TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

BureJu of Business Research 
The University of Texas 

Vol. XII, No. 5 · June 29, 1938 
A Monthly Summary of Business and Ernnomic Conditions in Texas and the Sou~hwesr. 
Bureau of P.usiness Hesearch, The University of Texas, Austin, TnA• 
Entered as 1econd clu1 waue1 on May 7, 1928, at the po11 uffi.ce at Au&tin, Teut, under Act of· Au1u1t 2i\. 1912 

C 0 M PA ll AT I V l • I ND l X l S • 0 ~ • PAY • R..o LL S 
IN ·TtXAS ·AND· UN IT E.D • 5TATE.S ­
T '-'XAS
-
* ••• UHITt.D ·STAT ts 
~ 
0 -0140 
II Al') 
,() O') 
-130 :::t 
.... 
z 
0 
~ 
12 0 
ul 
<-' 
~ 
d. 
A


IV\\

' ... 

: 'I
' • 
' 
' 

' 

Ai
1•:
~ 
I I ' 
I 

' 

y~ 
' 


7V I 
I I I I 
r
I 
I 
l 
I 
\ 
I 
I 
I 
l 
I 
I 
' 

t 
' 

ul 
>110 
<t 


l 
I 
' 
V\ 
\
100 
*UNITlD STAHS ­
~! l!>UHAU O~ lAllOll 5 ATISTIC!> MAMUrACTUl.ING llNDH COMH.llTlD T) ­

I 'J 
Av lllAGL HoNTM 19~!> • 100% 
I ' 
I bUltlAU o ~ ous.1~t~~ Q.l5lAQ..CU 
TUl UNIV l0..~ 1 T'1 Of l )(l~
90~H-<-~~~--+~-=-=-=-.:_:_.e.....=__:'-"-t-~-'--=-"--~-t--=-=----==-=----'--=-+.:..::.::..:_~~~--I 
19~5 1936 19~7 
1938 1939 

TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
INDEXES OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN TEXAS 
AVERAGE MONTH OF 1930=100% 
W[IGHT COMPOSIT[·INOtX 
[t.!PL OYMENT ---2S"· 
,.AY R O Ll..S 2S 'Yo 
OCP•RTMEMT STORE SALES-IOY. 
COMPOSITE ·INOEX·Of· BUSINESS· ACTIVITY· IN ·TEXAS 
1go I80 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 
100 90 80 
10 
60 
190 180 170 160 150 
140 130 
120 110 100 90 80 
10 
60 
190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 11 0 100 90 80 
10 
60 
Ip.I 	""
\ 
~ 
J~ 
\
', 
I 
I 
~ 
' 
~ 
I 
~­
J ,MIA M A
~ S 	N 
19'" 
~~ 
,_____ 
,
~w 
,_____ 
l/
_/"-......r 
y 
.f 
INOEX · OF · EMPLOYMENT ANO · PAY ·R OLLS IN ·T EXAS 
..,._
..,..+ 
I 	I 
--[lilP'l..OYM[NT
,_ ;{!·~· J 1" 
-· 	l'A'l' · ROLLS 

~ft ~~.. 
.. 
!
"
!)., 
.r 
"\ 
" 

rREIGHT C"RLO,t,OINGS---2ov. 
CRUOC OIL R UNS S"• 
CLECTR 1C POWER CONSUMl'TION-IS'Y. T l'I t univ tr 1 it y of Tt) • s 


\_ 	­,_____ 
~ 
~iS 
I ~ 
I 
'V 
1 
J. 
rr 
)MIA:
'<! SIOIND 
193 _;. 
~ 
~~ 

,~-= ­
/..
-A .
.
~ 
j
\ 
J 
.,,..-.
-,.., ·" -··I 
,_
·-./ 
IN DEX OF·SALES · OF·TEXAS ·DEPARTM ENT STORES 
1 viJ.. 
\ 
• 
\ 
\\ 
\~ 
,­
Ii 
~l
J~ 
I\
'•
'l'>Oo 
~ 
'\
\ 
Tl 
I
,, \JoI 
J{tj~
"s 
~°' 
,, 
·~ 
' 
( 
~ 
(' 
~ ~ 
J.. 'JI 
VY
I 
lJ" 
..l" 
INDEX· Of· CONSUMPTION· OF· ELECTRIC· POWER IN·TtxAS 
i1XI ,,..
190 
~ 
180 
~
1
170 
\
1&0 150 



,Q\), 
-1~1
140 
JM)~Li
/ ;,~tl°I' 
193
130· 
~7
/,:•
120 
~-­
11 0 
}~~-­
II\
100 

A ""' \. 
90 rv' 
v 
"'JI 
f\...v-IV
80 
~'I\
'w..~ 
10 
&O 
v "' 
IY£ARl192g 1930 193ij1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 193 7 1938 19391 YEAR 19291930jl93t 19321933 1934 19351936 1937 1938 1939 
June, 1938 June, 1937 May, 1938 Dal1as United Dallas United Dallas United District States District States District States DEBITS to individual accounts.____ 740 32,483 796 36,266 891° 36,993° 
Condition of reporting member banks on-June 29, 1938 June 30, 1937 June l, 1938 AssETS: 
Loans and investments-total 481 20,561 490 22,290 473 20,536
Loans-total________________ 

225 8,321 219 9,760 224 8,334 Commercial, industrial, and agricultural loans______ 142 3,936 136 4,331 142 3,992 Open market paper___________ ------2 340 3 467 1 365 Loans to brokers and dealers in securities______ 2 652 3 1,447 3 603 Other loans for purchasing or carrying securities___________ 14 583 15 714 14 583 
Real estate loans__________________________ _ 20 1,160 21 1,169 20 1,156 
Loans to banks_________________ 
1 113 1 98 1 114
Other loans_____________________________________________________ 
44 1,537 40 1,534 43 1,521U.S. Government obligations___________________________ 
172 7,770 192 8,301 169 7,844 Obligations fully guaranteed hy U.S. Government_________ 34 1,488 28 1,152 30 1,411
Other securities___________________________ 
50 2,982 51 3,077 50 2,947 Reserve with Federal Reserve BanL___________ _ 99 6,574 110 5,400 96 6,252Cash in vaulL___________________________ 
11 417 10 303 10 390 
Balances with domestic banks_________________________ 211 2,415 153 1,783 218 2,373
Other assets-net_______________________________ 
25 1,280 26 1,302 26 1,323 LIABILITIES: Demand deposits-adjusted_____________________ 
395 15,036 390 15,186 395 14,589
Time deposits__________________________ 
132 5,239 122 5,235 130 5,216U.S. Government deposits__________________________ 
25 465 12 547 25 533 Inter-bank deposits:
Domestic banks_________________________ 
187 5,780 179 5,017 186 5,832
Foreign banks______________________ 
320 1 616 315Borrowings._________________ 1 1
Other liabilities______________________________ 
5 758 5 879 5 738
Capital account____________________________ 
83 3,648 80 3,598 82. 3,650 
NoTE: From Federal Reserve Board. *Five weeks. 
Debits for the Dallas F~de:aI Rese_rve District during the first half of 1938 were $4,918,238,000 compared with $5,107,103,000 for the same period in 1937. Debits 
Estimates. 
for  all Federal  Reserve  districts  during  the  first half of 1938  were  $200,276,039,000  as  compared  with  $244,036,545,000  for  the  same  period  of 1937.  
JUNE CARLOAD  MOVEMENT  OF  POULTRY  
AND EGGS  
Live  Cars of Poultry  Dressed  Cars of Eggs  INDEX OF AGRICULTURAL CASH INCOME IN TEXAS  
Chickens  Turkeys  Chickens  Turkeys  
June 1938  June 1937  J une 1938  June 1937  June 1938  June 1937  June 1938  June 1937  June 1938  June 1937  Cumulative Income  
Shipments from Texas Stations  District  June 1938  May 1938  June 1937  Jan.-June 1938  Jan.-June 1937  
TOTAL  24  48553  6  74t 60  (000 Omitted)  
Intrastate Interstate  2  4  48  1 54  3,  1 5  30 44  17 43  1-N 1-S  --------------97.7 _______________ l 90.8  76.6 110.2  119.l 220.2  $ 15,235 10,948  $ 16,601 11,507  
Origin TOTAL ----------­Intrastate Interstate  Receipts at Texas Stations 2 2  33t 23 28 12 5 11  2 3 4 5  _________________240.0 ___________________210.5 ____________________l 45.8 _____________________121.9  175.3 187.l 130.8 143.5  264.1 226.8 142.7 131.1  13,528 9,988 15,504 3,846  13,509 11,709 16,533 3,886  
Kansas Nebraska  Interstate Receipts  Classified  5  9 2  6 7 8  ________________133.3 ___________122.4 _________________ 101.2  185.0 123.2 109.6  202.6 183.0 131.5  9,545 16,587 6,854  7,960 23,966 7,918  
9  ______________130.5  137.3  131.5  7,129  7,742  
SOURCE :  U.S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  Division  of  Crop  and  Livestock  10 _________ _____142.3  100.6  102.6 5,179 7,086  

NOTE: These data are furnished the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Division 10-A -----57.6 99.4 55.3 13,985 18,147 of Crop and Livestock Estimates, by railway officials through agents at all stations 
STATE _________136.9 129.1 163.3 $128,328 $146,564
which originate and receive carload shipments of poultry and eggs. The data are compiled by the Bureau of Business Research. 
fShipments of eggs consist of 61 cars of eggs in crates; 11 cars of canned, frozen eggs; and 2 cars of dried eggs. Receipts of eggs consist of 27 cars of eggs in crates and 6 cars of canned, frozen eggs. One carload of eggs in crates consists of approximately 12,000 dozen eggsj frozen canned eggs, 28,750 dozen; and dried eggs, 32,850 dozen. 


Business Review and Prospect 

Political factors as an influence upon the lonaer term business outlook promise to assume unusual im~ortance during the next few months as more primary elections are run off and the general election approaches. The verdicts to be rendered at the polls next November, and two years later, are certain to have profound influence upon the future interpretation of our fundamental po­litical, economic, and social institutions. This fact largely accounts for the reluctance, conscious or unconscious, on the part of business men to make commitments looking very far into the future. The practical manifestation of this attitude on the part of business and industrial lead­ers is a near paralysis in the capital goods industries and in the durable consumption goods industries. No one thought a year ago that at this time the rate of activity in industry and trade would be at a rate only slightly above that of the 1932 low. Barron's index of industry and trade, however, for the week ended June 4 stood at 48.5 compared with 46.7 in March, 1933, the time of the bank holiday. 
Symptoms of at least temporary improvement in in­dustry and trade by next fall are, however, beginning to appear. For example, consumption continues to outrun production in almost every line. As a result, the inven­tory problem is being steadily, though slowly, corrected, and in time there must be an accumulated demand to replenish depleted stocks. Also contributing to a more favorable outlook for business next fall are prospects of good crops and increased government spending. Re­cent strength in the price of wheat, if further extended or even fully maintained, is another favorable develop. ment. There are also indications in their merchandising and promotional plans that some large companies are expecting better business in the fall; whereas advertising budgets are being sharpIy cut during the summer they are being definitely increased for the fall. Announcement of the cut in steel prices is an event of first importance although the main economic benefits to the final con­sumer will not be realized for several months; coming at this time when a strengthening in demand for steel was already becoming apparent, the lower price level should accelerate the release of new orders for steel and furnish the needed stimulus lo this key industry. 
On the other hand, as the current drpression continues in this country and reaches the depths of 1932 and 1933, world conditions warrant attention. For a brief state­ment of the significance of norm:il business conditions in the United Stales to world trade the reader is referred 
to  page  three  of  the  February 28, 1938, issue  of  the  
REVIEW.  
TEXAS  BUSINESS  

Further recession in Texas industry and trade occurred during May although the rate of decline was even less pronounced than the moderate decline which occurred in the months immediately preceding. Present indica­tions point to a leveling of the Texas business curve during the next two months and an upward tendency early next fall. 
The Texas business indexes for May and the two comparable periods are as follows: 
May  May  April  
1938  1937  1938  
Composite  ···-­-·-··------­ 92.42  99.02  93.16  
Employment  ------------­ 86.58  92.47  87.67  
Pay Rolls .............. -----------­Miscellaneous Freight  92.76  95.24  91.52  
Carloadings  _____ ---------­ 61.42  81.18  56.19  
Runs of Crude Oil to Stills.... 177.50  167.28  183.06  
Department Store Sales  ··---­ 93.96  99.76  102.32  

Electric Power Consumption~_ 
113.5..,1""._.78~~.23~___6._-'16...._.,__..118==
Two of the six factors making up the composite index actually showed an improvement during May-pay rolls and miscellaneous freight car loadings. The remaining four were less favorable than in April, but the decline in the composite index was less than one per cent. 
FARM CASH INCO'.\fE I~ TEXAS 
As computed by the Bureau of Business Research. farm cash income in Texas during May was $25,823,000 compared with $20,923,000 the prec~dino-month and $31,022,000 during May last year. !\'or~ally there is a decline in farm cash income for the State as a whole from April to. May, so that the increase in May this year over Apnl caused a sharp increase in the index after adjustment is made for seasonal variation. The following table gives the indexes for the individual dis­tricts and the State. 
I DEX OF AGRICULTURAL CASH I COME 
Cumulative Income May April May Jan.-May )3n.-'foy
District 1938 1938 1938
1937 1937 (000 omitted)
1-.............. 74.1 54.0 89.2 $ 9,937 $ 10.201

1-S __________ 101.7 
93.l 139.5 9.101 9,516 
______________ 174.9
2 72.l 163.2 9.993 9.626 3 ------.......187.0 82.9 234.2 6,908 8,391 4 
_____________130.0 
114.6 163.9 11.362 12.496 
__________141.9
5 129.9 150.4 3,125 3,119 
______________ 184.8
6 124.4 160.5 8,216 5,944 
___________ 123.2
7 71.2 179.9 10,948 15,538 

__________ 108.9

8 84.1 138.7 5,579 6,271


9 ------------135.0 138.8 127.0 6,198 6,82.~ 10 ------..... 100.4 124.l 140.7 4.229 6.403 10-A ---------99.3 93.l 112.3 13,633 17,810 
STATE ________ 127.9 
80.2 153.7 ~99,229 112,138 
The ~lecli~e in income as compared with :\fay last year was pnmanly the result of the drop in farm prices. In the district~ in which livestock are re!atiYely important farm cash mcome held up well. In three di~tricts-2, 6, and 9-the index of farm ca5h income was artuallv higher than either in April or in !\lay last year. During the first five months of the year the computed farm cash income for the entire State--excl usiYe of go\·ernmeat payments-was S99,229,000 compared with Sll2,138,00() during the corresponding months last year. It is estimated 
that  the computed fi gure is about 90  per  cent  of  the  
actual.  
F. A. BUECHEL.  

For Other Texas Data, See Statistical Tables at the End of This Publication 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 

INDE.X· OF AG Q. I c u LT u R.AL . CA51-1 INCOME.· IN ·TE.XAs · Bv· D1sr12.1crs 

• LE.GE.NO · 
MONTHLY · INDLX ­TWLLV L • M.OMTH$ · MOVING-AYLRA.01. ­
Avu1.AGE.·MONTH · or·192e-19~2. 100% 

LLGLND 
MONT~ L'V · INOI. )( ­T\VL LYL • MONTM" • MOVI NC> ·AvU..AGl ­
THL UHIVtQ.~ITY or Tlll.U ~VLR.ACH.· MOHT~ · Or · 19l&-19~1 • 100';( 

Financial 

From a financial viewpoint the past month has been singularly free from significant new developments. Early in June a rumor as to a forthcoming further debasement of the gold dollar gained wide credence, especially in Europe. Although many American observers have been expecting some further cut in the weight of the dollar, the public in general has not shared that expectation. Certainly commodity and stock prices have not reflected the possibility of such action. In Europe, however, the belief is apparently widely held that the Administration will order another debasement in an effort to check de­clining commodity prices before the forthcoming general elections. 
As a result, there has been a considerable withdrawal of foreign owned bank balances from the United States during the past several weeks. This relatively slight capital flight forced exchange rates substantially higher, especially the sterling rate which rose from a level of about $4.9:t to about $4.98. The bulk of the capital funds withdrawn has gone to London where much of it has been employed Lo purchase g<>ld in the open market for hoarding purposes, resulting in a sharp rise in the price of that metal. 
A !though any intention to cut the gold dollar has 
been emphatically denied by Administration spokesmen, 
the incident serves lo illustrate once again the danger of 
granting to one man broad discretionary powers to 
change the value of the money unit. Not only does the 
President now possess authority to cut the weight of 
the gold dollar from its present level of 13.7+ grains 
of fine gold to 11.6+ grains, but he also is authoritzed 
to establish the free coinage of silver at any price which 
he desires, and he is empowered to order the issuance 
of $3,000,000,000 of fiat currency. The exercise of any 
of these currency powers requires merely a presidential 
proclamation. So long as the President retains these 
powers, the dollar assuredly is not stabilized and the 
periodic recurrence of devaluation rumors can be con­
fid ent! y ex peeled. 
Should the dollar be further debased by presidential 
proclamation, it seems almost certain that the move 
would be countered by a prompt proportionate debase­
ment of the British and the more important continental 
currencies. Such action would leave the foreign exchange 
rates al approximately their present levels and exercise 
very little, if an y, efTcct on the prices of American com­
modities cxcepl gold. The world price of gold, of course, 
would be raised by these moves, and it could be expected 
that the prices of gold mining stocks would shortly re­
flect the enhanced price of the yellow metal. 
Commercial banking trends continued virtually un­changed during the month. The adjusted demand de­posits of the reporting member banks rose some­what rising from $14,598,000,000 on May 11 to $15,031.000.000 on J unc 8. The latter figure compares with an aggregate of $15,506,000,000 one year ago, representing a reduction of approximately $500,000,000 during the twelve months. This shrinkage reflects largely the substantial reduction in commercial bank lending which has been in evidence throughout most of that period. 
Earning assets of the reporting member banks con· tiirned to show a slow decline during the month. Busi· ness loans dropped from $4,110,000,000 on May 11 to $3,962,000,000 on June 8. As compared with the posi­tion of a year ago, this latter figure represents a reduction in commercial lending of $330,0~0,000. Loans to secur­ity brokers and dealers increased rather sharply durina the month, rising from $1,184.,000,000 on May 11 t~ $1,4.S5,000,000 on June 8. Most of this increase, how· ever, is believed to be very temporary, reflecting dealer borrowing in anticipation of the June 15th offering of new Treasury securities. As compared with a year ago, such lending is down approximately $630,000,000. Total loans of the reporting member banks were reported at $3,4.Sl ,000,000 on May 11, and $8,625,000,000 on June 8. The comparable figure one year ago was $9,647,000,000 which indicates a reduction in the aggregate lending of these banks of more than one billion dollars during the year. 
The volume of government obligations held by the reporting member banks decreased slightly during the month, dropping from $9,361,000,000 on May 11 to $9,325,000,000 on June 8. The latter figure is approxi­mately $100,000,000 below the comparable level of a year ago. Holdings of "other securities" remained al­most unchanged during the month, being reported at $2,994,000,000 on June 8, a total approximately $150,000,000 below that of a year ago. Obviously the banks have not offset the substantial shrinkage in their customer loan portfolios with increased bond holdings. 
Excess reserve balances of all member banks con· tinued to expand during the month. On May 11, these excess reserves were estimated at $2,480,000,000 and on June 15 at $2,730,000,000, a gain of $250,000,000. This huge total can be expected to grow much more during the summer months as the Treasury continues to spend the proceeds from its recent sale of gold to the Federal Reserve System. Continued money market ease, of course, is all but assured for months tu come. 
The Administration's latest "spending-lending pro· 
gram" can be expected to get under way very shortly. 
Most observers, however, do not expect the program to 
stimulate business recovery to any great extent. Some 
increase in wage-earner purchasing power doubtless will 
result and the capital goods industries will receive some 
direct benefit in the form of W.P.A. orders for mate· 
rials. These gains, however, can hardly be expected to 
ofTset the losses from the depressed level of private 
business operations. Thus far the program apparently 
has provided little or no psychological stimulus to busi· 
ness activity, perhaps because it has been tried before 
and found wanting. 
J. C. DOLLEY. 
Industrialization in Texas 

EDITOR'S NoTE: Mr. Johnson's otudies of the problems and potentialities of Texas industrialization have led far beyond the conventionalized bounda1 ies usually set up for such studies. This article serves to bring together in outline some of the implications of the larger studies he has in preparation, such as "The Position of the Southwest in the Regional Economy of the United States," "The Economics of the Market as a Factor in Production Eco­nomics," the "Post-War Revolution in the Production of Food­stuffs and Raw Materials," and the further extensions of his studies of regional economics into the fields of Continental, Insular, and Colonial economies. 
F. A. Buechel. 
A BROADER Vrnw 
The immediate economic problem of Texas concerns industrialization-but it is to be emphasized in no un­certain terms that the problem of Texas' industrialization has to do with industrialization not ouly in Texas but elsewhere, whether in Northeastern United States or in Old England, in Germany, or Italy, or Japan, or in Argentina, or Australia. 
Industrialization is concerned with heavy industries on the one hand and with light industries on the other, and with a rather full range of transitional industries grading from either of these extremes to the other. Each of the various groups of industries is characterized by a different proportioning of economic factors concerned, and it is necessary to point out the fact, not always recognized, that these economic factors embrace the economics of consumption as well as of production. Therefore, blanket statements concerning, for instance, the simplified operation of the so-called factors of pro­duction are necessarily of little benefit in picturing the actual conditions obtaining in an industry or even a group of industries. 
It should not be necessary to call attention to the fact that the history of industrialization either in the dom­inant world centers of industry or in the peripheral regions is replete with examples not only of the evolu­tion of industries and of industrial organization-of different industries, of different groups of industries­but alio of numerous cases of industries which sooner or later for one reason or another cam~ to naught, with the inevitable consequences of blasted hopes, investment losses, and even of human misery and dejection. Indus­trialization in itself is no panacea for economic ills; it is rather the type of industrialization that counts. And the type of industrialization has to be adjusted to the controlling conditions concerned. 
Considering industrialization as a whole, two features are outstanding; the interdependence of industries, and the material bases of industries. The interdependence of industries is but another expression of the inter­dependence that characterizes economic life the world over; the workings of this factor are illustrated his­torically by the fact that the growth and extension of any industry not absolutely local in all its aspects has always been determined and limited by what was oc­curring during the same period in inter-related lines of endeavor. For instance, the history of oil production since 1900 has been influenced primarily by the evolu­tion of the automobile and the same relationship holds with reference to the history of highway construction in the United States since the turn of the century and par­ticularly since the World War period. 
Interpretations of the growth and extension of the major industries of the world and of their inter-relations provide the basic factors out of which important trends, economic and industrial, may be constructed. This con­tribution of the economics of industries can be made of inestimable importance in calling attention to the main direction industrial growth is most likely to take in the immediate future. 
Slavish following of projected trend lines, however, may be as productive of disaster as a plunge following a blind "hunch." It may be-in fact it should be----pos­sible to project into the near future, for instance, fairly close estimates of the total world consumption of textile fibers; but the determination of the proportions of the component fibers in these totals during the next few years-of cotton and rayon filament, of rayon staple fiber, or even of wool or silk-is quite a different problem. 
As to the material bases of industries these have been so severely neglected by most writers on economics and business, at least so far as the English language is con­cerned, that the whole field remains to be developed and interpreted-a task obviously impossible in a brief article. One very important concept which will be of increasing importance in future analysis of trade rela­tions and industrial development can be noted. The prob­lem of raw materials, as is well known, has received worthy attention particularly since the World War period; basically, however, the problem of raw materials is primarily a reflection of the economics of natural resources and of physical geography in the light of modern technology. And, as a matter of fact, the his­torical development of modern technology-like the economic development of modern nations-bears a very close functional relationship to the availability and con­trol of natural resources and the facts of physical geography; for, in a wider sense, the fundamentals of the history of cultures and the development of civiliza­tion lie in the varied interactions of man and the physical environment in which he lives and gets his living. More­over, in the welter of post-War difficulties and in varied sorts of attempts in "muddling through" it is becoming more and more apparent that the term "world economy" no longer connotes the simplified economic features characteristic of the pre-War period. 
It is apparent that world economy is coming to em­brace or to be made up of certain larger types of economics which fall under three major groupings; in each of these groupings there occur wide individual differences. These major groups embrace Continental nations such as the United States or Germany, Insular nations such as Great Britain or Japan, and Colonial countries such as the Dutch East Indies or New Zealand. So important are the distinctive facts pertaining to the economic structure of each of these groups that world economy may be considered as embracing Continental economies, Insular economies, and Colonial economies. 
To sum up: the prohlcm of future economic de~elop· mcnt in Texas is fundamentally a problem of indus­trialization. Primarily the problem of Texas indus­trialization is concerned with a wider and a more refined form of utilization of Texas natural resources which occur in such marked abundance; but it is a problem, too, that necessarily embraces important industrial fac­tors which lie far beyond the borders of the State. 
Furthermore, knowledge concerning and the means of further utilization of Texas natural resources are de­pendent upon the consequences of an advancing tech­nology made possible largely by scientific progress and the furthering of economic organization which have brourrht the Western World into the age of potential abundance; the next step and a major challenge to economic organization is how to make feasible plentiful consumption in an age of abundance. And in this phase of the problem no section of the world should be more intensely interested than Texas. The State has the natural resources as regards both volume and diversity upon which a vast and extensive production capacity can be based; and it possesses the tremendous advantage of geographic location particularly with reference to the Gulf of Mexico, and therefore physical access to coast-wise and overseas markets. But even with these out­standing advantages of vast production capacity based upon its immense natural resources and its favorable geographic position, the output of that productive capacity is to a very large extent dependent upon mar· kets outside Texas. Paraphrasing Adam Smith's famous dictum that the division of labor is dependent upon the extent of the market, it may well be said that economic progress in Texas is dependent upon the extent of the market for the products Texas can produce so advantageously. 
A full discussion of the implications of the statement that Texas economic progress depends upon the extent of the market would involve among other things an analysis of the position of Texas in the regional economy of the nation. Furthermore, a full discussion of the poten­tialities of Texas productive capacity would involve an analysis of the world-wide revolution which has so pro­foundly affected the production of raw materials, food­stuffs, and of manufactured goods, and which has arisen in almost spectacular fashion to such enormous propor­tions during the past two decades. 
ELMER H. JOHNSON. 
Current Manufacturing Developments in Texas 

The value of air conditioning from a commercial standpoint is responsible for the rapid growth of the industry generally, and for the establishment of at least ten factories in Texas producing air conditioning equip­ment. Besides the location of branches in the State representing most of the nationally known producers of air conditioning machinery, the Air Conditioning Com· pany of Houston is a recent addition to the list of manufacturers opening plants in the State. 
There has been a corresponding increase in the de­mand for insulating materials, such as rock wool of the type produced by the Servtex Materials Company of New Braunfels and the Texas Insulation Company at Grand Prairie. A new plant of the Standard Asbestos Manufacturing Company, with headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri, has been established in Houston. 
New oil refineries for the past month include that of the Maritime Oil Company al Houston, the Osage Dis­tributing Company al San Antonio, and the Delrey Pe­troleum Corporation at Sandy Point. 
The canning of tomatoes in the Jacksonville area has developed into an important industry during the last few years as is indicated by the increasing production in ~hat section each year and the growth of the canning mduslry. A recent addition lo the list of plants cannin" tomatoes is that of K It Adams, located in J acksonvill:. In the Rio Grande Valley approximately fifteen plants now operate the year around canning Yegetables after the close of the citrus season and through the summer months, according lo reports from the State Department of Agriculture. 
. Other new firms eslablis?ed in Houston during May mclu~le th: 13y,ron-Jac~so~1..Company producing oil tools; the. i::lcctnc l 1.1eun~al1c. I ire Pressure Meter Company, dences for registering lire pressure; the Glovebox Taxi­meter Corporation, manufacturers of taximeters; and the Green's Bayou Refining Company, topping plant. 
Among the new concerns located in Dallas are The Armstrong Company producing plastic products; Bards· ley's Frozen Confections Company, ice cream; Barq's Bottling Company, beverages (this company also has new plants in Houston and Corpus Christi) the Borden Company, ice cream; Double Cola Bottling Company, beverages; Charles E. Hires Company, root beer; Hoh· son Tackle Company, fishing equipment; Monroe Hat Company, millinery; Morgan Manufacturing Company, dress manufacturers; Scott Art Stone Company, cast stone; Southwest Fur Company, Inc., manufacturing fur coals, and the Trinity Heights Cannery, producing chili foods. 
Charters granted to manufacturers during the month of May include: 
Roberts and Oliver Lumber Company, Inc., Amarillo; Lorentzen Hardware Company, Austin, steel and iron products, home offi.ce, New York; Pyramid Concrete Products Company, Beaumont; Upshur County Lumber Company, Big Sandy; Eagle Chemical Company, Cam· eron; Cavalier Corporation, Dallas, home office, Chat· tanooga, Tennessee; Craddock Food Manufacturing Company, Dallas; Hay-No Laboratories, Inc., Dallas; 
J. H. Hubbard and Sons, Inc., Dallas; Shemwell Glass Works, Dallas; Texas Gas Engine Tool Shop, Eastland; Century Houses, Inc., Fort Worth; Randado Gins, Heh· bronville; Coastal Oil News Company, Houston, printing and publishing; Glovebox Taximeter Corporation, Hous· ton, taximeters; 7-Up Texas Corporation, Houston; Kingsville Cold Storage Company, Kingsville; Wuensche Milling Company, Kingsville; Fant Milling Company, Sherman; Brazos Valley Cotton Oil Company, Inc., Waco, cottonseed oil products; A-Y Manufacturing Com· pany, Inc., Wichita Falls; and Cobb Lumber Company, 
Woodville. C H L WIS
LARA ,E • 
Cotton 

In spite of huge losses cotton growers, ginners, mer­chandisers, and others, whose business relates to cotton production, have incurred continuous!y since 1929 and the very unsatisfactory situation and outlook which now exist, the majority of the people of the United States still look upon the cotton problem as a local one capable of being confined to the South. A few outstanding facts will serve not only to summarize the main events of the year as they relate to cotton but to set the cotton situation in perspective. 
World production for 1937-38 reached an all-time high of about 37,450,000 bales of 478 pounds net. This large production was made up of 18,946,000 bales of 478 pounds net, or 18,242,000 running bales of United States production, and 18,500,000 bales of 478 pounds net foreign production as reported by Garside. Inci­dentally, these were both record crops. World con­sumption during the year has been much below last year, the probable world consumption of all cotton having been about 26,500,000 bales compared with 30,820,000 bales consumption the preceding year. This record pro­duction and decreased consumption will result in a greatly increased carry-over on August 1. World carry­over of all cotton promises to be approximately 23,500,000 bales which will be over 6,000,000 bales above the previous all-time high in August, 1932. Of this amount approximate!y 13,300,000 bales will be American and 10,200,000 bales will be foreign-grown cotton. These figures indicate an increase in the world carry-over of American cotton of nearly 100 per cent from last year, whereas the carry-over of foreign grown cotton bids fair to increase only about 42 per cent. These differences between the United States and foreign coun­tries in the increase in carry-over arc due to the fact that the world will consume this year about 82 per cent of this year's production of foreign cotton and 62 per cent of American production. It seems very doubtful now whether exports from the United States this year will exceed exports last year in spite of the very large crop and low price. Thus if there were any further need for evidence to convince the people of this country of the loss of foreign markets for cotton it would seem that the loss in exports this year would serve that pur­pose. Data now indicate that exports of cotton from the United States this year will not exceed 5,700,000 bales, or not in excess of 100,000 bales more than last year out of a crop of only 12,130,000 gin run bales. If the United States had exported the same percentage of production this year as the five-ye'lr pre-depression average, over 10,600,000 bales would have been shipped abroad. This means that the United States should have exported nearly 5,000,000 bales of cotton more in 1937-38 than will be shipped. In 1926--27, the record crop year prior to 1937-38, exports were 10,900,000 bales out of a crop of 17,978,000 bales. 
The fact is the United States Government, for reasons which need not be discussed here, has seen fit to throw overboard foreign markets for cotton which this year should, and probably would, have take!l nearly 5,000,000 bales of Southern grown cotton, largely Texas. This statement is based on present world consumption and the fact that our former best customers an.' being forced to substitute synthetic fibers for cotton because the Government refuses to adjust its tariff policies to enable these customers to trade on an equitable basis. l"n­fortunatel y, those who feel that the Federal GoYernment has sacrificed the cotton growers' intcre~ts, to tariff. protected intere~ts ha\·e that opinion confirmed b~-the fact that the Federal GoYernment apparently has refused even to look into the question of reasons for the loss of fo:·eign cotton markets. The 1938 Arrricultural Ad­justment Act carried an authorization. it"'not a demand for an appropriation of Sl,000,000 t~ the Secretary of Commerce to investigate the causes of the loss of for.ei()"n markets for agricultural products and to promote the sale of agricultural commodities. Th<.> appropriation, however, was not made. Since foreizn markets are so vital to the welfare of cotton growe~:; the Government need not be surprised if this is interpreted as a mani­festation of lack of interest. So far, what has the Federal Government given cotton growers in exchange for these sacrificed markets for cotton? Briefly, it has given: 
(1) loans above market price, (2) rental and benefit payments, and (3) presumably a research laboratory. 
At the present time, and as a result of the loan policy, the GoYernment holds nearly 7,000,000 bales of cotton which must later be marketed in competition with some future crop of the cotton growers, or else be burned as Brazil burns its coffee. Rental and benefit payments, large as they may seem to some, can in no sense be con­sidered as substitutes for lost markets; and payments each year to date are far below the value of lost markets though they have aided considerably and have been app~eciated._ A ~ell-financed laboratory de, oted pri­manly to discovering new and expanded ll!'es for cotton is most certainly constructi\·e but not like!,. to perform miracles. Since the major cotton problem ~f the l"nited Stales is one of lost foreign markets, it is inconceirnble then that loans above market price can do anYthincr other than further expeclitc the loss of markets an.cl fur~ ther complicate the problem. 
The attempt on the part of Congre!'s to preYent the la~d taken out _of cotton and other controlled crops from bem~ used to mcrcase commercial, dairy and meat pro­duction and the passage of the \\ages and Hours Bill. pn:sumably to mai_ntain wages, hut in reality, it i~ qu.1te ge~erally believed in the South, to preYent the sluft of industry from high to low-rost areas. are eYi­dence_s of_a growing knowledl!e of the potentialities of the s1tuat10n. He who can belicYc, howe\ er, that such puniti,·e measures will accomplish the purposes of those responsible for them is credulous indPr<I. 
Sooner or later the cotton problem of the Cnited States must be tackled on the basis of its merits, and in terms of :neasures commensurate with its importance in our nat10nal economy. ~n the i:1eantime th~ only wise policy for the cotton growing region to pursue is to use eYerv facility to improve the quality and lower the cost o 0f cotton produ~tion, to readjust its agriculture toward new cash enterpnses, and to develop with all vi()"or its resources for manufacturing and trade. 0 
A. B. Cox. 
prices of cotton above levels indicated by supply and
COTTON BALANCE SHEET demand conditions. This is further evidenced by the The supplies of cotton in the United States on June fact that most foreign growths of cotton are relatively 1 were 12,768,000 bales compared with 5,959,000 bales a better bargain than American in spite of the huge lasL year, 6,978,000 bales Lwo years ago, and the supplies here. previous all time high on June 1 of 10,905,000 bales 
SPINNERS MARGIN
in 1932. The increase of the supply of cotton in the United Spinners ratio margins on 32's twist yarn in Man. 
Stales in European porls and afloat to Europe from chester to middling % inch American cotton in Liver· 
June last year amounts to 7,338,000 bales or 107 per pool averaged 209 in May compared with 212 in April 
cent. AL no other time has there been more than half and 204 in May last year. 
this amount of change in balance from one June to the The pence margin in Manchester during May aver· 
next. aged 5.03d compared with 5.44d in April and 7.46d in 

All methods of price calculations indicate lower prices. May last year. These declining margins indicate slowing This indicates thaL Government loans are sustaining down of demand for goods at present prices. 
COTION BALANCE SHEET FOR THE UNITED STATES AS OF JUNE 1 
(In Thousands of Running Bales Except as Noted) 
Carryover Import• Final Conaumption Export• Balance Au~. l to June l* Ginnine:• Total June l June l Total June 1 1928-1929. ___________________ 
2,536 410 14,297 17,243 5,974 7,507 13,481 3,762 1929-1930 ------2,313 364 14,548 17,225 5,322 6,329 11,651 5,574 1930-1931 .. -----------------·---··-4,530 84 13,756 18,370 4,358 6,24& 10,603. 7,767
1931-1932 ______________________ 
6,369 104 16,629 23,102 4,265 7,898 12,163 10,939
1932-1933 ________________________ 
9,682 104 12,710 22,496 4,839 7,113. 11,952 10,544 1933-1934·-·----·------·-·-····--··-···-·-9,221
8,176 127 12,664 20,967 4,977 6,769 11,746 1934-1935.-----··-···----··--------' 7,746 94 9,472 17,iU2 4,586 4,174 8,760 8,552
1935-1936 _________________________ 
7,138 122 10,417 17,677 5,189 5,519 10,708 6,969
1936-1937__________________ 
5,397 198 12,130 17,725 6,680 5,086 11,766 5,959 1937-1938____ 4,498 119 18,242 22,859 4,864 5,227 10,091 12,768 
The cotton yea r he(l:in1 Aue-u1t I. 
•In 	500-pound balet. 
OT&: '1 tte fie:ure1 have been revised in accordance with the revision• made by the United State1 Bureau of the Cen1u1, 

MAY CREDIT RATIOS IN TEXAS RETAIL STORES 
(Expressed in Per Cent) 
Ratio of Ratio of Ratio of 
Number of Credit Sales Collection1 to Credit Salaries Stores 
to Net Sale• Out1tandina;1 to Credit Sale1 lleportinc 1938 1937 
1938 1937 1938 1937 All Stores .. __________ 
73 65.3 63.4 39.4 40.9 1.8 1.7 
Stores Grouped by Cities: 
Abilene 

4 58.8 57.8 33..4 36.4 1.9 1.8
Amarillo______ 3 6-0.0 55.0 41.2 43.7 2.2 2.2
Austin 7 59.7 56.5 42.2 41.6 1.2 1.2 
Beaumont 	3 64.0 61.6 40.6 44.7 1.4 1.6
Dallas 11 71.5 69.6 39.2 40.6 1.2 1.1 
Fort Wort 7 63.3 61.0 37.6 36.9 1.2 1.2
Houston_ 
6 65.8 64.9 42.9 44.9 1.3 1.2
San Antonio 7 59.0 57.2 42.7 44.4 0.9 0.8
Waco 4 63.5 61.7 29.1 30.8 1.2 1.3 
All Others.·-----·--··-·-·--· 21 59.9 58.l 38.7 
Stores Grouped According to Type of Store: 
Department Stores (Annual Volume Over $500,000) ···--··------19 61.4 63.8 42.0 

-----	41.6 1.4 1.3 
41.5 1.1 1.1
Department Stores (Annual Volume Under $500,000) __________ 13 
60.4 59.2 35.7 39.3 1.8 1.7
Dry Goods-Apparel Stores ________ ·----6 58.1 57.5 35.2 34.8 1.9 1.8
Women's Specialty Shope _____ 15 63.5 61.6 33.7 39.4 1.0 1.0
Men's Oothing Stores 20 67.6 65.8 39.0 41.6 1.7 1.5
Stores Grouped According to Volume of Net Sales During 1937-:---­
Over $2,500,000 _________ 10 67.2 66.6 42.9 43.7 1.0 0.9
$2,500,000 down to Sl,000,000_ 10 60.7 57.5 38.8 43.1 1.3 1.3
$1,000,000 down to $500,000 __ 10 60.4 61.S 42.8 44.7 1.5 1.4
$500,000 down to $100,000 __ 31 59.3 57.3 37.7 39.4 1.9 1.7
Lesa than $100,000. 
12 64.0 58.2 37.3 39.4 3.6 3.1 
Non:: The ratio1 1hown for each year In the ord · h" h b f I f · 
divided by net u1es. (2) Collection• d~rin the mer hind~. ie t ey ap,ear rom et to r1~ht, are obtained by the !ollowio1 computation1: (1) Cr~dit Diet ment divided by credit 1&lei. &' ont nided by the total •ccountt unpud OD the 6nt of the montb. (3) Salarie1 of the credit departr 
The data arc rep orted to the Bureau of Buaineu RcN&rcb by Te:u1 retail etorN. 


EMPLOYMENT AND PAY ROLLS IN TEXAS, CLASSIFIED BY INDUSTRIES A D SELECTED CITIES, MAY, 1938 
Pay Rolls for One Week Ending Nearest Fifteenth of Month 
Number Number of !'ercen tare Amount of Perccntago A,1 erage Weekly Wace of Estab. Employee• Change from Pay Roll Chnni:-e from per Emp]oyec• loduatry liahruent1 Re· May April May May April May May April ~lay porting 1938 1938 1937 1938 1938 1937 1938 1938 1937 
All M anu/acturing Industries ____________________ 659 47,433 0.9 8.9 $1,254,570 + 3.3 3.2 $26.45 $25.38 $24.90 
Food Products 
Bakery GooJs ____________________ ................. _______ 4.4 19.20 19.67 20.08 Beverages, Carbonated .. ·-·-··-··--·······------­37 597 + 7.6 + 22.9 12,378 + 12.5 + 11.6 20.73 19.82 21.84 Confectionery ··-····-···-·······-····-··-·--···-···· 4 130 -26.5 -14.8 2,169 -15.6 -1.5 16.68 14-.51 12.64 Flour Milling ....... ·----·-··-···········-··--------7 384 -3.0 -1.6 9,293 -0.2 + 11.6 24.20 23.51 22.29 Ice, Manufactured .... ----····---··-----------70 798 + 14.0 -10.5 14,978 + 22.4 -3.4 18.77 17.49 17.53 Ice Cream -·········-·····-·······--···---·-···-·-··-··-­
35 796 2.1 7.5 15,283 4.5 
5 240 + 10.l -23.1 5,087 + 16.9 -13.4 21.20 19.95 18.82 Meat Packing ······-···-··········-··------···-----­11 3,106 + 3.4 -23.2 84,005 + 9.7 -23.3 27.05 25.50 27.35 
Textiles 
Cotton Textile Mills .... -----------------­10 2,740 + 1.4 -4.0 36,022 + 3.4 -5.1 13.15 12.89 13.53 Men's Work Clothing ·------------------14 1,156 2.1 -31.7 11,410 -11.5 -46.0 9.87 10.91 11.4 l 
Forest Products 
Furniture ··-····-·····-·-····-···-------···----8 324 -12.4 -17.3 5,141 -27.5 -29.0 15.87 19.17 18.60 
Lumber: Planing Mills __________________ 20 664 0.7 -7.2 13,587 4.7 -7.2 20.46 21.31 20.63 Lumber: Saw Mills __________________________ 11 1,451 2.2 -11.2 23,652 + 3.2 -16.0 16.30 15.44 16.68 
Paper Products .... ---·············-··-··--···-·-···-· 7 353 + 0.6 + 2.2 7,266 + 1.6 + 4.0 20.58 20.37 19.19 
Printing and Publishing 
Commercial Printing ···········--·--------------­37 611 1.5 + 2.0 17,235 + 3.9 + 7.0 28.21 26.74 25.82 Newspaper Publishing_··········------····-----· 18 868 1.1 + 0.1 30,101 + 0.3 + 1.5 34.68 34.18 35.90 
Chemical and Allied Products 
Cottonseed Oil Products ..·--····------------­29 494 -37.2 + 1.7 7,520 -33.2 + 17.l 15.22 14-.32 15.12 Petroleum Refining .... ·-····--·-----------­33 17,751 0.3 4.2 612,756 + 4.1 + 3.0 34.52 33.06 31.72 
Stone and Clay Products 
Brick and Tile ... ·--···········-···--···--··-····-··· 15 710 + 4.7 -23.3 9,759 + 8.7 -18.8 13.75 13.24 13.78 Cement ·········-·········-···-····-··--·-··-··-···-8 1,398 0.5 8.3 33,860 + 2.7 + 22.3 24.22 23.47 18.87 
Iron and Steel Products 
Foundries, Machine Shops ..._____________ 35 3,209 + 2.7 4.0 90,453 + 11.5 + 2.3 28.19 25.96 27.32 
Steam Railroad Repair Shops ______________ 14 1,445 5.5 -28.9 47,183 + 3.7 -19.5 32.65 29.77 27.83 

Structural and Ornamental Iron ..-----·········-·-12 661 6.8 -21.6 13,828 -11.3 -28.9 20.92 21.99 24.02 
Unclassified 
Miscellaneous Manufacturing. ___________ 219 7,547 2.0 7.6 151,604 0.7 2.1 20.09 19.81 22.85 
N onmanufacturing Industries 
Crude Petroleum Productiont..... _________ _ 52 8,977 0.7 + 8.1 325,733 0.5 + 5.5 36.29 36.23 36.26 
Quarrying and Nonmetallic Mining __________ 28 1,378 1.4 7.7 38,379 + 3.2 9.6 27.85 26.61 28.20 Public Utilities ...·-···-------------------­627 18,165 + 0.7 -3.2 480,679 + 1.5 + 7.7 26.46 26.26 27.91 Retaii Trade..·-------------------------------­15,683 -294,198 -18.76 18.57
674 4.3 5.8 3.8 8.4 18.67 Wholesa le Trade...·-··-··---------·-···-···-···­260 5,057 0.6 -2.8 135,199 + 3.9 + 5.6 26.74 25.58 25.14 
Cotton Compresses ··-···-···-·--··-···-····-· 16 668 -18.9 -28.5 12,005 9.8 -20.9 17.97 16.16 19.13 Dyeing and Oeaning..·---·-···-----········-····-14 425 + 7.6 + 15.9 8,253 + 6.4 + 11.3 19.42 19.63 17.83 Hotelst ···--·-·--------------------··-····-·-27 2,450 0.6 + 1.4 31,452 2.5 + 6.6 12.84 13.09 12.29 Laundries. ____ ···-··----------------------31 1,561 + 2.6 -2.0 18,579 + 2.4 -5.1 11.90 11.93 12.19 Miscellaneous Nonmanufacturing --···--·····-133 1,812 4.5 -13.9 50,978 6.3 -10.0 28.13 28.67 23.37 
STATE.·--·-·----------------------···-2,521 103,609 1.2 5.8 2,650,025 + 1.4 0.8 25.58 24.92 24.30 
Cities 
24 7.3 4.3 1.3
Abilene ··--------···-···--·-··-------------357 -7,608 + 5.1
Amarillo___________________ 
32 953 3.1 + 1.2 27,503 3.3 + 7.8 
Austin ··-····-----------------­
Beaumont.._____ 
Dallas ...... ________________________ 
El Paso____________________________ 

Fort Worth ..·-----------------------­
Galveston.. .. ___________________________ 

Houston ··--------------------­
Port Arthur ..·------------------­
San Antonio _______ 
Sherman -·····----· 
Waco ·-·····---------------­Wichita Falls -----------------­
28 35 230 94 127 25 207 15 179 22 58 30 
896 2,750 
15,758 2,789 5,565 
687 
14,670 6,973 5,866 
812 1,641 1,070 
+ 2.2 
2.9 
0.4 
1.3 
+ 0.6 
6.9 
1.5 
0.7 
0.2 
2.9 
+ 1.1 
4.3 
+ 
8.0 -11.9 -3.0 + 1.5 -15.2 + 3.9 + 2.9 -15.9 -2.6 -17.9 -6.1 

+ 
13.8 


15,035 80,259 384,642 56,803 138,293 16,729 386,196 232,051 124,802 13,502 28,973 25,710 
+ 
0.5 

+ 
0.4 

+ 
2.1 

+ 
4.4 

+ 
4.0 

+ 
4.0 

+ 
0.2 

+ 
2.8 


0.1 
2.2 
3.1 
0.8 
3.3 
8.3 
+ 
0.1 

+ 
1.7 

+ 
4.4 

+ 
7.9 

+ 
2.2 


-10.9 
-5.7 
-21.8 -2.5 
+ 39.6 
• Not 1trictly comparable from month to mC1nth beeau1e o( changes in the 1lr.e and compo1itioo of the reportlns tar.Jple. 
fCrudc petroleum and natural ra11 production, includini: natural t:atoline. 
lC.uh payments only; the additional value of board. room and tips cannot be computed. 

Prepared from rcport1 from Texa1 industrial e1taLli1hmenu to the Bureau o( Bu1ioe11 Research, coOperatinr with the United States Bureau of Labor Sta.tietict. 
CEMENT  CONSUMPTION  OF ELECTRIC POWER IN TEXAS  
Power Consumed  
(In TI1ousands of Barrels)  
May  May  April  (In Thousands of K.W.H.)  
1938  1937  1938  Percentage Change  

May 1938 May 1938 751 
Texas Plants 
May May April from from
Production ---------------717 625 
1938 1937 1938 May 1937 April 1938
580
Shipments ---------------612 683 
853 Commercial __ 44,029 38,845 41,691 + 13.3 + 5.6 
Stocks -----------·------958 688 
Industrial _____ 98,884 104,954 101,757 -5.8 2.8 United States Residential __ 31,725 27,654 31,003 + 14.7 + 2.3
Production ____________________10,361 11,634 7,983 
All Other ________ 26,725 29,288 24,726 8.8 + 8.1 hipments ------------------·-9,752 
11,890 8,678 22,262 TOTAL _________201,363 200,741 199,177 + 0.3 + 1.1
25,491 
Capacity Operated ---------47.4 53.2 37.7 

tocks ..... ----·--·----------------22,871 
NOTE: Prepared from reports from 16 electric power companies to the Bureau No'rE: From U. S. Department of lntcrior, Bureau of Mines. 
of Business Re1carcb. 
MAY RETAIL SALES OF INDEPENDENT STORES IN TEXAS 
May, 1938 Year 1933 
Number Percentace Chan1e Number Percenta1e of b Dollar Salee ot Change ia. Firm• from from Firm1 Dollar Sat .. Rc­May April Re· from portinc Dollar Sale1 1937 1938 portinc Dollar Sales Year 1937 
TEXAS________________________________ 1,311 
s16, 465 ,285 -12.3 + 1.4 1,003 $67,238,051 5.7 STORES GROUPED BY LINE OF GOODS CARRIED: APPAREL__ 155 2,480,337 -6.9 5.3 129 10,987,074 + 2.2 
Family Oothing Steres____ 35 250,887 -15.4 -11.2 28 968,926 0.6 Men's and Boys' Oothing Stores__________ 58 985,173 -8.3 -1.6 50 4,039,359 + 2.7. hoe Stores___________________ 21 150,363 -15.7 -26.1 19 672,426 -Q..4 Women's Specialty Shops_____________ 41 1,093,914 -2.0 -3.3 32 5,306,363 + 2.7 
AUTOMOTIVE__________ 145 3,319,857 -22.5 + 1.1 114 15,731,075 -14.4 Filling Stations.---------------------44 144,390 + 1.2 +11.0 30 518,96.3 + 0.7 
Motor Vehicle Dealers_____________________________ 101 3,175,467 -23.3 + 0.7 84 15,212,112 -14.8 COUNTRY GENERALAND FARMERS' SUPPLIES .. -111 720,140 -17.4 + 3.7 97 2,581,857 -11.8 
DEPARTMENT STORES ...-----------------73 5,228,440 6.2 0.1 62 22,101,84·7 + 0.3 
DRY GOODS AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE..._____ 14 58,651 3.4 3.6 3 31,716 + 2.2 Dry Goods ----------·-----·-------------------------6 39,908 2.1 5.7 • 
General Merchandise____________________________ 3 6,551 6.4 + 5.0 Variety Stores__________________________________ 5 12,192 5.9 0.5 3 31,716 + 2.2 
DRUG STORES___________________ 165 525,824 3.1 + 5.3 128 1,965,634 + 0.6 
FLORISTS_________________________ 37 59,987 + 2.2 7.7 26 217,194 + 2.3 
FOOD--------------·--------187 1,108,173 -11.9 -7.5 148 4,180,990 -4.6 

Grocery Stores_____________________ 53 207,207 -14.1 -8.1 44 943,160 -6.9 
Grocery and Meat Stores --·------------------134 900,966 -11.4 -7.3 104 3,237,830 -3.9 

FURNITURE AND HOUSEHOLD__________ 64 883,174 -20.2 +10.9 45 3,016,938 -12.8 Furnilure Stores__________ 54 782,224 -18.0 +10.8 36 2,665,769 -11.3 Household Appliance Stores________________ 7 91,61.4 -34.2 +24.4 6 291,776 -26.4 Other Home Furnishings Stores. ___ 3 9,336 -34.3 -44.5 3 59,393 + 5.4 
JEWELRY..--------------·-------------------59 265,554 -4.5 +44.8 42 610,264 -2.6 
LUMBER, BUILDING, AND HARDWARE...______ 264 1,682,400 -12.3 + 14.7 182 5,296,296 -12.3 Farm Implement Dealers.. ----10 50,730 -32.l + 23.8 7 175,082 -26.6 Hardware Stores·-·----··--------------73 410,707 -6.7 + 13.7 55 1,340,415 -9.3 Lumber and Building Material Dealers________ 178 1,202,395 -13.3 + 15.5 117 3,676,880 -12.6 Hea ting and Plumbing Shops___________________ 3 18,568 + 3.1 -21.0 3 103,919 -10.4 RESTAURANTS________________ 28 104,310 7.4 3.2 20 420,320 1.4 
ALL OTHER STORES____________ 9 28,438 7.0 -0.1 8 96,846 + 7.5 TEXAS STORES GROUPED ACCORDING TO POPU­LATION OF CITY: All Stores in Cities of-OVER 100,000 POPULATION___________ 301 8,831,251 -8.6 -4.4
+ 0.9 225 ~7,608,679
50,000-100,000 POPULATION__________ 123 1,684,866 -9.9 + 3.2 98 6,14.S,220 -4.4 
2,500-50,000 POPULATION ______ 548 4,305,615 -17.0 + 0.9 420 17,726,427 -7.1 
LESS THAN 2,500 POPULATION________ 339 1,643,553 -19.5 + 3.9 260 5,757,725 -10.8 
• Not available. 
Non:: Prepared from report• from independent retail 1tores to the Bureau of Butlnon Re1earch, coOperatlne with the United State• Department of Commerce. 

MAY SHIPMENTS OF LIVE STOCK CONVERTED TO A RAIL-CAR BASIS§ 
Cattle  Calvet  Hoe•  Sheep  Total  
1938  1937  1938  1937  1938  1937  1938  1937  1938  1937  
Total Interstate Plus Fort WorthU -----------­T<iltal Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth________  6,788 1,224  7,989 1,197  844 258  882 127  615 66  620 40  2,061 32  2,189 58  10,308 1,580  11,680 1,425  
TOT AL SHIPMENTS____________ _____  8,012  9,186  1,102  1,009  681  663  2,093  2,247  11,888  13,105  
TEXAS CAR-LOT§ SHIPMENTS OF LIVE STOCK, JANUARY 1 TO JUNE 1  
Cattle  Calves  Hoc:•  Sheep  Total  
1938  1937  1938  1937  1938  1937  1938  1937  1938  1937  
Total Interstate Plus Fort WorthU--------22,208 Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth _____ 3,737 TOT AL SHIPMENTS_________________________ 25,945  26,516 3,497 30,013  3,477 735 4,212  3,312 704 4,016  3,089 282 3,371  3,893 280 4,173  4,223 199 4,422  4,921 247 5,168  32,997 4,953 37,950  38,642 4,728 40,370  
lRail-car  Bnsis:  Ca1tle,  30  head  per  carj  calves,  60; hog1,  80; and  eheep, 250.  

Fort Worth ehipmcnts are combined with intentate forwnrdings in order that the bulk of market disappearanc~ for the month may be shown. NoTE: These data are furnished the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economice by railway officials through more then 1,500 1tation agents, represcntine every livcRtock 1hivping point in the State. The data are compiled by the Bureau of BusineH Research. 
MAY RETAIL SALES OF INDEPENDENT STORES IN TEXAS 
Total Total Number Percentage Change Number Percenta~e Change of in Dollar Sales of in Dollar Sa Jes Fi1m1 May 1938 May 1938 Firms May 1938 May 1938 Re· from from Re· from from port inc May 1937 April 1938 port inc May 1937 April 1938 
TOTAL TEXAS__________________l,311 
-12.3 + 1.4 DISTRICT 4--------320 -11.6 + 1.9 TEXAS STORES GROUPED Cleburne --·------11 -16.5 2.6 BY PRODUCING AREAS: 
Commerce ----------5 -18.8 4.7 Corsicana ----------10 -23.8 5.7
DISTRICT 1-N___________________ 77 -'22.7 + 2.3 
Dallas -----------------52 7.8 0.6
-8.7 + 3.1
Amarillo -------·------·------19 	-
Denison ------------7 7.9 6.9
-40.5 -8.7
Pampa ----·------·-------------14 Denton ----------------5 + 1.1 + 1.6
-26.6 -0.7
Plainview ------·-·---------·-------13 Ennis ------------------7 + 0.7 + 19.8 
All Others.-----·-----·--------31 -9.7 +21.8 Fort WortlL-______________ 62 -13.8 + 7.3 DISTRICT 1-S -----------------26 -12.2 3.8 Gainesville -----------·-5 -11.9 -8.1 Big Spring ------------------7 -14.0 0.9 Sherman ------------8 -10.4 -3.7 
Lubbock ---------------------13 -12.8 4.8 Taylor ---------6 -25.7 -15.9 
-21.6 6.8
All Others -----·------··------6 3.3 + 3.7 Temple -----------12 -2.6 0.9 Waco ------------32 -9.4 + 4.3
DISTRICT 2.-----------·-----·---108 
All Others ---------98 -23.8 + 6.1
Abilene --------------------· 15 -8.9 9.2 DISTRICT 5__________ 134 
-22.8 1.2
+ 17.2 4.0
Childress ----------·--·----3 
Bryan --··------------11 -8.4 + 7.1
+ 1.3 + 16.8 
Snyder ------------------------6 Longview ----·---------12 -122 + 3.4
+11.4 + 7.2 Wichita Falls_______________ 14 + 2.0 9.2 
Vernon -·--------------·-·----7 
-Marshall ---------------11 -14.7 4.0 Nacogdoches ----------5 -8.6 + 6.4
-5.4 + 9.2
All Others -------------------63 Tyler ----------·---------21 -27.2 0.2 
DISTRICT 3 ··--------------------45 -21.2 + 12.2 All Others_____________ 74 -25.8 4.0 
-34.4 -6.8 DISTRICT 6._________________ 46
Brownwood -·--------------8 -17.0 + 2.7 Eastland ------------------------8 -0.6 +13.9 El Paso ·-----··-----------32 -15.2 + 3.4 
-11.6 + 2.2
Stephenville --·----·---------7 	All Others ---·-------------14 -29.8 3.1 
-21.6 + 17.7 DISTRICT 7____________ 65 ­
All Others ------------··------22 8.8 + 8.6 Brady -------··-------9 -18.6 + 8.6 San Angelo_________ 13 8.4 + 0.1 
-
All Others -----------40 7.0 + 15.5 
DISTRICT 8__________ 233 ­9.9 + 3.2 
-
Austin ------------26 4.2 + 7.7 Corpus Christi ----·---12 -24.1 + 11.7 
-
Quero --·-----------8 9.7 + 1.5 Lockhart --------------9 -40.8 -13.0 San Antonio --·--------88 8.7 + 1.2
-San Marcos -·---·-------·-·-----6 -26.9 + 0.7 Yoakum --·--·-·---·-··--·---·---5 
-31.3 -16.7 All Others ----------·-------79 9.4 + 7.4
-
DISTRICT 9 ______________ 184 -­
7.0 1.4 Bay City -------·--·--·---5 -15.7 +34.l Beaumo1~t -------------24 -7.9 2.8 Galveston -----·-·---18 -21.0 1.7 Houston ----------67 -2.8 2.2 Port Arthur -----------23 -11.5 + 5.4 Victoria ---·-------7 -7.4 0.8 All Others -·-----------40 -17.6 5.4 
DI 	TRICT 10 ------73 -21.1 + 5.6 Brownsville -----------15 -22.3 5.9 Harlingen -------·---11 -31.5 + 4.6 Laredo ------·---·-5 
-27.5 +202 Weslaco -----------5 -8.0 +22.5 All Others ----------37 -11.4 + 1.2 
NoTI: Prepared from reports from independent retail stores to the Bureau of Bu1ioee1 Research, eoOperating with the United States Department of Commercea 
POSTAL RECEIPTS  BUILDING PERMITS  
Mny 1938 Abil ene ------------­$ 17,556 Amarillo ------------­28,082 Austin ------------­68,847 Bea um ont -----------­24,472 Ili g pri ng ---------­5,317 Bro wnsv ill e --------­5,948 Brownwood 5,665 orpu Ch r isti 23,192 Co rsicana 4.,760 Dall as 31­J ,2~0 Del Rio 2,078 Deni so n -· --------­4,4-95 n nt on ---­----------­6,l 50 El Paso 43,847 Fort Worth --· -----­124,939 Galvf's ton 28,019 Glad ewater --· ----­2,696 Graham ---------­--·­1,985 ll arlingen 5,193 Jl ou ton 222,156 Jackso nvili e 4·,991 Longvi ew -­--------­9,960 Lubbock -------------­15,665 McAllen 4.,277 Marshall 5,657 Pale tine __ -------­4,25;) P a mpa -----------------­6,478 Paris ····------·------­5,066 Pla inview 3,824 Port Arthur -------­12,758 a n An gelo ----------­l l ,261 ~an Antoni o __ ------­116,877 Sherman 7,4.26 . nyder 1,147 • weN water _------­4·,768 T yler 14,210 Waco 31,872 Wichita Fall s 23,805 TOTAL -----­$1,251,232  Mny 1937 $ 15,873 28,566 50,924 23,8% 4,%3 5,734 5,595 21,160 5,121 352,880 4,160 4°,430 5,861 39,078 138,64·7 25,262 2,867 2,053 4,819 211 ,097 5,393 9,350 13,231 3,428 5,325 4,514 6,479 5,733 3,724 11,065 10,594 111,640 7,127 1,267 4.330 15,078 31,078 18,638 $1,220,980  April 1938 $ 18,733 35,025 67,934 26,261 7,248 6.403 6,262 23,789 5,695 354,304 3,757 4,774 6,869 47.545 133,154 21,6n 3,226 2,334 6,220 238,721 3,875 11,276 16,314 4.,550 5,934 4°,729 7,462 5,420 4,092 13,077 11,406 117,886 7,414 1,306 4,782 15,295 32,645 23,487 $1,316,882  Moy 1938 Ab il ene ________________.$ 63,648 Ama rillo --------------­118,083 Austin -------­----------­372,357 Beaumo nt ------------­91,318 Big Spring ---------­50,695 Brownsvill e· -----------­5,430U Brownwood -----------­2,918 Corpus Oiristi______ 183,670 Corsicana ------------­20,459 Dallas --------------­1,134,065 Del Rio___ ______________ 21,025 Denison --------------­13,830 E l Paso --------------­109,127 Fort Worth.___________ 346,894 Galves ton -------------­93,664. Gladewater -----------­4,389 Graham --------------­10,367 Harlingen ------------­23,80'8 Houston -------------­1,777,745facksonville _________ 21,250 Kilgore ----------------­47,lOOU La­redo ------------------­5,850 Lubbock -----·--------­232,582 McAll en ___ ----------­32,990 New Braunfels ------­15,080 Palestine --------------­17,902 ~:~~a__:::::-~::::::::=::: l~'.~~ P lainv iew ------------­5,860 Pon Arthur__ _________ 87,120 San Angelo ---------­4.S,076U San Antonio__ ____
__ __ 505,780 Shennan __________ ____ 59,775 Snyder --------------­l ,lOOU Sweetwater --------­35,380 Tyler ·----------------­97,673 Waco ------------------­92,823Wichita Falls ______ 96,904 TOTAL _________________ $5,868,582  Moy 1937 $ 25,165 43,873 321,769 M,217 16,190 15,721 3,450 358,355 17,516 1,043,lOS ll,820U 12,175 108,389 567,119 63,278 6,450 21,000 24,966 2,350,464 2,750 2,100 1,400 159,988 9,800 8,940 19',090 M,500 4,905 7,330 119,321 31,885 416,502 19,961 12,000 17,477 101,408 107,090 34,822 $6,186,292  April 1938 $ 328,627 223,770 421,501 83,101 23,155 11,962U 2,550 i>44.,525 6,215 1,186,742 7,990 12,755 160,879 898,94·9 177,662 11,900 9,660 11,815 2,480,330 500 59,800U 1,750 215,4'!0 11,805 9,970 55,64-1 18,800 9,920 5,900 75,255 29,700 318,518 21.868 3,825 12,416 97,485 131,954 52,419 $7,537,074  
NoT.r.:: Compiled from reports Ou rcnu o f Business Resea rc h.  from  Texas  chambers  of  commerc e  to  the  1iDoce not include Public Worke. NoTE : Compil ed fr om rcporis from Bureau of Business Research.  Texas  c1rnmb cu  of  commerce  to  the  

PETROLEUM 
Daily Average Production 
(In Barrels) 
Mo y May April 1938 1937 1938 
Coastal TexasU __ -------------196,000 205,200 206,100 F.ast Central Texas --------------99,300 122,550 101,650 East Texas __ -----------------398,200 461.050 431,900 
Qrth Texas ----------------------__ 74,950 72,900 77,350 Panhandle ____ -----------------·----65,650 79,600 63,350 • outhwest Texas ---·---------------218,900 233,250 232,250 West Cf'ntral Texas ·------------28,200 32,850 29,550 WeRt Texas -----------------------189,200 209,200 195,300 
. TATE ----------------.1,270,400 1,416,600 1,337,450 U !TED TATES ---·----------3,254,750 3,54UOO 3,403,500 Imports ______ --------------139,821 153,357 133,964 
fJ ncludC's Conro('. 
!\on:: From American Pl'tro!C'um Jn,titute. 
Sre acrompanyiug map showing oil produc ioa: di1tric ts of Texaa. 

Gasoline sales as indicated by taxes collected by the State o~ptroller were: April, 1938, 97,708,000 gallons ; April, 1937, 98.151,000 gallons; !\!arch, 1938, 105,179,000 gallons. 

MAY CARLOAD MOVEMENT OF POULTRY TEXAS CHARTERS 
AND EGGS 

May Mny April Car! of Poultry 1938 1937 1938 Live Dressed Cars of Eggs Domestic Corporations­Destination• Chickens Turkeys Chickens Turkeys May May May May May May May May May May Capitalizationll -----------------------------Sl,785 $2,763 $1,889 N11mber -------------------------------------122
1938 1937 1938 1937 1938 1937 1938 1937 1938 1937 165 160 Shipments from Texas Stations Classification of new corporations: TOTAL 3 2 8 43 89 13 8 66 115 Banking-Finance -----------------------5 8 2 Manufacturing --------------------------21 32 44
Intrastate --------1 1 5 2 31 39 Merchandising -------------------------26 35 40Interstate -----------2 1 8 43 84 13 6 35 76 
Oil _______ ---------------------------------------31 29 36 Interstate Shipments Classified Public Service --------------------------2 Real Estate-Building -------------------9 12 11
New York ______ 1 1 15 32 2 2 4 4 Transportation --------------------------6 9 4
Illinois ----------­7 4 1 11 
Massachusetts _ 4 13 2 2 All Others -----------------------------------24 38 23 New Jersey ___ 8 4 17 8 1 2 2 Number capitalized at less than $5,000 44 65 58 Pennsylvania __ 7 11 1 1 2 
Number capitalized at $100,000 or more 3 7 5Louisiana _______ ___ 

5 12 
Foreign Corporations (Number) ____________ 12 39 20
Connt.{:ticut ________ 2 2 1 
Georgia ---------____ 2 

Uln tbouundt.
California ______ 1 16 9 
Non: Compiled from rccord1 of the Secretary of State.
Alabama ------­1 5 
Florida ·----------­6 
Rhode Island__ 2 1 

COMMODITY PRICESOhio -------------3 
Tennessee _________ 
1 2 
May May AprilMaryland -------------1 1 1938 1937 1938
Oklahoma _________ 1 4 
WHOLESALE PRICES:
Nebraska __________ 1 3 1 2
Oregon ______________ U. S. Bureau of Labor
1 Statistics (1926 =100) ______________ 
78.1 87.4 78.7
Indiana --·------------2 
Dist. of Col. ______ 1 The Annalist (1926 =100) __________ 80.5 93.5 80.7 Montana ----------____ 1 FARM PRICES: Iowa ------------____ 1 
U.S. Department of Agricul-
Kansas -----------2 ture (1910-14 =100) __________________ 
92.0 128.0 94.0
N. Carolina _____ ____ 
3 
Virginia ___________ U.S. Bureau of Labor
1 (1926 =100) _________________
Arkansas ____________ Statistics 67.5 89.8 63.4 RETAIL PRICE:: 
1 
Utah -------------1 
Food (U.S. Bureau of Labor

Origin Receipts at Texas Stations 
Statistics, 1923-25 =100) _____________ 79.1 86.5 79.4 TOTAL ---------­3 1 4 36 51 
Department Stores (Fairchild'sIntrastate 3 1 4 32 27 Publications, Jan. 1931 =100) -----89.5 95.6 90.2 
Interstate -----------4 24 Interstate Receipts Classified 
STOCK PRICES 
Kansas -----------------21 

Oklahoma ____ ____ May May April
1 
1938 1937 1938
Nebraska -------___ _ 3 
Illinois _______ __ 
_ Standard Indexes of the Securities
1 
California ______ Markets:
1 
New York__________ 
1 419 Stocks Combined_______________ 73.9 
116-3 70.7 347 Industrials ------------------------87.4 136.7 84.2 
•The destination above ie the finit destina1ion as shown by the original waybill. 32 Rails --------------------------------21.8 57.1 20.9 
ChanGes in destination brought about by diversion orders are not shown. 

40 Utilities -------------------------------69.5 94.1 64.0 
Sot·Ru: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Division of Crop and Livestock 
Estimates. 
Non: From Standard• Stati1tic11 Co., Inc.

NoTE: These data nr<" furnished the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Division 
of Crop and Livestock Estimates, by railway officials through agents at all stations 
which originate and receive carload shi pment!! of poultry and eggs. The data are 
compile<l by the Bureau of Business Research, LUMBER 

(In Board Feet)TEXAS COMMERCIAL FAILURES 
May May April 1938 1937 
1938 1938 1937 1938 Southern Pine Mills: 
May Mny April 
19.
Number -------------------------------11 8 Average Weekly Production Liabilitiesll ----------------------------$235 $23 srn2• per unit ---------------------------273,869 341,654 261,258 AssetsII -·--·---------------------------------Sll2 $10 $112° Average Weekly ShipmentsAverage Liabilities per Failurell ____ $ 21 $ 3 s lo• per unit _______________________________ 258,981 
300,335 244,970 Average Unfilled Orders per
•Rev ised. 
Unit, End of Month._________464,252 733,371 516,271
Hn thou1ant.l1. 
NcTI:: From Dun and Brad1trcet, Inc. 

Non : From Southern Pine .A..oclatlen. 
BANKING STATISTICS (In Millions of Dollars) 
May, 1938 Dall11.s United  May, 1937 Dallas United  April, 1938 Dallas United  
District  States  District  State•  District  Stalct  
DEBITS to individual accounts -----------------------------­ 890•  36,993•  903•  43,91.?"  740  30,978  
Condition of reporting member banks on- June l, 1938  June 2, 1938  April 27, 1938  
AssETS: Loans and investments-total__  473  20,536  477  22,158  475  20,844  
Loans-total____________  224  8,334  213  9,571  231  8,587  
Commercial, i.n.dustrial, and agricultural loans: On securities ___ ·-------------------------------­Otherwise secured and unsecured.-----------·----·-----­Open market paper . _____ ------------------------­Loans to brokers and dealers in securities. ______________ _  10 132 1 3  553 3,439 365 603  15 116 2 3  561 3,699 483 1,333  10 137 2 3  546 3,641 393 6.52  
Other loans for purchasing or carrying securities ---·-------­Real estate loans _______________________________  14 20  583 1,156  15 21  720 1,161  15 20  591 1,149  
Loans to banks------------------------------------·  1  114  1  123  104  
Other loans:  
On securiti~ ·---------------------­Otherwise secured and unsecured _______________  10 33  698 823  9 31  715 776  10 34  695 816  
U.S. Government obligations ___ ------------·---­Obligations fully guaranteed by U.S. Government_ _____  169 30  7,844 1,4.U  186 28  8,287 1,156  167 28  7,987 1,199  
Other securities ·-----------­Reserve with Federal Reserve Bank___________________  50 %  2.94·7 6,252  50 113  3,144 5,278  49 101  3,071 6,060  
Cash in vault. ___ -------------------------­Balances with domestic banks ________________________ .  10 218  390 2,373  9 148  329 1,766  11 201  372 2,256  
Other assets-net...----------------·--------­ 26  1,323  28  1,340  26  1,274  
L1Ann.1nES:  
Demand deposits-adjusted ---------------------------­Time deposits ---------------­-·---·-------------­U.S. Government deposits ---------------------------­Inter.hank deposits:  395 130 25  14,589 5,216 533  389 121 5  15.274 5;231 142  394 130 25  14,598 5,230 585  
Domestic banks -----------------------------­ 186  5,832  174  5,139  178  5,632  
Foreign banks _____ ·------------------------­Borrowings _------·--------------------­Other liabilities ------------------------­ 5  315 1 738  6  560 13 905  5  337 794  
Capital account ----------------------------------­ 82  3,650  80  3,607  82  3,630  
• Viv<'  Wrf'k".  
l'\on::  From Frd<"ra l llt"Acrve Board.  

CONTE TS PAGE 
Business Review and Prospect, F. A. Buechel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 Cotton, A. B. Cox ------------------------·--------------------------_-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 Current Mannfacturing Developments in Texas, Clara H. Lewis -----------------------------------r--------------------------------------------8 
}1
f;~~:~~;~~Liz~·,i;~ ?n° ::~:-El~c~--H. ·yoi;-~-~~~-::::::::::=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=::::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::=::::::::=::::=: ~ 
LI T OF CHARTS omparative Indexes cf Pay Rolls______________________________________________ 1 
Income of Agricultural Cash Income in Texas by Districts______________.__________--------------------------------------4, 5 I ndexe of Business Activity in Texas ------------------·-------------------------------===:::_-:--==-=:::::====:~-==---==-2 LT T OF TABLES 









lll~~;:'.;:~,~:'.f~JJ:t~:~~~~~\~~~~~~~~[~i 

c~~~~~ N:~~o:c~n ~:~as Retail tore ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------· ~~ fmr~oyment and Pay Roll s in Texas, Cla~;ifi~ -b;--ln-d·~-~i~-~;i 5;j~~~d--C;;;·;--~~:-.::==~-===:~~:::~~==:=::::=:==--====== 11 
~~-~~~~~--~~~~~j! 

. hipm(>Jlt• of Livestock onverted to a Rail-Car Basis -13 tock Prices ____ ___ _ _ ____________________________:::~=_::::=-_::-_=-_::=::_-:--_:::==::::=--=---=-=--:--====~~=---~==::::::::::==~-==-=--15