works at the mouth of the river.'* While subsequent river and harbor acts provided for dredging and maintenance of the jetties, the River and Harbor Act of August 30, 1935 was the one calling for the dredging and maintenance "of the present project dimensions of the channels and turning basins at Fed,,257 eral expense." The subsequent demand for customs services at Freeport caused the port to be designated as a port of entry in the Galveston Customs Dis-258 trict by Executive Order on June 15, 1937- While the foreign trade movement is primarily sulphur and petroleum products, the volume has been sufficient to justify continued expenditures for maintenance and extension of terminal facilities. As of June 30, 1946 the existing project had cost $4,604,457-14, representing $3,646,154-35 in United 259 States funds and $756,302.79 in contributed funds. 4+ ”The Galveston-Houston-Texas City area, however, in addition to its heavy petroleum. traffic has an extensive trade in general commodities, which is due principally to its greater urban development and the fact that about 50 pre-war steamship services to and from west Gulf ports regularly called at Galveston and Houston while of the Sabine ports only Beaumont could offer a limited monthly service to England, and a fortnightly service to Caribbean, points.” The Forts of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, Port Series No. 22, Revised 1946, op. cit., pp. 268-269. 245 See Chart VII. Q \ / 4 Uvalde, the home of John. Nance Garner, and Corpus Christi were located in the Fifteenth Congressional District of Texas. Coleman McCampbell, Saga of a Frontier Seaport, p. 62. 247 Loc. cit.; Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers of the United States .army," 1946, op. cit. , Pt. I, Vol. I, p. 1,147. Christi Port Book, June, 1946, pp. 11-13- 2^9 Avery Point Basin. Q p Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, 1946, op.~cit., Pt. I, Vol. I, p. 1,151. on Port of Brownsville, Texas, p. 3- (Point) Isabel facing Laguna Madre was headquarters port -for the Brazos de Santiago Customs District until duly, iB6O when Brownsville received this designation. In addition, Santa Maria on the lower Rio Grande River had been designated as a port until 1923- Today, Santa Maria is not listed as even a village. 253 on Port of Brownsville, Texas, pp. 3-6. depth from turning basin at Goose Island to Brownsville Turning Basin in duly, 1948 was 32.5 feet. Corps of Engineers, United States Army, Hydrographic Report, July, 1948. 255 Report of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, 1946, op. cit., Pt. I, Vol. I, p. 1,158. 256 The mouth of the Brazos River is 47 miles southwest of Galveston Harbor entrance. Ibid., p. 1,139- 2^7 Ibid., pp. 1,139-1,141. States Treasury Department, Bureau of Customs, Customs Regulations of the United States, Edition 1943, P- CR-3- Adaptations of interior and border ports. To meet the needs of the growing foreign trade with Mexico after 1900, a number of additional ports were required along the Mexican border. Several of the ports were added as '’accommodation ports," principally serving the passenger traffic carrying purchases for personal consumption. The । increased need for such ports arose as population centers developed on both sides of the border at given points. In the El Paso Customs District, the Port of 31 Paso was the onlyport of entry in 1900. Within this customs district, the ports of 260 Ysleta and Fabens were added primarily as ’’accommodation ports.” However, the -Port of Fabens receives considerable cotton from Mexico and has installed a vacuum fumigation plant to insure against the spread of the boll weevil. Another accommodation port was added at Boquillas, south of the Big Bend National Park, in 1917 but was withdrawn by 1923. The Port of Presidio, added in the same year, did not suffer the fate of Boquillas but has continued to serve as a commer- 261 cial port as well as a port of accommodation. In the present Laredo Customs District, several port adjustments in the 1900’s occurred to serve better the foreign trade movement. The ports of Roma and Rio Grande City were added in 1914 and Del Rio in 1917* Hidalgo was added permanently in 1927. In addition to the above ports of entry, "customs stations" were opened on the border at 262 San Ygnacio, Zapata, Dolores, Lopeno, and Thayer. The 2 other border ports of Laredo and Eagle Pass merely changed from other customs districts to the Laredo Customs District where these ports served primarily as gateways rather than storers of merchandise in the for-263 eign trade. The increasing use of through shipments by rail, air, and truck to internal distribution centers has emphasized the importance of internal ports of entry. From a port of delivery in the Saluria Customs District in 1900, the Port of San Antonio became headquarters port of the San Antonio Customs District in 1917- San Antonio lost the designation of headquarters port in 1940 when the revised customs district was named the Laredo Customs District with Laredo as the headquarters port. Nevertheless, San Antonio continued as a port of entry within the newly formed Laredo Customs District. 2 Two other internal cities of Texas have been added as ports of entry. Dallas was designated as a port of entry in the Galveston Customs District in 1914 and has continued in that capacity since that date. Data for the Port of Fort Worth were first recorded in 1923 but were discontinued in 1940- In presenting the basic adaptations of the ports of Texas in chronological sequence, a background is given for the discussion of the current port facilities implementing foreign trade. This discussion follows in Chapter VII under the heading Port Facilities, Services, and Administration. 259 -Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, 1946, op. cit., Ft. I, Vol. I, p. 1,141- 260 Fabens and Ysleta were added as ports of entry on May 1, 1928 and June 15, 1937, respectively. United States Treasury Department, Bureau of Customs, Customs Regulations of the United States, Edition 1943, P- CR-2. 261 Personal interview with Alfred J. J. Taylor, Assistant Collector of Customs, El Paso Customs District, October 24, 1947- John F. Budd, Custom House Guide, 1947 Edition. 263 Chart VII. CHAPTER VII PORT FACILITIES, SERVICES, AND ADMINISTRATION A necessary and vital link in the successful promotion of foreign trade lies in the availability of proper port facilities and services. First of all, adequate transportation facilities must provide economical and efficient movement of the foreign commerce to and from the ports. Secondly, the terminal facilities must provide for the adequate storage and proper conditioning of the cargo. Other terminal facilities must furnish services to meet the routine and emergency needs of the carriers. Finally, capable and responsible management must coordinate the operation of these facilities to secure their greatest usefulness. In this chapter the purpose is to portray the available transportation and terminal facilities at Texas ports and to present the variations in ownership and control exercised over them. TRANSPORTATION ROUTES TO PORTS Available water channels. Before waterways to the ports of Texas could 'accommodate ocean-going vessels, the shallow rivers and bays necessarily required In some instances the natural waterways were circumvented to provide channels which were straighter and easier to maintain, in addition to providing shorter distances to the Gulf. On the east of the Texas Coast, Sabine Pass provides the outlet to the Gulf for the ports of Sabine Pass, Port Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange. The entrance to the pass is marked on its eastern side by the Sabine Pass Lighthouse. The pass extends about 7 miles in a general northeasterly direction to Sabine Lake and has been dredged to $OO 2 feet in width with a depth of 34 feet below mean low tide. Near the entrance into Sabine Lake, the Port of Sabine Pass is served by a dredged anchorage basin 3,000 feet long, 800 feet wide, 3 and 34 feet deep. Continuing inland the Port Arthur Canal extends from the northern end of Sabine Pass to the Port Arthur docks at the mouth of Taylor’s Bayou, a distance of 7 miles. This canal is wholly artificial in that the canal is separated from Sabine Lake by a narrow 4 strip of land. The Sabine-Keches Canal continues inland from the Port Arthur 5 Canal to the mouths of the Neches and Sabine rivers. The distance from the Port Arthur Canal to the mouth of the Neches River is 12 miles while the Port of Beaumont is 20 miles still farther inland on the improved portion of the Neches River. From the mouth of the Neches River to the Sabine River is a distance of 4 miles and 9 miles farther inland is the Port of Orange. The Port of Lake Charles, Louisiana is located on the east side of the Calcasieu River and is served by a deep-water channel via the Calca-6 sieu River, Lake, and Pass. As the Intracoastal Canal passes through the Calcasieu River below Lake Charles, the port also has access to the Sabine-Neches intracoastal waterway. The controlling dimensions of the deep waterways serving the ports of the Sabine Customs District vary from 25 to 36 feet. As in the case of all waterways along the Gulf Coast, these depths are constantly lessened by silting while dredging operations tend to keep the 7 channels at navigable depths. From the jetties at Sabine Pass to Beaumont, the controlling 8 depth is 34 feet or more. The width of the Port Arthur Canal is 400 feet while the width of the Sabine-Neches Canal and the Neches River Channel to Beaumont varies between 300 and 3>o feet. The controlling dimensions of the waterway serving Orange is con siderably less than those for Port Arthur and Beaumont. The Sabine- Neches Canal between the mouths of the Neches and Sabine rivers has a controlling depth of 30 feet though the effective depth of the Sabine River Channel to Orange is only 25 feet, eliminating many ocean-going 9 vessels from this port. Prior to 1941 the Port of Lake Charles had access to the Gulf by means of the Lake Charles Deep-Water Channel, the Sabine-Neches Waterway, and the Sabine Pass. The new route via the Calcasieu River, the Calcasieu Ship Channel, and the Calcasieu Pass is only 35 miles from 10 the Gulf. Both routes have effective depths of 30 feet, permitting vessels the choice of additional loadings at Orange, Beaumont, and Port Arthur or the direct route to the Gulf. ll Entrance to the ports of Port Bolivar, Galveston, Texas City, Houston, and Baytown is by way of Bolivar Roads. From this entrance jetties extend from Bolivar Peninsula and Galveston Island toward the Gulf. The width of the channel at the jetties is SOO feet but the projected depth of 34 feet at this point had decreased to 30-5 feet in 12 May, 1947. From Bolivar Roads 4 separate channels provide access to Galves- ton, Texas City, Houston, and Port Bolivar. The Galveston Channel is 1,125 feet wide with a minimum depth of 34 feet, a depth greater than the entrance to the channel from the Gulf. The channel to Texas City is protected on its northerly side by a rubble-mound and earth dike 13 which extends 5 miles out from the mainland. In May 1947 this channel had a minimum depth of 27.0 feet. The Houston Ship Channel has a project depth of 34-0 feet but soundings in the first 6 months of 1947 indicated that the various segments of the channel had depths ranging from 26.0 to 3-1-3 feet though 2 to 4 feet greater depths were available over a limited width 14 in the center of the channel. In addition to serving Houston the Houston Ship Channel also serves the oil refineries located at the tri-city of Goose Creek, Pelly, and Baytown, which are located in close proximity to the mouth of the San Jacinto River. The 2 other water ports of entry within the Galveston Customs District lie outside the Galveston Bay area. Freeport, located at the mouth of the Brazos River, is served by a channel 2'7.0 feet in depth and 300 feet in width to the Gulf proper where the channel through the 15 jetties is only 200 feet wide but 27.5 feet deep. By repeating the utilization of jetties, a deep-water channel is provided Corpus Christi by way of Aransas Pass and Corpus Christi Bay. While the project depth for the channel from the Aransas Pass to Cor- pus Christi is 34-0 feet, the jetty channel at Aransas Pass has only 30.0 feet effective depth unless a ship should choose to use the "left 16 inside quarter” where the controlling depth is 33-5 feet. The remaining water channel for consideration is the one serving Brownsville. Entrance to the channel is by the Brazos Santiago Pass. Avoiding the winding alluvial Rio Grande River, this dredged waterway crosses the Laguna Madre and moves inland to a point 5 miles northeast 17 of Brownsville. At the jetties and the Brazos Santiago Pass the Brownsville Ship Channel is 300 feet wide while the main portion of the channel is only 100 feet in width. Project depths for the channel include 35 feet at the jetties and pass but only 32 feet in the main channel. As of June 1947, projected depths had not been achieved as the minimum depth at 18 mean low tide in certain segments was only 27-3 feet. In addition to the deep-water channels which serve Texas ports of entry, the Gulf Intracoastal Canal extends water facilities inland 19 from the Mississippi River to Corpus Christi. The ’’project width” of 125 feet has been attained throughout from the Sabine River to Port Aransas but the ’’project depth” of 12 feet has been achieved only in a „ .20 few segments. Bottlenecks in the system occur in 3 segments where controlling depths of less than 10 feet are in effect. Between Galveston and Bastrop Bayou, a distance of 31*0 miles, the controlling depth in midchannel is 9-3 feet. Only 7*2 feet is the controlling depth for the 10.0-mile channel from Freeport to the San Bernard River. Another segment, slightly less than 10 feet in controlling depth, is the channel from .Aransas Bay to Port Aransas. This section of 23.2 miles has 21 a controlling depth of 9.5 feet. Dredging operations are continuing not only along the opened section of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, but also on the 159*9 mile segment from Fort .Aransas to Brownsville. This segment also has a 22 project width of 125 feet and a project depth of 12 feet. Dredging 23 on this segment is making satisfactory progress. Upon opening this link, further freight rate reductions are anticipated where barge services can be made optional. Much of the Laguna Madre, located behind Padre Island, is only 2 to 4 feet in depth while the deepest bay area of the Texas Coast is found in the Corpus Christi Bay area where depths of 7 to 14 feet exist. Corps of Engineers, United States Army, Intracoastal Waterway, Section from Sabine River to Brownsville, Texas, May, 1945 > PP- 20, 3-1 9 Corps of Engineers, United States Army and United States Maritime Commission, The Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, Port Series No. 22, Revised 1946, p. 1. 3 Unless otherwise indicated, depths given are those "below mean low tide." Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, 1946, op. cit., p. 1. , p. 2. , p. 26>. with W. C. Rettiger, Chief of River and Harbor Branch of Operations Division, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, Galveston, Texas, August 21, 1947- g The Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, 1946, op. cit., p. 8. . cit. 10 0 n July 12, 1941, Calcasieu Pass was opened to sea-going traffic. Corps of Engineers, United States Army, Calcasieu River and Pass La. (Lake Charles, La.). Mimeographed release by Galveston office, 1947, P. 1. 11 Corps of Engineers, United States Army, Port and Terminal Facilities at the Ports New Orleans and Lake Charles, La., 1944, P- 140. 12 Corps of Engineers, United States Army, Hydrographic Report (mimeographed report for Galveston District). Released June, 1947, p. 7. of Engineers, United States Army, Port and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, P- 43- Report, June, 1947, op- cit. , p. 8. , p. 9- • LD The direction "left inside quarter” is applicable when entering the channel from seaward. Ibid., p. 11. 17 Intracoastal Waterway, Section from Sabine River to Brownsville, Texas, May 1945? op- cit., pp. 30-32. IB Hydrographic Report, June, 1947, op- cit., p. 14- 19 Intracoastal Waterway, Section from Sabine River to Brownsville, Texas, May 1945, op - cit., pp. 1-31- Railroads serving the ports. Of all the ports in the Sabine Cus- toms District, Beaumont is the most adequately supplied with railroad trackage. On the other hand Sabine Pass is the only port of entry located in the Sabine Customs District which is not served by any railroad. At Beaumont 4 important railway systems and 1 terminal line provide the rail transportation. Included in these railroad systems are the Missouri Pacific Lines, the Southern Pacific Lines, the Kansas City Southern Railway, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, and 24 the Beaumont Wharf and Terminal Company. The Gulf Coast Lines, a subsidiary railroad of the Missouri Pacific Lines, serves not only Beaumont but ’’principally that portion of Texas bordering on the Gulf of Mexico.” The parent system of the Missouri Pacific Lines ’’operates about 10,000 miles of track in Southwestern and Western Trunk Line territories” and touches the ports of Laredo, Brownsville, Beaumont, Galveston, Houston, Orange, Lake Charles 2$ and New Orleans among other Texas and Louisiana Gulf ports. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway extends rail services to the Port of Beaumont through its subsidiary, the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway. Tnis line provides access to "the other Texas Gulf ports as well as many of the important interior Texas and Oklahoma points." "About 14,000 miles of track" are operated by the system of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and with "its eastern con-26 nections" forms one of the transcontinental routes. The Southern Pacific Lines serves Beaumont through its subsidiary, the Texas and Nev; Orleans Railroad. The Southern Pacific Lines makes connection with "its steamship lines from Galveston and Nev; Orleans" and consequently "forms a one-system rail and water line between Pacific and Atlantic ports." Also the Southern Pacific Lines provides "a through transcontinental all-rail route" between "the west coast and Atlantic seaboard territory" through the rail connections with the Southern Railway System at New Orleans. The Kansas City Southern Railway gives Beaumont access to 900 miles of trackage by extending northward to Kansas City, Missouri, covering territory in the states of Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, Okla. 27 homa, and Texas. The Beaumont Wharf and Terminal Company operates "about five miles of tracks" and "performs switching and other terminal service." The control of this terminal railroad is under the management of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. There is no public belt line at the Port of Beaumont and the only publicly-owned trackage is that located on the Port Commission property which "serves its facilities i n 2B only." Only 2 of the 4 railroad systems serving Beaumont provide the rail transportation for the Port of Orange, Texas. These 2 railroads are the Texas and New Orleans Railroad of the Southern Pacific Lines and the Gulf Coast Lines of the .Missouri Pacific Lines. Switching services are performed by both transportation companies. Facilities for direct interchange of freight between rail and water carriers are provided at the municipal docks on the city slip in addition to the privately owned docks of the carriers which are located ’’about 2 29 miles” up the river from the city slip. At Port Arthur the Southern Pacific Lines and the Kansas City Southern Railway are the 2 systems providing rail trackage. The Kansas City Southern Railway has the franchise to operate all the property of the Port Arthur Canal and Dock Company. Freight is handled directly between rail and water carriers or is stored for short periods in the transit sheds located on the docks. To facilitate further the loading and storing operations, railroad trackage is provided on the 30 ’’open wharf” and to the transit sheds. In the Galveston Customs District the Port of Houston is provided with the most adequate railroad transportation. Five trunk line systems serve the Port of Houston. These systems include "the Southern Pacific, Missouri Pacific, Santa Fe, Missouri-Kansas-Texas, and the Burlington-Rock' Island.” Each system has ’’several subsidiaries, or branch lines” and are 31 instrumental in connecting Houston with port and inland cities. The Southern Pacific Lines extends trackage to the east, northeast, north, 32 west, and southwest of Houston. One branch of this railroad system, the Texas and New Orleans Railroad, serves the Port of Baytown, lo- 33 cated on the Houston Ship Channel. In addition 3 branches of the Missouri Pacific Lines reach Houston. The International-Great Northern Railroad operates north and south from Houston. The Gulf Coast Lines also enters Houston from the south while still another branch of the Missouri Pacific Lines, the Houston and Brazos Valley Railway, extends rail service northeast of Houston. Via Corsicana the "Burlington-Rock Island" railroad extends north ward from Houston to tap the Rocky Mountain base-line cities in addition to the central grain belt. The "Missouri-Kansas-Texas" railroad extends into the cotton and grain belts via Bastrop and Dallas. Houston also has access to the vast mileage of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway through its branch, the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe 34 Railway. Railroads at Houston have access to the port facilities at vari- ous points along the Houston Ship Channel. Marginal tracks on aprons 35 are quite common. The ’’Public Belt Railroad" is operated by the Port Terminal Railroad Association of Houston and provides switching 36 to and from the wharves and docks. Below the Houston Turning Basin, privately owned facilities also provide for the switching of railroad cars to and from the water front. The Port of Galveston is served by a terminal and 3 line-haul railroads. The terminal railroad is known as the "Galveston Wharves Railroad" and "serves practically all of the piers with marginal tracks on the pier proper" as well as the "shipping and receiving 37 tracks in the rear of the transit sheds." The 3 line-haul railroads include the "Galveston, Houston and Henderson Railroad," the "Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway" and the 38 "Southern Pacific Lines." The Galveston, Houston and Henderson Rail road and the Southern Pacific Lines provide outlets to Houston via alternate routes. The Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway extends northward via Fort Worth with opportunities along the way for taking 39 branch routes in various directions. At Texas City the Texas City Terminal Railroad extends west of the city to make connections with the 3 railroads extending northward 40 from Galveston. In this manner Texas City has access to the same external channels by rail as does Galveston. Internally the terminal 41 railroad serves the piers and industrial interests of the city. A branch of the Missouri Pacific Lines is the only railroad serving the Port of Freeport. A spur known as The Houston and Brazos Valley Railway extends southward from Angleton, Texas where connection is made with another branch of the Missouri Pacific Lines, the Gulf Coast T • 42 Lines. 43 Three railroads provide rail transportation to Corpus Christi. The Texas Mexican Railroad gives direct connection between Corpus Christi and Laredo while the Gulf Coast Lines (Missouri Pacific Lines) gives access to San Antonio and other northeastern cities, including The third railroad serving Corpus Christi is the Southern 45 Pacific Railroad, entering the city across the mouth of Nueces Bay. "All railroad terminal facilities are owned by the Navigation District, and are operated in rotation by the railroads serving the 46 ports. ,,i+ These terminal facilities provide marginal tracks along the 47 piers or access to receiving and shipping sheds. ' The carriers fur- nish cars which are '’switched free from the docks to the local sta- tions" for the transfer of less-than-carload freight between rail 48 lines and docks if "the tonnage is sufficient to justify this service." Small volumes of less-than-carload shipments "by themselves are drayed 49 at the expense of the shippers." Though an inland port of entry, the city of San Antonio holds a dominant position as a railway terminal for the Laredo Customs District. Seven railroad tracks extend in all directions from this city. Among the railroads represented are the Southern Pacific Railroad, the 50 Missouri Pacific Lines, and the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad. San Antonio is on the through route of the Southern Pacific from the West Coast to New Orleans. In addition the Southern Pacific Railroad sends a spur northwest of San Antonio to Fredericksburg. But the most important link in the rail system carrying the foreign trade through Texas ports is the trackage of the International-Great Northern Railroad from San Antonio to Laredo where this branch of the Missouri Pacific Lines makes direct connections with the National Rail-51 way of Mexico. Another branch of the Missouri Pacific Lines, the Gulf Coast Lines, leaves San Antonio to the south but forks to pick up traffic in such cities as Gardendale and Crystal City and to extend services to the Gulf at Corpus Christi. Northeast of San Antonio the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railroad and the International-Great Northern rail-52 roads provide national outlets for rail traffic. At Brownsville 1 foreign and 3 domestic railroads serve this port The National Railway of Mexico makes connection with the 3 domestic roads and, since the gauges of the rails are equal, cars are inter-53 changed freely. 'The Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific railroads reach Brownsville by way of Harlingen, Texas but otherwise use alternate routes to reach the city. The third domestic railroad at Brownsville is a short railroad, the Port Isabel and Rio Grande Valley, which provides a direct route to Port Isabel. At the Port of Brownsville, aprons and warehouses are provided with railroad trackage to permit loading bananas and other items directly into the box cars from the holds of the ships. Further facilitating the use of the trackage on the aprons of the wharves, Brownsville plans to use spurs from the marginal track which are perpendicular to the wharf. In this manner loading and unloading operations along the wharf are not disrupted each time a car is removed or re-54 ceived on the apron. Besides Brownsville there are 4 other ports of entry along the land border of Texas providing rail connections with Mexico. These ports include Laredo, Eagle Pass, Presidio, and El Paso. At Laredo the International-Great Northern and the Texas Mexican railroads make 56 connections with the National Railway of Mexico. The Texas Mexican Railroad establishes a connection between Mexico and Corpus Christi while the subsidiary of the Missouri Pacific Lines, the International- Great Northern Railroad, provides at Laredo the most used railroad in foreign commerce with Mexico. Eagle Pass is served by a cut-off of the main line of the Southern Pacific Railroad. The cut-off leaves the main line at Spofford, Texas and makes connection with the National Railway of Mexico at 5 7 Eagle Pass. At Presidio the south bound Panhandle and Santa Fe Railway meets the Kansas City, Mexico and Orient Railway which provides access to Mexico City via the city of Chihuahua. To the north the Panhandle and Santa Fe Railway not only makes connections with the parent company, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, but also with the Southern Pacific Railroad at Alpine and the Texas and Pacific Railroad at 58 Sweetwater. E 1 Paso is served by more railroads than any other port of entry on the border. The Southern Pacific Railroad extends from El Paso in 4 directions. Two of these routes lead to the West Coast. The western route is the only railroad serving the port of entry, Columbus, New Mexico, and rejoins the northwestern route to the West Coast at 59 Tuscon, Arizona. The northern route of the Southern Pacific Railroad passes through ALmagordo, New Mexico and makes a transcontinental connection with the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad at Tucumcari, New Mexico. To the east of El Paso the Southern Pacific Lines serves as a transcontinental as well as a feeder line. At Shreveport and New Orleans, Louisiana connections by rail provide for a continued transcontinental 60 movement of goods. Other domestic lines radiating from El Paso include the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and the Texas and Pacific Railway. The former railroad extends northwest of El Paso via the cities of Albuquerque and Santa Fe. To the east of El Paso the Texas and Pacific Railway utilizes the same roadbed as does the Southern Pacific Railroad to Sierra Blanca, Texas. Then the Texas and Pacific Railway ex- tends in a northeastern direction to serve, among other cities, those 61 of Fort Worth, Dallas, and Shreveport. Over an international railroad bridge at El Paso, the domestic railroads make connection with 2 Mexican railways, the National Railway of Mexico and the Mexico Northwestern Railway. Both of these rail roads serve the city of Chihuahua. The Mexico Northwestern Railway traverses the valleys of the Sierra Madre Occidental Mountains while the National Railway of Mexico provides a direct route to the cities 62 of Chihuahua and Mexico City. 'The remaining ports of entry along the Mexican border do not have rail connections with Mexico. However, with the exception of Roma, Texas, these land ports are served by domestic rail trackage. The common tracks of the Southern Pacific Railroad and Texas and Pacific Railway serve Ysleta and Fabens while the extended eastward line of 63 the Southern Pacific Railroad also serves Del Rio. 'Hie ports of Rio Grande City and Hidalgo are served by separate spurs of the Missouri Pacific Railroad from Mission, Texas. The western spur serves Rio Grande City while the southern spur from Mission provides rail trackage to Hidalgo. 20 Mid-channel measurements for ’’half project width” show the following segments to have ’’minimum depths” of 12 feet: Sabine River to Galveston, Bastrop Bayou to Freeport, and San Antonio Bay to Aransas Bay. Hydrographic Report, April, 1948, op. cit., p. 15. 21 Loc. cit. 22 Loc. cit. with Hugh L. Scott, Traffic Manager, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, 100 Santa Fe Bldg., Galveston, Texas, August 21, 1947- Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, 1946, op. cit., p. 105. cit.; Hammond’s New Supreme Illustrated Atlas of the World, 1939, P. 75. The Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, 1946, op. cit., p. 105. 27 Ibid., p. 39. 28 Ibid., pp. 105-106. 29 "ibid., p. 147. , pp. 39-40. Port Book, May, 1947> P« 50 New Supreme Illustrated Atlas of the World, 1939, p. 75- 33 ' foreign trade data for Baytown are included with the data for Houston. New Supreme Illustrated Atlas of the ’World, 1939, P. 75. 35 Personal observation of Houston port facilities, August 18, 1947. 3 6 ’’All of the terminal facilities surrounding the Turning Basin are owned and operated by the Navigation District.” Houston Port Book, May, 1947, op. ait., p. 50- 37 Part and Terminal .Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op. oit., pp. 11-12. 3a ibid., p. 42. New Supreme Illustrated Atlas of the World, 1939, p. 75- and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op. oit., p. 42. cit. New Supreme Illustrated Atlas of the World, 1941, p. 75. of Engineers, United States Army, Port and Terminal Facilities at the Fort of Corpus Christi, Texas, 1941, P- 28. s New Supreme Illustrated Atlas of the World, 1941, p. 75. and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Corpus Christi, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 28. F. Budd, Customs House Guide, 1947 Edition, p. 87. and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Corpus Christi, Texas, 1941, .op. cit., p. 28. of Engineers, United States Army, Port and Terminal Charges at the United States Seaports, 1942 Edition, p. 103. 49 7 Loc. cit. 5 Q Custom House Guide, 1947 Edition, op. cit., p. 444. s New Supreme Illustrated Atlas of the World, 1939, P. 75. cit. 53 An international railroad bridge connects Brownsville, Texas with Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico. 54p e rsonal interview with F. W. Mofmokel, General Manager and Director of Port of Brownsville, August 28, 1947• Personal observation on August 27, 1947 also revealed the time lost when a box car was removed from the apron where perpendicular spurs were not used. All unloading and loading operations were disrupted, necessitating the movement of conveyors, to permit the passage of the box car. railroad bridges are used to cross the Rio Grande River. New Supreme Illustrated Atlas of the World, 1939 > P. 75. McNally, World Atlas, Premier Edition, pp. 66-67. , pp. 16, 66. ’ s New Supreme Illustrated Atlas of the World, 1939, pp. 38,“64. 6 °lbid., pp. 64, 75- Highways serving the ports. Paved highways and roads serving the land and water ports of Texas make connections with highways leading to the principal cities of the United States. From some border ports the all-weather roads extend into Canada and Mexico. With the increased competitive position of the motor transportation industry, the availability of adequate highways to port outlets is of increasing 65 importance. From east to west U. S. Highway 80 begins at Savannah, Georgia and extends across the United States to San Diego, California. This highway passes through the Texas inland ports of Dallas, Fort Worth, and El Paso. En route from Jacksonville, Florida the'U. S. Highway 90 passes through Pensacola and New Orleans, entering Texas at the Port of Orange. Continuing westward this modern highway carries traffic through the ports of Beaumont, Houston, San Antonio, and Del Rio, fi-66 nally delivering the traffic to U. S. Highway 80 at Van Horn, Texas. The latter highway passes through the ports of Fabens, Ysleta, and El Paso en route to the West Coast. Extending in a northern direction from Texas ports several paved highways span the nation to intersect with the network of highways in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Falling within this classification are United States highways No. 75, No. 81, No. 83, and No. 85. Spanning the causeway between Galveston and the mainland, U. S. Highway 75 leads northward through the ports of Houston and Dallas. Continuing northward, U. S. Highway 75 carries traffic through Tulsa, Omaha, and Sioux City to pass this traffic onto Canadian Highway 14 leading to Winnipeg. Both U. S. highways 81 and 83 converge at Laredo after spanning the nation from north to south. On the northern border both highways make connections with the Canadian highway system while at Laredo traffic can flow into Mexico over the Pan American Highway. U. S. Highway 81 extends northward from the Port of Laredo to pass through the ports of San Antonio and Fort Worth. Other cities en 67 68 . . route to the Canadian border are SI Reno, Enid, Salina (Kansas), and Fargo (North Dakota). Progressing northward from Fargo, U. S. Highway 81 intersects with U.- S. Highway 75 which joins the Canadian Highway 14 leading to Winnipeg. U. S. Highway 83, the other highway which connects with the Pan American Highway at Laredo, extends northward via a route approximately 150 miles west of (J. S. Highway 81. Principal cities en route are Abilene (Texas), Garden City (Kansas), Pierre (South Dakota), and Bismark (North Dakota). At the Canadian border U. S. Highway 83 joins Canadian highways 39 and 3 which lead to Regina and Winnipeg, respectively. The fourth international highway leading northward from a Texas port is U. S. Highway 85• On the south this highway enters Mexico at 69 the Port of El Paso and is paved to the city of Chihuahua in Mexico. The extension northward from El Paso is by way of the cities of Santa Fe, Denver, Cheyenne, and Williston (North Dakota). At the Canadian border this roadway joins the Canadian Highway 35 which in turn connects with Canadian Highway 39, reaching the city of Regina by paved roads. Other state and national highways serve as feeder lines between Texas ports and the hinterland. On the east the paved State Highway 87 joins the ports of Orange, Port Arthur, Sabine Pass, and Port Bolivar. Jive miles east of Port Arthur, Texas, Highway 87 spans the 70 Neches River with the ’’tallest highway bridge in the south.” This State Highway 87 is the only paved highway serving the ports of Sabine Pass and Port Bolivar. Even less fortunately situated is 71 the small port of Sabine which is served only by a graded dirt road. At Fort Bolivar, ferry service is required to carry motor vehicles the 3 miles across Bolivar Hoads to the Port of Galveston. Other than the transcontinental U. S. Highway 90, the Port of Orange has only 1 other paved road leading from the city. This highway is State Highway 62 which intersects with U. S. Highway 90 approximately 3 miles northeast of Orange and leads northward to Buna (Texas) on U. S. Highway 96. From Port Arthur to Beaumont, a distance of approximately 12 miles, 2 alternate paved highways are available. State Highway 347 follows along the Neches River while the 3 U- S. highways No. 287, No. 69, and No. 96 jointly follow a paved road to the west in reaching Beaumont. After reaching Beaumont U. S. Highway 287 leads northwestward via the cities of Fort Worth, ’Wichita Falls, and Amarillo. U. S. Highway 69 divides to the east of U. S. Highway 287, bearing traffic through the cities of Tyler, Muskogee, Kansas City, and Des Moines. Completing its mission in Texas, U. S. Highway 96 passes through such smaller cities as Jasper and San augustine, Texas. Motor traffic flows to the Port of Houston by way of 10 paved highways that reach out in all directions. The 2 transcontinental U. S. highways 75 and 90 pass through the city nearly at right angles, accounting for 4of the paved roads. While U. S. Highway 90 joins Houston with the ports of San Antonio and Beaumont, U. S. Highway 75 connects Houston with the ports of Dallas and Galveston. To the north of Houston 2 other paved highways serve this port. U. S. Highway 59 leads northeastward through Lufkin to meet U. S. High way 71 at Texarkana. To the northwest, U. S. Highway 290 extends from Houston to join U. S. Highway 80 at a point 20 miles west of Toyahvale Important urban centers en route are Austin, Fredericksburg, and Ft. Stockton. To the south of Houston several additional highways give easy access to several inland and port areas. U. S. Highway 59 leads southwestward through Sugarland and Victoria to the Port of Laredo. While State Highway 288 leads nearly due south of Houston to the Port of Freeport, the State Highway 35 curves back to the southwest to pass through such tows as Bay City, Port Lavaca, Rockport, and Aransas Pass before joining U. S. Highway 181 leading into Corpus Christi. Galveston is joined to Houston directly by U. S. Highway 75 and indirectly by State highways 225 and 146. State Highway 225 follows east along the Houston Ship Channel to La Porte where it joins State Highway 146. The latter highway serves the refining centers of Goose Creek and Baytown on the north and makes possible the entrance to the Port of Texas City to the south via State Highway 348. Galveston has only 1 paved highway leading from the island to the mainland. Tills is U. S. Highway 75 which extends northward to Houston Once across the 4-lane causeway, State Highway 341 leads directly to Texas City while State Highway 6 threads northeast to intersect U. S. Highway 59 at Sugarland. Access to Port Bolivar and the paved State Highway 87 is by ferry which crosses the 5 miles of water in Bolivar Roads. In highway outlets Galveston is seriously handicapped. Truckers wishing to travel the main thoroughfares to distant points in the United States are forced by directness of route to follow U. S. Highway 75 into Houston. The delay in going through Houston tends to takeaway the advantage of unloading cargo nearer the sea. The answer lies in a direct highway circumventing the Port of Houston. The Port of Corpus Christi is on only 1 national highway and 3 state highways. U. S. Highway 181 circuitously reaches Corpus Christi by way of San Antonio and Aransas Pass. The 3 state highways include numbers 9, 44, and 286. The 2 latter highways are primarily dead-end paved roads. State Highway 286 ends 16 miles south of Corpus Christi at Chapman Ranch while State Highway 44 ends at Freer, 79 miles west of Corpus Christi. State Highway 9 makes relatively direct connections between Corpus Christi and San Antonio. En route or at San Antonio, State Highway 9 gives access to U. S. highways leading in all directions throughout the nation. Focusing on Brownsville are the 3 U. S. highways No. 77, No. S 3, and No. 281. U. S. Highway 77 by-passes Corpus Christi en route to Dallas while U. S. Highway 281 contacts San Antonio and Oklahoma City on the northward journey. The third U. S. highway, No. 83, follows the Rio Grande River to Laredo. Hence the road leads north to the Canadian border via Abilene (Texas), Garden City, and Pierre (South Dakota). Paved feeder highways give access to the ports of Boca Chica and Port Isabel. Boca Chica is located on the coast some 27 miles northeast of Brownsville and is linked to the Port of Brownsville by State Highway 4. Access to Port Isabel, also lying northeast of Brownsville on Laguna Madre, is by way of State Highway 100. South of Matamoros only an unpaved road leads into the interior of Mexico. Plans are now-72 in progress to pave the latter road all the way to Mexico City. The 2 internal land ports of San Antonio and Dallas are well supplied with state and national highways advancing across the nation in all directions. The spokes in the highway network about San Antonio include the following U. S. highways: south and north, No. 281; southwest and northeast, No. 81; east and west, No. 90; northwest and southeast, No. 87; and southeast, No. 181. Supplementing these highways are 2 paved state roads, State Highway 346 which leads south to Jourdanton while State Highway 16 meanders in a northwesterly direction to Kerrville. Highways serving the land port of Dallas resemble the spokes in a rimless wheel. U. S. Highway 80 cuts through the heart of Dallas and the adjacent city of Fort Worth in its transcontinental extension from east to west. Also this highway serves as the main thoroughfare between Fort Worth and Dallas, which are located 32 miles apart. Several additional federal highways provide road transportation for Dallas. U. S. Highway 77 enters from the south and extends northward via Oklahoma City. To the southwest and northeast of Dallas lies D. S. Highway 67 while U. S. Highway 75 extends in northerly and southerly directions. Paved state highways also serve Dallas. State Highway 342 supplements U. S. Highway 77 south of the city while State Highway 183 is a northern alternate, though a circuitous route, between Dallas and Fort Worth. State Highway 114 threads its way northwest of Dallas while State Highway 289 extends nearly due north of the city. An alternate route from Dallas to Denison is State Highway 78, passing through Farmersville rather than McKinney. For 8 miles to the east of Dallas, State Highway 352 parallels U. S. Highway 80 before joining this transcontinental road. 61 . . Loc. cit. "McNally, World Atlas, Premier Edition, op. cit., p. 16. , p. 66. Unless otherwise indicated, data on highways are secured from Texas Official Highway Map, Spring Edition, Corrected to January 1, 1948. production of motor truck trailers with capacities of 5 tons and over increased markedly in the few years prior to the war. Production is as follows: 26,931 in 1939; 32,081 in 1940; and 50,448 in 1941. The military augmented demands for this type of conveyance, requiring 185,349 of the 209,434 units produced in 1944- United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1944-45, P- 461. Horn, Texas is 119 miles east of El Paso. EI Reno, Oklahoma U. S. Highway 81 intersects with U. S. Highway 66 which covers the nation from Chicago, Illinois to Los Angeles, California. 68 At Enid, Oklahoma U. S. Highway 81 intersects with another famous highway, U. S. Highway 60 which extends from Norfolk, Virginia to Los Angeles, California. 69 'Efforts are being made to bring about the pavement of this highway from El Paso to Mexico City where it would join the Pan American Highway. bridge ’’has a vertical clearance of 176 feet and is 7,700 feet long.” Untitled mimeographed data furnished by the Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce, 1947- 71 Personal visit to Port of Sabine, August 20, 1947- compiled by engineers indicate this route will be 132 miles closer to Mexico City than via Laredo. Personal interview with 0. M. Longnecker, Secretary to Brownsville Chamber of Commerce, August 28, 1947. Pipe line installations. In moving crude petroleum the pipe line is considered to be the most economical carrier other than tankers and 73 barges. In 1940, 72 per cent of all crude petroleum in the United States was delivered to refineries by pipe lines while 25 per cent was moved by tank ships. The remaining 3 per cent was moved by tank cars and trucks. Pipe lines are of much less importance in carrying refined petroleum products. Only 4 per cent of these products are moved by pipe line with the remaining 96 per cent ’’being equally divided between rail and water carriers.” The motor truck serves primarily in the "delivery of gasoline, kerosene, and fuel oil from the refineries and 75 tank ships to nearby markets." In Chart VIII the crude oil trunk pipe lines in the United States are shown. Attention is directed to the concentration of the pipe lines within the hinterland of Texas ports, particularly the Primary Hinterland. Of the 108,783 miles of petroleum pipe lines operated in 76 the United States in 1943, "nearly half the total mileage lies in 77 Texas and Oklahoma." Further observation of the map of crude oil trunk pipe lines shows that the principal sources of the crude oil supplying these trunk lines lie in Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and 78 Louisiana. The destination of the crude oil flowing from these states is in 2 directions, to ”our Gulf Coast and North Atlantic sea-79 board.” Closer observation reveals that the destination of "our Gulf Coast” refers principally to 1 state, Texas. Pipe lines originating Source: Association of American Railroads, Report by Subcommittee on Pipe Line Transport, Mimeographed Brochure, May 1, 1944, p, 159. even in Louisiana converge in part on refineries located at ports of Texas. In 1943 Texas received 408 million barrels of the 1,430 million barrels of ’’crude oil run to stills,” or 29 per cent of the na-80 tion's total. The ability of pipe lines to compete in the future with other forms of transportation for moving oil is good. ‘The operation is ’’relatively simple” and ’’requires little labor.” The ’’right-of-way 81 expense is not great” and ’’maintenance costs are low.” Innovations in the pipe line industry may bring about greater use of this mode of transportation for exports in the future. Pipes have been increased in size, reducing ’’capital and operating costs per unit of output.” Laying of the pipe has been facilitated by replacing the ’’screw joint” with the ’’welded joint” while the new seamless pipe in-82 creases capacity by permitting higher pressures. The use of the pipe line as a method of moving other items from the interior of the hinterland at low cost could prove the basis for greater exports in the future. To date the movement of coal has gained considerable attention. The "Report by the Subcommittee on Pipe Line Transport” for the Association of American Railroads in May, 1944, gives some revealing information concerning the movement of coal by pipe line. Patent No. 2,128,913 dated September 6, 1936 is held by the Standard Oil Company of Ohio "on a process of transporting coal by 83 pipe line." Under this patent disintegrated coal is mixed with water and a 84 small amount of "stabilizing agent" to prevent "settling." At destination the suspension is broken and the coal is filtered before be-85 ing formed into compressed blocks or "employed directly for firing." An engineer, Farley G. Clark, states that the pipe line method of handling coal "would save 75 million tons now burned in process of haulage," while Reginald P. Bolton, Consulting Engineer for New York, estimates that coal could be carried for "hundreds of miles in four 20-inch pipes," at an estimated cost per ton of "not more than 75 cents," compared with present rail cost to the City of New York of 86 "nearly $3»00 per ton." The increased technology for utilizing lignite and other low grades of coal, coupled with a cheap means of transportation, could conceivably be the basis for exporting a large volume of the reserves of this commodity from the Rocky Mountain and Mid-Continent states. In addition another cheap source of fuel would become available for manufacturing in the hinterland, further serving as the basis for foreign trade. However, the National Resources Committee of 1937 did not believe pipe-line transportation of coal would be "an important item in the next two decades of transportation." Deterring factors cited included the difficulty in "keeping pipe lines clean," "the low value of coal," the "remarkable efficiency" of present transportation, the "growth of natural-gas pipe lines," and the growing efficiency in "the transmis-87 sion of electricity." ’’average cost of crude-oil transportation by pipe lines reporting to the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1939, including taxes and a return on investment of 8 per cent, was 0.236 cent per ton-mile.” This is lower than 1.061 cents for Class I railroads and 2.86 cents per ton-mile for tank-trucks. Truman C. Bigham, Transportation, Principles and Problems, First Edition, p. 87. 74 I. Russell Smith and M. Ogden Phillips, Industrial and Commercial Geography, Third Edition, p. 110. 75 . cit. Abstract of the United States, 1944-45, op. cit., p. 737. op. cit., p. 70. ?°ln 1943 these 6 states supplied 1,020 million barrels of the 1,503 million barrels for the United States and 2,222 million barrels of the crude petroleum produced in the world. Percentage wise, these 6 states in 1943 produced 66 per cent of the total for the United States and 46 per cent of the world’s crude oil production. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1944-45, op. cit., p. 784- 79 Smith and Phillips, op. cit., p. 110. 80 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1944-45, op- cit., p. 786. op. cit., pp. 86-87- 82 T , - /I Ibin., p. 41. of American Railroads, Report by Subcommittee on Pipe Line Transport (mimeographed brochure), May 1, 1944, P- 245- of a base of sodium or potassium was suggested as the suitable "stabilizing agent." of American Railroads, op. cit. , p. 245* 86 Ibid., p. 248. CHART VIII CRUDE OIL TRUNK PIPE LINES IN THE UNITED STATES Air routes serving the ports. As of March, 1946, six cities in Texas were designated, as airports of entry or air stations. Included 88 were the cities of Dallas, Fort Worth, Brownsville, Laredo, San $9 Antonio, and El Paso. In March, 1948 Houston and Eagle Pass were 90 also initiating and receiving international air flights. Cargo may be loaded at other cities but inspection and documents must be pre- 91 pared by or under the direction of proper government officials. Of the airlines serving Texas cities, 3 serve to carry cargo and 92 passengers in international trade. These 3 airlines include the Braniff International Airways, Pan American World Airways System, and American Airlines. The Braniff International Airways has routes connecting points in 93 Mexico with the Texas cities of Laredo and Brownsville. Connections with Pan American World Airways System are also made by Braniff at 94 Houston for flights to points in Mexico. The American Airlines has 4 flights with Mexico daily, 1 flight in and out of each of the cities of El Paso and San Antonio. In each instance the Mexican cities of Monterrey and Mexico City are the points of foreign contact. The flights via San Antonio serve the cities of New York, Washington, Dallas, San Antonio, Monterrey, and Mexico City while the flights via El Paso serve the cities of Los 95 Angeles, El Paso, Monterrey, and Mexico City. Pan American World Airways System has 6 flights serving Texas and Mexican cities. Four flights leave or arrive on United States soil at 96 Brownsville and the 2 remaining flights, at Houston. Two of the Brownsville flights, 1 in and 1 out, serve only the cities of Brownsville and Mexico City. The remaining Brownsville flights, 1 each way, serve the cities of Houston, Corpus Christi, Brownsville, Tampico, Mexico City, Tapachula (Mexico), Guatemala, San Salvador (El Salvador), Tegucigalpa (Honduras), Managua (Nicaragua), San lose (Costa Rica), 97 David (Republic of Panama), and Balboa (Canal Zone). The 2 Pan American flights, 1 each way which serve only the city of Houston in the United States, are direct with Mexico City. From Mexico City the flights continue southward to cities in Central America, the north coast of South America, and the island of Trinidad. Pan American also has a flight each way between Nuevo Laredo and Mexico City, serving Monterrey en route. While this flight primarily moves cargo and passengers of Mexican origin and destination, use in foreign trade has been made by supplementing the air trip with ground movement across the border at Laredo. While San Antonio, Houston, Brownsville, Laredo, and El Paso have direct flights to foreign ports, other Texas ports have air flight connections with domestic destinations and indirect connections with foreign ports. For example the Chicago and Southern Air Lines connect 98 Beaumont with Chicago via St. Louis and with Detroit via Indianapolis. Beaumont also is on a direct route of Eastern Air Lines which also touches San Antonio and Houston to the west and points east, including Washington, D. C., and New York. Galveston is served only by Braniff International Airways. This transportation agency makes special note of flights to Houston whereby 99 direct connections to Mexico and domestic points may be effected. The Port of Corpus Christi is on a direct route to Mexican and domestic cities via the Braniff International Airways and Pan American World Airways System while the border port of Eagle Pass is served by 100 a feeder airline, the Trans-Texas Airways. Besides American Airlines, El Paso is served by the Continental 101 Air Lines and Pioneer Airlines. Similarly, the Port of San Antonio has airline service in all directions including Braniff International Airways, American Airlines, Eastern Air Lines, Continental Air Lines, 102 and Trans-Texas Airways. Radiating from Fort Worth and Dallas are the airlines of Braniff International Airways, Trans-Texas Airways, American Airlines, Pioneer 103 Airlines, and Delta Air Lines. Consequently, passengers and air cargo of these cities have frequent access to domestic and foreign markets. Houston, too, is served by airlines other than those formerly 104 mentioned as serving the trade with Mexico. From the east and west, Eastern Air Lines operates flights while Trans-Texas Airways connects Houston directly with Dallas and San Antonio. Then the Chicago and Southern Air Lines provide flights toward Chicago and Detroit while the Mid-Continent Airlines give access to such northern cities as Kansas City, Omaha, and Sioux Falls. Furthermore, in the Pioneer Airlines, Houston is served by 1 of the principal feeder airlines of Texas. z Technological Trends and National Policy, Report of the Subcommittee on Technology to the National Resources Committee, p. 197. 88 Meacham Field in Fort Worth is a United States Customs air station under the jurisdiction of the Port of Dallas. Customs House Guide, 1947 Edition, p. 90- 89 z United States Exports and Imports of Merchandise by Air during January and February 1946, by Customs Districts and Ports and by Leading Commodities, June 14, 1946, p. 3- 90 American Aviation, Air Traffic Guide, April, 1948, p. 70; Customs House Guide, 1947 Edition, p. 99*. 91 The government is willing to establish points for entry on a temporary or permanent basis where there is sufficient air traffic to justify the maintenance of personnel for enforcing regulations regarding customs, immigration, and sanitation. Personal interview with Victor Russell, Collector of Customs, Sabine Customs District, Port Arthur, Texas, August 20, 1947- 02 7 Lamsa, a Mexican airline though affiliated with United Air Lines, enplanes passengers and cargo at Juarez for Chihuahua, Mexico City, and other Mexican cities. American Aviation, Air Traffic Guide, April, 1948, p. 121. 93 Mexican cities served include Nuevo Laredo, Monterrey, and Mexico City. Aviation, Air Traffic Guide, April, 1948, pp. 20-21. , pp. 16-17. otherwise specified, the flights are daily. Aviation, Air Traffic Guide, April, 1948, p. 70. 98 Similar connections are also available for Houston. Ibid., p. 129. "ibid., pp. 20-21. Trans-Texas Airways serves the following Texas cities: Eagle Pass, Uvalde, San Antonio, Victoria, Houston, Palestine, Dallas, Fort Worth, Stephenville, Coleman, San Angelo, McCamey-Sheffield, Fort Stockton, and Alpine. This airline has been ’’temporarily suspended” from serving the port cities of El Paso, Del Rio, Laredo, Brownsville, Freeport, Galveston, and Beaumont. Ibid., p. 95- Pioneer Airlines inaugurated services to El Paso on May 29, 1948. The airline will maintain ’’two flights daily in and out of the city,” linking El Paso ’’with Roswell and Clovis, N. M. , and Amarillo, Texas, where it will connect with other lines.” El Paso Times, May 29, 1948, P. 3- 102 Compiled from American Aviation, Air Traffic Guide, April, 1948' from American Aviation, Air Traffic Guide, April, 1948. TERMINAL FACILITIES AND SERVICES Anchorage available. During periods of storm or inactivity in shipping, anchorage space is needed for the safety of vessels. Such anchorage space is made available close to the water ports of Texas, though it has not been considered necessary to provide such space at every port. In the "Sabine-Neches Waterway,” the principal area for anchorage is provided in or near the Sabine Pass and serves the ports of Orange, 105 Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Sabine Pass. At the Sabine Pass Anchorage Basin, an area 800 feet wide and 3,000 feet long is maintained ’’with a depth of 34 feet below mean low tide.” In addition the SOO-foot wide channel ’’provides anchorage for a number of vessels.” Other vessels may be anchored ’’about 7 miles westward of the jetties as close inshore as their draft will permit.” While ’’soft mud and ooze” in this area necessitates a cautious approach, vessels ’’with good tackle 106 can ride out any gale.” In the Galveston Bay area, approved ’’anchorage ground” is provided "in Bolivar Roads, Galveston Harbor, between Bolivar Point and Pelican 107 Island and Spit.” The depths of the anchorage basins range from 18 to 48 feet. These anchorages have been established and defined for specific purposes by the Secretary of Treasury as Anchorages Number 1 to 5- Small craft may anchor anywhere outside of the dredged channels but during a norther, ’’vessels of draft will lie on the bottom” 108 as the water is blown from the bay. Anchorages numbers 1 and 2 are for vessels bearing explosives. Number 1 is a triangular area, located 200 yards westward of the Bolivar Peninsula Light. The designated area is approximately 550 x 750 x 930 yards, a smaller area than any of the other 5 anchorages. The other anchorage for ships bearing explosives is located in Bolivar Roads adjacent to the eastern tip of Galveston Island and is a rectan 109 gular area about a mile long and three-fourths of a mile wide. The "general” anchorages are designated as Anchorages Numbers 3 and 4- Anchorage Number 3 lies in Bolivar Roads, adjacent to Anchorage Number 2. This anchorage is approximately a mile wide and 1J miles long. Its use is for "Naval and merchant vessels, and also for the use of vessels undergoing examination by quarantine, customs, or 110 immigration authorities.” Anchorage Number 4 extends into Bolivar Roads northeastward of Anchorages Numbers 2 and 3- While irregular in shape, it provides the largest area for anchorage of the 5 designated anchorages, being over a mile wide and miles long. The use of this anchorage is primarily for those merchant vessels remaining at anchor for a period of time over 30 days or when Anchorage Number 3 is crowded. The fifth anchorage, which is designated as ’’restricted.” lies to the northeast of Anchorage Number 4 and is along the southwestern tip of Port Bolivar. This anchorage space is approximately a mile long and three-fourths of a mile wide. Vessels awaiting quarantine inspection and "such other vessels as the captain of the port may permit,” 111 anchor in this area. Only small protected areas are available for anchorage in the vicinities of the ports of Brownsville and Corpus Christi. Principally the turning basins at these ports provide protected anchorage for periods of short duration. While anchorage with good holding ground is provided east of the Aransas Pass and Dock Company’s wharf on Harbor Island, this space will not protect ships against north and east winds. In addition the area is relatively small, having dimensions of 400 by 600 feet though 112 the depth is 30 feet. lnternational Airways and Pan American World Airways System connect Houston with points in Mexico. lu> Only emergency anchorage is possible in the vicinity of Orange and Beaumont. This anchorage is available along the Sabine and Neches rivers only after ’’permission is obtained from the United States Engi- neer Department.” The Ports of Fort Arthur, Beaumont, and Orange, Texas, 1946, op. cit. , pp. 71, 123. 1Q6 Ibid., pp. 2, 3. of Engineers, United States Army, Port and Terminal Fa cilities at the Port of Houston, Texas, 1941, P- 3- 1 OS Port and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, op. cit., pp. 2-3. 1Q9 Ibid., pp. 2,3, 42. 11Q Ibid., p. 3. 11l Loc. cit. Turning basins. At each, of the ports of Texas, provision is made for reversing the direction of ships. The most usual facility for this purpose is the turning basin, an enlargement of the water channels at points convenient to the trade. These turning basins vary in dimensions but are so small as to normally require ships to use the 113 services of tug boats for safety in the turning movement. In the Sabine-Neches Waterway, each of the ports of Sabine. Pass, Port Arthur, and Beaumont are served by 1 or more turning basins. At Sabine Pass, the Sabine Pass Anchorage Basin provides a turning space 114 with an area 800 by 3,000 feet and a depth of 34 feet. At Port Arthur there are 3 turning basins, the East Turning Basin, West Turning Basin, and the Taylor’s Bayou Turning Basin. The East Turning Basin has dimensions of 420 by 1,800 feet while the West Turning Basin is 600 by 1,700 feet. The Taylor’s Bayou Turning Basin is located approximately one-half mile above the East and West turning basins on the Taylor’s Bayou. The length of this turning basin is 2,900 feet while the width varies from 150 to 1,000 feet. In all 3 basins located at Port Arthur, the depth below mean low tide is 34 115 feet. At Beaumont the turning basin proper is 500 by 1,500 feet while the Beaumont Turning Basin Extension is 350 by 2,300 feet. The latter, as implied, is an extension of the Beaumont Turning Basin and is located along Harbor Island. Both the extension and the basin proper have an effective depth of 34 feet. The turning of ships at Orange, Texas, does not require a turning basin as a natural lagoon on the ' 116 Sabine River has been canalized to an effective depth of 24 feet. In the Galveston Bay area, turning basins are provided in all the protected ports. At Galveston, the Galveston Channel is sufficiently wide and deep to serve this purpose. From Galveston Harbor to 43rd Street, a distance of 4 miles, the channel has a width of 1,200 feet 117 and a depth of 34 feet. Along this channel are located the princi-118 pal docks and wharves of Galveston. At Texas City the channel is only 300 feet wide. The turning basin and an extension of the turning basin have been dredged to a width of 800 feet and one mile in length. While the project depth for this turning basin is 34 feet, the actual depth in September, 1947 was 119 only 29.8 feet for the mid-channel covering "half project width." The Houston Turning Basin is located at the end of the Houston Ship Channel, "completely surrounded by wharves, docks, and terminal 120 facilities." This turning basin is irregular in shape, varying in width from 300 to 1,000 feet while the length is approximately 0.7 mile. The projected depth is 34 feet but the actual depths range from. 121 24-5 feet to 32 feet. Freeport Harbor, Texas has 3 turning basins planned to accommodate ocean-going traffic. Just inside the jetty channel, the Brazosport Turning Basin is located. This basin is 700 feet wide and 0.13 mile long with depths ranging from 16.0 to 27.0 feet. The Brazosport Upper Basin is 1.4 miles farther inland with dimensions of 600 feet wide and 0.11 of a mile long. The depth is greater than that for the Brazosport Turning Basin, providing a least depth at mean low tide of 122 29.5 feet. One other turning basin in Freeport Harbor is located by the Stauffer Chemical Company and has a project depth of 30 feet but ac- tually has depths ranging between 20.0 and 21.8 feet. However, the area covered is adequate as the width is 500 feet and the length, 0.09 .. 123 mile. In approaching Corpus Christi from the Gulf, 4 turning basins accommodate vessels en route, namely, the Harbor Island Inner Basin, Humble Oil and Refinery Company Basin, the Corpus Christi Turning 124 Basin, and the Avery Point Turning Basin. The first 2 turning basins named are located just inside the jetties and in the vicinity 125 of the intersection of the Intracoastal and Corpus Christi waterways. The deeper of the 2 turning basins in. this vicinity is the Humble Oil and Refinery Basin with depths ranging from 35*0 to 37«0 feet. 126 This basin is over 300 feet wide and 0.95 mile long. The Harbor Island Turning Basin has depths of 30.0 to 31«0 feet for over half of its width of 650 feet but only 18.0 to 22.0 feet over the remaining 127 half. The length of this turning basin is 0.2 mile. Ilie other 2 turning basins on the Corpus Christi Waterway are lo- cated at the Port of Corpus Christi. The Corpus Christi Turning Basin 128 is surrounded by the major docks and wharves of the port. This basin is 1,000 feet wide and 1.16 miles long with minimum depths rang 129 ing from 30.0 to 31feet. The Avery Point Turning Basin is ap- 130 proximately 1 mile farther inland than the Corpus Christi Turning Basin and is capable of handling the largest of ships. The minimum depth is 36.5 feet while the width is 1,000 feet and the length is 0.38 mile Ships entering the Brownsville Ship Channel and its tributary, the Port Isabel Ship Channel, have access to 5 turning basins capable of accommodating ocean-going vessels. At the confluence of the 2 channels, the Junction Turning Basin provides water 24.5 to 28.7 feet deep for turning purposes although the project depth is 33.0 feet. For ships visiting Port Isabel, the Port Isabel Turning Basin is quite adequate, providing a minimum depth of 33 feet, a width of 1,000 feet, and a length of 0.5 mile. En route to Brownsville from the Junction Turning Basin, ship turning facilities are provided at Boca Chica Road and Goose Island. The Boca Chica Road Turning Basin is 400 feet wide, 0.2 mile long and 27.9 to 29.5 feet deep. Similar dimensions are available at the Goose Island Turning Basin ’where the width is 400 feet, the length is 0.2 132 mile, and the depth ranges from 28.0 to 29.4 feet. At the end of the Brownsville Ship Channel, and approximately 5 133 miles northeast of the city of Brownsville, the Brownsville Turning Basin provides a turning area 300 to 1,000 feet wide, 1.27 miles long, 134 and 29.5 to 30.0 feet deep. This turning basin has been wholly excavated and is designed to serve the adjacent docks and wharves. 'lmport and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Corpus Christi, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 2. 11 operations along the canalized streams are aided by the current. In such cases the prow of the vessel is pulled from the dock into the current of the stream, which aids in the turning operation. Personal intervidw with Edward R. Costello, Superintendent of Docks and Wharves, Port of Beaumont, Beaumont, Texas, August 20, 1947- Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, 1946, op, cit-, P- 7- , pp. 7, 71. 116 Ibid., pp. 7, 71, 160. Report, October, 1947? op- dt*, P- 6. 11 H Fort and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, op. cit., p. 42. Report, October, 1947, op. cit., p. 6. Houston Port Book, May, 1947, op- cit. , p. 49- 121 Hydrographic Report, October, 1947, op» cit., p. 8. 122 x Ibid., p. 10. 123 T hoc. cit. Waterway, Section from Sabine River to Brownsville, Texas, op. cit., p. 20. cit. i 26 Hydrographic Report, October, 1947, op. cit., p. 12. 127 lbid., p. 11. •I2%ntracoastal Waterway, Section from Sabine River to Brownsville, Texas, op. cit., p. 20. Report, October, 1947, PP- cit., p. 11. 130 Intracoastal Waterway, Section from Sabine River to Brownsville, Texas, op. cit., p. 30- 131 Hydrographic Report, October, 1947, op. cit., p. 11. 132 Ibid., pp. 13, 14. Piers, wharves, and docks. At various strategic points along the water channels and turning basins of Texas ports, structures are built to accommodate vessels needing repair and servicing in addition to the major activity of discharging and receiving cargo. These structures reflect the needs of vessels in the coastwise as well as the foreign trade and in many instances are specially designed and equipped to handle individual commodities more effectively. Further variation is found in the ownership and control, some docking facilities being publicly owned and operated in contrast to those under private control. But a common requirement of all such structures serving the foreign trade is the close proximity to water channels sufficiently deep to accommodate ocean-going vessels. In the Sabine-Neches Waterway the docking facilities for handling general cargo are not particularly impressive. However, modern and specialized facilities service the petroleum industry. At the Port of Orange there are located "21 piers and wharves" including the "two on Adams Bayou at the lower end of the city." The water depths alongside 135 these structures range from 3 to 30 feet. The foreign and coastwise traffic is ’’practically all” handled over the municipal wharf on the southerly side of the city slip. This terminal, operated by the Orange Wharf and Dock Commission, is 1,104 feet long with 1,504 feet of berthing space and with a water depth of 30 feet. Two marginal railroad tracks, owned by the city of Orange, run the full length of the wharf while a ”single depressed track” extends the full length of the transit sheds in the rear. The other 20 piers and wharves located at Orange include 11 used during the war by shipbuilding and repair yards, 2 operated by the railroads for transferring cargo directly between cars and barges, 1 for public landings of river and canal boats, and 1 for tying up float ing equipment while the remaining 5 ’’are operated by various owners in 136 connection with their own business operations.” At the Port of Beaumont the principal facility for handling "practically all of the foreign and coastwise shipping" is that operated by the Beaumont Port Commission. This facility consists of 2 continuous wharves providing 1,397 and 2,000 feet of berthing space in water 30 feet in depth. These 2 continuous vzharves are divided into 7 sections 137 which are designated as wharves with numbers 1 through 7- Wharf No. 1 is an open wharf of "timber deck construction" with 2 surface tracks. At this wharf bulk commodities are handled directly between vessels and railroad cars. Also certain ship repairs are performed here. Wharves No. 2 and 3 support 3 transit sheds covering a total area of 63,312 square feet. The bulkheads of these wharves are of concrete and support on the apron 1 surface track for Wharf No. 2 and 2 surface tracks for Wharf No. 3- In the rear of the transit sheds provision is made for 4 depressed railroad tracks. Wharf No. 4 is similar to Wharf No. 3 except the construction is of open pile timber with a transit shed covering 28,944 square feet of floor area. Wharves No. 5 and 6 are also of timber deck construction with 4 transit sheds which cover a floor area of 62,420 square feet. In addition to the 2 surface tracks, there are 6 depressed tracks in the rear of the sheds. Wharf No. 7 has a ’'concrete bulkhead, with an open pile, concrete- decked extension." The accompanying transit shed has 62,500 square feet of floor space while there are 2 surface tracks on the apron and , 138 2 depressed tracks in the rear of the transit shed. Other wharves and docks in the area of Beaumont include 2 "Fitting-Out” wharves, owned by the United States Maritime Commission but operated by the Pennsylvania Shipyards, Incorporated. Two other docks, owned by the Pennsylvania Shipyards, provide a "tie-up for vessels undergoing repairs." Shell and sand are received at the C. A. McKinley and Sons Wharf while shell is the principal commodity received 139 at the W. D. Haden Company Wharf. Between the Beaumont Turning Basin and Port Arthur, several oil companies have open wharves for the purpose of receiving, shipping, or bunkering petroleum and its products. .Among these companies handling petroleum and its products over the wharves are the Texas Company, Hutex Oil and Refining Company, Magnolia Petroleum Company, Standolind Oil Purchasing Company, the Sun Oil Company, Pure Oil Company, Atlan-140 tic Pipe Line Company, and the Sabine Transportation Company. Wharves and dock facilities in the vicinity of Port Arthur, Sabine Pass, and Sabine have in the main been "constructed by private inter-141 ests.” The only public port facility is a 600-foot barge dock at Port Arthur which "will not accommodate any vessel drawing over 10 142 feet.” Water depths at the other wharves range "from 45 to 10 feet at mean low water.” In addition to handling general cargo and bunker- ing supplies, the wharves have facilities for handling grain, coal, 143 coke, fish, lumber, petroleum, and petroleum products. At Port Arthur there are 22 wharves, principally of "open pile, timber deck" Three of the 22 wharves are used for ’’handling general cargo.” Two of these wharves, the Coastwise and General Cargo Docks located along the East Turning Basin, are operated by the Kansas City Southern Railway while the Lumber Dock on the West Turning Basin is operated jointly by the Kansas City Southern Railway, the Great Lakes Carbon Corporation, and the Warren Petroleum Corporation. In addition to handling general cargo, the Coastwise Dock handles coal while the Lumber Dock handles ’’coal, coke, lumber, and 145 natural gasoline.” On the wharves of Slip No. 3, ’the Elevator Dock is operated by the Kansas City Southern Railway to load vessels with grain. In Slip No. 2, adjacent to the East Turning Basin, the Meal Export Dock is located but only has facilities suitable for tying up vessels. The Coal Dock of the Sabine Towing Company, located also by the East Turning Basin, primarily stores coal for ship bunkering purposes. The operation, of 6 wharves at Port Arthur is under the control of oil companies. The "mean low water” along these wharves is not less than 31 feet. Along Terminal Island and the adjacent Slip No. 2, the Texas Company operates 4 large wharves. On the banks of Taylor’s Bayou the Gulf Oil Corporation and the McEwan Oil Terminal also have facilities for handling petroleum and petroleum products. The McEwan Oil Terminal has no rail connections and is engaged primarily in ’’oil bunkering.” On the other hand the Gulf Oil Corporation receives and ships "bulk and packaged petroleum products" and is served by 2 sur- face tracks of the Southern Pacific Lines and the Kansas City Southern o • , Hallway. Two other wharves located on Taylor’s Bayou serve the shell and steel barrel industries of Port Arthur. The W. D. Haden Company receives shell at 1 wharf while the J. and L. Steel Barrel receives steel plate by barge for their barrel factory located at Port Arthur. Each of these wharves have 1 track at the rear of the wharf and are 147 served by the Southern Pacific Lines. Located on the Sabine-Neches Canal, some 3 miles below the city of Port Arthur, are 4 wharves owned and operated by the Gulfport Boiler and Welding Works. These wharves are used for the purpose of ’’shipbuilding and repair.” Ocean-going vessels cannot be handled inasmuch as the "mean low water" at these wharves ranges between 10 and , 148 18 feet of water. A similar situation exists at the wharf of the Burton Construction and Shipbuilding Company on Taylor’s Bayou where a depth of only 10 feet of ’’mean low water” is provided. A single railroad track of the Southern Pacific Lines serves this latter wharf while the Kansas City Southern Railway serves 1 of the 4 wharves of the Gulfport Boiler 149 and Welding Works. Less than 1 mile below the Gulfport Boiler and Welding Works are 3 wharves, each separately operated. The Sabine Towing Company has a ”tie-up for floating plant” while Frank Taylor operates the Fish Wharf owned by the city of Port Arthur. This latter wharf is prepared to receive fish and moor fishing vessels drawing 10 feet or less of water The third wharf is owned and operated by the United States Engineer 150 Department as a ”tie-up for floating plant.” On the west side of Sabine Pass, located at the town of Sabine Pass, 2 wharves for receiving and shipping crude oil are owned and operated by the Sun Oil Company. The depth of ’’mean low water” provided at these wharves is 45 feet, a depth in excess of the requirements of ocean-going vessels. The last wharf between Port Arthur and the Gulf is the McClain Fish Wharf, owned and operated by William M. McClain. This wharf is located on the west side of Sabine Pass at the town of Sabine and receives fish from vessels drawing less than 13 151 feet of water. Included in the Fort of Houston are the wharves, piers, and docks located on the Houston Ship Channel and its tributaries. These facilities cover a distance of 25 miles from Morgan’s Point in the Galveston Bay to the Houston Turning Basin. Surrounding the Turning Basin are ’’wharves, docks, and terminal facilities, all owed and operated by the Harris County Houston Ship Channel Navigation District.” Belov; the Turning Basin the receiving and discharging facilities are in the 152 main privately owned and operated. Land traffic is provided entrance to the wharves via paved streets, the Public Belt Railroad, and the 5 major railroad systems 153 serving the Port of Houston. The 3 principal paved streets from which traffic flows to the wharves include Clinton Road on the northeast side of the channel and the Navigation and Harrisburg boulevards on the southwest side. The Public Belt Railroad provides rail traffic access to the public wharves and to wharves not served by private rail carriers. While owned by the Harris County Houston Ship Channel Navigation District, at a cost of approximately $3,000,000, the operation of the Public Belt Railroad is a cooperative venture of ”all the car-154 riers serving the Texas ports.” In the main the wharves have aprons provided with railroad track age. Behind the aprons are sheds and storage facilities to accommodate the inbound and outbound traffic. To insure serviceableness and long life, the better wharves have "reinforced concrete piles, reinforced concrete decks," and "timber pile fenders on face of dock" to 155 avoid destruction from the impact of vessels in docking. On the other hand, "open creosoted pile" wharves with "timber decks" are 156 quite common, particularly for the "receipt of mud shell.” There are 64 wharves, piers, and moorings at the Port of Houston. Sixty of these are used for commercial purposes while 2 are used as bases for floating equipment, leaving the remaining 2 unused. Depths ranging from 27 to 35 feet at mean low water are provided along 25,3'33 linear feet of the 33,833 feet of commercial berthing space. The remaining 7,550 linear feet of berthing space is too shallow to permit .. . . .157 tne berthing 01 ocean-going vessels. Seventeen of the commercial, wharves at Houston are utilized to handle general cargo. Although 6 of the general cargo wharves are specifically designated as cotton handling facilities, most general cargo wharves handle this commodity when "necessary or convenient" to do so. Among the more common products handled at the general cargo wharves are cottonseed cake and meal, molasses, steel, lumber, sugar, 158 coffee, paper, and fertilizer. Bulk cargo is handled at 3 wharves, including grain, sulphur, coal, ore, and "other bulk commodities.” Sand, shell, and cement are handled at 14 wharves while 22 are specifically designed to handle petroleum and petroleum products for shipment or bunkering purposes. Companies engaged in loading and unloading petroleum products include the Eastern States Petroleum Company, Magnolia Petroleum Company, Humble Oil and Refining Company, American Liberty Pipe Line Company, Gulf Refining Company, Sinclair Refining Company of Maine, General American Tank Storage Terminal Company, the Texas Company, Crown Central Petroleum Company, American Petroleum Company, and Shell Oil Com-159 pany. With the exception of the American Liberty Pipe Line Company, the petroleum companies not only operate but privately own the docks and wharves. In this exception the Coastal Oil and Transport Company owns the wharf facilities operated by the American Liberty Pipe Line Com-160 pany. In addition to the above mentioned wharves, the Port of Houston has several other wharves specialized in handling particular commodities or providing services. For example the Consolidated Chemical Industries, Incorporated has docking and wharf facilities at Harrisburg Bend equipped for ’’loading acids” while the .Armour Fertilizer Companyreceives ’’fertilizer materials” on the west side of the channel near the Houston Turning Basin. On the south side of the Houston Ship Channel near Pasadena, the Champion Paper and Fiber Company has special wharves for the receipt of raw materials for the manufacture of 161 paper and the shipment of finished paper products. Special wharves also handle iron and steel products. At a point 3 miles below the Houston Turning Basin, the Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company has an "open pile trestle" connecting with the shore for the "receipt of steel products." On the south bank of Buffalo Bayou near Arkansas Bend, the National Supply Company specializes in receiving pipe by barge while the Shipside Contracting Company handles pipe, steel commodities, and automobiles} The remaining wharves at the Port of Houston include the Tug Wharf, the United States Engineer Department Dock, and 2 unused wharves The Tug Wharf, owned by the Harris County Houston Ship Channel Navigation District but operated by the Intercoastal Transportation and Tow-163 ing Company, is used primarily as a "tie-up for towboats." At Harrisburg Bend in the rear of Brady Island, the United States Government owns and operates a "tie-up for Engineer Department float-164 ing plant." While these 2 wharves do not directly handle the cargo across their wharves, they store the floating equipment facilitating the movement of water-borne commerce. Located at the Port of Texas City are 10 structures for receiving and shipping by water. All of the wharves and piers, except those of the Seaboard Warehouse Company and the Pan-American Refining Corporation, are owned and operated by the Texas City Terminal Railway Company. With the exceptions of the oil piers, the 2 slip bulkheads, and the open wharf of the Seatrain Lines, railroad tracks extend "practi- 169 cally their entire lengths. ■Transit sheds, with a total floor area of 808,000 square feet, serve all the wharves of Texas City with the exception of the oil piers and slip bulkheads. In addition "numerous pipe lines" extend "from the wharves to tanks and refineries in the rear of the water front." These pipe lines serve not only to receive and ship petroleum 166 products but also to bunker vessels. With the exception of 1 public bulkhead wharf, the depths of mean low water at the wharves ranges between 30 and 35 feet. Structure of the wharves are all ’’bulkhead and solid fill type” and most of them have "open pile, timber deck aprons." Exceptions include the Seatrain Lines wharf with a shell surface and the Seaboard Warehouse Company 167 which provides a "concrete slab deck." Classification of the 10 wharf structures at Texas City shows 6 are for handling petroleum products, 1 for general cargo and packaged petroleum products, 1 for handling grain, 1 for receiving and shipping 168 railroad cars, while 1 is not used. The individual oil companies operating wharves include the Humble Oil and Refining Company, the Republic Oil Refining Company, and the Pan-American Refining Corpora-169 tion. The public wharf operated by the Seatrain Lines, Incorporated has the unusual function of receiving and shipping "railroad 170 cars by Seatrain car ferry.” The wharves of Galveston are located on the protected north side of Galveston Island where 40,032 linear feet of "developed frontage," including slips, are available. Of the developed frontage the municipal organization known as the Galveston Wharves owns 31,152 linear feet while the Southern Pacific Terminal Company owns 6,890 linear 171 feet, and the Gulf Oil Corporation, an additional 2,040 linear feet. Approximately "33 percent” of the 30,790 linear feet of berthing space, operated by the Galveston Wharves, accommodates vessels in the 172 foreign trade. Furthermore, "practically all foreign traffic and most of the coastwise traffic” that moves through the Port of Galves-173 ton is ’’handled over the terminal facilities of the Galveston Wharves." While the Gulf Refining Company provides 1,640 feet of berthing space in water with a depth of 30 feet at mean low water, this space is available only to vessels having business at the Gulf Refining Company 1 + plant. The 3 piers owned and operated by the Southern Pacific Terminal Company provide only ”25 feet of water alongside.” Two of these piers are of the open type, 1 with ”a grain gallery” and the second with ’’pipe line connections for the receipt and shipment of petroleum products.” The third pier handles the major portion of the commerce moving through the Southern Pacific Terminal. Not only is this pier ’’well equipped with mechanical handling facilities” but also supports a transit shed covering 245,500 square feet of floor space, ’’with 175 tracks on each side as well as in the shed.” An analysis of the facilities owned by the Galveston Wharves reveals that 15 piers'or wharves are available for general cargo in foreign and domestic trade, 2 for mooring and accommodating small fishing craft, 1 for handling fish, 3 for handling grain, 1 for unloading bananas, 2 for handling sulphur, 1 for the receipt of shell, and 1 for 176 berthing vessels undergoing repairs. In addition to the above, other facilities are provided for government use. At the east end of Galveston Island, the United States owns the United States Coast Guard Wharf and the United States Engineer Department Repair Yard for berthing vessels. Also at the east end of Galveston Island, the Texas State Highway Department has a terminal for the "passenger and vehicular ferry operating between Gal- veston and Port Bolivar.” On Pelican Island the United States owns and operates a lighthouse service including a "repair base, buoy depot 177 and berth for lighthouse tenders."' Also on Pelican Island, the Todd-Galveston Dry Docks, Incorporated utilizes a large area for ship repairing. The 3 piers of this company have a berthing space occupying 4,215 linear feet, with the major portion having ”25 feet of water alongside.” A smaller ship repairing facility, the Gray Iron Works, is also located on Pelican Island but has only 640 feet of berthing space in waters ’’ranging from 178 14 to 18 feet.” The Galveston Wharves Railroad provides rail services to ’’practically all of the piers,” using marginal tracks on the pier proper or tracks to the rear of the transit sheds. Supplementing the railroad trackage of the Galveston Wharves Railroad, the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Re Railroad serves the piers and wharves east of Tenth Street while the Southern Pacific Terminal Company owns the 3 piers operated by that concern. Further facilitating rail movements to and from the Port of Galveston, the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway Company 179 operates a car float between Galveston Island and Port Bolivar. Within the boundaries of the Port of Corpus Christi, ’*3o piers, wharves, and docks'’ provide ”15,830 feet of berthing space for ves- 180 seis." Twenty-six of these facilities are located close to the city of Corpus Christi along the Corpus Christi Industrial Canal and 181 about the 2 local turning basins. One of the 4 remaining facilities for receiving and discharging cargo is located at Port Ingleside on the Corpus Christi Channel while the other 3 are located across 182 from Port Aransas just inside the jetties at Aransas Pass. On Harbor Island across from Port Aransas, the Humble Pipe Line Company has 2 ”T-head open pile” wharves with timber decks and approach for the receipt and shipment of petroleum products, and bunkering. To the east of the Humble Pipe Line Company facilities, the Atlantic Pipe Line Company operates a "L-head open pile wharf with timber deck and approach” for the purpose of the ’’receipt and shipment of 183 petroleum products.” At Port Ingleside, 12 miles east of Corpus Christi, the Humble Oil and Refining Company owns and operates an ’’open creosoted pile, timber deck pier” for the receipt and shipment of petroleum products 184 and bunkering. Although this dock is close to the Corpus Christi Channel, dredging by the Humble Oil and Refining Company between the dock and the channel was necessary before ocean-going traffic could be accommodated. An analysis of the 26 wharves located at the city of Corpus Christi reveals that 8 are for the purpose of receiving and shipping 185 136 petroleum products, vegetable oils, and bunkering. Seven wharves are utilized for handling general cargo in foreign trade. Two are utilized for the receipt of mud shell while 2 others are utilized for handling lumber in the domestic trade and scrap iron in the foreign 187 trade. One wharf of "creosoted pile with timber deck” is operated by the Nueces County Navigation District No. 1 to specialize in the ’’receipt of molasses and shipment of cotton and cottonseed products in foreign and domestic trade.” The "shipment of alkali products" is another specialized function performed by the Southern Alkali Corporation over its private wharf of "concrete piles" and "concrete deck," located on 183 the south side of the Avery Point Turning Basin. Miscellaneous functions were performed by the remaining wharves at Corpus Christi. The United States Government owns and operates a dock of ’’concrete sheet pile bulkhead” as a "tie-up for floating plant and handling of materials” of the United States Engineer Department. A dock with "creosoted pile timber deck” is also utilized by the Stro 189 man Construction Company for a "tie-up for floating plant.” Three other wharves and docking facilities at Corpus Christi are owned by the Nueces County Navigation District No. 1. The one on the Corpus Christi Bay front to the south of the entrance to the Main Basin has a ’’steel, concrete capped bulkhead” with a ’’concrete deck" and is for use as a "barge wharf.” The 2 wharves within the Main Basin has a "steel, concrete capped bulkhead” with a ’’concrete deck” and is for use as a "barge wharf." The 2 'wharves within the Main Basin also have "concrete piles" with "concrete decks." One wharf handles "bulk commodities” while the other handles "general cargo in 190 the domestic trade." The Nueces County Navigation District Terminal Railway serves the wharves and docks at the city of Corpus Christi and makes connection with the Southern Pacific and the Missouri Pacific railway lines. Behind the 10 transit sheds, providing "a total of 50& 5 354 square feet of covered space for short time storage/’ rail trackage is available. Further trackage is available upon both aprons of the pier of the Southern Alkali Corporation which extends into the Avery Point Turning Basin ’while additional trackage on the aprons is provided for 2 sheds 191 on the north and 2 on the south of the Main Turning Basin. In the case of the Port of Brownsville, all the area along the channel and turning basin is owned by the Brownsville Navigation Dis-192 trict. However, leases to manufacturers and distributors are being made which will bring about increased private operation of wharves and docks along the 17-mile-long Brownsville Ship Channel. As of August, 1947 the principal docks and wharves were located about the Brownsville Turning Basin within which ”a minimum depth of 30 feet is maintained.” The north side of the turning basin is equipped with modern concrete wharf, 1,300 feet in length. To the rear of this wharf are 150,000 square feet of "shedded space.” The transfer sheds are provided with "double shipside” or apron tracks ”as well as a ten-foot loading platform adjacent to two depressed spur 193 sidings running the entire length of the sheds.” A similar ’’reinforced concrete wharf on concrete piling” is located at the west side of the Brownsville Turning Basin. However, the docking space is only 450 feet in length and the adjacent wharf shed covers only 50,000 square feet of floor space "with all necessary ship side and rear trackage, truck yards, front and rear apron of identical 194 construction as the above north side facilities.” An unusual innovation is provided in bunkering facilities at the Port of Brownsville. Under all dry cargo docks, a complete bunkering system is installed to permit the refueling of vessels ’’while they are loading and discharging their cargoes." In addition to the bunkering services provided at each dry dock, a "pOO-foot oil dock" is provided for "handling of oil tankers and oil barges serving bulk handling plants located by major oil companies on Port property." Pipe lines from interior oil fields and the tank farms adjacent to the port are connected "with oil dock and loading facilities at the turning basin." "Crude oil, in ever increasing volume, now finds its outlet to domes-195 tic and foreign markets through this port." A similar arrangement of port facilities serve the molasses trade. On port property is installed a plant for the ’’distribution of cane molasses throughout South Texas.” Pipe lines connect tanks adjacent to the turning basin with the docks to facilitate the unloading of 196 tankers carrying this commodity. During World War II the southwest corner of the turning basin was devoted to the construction of ’'small craft up to 400 feet in length.” These facilities are now to serve in peace-time as "ship drydocking 197 and repair facilities.” At Port Isabel the Coastal .Refineries, Incorporated has facilities for receiving and shipping petroleum and petroleum products. Though some vessels secure permission to ’’load and unload” at this 198 point, very little foreign trade passes over the docks at this village. Plans in 1947 call for increasing the improved dock frontage of 199 the Port of Brownsville more than twofold. Blue prints also call for a unique improvement to be made in the new construction of tracks along the water front. Instead of parallel construction, the track to the rear of this dock will have ’’five spur-sidings running at 45 de-200 gree angles towards the inside edge of the dock.” 201 Between each track will be ’’truck loading approaches.” Not only will this arrangement permit the simultaneous loading of cars and trucks, but in addition cars and trucks may be freely removed from the wharves without disturbing the whole loading and unloading process now 202 - encountered at Texas ports with parallel shipside tracks. Waterway, Section from Sabine River to Brownsville, Texas, op. cit., p. 32. 134 Hydrographic Report, October, 1947, op- cit., p. 14. Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, 1946, op. cit., p. 127. cit. 137 Ibid., p. 79- 138 Log. cit. , pp. 83-85. U0 Ibid., pp. 89-93. W-^bia., p. s. interview with Lyle Vickers, Assistant Manager of the Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce, August 20, 1947- Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, 1946, op. cit., pp. 15, eptions to the "open pile, timber deck” construction include the "sheet steel bulkhead, solid fill” wharves used by the Gulf- port Boiler and Welding Works, the Sabine Towing Company, and the Texas Company Dock No. 1 in addition to the "concrete bulkhead" used at the Fish Wharf of Port Arthur. Ibid., pp. 18-26. 145 Ibid., p. 15. , pp. 15, 18, 19. 147 Ibid., pp. 16, 18, 19. , pp. 23-24. , pp. 18, 24. I^°lbid. , pp. 24-25. , pp. 25, 26. 1 Port Book, May, 1947, op. cit. , p. 49- railroad systems include ’’the Southern Pacific, Missouri Pacific, Santa Fe, Missouri-Kansas-Texas, and the Burlington-Rock Island.” Ibid., p. 50. , p. 49. and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Houston, Texas, 1941, op. cit., pp. 15-40. the case of the Parkers Brothers Shell Dock, use is made of the ’’natural bank with mooring piles for barges.” and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Houston, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 15- , pp. 15-40. cit. 160 Ibid.p. 30. 161 Ibid., pp. 23, 25, 33- 162 Ibid., pp. 28, 33. , p. 27. 164 Ibid., p. 25. and Terminal facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op- cit.-> PP* 51-55- 166 . Loc. cit. 16? T Loc. cit. 168 " The unused wharf is owed and operated by the Seaboard Warehouse Company and the Texas Sugar Refining Company. To the rear of this wharf is a sugar refinery that ’’has not been in operation since 1932.” Ibid., p. 52. 169 'Only the Pan-American Refining Corporation has a private wharf. The other 2 operate jointly the wharves owned by the Texas City Terminal Railway Company. Ibid., p. 56. I^°lbid. , p. 52. of Galveston, Galveston Wharves, October, 1947, p. 7. 179 The water depth at these berths is maintained at 30 feet or more. Port and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op- cit., p. 11. of Galveston, October, 1947, op- cit. , p. 7- Import and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 11. cit. 17 °Ibid., pp. 11-27. 177 Ibid., pp. 13, 26. 178 K 1O Ibid., p. 12. 179 / 'ibid., pp. 11, 12, 14, 24, 25, 26 Q Port and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Corpus Christi, Texas, 194-1, op - cit. , p. 9- 181 The two local turning basins of Corpus Christi are the Avery Point and Main turning basins. Ibid., p. 28. 182 Ibid., pp. 9-23. dock is owned by the Aransas Dock and Channel Company. Ibid., pp. 20-22. I^lbid. , p. 20. °' ) The General American Tank Storage Terminal, located on the south side of the Corpus Christi Industrial Canal, is the only one of this group handling vegetable oils. Ibid., p. 15- 186 Bunkering facilities are provided at 3 wharves. Loc. cit. 187 Ibid., pp. 11-23. 188 ""Ibid., pp. 13, 16. I^^lbid. , pp. 11, 13. 19 °Ibid., pp. 11, 19-21. , pp. 9, 28. interview with F. W. Hofmokel, General Manager and Director of the Port of Brownsville, August 28, 1947- Customs House Guide, 1947 Edition, op. cit., pp. 59-60. cit. cit. cit. W Loc cit interview with L. M. Hakes, Deputy Collector of Customs, Brownsville, Texas, August 28, 1947• Facilities for loading and unloading. Individuals responsible for the welfare of a port realize the importance of reducing the ’’turn around” time for ships. In reducing the ’’turn-around” time, particular attention is given to the greatest time consuming operation, namely, that of loading and unloading. To the end that unloading and loading will be reduced to a minimum, particular attention is given to the physical facilities required in this operation. Equipment must be efficient in handling a given commodity under the existing conditions. Consequently, special equipment is devised to handle freight cars, oils, grains, bananas, sulphur mud shell, and coal, in addition to general cargo. Orange, the most easterly Texas port, is poorly provided with loading and unloading devices. The Municipal Wharf of Orange is the ’’only facility which is equipped to handle general cargo for oceangoing vessels.” However, ’’there are no mechanical handling facilities available at this terminal" and "all cargo must be handled by ship’s 203 gear. ’’ The Port of Beaumont has made more progress in providing handling equipment than the Port of Orange. With the exception of petroleum and petroleum products, all cargo is handled at the facilities provided by the city of Beaumont and operated by the Beaumont Port Commission. Crane equipment, owned and operated by the Port Commission, is available at "all berths." This equipment consists of two 25-ton steam locomotive cranes, each with a reach of 55 feet, and one 20-ton Kranekar. The latter is useful inside the transit sheds in addition to the service rendered on the aprons. When desired, electromagnets are available for use with the locomotive cranes. Other "heavy-lift" equ.ipm.ent is on duty at the Pennsylvania Shipyards. However, the only item available for public use is the derrick barge, capable of lifting 204 90 tons. Despite the availability of the above hoisting equipment at the Port of Beaumont, the use of ship’s gear for loading and unloading 205 operations is standard practice. "Rope slings" are still utilized 206 for handling sacks of flour and rice but the pallet is rapidly re- 207 placing the use of hooks as well as rope slings. The popularity of ’’palletized loading and unloading” has been enhanced by the introduction of fork lift trucks, an innovation intro-208 duced to Texas ports during World War 11. This combination has been most effective in saving space, time, human effort, and. damage. The pallets are made of wood with double or single faces. The fork lift truck is a self-propelled motorized unit with tines or forks projecting from the front. These tines are capable of vertical movement, supplementing the horizontal movement of the unit. Given these characteristics, the operator comfortably seated on the fork lift truck can pick up loaded pallets and stack them or carry them to or from ship side. The efficiency of the units are attested by handlers of cargo at various Texas ports. For example, a unit costing $3,300 is capable of handling 3,000 pounds at 1 time or the equivalent of the work of 6 men 209 with hand trucks. Also storage space is saved in that pallets can be economically stacked higher by fork lift trucks. Rice and flour can be stacked 15 sacks high rather than 10 sacks high as considered 210 economical under hand stacking methods. Furthermore, whereas 70 sacks per ship load would normally be damaged in handling, palletized shipping with fork lift trucks cut this number to 10 or 11 damaged 211 sacks. Still another merit of this method is the increased speed with which ships can be loaded and unloaded. To effect this speed, 4 methods were in common use at Texas ports. One method was to load the pallets with rope slings already about the sacks to permit immediate removal by the ship’s tackle or land based cranes. A second method was to use ’’eyes" in the pallets. Then hooks on the ship’s tackle were inserted for immediate lifting over the ship’s side and into the hold. Once in the hold, the hooks were removed and fastened to an empty pallet for immediate return. The third innovation involved the use of two pipes on the ship’s tackle which could be slipped over the ends of the pallets. Once in the hold, the pipes were slipped from under the ends of the pallet for immediate return. The fourth innovation in the utilization of pallets was one invented at Beaumont and known as the "pallet dumper." The frame of the device was arranged on a pivot so that a load placed upon it could be dumped with little effort. When placed near the hold of the ship, loaded pallets were lowered upon the frame which was expeditiously "dumped" into the hold. This device alone saved considerable time in 212 loading large ships with sacked commodities. In handling newsprint at Beaumont, a "sponge rubber mat" plays an 213 important role. The upright rolls of newsprint are "broken out of the hatch" by laying the rolls on the sponge rubber mat to prevent damage to the roll. Then the newsprint rolls are removed by rope sling 214 to "skids" for the transfer to the wharf. Once on the wharf, the rolls of newsprint are placed upright on pallets for removal to the 215 transit sheds by fork lift trucks. The handling of bulk petroleum and petroleum products at Beaumont is very similar to methods utilized at other oil receiving or discharging plants in Texas. Fuel carrying pipes are installed on the wharves or piers, easily accessible to boats docked alongside and directly connected to tank farms in the background. The transition of bulk fuel from the pipes on the wharves or piers to the boats is accomplished by pumping the fuel through flexible hose or pipe extended over the holds. At Port Arthur several of the companies loading and unloading packaged petroleum products have hoisting equipment in addition to the pumping equipment commonly used. The Texas Company has a ’’gallery with electrically-operated belt conveyor and one movable gravity spiral chute for loading packaged goods.” This apparatus has a loading capacity of 250 tons per hour. The Gulf Oil Corporation of Fort Arthur uses 4 locomotive cranes for receiving and shipping packaged petroleum products. The capacities of the cranes range from 6to 50 216 tons, each having a 50-foot reach. To load coal in foreign trade, the Kansas City Southern Railway utilizes ’’one electrically-operated coal loading conveyor,” capable of moving 600 tons per hour. Another ’’electrically-operated coal loading conveyor,” utilized at the Lumber Dock, moves 410 tons of coal per 217 hour. At the General Cargo Dock, utilized for the ’’receipt and shipment of general cargo in foreign and domestic trade,” no mechanical, handling facilities are available. Incoming ships must utilize the "ship’s 218 gear" for this purpose. The only elevator located near the wharves at Port Arthur can receive 6 railroad cars of grain per hour by utilizing 3 car pits, each equipped with power shovels. The transfer of grain to ships is accomplished by 4 grain galleries leading to 4 loading spouts which de-219 liver grain to ships at the rate of bushels per hour. The Fort of Sabine has no special equipment for loading and unloading cargo in foreign trade. Tae Sun Oil Company receives and ships crude oil by the usual methods while the McClain Fish Wharf receives fish locally and utilizes only a "hand-operated derrick” with 220 a "10-foot reach." Handling equipment at the Fort of Galveston has kept pace with the demands for cargo loading and unloading. In addition to equipment for handling general cargo, specialized equipment is available for handling such commodities as grain, sulphur, cotton, and bananas. ’’Several hundred tractors and trailers” are owned and operated by various transfer companies in moving ’’cotton and other commodities” between warehouses, compresses, and waterfront piers. The Galveston Wharves alone has 37 ’’fork lift machines” and ’’over 25,000 cargo pallets" in service. Additional fork lift machines are owned by local steamship agents and stevedores for loading and unloading vessels.^ 21 Though ’’most of the loading and unloading of vessels is accom-222 plished by the use of ship’s tackle,”'’' equipment for handling heavy lifts is provided on the land and barges. Six locomotive Brown-hoists are owned and operated by the Galveston Wharves, 5 of which have rated capacities of 30 tons each with 6s-foot booms. ' The sixth hoist has 224 a rated capacity of 20 tons and is equipped with a 50-foot boom. Floating equipment capable of handling heavy lifts include 4 towed barges equipped with derricks. The Southern Pacific Terminal Company has a steam operated derrick on a towed barge that is available for moving cargo weighing $0 tons or less at a "reach of 73 feet." The Gray Iron. Works Company operates 2 "stiff-leg derrick barges." One has a capacity of 50 tons and a reach of 22 feet while the capacity of the other is "30 to 40 tons" with a reach of 35 feet. The fourth derrick barge is primarily for use by the Todd Galveston Dry Docks. The , 225 capacity is 60 tons while the reach is 40 feet. Special equipment has been provided at the Galveston Wharves Pier No. 19 where the United Fruit Company has 3 movable banana elevator conveyors in addition to "6 longitudinal" and "4 transverse endless 226 belt conveyors on 4-foot platforms.” On the "wharf apron" a steel framed shed, feet in length, accommodates "44 refrigerator cars at 227 one setting," providing protected handling of the banana cargoes. Bananas, in addition to general cargo, are also handled at the Southern Pacific Terminal Company Pier B. The mechanical equipment at this pier includes 2 movable truck escalators, 6 fixed over-all inclines, 2 movable electric truck-end hoists, 24 two-ton electric 228 trucks, and 12 fixed electric elevators on the dock ramps. The movement of grain in foreign commerce is handled primarily by the Elevator "B” of the Galveston Wharves and the Sunset Elevator, owned by the Southern Pacific Terminal Company. A third elevator, the Texas Star Flour Mills, is operated "primarily to serve its company’s 229 milling operations." Elevator "B" of the Galveston Wharves is electrically operated 230 throughout. The unloading capacity is 28,800 bushels per hour while "three ships may load simultaneously at the rate of 200,000 231 bushels per hour." " To effect the transfer of the grain from the 232 elevator, "a grain gallery with 16 spouts" parallels the wharf. The Sunset Elevator is located at the Southern Pacific Terminal Company Pier A. Though this elevator has a smaller storage capacity than Elevator "B,” the berthing space is 1,390 feet as compared to the 233 1,090 feet for Elevator "B." Moreover, the grain gallery of the Sunset Elevator provides 24 spouts for loading ships, 8 more than pro- 234 vided at Elevator n B.” Special equipment is also provided for moving sulphur across the wharves at Galveston. At piers 35 and 36, the Texas Gulf Sulphur Com’ pany operates 4 locomotive hoists, each equipped with a clamshell of 235 4-ton capacity. In the center of the facility is an electrically operated belt conveyor and movable "loading tower." On each side of the belt is railroad trackage from which cars of sulphur are removed, by clamshells to the 2 storage bins, each with 15,000 tons capacity. In loading ships the movable tower is placed adjacent to the bin from which sulphur is to be taken. In simultaneous operation the clamshells supply the tower, the tower feeds the sulphur onto the belt conveyor, and the belt conveyors move the sulphur to the holds of the 236 ship. The operation is so effective that 650 tons per hour can be 237 delivered to ships. Pier 34 is also used for storing and loading sulphur. From 2 storage bins, each with a capacity of 10,000 tons, an electrically operated belt conveyor can deliver sulphur to ships at the rate of ”400 tons or more” per hour. This facility is operated by the Galveston Wharves but is used by the Duval Texas Sulphur Company. At the same pier the Jefferson Lake Sulphur Company loads ships directly from 238 cars spotted on marginal tracks. At Texas City the largest item for handling cargo is the fixed gantry crane used by the Seatrain Lines for moving freight cars to and 239 from ocean-going car ferries. This electrically operated crane has a 125-foot reach and a 125-ton lift capacity. Additional handling equipment includes 2 steam-operated locomotive cranes, 1 with a ca-240 pacity of 15 tons and the other, 25 tons. On Pier E, an electrically operated crane is available with a lift capacity of 6 tons and a reach of 75 feet. This latter crane moves cargo directly from railroad cars to ships and vice versa. In addition three 2-ton electric traveling bridge cranes are in operation in the transit shed on Pier C. On the face of Pier Eis located an "ore or bulk conveyor" which is electrically operated. For moderately heavy lifts, the Nunez Construction Company has a caterpillar crane mounted on a barge. Ilie reach of this water-borne crane is 60 feet while the capacity is 18 tons. Additional floating cranes 22 p may be secured from the Port of Galveston. + Only 1 grain elevator is operated at Texas City. Elevator A, as the elevator is commonly called, is owned by the Texas City Terminal Railway Company but is operated by the Houston Milling Company. Railroad cars can be unloaded at the rate of 4 per hour. Ships alongside the grain gallery have 1,200 feet of berthing space in ”32 to 35 feet of water.” Through 6 spouts the grain gallery supplies the loading 242 vessels at the rate of 20,000 bushels per hour. Handling facilities at the Port of Houston include equipment open ated by publicly and privately owned wharves located along the 25-mile channel from the Houston Turning Basin to Galveston Bay. One of the major commodities handled is petroleum and petroleum products. The methods used to load and unload these products do not differ materially from that described above for the whole of Texas ports. However, the size of the petroleum operations deserves mention. The combined length of wharf frontage "approximates 9,400 feet, not including frontage devoted to barge loading, bunkering, and small craft servicing facilities." At this frontage "22 tankers and 7 barges" may 243 be loaded out simultaneously. The principal handling equipment for public use at the Port of 244 Houston is located on properties of the Navigation District. Along the north side of the Houston Turning Basin, the Navigation District 245 has 12 locomotive cranes which are available for public use. These cranes range in lifting capacity from 5 to 33 tons and their reach varies from 12 to 30 feet. Inasmuch as locomotive cranes utilize the rails, most points along the north side of the Turning Basin can be served by these lifting devices. On the south side of the Turning Basin, the Navigation District has an electric overhead traveling crane with a lifting capacity of 20 tons. Also for public use on the south side of the channel are the hoisting facilities of the Houston Compress Company. Included in the equipment available are three 30-ton steam locomotive cranes with 55- foot booms; one 20-ton steam locomotive crane with a 48-foot boom; and 246 one 25-ton Diesel locomotive crane with a 55-foot reach. Other equipment for handling cargo at this wharf consists of five 55-inch magnets; one 45-inch magnet; one 2 cubic-yard and one 1 1/4 cubic-yard buckets; a box car loader with a capacity of 50 tons an hour; 9 gasoline tractors; 4 gasoline finger-lift tractors; 36 trailers 2A7 115 4-wheel trucks; and a number of hand trucks. On Arkansas Bend of Buffalo Bayou, the Houston Barge Terminal and Shipside Contracting Company have 6 hoisting devices available for public use. Two electric ’’overhead traveling bridge hoists” with a capacity of 5 tons extend 110 feet from tracks at the rear of the shed to 10 feet beyond the face of the dock. The remaining 4 hoists are gas operated crawler type cranes. Two have a 15-ton lifting capacity and a reach of 5$ feet while each of the other 2 have 8-g-ton lifting 248 capacity and a reach of 35 feet. The only floating hoist available at the Port of Houston, capable of lifting 5 tons or more, is an ’’A-frame derrick” mounted on a barge owned by the Port Houston Iron Works. The barge on which the derrick is mounted has dimensions of 100 by 40 feet. The maximum lifting ca-249 pacity is 5 tons and the reach is 50 feet. Facilities for loading grain for export at Houston are supplied 250 by the Houston Public Elevator and the Arrow Mills, Incorporated. The public elevator, operated by the Navigation District, has a grain gallery extending over Wharves No. 14 and No. 15 and can load 2 ships 251 simultaneously at the rate of 00,000 bushels per hour. To accom- plish this rate of delivery to vessels, electrically driven belt con- veyors carry the grain from the 3,500,000-bushel elevator to 14 spouts 252 which direct the grain to the holds. Incoming box cars at the Houston Public Elevator were unloaded by "car unloaders." This device was installed in 1947 in time to care for the export movement of grain to war-torn countries. Under this method, the box car was first raised, then tilted toward the open door, and finally the ends of the car were raised alternately to complete 253 the unloading operation. Unloading of grains from incoming ships at the Houston Public Elevator did not have specialized equipment devoted to this purpose. "Clamshell buckets rigged from ships’ tackle or locomotive cranes" re- moved the grain from the vessels to dump trucks which in turn delivered 254 the grain to pits for elevation. 255 nt the Arrow Mills, located in the rear of Manchester City Wharf, unloading of grain from vessels is by means of a ’’pneumatic suction leg," capable of unloading at the rate of 1,500 to 1,750 bushels per hour. Unloading from railroad box cars utilizes 2 "car pits" equipped with power shovels which unload at the rate of 5 box cars per hour. The loading of grain in vessels at the Arrow Mills is by means of a gallery provided with 4 loading spouts. From these spouts the grain 256 pours into the vessels at the rate of 20,000 bushels per hour. At the Port of Corpus Christi, ’’the demand for equipment capable 257 of making heavy lifts is very limited.” Most of the general cargo is handled by ship’s tackle though the Navigation District has 3 steam locomotive cranes available for public use. Two of the cranes have lifting capacities of 25 tons each while the third has a lifting capacity of 15 tons. All 3 of the cranes have ”40-foot booms” and can be fitted with magnets. At the Southern Alkali Company’s pier, 2 gasoline-operated locomotive cranes are equipped with buckets. Booms on these cranes are 70 to 90 feet in length. Other gasolineoperated cranes of the crawler type are operated along the water front but do not exceed 17 cubic yards’ capacity. Floating hoisting facilities at the Port of Corpus Christi "are limited to two derrick barges operated by the Stroman Construction Co." The smaller barge has an all wood stiff-leg derrick with a lift ing capacity of 5 tons and a reach of 35 feet. The larger barge supports an all steel stiff-leg derrick capable of lifting 15 tons and . 258 has a 05-foot reach. While no grain elevators are in operation at Corpus Christi, the Corn Products Refining Company plans to construct ”a grain elevator with a 2,000,000 bushel capacity” for handling the 1948 crop. Though the location is to be three and one-half miles west of the Avery Point Basin, a deep water channel will be provided by the Nueces County Nav-259 igation District. At present, heavy lifting equipment is not in demand at the Port of Brownsville. Ship’s tackle is utilized in a large measure for the heavy cargo. The Port of Brownsville does own "a 15-ton electric crane with a 50-foot boom” which is equipped to operate with a ’’hook or bucket,” a sling and a magnet. A ’’modern and complete” conveyor system is also available for use in loading or discharging package 200 cargo at the rate of ”1,800 standard packages per working hour.” Probably the most efficient unloading at Brownsville is accomplished for the banana boats. The Brownsville Navigation District has 3 sets of the bag-type escalators which work in conjunction with 3 sets of electrically driven conveyors from the boats to the trucks or box cars on the wharf. In this manner the bananas move continuously from the holds of the ships to the land conveyances. Simultaneously, the men in the trucks and box cars scientifically load the bananas for 261 immediate shipment. 3 99 Approximately 2 million dollars will be expended on the Browns ville Ship Channel and port facilities. Personal interview’ with F. W. Hofmokel, General Manager and Director of the Port of Brownsville, August 28, 1947* 20 World Ports, November, 1946, p. 46. 201 t . . Loc. cit. 202 Personal observation at Texas ports, August, 1947- Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, 1946, op. cit., pp. 157, 283- Q^lbid. , pp. 94, 219, 220. observations at Texas ports indicate that the ship’s gear is frequently used in addition to the land based cranes. August, 1947- ’"There are no grain elevators at Beaumont.” The Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, 1946, op. cit., p. 97. interview at Port of Beaumont with Edward R. Costello Superintendent of Docks and Wharves, August 20, 1947- lift trucks and pallets came into use in Beaumont in 1946 and were introduced to Texas ports during World War 11. Personal interview with Edward R. Costello, Superintendent of Docks and Wharves, Beaumont, August 20, 1947- The United States Government first utilized the fork lift truck at the beginning of World War 11. Later private loaders utilized the device. Personal interview with G. Z. Koenig, Traffic Assistant, Galveston Wharves, Galveston, Texas, August 21, 1947- ''Personal interview' with G. Z. Koenig, Traffic Assistant, Galveston Wharves, August 21, 1947- interview with Edward R. Costello, Superintendent of* Docks and Wharves, Beaumont, August 20, 1947- 21 1 Personal interview with T. H. Coley, Superintendent of Houston Wharf Company, Houston, Texas, August 19, 1947- 212 Personal interview with Edward R. Costello, Superintendent of Docks and Wharves, Beaumont, August 20, 1947- 213 Newsprint from. Newfoundland has been the principal import at Beaumont since 1942. Personal interview with F. H. Fredricks, Traffic Manager, Port of Beaumont, August 20, 1947* 214 "Skids" is a term for long boards on which the paper is rolled from the ship to the wharf. 215 'Personal interview with Edward R. Costello, Superintendent of Docks and -Wharves, Beaumont, Texas, August 20, 1947• o 1 A The Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, 1946, op. cit., pp. 19, 22. 212 Ibid., pp. 19, 20. , pp. 21, 291, 292. 219 Ibid., pp. 27-28. 220 1 bid., pp. 25-26. L Port of Galveston, October, 1947, op- cit., p. 11. and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas Pity, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 28. 223 In 1941 only 3 hoists with capacities of 30 tons were operated by the Galveston Wharves. Loc. cit. 224 port of Galveston, October, 1947, op. cit., p. 11. and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op- cit. , p. 28. conveyors are electrically operated. Loe. cit.; Port of Galveston, October, 1947, op. cit., p. 11. of Galveston, October, 1947, op. cit. , p. 11. 228 Port and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 24. Texas Star Flour Mills is "a division of the Tex-O-Kan Flour Mills Company." Port of Galveston, October, 1947, op. cit., p. 11 230 Calculated on basis of cars averaging 1,800 bushels per car. of Galveston, October, 1947, op. cit., p. 11. 232 Port and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 20. "B" has a capacity of 6,000,000 bushels as compared to 1,000,000 bushels for the Sunset Elevator. Port of Galveston, October, 1947, op. cit., p. 9- and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op. cit., pp. 20, 24- of Galveston, October, 1947, op. cit. , p. 9- observation on August 21, 1947- of Galveston, October, 1947, op. cit., p. 9« 23$Loc. cit. and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op- cit., pp. 51, 58. steam operated locomotive cranes are equipped with 55- inch magnets. Ibid., pp. 52, 58. cit. 242 Loc. cit. Port Book, May, 1947, op. cit. , p. 24. County Houston Ship Channel Navigation District. 2/ 5 and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Houston, 1941, opcit., pp. 41-43- 2^6 Ibid., p. 42. 2^lbid. , p. 23. 248 Ibid., p. 43- cit. Arrow Mills, Incorporated was formerly the Houston Millihg Company. Houston Port Book, May, 1947, op- cit., p. 55- cannot take the grain at this rate once workmen start shoveling back under decks. Personal interview with William L. Fellsrath, Superintendent of Houston Public Elevator, August 19, 1947• observation, August 19, 1947- In 1946 and 1947 the heavy demand for moving wheat to ports caused railroads to resort to the use of open gondola cars. The unloading was relatively simple in that the bottom doors to these cars released the wheat into pits preparatory to elevation by ’’bucket elevators.” Personal observation, August 19, 1947- and Terminal facilities at the Port of Houston, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 44. Manchester City Wharf is located about miles below the Houston Turning Basin. and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Houston, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 44- and Terminal Facilities at the Fort of Corpus Christi, Texas, 1941, op. cit., pp. 22, 23- cit. cit. ; Port of Corpus Christi, March, 1947, PP- 10, 18, 19 2°Qport and Terminal Charges at United States Seaports, 1.942 Edition, op. cit., pp. 72-73• observation of the unloading of bananas at Brownsville, August 27, 1947. Storage and warehousing accommodations. Ocean-going ships, destined for overseas locations, visit Texas ports at infrequent in-262 tervals. In the meantime the cargoes must be assembled, properly stored, and prepared for the ocean voyage. In addition to providing the minimum storage requirements for foreign trade, each port administration realizes the advantage of being able to accommodate reserve stocks which can be available to both the domestic and foreign trade. Among the storage facilities provided at Beaumont are ”3 privately-owned plants for storing general merchandise, 2 of which also have cold storage space available for such commodities as meat, fruit, vegetables, dairy products, and eggs.” In the 3 warehouses, 294,660 square feet of space are available for dry storage while 69,273 square 263 feet are available for cold storage. Storage of cotton in Beaumont is provided by private enterprise and the Beaumont Port Commission. The East Texas Compress and Warehouse Company has 32 buildings '’about miles distant from the Fort Commission terminals.” The total floor space in the 32 buildings 264 covers 317,440 square feet. In the rear of the wharves owned by the Beaumont Port Commission are located the 2 cotton warehouses, also owned by the Port Commission. These warehouses provide 150,070 square feet of storage space. Though owned by the Beaumont Port Commission, the operation of the warehouses 26$ is by the Beaumont Cotton Compress Company. Oil storage for the port area is provided by tank farms located inland from Texas Ports as well as by surrounding refineries and storage tanks. Pipe lines give immediate access to this storage. For bunkering purposes, 3 companies have a total storage capacity of 16,- 331,400 barrels of oil. Of this total storage capacity the Atlantic Pipe Line Company provides 1,430,000 barrels; the Magnolia Petroleum 266 Company, 14,250,000 barrels; and The Pure Oil Company, 601,400 barrels. Storage facilities at the Port of Orange are even more limited than those at the Port of Beaumont. No grain elevators are located at the docks. Neither is storage available for bunker oil. The only commercial storage warehouse facilities at the port are the sheds at the Municipal Terminal which are used principally for the concentration of cargo. For the storage of bulk and other commodities, the municipal wharf provides "15,840 square feet of open space. At Port Arthur "the only grain elevator at the port is owned by the Port Arthur Canal and Dock Co., and operated by the Kansas City Southern Railway Co." The storage capacity of the elevator is SOO,OOO bushels while the structure has a wood frame and metal cover. Elec- 268 trically driven equipment conveys, cleans, dries, and weighs the grain. Port Arthur does not have any warehouses at the docks for bulk freight storage or for "long-time" storage. For storing bunkering coal, a storage space for 1,000 tons of coal is maintained by the Sabine Towing Company at the northwest side of the East Turning Basin. Port Arthur has 3 companies which store bunkering fuel oil, namely, the Gulf Oil Corporation, McEwan Oil Terminal and Transportation Company, and The Texas Company. Trie total storage capacity of the 3 companies is 2,451,000 barrels, with The Texas Company providing 269 1,500,000 barrels of the total storage capacity. The Port of Galveston has available the largest storage capacity for grain of any Texas port. The 3 elevators at Galveston are capable 270 of storing 7,500,000 bushels of grain. The largest of the 3 eleva- tors, located at the port, is Elevator "B," owned by the city of Gal- 271 veston and operated by the Board of Trustees of the Galveston Wharves. This elevator has a storage capacity of 6,000,000 bushels, is con- structed of reinforced concrete, and is "operated by electricity 272 throughout." The second largest elevator at Galveston is the Sunset Elevator, having a capacity of 1,000,000 bushels. This reinforced concrete structure is owned by the Texas and New Orleans Railroad but is oper-273 ated by the Continental Grain Company of Houston. 'The third and smallest elevator is that of the Texas Star Flour 274 Mills, also located at the water front. This elevator has a stor- age capacity of 500,000 bushels. The construction is of ’’concrete, 275 brick, and frame.” While the elevator provides for ’’private and 276 public storage of grain,” the Texas Star Flour Mills ”is operated 277 primarily to serve its company's milling operations." Sulphur storage at Galveston is provided at the port by the Galveston Wharves and the Texas Gulf Sulphur Company. At the north end of Pier 34, Galveston Wharves has 2 storage bins, each with a 10,000- ton capacity. The Texas Gulf Sulphur Company also has 2 bins. Each of these bins holds 13,000 tons, making 50,000 tons as the total stor-278 age capacity of sulphur at Galveston. The largest warehouse facilities at Galveston are ’’mainly for the storage of cotton, most of the houses having been designed and constructed to provide for the efficient handling of that commodity." Exclusive of the space in the city of Galveston pier sheds used to "some extent" for cotton storage, 5,914,696 square feet of floor area are available for the storage of cotton. Approximately 1,250,000 279 bales of high-density cotton can be accommodated on this floor space. On "several occasions," 1,000,000 bales of cotton have been in storage 280 at one time in Galveston. The construction of the cotton warehouses are in the main fire- proof though several private warehouses are "frame, metal covered" 281 with "wood floor." Fireproof structures include those of "rein- forced concrete," "reinforced concrete and brick," "concrete and hol- 282 low tile" and similar structures. Fire protection at Galveston is provided in most instances by one or more of the following devices, namely, automatic sprinkler systems, fire extinguishers, hydrants and hoses, fire barrels and buckets, and 283 the city fire department. J In large sections of the cotton warehouses, the storage space is divided into small concrete rooms with fireproof doors and shell floors, further eliminating the spread of 284 fire to the adjoining rooms. Several of the cotton warehouses at Galveston are equipped with high-density compresses and electric band rollers, essential to pressing the high-density bales for overseas shipment. In the vicinity of the port, cotton warehouses have 13 high-density presses. Since several of the cotton warehouses are located back of the wharves, standard equipment also includes trucks, tractors, trailers, and sometimes , .235 overhead rails. In addition to the cotton warehouses, there are 2 warehouses devoted to storing general merchandise at Galveston. The Wiley and Nicholls Company has a 4-story reinforced concrete and brick warehouse with 28,600 square feet of available floor space. The John W. Focke general warehouse is of brick construction and has only 2 floors which make 18,000 square feet of floor space available. While the allowable floor load per square foot on the first floor of both general warehouses is unlimited, the second and higher floors have load limits of 286 pounds per square foot. Two other warehouses provide cold storage, having 323,336 cubic feet of refrigeration and cooler space. The Galveston Ice and Cold Storage Company has 147,660 cubic feet for freezing and 102,340 cubic feet for cooling. The second cold-storage warehouse in Galveston, the American Service Company Warehouse, has a capacity of 73,336 cubic feet. Both cold-storage warehouses have "cooler rooms" and "sharp freeze" equipment. Products stored include "meat, vegetables, fruit, 287 and other perishables." Temporary storage for refrigerator cars at the Port of Galveston is provided at the banana dock, utilized by the United Fruit Company. The structure is a "steel framed shed, >6O feet long and located immediately adjacent to the wharf apron” and "accommodates 44 refrigerator 288 cars at one setting." Open ground space with a combined area of 979,100 square feet (22.5 acres) is situated back of the Galveston Wharves’ waterfront properties. This space is ’’suitable for storage of such materials as pipe, rails, lumber, steel, poles, barrelled goods and other commodi-289 ties that may be stored in the open.” Fuel-oil bunkering facilities at Galveston have a total storage capacity of 848,928 barrels of fuel. This storage capacity is shared by 6 companies, namely, the Eastern States Petroleum Company, the Gulf Refining Company, the Galveston Oil Company, the Rio Bravo Oil Com-290 pany, the Magnolia Petroleum Company, and the Maritime Oil Company. Coal is normally carried in stock by Davidson and Company to the extent of 300 tons of Oklahoma steam coal and 150 to 200 tons of lump 291 coal. However, "2,000 tons can be had on sufficient notice." Facilities for the storage of grain and cotton are limited at Texas City. The only elevator at the port has a capacity of only 500,000 bushels. This elevator, known as Elevator "A," is owned by the Texas City Terminal Railway Company and is of "modern reinforced construction" and "electrically operated." Included in the equipment are 2 cleaners, a dryer, 3 scales, and "one monitor oat cleaner 292 clipper." To the rear of the wharves at Texas City, 6 warehouses "for dry storage, such, as cotton and general merchandise," are operated by the Texas City Terminal Railway Company. All of the warehouses "have direct rail connections with the piers and wharves." The total floor area of the 6 warehouses is 275,036 square feet. Four of the 6 warehouses are constructed of concrete and steel on an earth fill with a tile roof. The other 2 are of wood frame, 1 with a metal and the other with a composition roof. Protection by a sprinkler system ex-293 tends over 174,686 of the 275,036 square feet enclosed. ~ On Piers ”0” and "A," the Texas City Terminal Railway Company also has 46,810 square feet under a wood frame building with open sides and a concrete floor. This shed is primarily for storing cotton and is equipped with a high-density compress, capable of handling 100 294 bales of cotton per hour. Texas City has 1 cold storage plant operated in conjunction with a dry storage division for general merchandise. The plant is owned and operated by the Artesian Ice and Cold Storage Company. For dry storage 72,000 cubic feet are available while 29,524 cubic feet are available for cold storage. The "dry section" is of wood frame with a metal cover, while the cold storage section is of hollow tile and concrete. Besides the general merchandise, storage is provided for "meat, 295 fruits, vegetables, eggs, edible nuts, etc." For the storage of sulphur, iron and steel scrap, ores, and other "bulk materials,'* Texas City has 3 storage bins covering 27,600 square feet of space and capable of accommodating 20,000 tons of materials. The area is near the south side of Pier "E" and is connected to ship side by rail and a traveling bridge crane with magnet and bucket attachments. In addition to the 3 storage bins, 15 acres of open storage are available along wharves which are "served by rail tracks, from 296 which bulk commodities can be handled by locomotive cranes." Storage of oil for bunkering is provided by 5 companies at Texas City. Included in the group are the Humble Oil and Refining Company, the Pan-American Refining Corporation, the Republic Oil and Refining Company, the Southport Petroleum Company, and the Stone Oil Company. A total storage capacity of 925,000 barrels of fuel oil is provided by these companies. Of this total the Pan-American Refining Corporation has storage for barrels, slightly less than two-thirds of ag-297 gregate storage capacity. The Port of Houston has grain storing facilities second to Gal- veston. Whereas Galveston can store 7,500,000 bushels, Houston has 298 facilities for storing 5,000,000 bushels. This capacity is owned 299 by the Houston Public Elevator and the Arrow Mills, Incorporated. The former elevator has a capacity of 3,500,000 bushels while the 300 latter holds 1,500,000 bushels. Both elevators are provided with equipment for cleaning, drying, 301 clipping, and weighing. The Houston Public Elevator is not only electrically operated throughout but has ”a modern dust-collecting system” and has equipped all storage bins with a Zeleny temperature-302 registering system. Though the Arrow Mills operates primarily as a milling business, 303 the elevator handles public storage when space is available. On the other hand the space at the Houston Public Elevator is all available for public storage. Both elevators are located at the vzater front and are equipped with modern loading and unloading facilities as described under the section Facilities for loading and unloading. Besides the 2 elevators described, the Port of Houston has 30 warehouses "located on or in close proximity to the water front." Eight of these warehouses handle cotton only while 5 others handle cotton and general merchandise. Eleven warehouses store general merchandise while 3 combine the storage of perishables with general merchandise. The 3 remaining warehouses handle and store perishables , 304 only. Warehouses at the Port of Houston, providing storage for cotton or cotton and general merchandise, occupy 5,399,493 square feet of 305 space and provide 10 high-density compresses for the trade. The estimated storage capacity of cotton as given by these warehouses is z 306 960,500 high-density bales. On the whole these buildings are of fireproof construction, made of such materials as ’’concrete, brick, 307 and tile,” "concrete,” and "concrete and steel." All of the ware- houses give attention to fire protection. Nine of the 13 handling cotton have automatic sprinklers though others utilize various combinations of devices including fire barrels and buckets, strategicallyplaced hydrants and hoses, watchmen, fire pumps, and the city fire de 308 partment equipment. Exclusive storehouses of general merchandise on or near the waterfront at Houston have a total of 783,096 square feet for warehousing. Three of the warehouses have over 100,000 square feet of floor space. The largest is the Municipal Warehouse which has 201,203 square feet available on the ground floor. This warehouse is located at the rear of Wharf No. 4on the Houston Turning Basin. The building is of "con-309 Crete 1 ’ and protected against fire by a sprinkler system.' Of the 6 warehouses at the Port of Houston providing cold storage, 3 have sections devoted to dry storage. A total of 6,138,925 cubic feet of space are devoted to this purpose while 1,431,420 cubic feet are devoted to cold storage. Five of the cold storage plants used ammonia compressing units for cooling while the sixth one used an "air cooled, York, blower type unit." In conjunction with the ammonia com pressors, brine freezing units were operated by 2 warehouses. Substantial construction was utilized in each case. Four cold storage plants used "concrete and steel" structures, 1 used "concrete and 310 brick," and 1 used tile and brick with concrete slab floors. Adequate facilities and areas are provided at the Port of Houston for the storage of bulk freight. At Wharf No. 10, 72,700 square feet of covered storage are available under a transit shed in addition to 28,333 square feet of open space on the wharf. Wharf No. 14 has an open structure with 49,040 square feet of storage space. Both wharves are supplied with locomotive cranes, having buckets and magnets as ac-311 cessories. "Coal, fuel, and sulphur” are also stored at the ”channel fuel wharf” where 32,295 square feet of storage is provided. This area is equipped with a conveyor system for loading ships but is ’’not adapted for use in unloading vessels.” At the Manchester Terminal Corporation plant, 25 acres of open storage are provided near the wharves. This storage space is available for public storage and has rail connections with the water front. Items stored at this location include ”pipe, 312 tubing, lead, and general bulk commodities.” Liquid storage for public hire is also available for various oils At Wharf No. 15 on the north side of the Houston Turning Basin, two 500-ton steel tanks are provided for storing "cottonseed, peanut, olive, linseed, coconut, and other vegetable oils." Necessary pumps and steam heated lines are available to move these liquid cargoes be-313 tween the tanks and ships or cars. Near Galena the General American Tank Storage and Terminal Company leases 84 steel surface tanks for public storage of petroleum 314 products. The capacity of the tanks is 1,000,000 barrels. Storage of fuel oil for bunkering within the Port of Houston has a total ca- pacity of 3,889,000 barrels. This capacity is divided between 9 com- 315 panies handling fuel oil. Though the Port of Corpus Christi has "no grain elevators at the 316 port," the Corn Products Refining Company has plans to complete a 2,000,000 bushel elevator to be in operation for the 194-3 grain season. The proposed canal extension to a point "three and one-half miles west of the Avery Point Basin" will "accommodate the Corn Products Re- fining Company plant," work on which was inaugurated on February 12, 317 1947. , pp. 54, 55- 3U lbid., p. 55. Four warehousing units at the Port of Corpus Christi house "cotton and general merchandise." Three of the units are owned by the Aransas Compress Company which has 1,127,336 square feet of floor 318 space available and 3 high-density compresses." The Port Compress Company has 718,000 square feet of storage space and operates 2 highdensity compresses. The buildings are not so well constructed as units in Houston and Galveston in that each of the 4 units is of "wood frame, metal covered, asphalt floor over solid fill, composition roof." However, protection against excessive loss by fire is assured by the installation of automatic sprinkler systems in each building, thereby providing the first 319 line of defense until the city fire protection service can arrive. Two general merchandise warehouses at the Port of Corpus Christi provide a total of 109,600 square feet of storage space. The larger of the 2 general warehouses, the Corpus Christi Warehouse and Storage Company, provides 100,000 square feet of the above total. The Crocker Transfer and Storage Company has the remaining 9,600 square feet of available space. Both buildings are metal covered frame buildings in-320 stalled with sprinkler systems. The Port of Corpus Christi has a total storage capacity for 9,500,000 barrels of bulk commodities in liquid form. The General American Tank Storage Terminals maintains "numerous tanks" for the storage of mineral and vegetable oils. For public storage this firm offers tank facilities capable of storing "approximately 2,000,000 barrels." To supply storage for molasses, the Nueces County Navigation District owns 5 steel tanks in the rear of Wharf No. 8. These facilities are operated by the Southwestern Sugar and Molasses Company. Transfer of molasses from vessels is effected by means of an 8-inch 321 pipe, making connection with the water front at Wharf No. For storing bulk freight in the open at the Port of Corpus Christi the .Nueces County Navigation District has 21,500 square feet of storage space on Wharf No. 9 and on the adjacent open dock. Spaces back of and between the sheds on the Main Turning Basin also are available for open 322 bulk storage. At the Port of Brownsville storage capacity is located principally about the turning basin. On the north side of the turning basin are ’’three automatic sprinkler equipped transfer sheds," providing "150,000 square feet of shedded space." Double ship-side tracks as well as a 10-foot loading platform and 2 depressed spur sidings give access to the entire length of these sheds. At the west side of the turning basin, another wharf shed with 50,000 square feet of floor space is available with "all necessary shipside and rear trackage, truck yards, 323 front and rear apron” identical to the north side facilities. The Port of Brovmsville, like the Port of Corpus Christi, has storage tanks for accommodating the molasses trade. The molasses storage tanks are ’’adjacent to the turning basin” and a pipe line connects them with the docks, facilitating the unloading of tankers trans. 324 porting this commodity. Private capital has financed a ’’modern port cotton compress and concentration plant” adjacent to the north side wharf facilities of the Brovmsville Turning Basin. Adjacent thereto is 30,000 square feet of shedded storage space for cotton. In the same vicinity ’’private capital” has financed a general merchandise warehouse which provides a storage capacity of 40,000 square feet. The construction of the general merchandise warehouse is of ’’reinforced concrete and steel framing” and has been given a ”B B” Marine rating. For the storage and shipping of crude oil, a modern tank farm is located on 200 acres of ground adjacent to the Brownsville Ship Channel. This tank farm has a storage capacity of 500,000 barrels. Oil arrives from interior oil fields by pipe line while the oil docks and loading facilities at the turning basin supplies oil in "ever increas-325 ing volume” into ’’domestic and foreign markets through this port.” example, the Lykes Brothers Steamship Company, Incorporated operates "regular monthly freight sailings” between Beaumont and Havana, Cuba. Though a regular service, the infrequency of such visits requires advance storage. The Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, 1946, op. cit., p. 251. is no elevator storage for grains near the docks in Beaumont. Ibid., pp. 94, 95 • owned by the East Texas Compress and Warehouse Company, the Beaumont Cotton Compress Company operates these 32 buildings for warehousing purposes. Loe. eit. cit. pp. 76-77. , pp. iii, 126, 137. , pp. 27, 28. 269 Ibid., pp. 11-13. 270 1 bid., P . 9. O rt and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 28. 272 Port of Galveston, October, 1947, op. cit., p. 9« and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, Qp. cit., pp. 28-29. Texas Star Flour Mills is ”a division of the Tex-O-Kan Flour Mills Co.’* Port of Galveston, October, 1947, op. cit. , p. 9- 275 Port and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 30• 27&10c. cit. of Galveston, October, 1947, op. cit., p. 9. cit. 27Q '"Port and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston ana Texas City, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 31- of Galveston, October, 1947, op. cit. , p. 13. ~ Plants No. 3 and No. 4, operated by the Merchants and Planters Compress and Warehouse Company, are of this construction. Port and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op* > p. 36. 282 T , : , o / Ibia., pp. 32-36. cit. observation, August 21, 1947- and Terminal Facilities at the Forts of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op. cit., pp. 31-39- , pp. 31, 35, 39- 28 hbicL, pp. 31, 32, 35- ' J Port of Galveston, October, 1947, op. cit. , p. 11 289 T Loc. cit. 290 P Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op. cit., pp. 7-9. 291 T 1 . . n Ibid., p. 9. 292 1b1d., p. 53. 293 Ibid., pp. 58-61. I bid., p. 60. 2 951qc. cit. , p. 62. , pp. 47-48. 298 Port and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Houston, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 44. 299 Tiie Arrow Mills, Incorporated was formerly the Houston Milling Company, Incorporated. Houston Port Book, May, 1947, op. cit., p. 45- 300 The more conservative figure of 1,500,000 bushels given in Port and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Houston, Texas, 1941, on page 44, is quoted instead of the 2,000,000 carried in the Houston Port Book, May, 1947, page 45- 301 Port and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Houston, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 44. 302 The Zeleny temperature registering system records electrically the temperatures in all bins at a central location in the elevator. Personal observation, August 19, 1947- and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Houston, Texas, 1941, op- cit., p. 44- 3 ° 4 ibid., pp. 45-53. 3O5 t Log. cit. °The number of bales of cotton that the Port of Houston can accommodate is well over a million, inasmuch as the general merchandise warehouses can accommodate more or less cotton as the situation dictates. For example the Manchester Terminal Corporation stores cotton, newsprint, bagging, and general merchandise over 1,112,500 square feet of space but is not listed as giving any regular space to cotton. Ibid., p. 49- Menkwa Compress Company, owned by the Japan Cotton Company, was an exception in using a metal covered, wood-frame building with brick fire walls. Loc. cit. , pp. 45-53. 309,. z Loc. cit. 3 10 Loe. Cit 3U Ibid. A p. 54. 312_ Log. cit. 315 The 9 companies handling fuel oil for bunkering at the Port of Houston include the following: American Petroleum Company, American Liberty Pipe Line Company, Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, Eastern States Petroleum Company, Humble Oil and Refining Company, Maritime Oil Company, Shell Oil Company, Sinclair Refining Company, and The Texas Company. Ibid., pp. 10-12. and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Corpus Christi Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 23. 317 Port of Corpus Christi, March, 1947, op. cit., pp. 9, 10, 18, 19. and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Corpus Christi, Texas, 1941, op. cit., pp. 24-25. 319 ' 7 Loc. cit. 320 y While the warehouse of the Corpus Christi Warehouse and Storage Company has a wood frame, a steel frame is used in the building of the Crocker Transfer and Storage Company. Log. cit. 21 1.0 c. cit. 22 Loc. cit. House Guide, 1947 Edition, op. cit. , p. 60 324 r .. LOC. Cit. 325 Loc. cit. Bunkering fuel, electricity, and water supply. Vessels plying the channels of foreign trade require enormous quantities of fuel and fresh water. Moreover, electrical energy from land based generators is supplied more economically inasmuch as loading, unloading, and bunkering operations usually require higher amperages and voltages than necessary for ocean voyages. At the Port of Orange, Texas the Gulf States Utilities Company furnishes a variety of electrical currents at varying voltages including ’’alternating current at 33,000, 2,300, and 230 volts, 3-phase, 60- cycle, and 230-113 volts, single-phase, 60-cycle, for lighting and power.” Fresh water from artesian wells is also distributed to the city and waterfront "for boiler and drinking purposes” by the Gulf States Utilities Company. Though coal and oil may be secured at Port Arthur for bunkering purposes, no facilities are available "at Orange, 327 Tex. for supplying vessels either with bunker coal or bunker oil." The wharves at Beaumont are also furnished electric current by the Gulf States Utilities Company including ’’alternating current at 115 and 230 volts, single phase, 60-cycle for lighting purposes” and ”33,000, 4,000, 2,300, and 230 volts, 3-phase, 60-cycle alternating current for power use.” One private company, the Magnolia Petroleum Company, operates its own generating system. This plant ’’produces al ternating current of 11C volts for lighting and from 220 to 2,300 i + h 328 volts for power purposes.” An ’’ample supply” of fresh water is available "along the water front for drinking and boiler use." The city of Beaumont owns the waterworks whose mains "connect with all docks in the port including the Magnolia Petroleum Go. plant.” The 3 organizations furnishing water to vessels at their docks include the Port Commission of Beau-329 mont, the Pennsylvania Shipyards, and the Magnolia Petroleum Company. Though "there are no coal bunkering facilities” at the Port of Beaumont, 3 companies are equipped, to furnish bunker oil to vessels at 4 locations on the Neches River while 1 company supplies Diesel oil to 330 its own tugs. These bunkering facilities are located below the turning basin, requiring general cargo vessels to make an additional stop for bunkering purposes. Among the companies furnishing bunker oil at wharves are the At- lantic Pipe Line Company, the Magnolia Petroleum Company, and the Pure 331 Oil Company. Inasmuch as each bunkering facility is located near a refinery or has access to the stock of a refinery, the fuel supply is more than adequate. The locations of these facilities range from 1 to 17 miles below the turning basin. Should ships desire bunkering at points other than the wharves of the above companies, the Magnolia Petroleum Company had 4 tank barges with a total carrying capacity of 4,625 tons suitable for bunkering purposes. As in the case of Orange and Beaumont, the water front at Port Arthur is furnished electric current by the Gulf States Utilities Company. The current supplied includes ”33,000, 4,000, 2,300, and 230 volts, 3-phase, 60 cycles, and 230-115 volts, single-phase, 60 cycles 332 for lighting and power.” Fresh water at Fort Arthur is in "ample supply" along the water front, having been provided from the Port Arthur city water supply. Water for drinking and boiler use are also available from, the facilities of the Sabine Towing Company. This latter service is available day and night and can be supplied at the rate of "40 to 100 tons per 333 hour." The Sabine Towing Company also bunkers ships with coal from barges ”by use of ship’s tackle.” On the northwest side of the East Turning Basin, this company has open storage space for 1,000 tons. However, ships in the foreign trade seldom use this service "as vessels usually bunker at nearby ports.” This source for coal is used 334 principally ”by harbor craft and for galley use.” Three companies at Port Arthur provide efficient service in bunkering ocean-going vessels. The Gulf Oil Corporation, located on Taylor’s Bayou, maintains a supply of 430,000 barrels of Bunker C.and 22,000 barrels of Diesel oil. The facilities have ”3000 feet of berthing space with a depth of 34 feet of water” where fuel oil can be de-335 livered ”at a rate of 4,000 to 6,500 barrels per hour.” The McEwan Oil Terminal and Transportation Company normally stocks only 5,000 barrels of Bunker 0 and 15,000 barrels of Diesel oil. These facilities are located west of the .East Turning Basin on Taylor’s Bayou where 400 feet of berthing space are provided in water 39 feet in depth. The Diesel oil is supplied at the rate of 1,350 barrels per hour while the Bunker C oil is furnished at approximately 1,000 bar-336 rels an hour. At the confluence of Taylor’s Bayou and the Sabine-Neches Canal, the Texas Company had 4 docks on Terminal Island with a combined berthing space of 5,267 feet for ships drawing up to 31 feet of water. Behind the docks are large storage tanks for reserve requirements and the bunkering rate compares favorably with that of the Gulf Oil Cor-337 poration in that ”5,000 barrels per hour” can be supplied. While the Sun Oil Company operates 2 docks at Sabine Pass to receive and ship crude oil by barge, there are no facilities at this 338 port for bunkering or providing utilities for common carriers. The facilities at Beaumont and Port Arthur must be utilized for this purpose. In Galveston, facilities for supplying fuel oil, coal, water, and electric current are available to common carriers in the foreign trade Electric current is furnished by the Houston Lighting and Power Company. Alternating current of 110-220 and 4,000 volts is supplied at the waterfront while a current of 110-220 volts is "available at practically all of the piers, although such current may not be available to vessels." At Pier 29 an "alternating current of 440 and 4,000 339 volts can be furnished." Water for the Port of Galveston is furnished by the Galveston Water Department, whose personnel make all connections. This water coming from the artesian wells at Alta Loma, approximately 20 miles inland, “is good for both boiler and drinking purposes.” On Pelican Island to the north, the city also furnishes water through an 8-inch main at 60 pounds’ pressure. The rate of delivery of water to ships 340 "averages about 1> tons per hour." Though the demand for bunker coal is limited at Galveston, Davison and Company carry a normal supply of 300 tons of Oklahoma steam coal and 150 to 200 tons of lump coal. Upon advance notice, up to 2,000 tons can be provided. Moreover, ships can stock their bunkers at any dock having marginal tracks. The usual method is to load by ’’means of a locomotive crane, equipped with a 1 1/4 yard bucket, di-341 rect from car to ship.” Six companies provide ’’fuel-oil bunkering facilities” at Galveston, including the Eastern States Petroleum Company, the Gulf Refining Company, the Galveston Oil Company, the Rio Bravo Oil Company, the Magnolia Petroleum Company, and the Maritime Oil Company. The total 342 storage capacity of the facilities is 843,928 barrels while the 343 total bunkering capacity is 11,038 barrels per hour. The Galveston Oil Company bunkers '’small craft” and has a storage capacity of only 423 barrels. The Rio Bravo Oil Company also is limited to servicing ships drawing 25 feet at mean low water but can provide Bunker C oil at the rate of 2,400 barrels per hour. All of the 4 remaining bunkering facilities have effective water depths of 30 feet alongside. The Gulf Refining Company can supply either Bunker C or Diesel oil at a rate of ”3,000 to 5,000” barrels per hour from a storage of 250,000 barrels. The Eastern States Petroleum Company provides Bunker C oil at the extension of 41st Street from tanks with a storage capacity of 165,000 barrels and at a rate of 344 1,500 barrels per hour. Both Bunker C and Diesel oil are supplied by the Magnolia Company from Pier 40 of Galveston Wharves. The storage capacity is 93,500 barrels while the bunkering capacity is 1,000 barrels per hour. The remaining bunkering facility, that of the Maritime Oil Company, also provides both Bunker C and Diesel fuels. The storage capacity is 65,- 000 barrels while the bunkering capacity is 1,100 barrels per hour. The oils supplied by the Galveston bunkering facilities originate from the "Gulf coast fields," Beaumont, Port Arthur, Houston, and "various refineries." The major supply comes by tankers and barges while 345 tank trucks and cars supply the remainder. Vessels docking at Texas City may secure electric current distributed by the Community Public Service Company although the energy is generated by the Houston Electric Light and Power Company. The normal power available is 870 kilowatts while a surplus of 53& kilowatts may become available upon the operation of a ’’standby plant" located at Tenth Avenue and Ninth Street. Currents supplied include "alternating current of 110, 220, and 2,300 volts, single and 3-phase, / 60-cycle frequency." Another source of electric energy at Texas City is the Texas City Terminal Railway Company. Provision is made at this company’s wharves for an "alternating current of 110 volts, 2-phase, 60 cycles" in addition to "220-volt to 2,300-volt, 3-phase, 60-cycles, at certain loca+ • „ 347 tions." Artesian wells supply Texas City with an ’’unlimited supply of fresh water for boiler and drinking purposes.” Pipe lines and water connections are available "at most of the piers and wharves.” 'The wharves of the Texas City Terminal Railway Company and the Pan-American Refining Corporation supply water to common carriers at an approx-343 imate rate of 25 tons per hour. The demand for coal bunkering at Texas City is practically nil. Coal ’’required for bunker or galley use" is usually supplied at Galveston. On the other hand, Texas City is well equipped for fuel-oil bunkering. All of the 5 companies supplying fuel oil at Texas City have a total berthing space of 5,680 feet while the water alongside has depths of 32-35 feet. The supplies of fuel come by pipe lines, barges tankers, and tank cars. Storage is provided in extensive tank farms and refineries in the rear of the water front. Normally from 388,500 to 458,500 barrels of Bunker C, Diesel, and ’’light fuel” are stocked while the total capacity for supplying ships is ’’approximately 16,500 , „349 barrels per hour.” The Humble Oil and Refining Company stores 55,000 barrels of Bunker C oil for distribution over the Seatrain Wharf at the capacity rate of 5,000 barrels per hour. The Pan-American Refining Corporation furnishes Bunker C oil for cargo and bunkering. The storage capacity of the company’s 7 tanks is 560,000 barrels of fuel which can be dis- cit. } pp. 46-48. pensed at rates varying from 2,000 to 9,000 barrels per hour The Republic Oil and Refining Company can supply 3,000 barrels an hour of Bunker C oil from 5 tanks with a total capacity of 150,000 barrels. Through three 8-inch and five 6-inch pipes, the Southport Petroleum Company of Delaware supplies 2,000 barrels per hour of Bunker 0 or Diesel oil from 2 tanks with a storage capacity of 60,000 barrels. The fifth bunkering facility at Texas City is the Stone Oil Company. The storage capacity is 100,000 barrels while the bunkering capacity is 2,000 barrels of light fuel and 3,000 barrels of Diesel 350 oil per hour. At the Fort of Houston, much effort has been expended to supply the docks and visiting vessels with adequate electric current, water, and bunkering fuel. Power stations of the Houston Lighting and Power Company provide the docks and wharves along the Houston Ship Channel with alternating current ranging in voltage from ”120 to 12,000 volts, 351 3-phase, 60-cycle.” At the Baytown wharves, the Humble Oil and Refining Company can supply electric current at voltages ’’ranging from 110 to 2,300 volts.” Other private wharves along the Houston Ship Channel are equipped to supply electric current to vessels, limiting their services in the 352 main to 110-220 volts for lighting purposes. The water system of the city of Houston furnishes fresh water at all public wharves. Near-by artesian wells are the source of the supply, ’’excellent for boiler and domestic use.” The public wharves deliver water to ships at the rate of 10,000 to 20,000 gallons per hour, depending upon the number of leads. Not all private wharves are prepared to supply water to vessels. While most of the private wharves receive water from the city of Houston, others have their own sources 354 from artesian wells." The demand for bunker coal is limited at Houston. Nevertheless, adequate service may be obtained at the Navigation District’s Manchester Wharf, located 2.5 miles below the Houston Turning Basin. Bunkering may be accomplished either by loading direct from car to 355 ships or by means of a belt conveyor system and gravity chute. Fuel oil is available at most of the Navigation District’s wharves on the turning basin. The Humble Oil and Refinery Company furnishes 356 this oil from nearby tanks. Four grades of fuel oil are stocked at the public wharves including a maximum storage of 297,320 barrels of Bunker C, 49,960 barrels of Diesel fuel, 57,400 barrels of heavy marine Diesel fuel, and 8,000 barrels of heating fuel No. 5* The water alongside these docks has a depth of 30 feet at mean low water and provides a maximum berthing space of 823 feet. Bunkering is from ”4™, 6-, and 8-inch connections'* at the rate of 2,000 to 6,000 barrels per hour, determined by the type of fuel desired and the 357 size of the connection. Other locations for bunkering fuel oil on the Houston Ship Channel are supplied by the American Petroleum Company, the Coastal Oil and Transport Company, the Crown Central Petroleum Corporation, the Eastern States Petroleum Company, the Humble Oil and Refining Company, the Maritime Oil Company, the Shell Oil Company, the Sinclair Refining 358 Company, and the Texas Company. The total capacity of all storage facilities for commercial bunk- ering on the Houston Ship Channel is 3,889,000 barrels of fuel oil while the maximum capacity for delivering fuel to ships is 94,000 bar-359 rels per hour. With few exceptions, the water alongside the bunk- ering facilities has a depth of 30 feet or more at mean low water, 360 giving ample depth for ocean-going vessels. At Corpus Christi, electric current is furnished by the Central Power and Light Company. Alternating, 3-phase, 60-cycle current of 110 to 220 volts is provided ”at most of the Navigation District’s 361 wharves.’" On Avery Point Basin the Southern Alkali Company supplies on individual agreement a 3-phase, 60-cycle, alternating current at 440 volts as well as 110 volts. Water for drinking and boiler purposes may be had at the public wharves. This water comes from the Nueces River, supplied by the city water department of Corpus Christi. The water is purified to meet the 362 standards of water for both drinking and boiler purposes. By means of two connections, each of 3 wharves can furnish 7,000 gallons per hour. No water for vessels is provided at Port Ingleside though, artesian water for both drinking and boiler purposes is provided at the Harbor Island Docks. The Humble Pipe Line Company and the Aransas Dock and Channel Company each have 2p<-inch connections capable of sup 363 plying 4,000 gallons per hour. Fuel bunkering facilities at the Port of Corpus Christi include only those handling oils inasmuch as there is no demand for bunker coal at Corpus Christi. The total storage capacity of the oil bunkering facilities at the city of Corpus Christi is 2,430,000 barrels while storage capacities of 240,000 and 160,000 barrels have been installed at Harbor Island Terminal and Port Ingleside, respectively. Pipe lines, tankers, and rail tank cars supply the facilities at the city of Corpus Christi while pipe lines and tankers supply Port Ingle- 364 side and the Harbor Island Terminal. The General American Tank Storage Terminals service ships at the Nueces County Navigation District No. 1 wharves numbered 3 through 8, and Oil Dock No. 5« Bunker Cor Diesel fuel may be released at the rate of 10,000 barrels per hour from 22 tanks south of the Main Turning Basin. The Bareco Oil Company also supplies vessels at the city of Corpus Christi with Bunker C and Diesel fuel. The 6 tanks of this company are also located south of the Main Turning Basin and fuel can be supplied to ships at the rate of 2,000 gallons per hour for Bunker 365 C and 5,000 gallons per hour for Diesel oil. At Port Ingleside, ’’approximately 10 miles east of Corpus Christi,” the Humble Oil and Refining Company provides Bunker C and Diesel oil at the rate of 2,500 barrels per hour for the former and 6,000 barrels , 4.x i 4-4- 366 per hour for the latter. At the Harbor Island Terminal, 80,000 barrels of Bunker C oil and 160,000 barrels of Heavy Diesel are available for bunkering at 2,000 barrels per hour for Bunker 0 oil and 5,000 barrels per hour for Heavy 367 Diesel. The Port of Brownsville is provided ”an ample supply of fresh water,” suitable ”for boiler use and domestic purposes. Through a 16-inch water main, direct from the Brownsville water plant to the port, fresh water is available to vessels ”at any time” and ”in any 369 quantity.” To refuel ships while ’’they are loading and unloading their cargo,” a complete bunkering system is installed under all the dry cargo docks. The supply is more than adequate for bunkering purposes inasmuch as various grades of fuel are also available on port property for redistribution and for further processing at ’’bulk handling plants 370 located by major oil companies on Port Property.” Fuel oil furnished at the ports is classed as Bunker C and Diesel fuel oil. The Bunker C oil has a gravity usually ranging from 10 to 19 degrees while Diesel oil has a higher gravity ranging above and below 30 degrees. Port and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op. cit., PP- 7-8. 327 Ports of Fort Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, 1946, op. cit., p. 120. 328 , . , „„ Ibid., p. 75 • 329 t Loc. cit. 33 °Ibid., p. ?6. addition the Texas Company maintains at Port Neches, 13 miles below the turning basin, a supply of ’’approximately 300 barrels of Diesel oil” primarily to supply company towboats but is available to other boats by special arrangement. Loc. cit. 332 t,., ~ Ibid., p. 11. 33310 c. cit. 334 r cit 335 iiid. ’ pp- 11-12 33& T ~ Loe. cit. cit. 338 Ibid., pp. 70-71. 339 and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. $. 340. oc C it 341 Ibid., p. 9. 342„ , „ , o ~ Barrels of 4a gallons each. 343 Port and Tenn inal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op. cit., pp. 7-3. cit. cit. p. 45. cit. 35°poc. cit. 3^3 Port and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Houston, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 7- 2 Loc. cit. and Terminal Charges at United States Seaports, 1942 Edition, op. cit., p. 171. 354p or fr an q Terminal Facilities at the Port of Houston, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 8. ibid., p. 13. 356 The tanks, in turn, receive their supply from the Humble Oil and Refining Company’s Baytown. Refinery. Ibid., p. 8. 357 cit. 3^8 Ibid., pp. 10-12. hunkering capacity of barges operated by these com panies. oQ Port and Terminal Facilities at the Fort of Houston, Texas, 1941, op. cit., pp. 10-12. 361 Refers to the Nueces County Navigation District’s wharves. Port and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Corpus Christi, Texas, 1941, op. cit., p. 12. 62 Ibid., p. 5. , pp. 5, 20-22. , pp. 5,7, 8. 36^Ibid. , p. ?. cit. cit. Services of laborers, stevedores, and pilots. At all Texas water ports, labor ’’engaged in the loading and unloading of deep sea vessels” operates on a closed shop basis. The agreement is between the International Longshoremen’s Association representing labor; the steam ship owners, operators and/or agents; and the Master Stevedores Association of Texas. This agreement governs the hours of labor, the 371 wages, and working conditions for Locals of the I. L. A. in Texas. Provisions in this agreement include an eight-hour working day-372 and a forty-hour week. The regular work day is from ”8 A.M. to noon” and ”1 P.M. to 5 P.M.” while the work week includes the time from 8 A.M., Monday, through 5 P.M. , Friday. Work on Saturdays, Sun 373 days, and nights is performed only at the ’’usual overtime rate.” Holidays under the agreement are designated as follows: January 1, New Year’s Day; February 22, Washington’s Birthday; March 2, Texas Independence Day; May 30, Decoration Day; June 19, Emancipation Day; July 4, Independence Day; Labor Day; September 2, V-J Day; November 11, Armistice Day; Thanksgiving Day; and December 25, Christmas Day. On Labor Day and Christmas Day, no work is to be performed except in the case of fire or when property is in danger. The regular times for beginning the unloading or loading of ships are at 8 A.M., 10 A.M., 1 P.M., 3 P.M., and 7 P.M. Men ordered to work at 8 A.M. must be ordered by 7 P.M. the previous day. Similarly men ordered to work on Sundays or holidays must be ordered by 7 P.M. on the previous day. Only 2 hours’ notice is required for ordering 374 men at other agreed starting times. Wen full gangs have been ordered and the employer does not use their services, 2 hours’ time must be paid the laborers unless the starting was prevented by weather conditions. Labor time will not be stopped for interruptions of less than 30 minutes for switching or 375 other causes except for stoppages caused by weather conditions. 376 Should men be required to do "outside work," the wages shall be the same as for work along the wharf but the labor time shall include all time between leaving the wharf until the return. Transpor tation between the wharf and point of work also must be paid by the employer. Walking foremen must be members of the International Longshoremen's Association and must be employed on each ship working one or more hatches. The walking foremen are not permitted to perform long shore work but may demonstrate the proper use of gear and handling 377 methods. To meet the demands for unusual numbers of longshoremen, the local unions have recourse to reserves of local union men, neighboring locals, and non-union labor when expeditious handling and dispatch of shipping requires these additional workmen. In all cases the representatives of locals are to use every effort to provide men "qualified 378 and efficient" for the class of work ordered. Wage scales for laborers furnished by the locals vary from con- tract to contract. Under the contract terminating September 30, 1947, 379 the following wages were in effect for the handling of general cargo: Rate per Hour Wage Class Straight Time Overtime Longshoremen f 1.25 $1,875 Gang Foremen 1.35 1-975 Walking Foremen 1-75 2.625 Overtime rates are one and one-half times that for straight time rates except in the case of Gang Foremen where the overtime is slightly less than this proportionate increase. Double time is paid for handling cargo under certain conditions and circumstances. If the vessel is in distress, if fumes or obnoxious odors are present, or if explo-380 sives are to be handled, the double time provision applies. Labor for handling much cargo is paid in excess of the basic rate or in relation to the number of units handled. For example an additional 10 cents per hour is received by workmen handling sulphur in bulk, green hides, cement in sacks, salt potash, caustic soda, guano, ores of lead, copper, and zinc, fuller’s earth, and bone meal. Also the handling of grains aboard ship, the dunnaging of bulk grain, and work in precooling boxes or refrigerators on dock are additional 381 classes of jobs drawing 10 cents per hour above the standard rates. The handling of sulphur in bags or barrels, carbon black in boxes or bags, coal and coke, and all petroleum oils in barrels or drums calls for 5 cents an hour above the base wage. Twenty cents per hour above the basic rate is applicable to such jobs as handling dry timber and logs, spout tending for grain loading, and the washing down 382 of holds." Gangs handling cotton and tobacco are paid on the basis of units 383 handled. Cotton stowed by hand costs 24 cents per bale. If the 384 cotton is in flat bales, the charge is 30 cents per bale. Where storage is in rooms or compartments not approached by an open hatch, 48 cents per bale is the usual charge. When tobacco is stored with cotton, each hogshead is considered as equal to 3 bales of cotton and stowage charges are made accordingly. The services of stevedores are available in accordance with terms 385 established by the Master Stevedores Association of Texas. Rates for loading and unloading ’’deep-sea vessels at Texas ports are fixed 386 by separate contracts for each individual cargo." Each port loading or unloading general cargo has stevedores in readiness for this important function. In the Sabine District the 2 Texas ports handling general cargo 387 include Port Arthur and Beaumont. At Fort .Arthur stevedores are available through the Port Arthur Stevedores, P. C. Pfeiffer Company, 388 Hall Shipping Company, and the C. Flanagan and Sons, Incorporated. In Beaumont stevedores are furnished by Beaumont Shippers, Incorpo- rated, Southern Stevedoring and Contracting Company, and P. C. Pfeif- 389 fer and Company. The latter company ’’will perform stevedoring functions at any of the private terminals located between Beaumont and 390 Port Arthur.” In the Customs District of Galveston, stevedores are available at Houston, Texas City, Galveston, and Corpus Christi. Organizations fur nishing men for this service in Houston include Tex-Ports Stevedoring Company, Texas Star Stevedoring Company, Strachan Shipping Company, Southwestern Stevedoring Company, Southern Stevedoring and Contracting Company, and General Stevedores. At Texas City only one organization, 391 the Ports Contracting Company, furnishes stevedoring services. Stevedores are furnished at Galveston by the Atlantic and Gulf Stevedores, Suderman Stevedores, Texports Stevedore Company, and the United Stevedoring Corporation. Corpus Christi has 2 companies engaged in supplying stevedores for vessels docking at that port, namely the Boyd-Campbell Company and the Southern Stevedoring and Contracting 392 Company. At Brownsville, located in the Customs District of Laredo, stevedores are supplied by the Port Brownsville Stevedoring Company, the Border Stevedoring Company, Philen Shipping Company, Southern Stevedoring Company, Rio Grande Stevedores, Lallier and Company, and the 393 Port Brownsville Steamship Agency. Inasmuch as the entrance to Texas ports is via comparatively nar-394 row channels, pilotage is compulsory for vessels in foreign trade. The usual procedure is for pilots to board incoming vessels at the bar and to direct the course of the boat until docked. Voyage from the docks to the open sea also requires the services of pilots. Charges for the service of piloting vessels to Texas ports ’’are 395 fixed by the State of Texas." 'The State Pilot Commission has the 396 responsibility of regulating these charges.' In Table LXXXVII, charges for piloting vessels from the bar to the principal ports of Texas are given. For all ports 20 miles or less from the sea, a charge of -$4.00 "per foot of draft" is assessed. Vessels in the foreign trade which enter the Houston Turning Basin must pay |5-5O "per foot of draft." This charge is a sizeable one and encourages vessels to load at one port only. Source: Compiled from data in Customs House Guide, 1947 Edition, and Port and Terminal Charges at United States Seaports, 1942 Edition. and Terminal Charges at United States Seaports, 1942 Edition, op. cit., p. 72. House Guide, 1947 Edition, op. cit. , p. 60 37 °Loc. cit. 371 The Fort s of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, 1946 op. cit., p. 211. of September 30, 1947- Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, 1946, op. c i~t., p. 212. cit , p. 213. "Any work on ships not moored to wharf so the workmen cannot get ashore, shifting of ships included, shall be termed outside work." Loc. cit. 377 ibid., p. 214. 378 "Minors may not be furnished for any class of work." Ibid., pp. 211, 215. 379 Loe. cit. 380-, . - m / Ibid., p. 214. , pp. 215-216. 3$ 2 Loc. cit. and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston and Texas City, Texas, 1941, op. cit., pp. 2164217. additional charge is made per bale if the cotton is trucked over 200 feet. Ibid., p. 131. stevedore is the ’’man employed and responsible for the loading and unloading of cargo.” Frank Henius, Dictionary of Foreign Trade, p. 434- and Terminal Charges at United States Seaports, 1942 Edition, or. cit., p. 172. Port of Orange had not reopened for the loading and unload ing of general cargo in the summer of 1947- 3^ o Customs House Guide, 1947 Edition, op. cit., p. 414« , p. 42. "The Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, 1946, op. cit., p. 219. Customs House Guide, 1947 Edition, op. cit., pp. 139, 487 • "^^lbid., pp. 88, 113. , p. 61. 39 Sa and Terminal Charges at United States Seaports, 1942 Edition, op. cit., p. 403« of Galveston, October, 1947, op. cit., p. 9« House Guide, 1947 Edition, £p. cit. , p. 42. Port Miles from Sea Charge per Foot of Draft Beaumont 49 It. 00 Port Arthur 20 4.00 Galveston 5 4.00 Texas City 11 4.00 Houston 50 5.50 Corpus Christi .... 21 5.00 Brownsville 17 4.00 TABLE LXjCKVII CHARGES FOR PILOTAGE OF VESSELS IN FOREIGN TRADE FROM BAR TO PRINCIPAL PORTS OF TEXAS United States customs services. From the land port of El Paso to the water port of Orange, the United States Customs Service is charged with activities which may be classified as "fiscal and regulatory" in nature. In Chart DC the principal services falling under each classi-397 fication are presented. Under the fiscal activities in servicing the foreign trade, the United States Customs Service is required to collect and disburse moneys in accordance with the laws enacted by the Congress of the United States. In addition to the collection of duties and internal revenue taxes, the Customs Service must require tonnage taxes, fees, and fines on vessels in the foreign trade. Source: Classification of services as prepared by Victor Russel, Collector of Customs, Port Arthur, Texas, August 20, 1947- In addition to the collection of moneys, the United States Customs Service is responsible for the payment of the drawback, "the refund or restitution of any duty paid or any tax levied" against "im-398 ported merchandise that is re-exported." Not only must customs duties be repaid on re-exported merchandise but domestic taxes are refundable to re-exporters. This repayment is necessary even though the items are not re-exported in the same form as imported. The regulatory activities of the United States Customs Service covers the exercise of control over exports and imports of goods and services, the vessels in the foreign trade, and the movement of crews and other people between the United States and other countries. In the main the United States Immigration Service has the major responsibility of enforcing the laws enacted to control the international move ment of people. However, where the international flow of people is small, the Customs Service must act as agents of the Immigration Service. Cur national laws require the Customs Service to inspect cargo in the foreign trade for purposes other than levying duties. Under the prevailing tariff regulations, entrance of certain commodities is prohibited. Other shipments, normally admitted, must be inspected to ascertain that prescribed standards have been maintained. Though few restrictions are placed upon goods exported during peace-time, the exigencies of war have increased these regulations many fold. Control over vessels in foreign trade is in the main the respon- sibility of the Customs Service. Registration, enrollment, and li-399 censing of vessels are duties of this service. Other duties in- clude the recording of titles to vessels, admeasurement, and the as- 400 sumption of the responsibility for entering and clearing vessels. The Customs Service also is responsible for the enforcement of laws protecting the safety of vessels, cargo, and human life aboard. These safety measures are enforced by inspections of the ships, cargo, crews, supplies, and equipment used on ocean voyages. While the Customs Service does not make all of these inspections, the responsibil-401 ity for their completion is mandatory. 397 In a personal interview with Victor Russel, Collector of Customs, at Port Arthur, Texas the writer discovered that Mr. Russel had made a comprehensive study of the duties of his service. This compilation of duties appears in Chart IX. 398 The ’’drawback allowance” is "99 per cent of the original duty paid" and "no compensation is given for interest accumulated during the time that money paid for duties was tied up in the customs." Henius, op. cit., p. 205. CHART IX PRINCIPAL ACTIVITIES OF UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE Other services at ports. In addition to the costly service of piloting vessels to the port, boats in the foreign trade must in most instances pay for tugboat services, for dockage, for wharfage, for harbor dues, and for the important task of mooring and unmooring vessels. The costs of these services are not uniform at or within all 402 Texas ports and are subject to change. + While services of the powerful and sturdy tugboats are available 403 at the larger ports, their use is not necessarily mandatory. Included in services performed by tugboats are those of towing vessels along the channels, shifting vessels from berth to berth, furnishing steam, pulling on grounded ships, docking, off docking, and undocking P . 404 of vessels. While most ships navigate under their own power from the bar to inland ports, tugboats are available for pulling vessels "with or with-405 out own. power" along the channels. Once at the point of destination one or more tugboats are usually required to move the vessel safely into the berth. Charges for this service are sizable and are not uniform throughout Texas ports. To illustrate, docking or undocking at Galveston and Houston as of January 1, 1942 cost $55 "with own power” or $75 "without own power." At Texas City the charge was S7O "with own power" and $75 "without own power." At Port Arthur the service was even more costly, the charge being S9O without cargo and $lO5 with cargo. In both in- 406 stances the vessel must be "under steam." The charge for "shifting” vessels from one berth to another va- 407 ries with the distance between the berths and availability of tugs. Shifting from one dock to a near-by dock cost $7O ’’with own power" or 40S $75 without own power” in the ports of Galveston and Houston. The same service per vessel at Fort Arthur costs ”$lO5 lo fl3o, loaded" 409 while at Corpus Christi the charge is $75- Tugboats also provide steam for vessels wishing to bring pressure to a desired point within a minimum time. Charges for this service are by the hour. Tugboats at the ports of Houston and Galveston charged $5O per hour in the ’’daytime” and $55 per hour at night. At Fort Arthur the minimum charge for furnishing steam was $55 but the 410 cost per hour was only $33 including the ’’time coming and going.” When vessels run aground, tugboats work to pull them free. Usu- 411 ally, pulling for the first hour is "free pulling time." After the first hour, the rate charged at Houston, Corpus Christi, and Galveston 412 is $5O for "each succeeding hour or fraction part." ' .For the right to occupy berthing space at the ports, vessels are assessed a charge called dockage. The basis for calculating this charge may be simple or quite complicated. For example, a vessel tied up at wharves of the Port Arthur Canal and Dock Company, ”or made fast to a vessel so berthed,” pays dockage only when the vessel is not discharging or receiving cargo. 'The rate is then ”1 cent per gross ton /13 per day or fractional part thereof. ”' + Due to the complexity of commerce handled, the charges for dockage at the docks of Galveston Wharves illustrate the more complicated arrangement. On the first day, "all vessels handling export and import cargo," pay 3 cents per gross ton for dockage; the second day, 2 cents; the third day, 1 cent; fourth to fifteenth day, inclusive, no charge; and sixteenth to twentieth day, inclusive, 1 cent. Should the vessel remain beyond the twentieth day, dockage is "assessed at the same rate as though the vessel had just arrived, commencing at 3 cents 414 per gross ton as per the above schedule." In case a vessel, which is berthed at any wharf or pier of the Galveston Wharves or "made fast" to a vessel so berthed, does not load or discharge cargo, the dockage charged is at the rate of "1 cent per gross registered ton per day or fractional part thereof." For vessels undergoing repair, the charge above is effective unless the repairs are made "prior to or subsequent to receiving cargo on that particular voyage." In such an instance the dockage charge "will be one-415 fourth cent per gross registered ton while undergoing repairs." For vessels loading grain at Galveston, the dockage charge ranges from $lOO for vessels with "2,000 net registered tons or less" to $175 "for vessels over 5,000 net registered tons." Where vessels discharge passengers only and do not handle cargo, a dockage charge is assessed -1 416 "of -4 cent per gross ton per day or fraction thereof." Vessels operating out of Galveston under "regular advertised schedules" are charged the same dockage charge as other vessels unless the gross cargo tons are less than 300- Then the dockage for the first day is cent per gross ton; 1 cent for the second day; cents for the third; no charge for the fourth to fifteenth days, inclusive; 417 and 1 cent for the sixteenth to twentieth days. Dockage charged at Houston is also based on the gross registered tonnage of the vessel and in general is less than that charged at Galveston. The general charge at Houston for vessels engaged in the foreign trade is at the “rate of -J cent per gross registered ton per day, Al S with a minimum charge of $1 per day. ° Exceptions are made at spe cial wharves where vessels are docked for repairs or storage. Under 419 those circumstances the charges are on a flat rate per diem. In order to pay for the construction and depreciation of the tran sit sheds, piers, and wharves at a port, assessments are made against 420 imports and exports on a unit basis. This charge, called wharfage, is not uniform throughout Texas ports even though efforts are made to equalize these charges at all Texas ports. In Table LXXXVIII, wharfage charges for grains, cotton, coffee, and bananas are shown for the ports of Beaumont, Galveston, Houston, Corpus Christi, and Brownsville. In all 4 commodities the rates at the Port of Houston are as high or higher than at any port considered in Table LXXXVTII. On the other hand no one port has the lowest rates in all 4 commodities. Wharfage rates for cotton, coffee, and grains are expressed in cents per 100 pounds while the wharfage charge on bananas is in cents per bunch. The range in wharfage rates for cotton is 2 to 2-|- cents per 100 pounds. Coffee and grains in sacks or barrels pay lower rates than cotton. Coffee bears a charge ranging from 1 1/4 to ly cents while grains are assessed Ito 1 3/4 cents per 100 pounds. Galveston has a rate per bunch on bananas as compared to a 3/4-cent rate at Houston and Brownsville. a ”ln bales or sacks.” k”ln barrels, bags or cases.” G ”ln sacks or barrels.” Source: Compiled from data presented in Port and Terminal Charges at United States Seaports, 1942 Edition. 399 Ibid., pp. 703-705. The deputy collector of customs at the port certifies documents for clearance. Also vessels entering ports of the United States must report ’’within 24 hours” the arrival to the collector of customs. Ibid., pp. 471-474. A customs inspector is required to supervise the entrance and clearance of all vessels ’’coming into his district and reports all diS' covered violations of the revenue or navigation laws.” Ibid., p. 173- ZO2 As of January 1, 1942 the ’’docking or off docking charge at all points between Manchester terminal and turning basin” in the Hous- ton Ship Channel was $55 • The same service was $9O in May, 1947- Port and Terminal Charges at United States Seaports, 1942 Edition, op. cit., p. Houston Port Book, May, 1947, op. cit., p. 57- 403 Tugboats for Texas City and points along the Houston Ship Channel are furnished from Galveston and Houston. 4^4 r phe terms docking and dockage are not to be confused. Docking is the act of moving a vessel into a berth for which a charge is made while dockage is the charge against a vessel for remaining or berthing at a wharf. Off docking refers to locating a ship at a point away from the dock or wharf. to the Port of Brownsville is considered as "not necessary" but the service is furnished for $75 to $lOO per vessel. The charge for towing a vessel "with own power" from Bolivar Roads to Houston is $345- Customs House Guide, 1947 Edition, op. cit., pp. 60, 136. and Terminal Charges at United States Seaports, 1942 Edition, op. cit., pp. 125, 167, 403* 407 To effect docking, undocking, and shifting of vessels, mooring and unmooring is also required. Some Texas ports, as in the case of Houston, charge for this service. At Houston the charge is $l2 to moor or unmoor a vessel. Customs House Guide, 1947 Edition, op. cit., p. 136. / nd 4 an l Terminal Charges at United States Seaports, 1942 Edition, op. cit., pp. 125, 167. given refer to the cost of the first tug boat. Additional tugs, if available, are at a lower rate. Ibid., pp. 99, 403- 410 , Ibid., pp. 126, 168, 403. ‘ The charge at Brownsville however is in reverse to this usual procedure. Charges for the first hour is $3O but only $35 for each succeeding hour. Ibid., p. 71. , pp. 99, 126, 168. 13 Ibid., p. 404. , p. 126. , p. 127. 416 1'bid. , pp. 127, 128. cit. 418 Ibid., p. 169. example deep sea vessels using Wharves 7 and 8 while undergoing repairs are ’’charged dockage at the rate of $lO per day or fractional part thereof.” Ibid., p. 170. J on ’’Wharfage is defined as a charge on any commodity placed in a transit shed or on a wharf, or passing through, over, or under a wharf or transferred between vessels; or loaded to or unloaded from a vessel at a wharf, regardless of whether or not a wharf is used.” Ibid., p. 174. Port Cotton a (Cents per cwt. ) Goff (Cents per cwt. ) Grains 0 (Cents per cwt. ) Bananas (Cents per bunch) Beaumont 2 1/4 — — — — — — Galveston 2 1/4 — 1 1/2 Houston 2 1/4 1 1/2 1 3/4 3/4 Corpus Christi . . 2 — 1 1/2 — Brownsville 2 1 1/4 1 1/2 3/4 TABLE LmVIII WHARFAGE CHARGES FOR COTTON, COFFEE, GRAINS, AND BANANAS AT PORTS OF BEAUMONT, GALVESTON, HOUSTON, CORPUS CHRISTI, AND BROWNSVILLE ON JANUARY 1, 1942 ADMINISTRATION OF PORT FACILITIES Diversity of port authority. The administration and control over a port is usually vested in a combination of powers exercised by the federal, state, and municipal governments. Through constitutional au- thority, Congress regulates ’’commerce with foreign nations, and among 421 the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The power to reg- ulate commerce has been interpreted to include authority over the ves 422 seis and the waters in which they navigate. Moreover the Constitution gave Congress the power to provide for the ’’common defence" and "general welfare" of the United States. Under these powers, the position of the Secretary of War was created. The person appointed to this position now has charge of fortifications river and harbor improvements, bridges over navigable streams, and 423 "other public works assigned to engineers from time to time." The federal government not only approves port and waterway improvements but also appropriates and expends large sums of money for 424 this purpose. The Corps of Engineers of the United States Army has the responsibility of supervising the construction and maintenance work in the water channels and turning basins. Nevertheless, the United States Army wishes to leave as much free dom in the utilization of the ’waterways as is consistent with national safety. Consequently, once the basic rules and regulations for operat ing on the channels have been determined by the United States Army, municipal and private concerns are permitted to use the water channel and areas adjacent thereto in such manner as the local and state laws , + 425 permit. The complexity of port administration not only arises from the various spheres of authority but furthermore from the diversity in methods of transportation in common usage. Mediums of water, air, rail, highway, pipe line, and even the sidewalk at border tows are utilized, requiring varied facilities for handling the traffic and en-426 forcing regulations in effect. "Constitution of the United States,” Article I, Section 8. Prank A. Magruder, American Government, Appendix I, p. 6. , p. 139. , pp. 6, 234. 424 In the case of Galveston, "it has cost the United States Government nearly twenty million dollars and more than forty years of labor to develop the port of Galveston to its high standard of efficiency.” Customs House Guide, 1947 Edition, op. cit., p. 107. governing the navigation and use of the water Systems of port administration. In Texas, ports of entry may be controlled by a city, a combination of a city and the surrounding county, or by private enterprise. An example of port administration by a city is well illustrated in the operation of the Fort of Beaumont The City of Beaumont under the authority granted to it by the City Charter exercises exclusive control over the Port of Beaumont through an administrative body known as the Beaumont Port Commission. Membership of the Beaumont Port Commission includes the mayor who is ”ex-officio the chairman,” the 3 city commissioners and 4 "non-office holding residents” who are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the . . 428 city commission. The administration of the Port of Houston is an illustration wherein the port authority is vested in a combined city and county organization. The membership of the commission consists of 5 members, serving without pay, who ’’are appointed two by the City and two by County Commissioners.” The chairman is appointed ”by the City and County Commissioners in joint session.” Prior to 1922 the city of Houston administered the port but during that year the ’’Harris County Houston Ship Channel Navigation District” leased from the city all of its properties and ”as of July 1, 1945 s the Navigation District purchased from the City all of its port facilities for an agreed appraised price of >,500,000.00. An example of the third type of port administration is to be found in the control of the Port of Port Arthur. Neither the city of Port Arthur nor the county of Jefferson have attempted any direction or control of the waterfront. With the exception of a barge landing which is owned by the city, the wharves and docks are privately owned, principally by oil companies. Under these circumstances, the federal government has promulgated special rules and regulations applicable to the turning basins as well as to the water channels and connecting 430 waterways. One inland port of entry has a port commission but for purposes other than to regulate water or land commerce. This commission is the 431 Laredo Port Commission of Laredo, Texas, consisting of 6 members whose purpose is to aid in solving the different problems that arise in moving freight through this port. This organization owns or con-432 trols no property and has been inactive during the past 2 years. " During the war the Laredo Port Commission was active in cooperating with the government to alleviate car shortages accentuated by the slow return of railroad cars from Mexico and in other matters requiring an understanding of the necessity for the release of given mer-433 chandise for the foreign trade. In Chart X the sponsoring organization, the governing body, and the title of the active manager are given for the principal watei* and land ports of Texas. It will be noted that the ports of entry of Beaumont, Orange, Galveston, Texas City, Houston, Corpus Christi, and 434 Brownsville have authorities governing their respective ports. Airports handling foreign shipments include those under the Juris diction of the ports of Dallas, Houston, Laredo, San Antonio, El Paso, a Does not include airports serving the foreign trade. Source: Customs House Guide, 1947 Edition; The Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, Port Series No. 22, Revised 1946; Houston Port Book, May, 1947; Corpus Christi Port Book, June, 1946; interviews with port officials, August 18-29*, 1947- Eagle Pass, and Brownsville. Much interest is shown in securing airports of entry for several cities of Texas. However, the principal change essential to the designation of a new airport of entry is for the federal government to provide the necessary services of customs collection, immigration and naturalization, public health, and foreign plant quarantine. These services are provided when the potential mer-435 chandise and passenger movement warrants the additional expenditure. Consequently the usual municipal organization which handles domestic air cargo absorbs the local control over foreign air commerce. As noted in Chart X, the titles of the active managers of the water ports are termed variously as the Director of the Port or Port Director or General Manager. In some instances the responsibility for the activities of the port are divided between 2 or more men who are held accountable to the governing body. In Beaumont, for example, the Traffic Manager and the Superintend ent of the Docks were responsible for their special areas of the port z o administration. Similarly the Harbor Master and the Wharf Master, as the principal officers at the Port of Orange, ’’superintend all activities in the harbor and at the wharf and dock facilities.” In some instances the one in charge bears two titles such as Vice-Chairman and General Manager, President and General Manager, and General Manager I 37 and Director of the Port. + channels ’’are promulgated” by the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army. The ports of Brownsville, Texas and Detroit, Michigan have the peculiar distinction of being the only ports of entry in the United States which receive foreign trade by air, water, highway, and rail. Personal interview with L. M. Hakes, Deputy Collector of Customs, Brownsville, Texas, August 28, 1947- 427 ' The Ports of Port Arthur, Beauinont and Orange, Texas, 1946, op. cit., p. 203. , p. 204. Port Book, May, 1947, op- cit. , p. 49- 430 , The Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas, 1940, op. cit., p. 163. Customs House Guide, 1945 Edition, op. cit. , p. 138. 432 Interview with E. H. Corrigan, Chairman, Laredo Port Commission, August 26, 1947- 4 example occurred in the case of shipments of windmills to Mexico wherein these items were believed to be of little value to the prosecution of the war. However, the Laredo Port Commission induced government representatives to visit the Mexican farming area south and west of Matamoros, convincing the delegation of the essentiality of these items to production in Mexico. Interview with E. H. Corrigan, Chairman, Laredo Port Commission, August 26, 1947- this study treats primarily with the foreign trade movement, the various port authorities concern themselves with both the foreign and domestic movement of merchandise. with Victor Russel, Collector of Customs, Sabine Customs District, Port Arthur, Texas, August 20, 1947- with F. H. Fredricks, Traffic Manager, Port of Beaumont . Chart X. Port of Entry Organization Governing Body Title of Active Managers Beaumont City of Beau- mont Beaumont Port Commission (1) Supt. of Docks (2) Traffic Manager Orange City of Orange Orange Wharf and Dock Com- mission (1) Harbor Master (2) Wharf Master Galveston Galveston Wharves Board of Trus- tees (1) Vice-Chairman and Gen. Mgr. Texas City Texas City Ter- minal Railway Co. Port Authority (1)President and Gen. Mgr. Houston Harris Co. Hous- ton Ship Chan- nel Navigation Dist. Navigation and Canal Commis- sioners (1) General Manager Corpus Christi Nueces Co. Navi- gation Commis- sion Nueces Co. Navi- gation Commis- sioners (l)Port Director Brownsville Brownsville Nav- igation Dist. of Cameron Co. Brownsville Nav- igation Dist. Commissioners (1) Gen. Mgr. and Director of Port Laredo City of Laredo Laredo Port Com- mission (1)Chairman CHART X SPONSORING ORGANIZATION, GOVERNING BODY, AID TITLE OF ACTIVE MANAGER FOR ADMINISTRATION AW OPERATION OF THE PRINCIPAL PORTS OF ENTRY IN TEXAS, 1947 a Objectives of port administration. Regardless of the title given the officer or officers in charge, the objectives of the administrations are alike in the desire to move the traffic economically and expeditiously over the port, to encourage additional movements of merchandise consistent with the revenue obtainable, and to cooperate with the Corps of Engineers of the United States Army in maintaining and improving the waterway and port facilities. In accomplishing these aims, the policies of the various administrations do not necessarily follow parallel approaches. The Brownsville Navigation District of Cameron County purchased all the area along the 17-mile channel to Madre Laguna. In this manner the Brownsville Navigation District controls the waterfront and is now leasing 438 positions on the channel to industries. This procedure is believed to utilize the adjacent land space in the most advantageous manner possible, to provide uniform control over the traffic on the channel, and in addition to provide lease incomes for further improvement of the port facilities. In the case of the Port of Houston, much of the land along the water channel is privately owned. Furthermore, some of these business enterprises perform competitive services to those offered by the Harris 439 County Houston Ship Channel Navigation District. This condition is considered by the Navigation and Canal Commissioners as stimulating efficient operation at the waterfront. 441 Despite the private ownership of approximately 50 per cent of the terminal port facilities at the Port of Houston, this port still has several controls which it exercises over the Houston Ship Channel and port facilities. These controls are not necessarily applicable to Houston alone but indicate the types of control that Texas ports with port authorities may exercise over practices on the shipping channel. First, considerable control is exercised over the port pilots which board the vessels at the outer bar in the Gulf and direct the 442 boats to their inland destination. Where ships do not conform to principles laid down by the port, the piloting service can be denied. Furthermore, the Houston Turning Basin, which is required by oceangoing vessels, is under the control of the Harris County Houston Ship Channel Navigation District. Similarly the tugboat services, for turning the ships around at the basin and for docking and undocking at the wharves, are supplied by the managing officer of the port, further requiring jurisdiction over the vessels entering and leaving the harbor. To avoid '’rate wars” with private and public terminal facilities, the Port of Houston has encouraged that the tariffs for both the private and public terminals for hire shall be the same, ’’equal to all alike,” and sufficient to maintain and replace the terminal facilities used. In general the private terminals for hire conform to the above 443 standards for rate making. The artificial channel and Port of Brownsville was officially inaugurated on May Is, 1936. Land crossed by the artificial channel was of little value until the waterway was constructed. This provided an opportunity for the purchase of the land at reasonable prices and to inaugurate the new approach to port administration. Personal interview with F. W. Hofmokel, General Manager and Director of the Port of Brownsville, August 28, 1947. example the Arrow Mills, Inc., with 2,000,000 bushel capacity, delivers flour, grain, and ’’feeds” to ship side in competition with the Houston Public Elevator. Furthermore, the Gulf Atlantic Ware house Company is engaged in handling cotton, carbon black, spelter, and other general items in competition with the facilities of the Port of Houston. terview with J. Russell Wait, Director of the Port of Houston, Houston, Texas, August 18, 1947- Port Book, May, 1947, op. cit., p. 15. State of Texas licenses pilots and determines the Pilot Regulations but considerable weight is given the recommendations of the port manager or director regarding the individuals licensed. Port Book, May, 1945 > op. eit. , p. 15. CHAPTER VIII SIGNIFICANCE OF FOREIGN TRADE THROUGH TEXAS PORTS So closely are foreign and domestic trades interwoven into the fabric of the economy that difficulty is experienced in making an exact and separate appraisal of the significance of the foreign trade through the Texas ports. By far the major portion of the merchandise leaving the ports for consumption abroad has been produced in conjunction with units for domestic consumption. In addition most goods entering the ports from abroad are processed and/or distributed in conjunction with domestic products, creating joint costs and profits. The problem of estimating the values derived from foreign trade is even more difficult in those areas where immeasurable benefits accrue. For example one cannot so much as estimate the psychic values attached to the consumption of coffee as compared to that of coffee substitutes made from domestic grains. Similarly, the apple or potato might be substituted for the appetizing banana but at a loss of consumer satisfaction incapable of measurement. Although one cannot isolate with exactness the total worth of the foreign trade through Texas ports, the evidence of the importance and value is clearly demonstrated in the increased flow of goods described in Chapters IV, V, and VI. This movement is advantageous not only to the producers and processors of the merchandise but extends in various ways to promote economic development and augment purchasing power throughout the hinterland and, in lesser measure, throughout the na- tion and world. SIGNIFICANCE TO TEXAS In the economic development of Texas, foreign trade has been essential. Prior to the coming of the railroads in the 1850’s, Texas looked almost entirely to the sea rather than to the land as the sole outlet for its one crop, cotton. In addition Texans received their principal provisions of coffee, sugar, and flour from ships plying the sea. During the remainder of the 19th century, railroads made the eastern and central markets of the United States more accessible to the cattle ranchers and growers of diversified farm products. Despite this movement, the principal money crop of cotton continued to depend upon foreign markets. The eastern part of the United States was already on an export basis, utilizing less cotton in its textile mills than was produced east of the Mississippi River. Just prior to 1900, wheat production, joined the ranks of cotton in requiring a foreign market. Then, with the development of many oil fields following the discovery of Spindietop in 1901, Texas added one more major source of income that utilized foreign markets. The construction of refineries along the" coast marked the beginning of an industrial economy that so far has extended only in a small way to the wheat and cotton exports. l This industrialization in Texas has now resulted in a number of plants which depend upon foreign markets for raw materials and a substantial outlet for finished goods. While developing an economy largely dependent on the export trade, Texas with the remaining hinterland has derived substantial but less valued economic benefits from the importation of coffee, bananas, sugar, cattle, hides and skins, petroleum, ores, and other products. These products, like the exports, have looked to both the land and ocean ports for means of ingress and egress. In analyzing the significance of the foreign trade to the state, several topics of importance emerge. First, the ports have influenced the location of industries on or close to the deep-water channels. Second, the producers and processors within the state have derived large returns by cheaper access to foreign markets. Third, a tremendous investment in deep-water ports and facilities has been made to serve the foreign trade. And finally, foreign trade through Texas ports has greatly augmented Texas employment and purchasing power directly and indirectly. In the following discussion each of these topics will be treated more fully. the introduction of cotton milling to Texas is slowlyprogressing, ’’only 4 to 8 per cent of the lint cotton crop is manufac- Factor in industrial location. In 1947 "Texas built $232,200,000 worth” of "factories” and other "nonresidential facilities." In doing so, Texas increased the dollar value of this type of construction to "about five times their 1939 figure" and led all states in the South 2 in this respect. "Since 1940 more than 80 chemical manufacturing plants have been built, or are under construction, along the Texas Coast at an investment estimated to total between $600,000,000 and ln 1946 and 1947 Texas "led every state in industrial construction" and in 1948, "24 per cent of all industrial construction planned in the United States was in Texas." According to the Association of State Planning and Development Agencies, the center of ’’the fastest expanding section in the nation” is the deep-water port of Houston, Texas. In 1946 and 1947 approximately ”$80,000,000 has been invested in new plants” at this city. Tnis value exceeds the investment of ”$69,000,000 for the Mew York metropolitan area” during the same two-year period as well as for 5 California, "the runner-up" in industrial expansion. The surge in locating industrial plants along the Texas Coast is due to a number of factors, including the desire for access to domestic and foreign markets via cheap water transportation. Certainly the deep-water ports serve as concentration points for merchandise imported and exported, making them logical points for processing. In addition the cheap fuel and a plentiful supply of fresh water in the coastal area are prime necessities of any industry. Moreover petroleum and natural gas provide the basis for large refining and chemical industries. Complementing the latter industries, salt and sulphur deposits provide brines and acids while the sea water has become an economical source of minerals as well as chemicals. Other reasons for locating industries on. the Texas Coast include the trend toward industrial decentralization, the available labor supply, and the recent decisions on pricing and freight rates. Decentralization of industry is considered as essential to "strategic safety" and current contracts for the Armed Forces are being placed to avoid concentration of defense work in vulnerable areas. Mechanization of cotton farms will tend to release additional workers to the numbers already available at relatively lower wages than in the industrialized areas north of the Ohio River. Finally, the decisions to force "f.o.b. pricing" and "freight-rate equalities" for the South and West will be doubljr advantageous to the port cities. Under these changes the deep-water ports will have access to cheap land transportation as well as cheap water transportation. Despite these many general advantages of the coastal region, the attraction of deep water which gives access to foreign markets is in most instances the final determinant of plant locations. For example the ’’Texas Coastal area is the center of refining activity in the 6 Southwest.” Among the reasons offered for this concentration of crude oil refining at the ports are the presence of "prolific oil fields," the "abundant supplies of natural gas" for "use as fuel and as a source of chemicals,” and the presence of "heavy acids and other chemicals used in refining." But the final determination to locate on the deep-water channels was because the "seaboard provides ready access to cheap ocean transportation, and its inland waterways provide a 7 communications network between refineries and industrial consumers." The trend of refiners of the standard petroleum products to locate near deep water is being followed by new entrants into the field. In 194 b the Carthage Hydrocol Company decided to locate a plant on the leased property along the channel of the Brownsville Navigation District. This plant is the first to synthesize oil and gasoline from natural gas, using approximately 64 million cubic feet of 8 gas daily. Close by, ’’another company is planning a large chemical 9 plant to utilize Hydrocol’s by-products.” Similarly, the Houston area was selected by the Shell Chemical Corporation, subsidiary of the Shell Oil Company, as the site for major projects dependent ’’primarily on the oil industry for raw materials." In September, 1948 "the $50,000,000 plant" of the Shell Chemical Corporation located 15 miles east of Houston began operation of the ’’world’s first commercial synthetic glycerin plant constructed at a cost of $8,000,000.” Tan Oostermeyer, President of the company in New York City, ’’predicts the Houston plant will produce one-fifth of the nation’s total annual consumption of 200,000,000 pounds of the colorless, odorless, sweet-tasting glycerin.” Such mass production of a product will cause a company to look for foreign markets to consume the excess production. In addition there will be a tendency for large consumers of glycerin such as manufacturers of paint, varnish, cello-10 phane, explosives, and tobacco to establish themselves nearby. The tenacity with which chemical plants persist in locating near deep water is illustrated in the rebuilding of the Monsanto Chemical Company plant located at Texas City. In 1947 this plant was wrecked by an explosion which originally began with an explosion on a ship lying in the deep-water channel nearby. Nevertheless, the Monsanto Chemical Company is rebuilding at a cost of $15,000,000. One of the principal products produced will be styrene for use in plastics and 11 synthetic rubber. On the eastern tip of the Texas Coast, other refineries use petroleum and gas for the manufacture of various industrial products. The Port Neches Butane Products Company, located near Port Arthur, "can produce 100,000 tons of butadiene a year; enough to supply 1/7 of the nation’s synthetic rubber needs." Near the Neches Butane Products Company is "the nation's largest synthetic rubber manufacturing estab- lishment with a capacity of 120,000 tons a year.” This latter plant is operated jointly by the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company and the 12 B. F. Goodrich Company. In addition the Jefferson Chemical Company is building "a $20,000,000 plant" 7 miles northeast of Port Arthur. 13 This plant "will manufacture chemicals from petroleum hydro-carbons.” The chemical plants using raw materials other than crude petroleum and natural gas are also locating as close as practicable to the deep-water ports. ’’Biggest of all the Gulf Coast chemical plants” is Dov/ Chemical Company’s "2,500-acre wonderland along the sea at Freeport, Texas” which ’’extracts magnesium from the sea water and chlorine from Texas salt deposits" as well as "lime from oyster shells abound-14 ing in the gulf.” 'Phen 3 miles south of Orange, Texas the "E. I. Du Pont de Nemours Nylon Salt Plant is under construction,” a project "costing $98,000,000, and is partially in operation for the manufac-15 ture of nylon salt and chemicals.” In addition to chemical plants, the Texas ports are attracting industries dependent upon raw materials from abroad. At Texas City a 50,000-ton tin smelter was completed by the United States government 16 in 1942 for use in processing Bolivian and African tin. Also in 1942 the American Smelting and Refining Company placed "a large elec- trolytic zinc plant in operation" at the Port of Corpus Christi to 17 utilize ores from foreign sources. In May 1948 the Aluminum Company of America announced plans to construct "a multi-million-dollar plant" at Port Lavaca for producing 18 aluminum from "purified aluminum ore." This plant will use natural gas rather than water power as a power source. To effect this change the company plans to construct an electric power plant and a plant to manufacture carbon electrodes required by the electrolytic process. While the full source of the aluminum ore was not disclosed, a portion is to be secured from foreign sources. Among the industrial plants located on the Texas Coast are also those for processing agricultural products secured from domestic and foreign sources. Probably the largest venture is the "$20,000,000 factory" of the Corn Products Refining Company under construction at 19 Corpus Christi, Texas. The plant is to utilize the grain sorghum, nilo maize, in the manufacture of "starches, dextrose sugar, and other commodities." "Before the selection of Corpus Christi was made final, assurance was given by the Nueces County Navigation Commission that water transportation facilities would be extended westward to the 20 plant site.” The establishment of flour and rice mills near the port area has proved to be economically sound. Now, ”a large Minnesota company is putting up a plant” in Houston for processing the products from the ’’thousands of acres of flax” now being cultivated on the 21 coast. In the coastal region near Corpus Christi the cultivation of flax increased markedly during the period after 1942 and in 1947 linseed meal was being shipped from the Port of Corpus Christi to Antwerp 22 Belgium. Among the foreign agricultural products processed on the Texas Coast are coffee, sugar, pineapples, and jute. National distributors of coffee are located at Houston and Corpus Christi while the Imperial Sugar Company receives raw sugar via Galveston for processing at Sugar Land, Texas. The quick freezing of pineapples from Mexico is an activity of the Eagle Pass Products Company at Port Lavaca while jute 23 manufactures are carried on principally at Houston. The importance of the deep-water channels to Texas ports is a matter of deep concern to men responsible for the growth and progress of these port cities. To fully explore these possibilities, Houston and Galveston have established branch offices in inland cities to encourage merchandise to flow via their ports.ln addition the business interests of the port cities provide funds through the local Chambers of Commerce and Navigation Districts to encourage the greater utilization of the ports. Further proof of the keen interest is the willingness of property owners to vote bonds to establish facilities for handling the cargo at the ports. One of the more recent bond approvals was by the Brownsville Navigation District on July 1?, 1948 when "a $1,750,000 revenue 25 bond issue’ 1 was voted. But "extensive channel and facility improvement programs" are planned for all the major water ports of Texas. "Expenditures on facilities at the larger ports during 1947-1948 prob« 26 ably will approach $10,000,000." The importance of the deep-water ports to Texas cities in attract ing industries and building cities is also recognized by the United States Department of Commerce. As early as 1927 Ernest L. Tutt, manager of the Southwest District of the United States Department of Commerce, expressed ”his opinion that one of the most important developments in Houston within recent years is the Houston Ship Channel.” Tutt stated ’’the ship channel and the shipping business of Houston will probably have a greater effect on the future progress of this 27 city than any other one factor.” tured in Texas annually.” Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide, 1947-1948, P- 197- In direct contrast, ’’Texas plants refined" of all crude processed in the United States” in 1946. Texas Oil and Gas, 1947, P. 29. for Shift of Industry, ” United States News and World Report, July 16, 1948, p. 36. %lax B. Skelton, ’’Texas Draws Chemical Companies,” The El Paso Times, September 19, 1948, p. 14♦ 4 Robert E. Wood, ’’The Gulf Coast--our New Frontier,” Reader’s Digest, September, 1948, pp. 17-20. Leads U. S. Expansion in Industry,’* The El Paso Times, March 30, 1948, P- 1. z Approximately "25 per cent of the cracking capacity of the United States is located in the Texas Coastal area." R. B. Johnson, "The Petroleum Industry and the Southwest,” Monthly Business Review, March 1, 1947, P- 39. cit. g Report on Port of Brownsville, Texas, January 28, 1947, P- 7• 9 Wood, op. cit., p. 18. op. cit. , p. 14- 1 1 "Industry’s New Frontier," Life, October 4, 1943, pp. 92-95- 12 History and Development of Port Arthur. Mimeographed release, Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce, 1943. • 13 Industrial Development at Port Arthur. Mimeographed release, Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce, July 12, 1947- New Frontier," op. cit., pp. 92-96. 15 Industrial Development at Port Arthur, op. cit., July 12, 1947- Russell Smith and M. Ogden Phillips, Industrial and Commer cial Geography, Third Edition, 1946, p. 217• of Corpus Christi, March 1947, p. 13, and November 1945 p. 24. 18 "Unofficial estimates were that the plant would cost about $50,000,000." The 21 Paso Times, May 17, 1948, p. 1. op. cit. , p. 18. 20pprt of Corpus Christi, March, 1947, p. 9. 21 Wood, op. cit., p. 18. 22 Interview with A. L. Rankin, Forwarder, Corpus Christi, August 29, 1947. 23 The interior cities of Dallas and Fort Worth are also centers for the production of cotton bale coverings and jute bags. Houston Port and Traffic Bureau maintains a branch office at Kansas City while the Galveston Wharves has branch offices at Dallas, Kansas City, and Washington, D. C. Port of Galveston, October, 1947, p. 1; R. T. Behannon, ’’Houston Port and Traffic Bureau,” Houston Port Book, November, 1948, P- 34- Gateway,” Business Week, July 31, 1948, p. 28 B. Johnson, ’’The Ports of Texas—A Resource of the Southwest , ” Monthly Business Review, September 1, 1947, p. 137- Significance to Texas producers and processors. Substantial por- tions of the principal products of Texas industry move into world markets through Texas ports. In normal times the huge cotton crop of 28 Texas must find '‘almost its entire market abroad. ” In most years more cotton moves into foreign markets through the ports of Texas than is raised on all Texas farms. In 1920 the raw cotton lint exported over Texas ports was valued at 482.1 million dollars or 1.7 times the 286.8 million dollar value of all cotton lint produced in Texas. Similarly in 1930 j raw cotton exported from Texas ports was valued at 299-6 million dollars as compared to the production value of 194-0 29 million dollars. With the outbreak of the Second World War, this relationship was reversed since the Atlantic ports were used "to reduce the distance traveled by convoys" and in order to divert "southwestern cotton and 30 other agricultural produce from foreign to domestic markets." As early as 1940, exports of raw cotton over Texas ports decreased to only 95-1 million dollars while the total value of the Texas crop of lint was 147-8 million dollars. If Texas had no deep-w r ater ports, one could assume that Texas cotton would move into world channels via neighboring ports. Consequently the value of the local ports to Texas producers could be measured in part by the saving in transportation costs from growing areas to the principal Texas ports as compared with an alternative port capable of handling the volume required. This saving is as real in the case of the Texas producer whose crop is utilized within the state as to producers selling abroad since the price paid for cotton entering the foreign markets determines the price paid for the cotton consumed domestically. Should foreign traffic be diverted from Texas ports, the Port of New Orleans would receive the major portion of this traffic. H. 'B. Cummins, Traffic Manager of the Houston Port and Traffic .Bureau, makes this point clear in the following statement: Houston, as a port of entry and egress for import and export goods moving to and from the great west- southwest, and especially that part of this vast area that lies nearer to Houston than to New Orleans, is primarily interested in the relationship of its all-rail rates to the rates proposed for the part-rail-part-barge routes between New Orleans and the west - southwest, Furthermore, Cummins believes the present relationship in freight rates between the "west-southwest” and the ports of Texas in relation to New Orleans is still unfair to Texas ports, indicating that should a fair adjustment be made the ports of Texas would offer greater savings in transportation costs on commodities exported from the "westsouthwest" than are now available. The statement of Cummins is as follows: The plea of the Texas Ports for fair treatment and a proper relationship to New Orleans is now before the Interstate Commerce Commission for final decision. Therefore, if the final decision be unfavorable to the Texas Ports, they have no recourse, except in the courts. 32 A comparison of freight rates on cotton from Dallas, Lubbock, and El Paso to New Orleans, as compared to the ports of Houston and Gal-33 veston, show a mean difference of 20.3 cents per hundred pounds. This figure is a conservative difference in freight charges from all of Texas to the above ports considering that cotton grown nearer the ports of Texas would suffer even greater differences in freight costs. That is, cotton grown near Houston ’would be forced to pay the total transportation costs to New Orleans whereas a nominal transportation charge would be made from locations near the port to the docks of Houston. Based on the above approximations, the availability of foreign markets through the ports of Texas saved Texas farmers per bale of cotton produced. At this rate of saving per bale, the total savings to Texas cotton growers were 4-5 million dollars in 1920; 4-1 million dollars in 1930; and 3-3 million dollars in 1940. Assuming this same rate of saving per bale, the cotton farmers of Texas have received 179-1 million dollars more for their cotton during the period 1895 / 34 through 1940 because Texas had port accommodations. The former year is of significance because in that year Galveston became the first Texas port to be afforded a "deep water” channel through a substantial appropriation of the United States government. Source: G. B. Perry, Chief Clerk, Division Freight and Passenger Office, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, El Paso, Texas, Sept ember, 1948. In the above analysis lies the answer to critics who would state that the expenditures for deep-water ports of Texas have not been jus- tified other than for military purposes. The conservative estimate of transportation savings of 179.1 million dollars on Texas cotton alone since 1895 is 78.2 million dollars above the approximated total costs of existing projects providing and maintaining channels and basins for 35 ocean-going vessels at Texas ports to June 30, 1947- Or, should one compare all ’’expenditures on harbor and channel improvement and main* 36 tenance along the Texas coast” amounting to ’’about ®135,000,000 through 1946” with the savings to Texas cotton farmers since 1895, the "savings” would exceed the "expenditures” by 44-1 million dollars. But the ports of Texas as outlets to foreign markets have also been extremely beneficial to other Texas producers and processors. Exports of wheat from Texas would use the Port of New Orleans in the main should Texas ports be closed to wheat shipments. The rate on wheat shipped from Amarillo or Port Worth to Nev; Orleans is 62.5 cents per hundred as compared to 48.0 cents per hundred from the same cities 37 to Galveston or Houston. Measured in bushels, the difference of 38 14.5 cents per hundred pounds becomes 8.7 cents per bushel.'' Assuming that all wheat produced in Texas increased in value the equivalent of the saving in freight, the 74-7 million bushel crop for 1944 increased in value 6.5 million dollars because ports in Texas were avail able to receive the wheat at a transportation saving of 8.7 cents per 39 bu shel. Unlike cotton, wheat production in Texas has increased markedly since 1900. Consequently, the annual saving on the smaller total production was considerably less for years preceding 1944. For the tenyear period 1933-1942, Texas averaged only 28.2 million bushels of 40 wheat produced as compared to 74.7 million bushels in 1944- Nevertheless, the 6.5 million dollar saving to wheat producers in 1944 supercedes the calculated freight saving for Texas cotton producers in either 1920, 1930, or 1940. This saving in freight to Texas ports over New Orleans can be shown for mineral as w r ell as agricultural products. For example refined copper for export moves from the El Paso refinery to Houston or Galveston at a rate of §7-92 per short ton as compared to §9-50 per y -J short ton to New Orleans. Similarly, carbon black produced in the Pampa or Borger field would absorb an additional freight charge of 14 cents per hundred pounds when sent to Nev; Orleans rather than to Gal-42 veston or Houston for exportation. Should refined copper or carbon black be sent to Mexico via El Paso, the rates to the Mexican border show even greater savings than the rates to Houston and Galveston. On the import side, substantial savings in freight are made on goods received at Texas ports despite tendencies of freight rates to favor the Port of New Orleans in some instances. For example bananas shipped by rail from Houston or Galveston to Dallas bear a rate of 65 cents per hundred pounds as compared to 79 cents from New Orleans to Dallas. This same rate differential of 14 cents per hundred also applies to bananas shipped to Amarillo although the rate per hundred pounds is 86 cents from Houston and Galveston as against $l.OO from 43 New Orleans. In addition to saving freight costs, routing shipments of bananas over Texas water or land ports saves spoilage and time in distribution to points within the state. Although savings in transportation by rail are in effect for bananas, the value of the ports vary for Texas processors of green coffee. Processors of green coffee in El Paso and Dallas can receive 44 coffee from Nev; Orleans for the same rate as from Houston. However, processors in Amarillo experience savings of 23 cents per hundred when receiving coffee from Houston rather than from New Orleans. .But the greatest saving and value of the ports are experienced by the coffee processors located at the water ports. At these points green coffee is delivered for the same ocean freight rate as to New Orleans. Houston and Corpus Christi, particularly, are taking advantage of this situation to become coffee processing centers. Similarly, the processors of jute burlap and bagging in the water ports now receive these products directly from foreign sources, saving the cost of transportation from domestic ports lying outside Texas. Tills situation has given considerable impetus to processors in Houston. On the other hand, Dallas enjoys a large processing industry of jute burlap and bagging. The raw material for this industry moves by rail / 45 from either New Orleans or Houston at 60 cents per hundred pounds. To the transportation savings already indicated could be added transportation savings for producers of petroleum, cement, paper manu-46 factures, steel fabrication, and many other products sent via the ports for domestic as well as foreign commerce. In using the deepwater ports for domestic transportation, benefits accrue to domestic producers and consumers as though the goods were sent to a foreign nation. Consequently, every producer or consumer of goods that can advantageously use the deep-water ports of Texas receives benefits when savings in transportation can be effected. Although foreign trade is desirable to producers and processors under most conditions, certain negative aspects present themselves. Those producers of commodities that can be produced cheaper abroad than at home will be forced to enter new productive enterprises or seek security behind restrictions imposed by the tariff or other import controls. In Texas, producers of long staple cotton, flax, cattle, lead, copper, and sugar are among a few of those normally seeking import restrictions. But new discoveries abroad may add industries now considered secure to the list of those desiring import controls. For example the sulphur producers of Texas have not needed restrictions on sulphur imports as the domestic producers have been able to compete with foreign 47 sources. However, Mexico is preparing to exploit large sulphur deposits in the southern part of that country by the use of the modern Frasch system. The goal is "to meet the competition after the war of 48 low-cost sulphur produced in Texas." Should the Mexican adventure be successful, the sulphur producers of Texas will be adversely affected by foreign trade. Other negative aspects of the foreign trade include the risk involved in the entrance of obnoxious diseases, insects, and plants. Texas ranchers are keenly aware of the destructiveness which could result from the possible entrance of the hoof and mouth disease from Mexico. From this same country the boll weevil entered in 1901 and proved to be the most destructive of cotton insects, spreading through 49 out much of the cotton belt. But the diseases are not always confined to plants and animals. Disease germs producing human fevers of various types have entered into the United States via cargo carried in planes and other vehicles. Humans afflicted with leprosy and other contagious diseases have also gained entrance despite the vigorous attempts to prevent such en-50 trances. These conditions cause sober reflection on the necessity for safeguarding our own economy while enjoying the benefits of foreign trade. L. Tutt, ’’Houston’s Foreign Trade,” Houston Port Book, November, 1927, p. 39- nd Carl F. Bartz, ’’Foreign Trade and the Gulf Southwest,” American Import and Export Bulletin, June, 1946, p. 361. Abstract of the United States, 1922, p. 163; 1932, p. 639-' Table XXVII, Chapter V. 30 J R. B. Johnson, op. cit., p. 132. B. Cummins, ’’Trends in Transportation,” Houston Port Book, November, 1948, p. 43• 99 Loc. cit. 33 See Table LXXXIX. estimated additional return of 179-1 million dollars is calculated by multiplying the total production of cotton for 1895-1946 of 176.5 million bales by $1,015. sSee 5 See Table XC. estimate covers expenditures on the Intracoastal Waterway as well as deep-water ports. R. B. Johnson, op. cit. , p. 134. 'Rates effective September 8, 1948. weighs 60 pounds per bushel. >7 This assumption is based upon conditions of free competition for under these conditions the lowest selling price of any unit of a product determines the sales price for the ’whole. In the case at hand, the world market consumes the surplus of Texas production. Then, other factors being equal, any additional cost for transportation to the world market will be borne not only by the unfortunate producer of those units so marketed but also by competing producers who sell in the domestic market. Abstract of the United States, 1944-1946, P- 692. this instance the domestic rates of transporting copper from El Paso to the port cities exceeded the rate on copper for export. The domestic rate on September 8, 1943 was §l4-62 per short ton to Houston or Galveston as compared to §16.36 to New Orleans. G. B. Perry, Chief Clerk, Division Freight and Passenger Office, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, September 3, 1943. Rates on carbon black from Pampa or Borger to Galveston or Houston were 65 cents per hundred pounds while 79 cents per hundred when shipped via New Orleans. B. Perry, Chief Clerk, Division Freight and Passenger Office, The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, September 8, 1948. green coffee rate from the cities of Nev; Orleans, Galveston, and Houston to Dallas is 44 cents per hundred as compared to $1.03 to El Paso. B. Perry, Chief Clerk, Division Freight and Passenger Office, The .Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, El Paso, Texas, September 8, 1948. The fast growing paper industry of Texas is already in the export business. The Southland Paper Mills, Inc. ships "some newsprint to Mexico." Letter from Ed Holden, Manager, Angelina County Chamber of Commerce, Tune IS, 1948. in any form" bears a "duty-free status bound" under the agreement with the United Kingdom dated January 1, 1939. United States Department of State, United States Import Duties, 1946, p. 349- I g "Mexican Sulphur," Business Week, February 1?, 1945 > P- 114- Producing Centers Freight Rate in Dollars per Cwt. to: Houston or Galveston New Orleans Difference Dallas .350 .630 .280 Lubbock .. . . .630 .820 .190 El Paso . . . . .800 .940 .140 Total ... 1.780 2.390 .610 Mean .... • 593 .796 .203 TABLE LXXXIX CARLOAD FREIGHT RATES ON BALED RAW COTTON FROM PRODUCING CENTERS IN TEXAS TO HOUSTON, GALVESTON, AND NW ORLEANS, SEPTEMBER 9, 1948 The ports as a major investment. To accommodate ocean shipping at the ports of Texas, a large permanent investment has been made 51 along the coast. To June 30, 1947 a total expenditure of $100,859,- 673-17 had been made for all existing projects providing channels and basins for ocean-going vessels at Texas ports. Of this total, the na- tional government spent $95,776,042.14 as compared to $5,083,631.03 Source: United States War Department, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, 1947, Pt. I, Vol. I, pp. 1079-1191. a lncludes $32,000.00 in ’'value of useful work performed.” deep-water channels and harbors for Port (Point) Isabel and Port of Brownsville. contributed by local interests. New work accounted for $49,606,198.38 or 51-8 per cent of the national expenditure while $46,169,843-76 or 48.2 per cent was expended on maintenance. The national expenditures of 54-7 million dollars in the Galveston Bay area exceeded all other expenditures for deep-water channels and basins along the Texas Coast. Nev; work in the Galveston Bay area accounted for 27-7 million dollars or slightly over half the total national expenditure in that area. The greatest national expenditure was allocated to the Houston Ship Channel project. A total outlay of 20.9 million dollars has been applied to this project as compared to 9.0 million dollars on the Galveston Channel, 5-9 million dollars for the Texas City Channel, and 0.7 million dollars for the Port Bolivar Channel. National expenditures on the Sabine-Neches Waterway were 20.0 million dollars or second to expenditures in the Galveston Bay area. Total national expenditures at other deep-water ports of Texas are as follows: 13.8 million dollars for the Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway; 5-5 million dollars for the Brazos Island Harbor project serving the ports of Fort Isabel and Brownsville; and 3-9 million dollars applied to the Freeport Harbor project. /Although the ports of Fort Isabel and Brownsville received national aid of only 5-5 million dollars, the local contribution was 1.7 million dollars or greater than the local contribution for any other major port served. Houston’s local contribution was 1.4 million dollars as compared to 0.7 million dollars for Galveston and 0.8 million dollars for Freeport. Local contributions for remaining projects were 52 less than 0.5 million dollars each. Proposed expenditures of the national government during the year ending June 30, 1948 calls for an additional outlay of 2.2 million dollars for new work and 3*7 million dollars for maintenance of the 53 deep-water ports of Texas. ' New work allotments were for only three projects as follows: Sabine-Neches Waterway, $1,024,319*34; Brazos Island Harbor, $689,643*79; and. Port Aransas-Corpus Christi Waterway, $458,731*58. However, national maintenance was allocated to all deepwater projects with the Houston Ship Channel receiving $1,474,538.28 or over twice the amount allocated to any other project. The above described expenditures have applied only to the channels and water basins of the deep-water ports. Other large outlays of local capital have been expended on private and public industrial wharves, docks, terminals, dry docks, and other facilities serving the needs of the trade. While no accurate estimates of this investment are available for all. the deep-water ports of Texas, the total is far beyond the value expended on the channels and basins. The Port of Houston estimates that the investments along the Houston Ship Channel in port facilities alone "amount to approximately $116,000,000" or more than the total expenditure for new work and maintenance to date 54 for all the deep-water ports of Texas. ’’balance unexpended at end of fiscal year, including accounts receivable,” plus the allotment for fiscal year ending lune 30, 1945. Source: United States War Department, Office of the Chief of Engi neers, Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army, 1947, Pt. I, Vol. I, pp. 1079-1191. The increased value in land properties due to port development is also tremendous. ’’The assessed valuation of the land and other taxable properties located within the principal navigation districts in Texas is approximately $1,125,000,000, and their actual value probably 55 exceeds $2,000,000,000.” The tremendous increase in land values along the water channels is vividly portrayed in the development of the Brownsville Ship Channel. Before the construction of the channel, the Brownsville Navigation District purchased the land on each side of the proposed ship channel for a nominal sum. After the construction of the channel, a few long-term leases of factory sites along the 56 channel paid for the initial expenditure. Indirectly the deep-water ports of Texas are responsible for other investments even greater in value than the channels, basins, and port facilities already depicted. In most instances these values are joint investments, having been created in part by domestic as well as foreign trade. Among these investments are the factories on the ship channel or throughout the state engaged in processing goods that enter the foreign trade channels, wholly or in part. In addition every acre of ground that yields wheat, cotton, oil, sulphur, salt, or some other product for the foreign market will tend to be capitalized to reflect the savings in transportation made possible by the deep-water ports of Texas. Other investments created wholly or in part by the ports are the office buildings, the financial institutions, the service establishments, the transportation systems, and the marketing establishments which are required to meet the needs of the foreign trade movement. For example the trucks that haul bananas from Brownsville to the distant cities of Los Angeles and Chicago are investments made possible by this trade just as surely as the additional offices required to house the middlemen that serve the foreign trade and the doctors, the lawyers, and accountants that meet their service needs. But added to these investments are the homes, the schools, and the churches made economically possible by the jobs and purchasing power created through the foreign trade movement. In this latter area another value of the foreign trade is uncovered, one that cannot be measured in a static investment but in the flow of incomes to individuals and families. Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide, 1947-1948, p. 197- 50 In recent years, entrances of two persons with leprosy have been detected in the El Faso Customs District. 51 See Table XC. $ 2 See Table XC. Table XCI. B. Johnson, "The Ports of Texas--A Resource of the South west," op. cit., p. 134. cit. Personal interview with. F. W. Hofmokel, General Manager and Director of Port, Port of Brownsville, August 28, 1947- United States Contributed Total Cost Existing Project New Work Maintenance U.S. Total Funds of Project Sabine-Ne ches Waterway . $11,031,141.26 $ 8,920,113.35 $20,001,254.61 1 335,500.00" $ 20,386,754.61 Galveston Harbor 11,289,382.60 4,667,249.54 15,957,132.14 — — — 15,957,132.14 Galveston Channel 3,960,037.73 5,059,131.49 9,019,219.22 710,274.77 9,729,493.99 Texas City Channel 2,287,976.30 3,648,201.30 5,936,177.60 28,740.68 5,964,918.23 Port Bolivar Channel ... 133,924.60 611,503.00 745,427.60 — — — 745,427.60 Houston Ship Channel ... 9,958,534.99 10,933,746.17 20,892,281.16 1,365,000.00 22,257,281.16 Freeport Harbor 1,217,636.63 2,680,241.27 3,397,377.90 758,302.79 4,656,180.69 Port Aransas - Corpus Christi Waterway ..... 5,975,026.88 7,839,076.88 13,814,103.76 152,555.09 13,966,658.85 Brazos Island Harbor 0 . . 3,701,937.39 1,810,580.76 5,512,568.15 1,633,257.70 7,195,825.85 Total $49,606,198.38 >46,169,343.76 #95,776,042.14 $5,083,631.03 #100,859,673.17 TABLE XC ALLOCATION OF COSTS FOR EXISTING PROJECTS PROVIDING CHANNELS AND BASINS FOR OCEAN-GOING VESSELS AT TEXAS PORTS TO JUNE 30, 1947 New Work Maintenance Total Sabine-Neches Waterway . . .. $1,024,319.34 $ 600,910.73 $1,625,230.07 Galveston Harbor — — — 279,840.57 279,840.57 Galveston Channel . . 42,376.29 42,376.29 Texas City Channel — — — 296,830.86 296,830.86 Port Bolivar Channel .... . • — — — 18,000.00 18,000.00 Houston Ship Channel .... — 1,474,538.28 1,474,538.28 Freeport Harbor — 199,050.77 199,050.77 Port - Corpus Christi Waterway 458,731.58 525,163.19 983,894.77 Brazos Island Harbor .... • 689,643-79 255,038.24 944,682.03 Total . 12,172,694.71 $3,691,748.93 $5,864,443.64 TABLE XCI PROPOSED EXPENDITURES ON EXISTING PROJECTS PROVIDING CHANNELS AND BASINS FOR OCEAN-GOING VESSELS AT TEXAS PORTS FOR YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1948 a Effect on employment and purchasing power. In the operation of the ports of Texas, a large labor force is required, creating a la.rge payroll. In 1940, 6,900 workers were engaged in stevedoring, 9,150 in water transportation, and 2,600 in ship building and repair. Additional employees held managerial, clerical, and labor classifications in activities related to traffic management, cargo movements, billing, financing, and insuring the merchandise handled at the transportation terminals, warehouses, and other port facilities. The total employment in direct port operations in 1947 was .conservatively estimated ”at 30,000 to 35,000 persons, with a pay roll of perhaps #90,000,000 annually.” As a source of employment in Texas, the ports are exceeded only by the single industries of inland transportation, construction, food processing, and petroleum refining, with the latter industry supplying approximately 3,000 more jobs than di-57 rect port operations. A study prepared by the United States Department of State in 1947 also reveals that a large portion of the income receivers in Texas are directly or indirectly receiving benefits from foreign trade. According to this report: Over 46 percent of the 2,138,000 persons gainfully employed in Texas in 1940 were engaged in agriculture, forestry and fishing; transportation, communication and other public utilities; or in manufacturing which were benefited by foreign trade. The prosperity of the rest is intimately connected with the prosperity of the first group and was, therefore, also significantly affected by foreign trade. Included in the second group were those engaged in wholesale and retail trade; amusement, recreation and related services; construction; finance and insurance; business and repair services; or professional and related services. Approximately two-thirds of Texas farms "benefited directly and substantially from foreign trade in 1939, while the remaining third received smaller or indirect advantages from exports." In this same year, "almost 273,000 Texas farms, representing 65 percent of all farms in the state, grew cotton on 8,105,000 acres." Another "26,000 farms covering 2,744,000 acres" raised wheat. While the total returns to rice and hog farms were materially less than to producers of wheat and cotton, their income was greater because the "United States ex-59 ports significant amounts of these products." The United States Department of State also believed that "at least 54 percent" of those engaged in manufacturing in Texas during 1939 were "employed by industries affected nationally by export sales." In addition "a very large share of the balance of those engaged in manufacture" were employed in industries which "prosper as the rest of 60 the state prospers.” Incomes are also derived by persons in the interior of Texas who are engaged in exporting, importing, financing, insuring, transporting, and storing merchandise in the foreign trade. The increasing importance of the foreign trade to businesses located in the interior is expressed as follows by C. J. Watson, Manager of the Manufacturing and Distribution Department of the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce: Certainly world trade is of importance to every city in the United States today. During the past few years several Fort Worth manufacturers have been shipping to South Innerica, and others will now be interested in shipping to European countries. It is the belief of W. H. Strong, Chairman of the Foreign Commerce Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, that within a comparatively short time every city in this area will be conducting an import-export business with cities throughout the world. $1 B. Johnson, ’’The Forts of Texas--A Resource of the Southwest,” op. cit., p. 134. and Foreign Trade, 1947, P- 5. 59 Loe. cit. SIGNIFICANCE TO REMAINING HINTERLAND Significance to producers and processors. Before the ports of Texas received federal aid to undertake the development of deep-water channels and ports, the producers in the hinterland brought political pressure upon Congress to allocate funds to such a project. In the 1880’s the introduction of the drought resistant varieties of wheat, coupled with dry-land farming techniques, increased the production of wheat on the plains of New Mexico, Texas, Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. However, the net returns from the crop w r ere materially restricted due to high transportation costs to the eastern markets or water terminals for exportation. To correct this condition, the producers convened the Deep Harbor Convention in Topeka, Kansas on October 4, 1889. At this convention the following resolution was adopted: Resolved, That in reaffirmance of the action of the Denver convention, and of the committees organized thereunder, it is the sense of this convention that it is the duty of congress to appropriate permanently, and for immediate use, whatever amount is necessary to secure a deep water port on the northwest coast of the Gulf of Mexico, w r est of the 934 degree west longitude, capable of admitting the largest vessels, and at which the best and most accessible harbor can be secured and maintained in the shortest possible time, and at least cost; the time, place, and cost, to be ascertained from the board of engineers, appointed under an act of congress passed at its last session. In formulating this resolution, the producers specifically expressed an interest in a deep-water port located on the Texas Coast or on the very western tip of the Louisiana Coast at the earliest possible moment. Congress recognized this request in the year submitted and granted a federal appropriation of $6,200,000 to establish a deepwater port at Galveston. The deep-water jetty system to Bolivar Roads was completed by 1895 • Today the ports of Texas, both land and water, are more essential to the producers in the hinterland beyond the borders of Texas than in 1889. In 194 b, 1947, and 1948, unprecedented volumes of wheat and flour flowed to Galveston, Houston, and other ports of Texas for foreign destinations. Cotton from New Mexico, Oklahoma, and parts of Arkansas and Louisiana regularly moves to the water ports of Texas for exportation. In addition pipe lines bring petroleum from New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana to the Texas Coast for re-63 finement and, in part, for movement abroad. To the land as well as the water ports of Texas, the factories in the interior of the hinterland send machinery, vehicles, and other equipment for shipment abroad On the import side, bananas, coffee, sugar, newsprint, and cattle normally move in volume through Texas ports to the interior of the hinterland. Banana distribution tends to blanket the Secondary as well as the Primary Hinterland while Mexican cattle are sought by 64 ranchers in the west and feeders in the corn belt. The imports of coffee, sugar, and paper via Texas ports do not penetrate so far inland as bananas and cattle. In the main, the states of the Primary Hinterland are the principal receivers of these products as the more distant states are served more economically via the Mississippi River or eastern seaboard. The use of Texas ports by producers and processors is primarily due to savings in transportation. In many instances the availability of an alternate route is the basis for requests for lower freight rates to existing markets. In this manner many producers in the northern states have secured lower rates compelled by routes through Texas ports. Also the availability of the alternate ports has been used to advantage when strikes or other difficulties have restricted 65 the flow of goods via eastern ports. Beyond the savings in transportation, other advantages accrue to producers in the hinterland states. In the first place, products from Texas and neighboring states find outlets at the ports, lessening the economic competition for the remaining domestic market. Furthermore, the portion of the sales made to foreign customers via Texas ports may have an important effect upon the profitableness of an industry. The tendency is for plants with sales abroad to operate nearer capacity and to reduce the unit costs of the product. reference was made to newspaper publishing, printing, and bakeries as examples. from C. JI Watson, Manager, Manufacturing and Distribution Department, Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, Fort Worth, Texas, July 8, 1948. of Galveston on the Gulf of Mexico, 1948, pp. 1-2. Oil and Gas, 1947, op. , pp. 24-25. the efforts to prevent cattle shipments to the United States from Mexico during the outbreak of hoof and mouth disease in Mexico, the economic pressure is so great '’that there is considerable smuggling of Mexican cattle into the United States at the border.” Statement attributed to Clinton Anderson, senator-elect from Nev/ Mexico, The El Paso Times, November 10, 1943, p. 10. Significance in increased investments, income, and employment. Whenever increased savings are made by using alternate trade channels, these savings serve both as a source and as an incentive for greater investment in plant and equipment. The Kansas wheat farmer as well as the Minneapolis miller can safely invest more money in plant and equip ment when greater returns per unit are assured and additional markets are available. This reasoning follows the reasoning presented for savings to Texas producers but is as truly applicable to producers more distant from the ports. In general, even greater expenditures per unit are invested to transport and insure cargo to the ports from the more distant points. Services of financial institutions and middlemen are also more urgently needed. Not only do these activities require additional investments in buildings and equipment but also require more personnel to service these needs. In this manner the distant areas served by the ports benefit by increased incomes and purchasing power. latter alternative was used in November, 1943 when eastern ports were undergoing labor difficulties. NATIONAL AND GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE National significance. The availability of deep-water ports particularly have value from the standpoint of national defense. The deep-water basins are available for loading and discharging military cargo and refueling military vessels. Moreover, shipyards located at Texas ports provide the trained personnel and facilities for building and repairing vessels. Although the submarine menace during the last war prevented free use of the Texas ports, the very fact that ports existed along the Texas Coast required the enemy to employ extra military strength to insure their semi-inactivity. Furthermore, the ports of 1 Texas served in an admirable fashion to construct and repair vessels. The ports of Orange and Houston were engaged in major shipbuilding activities while other ports built smaller craft and serviced military vessels. In addition, the warehousing facilities of the ports of Beaumont, Brownsville, and Corpus Christi were most valuable as storage for wool and other strategic military supplies. In peace-time the ports also have substantial national significance. The added investment, employment, and purchasing power created by the foreign trade through Texas ports swells the national total. In doing so, demands for goods and services from all parts of the nation are increased, benefiting those industries and communities supplying these needs. More directly, the tax load is made lighter as increased incomes enlarge the revenue from income taxes while increased imports likewise increase the customs duties collected. Global significance. The foreign trade flowing through Texas ports provides additional avenues by which international specialization of labor and resources can be advantageously exchanged. Through the land and water ports come products sorely needed but inefficiently produced in our economy. In exchange, our production specialties are sent abroad in bilateral or multilateral trade. Under even the restricted conditions of world trade, the exchange of these production specialties bring increased standards of living for all participants. In the main., this foreign trade is based upon absolute advantages rather than comparative advantages. For example our specialty in cotton finds outlets in nations specialized in weaving textiles while our wheat goes to those industrialized nations with concentrated populations. In return, several tropical products as coffee, sugar, and bananas are received from nations capable of producing these products under conditions of absolute advantage. Also under conditions of absolute advantage several ores as copper, tin, lead, and zinc are received. In the case of lead and copper, the foreign suppliers nor- mally have such a decided productive advantage that tariff restrictions have been imposed to lessen competition with domestic producers. Of international significance is the saving in transportation made possible by the establishment of land and water ports along the Texas Coast and international border. For example, cattle from Mexico in many cases are driven across the border while ores will enter that Texas land or water port most advantageously situated for smelting. In the case of fresh fruits, the saving in time reduces transportation losses which reflect in decreased costs of distribution. Furthermore, the foreign trade facilities of Texas ports are useful in international emergencies. In time of war, allied nations may use these ports for servicing their shipping and naval craft. From these same ports, relief equipment and supplies can be hastened to foreign countries in distress. The expeditious relief to war-torn areas is only one example. Another international emergency occurred when Mexico was caught in the grip of the dreaded hoof and mouth disease. Here again, the avenues of foreign trade through Texas ports hastened men and supplies to wage a peaceful war on a common enemy. FUTURE SIGNIFICANCE The future role of the foreign trade over Texas ports will be determined in a large measure by the political and economic developments within and without the hinterland. The tariff and other controls established in the future by the United States and foreign countries could greatly affect the flow of foreign commerce via Texas ports. The present trend toward less nationalistic controls of foreign commerce should increase the total trade over Texas ports even though foreign trade in individual commodities is curtailed. Economic changes along the Texas Coast have been basic and rapid in the past few years. Despite the rapid change, certain aspects and characteristics of this economy are emerging. The known fuel reserves of petroleum and natural gas near the Texas Coast are unmatched in the nation and should provide cheap power, electricity, and heat for the foreseeable future. Also within the Primary Hinterland are located the raw materials and production facilities for supplying the needs of the construction industry. In addition to cement, lumber, steel, and stone, there are projects for producing magnesium, aluminum, zinc, tin, lead, copper, and antimony which are operating or are under construction to operate with mass production techniques. Under the current trends in transportation regulations, these products should be available to local manufacturers at f.o.b. factory prices. Added to the basic industries on the Texas Coast are factories producing alkalies, acids, and myriad chemical preparations from the petroleum, gas, salts, and sulphur now located along the coast in a relatively pure state. In the field of agriculture, the basic foods of vegetables, fruits, wheat, and maize are available in large quantities. Fibers available near the coast include cotton, wool, mohair, flax, and nylon from nylon salts now being produced near Orange, Texas In summarizing the basic wealth available in the coastal region, Robert E. Wood, Chairman of the Board of Sears, Roebuck and Company, made the following statement: “Within a 200-mile radius of Houston more wealth is taken from the soil than from any equivalent area on 66 earth. ’’ Nov; the trend is to introduce factories to utilize these basic agricultural and mineral products such as manufacturers of starch, dextrose, equipment, machinery, paints, varnishes, textile mills, and many others. Should these factories also be geared to mass production methods, the demand for foreign markets will be substantial. Then should the population of the coastal region double by 1970 as predicted by Robert E. Wood, much of the agricultural surplus now moving abroad will be needed at home. Furthermore, increased imports from foreign sources will be needed to meet the personal and industrial needs of the industrialized urban settlements. While these general conclusions seem warranted, individual commodities now exported in volume will likely suffer severe competition from foreign producers. Cotton production has been increased substantially in India and South America while Argentina, Australia, and possibly .Russia will be vigorous competitors in the foreign wheat markets National efforts of Caribbean countries to discover oil and exploit the known sulphur deposits could also reduce the exports of these commodities. On the other hand, further mechanization of wheat and cotton farms could retain profitable world markets for these producers. Also the long overdue introduction of large textile mills on the coast could bring about a more profitable foreign trade through marketing textiles rather than raw cotton. The recent trend in domestic production definitely indicates a diversification of products, increased processing, and the usual mass production technique which thrives best on a large widespread market. Under these conditions the colonial economy of Texas will give way to a predominately industrialized one. To accommodate the increased foreign traffic, additional outlays of capital investments will be needed to deepen channels and basins, equip docks and wharves, and provide storage. To accomplish this goal will require capital, political influence, and resourcefulness. Much of the capital for deepening, widening, and extending the channels will depend upon convincing the national legislators of the need. While this body had been relatively slow in approving projects of this type in the past, the tempo has increased greatly in the past 25 years. Fortunately at the present time, Texas and the states of the hinterland have local members holding important positions in both 67 houses of the national congress. When profitable expansion of port and terminal facilities is needed, the increasing supply of capital in the coastal region and hinterland should be able to meet these needs. That capital has been accumulated during the war years is reflected in the increased income taxes paid by the people in the states of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado. In 1941 the income-tax receipts in these four states totaled 68 134 million dollars as compared to 1,595 million dollars in 1947- In many instances, established industrial concerns can finance these improvements with their own capital as is commonly done by the oil companies operating port facilities on the deep-water channels of the coast. Should the above sources of capital not supply adequate facilities, the citizens of the navigation districts have tended in times past to vote affirmatively to issue bonds for the needed port facilities. Fortunately, the present bonded indebtedness of the principal navigation districts in Texas is not excessive, being ’’somewhat less than in 1946 ”as compared with an assessed valuation of taxable properties within the districts totaling about $1,125,000,- 69 000.” Under these circumstances, any additional demands for port facilities which are based upon a stable growth of foreign commerce should be provided with reasonable dispatch. op. cit. , p. I?. bn Senator Tom Connally and Representative Sam Rayburn are among the influential legislators from the State of Texas. Z ri ’’The Land of the Big Rich.” Fortune, April, 1948, p. 99- 69 R. B. Johnson, ’'The Ports of Texas--A Resource of the Southwest,” op. cit., p. 137- BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Agriculbural Imports and Exports in Relation to American Agriculture. Washington: Agricultural Department, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, May, 1945. Berglund, Abraham. Ocean 'Transportation. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1931- Bigham, Truman C. Transportation, Principles and Problems. First Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1947- Bogart, Ernest L., and Donald L. Kemmerer. Economic History of the American People. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1943- "Book of Texas, The." Book of Knowledge, Vol. XXI. Dallas, Texas: The Grolier Society, 1929. Bryan, Leslie A. Principles of Water Transportation. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1939- Budd, John F. Customs House Guide. New York: Import Publications, Inc., 1942, 1945, 1947. Corps of Engineers. United States Army. "Commercial Statistics, Water-borne Commerce of the United States for the Calendar Year 1945." Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, 1946. Part 11. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1947. Intracoastal Waterway, Section from Sabine River to Brownsville, Texas. Galveston, Texas: U. S. Engineer Office, May, 1945* Port and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Corpus Christi Texas. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 19417 Port and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of Galveston "and Texas City ,~~Texas. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1941. Fort and Terminal Facilities at the Port of Houston, Texas. United States Government Printing Office 19417 Port and Terminal Facilities at the Ports of New Orleans and Lake Charles, La. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1944- The Port of Galveston, Texas. Fort Series No. 6, Part I, Revised 1928. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1929. The Port of Galveston, Texas. Port Series No. 6, Part I Revised 1935* Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1936. . The Port of Houston, Texas, Port Series No. 6, Part IT. Revised 1935* Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1936. Corps of Engineers. United States Army and United States Maritime Commission. The Ports of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Orange, Texas. Port Series No. 22. Revised 1946". Washington: United States Printing Office, 1946. Corps of Engineers. United States Army. The Port of Portland, Oregon Port Series No. 11, Part I. Revised 1931- Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1932. The Ports of Texas City and Corpus Christi, Texas. Port Series No. 6, Part 111. Revised 1935- Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1936. Directory of Texas Manufacturers. Austin, Texas: Bureau of Business Research, College of Business Administration, The University of Texas, 1946. Dowell, Austin A., and Oscar B. Jesness. The American Farmer and the Export Market. Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press 1934- ' Enke, Stephen, and Virgil Salera. International Economics. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1947- Fancher, George H. ”The Natural Gas and Gasoline Industry.” Texas Looks Ahead, Vol. I_, The Resources of Texas. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas, 1944- Faulkner, Harold Underwood. American Economic History. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1929* Fenneman, Nevin M. Physiography of Western United States. Fourth Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1931- Forman, S. E. The Rise of_ American Commerce and Industry. New York: The Century Co., 1927. Frederick, John H. Commercial Air 'Transportation. Chicago: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1945 • Goode, J. Paul. Goode T s School Atlas. 194 b Edition. New York: Rand McNally and Company, 1946. Hammond' s New Supreme Illustrated Atlas of the World. Nev; York: Garden City Publishing Company, Inc., 1939. Henius, Frank. Dictionary of Foreign Trade. New York: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1946. Horn, Paul V. International Trade and Practices. Revised Edition. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1943- Issacs, Asher. International Trade. Chicago: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 1948. Johnson, Elmer H. "Chemical Industries in the Post-War World." Texas Looks Ahead, Vol. I_, The Resources of Texas. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas, 1944’ . The Basis of the Commercial and Industrial Development of Texas Resources. Austin: The University of Texas, 1933- . "What Texas Has Done Industrially." Texas Looks Ahead, Vol. 1., The Resources of Texas. Austin: The University of Texas, 1944* Johnson, Emory R., Grover G. Huebner, and G. Lloyd Wilson. Transportation, Economic Principles and Practices. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., 1940. Klimm, Lester E., Otis P. Starkey, and Norman F. Hall. Economic Geography. Second Edition. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company 1940. Laws of Texas, The, 1822-18'97. Compiled and arranged by H. P. N. Gammed. Vols. I, 11. Austin, Texas: The Gammel Book Company, 1898. Livingston, Burton E., and Forrest Shreve. The Distribution of Vegetation in the United States, as Related to Climatic Conditions. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication No. 284. Washington: Gibson Brothers, Inc., 1921. Lott, F. S., and H. Backus. “Natural Gas.” Minerals Yearbook, 1944. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1946. McCampbell, Coleman. Saga of a Frontier Seaport. Dallas, Texas: South-West Press, 1934- McNally, Rand. World Atlas. Premier Edition. New York: Rand McNally and Company, 1946. Magruder, Frank A. American Government. New York: Allyn and Bacon, 1939. Mallory, John A. Compiled Statutes of the United States, 1913- Vol. 111. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1914- Mills, W. W. Forty Years at El Paso, 1838-1898. Publisher omitted. Copyright, 1901 by W. W. Mills. Olson, Paul R., and Charles A. Hickman. Pan American Economics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1943- Our 100 Leading Imports. Washington: Foreign Commerce Department, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, 1945- Parkins, A. E., and J. R. Whitaker. Our Natural Resources and Their Conservation. Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1939. Parkins, Almon E. The South, Its Economic-Geographic Development. New York: John ’Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1938. Pierce, Frank C. A Brief History of the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Publishing Company, 1917. Plummer, F. B. "Cenozoic Systems in Texas.” The Geology of Texas, Vol. Stratigraphy. Austin: The University of Texas, 1932 ’'Water Resources.” Texas Looks .Ahead, Vol. I, The Resources of Texas. Austin: The University of Texas, 1944- Port Book of the Port of Galveston. Galveston, Texas: Galveston Chamber of Commerce, 1932. Port of Galveston. Galveston, Texas: Galveston Wharves, October, 1947- Port of Galveston, on the Gulf of Mexico. Galveston, Texas: Traffic Department, Galveston Chamber of Commerce, 1948. Power, H. H. "Tae Oil Industry." Texas Looks Ahead, Vol. 1., The Resources of Texas. Austin: The University of Texas, 1944- Prather, Charles L. Money and Banking. Third Edition. Chicago: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1946. Richardson, Rupert Norval. Texas, the Lone Star State. New York Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1943- Roorbach, George B. Problems in Foreign Trade. First Edition. Nevi York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1933- Shannon, Fred Albert. America’s Economic Growth. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1940. Simonds, Frederic William. The Geography of Texas. Revised Edition. New York: Ginn and Company, 1914- Smith, Everett G. Marketing Maps of the United States. Houston: Commercial Drafting Service, 1942. Smith, J. Russell, and M. Ogden Phillips. Industrial and Commercial Geography. Third Edition. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1946. Stenzel,-H. B. ’’Coals." Texas Looks Ahead, Vol. The Resources of Texas. Austin: The University of Texas, 1944- Story of the Banana, The. boston: Educational Department, United Fruit Company, 1941- Technological Trends and National Policy. Report of the Subcommittee on Technology to the National Resources Committee. Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1937- Texas Almanac and State Industrial Guide. Dallas, Texas: The Dallas Morning News, 1945-1946; 1947-1943. Texas Oil and Gas, 1947. Dallas, Texas: Texas Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. Texas Planning Board, The. Development of Texas Rivers. Austin: The Texas Planning Board, March, 1933. Thompson, Charles M., and Fred M. Jones, economic Development of the United States. New York: The 'Macmillan Company, 1939- Thornthwaite, C. Warren. "Climate and Settlement in the Great Plains." Climate and Man, Yearbook of Agriculture, 1941. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1941. Timm, Charles A. The International Boundary Commission; United States and Mexico. Austin: University Publications, The University of Texas, 1941- United States Code. Titles 17-33 in force January 3, 1941- Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1941- ___. Supplement IV. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1945- . Supplement V. January 3, 1941 to January 13, 1946. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1946. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics, 1944- Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1944- . "Frost and the Growing Season." Atlas of American Agriculture. Washington: United States Government Printing Office 1936. "Precipitation and Humidity.’* Atlas of American Agriculture. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1936. . ’’Temperature, Sunshine, and Wind.” Atlas of American Agriculture. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1936. United States Department of Commerce and Labor. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Commerce and Navigation of the United States. Years 1910-1912. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. Bureau of Statistics. Commerce and Navigation of the United States. Years 1907-1909- Washington: United States Government Printing Office. . Bureau of Statistics. Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. Years 1904-1906. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. United States Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. Years 1941-1944- Washington: United States Government Printing Office. . Bureau of the Census. Manufactures, 1939• Vol. 11, Parts 1, 2. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1942. • Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Years 1922, 1932, 1944-45, 1946. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. . Bureau of the Census. Summary of the Foreign Commerce of the United States, 1947- Washington: United States Government Printing Office, May, 1948. • Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Foodstuffs Trade with Latin America. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1941. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. Years 1913-1940. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Survey of Current Business. Supplements for 1940, 1942. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. Navigation Laws of the United States, 1940• Compiled by Frederick K. Artz. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1940. . Office of Domestic Commerce. United States Petroleum Refining, War and Post War. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1948. United States Department of Interior. .Bureau of Mines. Minerals Yearbook, 1944- Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1946. United States Department of State. Analysis of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Signed at Geneva, October 30, 1947» Washington: United States Government Printing Office, November, 1947- United States Import Duties. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1946. United States Statutes at Large. Vols. 1-59, covering years 1789-1945. Washington: United States Government Printing Office and Other Designated Publishers. United States Treasury Department. Bureau of Customs. Customs Regulations of the United States. 1943 Edition. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1943- Bureau of Statistics. Foreign Commerce and Navigation of the United States. Years 1899-1903. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. . "Commerce and Navigation of the United States.” Executive Documents. Years 1845-1898. Washington: United States Government Printing Office and Other Designated Publishers. United States War Department. Office of the Chief of Engineers. Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers of the United States Army. Years 1946, 1947- ’Washington: United States Government Printing Office. Van Zandt, J. Parker. ”Air Transport.” Transportation and National Policy. (Prepared for National Resources Planning Board.) Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1942. Webb, Walter Prescott. The Great Plains. Dallas: Ginn and Company, 1931. White, A. G. , F. S. Lott, A. T. Coumbre, and A. L. Clapp. ’’Crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products.” Minerals Yearbook, 1944. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 19'46• White, C. Langdon, and Edwin J. Foscue. Regional Geography of Anglo- America. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1943- Wilson, G. Lloyd. ’’Petroleum Pipe Line Transportation.” Transportation and National Policy. (Prepared under direction of National Resources Planning Board.) Washington: United States Government Printing Office, May, 1942. Winter, Nevin 0. Texas, the Marvelous. Garden City, New York: Garden City Publishing Company, Inc., 1936. Wortham, Louis J. A History of Texas. Vol. V. Fort Worth, Texas: Wortham-Molyneaux Company, 1924. Ziegler, Jesse A. Wave of the Gulf. San Antonio, Texas: The Naylor Company, 1938. Zimmermann, Erich W. World Resources and Industries. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1933- Periodicals American Aviation Air 'Traffic Guide. Washington: American Aviation Associates, Inc., June, 1947; April, 1943. Aston, J. R. ’’Houston as a Coffee Port.” Houston Port Book. Houston, Texas: Houston Navigation and Canal Commission, May, 1933- Atha, R. E. "Rapid Growth Shown in Coffee Industry." Houston Port Book. Houston, Texas: Houston Navigation and Canal Commission May, 1948. Bartz, Carl F. "Foreign Trade and the Gulf Southwest." .American Import and Export Bulletin. New York: Import Publications, Inc., June, 1946. Business Week. Albany, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, Inc., April 24, 1943; December 4, 1943- "Busy Gateway." Business 'Week. Albany, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, Inc., July 31, 1948. Coffee Statistics. New York: Pan American Coffee Bureau, "July-Dec., 1941.° Corpus Christi Port Book. Corpus Christi, Texas: Nueces County Navigation Commission, June, 1946. Cummings, H. B. "Houston’s Geographical Position on the C-ulf of Mexico." Houston Port Book. Houston: Houston Port Commission May, 1946. "Trends in Transportation." Houston Fort Book. Houston, Texas: Harris County Houston Ship Channel Navigation District, November, 1948. "Customs Office Removal Protested.*' The Houston Post. Three Star ——•- 'I- — — . Edition. Houston: Houston Post Company, August 10, 1947, pp. 1, 5. 21 Faso Times, The. El Paso, Texas: El Paso Times, Inc., May 17 1948; May 29, 1948; June 13, 1948; November 10, 1948. Faught, William A. "The Rice Industry in Texas." Monthly Business Review. Dallas, Texas: Federal Reserve Bank, November 1, 1947- Houston Fort Book. Houston, Texas: Harris County Houston Ship Channel Navigation District. Vol. I, November, 1923 to Vol. XXVI, November, 1948. (Named Fort Houston, Nov. 1923-May 1926; Houston Port and City, Nov. 1926-Nov. 1932; Houston Port Book, May 1933-Nov. 1948.) ' "Inch by Inch." Fortune. Jersey City, New Jersey: Time, Inc December, 1945- "Industry’s New Frontier." Life. New York: Time, Inc., October 4 1948. "Is Basic Wealth of U. S. Fading?" United States News. Washington, D. C.: United States News Publishing Corp., July 4, 1947. Johnson, R. B. "The Petroleum Industry and the Southwest." Monthly Business Review. Dallas, Texas: Federal Reserve Bank” of Dallas, March 1, 1947. . ”The Ports of Texas—A Resource of the Southwest.” Monthly .'Business Review. Dallas, Texas: Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, September 1, 1947 • "The Land of the Big Rich." Fortune. Jersey City, New Jersey: Time, Inc., April, 1948. "Mexican Sulphur." Business Week. Albany, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, Inc., February 17, 1945- "Mexico on March." Business Week. Albany, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, Inc., March 10, 1945. Port of Corpus Christi. Corpus Christi, Texas: Nueces County Navigation Commission, November, 1945; March, 1947. "Pressure for Shift of Industry." United States News and World Report Washington, D. C.: United States News Publishing Corporation, July 16, 1948. Price, R. B. "Houston’s Relationship'- to the Cities of the Great. South west: El Paso, Texas." Houston Fort Book. Houston, Texas: Harris County Houston Port Commission. November, 1935- Skelton, Max B. "Texas Draws Chemical Companies." The El Paso Times. El Paso, Texas: El Paso Times, Inc., September 19, 1948. Texas Business Review. Austin, Texas: Hie University of Texas, College of Business Administration, Bureau of Business Research, February, 1946. "Texas Leads U. S. Expansion in Industry.” The El Paso Times. El Paso, Texas: El Paso Times, Inc., March 30» 1948. Tevis, R. Starley. "Handling Sugar through Port Houston." Houston Port and City, November, 1932. Tutt, Ernest L. "Houston’s Foreign Trade." Houston Port Book. Houston, Texas: Harris County Houston Ship Channel Navigation District, November, 1927- United States Department of Commerce. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Survey of Current Business. Washington: United States Government Printing Office, February, 1947; February 1948. United States Exports and Imports of Merchandise by Air during January and February 1946? by Customs Districts and Ports and by Leading Commodities. Washington: Bureau of Census, United States Department of Commerce, June 14, 1946. United States News and World Report. Washington: United States News Publishing Corporation, August 20, 1948. Wood, Robert E. ’’The Gulf Coast—Our New Frontier.'* Reader* s Digest. Pleasantville, New York: The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc. September, 1948. World Ports. Chicago: The Traffic Service Corporation, November 194 b. Mimeographed and Unpublished Material Association of American Railroads. Report by Subcommittee on Pipe Line Transport, May 1, 1944- Commercial Statistics, Calendar Year Ending December 31? 1946. Galveston, Texas: United States War Department, Corps of Engineers, Office of the District Engineer, Galveston District, 1947. Corps of Engineers. United States Army. Calcasieu River and Pass, La. (Lake Charles, La.) Mimeographed release by Galveston Office, 1947- . Hydrographic Report. Mimeographed report for Galveston District. Galveston, Texas, June, 1947; October, 1947; April 1948; July, 1948. Cox, A. B. Cotton Markets and Marketing. Preliminary report to Pace Committee--National Cotton Council on Project 11. Austin, Texas: The University of Texas, November, 1946. Eagle Pass. Typewritten release by Eagle Pass Chamber of Commerce, 1948. History and Development of Port Arthur. Mimeographed release, Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce, 1948. Industrial Development at Port Arthur. Mimeographed release, Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce, duly 12, 1947- Report on Port of Brownsville, Texas. Prepared by G. Wood Smith of Sverdrup and Parcel, Consulting Engineers, St. Louis, Missouri for Ketcham and Nongard, Chicago, Illinois. Submitted January 28, 1947- Robinson, F. G. Statement before the United States Secretary of the Treasury in Behalf of the Galveston Chamber of Commerce, the City of Galveston and the Texas City Chamber of Commerce, in Opposition to the Proposed Removal of the Galveston Customs District Headquarters from Galveston to Houston, Texas. Mimeographed, 1947- Texas and Foreign Trade. Washington: United States Department of State, 1947- United States Department of Commerce. Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Merchandise Movement through Texas Gulf Ports Calendar Year Ended December 31, 1945• (A mimeographed copy issued by the Houston District Office, 1946.) Individual Maps Colton, J. H. Map of Texas, 1864. Filed in Archives Collection, University of Texas, Austin, Texas. Fenn eman, Nevin M. ,- and Douglas W. Johnson. Physical Divisions oT the United States. Washington: Geological Survey, United States Department of Interior, 1930. Hammond f s Complete Railroad and County Map of Texas. New York: C. S. Hammond & Co., 1908. Map of the Southwest. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1946 "Map Showing Cattle Trails as Used from 1866 to 1895 lor Driving Cattle on to Shipping Points or When Trailing to Northern Markets." Clovis News Journal. Clovis, New Mexico: Clovis News Journal Publishing Company, December 28, 1939- "Railroad Map of the United States." World Atlas. Premier Edition New York: Rand McNally and Company, 1946. Texas Official Highway Map. Summer Edition, June 1, 1946; Spring Edition, January 1, 1946. Austin, Texas: Texas Highway Commission. Williams, J. David. Map of Texas, 1866. Filed in Archives Collection, University of Texas, Austin, Texas. The vita has been removed from the digitized version of this document. This dissertation was typed by Ona Kay Stephenson