TEXAS BUSINES$,-., REVIEW ' · ... ~._,.·:. 'V' Bureau of Business Researc:Q)r~ T'. .. '.. The University of Texas Vol. Xlll, No. 9 NOllTULR.N TOH t,lll l [lllllN LU~ TI MM lD PLAIN~ L;E.G[ND hANS · DL •OS DIST IC T ";to1 -TbUL · Crn• · UO · TO (DIV AllD DtAHAU STATE OF TEXAS TOT AL · l All 0 · All&".-----rll SOUTUl~N TtU~ PU tl L.,, ·::· ..£ > 1.·: ..::_ .......---+-.-..."o(T ul-llw DI NOT· I• ll ID.. Cl0'5 · TO·TOTAL·LANO · AHA -P·••••oo US PLAINS _ ,.. .... ....... . GuNoL Vuuv ~ !)ULll U Of tll)l•LU LL UH.C.• O~E DOLLAR PER YEAR TEN CENTS PER COPY TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW INDEXES OF Bu~1NEss ACTIVITY IN TEXAS AVERAGE MONTH OF 1930=100% W [ I C H T COMPOS IT[· IN0£111 [r.IPLOVM[NT---2$"'• f"R[ICHT CARLOAOINCS---20 .. PAV R 0 LLS 2$ "' CRUCE OIL RUNS---­ ... ELECTRIC POWER CO N SUMf'TIOt+-1 ~"• e ure1u of e11siness Rtse1rch Th• unive rs it y ot ru•s OEPARTMCNT STORE SALES -10 "I. Business Review and Prospect GE'.'\ERAL BUSINESS the 'il11alio11 11<1rrn11tc.!. f11r th·· 111;1r'.."111 11f impr1'\•'11\1'11t That business activity in the highly industrialized and commercialized areas of the North and East \rill continue at approximately the present hi!!h rate durin!". the re­ mainder of the year, at least, see1'ns assured on 'the ba<;is of orders now on the books, orders currently comin"' in. and inquiries which, in part at least, will r~sult in "'pur~ clrnscs. Although the capital goods industries have made the sharpest advance since the outbreak of the European war, consumer goods industries also have made a favor­ able ~howing and giYe promise of gaining momentum as rising pay rolls in prirnte industry and inr-rra~ing farm cash returns add to the spendable inrnme. The greale5t advance in the consumer goorls category may be expected in durable consumer goods, such a'S auto­ mobiles and household appliances, rather than in lines which furnish the nece;csilies of life, such as food. As lo what the trend of business activity in this coun­ try is likely to he afler the early months of 1910 few analysts hazard an opinion, except as they hedge them­ selves hy assumptions most of which center about the probable duration, scope, and intensity of the war. There is already much speculation as to the influence which the war has had upon the sharp upsurge of indus­ trial activity since September 1, especially in the matter of inventory accumulations. Unfortunately, aderp1ate official figures on current inventories (whether of indus­ trial raw materials, manufacturing, semi-manufacturing, wholesale, or retail) are lacking, so that in this impor­ tant realm of needed statistical information much is left to the imagination. The longer the war lasts and the more intense it becomes, even if confined within its present scope, the lIBrder it will be for business leaders to determine how much of the increase in business ac­ tivity in this country is attributable to war and how much to normal economic actiYities; and as a corollary to this fact, the more difficult it will he to readjust our psychology and economy to a peace-time basis when the warring nations finally come to agreement. Should this country ultirnalely be drawn into the conflict, tlie prob­ lems of adj us ting our economy first to war and later to peace would, of course, he multiplied. It is this situa­ tion which has brought forth warnings from lcadin;r industrialists and labor leaders and has come in for much attention in the conn'ntions of such trade asoof'ia­tions as the United Stales Chamber of Commerce, the l\ational Asrnciation of :\Ianufacturcrs, and the American Bankers Association. In considering the unparalleled rise in business ac­tivity in the l\'orth and East during the past six weeks, it is well to remember that a strong undercurrent of buoi­ncss irnpro,·ement had begun to assert itself late last spring, as was pointed out in the opening paragraph of the June number of the RE\"JE\V. In fact, even the gradual decline in the nalional bu5inc5s curve, which had been taking place between \u,:cmber, 1938, and ~Ia.y, 193'), was being viewed al the tune with more pess1m1sm than r>1·n the pre1·1•.fin'..'.· \1•;1r 11·;1" q11il1' L11nr;1Ji],·. ;rnd it wa,; known 111:11 i111p111·!;rnf l-itt' to that e-.;perted . .-\s a re,ult of th" 1·.. n,rn·ati1 t' lll1"i11c"' Jl"li1·ic' after tlw JIT.'"in11 lrrn·~. Tt i-thi-hi'..'.1 111 , .,;11•en·ati~ r h11"inco'• lia1 ·~.'.'.1·111111d "f the l'u"l t1111 ,~ 1';11:, 1·. Jij,.Ji has ma~nifird t!Jt' 'harp inrlu5tri,d and 1·1.:::;nn1·i;il a1haner, or' rrrent 11·r1·kc;. \\"p ran "nh· !!Iii'"" nl11r1· sil11ation , hut \\f' kn1;11· 'P"~ili\l·h 1h,1t a1er;1 ,'.!e r·o11111H>di1~­ prir-f'" arl' .-till n·n !"11· 1·omparnl with tlw peak rra,.Ju·;I in 1'X~/. 1t i.•, tllf'rr·f111·e. morr• pr<>kdilc than othcrwi-c that if p<'li1111 that in thr future sound rr·on"mir· polir:ie< 11·ill hr dc·1 elnpPrl in this r·nun­ tn, and that more c•m;;iHcnt coi"1prrati11n lwtwcrn indus­ trial and goYernment leaders 11·i ll ernh·r. Tn:As Bcs1:-;Ess The lrn"ine"s boom 11·liir·h has been !".Ulllt11!! momentum in the commercial and ind11strial area~ of tl;e :\orth nnd Ea-t durin~ the pnO"l O"CH'n 11crks i" now hrinp-dcfinitrh· rdlcctc:d in Tna• industn· and trade. !Jl1t as Yet on a cri111paralil(·h· modrrat" ,,:air·. \\.lwre:i". l3arro;1·, indn.: of inclu~ln <'r f'1·11l. all'! a 2. l pn r·Pnl i11n,·a-r· in tlw nu111lwr 11f 11·1>1'Kf'r,;: mi,.;1·1:lla11r: rr1·-1• "11rli11µ-1111111lh laot \f·ar. For Other Texas Data, See Statistical Tables at the End of This Publication INDEXE OF BUSI 1E S ACTIVITY IN TEXAS It will be noted in the above table that in only on~ e pt. Sept. Aug. 1939 1938 1939 Employment -----­---­------­90.42Pay Rolls ___ _____ _ ___ _ 93.01 87.93 90.84 88.34 92.08 Miscellaneous Freight Carload­ ings (Southwest District) _ 67.41 65.15 56.47 Crude Runs to Still s --------189.43 176.45 192.51* Department Store ales ---· 109.4·1 Electric Power Consumption ___140.15 110.27 119.84 110.74* 131.90* COMPOSITE I DEX. ________100.75 95.55 96.88* •Revised. FAR:\I CASH hCO:\fE F:1rm ca"h income in Texas during September as com­puted bv this Bureau was about Sfl0,000,000, compared with Sl.'i.000.000 durin~ Septemher la~t year-an in­crease of 6.67 per cent; and during the first nine months of the year the tot:tl computed farm cash income was ap­proximatelv 8291,000.000, as a~ainst about 8285.000,000 during the c-orre:-ponding period List year-an increase of more than 2 per cent. \\'hen thP sno.000,000 farm cash income during Sep­tember this year is compared \vith the avera~e farm cash inc·nme of the fi\e SPptcmhcrs durin)! the base period 192n to 19.32. indusiYe ($11.3.000.000 I. it is found to eoual about 70.4 per cent of tl~e l~tter figure. l\1uch of this decline in farm cash income in Texas is the result of the drastic reduction in collon production in all but one of the important cntton growing sections of the State. The one excepti0n is the Southern High Plains of .\orth­wcst Texas (District 1-S), where the production is now ronsiclerahl y greater than the a\·erage in that area from J921l to 1932. Thr~ follrrn ing tali le shows the wide variation in the indC'x of farm <:ash income among the crop reporting di~tric-ts of Texas in comparison 11"ith the m·erarre of the fi 1 c Scptcmhcr incomes from 1928 to 1932, inclusi\'e. INDEX OF AGRICULT Sept. Di stric ts 1939 _____________ 115.9 1­1-S ------------277.2 2 -----------98.9 3 -------------61.7 4 ---------------65.6 5 -------------60.5 6 --_______ 145.0 7 --________102.5 8 --------------37.4 9 ---·-·-· -------59.3 10 --------51.3 10-A ---------21 .3 STATE ------70.4 RAL CASH INCOME I TEXAS Cumulative Income Au12:. Sept. Jan.-Sept. Jan.-Sept. 1939 1938 1939 1938 (000 Omitted) 53.9 77.0 s 24,883 $ 25,945 61.0 121.4 15,951 15,079 60.3 88.7 106.8 100.1 119.0 64.3 52.3 88.7 23.4 88.5 78.0 90.l 22,484 25,784 53.2 15,616 16,157 7U 63,029 62,157 58.6 28,886 25,508 70.l 14.525 11,807 66.0 26,800 23,655 51.1 29,642 33,279 58.7 18.268 14,537 39:5 10.594 10,2.58 26.0 20,525 20,557 66.3 $291,203 $284,723 crop reporting district of the State does an area which ranks high in cotton production make a fayorable com­parison with the base period; this area is District 1-S I the Lubbor·k area) where the index of farm cash in­come is nParly three times that of the base period. A co11siderahlc part of this farnrable showing is the result of unurnally large September ginnings in this district, a consequence of rapid maturing of the crop on account of the drouth and excessiYe heat. Ordinarily, the peak of farm cash income in this district comes in October, hut this year in all probability it will later be seen to haYe occurred in September. The other areas of the State which made good show­ings durin:r Seplember compared with the base period as refli:ctrd in their respecti\e September index numbers 1verc the Eckards Plateau (District 7), the Trans-PeC'os countn I District 6), and the :'\orthern High Plains !Dis­trir-t ] --_\I . These areas deriYe a large proportion of their income from Ji,cstock and liYestock products, in­cl udin.~ wool and mohair. \"ot only were the marketings of these products on a high le,·el during September, but prices stn·n,!!thcned materially after the outbreak of war in Europc-esperially for wool and mohair-with a 1-cstiltant substantid gain in cash income. :'.\h:--TFACTLRE oF DAIRY PnonccTs 1::-1 T EXAS Among the inrlustrics which are expected to furnish a gro11·ing market for Texas agricultural raw materials are creameries, cheese factories, concentrated milk and ice cream plants. The Bureau of Business Research main­tains close contacts with these establishments throughout the State so that the output of the rnrious products made by these establishments are estimated each month with a.con~;jderahle degree of accuracy. EYen more important, detailed statistical and related information coYering a periorl of mrJrc than ten Years has been prepared by the Bureau and made arnilable to the industry and the pub­lic ~enerally in published form. Future rate of gro11·th of these industries in Texas will probably he largely determined by their ability to supply consumers \l"ith dairy manufactured products as good in quality and as low in price as do the establishments in states 1d1ich are now supplying the bulk of the market. Among important items of cost in the manufacture of these products are salaries and wages of employees; together with costs of materials, supplies, fuel, and pur­chased electric energy. Comparison of these items in a ~elcr· ted group of states from data obtained from the C11 itee! States Bureau of the Census reYeals some sig­ni fir·ant differences in costs among the states under con­sideration. These data are shown in the form of aver­ages and percentages in the tables below: CREAMERIE~l937 Texas Minneeota Iowa Wiscomdn Tennessee Kentucky Missis.sippi Average Salaries ----------------------------------·-­Average Wages ________ ____ _______ ----------­Ratio of Salaries to Total Value of Products ____ $1.690 819 2.10% 1,165 1,086 0.94 % $1,189 954 1.09% $1,143 1,020 0.95% 1,388 878 1.95% $1,495 774 1.82% $1,350 702 2.46% Ratio of Wages to Total Value of Products --·-­ 3.54% 2.98% 2.60% 3.05% 3.16% 2.98% 3.67% Ratio of Cn.t of '.\laterials, Supplies, Fuel, and Electric Energy Purchased to Total Value of Products __ ___ ___ -·­·------­___ 82.82% 89.88% 89.73% 88.71% 86.95% 81.69% 82.69% Ratio of SalariPs, Wap:es, Materials, Supplies, and ElPctric Energy Purchased to Total \"alue of Products ----------------------------­ 88.47% 93.80% 93.41% 92.71% 92.05% 86.48% 88.82% TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Average Salaries --------------------------------------­Average Wages--------------------·--------------­Ratio of Salaries to Total Value of Products __ Ratio of Wages to Total Value of Products _____ Ratio of Cost of Materials, Supplies, Fuel, and Electrio Energy Purchased to Total Value of Products ------------------------------------­ Ratio of Salaries, Wages, Materials, Supplies, and Electric Energy Purchased to Totaf Value of Products ICE CREA 1-1937 $1,851 894 2,266 1,314 $1,305 1,056 $2,024 1,142 $1,7.JO 869 1,912 835 l,7M 805 4.92% 8.85% 5.48% 9.10% 2.44% 5.99% 4.83% 8.13% 6.12% 8.52% 6.16% M9% 5"!-3% 8.25% 53.10% 54.94% 55.72% 55.02% 46.46% 46.61% 67.91 % 67.67% 63.37% 68.68% 69.67% 59.11% 60.29% CHEESE FACTORIES-1937 Average Salaries---------------------------------­$1,565 Average Wages --------------------------------------787 Ratio of Salaries to Total Value of Products ____ 3.02% Ratio of Wages to Total Value of Products ___ 4-4-7% Ratio of Cost of Materials, Supplies, Fuel, and Electric Energy Purchased to Total Value of Products --------------------------------------------81.40% Ratio of Salaries, Wages, Materials, Supplies, and Electric Energy Purchased Lo Total Value of Products ---------------------------------------­88.89% It will be noted that in the manufacture of butter and cheese, the percentage of the total value of the products manufactured paid in wages and salaries is greater in practically all cases for the four states south than in the three states north of the Mason and Dixon Line. On the other hand, the percentage of the total value of these products which goes for payment of materials, supplies, fuel, and electric energy purchased by creameries and cheese factories is greater in practically all cases for the three northern than for the four southern states; and the same statement holds true for the percentage which goes to all of the foregoing items combined-salaries, wages, materials, supplies, fuel, and electric power pur­chased-in relation to total value of products. In the manufacture of ice cream no such definite gen­eralization as between the northern and southern stales can be made concerning the relative amount paid for 964 1,230 1,311 $ 938 1,024 1.135 1,083 855 904 866 726 910 0.86% 1.67% 0.17% 0-97% 2.39% 1.35% 5.38% 2.83% 2.92% 4.16% 5.08% 4-33% 83.45% 84.02% 87.34% 84-17% 77.87% 80.01% 89.69% 88.53% 90.43% 89.30% 85.34% 85.69% salaries, wages, materials, supplies, fuel, and elertrir energy purchased in comparison with the total valur of the product. This situation arisrs from the fart that thr economics of the ice cream industrv is closeh relatrd with population centers; whereas, the rapacilv ~£ a state or region to produce forage crops economicalh-is the primary basis for the creamery and cheese industries. Thus, the ratios computed for ire cream production in Iowa, with a relatively large rural population, corrrspond more closely to those of Kentucky and Mississippi than to Minnesota and Wisconsin, which have a laq:?:cr rela­tive urban population; while the percentages for Texas and Tennessee correspond more closely with those of l\Jinncsota and Wisconsin than to those of Kentucky a11d Mississippi. F. A. 13L-ECllEL. Financial Review Although the mild form of war hysteria that char­acterized financial markets during the first two weeks of September has temporarily ahatcd somewhat, war developments have continued to influence the course of business and financial activity. The peace overtures of the German Government which-at this writing-appear to be fruitless, exerted a restrictive effect upon some financial markets; sub!'equent intensification of Nazi military activity, following British and French rejection of the peace proposals. was accompanier! hy a quicken­ing pace in share trading and prices. The acrimo~ious Senate debate on neutralitv leo-islation and the failure of the Administration to obtai~ prompt acceptance of the "cash and carry" proposal, injected a further note of uncertainty into the picture. It is natural that the people of a neutral nation sh?ul_d evince interest in the progress of the war, and It is inevitable that business of the neutral nation will be strongly affected hy happenings in the European arena. However it is of the utmost importance that we do not lose sigh't of the fact that we. are a neu~ral na.tion, that is, presumably, a nation lending no ~ct~ve. ass1st~nce to any or either belligerent. Perhaps 1t 1s 1mposs1ble to achieve neutrality in such a complete sense, but, for the nation that is determined not to become inrnh·ed in the struo-i::le, full neutralitv is essential. :'\1oreo1er. we should ~~t lose sight of the fa<:t that. after six YCars of experimentation, dome!"tic problems of the first magni­tude still await solution. Th e Commercial and Financial Ch ronicle of October ] 4 offers an editorial comment that dP"ervrs emphatic re"tal.emcnt. "\\'e are den,tinp: too murh time to "·hat is taking pla('e in Europe and too little to task-whid1 mrait us at home.. .. The l." nited States i" not at war; neithrr its domrstic situation nor its foreign rrlation,.:, present or pro"pecti1e, arc likely to lr_arl _to 01T:1_1si1·r action by any for·rign powrr or to JL1'-t1h· 1'.~il1t~r~· nwasurcs against an1 put at in~ r'nf'lll\ an1whrre. · 1 he \ational A,;oociation of \lanufact11rn", with a memlirr­ship of 7,000, comprising all lrarlin;r man11facturrrs, unanimouslv suhscrihed to the statement that although Europe's p;oblems do affect u_s-our do~1estic _probl~ms still must come first. The reaction of husrness, rndustnal, and financial leaders again"! unjustified price in('rease!'. war profits, and diwrsion of American thought and ar-tinn from domestic pro1Jlrm0 10 the unrcrtain. un­stable war business. represents one of thr most fa1orahle de1elopmcnts to emerge from an exceedingly complex and dangerous situation. The foregoing parngraphs may appear to be somewhat general, and lengthy, as an introduction to what pur­porls to be a hricf financial review. However, the choice of pol icy which the business and political leaders of this r.ountry elect to follow during the next several months will largely determine financial developments. Furthf'rmore, no matter what this country's future course of action may ultimately be, our position will be im­measurably stronger, if we have been able, in the meantime, to accomplish a sound rehabilitation of the domestic economic system. The most vulnerable point in our financial system is in the realm of government finance. For six years, the Covernm('nl has taken no steps toward putting its finan­(·ial house in order. On the plea of "emergency," the Administration's only answer to critics of their fiscal pnlicy has been more deficit financing. Is the outbreak of the European war to be used as another "emergency" to justify a continuation of the old practice of piling ns l ieir export surplus was needed to balance their forciµ:n 'tatilc. e\'en though it may pose finan<"ial jH•rnatiunal ,-it11,1ti1•n. the general economic proLlem-indudin!! m11nl'l ,u\' ~taliili­zation and foreign tradc-mmt be· Wlluws: PERCE TAGE CHA 'GE IN TOTAL HIP'.\1E:'\T::, I CE 1928-29 SEASON FOR CAMERO:\', HIDALGO, A:'iD WILLACY Oli. TrES Season Grapefruit Oranges Mi:1ed 1928-29 --­1929-30_____ 116.0 372.7 1-2.3 1930---31_______ 39.0 25-l.5 56.5 1931-32 229.8 506.1 182.6 1932-33. 65.8 309.l 49.5 1933-34----·­--­0.3* 1934---35______ 163.9 93.9 330.3 32.6* 2.7 19~6-----­134.3 1936--37-----·-­147.5 872.7 5,172.7 193.5 917.-1 1937-38 ----------­652.71938--39___________ 791.2 2,397.0 3.4-IB.5 451.l 728.3 • .:'\eg:ative. Table II represents rail. truck. and l>o.1t •hipnwnh for the three counties combint'd. It will be n•·ted that shipments by truck, whil'h bc;!all about eight \ 1·ars ag•i and which serYe largeh· intraotatc p<,ints, inr·rcasL--36.-----------------------------------------------------------913 97 148 2,873 224 392. 1936-37_________________________________________________ 3,767 496 627 9,829 1,241 1,239 99 3 6 1937-38_______________________________________________ 2,764 240 337 9,367 584 677 32. Non: Boat Shipments Converted to Carlot Equivale nt&, Truck Shipments by Counties Not Available, 1938-39 Shipments by Countiee Not Available. Source : U. S. Department of Atriculture, Bur.au. of Agricultural Economics, Division of Fruits and Vegetables. TABLE II CARLOT DISTRIBUTION DY METHODS UsED IN SHIPPING Tmi:As CITRUS FnuITs, 1928-39 Rail Shipments Truck Shipments Boat Shipments Total Shipments Season Grapefruit Oranges Mixed Grapefruit Oranges Grnpofruit Oranges Mixed Grapefruit Oranges Mixed 1928-2.9___________________________ 1,616 33 184 1,616 33 184 1929-30 --------------------3,491 156 501 3,491 156 501 1930-31____________________________ 2,247 117 288 2,247 117 288 1931-32._________________________ 5,329 200 520 1,853 4..5 7,182 24.S 520 1932-33___ ___________________________ 2,679 102 275 1,399 95 4,078 197 275 1933-34 ------------------------1,611 64 124 1,271 900 2,882 964 124 1934-35_______________________ 4,264 HZ 189 1,706 1,091 5,970 1,233 1891935-36__________________ 3,776 321 54{) 1,409 1,172 10 5,195 1,4.93 540 1936-37________________________ 13,499 1,725 1,870 2,595 2,337 196 15 2 16,290 4·,077 1,872 1937-38____________________________ 11,989 820 1,014 2,684 1,917 174 4 14.,847 2,741 1,014 1938-39_____________________________ 13,813 1,161 1,524 5,14.9 4,663 589 10 19,551 5,834 1,524 NoTE: Rail, Boat, and Truck Shipmenta are All Expressed in Car1ot Equival ent!. Source : U. S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Fruits and Yegetables. TABLE III PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GRAPEFRUIT, ORANGE, AND MIXED CITRUS, S HIPMENTS BY RAIL, TRUCK, AND BOAT, 1928-39 Grape fruit Orange• Mixed Citrua Season Rail Truck. Boat Rail Truck Boat Rail Truck Boat 1928-29____ _________________________________ _________________ 100.0 100.0 100.0 1929-30_________________________________________________ 100.0 100.0 100.0 1930-31_____________________________________________ 100.0 100.0 100.0 1931-32______________________________________________ 74.2 25.8 81.6 18.4 100.0 1932.-33____________________________________ ____________________ 65.7 34.3 51.8 48.2 100.0 1933-34______________________________________________________ 55.9 44.1 6.6 93.4 100.0 1934-35___________________________________________________-_____________ 71.4 28.6 11.5 88.5 100.0 193!>-36___________________________________________________ 72.7 27.1 0.2 21.5 78.5 100.0 1936-37______________________________________________________ 82.9 15.9 1.2 42.3 57.3 0.4 99.9 0.1 1937-38_______________________________________ 80.8 18.1 1.2 29.9 69.9 0.1 100.0 1938-39_________________________________________ 70.7 26.3 3.0 19.9 79.9 0.2 100.0 Source: Computed by Bureau of Business ReJearch, University of Texas, from Data Publi!hed by the U. S. Department of Atriculture. TABLE IV PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GRAPEFRUIT, ORA NGE, AND MIXED CITRUS SHIPMENTS FROM CAMERON, HIDALGO, AND WILLACY COUNTIES, BY S EASONS, 1928-39 Cameron County Hidale-o County Willacy County Season Grapefruit Oarne-e1 Mixed Grape fruit Oranges Mixed Grapefruit Orane:ea Mixed 1928-29______________ ____________________________________________ 35.4 21.2 50.0 64·.6 78.8 50.0 1929-30_________ ____________________________________________________ 35.9 54,_5 48.9 63.7 44.9 51.l 0.4 0.6 1930-31________________________________________________ 40.1 48.6 55.6 59.8 56.4 44.4 0.1 1931-32 ----------------------------------------------------27.4 33.0 38.1 72.6 66.5 61.1 0.5 0.8 1932.-33______________________________________________________ 23.7 35.3 24-.0 76.3 64.7 76.0 1933-34___________________________________________________________ 3.5 96.5 100.0 100.0 1934-35_____________________________________________________________ 18.9 16.9 18.5 81.1 81.0 81.5 2.1 1935-36 -----------------------------------------------24.1 30.2 27.4 75.9 69.8 72.6 1936-37---------------------------------------------------------27.5 28.5 33.5 71.8 71.3 66.2 0.7 0.2 0.3 1937-38__________________________________________ 22.7 2.9.1 33.2 77.0 70.9 66.8 0.3 Source: Computed by Bureau of Business Research, University of Texas, from Data Published by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Increase in. boat shipments from the equivalent of ten carloads m ]935-36 to 599 carloads in l 9:~W-39 repre~ents to..a. large degree the results of improved sh1ppmg fac1ht1es offered by the Port of Browm>ville now made available to Valley shippers. Water trans­portation is being employed for the movement of fresh fruits as well as for canned goods. The offices of the United States Engineer report that vessel traffic for the Port of Brownsville increased from 39,193 tons, valued at $4,335,176 in 1936 to 97,527 tons, rnlued at $11,773,612 in 1938. The canning of surplus fruit has afforded a valuable outlet for large quantities of fruit which could not he ship~ed profitably in fresh form and also to supply a growmg market demand for canned citrus fruit products. Of the total grapefruit crop for Texas and Florimmoditics of all kinds. l'ndoubt­ cdl y, the future \rill sec an e\·cn more exlcn;:i\·e use made uf warehouse distribution services and facilities. Public: mcrchaudise warchou~es are found at the most strategic locations from a diqril,ution standpoint, which acrnu11ls for the cc11tralizatio11 in the Dallas-Fort Worth a11d Ilou~t•rn areas, but they are also fou nd in other cities thnH1!..d1oul the q alc where frci'..!ht rates a11d other ma rket con~liti1 ,ns fan,r their use. 'J:he largest users of general mcffhandi >:e warehouse sen ·ic:es are manufac­ lurns and other prodtwers, brokers, and distributors of \ ariuus types. \\'J1ulesalcrs and rC'lailers aho frequently make use of publir; \rnrchouscs when theY buy in large quantities and lack adequate storage facilities, or if they \1 ish to make use of financing by means of warehouse receipts. The balance of the merchandise handled by these warehouses comes from miscellaneous business o:·!!anizations that buY in larcre quantities but possess lilt.le storage space, st;ch as n; wspapers and other p~b­lishrrs, hotels, hospitals and local manufacturers usmg cC'rtai11 raw materials adapted to this type of storage. It has been estimated that from 50 to 30 per cent of the merchandise handled in public warehouses originates outside the immediate areas in which they may be located. The ,rnrehouse im-entory generally includes a large rnriety of items from widely diYergent sources, depend­ing on the warehouse location. The public merchandise warehouses of the country haYe between 3.000 and 3.500 actual users of their sen ·­iccs to solicit for busines~. This number includes onlv manufacturers, brokers, producers and distributors wh~ are using at least one or more warehouses outside the cities in which their headquarters are located. The pub­lic merchandise warehouses of Texas obtain a Yery large amount of storage and distribution business from manu­facturers and others who are located in the :\ortheastern and Central Western sections of the Lnited States. As is shown in Table II, ;\ew York State, including i\ew York City, accounts for 31 '/( of the total stock carried in Texas public merchandise warehouses. Ill inoi~, in­cluding Chicago, comes next in importance with 13 ~c of the stocks carried bv out-of-state manufacturers. Today, the proper t;se of general merchanise ware­ houses as media of transportation is one of the most important links in the process of distribution tending to reduce costs. The transportation sen ·ices of these ware­ houses are based largely on two things : (1 ) The spread between carload and less-than-carload freight rates. (2) The spread between through freight rates and the com­ bination of two or more local rates. One eost of transportation-the difference between carload and less-than-carload freight rates-may be elim­ inated through the use of pool or consolidated cars. Freight rates on near! y all commodities are lower for carload than for less-than-carload shipments. Items of general merchandise which take the first class rating when shipped in less-than-carload lots often take third class or lower ratings in carload quantities. It often happens that in pooling several long-distance shipments of the same commodity into one carload, and then consigning the car to a public warehouse for local distribution in less-than-carload lots by rail or motor truck, the difference in freight charges is enough to paY all warehouse charges for storage and handling and lea\·e a margin of unexpected profit which frequently amounts to considerable per car. The use of public warehouses for the distribution of pool or consolidated cars has been steadily increasing since the railroads, in most parts of the country, haYe liberalized their "stopping-transit-to-party-unload" serv­ice. 'Cnder this service, as it now operates, four stops may be made, whereas formerly only one stop was allowed. This naturally increases the number of dis­tribution points and frequently makes it unnecessary for a manufacturer to maintain spot-stocks in storage at these points. It also enables manufacturers to moYe a larger proportion of their business at carload rates than formerly. ·-------·-. ----·-------·-­ --·--------·--·--·---------------· -·----­ .. Examples of s:ffin~s in lr:111spurtation <"O~t~ arc rr­ported by one pulilit· 1nnd1;u1d ise \\'art·huuse in Tt'Xa~, which harnlles a bro:e number of pool car~, as i~ ~lwwn in Table IIL In each case the \1·::ircl1uu,;e dislriliulion charge has been added to the carload freight rate before sho11·ing the possible sa1·ing. This rnving \\·ill, of cour>'e, be reduced by any cosls of re-shipping or drli1·eri11g in smaller lots, but it is urnally large enough to coYer these charges and leave something over as a " profit." These examples are based on classifications of " !. c. !." rates, carload minimums, and applicable rales therelo, and approximate warehouse charges for a minimum period of 30 days, and apply to cnmmoditic~ ha1ing a turn-o•;cr of from one lo three cars per month as an average. Similar cx::unples could !Jc sl1011·n for other parts of the country. The public mercl:andi ,;e 1rnrel1ow:es of Texas are pre­pared to render lite following scniccs lo their clients: ] . They suppl y trained, expcriciwed personnel to per­form all the dciails uf ha11dliug, ~Loring, assembling or­ders, marking, packing, record-keeping, shipping and delivery (indud ing pool c::tr handling and distribution, carload and less-than-carload shipping, the consolidating of shi pmenl3 and cily and suburban delivery to cus­tomer::;) . 2. They slorc raw materials, manufactured articles, and service parts of every kind in modern buildings with low insurance rales and adequate fire protection. Such buildings are usually localed on railroad sidings with facilities for inbound and outbound carloadings and arc equipped with the most modern devices and methods for scientific and economical storing and handling of merchandise. 3. They act in a branch house capaci ty for manu­facturers, doing everything that they themsel\'es could do in the physical distribution of their products-except selling-and at a lower cost, as a rule. i\ot only n ·11l u11 a O'j>:1-i". l iil' 1111il.-uf ·1·u11t!." 1·!1:11·!.'.•'1! f,q· !11 lltt• 11·an·liu110'l' an' lli1· 0:1111•· :1-:i1,.' 1111ii" 11>t·d,i 11 -1·lli11!.'..: i.t' .. jJl.'I' t·a,.;p_ pn li:1r1t·L l'n t .. 11. t'I•'. lit,· 111.11111f:11·i11:·;'1' t!t11" k11011·~ Iii ,; 11:1n·!t1111,.;i11:' :111.! l1:•11.!li11;2 1·11.-i, i'•'l' 1111il in a lll:lllllcr nul l'""'iJ,j,. 11 lt1·11 l1·· ti, ,,., !ti,; u1111 ol1•ra;c.c and handling. TABLE I PUBLIC M ERCHANDISE WAREHOUSES IN Tf:.XAS, 1939 :'\·a. Combined i\o. Strictly McrchanJi..t' and )ferchandise Houst"holJ Goods City \Varel1ou&cs '\\ arehou3e3 Total Abilene -----------------2 2 Amarillo ------------1 4 5 Austin 5 5 Beaumont -----------4 4 Beeville 1 1 Brownsville 1 1 Cisco -----------------1 1 Corpus Christi 3 6 ---------3 Corsicana 1 ------------1 Dallas -------------------6 6 12 El Paso --------------3 3 Fort Worth 2 ---------6 8 Gainesville -----------1 1 Galveston 2 2 4 Harlingen --------2 2 Houston ----------12 5 17 Laredo 1 1 Longview ------1 1 Lubbock 1 1 Lufkin ----------1 1 Paris -----------1 1 Port Arthur 2 2 San Antonio 3 ----4 7 Texarkana 1 1 Texas City 1 1 Tyler -----------1 1 Waco ----------------2 2 Wichita Falls 1 z ----3 Totals ____________ 33 62 95 TABLE II NUMBER OF MANUFACTURERS OR OTHER DISTRIBUTORS WITH I!0'1E PLANTS IN THE 'ORTHEA TERX AXD CE:\TR.IL WE:,TER'< PART OF THE i'i!TED TATES Wno CARRY TOCKS JN P UBLIC l\fERCHAXDISE WAREHOUSES IN TEXAS :\umber Per Cent of :Manufacturer Carrying To1.11:l tocks Location Stocks Carried ew York City______________ 82 16 ew York State excluding New York City -------------68 15 ew England States -----37 08 Pennsylvania --------·------31 07 New Jersey----------------19 oi Chicago ---------__ _ 61 13 tale of Illinois excluding 01icago 25 05 Michigan -----------------27 06 Ohio-------------------------· 50 10 Indiana -------------------26 05 Missouri -----------------58 11 Total______ 484 100 TABLE III EXAMPLES OF SAVl GS FROM THE USE OF POOL CAR DISTRIB UTION Destination-Dallas, Texas Article1 Taking L.C.L. Carload Warehouse Total Carload Carload Railroa d Rate Class Point of Origin Rate per 100 Lbs. Rate per 100 Lbs. Charge per 100 Lbs.• Rate per 100 Lbs. Saving per 100 Lbs. Minimum (Lbs.) Saving per Ca r 4th 1st Chicago, Ill. -------­----------------------Morganton, N.C. ---------------------­ $1.44 3.05 .80 1.53 .12% .20 $ .92% 1.73 .51% 1.32 40.000 15,000 $206.00 $198.00 1st Memphis, Tenn. ----------------­ 1.91 .% .20 1.16 .75 15,000 $112.50 1st Rome, Ga. --------------------------­ 2.63 1.58 .20 1.78 .85 12,000 $102.00 1st Thomasville, N.C. ---------------------­ 3.11 1.87 .20 2.07 1.04 15,000 $156.00 2nd Chattanooga, Tenn. --------------------­ 2'.17 .96 .12% 1.08% 1.08112 24,000 $259.74 2nd Kalamazoo, Mich. -------------------------­ 2.34 1.03 .24 1.27 1.07 20,000 $214.00 2nd Rockford, Ill. -----------------------­ 2.18 1.08 .18 1.26 .92 20,000 184.00 2nd Detroit, Mich. ----------­-----------­ 2.46 1.16 .15 1.31 1.15 20,000 $230.00 4th Philadelphia, Pa. ----------------­ 1.52 .76% .09 .8514 .66% 36,000 $200.25 3rd Philadelphia, Pa. --------------------­ 1.93 .74% .08 .8214 1.10% 36,000 423.00 4·th Detroit, Mich. -------------------------­ 1.59 .90 .12 1.02 .57 40,000 $228.00 2nd Philadelphia, Pa. ------------------------­ 2.04 .87 .12' .99 1.05 30,000 S315.00 *Approximate di&tribution chare:e over minimum period of 30 days. J OHN H. FREDERICK. Cotton Situation Cotton demands greater and more fundamental con­sideration on the part of Texas people than it has yet received e\·en though volumes have been written and much work has been done on such important topics as cotton improvement, cotton as a source of income, em­ployment in the various aspects of the business, and competitive conditions in production and distribution. Our point of view re,lative to cotton has been too narrow. We are too prone to consider the cotton problem as the worry of the cotton growers, ginners, merchants, and cottonseed crushers, and that even that interest is divided with the cotton growers on one side and all the others on the opposite side. So far our appreciation of the cotton industry has Leen almost altogether from the standpoint of its value as an independent, local enterprise. The significance of the industry as an interrelated part of our whole econ­omy, and especially the effects on it of rapidly changing arts and technologies, the rise of synthetic fibers, and shifting trade balances is not appreciated. The degree to which our cotton industry has tied Texas into national, and especially world economy, and potential conse­quences of those tie-ups have been no less neglected than the development of an understanding of the natural environment of the region and the characteristics of the cotton plant which are responsible for making cotton our predominant crop. Briefl y, the natural environmental factors which give character to Texas and the Gulf Southwest as a region are smooth to rolling topography manifest in prairies and plains of wide extent, more or less scanty rainfall­primarily in spring and summer, a long growing season, and rich, dark-colored soils. The long fruiting period of the cotton plant, its drouth-resisting qualities and quick recovery after arrested growth give it adaptability to production in this region possessed by few other cul­tivated crops. The dominant characteristic of modern economy is production for markets. Moreover, the "-ide range of goods and services being created by this type of economy and required in modern standards of living demand a substantial money income for their acquisition. The attainment of this money income requires the production of large surpluses of commodities in demand in the market at low cost produciion in areas accessible to large markets. This demand for large volume tends to localize production in specially adapted areas accessible to markets. The cotton industry of the Southwest is not only typical of this type of specialized production economy, but it has played a significant role in it. The point is that Texas is in the very heart of a region with specialized environmental conditions, which readily lends itself to large-scale production for certain special­ized agricultural crops and farms enterprises which are adapted to the natural environment. In this environment forage crops, particularly the native grasses, weeds, and shrubs, are the surest producers, and this decrees that enterprises based on liYe stock must play a major role in the economy of this State and region. Cotton is the outstanding cultivated crop ideally adapted to Texas environment. It partakes of the nature of weeds and shrubs in that it adjusts its fruiting period to rainfall conditions. Cotton production and livestock enterprises constitute the bulk of agricultural production in Texas and the basis of its stability. The significance of this fact is brought out Ly the figures on marketings and volume of income from various farm and ranch products in Texas. Maximum variation in the market­ings of major farm products from Texas between the years of lowest and highest marketings during the twelve years, 1927 through 1933, are at least indicative of the adaptability of the rnrious crops and enterprises. The variation of the volume of marketings of calve!3 from the lowest in any one year to the highest in any one year was only 41 per cent; mohair, 50 per cent; cattle, 95 per cent; wool, 123 per cent; cotton, 123 per cent; cottonseed, 132 per cent;, hogs, 142 per cent; sheep, 179 per cent; corn, 350 per cent; and wheat, 888 per =================================================================================== · --­ cent. Variations in the average yield per acre of the major crops, particularly if abandoned acreage is in­cluded in the calculation as it should Le, tell the same story and that is that cotton not only is Texas' Lest money crop, but its surest feed crop other than native grasses. In 1927, income from cotton and cottonseed and livestock and livestock products constituted 91 per cent of all farm cash income in Texas. In this same year, farm cash income from cotton and cottonseed con­stituted 67 per cent of the total. By 1938 momentous changes had taken place in farm cash income in Texas. There has been a decline of over $340,000,000 in farm cash income, not including benefit payments, in the State. Income from cotton and cottonseed alone has declined $351,000,000 from 1927, and now constitutes only 38 per cent of the total. Income from livestock and livestock products has increased about $3,000,000 from 1927, and income from grains and all other farm products is up $17,000,000 in 1938 from 1927. The predominant role cotton has played in the agri­ cultural and commercial development of Texas is proof both of its adaptability to this environment and of its economic importance. Cotton was the pioneer crop that paid for land, buildings, and equipment on most farms in Texas. Size of farms, farm layout, farm buildings, and equipment have all been pitched and developed on the basis of an economy dominated by cotton. For the most part, farm techniques and procedure are arts handed down from father to son. This rigidity in the size of farms, farm equipment, and techniques will require a powerful educational program and large expenditures of funds to adjust our economy to a substantial loss of markets for our cotton. It has already been pointed out that individuals or families must have a substantial money income if they are to obtain the goods and services which go with a modern standard of living. Obviously, some individuals and families in a community or region may secure such an income without selling their production outside the community or the region, but it is equally certain that others in the community or region must produce a sur­ ~~~:___~~~_07_ plus to he sold oubilll' the l'P1111111111il1 Pr rq!i"ll if ,;iwh a standard of li1i11g i~ to ht• atlai1l<'d 1,, a ~1d1,.1;111ti:d portion of the pt'opll•. for 11<1 1·01111111111il\ or r•·.'..'. it111 .i.,,.,. or can proc!Ul'l' all or tlu· !!''""" a11d :'l'r\ i...., tilt' l'''"l'lt• desire. The fad,; a11d i111plit·atio11,; imnl"·d lint· art• t1f paramount imporla1ll'l' in \\halt'\ t'I' ;1dju,.l11lt'11t" that an· to be made in T1·xa~ l'l'llllt1n1\· lo Jtll'l'l t ·h :111 '..'.i11~ 111arkt'I situations in relation to rnlt1>;1. Thl' Cul f <111 1\11, l'"l. ill which Texas occupie~ tlw llllH :'lralt'µ:i1 · P•':'ition. i• a region of highh· specialized t•miron11H'ntal conditions which tend to rcslril'I t't'rl:iin !YJH'~ of farrn <'lllt•rpri,;c,;: but what is more important. thl',e ,;amt' t'llYirllnmt•ntal conditions gi,·c t•nonllllll;< ath ant:1µ1• in the p11r,;11i1 of those enterprise$ be~t ad:1ptcd It) tlw t'll\ ir.11111\l'lll. "uC'h as livestock and ('Olton produt'liun. Notwithstanding the fad that t·otlon prnd11l'liLlll and distribution arc cnterprisl's ideal I)' ada ptcd to Texas environment, we must not m nlouk till' fal'I that Clllton is essentially a cash nop and that 11iark1·t clcrn:rnd ex­pressed in price and 1narkt•1ahility 11111"1 lw ;.:in•n due weight in evaluating cotton produl'lion in tlw l'1·onomy of Texas. In the next issue we propo'c to di"<'W'" a t'ollun poli<'y for Texas in the light of the natural and t'lllt11ral environment of Texas and of world markl't ctlnditions. A. B. Cox. COTTO:'-i 13ALA\CE Sl!LET Indicated supplies of cotton in the Cnitcd States October 1 were 22,863,000 bnles, l·ompa1wl with 22,0:l9,. 000 bales last year, and 20,0-J.1,000 bales t1\"0 years ago. The increase in supplies of cotltln in the l'nitl'd States as compared with last year was ll-J.,000 bait-.::. The calculated price of 1\1. ~;~ inch spot cot ton at \cw Orleans based on the present price Inel and the s11 pp! y of cotton is 8.02 cents. European countries ha\'c di"l·o11t i11u<'d p1d.t i,Jii 11;.: fig­ ures on stocks of cotlon in their part::; and the a1no11111~ of cotton afloat to them. Likewise, data 11sed i11 cal· culating spinners margins arc 110 longer arnila!Jlc. COTION BALANCE SHEET FOR THE UNITED STATES AS OF OCTOBER 1 (In Thousands of Running Bales Except as Noted) Governm ent Imports E1timate Consumption Exports Balance to to Carryover to as of Total Oct. l Total Oct. l Oct. I 1,269 2,015 17,010 Au11. l1 Oct. l* Oct. l* 9 14,486 19,025 746 1930-193L----------------------------------·-----4,530 889 769 1,658 21,008 13 16,284 22,266 1931-1932--------------6,369 897 1,186 2,083 19,038 14 11,425 21,121 1932-1933___ ---------9,682 23 12,885 21,084 1,088 1,400 2,488 18,5%1933-1934..------------------------------·-·--8,176 706 1,420 15,788 19 9,443 17,208 714 1934-1935 ------·--7,746 1,587 17,029 14 11,464 18,616 859 728 1935-1936 ---------7,138 1,205 752 1,957 15,0771936-1937____________.____ 5,397 22 11,609 17,028 2,014 20,1461937-1938_______________________._____ 4,498 14 17,978 22,490 1,206 838 1,683 22,091 1938-1939. _______ll,533 29 12,212 23,774 1,093 590 1,253 868 2,121 22,8631939-194()____ _ _ _____13,033 23 11,928 24,984 *In 500-pound bales. tThc cotton year beiins Aueu1t 1. C NOTE: These 6iures have been revie1d Jn accordance with the revltion1 made by the United tate1 Bureau of the en1u1. EMPLOYMENT AND PAY ROLLS IN TEXAS SEPTEMBER, 1939 Estimated Percentage Chauge Estimated Perccn la~e Change Number of from from Amount of from from Workers Aug. Sept. Weekly Aug. Sept. Employed 1939 1938 Pay Roll 1939 1938 Manzi/acturing All Manufacturing Industries__________________________________________________ _ 130,247 + 1.7 + 3.4 $2,516,69'3 0.7 + 3.6 Food Products Baking-------------------------------------------------------------------6,858 + 5.5 + 4.1 154,899 + 5.1 + 6.4 Beverages, Carbonated_ _____________________________________________________________ _ 1,943 -2.2 + 5.1 36,146 + 1.6 +14.2 Confectionery ___________________________________________________________ 852 +79.1 -10.l 8,596 +79.7 -24.9 Flour Milling ------------------------------------------------------------------------· 1,513 2.3 5.5 38,429 + 14.3 + 7.5 Ice Cream--------------------------------------------------------------------------­519 2.2 3.7 10,552' 2.1 3.8 Mea t Packing----------------------------------------------------------------------------------3,849 + 4.. 7 5.6 106,550 + 9.1 + 0.8 Textiles Cotton Textile Mills---------------------------------------------------------------3,817 + 2.9 1.2 59,275 + 1.1 Men's Work Clothing__________________________________________________ 3,573 + 1.0 + 1.1 28,008 + 7.7 6.6 Forest Products Furnitui-e-----------------------------------------------------------------------­2,19'4 + 8.3 +25.8 4-0,117 + U.2 +47.6 Planing Mills---------------------------------------------------------------· Z,560 2.0 + 4.3 37,109 4.3 • Saw Mills-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­10,979 + 2.6 + 12.8 14-1,292 + 4,_7 +10.2 Paper Products-----------------------------------------------------------330 0.5 +12.2 5,158 + 5.7 + 17.7 Printing and Publishing Commercial Printing_ _________________________________________ 1,938 4.3 + 2.8 53,571 3.0 + 6.8 Newspaper Publislung_ ____________________________________________________________ 4,350 + 4·.2. + 6.0 125,514 + 7,7 + 6.1 Chemical Products Cotton Oil Mills-------------------------------------------------1,572 +32.0 6.4 22,587 +44.0 + 0.9 Petroleurn Refining_ ________________________________________________ 18,870 + 0.6 + 1.7 680,588 -1.8 0.1 Stone and Clay Products Brick and Tile--------------------------------------------------------960 3.0 + 15.7 13,436 -10.2 + 4.9 Cement-------------------------------------------------------------------1,575 + 1.0 5.1 26,672 + 4.2 + 1.4 I ran and Steel Products Foundries, Machine Shops ----------------------------------------------­9,652 5.9 + 0.9 255,4-00 -16.7 + 3.6 Structural and Ornamental Iro11--------------------------------------------------· 1,435 + 0.2 + 13.4 28,362 -0.6 +18.1 Employment Pay RoJls Employment Pay Rollo Percentage Chnnge Percentage Change Percentage Change Percentage Change Aug. 1939 Sept. 1938 Aug. 1939 Sept. 1938 Aug. 1939 Sept. 1938 Aug. 1939 Sept. 1938 to to to to to to to to Sept. 1939 Sept. 1939 Sept. 1939 Sept. 1939 Sept. 1939 Sept. 1939 Sept. 1939 Sept. 1939 N onmanu/acturing Cities Crude Petroleum Production 3.2 -3.2 2.6 5.6 Abilene + 4.6 + 3.8 + 4.6 + 17.1 ------------·--------­Quarrying -------------------------­0.5 -10.0 + 2.1 9.3 Amarillo ---------------------------+ 8.0 3.4 + 4.3 4.7 Public Utilities --------------------­+ 0.7 + 3.5 + 0.1 + 5.2 Austin ------------··-·------------+ 1.9 7.9 + 4.1 0.3 Retail Trade ----------------------­+ 5.6 + 5.2 + 6.5 + 2.8 Beaumont -------------------------+ 9.4 0.6 0.3 + 1.7 Wholesale Trade -------------­+ 5.9 + 3.5 + 5.9 + 4.2 Dallas -------------------------------+ 3.6 + 2.6 + 3.2 + 1.6 Cotton Compresses -------------+97.5 + 0.4 +140.5 + 13.3 El Paso ----------------------0.1 0.7 2.6 3.0 Dyeing and Cleaning________ + 6.2 5.4 + 12.4 6.4 Fort Worth + 3.3 1.6 + 4.5 + 0.8 -----·---------------­Hotels ---------·----------------+ 1.4 5.9 + 1.9 8.2 Galveston -------·----------------+ 4.3 -11.9 + 4.3 5.9 Laundries -----·--·-------------------0.4 2.4 + 2.9 + 3.1 Houston ----------------------+ 6.0 + 8.4 + 3.3 + 11.3 Port Arthur 0.5 + 2.6 1.3 + 3.4 ________ _,_ ________ San Antonio 0.9 + 2.2 + 0.3 + 6.4 ----------·-----------­ Sherman -10.1 9.7 -15.6 -17.1 Waco ------------------·-----------+ 3.6 + 6.4 + 5.9 + 1.4 Wichita Falls 1.1 -13.0 2.1 -15.3 STATE -----------------------+ 2.4 + 3.0 + 1.0 + 2.3 •No change. Prepared from reports from representative Texas eatablishments to the Bureau of Business Research, coOperating with the United States Bureau of Labor Statiatiea. BANKING STATISTICS (In Millions of Dollars) September, 1939 Scptembrr. 1938 ,\ugu t. JQ39 Dallas nited Dallas United Dalla t nitrd District States District State• Di1trict States DEBITS to individual accounts ________________________________________ $801 33,483 719 28,701· 760 29,215 Condition of reporting member banks on-Sept. 27, 1939 Sept. 28, 1938 .\u;. 30, 1939 AssETS: Loans and investments-total___________________ $516 22,419 510 21,2-10 512 2~.442 Loans-total_______________________ __ 263 8,350 236 8,241 253 8,209 Commercial, industrial, and agricultural loans 173 4,229 152 3,891 166 3.996 Open Market paper___________________________________ 2 316 2 3-U 1 317 Loans to brokers and dealers in securities___________________ _ 2 533 2 649 ·1 608 Other loans for purchasing or carrying securities __________ _ 14 510 14 576 13 519 Real estate loans_____________________________ 22 1.180 20 1.161 21 1,171 Loans to banks-------------------------------------35 1 118 49 Other loans _---------------------------------------------50 1,547 45 1.502 48 1.516 Treasury Bills ------------------------------------------13 419 t 26 502 Treasury Notes ________ --------------------------------------------49 2.137 t 50 2.160 U. S. Bonds __ .. ____ ____ -·---------------·-----·-----------·--80 5,881 t t 80 5.903 Obligations fully guaranteed by U..Gov'L·--·-·--------··-------­55 2.232 36 l. 75 13 2.286 Other securities ---·------------------·---------·-----·--­ 56 3,400 51 3,213 S) 3,3!12 Reserve with Federal Reserve Bank·---·----------·----133 9,791 105 6.61)1 ]'r 9.217 _,) Cash in vault. ______________________________ 12 486 11 426 11 165 Balances with domestic banks_____________________________ 271 3,018 208 2.335 2Sl 2.789 Other assets-net__ ________________________________ 30 1,220 26 1.232 30 1,211 LIABILITIES: Demand deposits-adjusted_____________________________ _ 456 18,333 408 15.508 4.56 18,096 Time deposits ________________________________ 136 5,231 133 5.180 135 5,2H U.S. Government deposits _________________ 31 510 31 581 30 510 Inter-bank deposits: Domestic banks_____________________________ 248 7,667 200 5,799 218 7,167 753 448 683 Foreign banks·----·---------------------­ Borrowings _____________________________________ 1 4 Other liabilities_. _______________________________________ _ 5 700 6 750 4 723 CAPITAL ACCOUNT ______________________________________ 86 3,712 82 3,661 86 3 72i tNot available. NoTE: From Federal Reserve Board. TEXAS CHARTERS PURCHASES OF SA VIN GS BO DS September, 1939 Jirnuary I-October 1, 1939 Sept. Sept. Aug. Year to Datt" Purchase Maturity Purchase Maturity 1939 1938 1939 1939 J938 Price Value Price Value Domestic Corporations-­7,100 s 155,4..57 207,085 Capitalization II ____ 1,785 1.269 1.278 17.416 ~22.218 5,325 Austin 26,100 34,800 310.088 Abilene -··--------·-·-·--$ 413.450 umber ____ 108 107 105 1,091 1,113 ____________.. 29,325 39,100 381,414 508,650 Classification of new 69,751 93,000 corporations: Beawnont Big Spring ·-·----------3,619 4,825 Brownsville 7,969 10,625 79,013 105,350 Banking-Finance ·--6 2 --33 29 619 825 4.S,709 59,950 Manufacturing ____ 2·1-21 20 198 219 Brownwood ----·----­ Dallas 118,181 157,575 1,983,281 2,644,375 Merchandising --·--22 29 30 252 276 Del Rio _______________ 488 650 6,245 8,325 Oil -----·---_ 17 21 17 207 260 1,406 1,875 t t Public Service -·· _ _ 3 7 6 Denison ------------­ 825 42.827 57,100 Real Estate-Building 10 7 16 120 BL Denton ---------------619 70,144 93,525 671,212 891-,950 Transportation __ _ 1 3 4 35 3()El Paso -------------­ Fort Worth _____________ 70,762 94,350 972.152 1.296,200 All Others_________ 25 24 18 239 209 31,275 328,575 438,100 Number capitalized at Galveston -------------23,456 ____________.. 107,375 less than 5.000 38 44 51 461 413 Gladewater 12,206 16,275 80,815 5,075 55,632 74,150 umber capitalized at Harlingen -------------3,825 o­ 7,163 9.550 $100.000 or more 5 2 2 37 Kenedy ---------------19 25 .J 4,106 5.475 197,102 26.5,350 Foreign Corporations Longview ---------­ 9,250 54,151 72.3.55 (Number) _____ 11 20 12 237 211 McAllen --------------6.938 118,125 1.58,499 3.150 5,200 Palestine --------- TIIn thou-ands. 42.330 3,450 4,600 31,689 on: Compiled from records of the Secrelary of Stat~. Pampa -----------------­ 6,516 101,4.57 13.5.850 Paris ------------------5,213 55.314 73,7.50 TEXAS COMMEROAL FAILURE694 925 Plainview ----------­ 8,050 169,520 226.025 Port Arthur -----·--6,038 ''pt. .. Pftl. Au .• Yf'"ar·to-date 2.288 3,050 108,562 144,750 1939 1938 1939 193q 1938San Angelo ----·--­ Benito_______ 3,431 4,575 22.388 29.850 28 210 1-U San 15 15 Number 67,277 90,300 herman 1.388 1,850 326 171 663 1.9';"0 1,637 ------------ Liabilitic 11 -· ----­ 221,137 281,818 9,150* t 95 63 1,123 2.298 899 Tyler --------------------- Assetsll 33,900 45,200 407,905 543,875 Waco ------------------ Average Liabilities per 18,625 338,283 4..51,040 Wichita Falls ·--··-· 13,969 FailureII ------·-·--------22 11 21 17 11 _____________$ 612,041 7,082,244 9,436,432 458,628TOTAL •Revised. In thousands. •Not included in total. NoTE: from Dun and Bradatreet, Inc. fNot available. SEPTEMBER CREDIT RATIOS IN TEXAS RETAIL STORES (Expressed in Per Cent) Ratio of Ratio of Ratio of Number of Credit Sale1 Collection• to Credit Salaries Store1 to Net Sales Out1tanding1 to Credit Salea Reporting 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 1938 All Stores------------------------------------------------------------------------69 68.l 67.5 37.2 35.7 0'.9 LO Stores Grouped by Cities: Abilene--------------------------------------------------------------3 58.3 58.6 27.2 25.0 L2 L4 Amarillo_______________________________________________________ 3 61.9 63.4 46.8 43.4 LS L7 Austin----------------------------------------------------------------6 62.3 61.5 43.8 39.6 LO LO Beaumont__________________________________________________ _ 3 73.2 69.7 39.2 37.3 L3 Ll Dallas ---------------------------------------------------------10 74.4 74.7 35.9 34.7 0.7 0.9 Fort Worth___________________________________________________ 5 65.6 65.6 37.5 36.1 LO LO Ilouston_________________________________________________________________ 8 66.0 64.8 38.4 38.4 LO 1.2 San AntoniO--------------------------------------------------------------­7 66.7 64.0 44.8 39.8 0.7 0'.8 Waco.-----------------------------------------------------------------­4 66.0 67.9 28.2 27.4 1.1 LO All Others------------------------------------------------------------------------------20 61.0 59.6 35.0 33.4 1.3 L4 Stores Grouped According to Type of Store: Department Stores (Annual Volume Over $500,000) ___________________ 19 68.5 67.1 40.3 38.4 0.8 LO Department Stores (Annual Volmne Under $500,000) ______________________ 11 65.0 62.2 33.7 30.9 L4 LS Dry Goods Apparel Stores---------------------------------------------------------­5 64.1 62.6 39.4 32.4 L4 L4 Women's Specialty Shops----------------------------------------------14 71.4 70.0 30.3 29.8 0.7 0.7 Men's Clothing Stores ______________________________________________ 20 60.8 68.0 35.6 34-.6 L7 L6 Stores Grouped According to Volume of Net Sales During 1938: Over $2,500,000 ____________________________________________ 10 70.8 68.5 39.2 39.0 0.8 0.9 $2,500,000 down to $1,000,000__________________________________________ 9 63.8 6L4 4.0.8 40.8 0.9 0.9 $1,000,000 down to $500,000___________________________________ 10 59.0 61.6 39.3 39.3 Ll 1.1 $500,000 down to $100,000 _____________________________________ _ 29 63.2 62.5 36.5 35.8 1.5 L5 Less than $100,000_____________________________________________________________ 11 60.7 67.6 36.2 33.4 3.1 3.0 Nott: The ratios shown for each year, in the order in which they appear from left to right, are obtained by the following com1mtatione: (1) Credit 1ale• divided by net sales. (2) Collections durin1 the month divided by the total accountl unpaid on the first of the month. (3) Salaries of the credit depart. ment divided by credit sales. The data aro reported to the Bureau of Busineea Research by Texas retail stores. SEPTEMBER CARLOAD MOVEMENT OF POULTRY COMMODITY PRICES AND EGGS Sept. Sept. Aug_ 1939 1938 1939 Shipments from Texas Stations WHOLESALE PRICES: Cars of Poultry Live Dressed Cars of Eggst (1936 =100}______________ __ 79.1 78.3 75.0 Destination• ·Turkeys Turkeys U. S. Bureau of Labor Chickens Chickens Statistics Sept. Sept. Sept. Sept. Sept .Sept. Sept. Sept. Sept. Sep t. (1926 =100)______________ The Annalist 81.3 80.5 75.6 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 1938 FARM PRICES: TOTAL _________ _ 9 10 2 49.5 42.7 U.S. Department of Agricul-Intrastate _________ (1910-14 =100) __________________ lLO 6.0 ture 98.o• 95.0 88.0 Interstate -------· ____ 9 10 2: 38.5 36.7 u. . Bureau of Labor (1926 =100) _______________ Statistics 68.7 68.1 6LO Origin Receipts at Texas Stations RE:TAIL PRICES: TOTAL -----------· ___ 15.0 15.5 Department Stores (Fairchild's Intrastate __________ 13.0 10.0 Publications, Jan. 1931 =100) ____ 90.2 89.0 89.5 Interstate ______ ___ 2.0 5.5 •Preliminary. *The destination above is the first destination as shown by the original waybill. Changes in destination brought about by diversion orders are not shown. fPowdcrcd eggs and canned frozen eggs are converted to a shell egg equivalent. NoTE: Theee data are furnished the United Sta tee Department of Agriculture by railroad officials through agents at all stations which originate and receive CEMENT carload shipments of poultry and eggs. The data arc compiled by the Bureau of Busincu Research. (In Thousands of Barrels) Sept. Sept. Aug. Year to Date LUMBER 1939 1938 1939 1939 1938 Texas Plants-­Production ------­685 Shipments ----­585 Stocks 822 United States-Production ______ll,937 hipments ________ 13,104 Stocks -------_____ 20,160 Capacity Operated ---­56.3% 624 601 862 10,562 11,716 21,322 49.9% 485 582 723 12,369 13,804 20,926 56.6% 5,552 5,509 98,299 92,870 5,165 5,251 75,744 79,288 (In Board Feet) Sept. 1939 Southern Pine Mills: Average Weekly Production per unit --------------· 298,289 Average Weekly Shipments per unit ---------------­373,583 Average Unfilled Orders per Unit, End of Month___ ____l,167,136 Sept. 1938 300,697 322,442 533,485 Aug. 1939 297,781 332,345 773,360 Non: :From U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Non: From Southern Pine Association. BUILD! G PERMlTS Sept. Srpt. Aug. YC'M to Dato 1939 1938 1939 1939 1938 Abilene..________________ $ 48,195 $ 23,831 $ 72,375 491,300 620.060 Amarillo._ 270,265 191.,039 2'19, 125 2,109,462 1,231,807 Austin__ 346,133 S90,874 5S8.983 6.0S3,906 4.292,617 Beaumont _____________________ 99,241 11S,49S 149,363 1,121.776 1,0-15,46-J.Big Spring __ 13,14-0 39,13S 45,32S 258,318 292,960 Corpus ChristL __________________ 225,709 177,760 388,190 2.851,S52 2.182,0-17 Corsicana______________________________ _ 2,070 8,302 16,070 152,772 172,141 Dallas§______________________________________________________________ 787,276 884,265 1,073,767 9,753.826 8,887,S28 Del Rio _______________________ 3,635 6,890 6,120 81,252 97,368 Denison____ --------------3S,081 21,849 25,880 277.384 190,387 Denton_______________________________ 37,400 18,8SO 1S,S20 250,210 166,1.20 El Paso-------------------------871,S20U 14..J,040 142,163 2,153.386 L236Jl6 Fort Worth____________________________________ 261.,53S 324·,627 382,114 4..399,S98 4.586,00i Galveston. ___________________________ 112,SOl 81,924· 98,281 1,132.119 1,761,860Gladewater___________________________________ ______ _ 2 1,450 3-15 S7.266 76,8S7Harlingen__________________________________________ l4·,2l0 23,725 16,727 161,6S1 207,114 Houston___ ----------------------------------2,S21,210 1,820,210 1,667,06.5 20,272..17.5 18.793,61-5 ]acksonville__________________________ __________ 1,200 4-,300 200 68,37.5 59,352 Kenedy_____________________________________ --------------25,410t ~: sot t sot Kilgore.--------------------------------------------------------------­77,000 41,SOO 26,2SO i t Laredo ·------------------------------------------------------0 4.7s 17,500 6S.570 36.855 Longview___________________________________________________ ]3.0SO 13,30S* 91 ,252 2-11,680 283, 192 248,667 6S8,77S 182,248 2,21S,4-61 2.457,S73 Lubbock ------------------------------------------------ McAllen________________________________________________ 29,240 48.60S 29,480 286.000 2.31.990 268.219 Marshall ____ ------------------------------------------23,845 42,039* 26,143 483,769 8,&3S 6,015 JOS,810 100,225New Braunfels -----------------------------------------9,93S Palestine________________________ 223,9SO 13.7SO 24·,S36 12,313 125,492 Pampa_____________________________ 2S,OOO 29,S7S 31,100 224.,2,)0 165,525 9,675 ll,67S l9,S6S 100,801. 85,813 Paris ---------------------------------------------------­ Plainview__________________________________________________________________________ 7S.501· S6.9'J.5 4,625 11,400* 16,990 llS,090 109,913 130,537 859,665 l ,2'J.7,07S Port Arthur ---------------------------------­33,448 lS,SlO 61,303 3S3.582 29S,503 San Angelo ----------------------------------------­ San Antonio _____________________ _ 4-23,547 164,372 564,741 3,870,827 3.639,Sll 24,037 94,768 34.,.345 269.875 3-17.007 Sherman·-----------------------------------------------------­lS,4·70 14-,l.9S 8,260 110.276 145,176 Sweetwater -----------------------­ Sl,060t :j: 4-,6.35t t t Tern pie. ________ ·-----_______ ------------------------------------------------­ S7,272 90,294 97,025 1,330,188 978,852Tyler -----------------------------------------·----------____ ----· 109,8SO 217,020 114,659 1,307,628 1,178,923Waco -----------------------------------------­83,96S* 125,S03 106,220 731.257 640,596 Wichita Falls --------------------------­ TOTAL________:________________ $ 6,970,789 6,203,361 $ 6,486,859 $6.1,410,276 $58,283,007 •Does not include public works. tNot included in the total. !Not available. §The Dallas figure given for Au i;:ust in this issue is the correct figure. NOTE: Compiled from reports from Texas chambers of commerce to the Bureau of Business Research. 1fA slum clcarnncc project is included in this figure. SEPTEMBER SHIPMENTS OF LIVE STOCK CONVERTED TO A RAIL-CAR BASIS§ Cattle Calves Hoe:s Sheep Total 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 1938 S89 1,968 1,071. 9,560 7,7.'30Total Interstate Plus Fort Worth!f _____________ 4,776 4,3S9 2,149 1,708 667 98 31 39 3S9 4.17 919 983Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth __________ 462 429 97 628 2,327 1,491 10,509 8 713TOTAL SHIPMENTS _________________ 5,238 4,788 2,246 1,806 698 TEXAS CAR-LOT§ SHIPMENTS OF LIVE STOCK, JANUARY 1 OCTOBER 1 Calves JI 01:• Sheep Total 1939 1938 1938 Cattle 1939 1939 1938 1939 1938 1939 1938 5,366 8,137 8,896 6.3,979 61,71'1. Total Interstate Plus Fort Worth If_________. 38,S86 39,270 10,267 8,212 6,689 960 8,S91 8,760 Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth _____ 5,910 6,189 1,158 1,139 390 472 1,133 5,838 9,570 9,856 72,.570 10,soi 44,4'96 45,459 11,425 9,3Sl 7,079 TOTAL SHIPMENTS----------­ §Rail-car Basis: Cattle, 30 head per car; calves, 60; hog1, 80; and 1becp, %50. ~Fort Worth shipment• are combined with interstate forwardine:• in order that the bulk of ~arket disa.ppearance for the month may be ~hown. representJne Non:. Theee data are furnish C"d the United States Bureau of Ajp"icultural Economics by .railway officials tbroue:h more than 1,500 itation •cents, Hery liv; •tock shippin&" point in the State. Tho data are compiled by the Bureau of Bu1ines1 Research. SEPTEMBER RETAIL SALES IN TEXAS September, 1939 Year, 1939 ,---~ Number Number of Percentage Change of Percentage Firms from from Firms Change Re­Sept. Aug. Re­from porting 1938 1939 porting Ycar l 938 TEXAS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1,112. + 3.2 + 13.3 989 + 4.1 STORES GROUPED BY LINE OF GOODS CARRIED: APPAREL------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------128 2.6 +38.3 112 0.1 Family Clothing Stores·----------------------------------------------------------------------30 + 3.2 +48.2 23 1.5 Men's and Boys' Clothing Stores______________________________________________________________ 47 3.4 +37.4 43 1.8 Shoe Stores------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17 2.9 +64.0 14 1.8 Women's Specialty Shops_______________________________________________________________________________ 34 3.3 +34.6 32 + 1.1 AUTOMOTIVE___________________ __________________________________________________________ ________ 120 +lo.a> -12.3 108 + 14.7 Filling Stations·-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------38 -6.9 -7.2 34 -4.5 Motor Vehicle Dealers·------------------------------------------------------------------------------82 + 11.0 -12.6 74 + 15.7 COUNTRY GENERAL AND FARMERS' SUPPLIES_____________________________________ _ 93 + 7.5 + 16.3 83 1.5 DEPARTMENT STORES_________________________________________________________________________ 61 + 0.8 +34.0 59 + 1.5 DRUG STORES ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------133 + 1.2 + 6.9 113 + 0.6 DRY GOODS AND GENERAL MERCHANDISE_________________________________________ 18 + 13.6 + 28.7 11 + 6.4 FLORISTS.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­31 1.9 + 6.() 31 + 1.2 FOOD_------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------154 + 4.8 + 8.1 143 3.7 Grocery Stores--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­43 + 8.6 + 12.4 39 0.1 Grocery and Meat Stores --------------------------------------------------------------------------------111 + 3.7 + 6.8 104 4,_3 FURNITURE AND HOUSEHOLD....-------------------------------------------------------54 + 4.5 -0.5 44 + 3.8 Furniture Stores-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------48 + 3.2 -2.2 40 + 4. o 1-Iousehold Appliance Stores.-----------------------------------------------------------------6 + 18.2, +21.1 4 + 1.5 JEWELRY___________________________________________________________________________________ _____ _______ ___ 43 + 12.8 + 0.2 37 + 1.0 LUMBER, BUILDING, AND HARDWARE________________________________________________ 236 + 6.6 + 1.2 212 + 7.0 Farm Implem en t Dealers------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­11 +38.7 + 24.. 2 10 + 11.8 Hardware Stores·-·---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------71 +10.3 + 6.6 63 + 1.3 Lum ber and Building Material Dealers---------------------------------------------------------------154· + 4,_3 1.3 139 + 8.7 RESTAURANTS ----------------------------------·----------------------------------------------21 3.0' + 0.04 19 1.3 ALL OTHER STORES_____________________________ -----------------------------------------------------------20 -9.4 + 5.6 17 8.2 TEXAS STORES GROUPED ACCORDING TO POPU­LATION OF CITY: All Stores in Cities of-Over 100,000 Population-------------------------------------------------------------------------------243 + 2.6 + 16.6 221 + 5.2 50,000--100,000 Population___________ ·--------------------------------------------------------------------· 105 + 1.7 + 14.6 95 + 2.5 2,500--50-,000 Population ·-----------------------------------------------------------------------470 + 4.2 + 9.5 412 + 4.2 Less than 2,500 Population___________________________________________________________________________ 294 + 6.0 + 4·.6 261 0.04 NoTE: Prepared from reports from independent retail stores to the Bureau of Business Research, coOperating with the United Sta tee Department of Commerce. PETROLEUM Daily Average Production (In Barrels) Sept. Sept. Aug. 1939 1938 1939 Coastal Texas•--------------------------232,750' 198,300 161,110 East Central Texas ----------------90,900 89,850 64,720 East Texas ----------------------------410,150 368,700 242,150 North Texas ---------------------------85,300 70,450 55,860 Panhandle ---------------------------5\UOO 62.250 44,550 Southwest Texas --------------------232,300 212,600 153,380 West Central Texas ------------------32,450 28,300 20,680­West Texas --------------------------255,4()0 188,100 164-,240 STATE __________________________________ l,398,350 1,221,550 906,690 UNITED STATES _______________ .3,4,<)7,550 3,232,250 2,782,8:w;v Imports -----------------------------------153,143 141,464 172,2~ *Includes Conroe. NOTE: From American Petroleum Institute. Sec accompanying map showing the oil producing districts of Texas. Gasoline sales as indicated by taxes collected by the State Comptroller were: August, 1939, 117,552,000 gallons; August, 1938, 111,719,000 gallons; July, 1939, 118,868,000 gallons. SEPTEMBER RETAIL SALES IN TEXAS September, 1939 Yonr, 1939 r---'----, Number Percentage Chnuge in Number Prrct·ntngu of Dollar Sales of Chnnito inFirms Sept. 1939 Sept. 1939 Firms 01.)llar "ales Re­from from Re-fromporting Sept. 1938 Aug. 1939 porting Year 1938 TOTAL TEXAS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1,112 + 3.2 + 13.3 989 + 4.1 TEXAS STORES GROUPED BY PRODUCING AREAS: DISTRICT 1-N-----------------------------------------------------------------------··-------69 + 9.0 + 2.7 61 + 1.8 Amarillo ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 + 15.2 +23..3 13 + 6.0 Pampa..·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 + 11.7 -2.4 10 + 9.3 Plainview·--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 + 4.4 -6.3 13 6.9 All Others .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 28 -1.2 -10.7 25 5.6 DISTRICT 1-S---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17 -5.2 -18.5 16 + 3.4 Big Spring.·------·-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·· 5 -22.6 -46.8 5 + 1.8 Lubbock·----------------------------------------------------···--------------------------------------------9 -6.6 -11.0 8 + 3.5 All Others .... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 +57.0 + 11.3 3 + 7.9 DISTRICT 2------------------------------------------------------------------------··----------------------95 0.0 + 15.3 87 0.8 Abilene·--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 15 + 19.0 +25.0 14 + 7.2 Vernon.·-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 7 -8.4 + 19.7 7 1.1 Wichita Falls.---------------------------------------···--------------------------------------------------· 11 -13.4 +12.6 9 -15.3 All Others----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·-----62: 3.4 + 9.5 57 + 0.4 DIS TRICT 3-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 33 + 6.4 +23.1 26 + 1.5 Brownwood__________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7 0.5 +20.2 5 + 5.2 Eastland·-------------------------------·-----------------------------··-----------------------------------------6 + 0.6 +14.5 5 + 7.5 All Others______ ·--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 20 + 7.9 +2'4.2 16 + 0.7 DISTRICT 4----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 279 + 1.1 + 15.4 252 + 4.9 Cleburne___________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8 + 2.9 +23.1 7 + 1.2 Commerce .... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5 + 11.1 +45.4 5 +20.3 Corsicana ...... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 + 13.8 +41.5 6 + 3.8 Dallas...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------49 -2.5 + 19.1 46 + 3.6 Denison. ... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 +10.2 + 3.6 8 + 8.9 Ennis·---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 6 +27.6 + 0.8 6 + 2.9 Fort Worth .... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 51 + 3.3 + 7.7 47 + 7.2 Sherman·-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 -11.2. +2'1.4 4 -14.5 Taylor.·-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 +20.5 + 2.8 6 +59.6 Temple-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 + 15.6 +36.6 11 + 6.1 Waco .... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------···--· 30 + 0.04 +25.6 27 + 0.2 All Others .... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------90 + 8.0 + 7.4 79 + 4.6 DISTRICT 5-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------108 + 8.5 +22.1 88 + 3.8 Bryan·-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 + 0.5 +70.9 8 + 13.5 - Henderson..·----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 6.4 + 1.6 6 + 1.7 Longview __________________________ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 8 + 15.1 + 15.4 5 -19.4 Marshall_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8 -6.6 + 15.9 6 4.9 Tyler_·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 -3.7 +28.7 11 7.3 All Others .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------65 +16.1 + 19.3 52 + 9.7 DISTRICT 6 .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------35 + 8.9 +24.6 31 + 5.6 El Paso...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------24· + 9.2 +25.7 22 + 6.4 All Others .... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 + 4.7 + 6.8 9 8.4 DISTRICT 7-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------62 + 2.7 +26.4 52 + 1.3 BradY-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------··-------8 +B.l +27.6 8 + 6.0 San Angelo·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 13 0.6 +34.3 11 -0.3 All Others .... -----------------------------------------------·-----------------------------------------------------------41 + 4.2 +20.0 33 + 1.9 DISTRICT 8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------199 + 4.5 +12.1 186 + 14.6 Austin ... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18 + 3.9 +26.l 18 + 12.6 Corpus Christi ...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 + 7.1 -20.4 13 1.8 Cuero·----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 + 0.5 +22.0 7 -0.2 Lockhart.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 7 -11.6 + 12.9 7 + 7.7 + 6.7 + 15.9 62 + 2.9 San Antonio .... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------69 -23.8 -17.6 7 -11.9 San Marcos....---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 + 1.0 + 5.4 72 + 5.2 All Others .... ---·----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------76 + 1.8 + 11.2 136 + 4-.0 DISTRICT 9-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------155 + 2.4 +22.3 18 + 0.9 Beaum on L.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19 + 6.6 -8.3 18 2.8 Galveston____ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 23 + 2.0 + 16.7 44 + 7.5 Houston ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------50 5.6 + 1.8 14 3.l Port Arthur·--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 + 9.8 -16.4-5 7.6 Victoria ... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 6 + 0.7 + 0.8 37 + 0.8 All Others ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 4-2 + 8.5 -3.5 54 + 3.7 DISTRICT 10...------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------60 +33.6 -4.2 11 + 11.8 Brownsville ---------------------·---------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 6.2 -26.6 9 + 7.5 Harlingen _ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------l 0 + 3.0 + 7.0 34 -0.9 All Others __________________ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 36 NoTE: Prepnrcd from reporls from independent retail stores to the Bureau of Business Research, coOperating with the nited States Department of Commerce. See map on page 14, September 28, 1939, issue showing crop reporting districts of Texas. POSTAL RECEIPTS Abilen,,__ ___ ______ _ Sept. 1939 $ 17,248 Sept. 1938 $ 17,120 $ Aug. 1939 16,483 s Year to Date 1939 1938 155,363 $ 157,575 AmarillO---­-----­-----------­Austin____________________ 30,395 71,986 30,945 67,369 32,196 67,304 275,376 612,151 278,053 583,760 Beaumont___ Big Spring______________________________________________ 25,703 5,520 25,563 5,644 28,169 5,358 234,451 51,444 227,326 53,505 Brownsville 4,842 5,4.75. 6,025 51,272 52,069 Brownwood-------------------------------­------------------­ 5,237 5,983 5,628 51,152 52,718 Corpus ChristL ---­-------------­Dallas____________________________________ Del Rio________________________________ 23,915 376,110 4,4·96 22,453 373,646 3,218 26,512 336,145 3,894 220,883 3,161,942 35,4.16 211,489 3,087,080 32,700 Denison__________ -------Denton__________ _____ ___ ______ El Paso________________________________ Fort Worth_____ ______________________ Galvesto1L_______ ________________________ 5,135 6,988 43,139 144,998 28,078 5,739 6,32.7 42,412 144,755 27,223 5,539 5,255 41,510 133,832 30,148 4·7,852 62,207 392,357 1,226,503 256;923 43,563 58,002 378,312 1,197,651 250,729 Gladewater_______ _ _ ___. 2,465 2,509 2,510 24,306 26,670 Graham·--------------------------·-----1,978 2,237 1,927 20,639 20,800 Harlingen_____ --------------------5,256 5,097 5,351 51,489 49,876 Houston.--------------------------------------------------234,913 225,64.2 241,289 2,152,105 2,026,381 Jacksonville_______________________________ 2,763 2,846 2,815 29,047 30,517Kenedy__________ __________________ _ 1,125 1,232; 1,221 10,974 12,423Kilgore.._______________ ________________________ 5,082 4,826 4,957 51,534 48,923Longview_____________ . 8,322 8,948 8,650 81,228 90,957 Lubbock______________________ 23·,642 20,686 16,422 158,834 149,347 McAllen____ _ 3,710 3,4.29 3,596 43,677 37,819 Marshall___________ ____________________ _ 5,650 5,833 5,530 53,173 51,787 Palestine__ -----------4.,882 4,340 5,964. 47,453 47,623 Pampa________ --------------5,836 5,714. 5,705 55,248 56,582 Paris----------------·--------6,185 6,392 6,047 53,005 51,574 Plainview ------3,941 3,702 3,639 86,925 35,798 Port Arthur ________ 11,238 12,284. 12,809 115,031 112,453San Angelo____________________________ 11,416 11,299 11,572 103,018 99,919 San AntoniO----------------------------------------------­114,382 108,955 117,237 1,066,859 1,045,496 San Benito.-------------------------------------------------------------2,515 2,546 2,582 • • Sherman___________ _ _ _ _______ 7,470 7,758 6,978 66,839 63,505 Sweetwater_________________________ _ 4,831 4,576 4,090 43,419 42,416 Tyler_______________________________________________________________________ 14,110 15,048 13,993 136,478 141,990 Waco_____ -------------------30,660 34,187 29,986 294,866 293,433 Wichita Falls------------------------22,348 22,800 22,014 202,084 216,573 TOTAL_____ _ _ _ _ __________.____ $ 1,328,510 $ 1,306,758 $ 1,280,884 $11,783,523 $11,417,394 *Not available. NoTE: Compiled from reports from Texas chnmbera of commerce to the Bureau of Business Research. CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRIC POWER IN TEXAS Power Consumed (In Thousands of K.W.H.) Percentage Change Sept., 1939 Sept., 1939 Year, 1939 Sept. Sept. Aug. Year-to-Date from from from 1939 1938 1939 1939 1938 Sept., 1938 Aug., 1939 Year. 1938 Commercial____________________________ 64.,027 57,013 63,393 476,481 430,411 + 12.3 + 1.0 + 10.7 Industrial_____________________________________ 120,237 109,113 119,186 974,297 924,116 + 10.2 + 0.9 + 5.4 ResidentiaL ___________________ 43,710 39,096 41,391 341,681 306,502 + 11.8 + 5.6 +11.5 All Other_______________________________ 30,067 30,359 33,587 255,176 247,558 -1.0 -10.5 + 3.1 TOTAL__ _______________________________________ 260,041 235,581 257,557 2,04.7,635 1,908,587 + lD.4 + 1.0 + 7.3 NOTE : Prepared from reports from 14 electric power companies to the Bureau of Business Research. CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES: Page Ba nking Statistics -------------------------------------------------------------------15 Business Review and Prospect, F. A. BuecheL ·-----------------·------3 Building Permits -------------·---------------------------------------------------------17 Carload Movement of Poultry and Eggs ----------------------------------16 Citrus Fruit Industry in Texas, Carroll Brown and Clara H. Cement ------------------··· ----------------------------------------------------------------------16Lewis -----------------------------------------------------------------------------7 Charter s -----------------------------------·---------------------------------------------------15 Commercial Failures ----------------------------------------------------------------15Cotton Situation, A. B. Cox·---------------------------------------------------12 Commodity Prices -----------------------------------------------------------------16 Cons umption of Electric Power.·-----------------------------------····--------20 Financial, Watrous H. Irons·-----------------------------------------------5 Cotton Balance S heeL ...---------------------------------------------------------13 Credit Ratios of Texas Retail Stores---------------------------------------16 Public Merchandise Warehousing in Texas, John H. Frederick 9 Employment and Pay Rolls in Texas.------------------------------------14 Lumber --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16 LIST OF CHARTS: Petroleum ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------18 Postal Receipts ------------------------------------------------------------------··-------20 Index of Business Activity in Texas·--------------------------------------2 P urchases of Savings Bonds ---------------------------------------------------16Per Cent of Crop La nd to Total Area in Each Crop Report-Reta il Sales of Independent Stores in Texas -------------------·18, 20ing Dis trict ---------------------------------------------------------------------­Shipments of Livestock ----------------------------------------------------_______ 17