TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas Vol. X, No. 9 October 28, 1936 VALUE OF FARM LAND AND BUILDINGS IN TEXAS 1930 ONE DOT= 2,000,000 U. &. B~REAU OF THE <;:EN6U~ ONE DOLLAR PER YEAR TEN CENTS PER COPY TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW A Monthly Summary of Business and Economic Conditions in Texas and the Southwest Bureau of Business Research, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas Entered as ~econd clatis ma tter on May 7, 1928, at the post office at Austin, Texas, under Act of August 24, 1912 Vol. X, No. 9 October 28, 1936 CONTENTS PAGE Business Review and Prospect, F. A. Buechel ---.. . ----------------------------·----. 3 Canning of Fruits and Vegetables in Texas, Part II, Clara H. Lewis 10 Cotton, A. B. Cox ________ ______ ____ ····-··---·-----------------------6 Financial, James C. Dolley _____________ ·-----------__.. -----------------------------------------------------5 Texas-In Perspective, Elmer H. Johnson ···-. ··-----·---·---------·-·---7 LIST OF CHARTS Indexes of Business Activity____ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------4 Value of Farm Land and Buildings in Texas, 1930 ····-1 LIST OF TABLES Banking Statistics ------------------_____ __ _____ ·--------------------------------------··-------·-------------15 Building Permits ----------------------------------------------------------------________--------------_____--------14 Carload Movement of Poultry and Eggs __ _______ __ __ ____ ________ .. .. ____ ___ ___ ___ 13 Cement __ ··--··-·-------------------------------_. · -----·-----··----------------_ ____ ___________.__ ·-------------· __--------14 Charters ---------------------------------------------·-------------------·------------------------------------------··-----13 Commercial Failures_ ___ _________ _ ._ _______ --·_____ _. __ __ -·___·-___ ---------------------------13 Commodity Prices___ ------------·--------_______ ______ _ ___________ ___________ ---------------------14 Consumption of Electric Power______ ------·-----·---------------------------------------------------------13 Cotton Balance Sheet.___________________ ----------__ ------------------------------------------------------------15 Cotton Manufacturing --------------------------------. ---------------.. ---------------------------------------12 Credit Ratios of Retail Stores __ _____________________________________________________ _______ _______________ 12 Employment and Pay Rolls Classified by Cities and Employment Groups________ 16 Lumber ----------·-----------------------------··---------·-·· --··----------··-------------------------------------------------13 Petroleum ____·-------------------------------------·-----·----------------------------------------------------------------14 P osta1 Receipts _______________________________ __ _________--·---------------_________ _---------------------------------13 Retail Sales of Independent Stores _____ .. __________ . _______ __ ___ _______ ___________10, 11 Shipments of Live Stock Converted to a Rail-Car Basis__________________________________ 15 Stock Prices -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 Partial List of Publications Issued by the Bureau of Business Research PRICE What Place Has the Advertising Agency in Market Research _____ ______________$1.00 William J. Reilly NIethods for the Study of Retail Relationships 1.00 William J. Reilly A System of Accounting Procedure for Livestock Ranches __ 1.50 Frederick W. Woodbridge The Natural Regions of Texas -· ____ 1.00 Elmer H. Johnson The Basis of the Commercial and Industrial Development of Texas______ __ ___ _ 2.00 Elmer H. Johnson Eight Years of Livestock Shipments in Texas ___ _______ _ 1.00 F. A. Buechel Directory of Texas Manufacturers as of January 1,1936 1.00 F. A. Buechel and Clara H. Lewis Recent Mimeographed Studies Studies of Employment Problems in Texas__ __ __________ ·----------------------------------1.00 A. B. Cox Possibilities of Industrial Expansion in Texas_________ _________________________________________ 1.00 Elmer H. Johnson Dairy Manufacturing in Texas ______ -----------------------------------------------------------------l .On F. A. Buechel Business Review and Prospect Texas is sharing with the rest of the country an accelerated rate of expansion in trade and industry. Aside from one or two industries which will be adversely affected by seasonal influences, no let-down from the current rate of commercial and industrial activity is visualized during the remainder of 1936. It is believed, in fact, that the up-trend has already attained sufficient momentum to carry into 1937. Indexes of Business Activity in Texas.-All of the indexes of business activity which have been computed for Texas have increased from August to September, after allowance is made for seasonal influences. The index of employment increased from 86.0 to 88.4; pay rolls from 78.2 to 80.5; carloadings of miscellaneous freight from 76. 7 to 78.9; runs of crude oil to stills from 144.8 to 153.1; department store sales from 98.3 to 101.5; and new passenger car registrations from 108.7 to 110.6. When these component indexes are weighted and combined, the composite index is 92.9 compared with 90.0 last month. That is to say, after adjusting for seasonal influences business activity in Texas during September was at the rate of 92.9 per cent of that during the average month in 1930, which has been taken as the base. In September 1935 the composite index was 78.1. The increase in busines:, activity over September last year is, therefore, 19.0 per cent. Other Texas reports received by the Bureau but not included in the foregoing composite index, such as electric power production, building permits, and postal receipts, all tend to confirm the increase shown in the index. INDEXES OF AGRICULTURAL CASH INCOME IN TEXAS For charts showing the trend of farm cash income in Texas since 1927 the reader is referred to the September 28 issue of the REVIEW. The average monthly farm cash income in Texas during the 60-month base period (1928-.32) was $41,­ 967,000. In computing the seasonal vanat1on of farm cash income, it was found that during the period 1927­ 36, farm cash receipts in September are equal .to 280. 7 per cent of the average monthly farm cash receipts dur­ ing those years. The average September farm cash re­ ceipts during the base period (1928-32) were, there· fore, about $115,000,000. This year in September th<" index of farm cash income stands at 75.9, compared with 64.7 in August and 44.5 in Septe.mber 1935. The actual farm cash income in Texas dunng September of the current year was, the~efore, nearly ~90,000,000. The sharp rise in the mdex of cash mcome for the State during September was caused by the .unu~ual.ly early marketing of cotto~ an? ~otton seed m d1stn~t 4 and to a lesser extent, m d1stncts 2 and 5-all ve1 y impor~ant cotton districts. Since .a ?isproportionately large share of the crop in these d1stncts was marketed in September, it follows that there will be a corre­spondingly smaller amount of the crop marketed in later months. The index of cash farm income for the State as a whole is, therefore, likely to decline some­what during the next two months; ~nd the indexes in districts 4 and 5 are almost certain to drop becau~e of the dominance of cotton as a source of farm cash income in these districts. In district 1-N (Northern Panhandle) the avera<>e monthly farm cash income during th~ base peri~d (1928-32) was $3,719,000. During the period 1927-36, cash receipts in this district during September were 77.5 per cent of those of the average month. Therefore, September farm cash receipts during the period 1928-32 averaged $2,882,225. Since the index of farm cash in­come in September this year for district 1-N is 58.6 per cent, the actual cash income for the month was $] ,688,984. The results of the foregoing analysis for each of the eleven districts may be summarized briefly in the fol­lowing table of farm cash income: · Average Index of Dist. 1-N 1-S Month 192S-321 ______$ 3,719 -----­2,489 Seasonal Varia tion 77.5 77.0 Normal Reccipts1 $ 2,882 1,917 Actual Receiptsl $ 1,688 1,299 Index of Income 58.6 67.8 2 ·­--------­-- 5,~13 179.7 9,368 7,123 76.0 3 ---------­4 ________ 1,845 9,280 248.8 448.4 4,590 41,612 2,616 38,656 57.0 92.9 5 ---------------­ 4,755 525.5 24,988 19,052 76.2 6 --------­ 1,419 103.8 1,473 878 59.6 7 -------­ 2,962 174.2 5,160 2,663 51.6 8 -----------­4,670 9 ________ 2,240 10 ________ 2,372 State ________ $40,967 288.3 317.2 71.3 280.7 13,4-04 7,105 1,691 $114,994 7,417 4,579 1,315 $ 87,286 55.l 64.4 77.8 75.9 lJn thousands of dollars. It is to be noted that the September index number of farm cash income for each district and for the State is entered in the last column. It represents the percentage which the actual income during September this year is of the average monthly income during the base period (1928-32) after this average monthly income has been adjusted for seasonal variation. For each district and for the State as a whole the farm cash income is substantially below that of the base period although this base itself is comparatively low, embracing as it does two prosperity years, two depression years, anrl tlw year 1930, which lies in be­tween. In most districts, however, the index of farm cash in­come is well above that of September last year. The indexes for September this year and a year ago are respectively 58.6 and 43. 7 for district 1-N: 67.8 and 26.6 for district 1-S; 76.0 and 32.5 for district 2: 57.0 and 44.9 for district 3; 92.9 and 42.6 for district 4; 76.2 and 39.8 for district 5; 59.6 and 54.8 for district 6; 55.1 and 48. 9 for district 8; 64.4 and 52.6 for dis­trict 9. F. A. BUECHEL. For Other Texas Dala, See Statistical Tables at the End of This Publication TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW =====================­ lNo E.X E.s · OF · Busi NE.SS AcT 1v11v IN · T F. XAS Financial From a monetary viewpoint, the most significant news of the year was the long-expected departure of France from the gold standard, which event occurred on Sep­tember 28-approximately five years to the day after the fall of the pound sterling. With the French franc went the Swiss franc and the Dutch guilder. Belgium, having revalued her currency in March 1935, held fast. These developments presage a wholesale readjustment and realignment of the continental currencies and bring measurably nearer the desideratum of international cur­rency stabilization. The French monetary crisis was the result of two fundamental difficulties. In the first place, the franc has been considerably overvalued in terms of foreign exchange ever since England was forced off the gold standard in September 1931. This situation was greatly aggravated by the deliberate debasement of the Ameri­can dollar in February 1934. The ensuing depreciation of the pound and the dollar in terms of francs rendered it increasingly difficult for France to export goods and easier to import goods, resulting in a definitely unfav­orable balance of international payments. As a conse­quence, the franc exchange rate was almost continu­ously under pressure; and, as it was intermittently forced beyond the gold export point, gold was with­drawn from the Bank of France reserves and shipped abroad. To combat this situation the French Government adopted two basic remedies. The depreciation of for­eign currencies was offset in part by a deliberate policy of commodity price deflation. As prices declined, it became easier for French exporters to sell abroad in com­petitive markets, which condition was somewhat assisted by rising prices in England and the United States; but the resulting pressure on the internal economy of France was tremendous. To prevent foreign countries with de­preciated currencies from flooding French markets with goods, much of which must eventually have been paid for with gold, tariff walls were raised and rigid import quotas put into effect. The result of course was a further strangulation of international trade. The second fundamental difficulty was a persistent flight of capital from France which simply could not be checked. Foreign balances were first withdrawn; later French capital began to seek security abroad. The major factors stimulating this flight of capital were: political uncertainties-especially the fear that a radical government would be elected, the badly unbalanced budget of the national government, the intermittent threat of a European war, and, recently, the rapidly diminishing gold reserves of the Bank of France. As the capital flight developed, huge quantities of gold were exported, the bulk of which was consigned to New York. French net gold losses aggregated ap­proximately $409,000,000 in 1934, $817,000,000 in 1935, and up to September 25, 1936, an additional $1,064,000,000. The gold reserves of the Bank of France declined from 82,635,000,000 francs on March 29, 1935, to 50,111,000,000 francs on September 25, 1936. Actual departure from the gold standard 1rns not effected until the gold reserves approached the 50,000,­ 000,000 franc level, the minimum thouo-ht necessary for defense in the event of war. " It can be seen therefore that the French abandonment of the gold standa.rd was forced and not voluntary. A voluntary revaluation of the franc at the time of dollar debasement undoubtedly would have been 1rise and would have forestalled the recent debacle. However. :io French ministry 1~ould sponsor such a policy because it ~ould .have been interpreted as inflationary; and in­ flation, smce the 1920-1926 experience, is extremelv unpopular with the rank and file of French Yoters. · Actual departure from the gold standard was ac­complished by a proclamation forbidding the Bank of France to redeem bank credit and paper money in o-old. This action, which was tantamount to placing an" em­bargo on gold exports, was taken only after first con­sulting England and the United States and receiving from these two countries pledges of cooperation in car­rying out the devaluation program. Such cooperation presumably will take the form of American and British exchange stabilization fund operations designed to steady the franc exchange rate pending ultimate return to the gold standard. Shortly after the proclamation embargoing gold ex­ports, the French Parliament enacted a law providing for devaluation of the franc within a range of 65.6 per cent to 74.8 per cent of its old gold weight. These limits would give the franc a parity value in terms of dollars ranging from $.04355 to $.04963. Almost im­mediately the Government fixed a provisional devalua­tion of 29.8 per cent, which placed a value of approxi­mately $.0466 to the franc. A devaluation profit of almost 16,900,000,000 francs was thus realized, out of which a 10,000,000,000 franc exchange control was es­tablished, the remaining portion of the profit being assigned to the Bank of France gold reserves. As was expected, the departure from the gold standard was accompanied by wild speculation in stocks and, to a lesser extent, in commodities. Prices of leading stocks, especially foreign issues, rose sharply. Rising com­modity prices constitute a real danger, as such a trend would materially increase the cost of living of the labor­ing population and would undoubtedly lead to serious labor disturbances. To combat rising prices, the Gov­ernment immediately put into effect tariff reductions ranging from 15 per cent to 20 per cent, abolished import quotas on some 800 items, and removed com­pensatory surtaxes against all countries with depreciated currencies except China and Japan. Even more en­couraging with respect to foreign trade was the prompt action of Italy in cutting her tariff walls. The French departure from the gold standard was promptly followed by the remaining gold bloc countries. Holland merely suspended the gold standard, allowing the guilder exchange rate to fall from parity by some 26 per cent, at which level it is being officially sup­ported. Switzerland authorized devaluation of the Swiss franc between a range of 66 per cent and 74 per cent of its old gold weight and fixed a provisional devaluation of about 29.6 per cent. Czechoslovakia cut tl:e weight of her koruna by 16 per cent, which, with the reduction of 17 per cent in 1934, leaves the money unit at about 60.7 per cent of its predepression gold content. Italy promptly cut the weight of the lira by 40.93 per cent, a11proximately the same as the 1934. dollar debasement. TLese various currency revaluations with others yet to come bring tangibly nearer ultimate international currency stabilization. No immediate wholesale return to the gold standard, however, is in prospect. Pre­sumably the individual currencies will be allowed to fluctuate under exchange fund control for some time until the normal level of each can be determined, after which a general stabilization agreement can be expected. Should this procedure be accompanied by sweeping re· ductions in tariff walls and import restrictions, the prospect for a revival of international trade will be tremendously improved. J. C. DOLLEY. Cotton Cotton problems are the most serious problems con· fronting the South and particularly Texas. The pre· dominant position the South held in world cotton pro· duction for over 125 years created a complacency that may cost the cotton growers dearly. Have not the rapid increases in cotton production in foreign coun­tries during the past four years completely exploded the old idea, all too prevalent, that the South had a God­given monopoly on cotton production? 4,352 10,4-00 450 465 5,106 11,100 1929 ------------------333 349 3,94-0 11,900 1930 ------------------19{) 219 4,100 11,400 1931___________________ 148 202 5,320 9,600 1932________________ 140 215 4,500 10,700 1933 -----------------208 315 4,475 13,400 1934. _________________ 150 200 2,406 13,300 1935 __________________ 162 202 2,956 15,800 1936__________________ 2,9154 16,7004 1From United States Department of Agriculture. 2From United States Department of Labor. 3from New York Cotton Exchange. 'October estimates. In order that the people of Texas may know exactly what the cotton situation is in this State, I have con­structed the accompanying chart with the use of Gov­ernment figures entirely, and for those who wish to have the exact figures I am presenting them in tahular form. Agriculture is the greatest single source of employ­ment in Texas. Census figures for 1930 show that 38 per cent of all those gainfully employed in Texas were in agriculture. Government data also show that cotton and cotton seed furnish about 80 per cent of the cash income from crops in Texas, and about 57 per cent of all cash income from farms and ranches in Texas normally comes from cotton. These facts emphasize the seriousness of the loss of income from cotton and cotton seed to the State. Note carefully that the cash income from lint cotton in Texas in 1935 was only $162,000,000 and all indications point to the fact that this year it will be little if any greater than last year, and that that income is considerably less than half what it was prior to the depression. The buying power of cotton as indicated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics wholesale index of all commodities is even now about as low as at any time during the depression . Why has there not been a recovery in income from cotton in Texas? The table shows there are two reasons: first, and perhaps the most important, is the much fewer bales produced; and, second, failure of the price to advance in proportion to the reduced production. When income from cotton in Texas is measured in gold the decline is even more pronounced. The average farm value of lint cotton produced in Texas during the three years prior to the depression was about 9,670,000,000 grains of gold. According to the last Government estimate of the Texas crop and prevailing prices, the farm value of lint cotton produced in Texas this year will not exceed 2,300,000,000 grains of gold. To what extent have Government rental payments, bonuses, and price equalization payments made up for the above loss in income from lint cotton in Texas? That is a very important question. During 1933 Gov· ernment payments to cotton growers and landlords on cotton accounts amounted to $62,000,000; during 1934 they amounted to $35,000,000; during 1935, $47,000,. 000; and this year, probably not to exceed $25,000,000 to $30,000,000. In addition to the above the farmers have had a restricted use of their land which has been of some value even though they were not supposed to produce cash crops from it. When all is said there is still a great reduction in cotton income in Texas com· pared with the income during 1927-1930. Can Texas farmers get that income back? Increases in foreign ================================================================= production and trade rei5trictions indicate that it will be very difficult. A. B. Cox. Indicated supplies in the United States COTTON October 1 were 15,072,000 bales, com·BALANCE pared with 17,030,000 bales October 1SHEET last year and 15, 744,000 bales two years ago. The indicated supply of cotton in the United States is thus 1,951,000 bales less than last year. Stocks of American cotton in and afloat to European ports were 207,000 bales more than on October 1 last year. The above items of supply of cotton have been de­creased 1,744,000 bales. During the past seven years the average points change in the adjusted New Orleans spot price (price divided bv the Bureau of Labor Statistics Wholesale Index) re· s~lting from 100,000 bales change in supply has been 16.31 points. If these figures hold good for this year, the index price of New Orleans spot cotton based on the above changes in supply is due to go up 284 points or up to 16.04 cents. When this index price is adjusted by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index of 81.6 and the spinners margin index of 1.041., the indicated price of middling spot cotton in New Orleans is 13.61 cents. When the above calculations are worked ou~ on the basis of percentage changes, the calculated price equals 13.28 cents. The Bureau supply-price charts indicate a price of about 13.50 cents. The off· setting factor to the bullish American supply is the very large estimated foreign production of 16,700,000 bales. The increase abroad about offsets the decreases in the United States. SPINNERS Spinners ratio margin on American MARGIN cotton based on the price of 32 twist yarn in Manchester and the price of Middling %-inch spot cotton in Liverpool was 164 in September, compared with 178 in August and 162 in September last year. The pence margin for September averaged 4.47 d, compared with 4.25 d for August and 3.90 d for September last year. These figures indicate a good demand for cotton. Texas-In Perspective1 In the nature of a country lies the destiny of its people. TOWARD A POINT-OF-VIEW In brief, what is termed the rise of civilization, his· torically considered, is the reaction and interrelations of institutional factors to the material environment-to the geographic features of the combinations of the vari­ous items that make up the physical setting of the natural regions. In this series of articles which are to deal with the background of Texas, institutional forms and factors will not be neglected; but in this and the articles to follow immediately, the emphasis will be placed upon the material environment of the State and of its various natural subdivisions, that is, its natural regions. An effort will be made particularly to point out funda­mental interrelationships and to comment upon their significance. Other than the geographic extent of the State, with its sweeping plains and rolling prairies, its extensive grasslands and forests, its plateaus and mountains, and with all of these the associated natural resources, per· haps Texas' most distinctive feature is that of the geographic location of the State-its location far to the south in the United States and its situation on and with reference to the Gulf of Mexico. Its geographic loca· tion in conjunction with the low relief of its plains and prairies determines the climatic regimes in its various 1In this article and the succeeding articles in this series, the writer is under obligations to many persons, but most of all to the late Dr. C. F. Marbut and to the veteran Texas scientist, Dr. Robert T. Hill. Both of these men were trained in geology; but they ever observed interrelations of the world beneath them and the world about them. Both extended their studies into fields of cultural development, literally opening new worlds of thought in the domain of regional interrelationships between Nature and Man. sections-giving to much of the State, as Ferdinand von Roemer declared nearly a hundred years ago, a semi­tropical climate, between northers. Too, its commercial situation on or near the Gulf of Mexico gives to much of the State tremendous advantages both in overseas commerce and in coastwise transportation. Location and the relief of the lands determine the major climatic features and the geographic distribution of climatic features over the extent of the country; and location obviously has much to do with the conditions of commercial accessibility and the forms of utilization of the natural resources of the highly productive plains and prairies that make up such a large proportion of the entire State. The plains and prairies, the mountains and plateaus are in turn the result of long and complex sequences of the working of geologic forces upon earth materials in the larger realm of the building of the North Ameri· can continent. It is the impact of these diverse forces upon the various sequences and kinds of rock materials that gives to the Texas region its structural relations in the North American continent and that determines in a broad way the characteristics of the various rock strata of the State and of their associated resources. By way of summing up thus far, one may say that over all are the climatic conditions and that under all are the geologic materials. And at the surface of the earth climatic factors and earth materials meet and intermingle and react; and that as a result of these reactions there is formed not only the soil coYer, the habitat for natural vegetation and the bases of crop production, but as 1rell the conditions determining the water supply, both surface and underground, and in addition there occur not a few of the reactions that result in the genesis of the vastly important groups of mineral resources. But, among other things this is a commercial world and going hand in hand with the factors determinin~ the inherent characteristics of nat· ural resources are also the features that have much ~o do with the availability of these resources and their accessibility to markets as the vast waves of natural resources utilization have swept over most of the western world within the past one hundred years. GROUPINGS OF TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCES I. THE AGRICULTURAL AND RANGE RESOURCES Historically, as well as under existing conditions, the quantitative aspects of Texas a?ricultural and range production constitute an outstanding fe~tur~ of the _ec~­nomic life of the State. Looked at scientifically, it is rather the vast capacity for agricultural and range pro· duction in the various regions of the State---each as large as an ordinar~ st~te-that ~rouses keenest inte~­est. This vast capacity is a function of ~he geo~raph!c extent of the State and of its several maior regions, m conjunction with the diversities in character of the nat· ural resources characteristic of the natural regions of Texas. The agricultural resources, in brief, are the function of the interrelations of climate and surface geology, as expressed in the _occurr~nce, extent,_ and qualities of the natural vegetation, soils, and moisture supply. Outstanding among these agricultur~l resou~c~s are the rich and productive soils of the various prame lands of the Permian Plains (of the Red Beds coun· try), 'of the High Plains or the Llano Estacado, and. t_he rich and nutritious natives grasses of the Coastal Prairies and Plains, the Edwards Plateau, the Lampasas country, the Permian Plains, the High Plains, and of the ex­tensive bolsons (the inclosed basins so typical of the country west of the Pecos) and mountain valleys and plateau uplands of the Trans-Pecos country. Not only are these natural resources geographically extensive and inherently productive, but, with reason· able care and discrimination in their utilization, they may be regarded as permanent possessions. The utilization of agricultural and range resources of Texas has expanded considerably since 1900, and new phases of readjustments and new a~ignments in uti_liza· tion are takina place currently. It is to be emphasized, however that° historic Texas was built upon these re· sources ~nd that down to 1900 the production of crops and live stock constituted the main basis of Texas de­velopment. The use of Texas fores_t resources became important long before 1900; an outl_me ?f th~t de~elop­ment will be left for later presentation m this senes of articles. II. OIL AND NATURAL GAS RESOURCES The huge reserves of oil and natural gas, so im· pressive as to have attracted world-wide attention, and properly so, are a function of the size of the State, of the large number of oil and gas structures therein, and of the geologic history whereby so large a proportion of the whole gamut of the geologic column of sedi­mentary strata is represented within the confines of the State of Texas. The vast extent of oil and natural gas potentialities of the State is indicated to some extent by the great percentage of the State underlain by sedi­mentary strata and by the extremely great depth to which these sedimentary rocks extend in several portions of the State. Large as the reserves were, large as they are now after some forty years of exploitation, it is essential to remember that oil and natural gas are irre­placeable resources-once removed from the earth they are soon gone forever, no matter how efficient the re­fining processes or the ultimate use of their products. Proper conservation of the natural vegetation, of the soils, and of the water supplies of the State is of utmost importance-indeed, it would be difficult to exaggerate the need for common-sense conservation of these great and fundamental resources. But how much more neces­sary, how much more critical a problem is the con­servation and proper use of our irreplaceable oil and natural gas resources! True enough, adjustments will be made in the long-run of affairs; but life is lived in the short-run of affairs, and it appears inevitable that the present generation will see shortages developing in the oil supplies of Texas. Historically, the oil industry began to be important in Texas shortly after 1900. Unquestionably the oil industry stands out as one of the most significant economic enterprises in the State. Unquestionably the oil resources and the oil industry of the State have directed attention, national and international, to Texas as have no other features of the State. Unquestionable, too, is the fact that the oil resources and the oil industry have reacted tremendously upon the economic life and prosperity of the State. Consider for a moment what would occur to Texas, to its various sections, to its cities and institutions were its oil industry to be sud­denly blotted out forever! III. NON-METALLIC EARTH RESOURCES OTHER THAN OIL AND NATURAL GAS The non-metallic resources of Texas other than oil and natural gas have been utilized to some extent since the coming of man to Texas. However, it has been only in the past few years that anything like large production of these resources has been undertaken in the State. Not only has an extensive utilization of this wide array of resources lagged behind in the rapid growth of the agricultural and range enterprises and of the oil and the natural gas enterprises, but there has been a lagging recognition of how important the non-metallics neces· sarily will be in the near future. Obviously everyone knows something of the limestone resources of the State; many know of the extensive gyp· sum deposits; others, of the sulphur industry; and still others, of the magnificent salt reserves of Texas. But how many have considered the potentials of the State for the production of construction materials from lime· stone, clays and gypsum? And how many have con· sidered the potentialities of the State for great chemical industries using the deposits of common salt? In the wider utilization of the non-metallic resources of Texas lies the one distinctive promise of industrial expansion in the State within the near future--chemicals, glass, cement, other construction materials, and the like. Not only is the State rich in reserves of the basic re· sources for such industries, but Texas has its vast fuel reserves, which, if properly conserved, will necessarily play a large and important part in the development of its non-metallic resources. Then, in addition, there are the great advantages of water transportation with its low costs to the markets of eastern United States and elsewhere. THE SETTING OF TEXAS IN THE CONTINENT OF NORTH AMERICA Unquestionably the lands lying between the Rio Grande and the Arkansas, which Dr. Hill has termed the Greater Texas Region, possess a unity in regional attitudes which distinguishes them from the rest of the country. This is, of course, the Southwest, now often called the Gulf Southwest, and in this section Texas occupies a predominant position. But why the dis­tinctiveness in regional attitudes in Texas? In the nature of a country lies the destiny of its people. Or, in the words of a European scholar: "The natural resources that any given region of the earth provides for the people who dwell and earn their livelihood with­in its borders vary very greatly owing to differences in climate, soil, rock-formation and other factors, and the history of peoples has been shaped thereby to a far greater extent than their historians have in general been wont to take into account." A mere glance at a relief map of North America reveals the outstanding features of the make-up of Texas-of how the State is made up of such major physiographic and geologic provinces as the Coastal Plain, the Great Plains, the southern portion of the Mid­Continent Lowland, and the Trans-Pecos mountain ranges, all of which extend into Texas from the outside. Texas, however, has more of the area of the Coastal Plains, more of the area of the Great Plains, and more of the area of the Central Denuded Region than any other state in the Union. Moreover, the Coastal Plain in East Texas and Northern Louisiana possesses a geologic individuality of its own, as witnessessed, f?r instance, by its oil and gas fields. The Coastal Plam southward from the Brazos, with its changing landscapes as the Rio Grande country is approached, is a region unto itself-quite different, it is, indeed: f:oi;i a_ny por­tion of the Coastal Plain east of the M1ss1ss1pp1 River. The inner margin of the Coastal Plain south of ~he Brazos is the Balcones Escarpment-one of the ma1or and most distinctive of physiographic boundaries of Texas regions, and the zone wherein the Co.astal Plain lies adjacent to one of the best defined regions of the Great Plains the Edwards Plateau. Though the Ed­wards Platea~ is a portion of the Great Plains province, it, in a physical sense, is distinctly u.nlike any oth~r portion of the Great Plains-and this. material dis­tinctiveness is quite as well expressed m the patterns of its land utilization. Texas possesses most of the table-land country known as the High Plains, ~or north­ward beyond the Canadian River the ~oundanes o~ t.he High Plains become less distinct a~d ~ts charactenst1cs merge into those of the Great. Plams. m ?eneral. T~e distinctiveness of the Texas High Plams 1s reflected m the well-known and highly expressi~e term that h~s been applied to these ~ands sine~ the time of the H1spano­American occupation-the Liano Estacado, or Stockaded Plain, referring to the stockaded appearance of the cap­rock esc?rpments wh~ch, as a rule, so sharph· form the boundaries of the High Plains on the east and on the west. No~ only does Texas have the largest share of the Perr:iian Red Beds Plains, but undoubtedly the Texas port10n of these plains is the most distinctiYe and thus far has proven to be by far the most valuable. T~~ Texas Prairies, particularly the Black and Grand Pra1nes, not only stand out as distinctiYe regions in the Texas landscape, but there is nothing just like them in the rest of the United States, and apparently not else­where in the world! · Then lying between the Grand Prairies at the east and the Permian Red Beds plains at the west occur distinctive types of landscapes such as those of the Lampasas country, the Palo Pinto country, the Jacksboro country, etc. Then beyond the Pecos lies what is at once the most bizarre and perhaps the most interestincr of all Texas regions-the Trans-Pecos, which in tu~n partakes of some of the characteristics of the country west of the Rio del Norte. Half lowland, half mountain range and plateau, this region has been designated by Dr. Hill as. geologically speaking, the solar-plexus of the North American continent. Though this large region is a world unto itself, it really comprises two main sections, with their subdivisions : the country north of the line occupied by the Texas and Pacific Railway, and that south of it. North of this railway the landscape is dominated by plateau and great block-mountain features with the intervening lowlands or bolsons; south of the railway it is something else and indeed quite different, a country dominated by great folds of strata, of great geologic faults and structural valleys that extend across the canyons of the Rio Bravo (this portion of the Rio Grande) from old Mexico. This bizarre and pic­turesque region is so distinctiYe that it is well-nicrh 0 universally referred to as the Big Bend Country. THE SUCCEEDING ARTICLES In the succeeding articles in this series the main objective will be to present in perspective the nature of the larger regions of Texas; and with the unfolding of the physical panorama of such distinctive sections as East Texas or the Black Prairies, the Edward Plateau or the Llano Estacada, the Permian Plains or the Trans-Pecos, the interrelated factors of human occu­pance and of adjustments of human enterprise to the material environment will be considered. Into the broader perspective of Nature and :\fan in Texas, and into the larger patterns of the distinctiYeness of the various Texas regions and the consequent more or less sharp lines of regional differentiation, the finely-cut details fit in as individual elements as do the trees in great forest formations. In analyzing Texas landocapes and in attempts to interpret them, one might readily become lost in detail; yet the minutiae of detail, prop­erly organized, classified, and interpreted in the larger setting, constitute the materials out of which Texas is constructed. EntER H. JoHr-;so:-1. The Canning of Fruits and Vegetables in Texas PART II The canning of both fruits and vegetables has de­veloped rapidly during the last few seasons in the Rio Grande Valley and Winter Garden sections, but the volume of vegetables, berries, and fruits processed in the eastern and coastal counties has shown a correspond­ing increase. Just as care in selection of vanet1es planted, expert grading, and the use of the most modern manufacturing processes have been invaluable in establishing an im­portant place on the American and foreign market for Texas canned grapefruit and spinach, the same scien­tific methods in production of other canned fruits and vegetables are building for Texas products greater mar­ket value each year. These factors have served to offer inducement for the building of branch canning plants in the State by some of the Nation's leading processers and canners of food products, of which the Marshall Canning Company of Marshalltown, Iowa, and Stokely Brothers, of Indianapolis, Indiana, are examples. The sound basis on which the canning industry of Texas is being developed is illustrated further by the large ca­ pacity planned by new plants built during the past season and those now under construction. These plants are equipped to can a· great variety of locally grown vegetables and will operate from ten to twelve months in the year. One of the most successful vegetable crops grown for canning purposes in the eastern area of the State during the last season has been that of green blackeye peas. The growing and harvesting of this crop require relatively small cost and labor output as compared with the production of most other vegetables grown for can­ning purposes. Besides possessing the advantages of low cost in production and harvesting, this type of legume tends to build up, rather than deplete, soil fer­tility. Both the Thrift Packing Company and the El­Food Corporation were heavy buyers of green blackeye peas during the last season, and it is understood that these two firms will seek contracts for at least 5,000,000 pounds of peas for next year's pack. One plant was established at Nacogdoches this year especially for can· ning green blackeye peas, and large quantities were also packed by Marshall Canning Company of Sugar Land, operating for its first year in Texas. SEPTEMBER RETAIL SALES OF INDEPENDENT STORES IN NEW MEXICO, OKLAHOMA, AND TEXAS Total Number of Finni Reportinc Change in Sales Number Percent•re Chance From September 1935 From August 1936 of in Dollar Sales Lesa LeH Firms Sept. 1936 Sept. 1936 Jn. De-Than l % Jn. De· Than 13 Re­from from crease crease Chanie create create Chan1e portiac Sept. 1935 Aug. 1936 TOTAL (New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas Com­bined) -------------------------··-----· ···--···----····-----------· -----743 285 27 502 507 46 1,055 + 19.9 + 12.5 NEW MEXICO -------------------------·-----------------·--------43 15 1 22 35 2. 59 + 25.6 -10.1 OKLAHOMA --------------------------------------------··--·-137 92 7 122 105 9 236 + 12.4 + 5.7 TEXAS ·-·--·-----·-----------···-···----------·----------·------------------563 178 19 358 367 35 760 + 20.6 +14.5 TEXAS STORES GROUPED BY LINE OF GOODS CARRIED: APP AREL -----------------------------------------83 18 5 95 11 106 + 20.6 +41.1 Family Clothing Stores__________________________ 19 7 1 25 2 27 +22.1 +40.6 Men's and Boys' Clothing Stores____ ____________________ 34 4 1 34 5 39 + 21.5 +32.2 Shoe Stores -------------------··--·-. -----· .... .. 11 2 12 1 B + 17.0 +74.8 Women's Specialty Shops _. 19 5 3 24 3 27 + 19.8 +44.5 AUTOMOTIVE ----------------------------------·---. -------··· 65 30 2 19 75 3 97 + 33.7 -12.s Filling Stations ------·----····-·--··-·-·--·-----·--18 10 1 5 23 1 29 + 5.2 -7.6 Motor Vehicle Dealers ........ -------------------------------47 20 1 14 52 2 68 + 35.6 -12.8 COUNTRY GENERAL AND FARMERS' SUPPLIES 69 20 3 45 42 5 92 + 18.0 + 1.4 DEPARTMENT STORES__________________________________ 38 9 1 44 4 48 + 14.9 +39.9 DRUG STORES _____ ---·-·--·-----------------·----------------· 114 38 4 51 90 15 156 +10.8 -2.7 FOOD ----··· ··------------------------------------------------·· 100 34 3 54 77 6 137 + 13.4 1.4 Grocery Stores ---· -------··----------------·--·--·----·-·· __ 23 10 1 14 18 2 34 + 13.5 + 0.3 Grocery-and-Meat Stores ........ ______ ·-------·---------77 24 2 40 59 4 103 + 13.4 -1.9 FURNITURE AND HOUSEHOLD ___ -----------·--·--··-· 26 6 13 17 2 32 +21.2 -2.4 Furniture Stores -------------·----·----------------------------------15 3 7 9 2 18 +21.9 + 0.3 Household Apnliance Stores__________________ ---·---·---·---7 z 2 7 9 + 15.6 -18.9 Other Home Furnishings Stores____________________ 4 1 4 1 5 +31.5 +37.5 JEWELRY STORES -----------------------------------------------10 3 7 10 +40.2 -2.8 LUMBER, BUILDING, AND HARDWARE____________ 39 .17 28 27 1 56 +38.3 -2.1 Hardware Stores ----------------··--------------------------------20 10 17 13 30 + 19.5 + 0.7 Lumber and Building Material Dealers._________________ 19 7 11 14 1 26 +47.5 3.2 REST A TTR ANTS . -·-----·-------·--------------------------------13 5 1 5 12 2 19 + 13.2 2.6 ALL OTHER STORES_______________________________________ 6 1 1 5 1 7 +33.9 -0.5 TEXAS STORES GROUPED ACCORDING TO POPULATION OF CITY: All Stores in Cities of- OVER 100.000 POPULATTON_____________________________ 142 30 4 94 72 10 176 +22.2 +23.3 50.000-100.000 POPULATION ----·---·--··------------·--·· 49 16 3 38 29 1 68 + 11.6 + 16.8 2,.500-50.000 POPULATTON ·-----------------------------241 8 174 338 + 89 146 18 +19.2 1.8 LESS THAN 2,500 POPULATION_____ __ _____ ___ ------· 131 43 4 80 92 6 178 +23.7 -5.3 Non: : Prepared from reports from independent retail 1tore1 to the Bureau of Bu1inesa Research, coOperatine; with the United State• Departmellt of Commerce. Preserving and Canning of Figs.-Commercial pro-general increase in demand and price for Texas canned duction of figs in Texas began more than thirty years products. Recent reports indicate that the individual ago in the counties of Jefferson, Harris, Fort Bend, Bra-plants this season utilized an average of 25,000 pounds zoria, Galveston, and a few other eastern and Gulf Coast or more of figs daily, and employed from 80 to 100 counties. The industry developed rapidly from the person~. The Leverton Company operates the plant time a plant for fig preserving was established at Friend-at Alvm formerly controlled by the TexJs Preserving wood, Galveston County, about 1903, until 1926, when Company and is supplied by a group of fifteen orchards. a total of seventeen plants were in operation. In 1928 The Hall Fig Plant, Harnshire: Rio Grande Valley Can­it was estimated that from 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 ning Company, Edinburg; Terrell and Garth, High· pounds of figs were produced on 16,000 acres of or-lands; and Texas Fig Company, Sugar Land, are among chards then under cultivation. Since that year, how-the larger companies which have processed the bulk of ever, most of the plants have been closed and the pro-the Texas fig crop this year. ductive area has decreased to approximately 5,000 acres. Humid climate and locally suitable soils of the Gulf In compiling material for the 1936 edition of the Coast counties provide excellent conditions for fig cul-Directory of Texas Mannfacturers, it was revea~ed th~t lure, and experimental work with various types of figs although practically all the smaller plants established_m has proven the superior qualities of the Magnolia fig 1927 and 1928 have disappeared, the larger ones which for commercial production in Texas. Although re­have survived depression years have improved the~r man-vers~s suffered by the fi g canning and preservin~ indus­ufacturing methods as well as products. Dunn_g the try m Texas because of overproduction, poor distribu­present year the fig canning industry has shared m the tion, and unfavorable seasons have resulted in the cur- SEPTEMBER RETAIL SALES OF INDEPENDENT STORES IN TEXAS Total Total Number Percentage Chance Percentace Number Chance of in DolJar Sales of in Dollar Sales Firms Sept. 1936 Sept. 1936 Firm1 Sept. 1936 Sept. 1936 Re­from from Re­from from portine Sept. 1935 Aug. 1936 portin1 Sept. 1935 Aug. 1936 DISTRICT 3...____________ ·-·-··--19 TOTAL TEXAS___________ ........... 760 + 20.6 + 14.5 + 8.9 -11.2 Brownwood ····-·· ........ .......... 4 + 3.4 -26.1 TEXAS STORES GROUPED All Others......................_____ 15 + 12.0 -0.6 by PRODUCING AREAS: DISTRICT 4_________________ _________ 188 + 23.6 + 20.4 DISTRICT 1-N.......... ----------38 + 6.7 + 10.1 Cleburne -----------------------------10 + 13.9 + 14.6 -8.0 + 4.2 Amarillo -------------------· ..... ... 9 Corsicana -------------------------12 + 6.4 + 17.3 + 3.5 + 13.2 Pampa ----················ .......... 4 Dallas ----------············------49 + 22.9 +25.5 Plainview ..... ... ........... ... .... 8 + 31.2 + 8.6 Denison -----····-----------------3 + 27.1 -14.1 All Others__________________ .. . . 17 + 1.7 + 12.1 Fort Worth......._________________ . 23 + 23.4 + 17.4 DISTRICT 1-S. ........ . ......... 20 + 25.7 + 0.6 Paris ------------------------·····--3 + 1.8 + 7.5 + 31.9 + 1.9 Sherman -----------------------6 + 29.8 + 1.6 Lubbock --------·-··-············· . 13 -10.3 -8.9 Taylor ··-------------------------9 + 16.9 -2.5 All Others......-----. .... ..... 7 Temple ___ --------· .... ····-----8 + 1.6 + 18.7 + 4.1 + 15.6 DISTRICT 2.......... -----------68 Waco ________________ ····-·· ______ 13 + 14.8 + 26.9 Abilene ------------·············· ....... 10 All Others________________ .. ______ 52 +35.8 + 5.1 2.0 + 15.7 Vernon ------··· ............ . . . .. 5 DISTRICT 5__________________________ 82 + 29.5 + 5.1 + 13.2 Wichita Falls . .......... ....... . 8 6.4 Bryan ------···-----------·--··········· . 7 + 8.6 + 31.2 All Others.............................. 45 + 4.4 + 0.7 Longview ----------------..... ... 6 + 16.1 + 15.0 Marshall ___ ........ ............... .. 7 + 19.7 + 5.7 Nacogdoches ····--------------·· 4 +37.0 -16.5 Tyler ---------------------_ 9 + 36.5 + 21.8 All Others ------------___ . .. 49 + 34.0 -6.9 DISTRICT 6______ ----· ___ ___ __ 37 + 29.1 + 24.8 El Paso_________ ··-····---· ... .. 25 + 30.9 + 28.4 Fort Stockton._____________ 3 -10.0 -10.8 All Others_______________ ·····-9 + 16.9 -1.6 DISTRICT 7______________________ 28 + 2.0 + 6.2 San Angelo_______________ -·--·· 15 -0.3 + 2.8 All Others.____________ ·-····-13 + 7.7 + 15.3 DISTRICT 8.----·-·······-----115 + 19.5 + 8.7 Austin ·····---------------------19 + 10.0 + 20.4 Corpus Christi...____________ ----·-8 + 35.5 -37.8 San Antonio______________________ 28 + 22.7 + 21.3 All Others.....----------------------60 + 16.8 -9.7 DISTRICT 9....------------------111 + 16.0 + 17.5 Beaumont ----------------· .. 9 + 11.5 + 21.8 Galveston ------···-----------·····-13 + 7.3 -5.6 Houston ··--··-···--··-··--····· 51 + 16.6 + 22.7 Port Arthur..-------------------14 + 15.3 + 9.9 All Others.------------------24 + 24.5 -2.5 DISTRICT 10....-------------54 + 35.9 -15.4 Brownsville --············-········--17 + 8.7 -12.5 Harlingen --------------------11 + 46.4 -27.6 All Others.-------------------· 26 + 47.3 -11.2 N;,:-s: Prepared from reports from indepe.ndent retail stores to the Bureau of Buaineea Retearch, coOperating with the United State• Department •f Com.mere•, tailment of acreage and in the closing of many plants since 1928, the Magnolia fig produced and canned in Texas is a well-established commodity on the American market; and with the necessary advertising and im­proved marketing methods now being developed, it is expected that the progress made this year will increase steadily. Eight plants reporting in 1935 produce jams, jellies, and preserves; and two plants located in Lindale report canned blackberries as their only product. The Biennial Census of Manufactures for 1933 reports four establish­ments producing vinegar in Texas, but this does not include approximately sixteen other plants of which vinegar is a secondary product. Peanut Products.-The demand for peanut oil for food purposes has increased considerably within the last two years, and a much larger portion of the peanut crop is now processed by the vegetable oil mills. Com­pared with other foods having a large percentage of digestible protein and oil value, peanuts are recognized as a human food of high rank. They are used extensively as feed for live stock; and, although much of the acreage planted is used for this purpose, the development in Texas of a peanut of high oil content has added to the quality and quantity of Texas peanuts produced for human food. During the period 1928-1932 Texas produced a yearly average of 77,230,000 pounds of peanuts, compared with the United States average of 938,880,000 pounds. Texas production for 1935 totaled 109,250,000 pounds while United States production was 1,264,455,000 pounds. Because of adverse climatic conditions exist­ing this year, it is estimated that the peanut crop for the country as a whole will be more than 30,000,000 pounds less than for 1935. The Texas crop is esti­mated at 88,825,000 pounds according to the report made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Pea­nuts are best adapted to sandy soils free from gravels and are produced in Texas principally in certain sandy areas of the Coastal Plain, as for instance, just east of San Antonio and in the Tyler country, and in the deep sands of the Western Cross Timbers country in the vicinity of De Leon and westward. CLARA H. LEWIS. SEPTEMBER CREDIT RATIOS IN TEXAS RETAIL STORES (Expressed in Per Cent) Number of Store1 Rcportinc Ratio of Credit Sales to Net Salee Ratio of Collections to 011t1taodin11 Ratio of Credit Salarie1 to Credit Sales 1936 All Stores 58 Stores Grouped by Cities: Abilene --------------------------------4 Austin -----------------------------------------3 Beaumont ------------------------------------------------------------3 Dallas ----------------------------------------------8 Fort Worth 6 Galveston--------------------------------·--------···-------------------··--·-------------3 Houston 8 San Antonio_·-----·---------------····-----------------------------------------······ 4 Waco ----------------------------------------4 All Others ----------------------------------------15 Stores Grouped According to Type of Store: Department Stores (Annual Volume Over $500,000) ------·------·-17 Department Stores (Annual Volume Under $500,000) _______ 14 Dry Goods-Apparel Stores______________________ Women's Specialty Shops_______________________________ 4 Men's Clothing Stores_14 9 Stores grouped according to Volume of Net Sales during 1935 : $3,750,000 down to $2,250,000_ 7 $2,250,000 down to $1,000,000_________________________________________ 10 $1,000,000 down to $275,000 -------·---------------------·-----·-----17 Less than $275,000_______________________________________________ 24 1935 1936 1935 1936 58 63.8 64.7 33.5 4 62.5 63.3 27.4 3 60.8 60.0 37.9 3 64.5 65.4 37.1 8 68.8 71.5 34.3 6 62.8 61.7 30.9 3 64.9 70.4 36.2 8 63.6 62.8 35.2 4 59.5 62.7 30.4 4 64.1 63.9 32.2 15 58.9 59.5 34.4 17 62.8 63.3 33. 3 14. 61.4 61.5 32.7 4 60.1 61.9· 25.9 9 66.8 69.6 33.5 14 68.3 69.9 36.8 7 62.1 65.7 35.0 10 63.7 64.1 33.3 17 60.8 60.8 39.4 24 63.3 67.1 34.3 NoTtt: The ratios 11hown for each year, in the order in which they appear from left to right, are obtained by the followins divided by net sales. (2)Jividcd by credit sales. Collection• during the month divided by the total of accounts unpaid on the firat The data are reported to the Bureau of BusineH Research by Te.xa1 retail 1tore1. COTTON MANUFACTURING IN TEXAS Sept. 1936 Bales of Cotton UsecL____________________________________________ ________ 4,390 Yards of Cloth: Produced----------------····-----------------········-------------------------­4,861,432 Sold --···---------------------------------·-------------------------------------------· 4,531,607 Unfilled Orders·-------------------------------------·--------·-···-----8,947,103 Active Spindles...._ _____________________________------------·-----_______ 119,424 Spindle Hours11----·-------···-------------------·-------------------36,214 ll ln thousands. NOTE: Reported to the Bureau of Business Research by Texas cotton mills. The figures shown for September 1936, September 1935, and Aue:ust 1936 include data from Sept. 1935 2,741 3,020,974 4,067,464 5,193,857 110,856 24,122 12 mills; those of the month. (3) Aug. 1936 4,921 4,669,473 4,488,086 7,838,318 118,339 38,979 1935 1936 1935 32.6 1.0 1.1 24.5 1.3 1.3 36.4 0.9 0.9 32.7 1.4 1.3 30.9 0.9 1.0 32.0 1.0 1.2 37.8 2.4 3.1 37.6 1.1 1.3 33.7 0.7 0.7 27.9 1.2 1.3 32.3 1.4 1.5 33.6 1.0 1.1 28.6 1.5 1.6 24.7 1.8 1.8 30.8 0.7 0.8 33.7 1.4 1.7 34.1 0.7 0.8 30.1 1.0 1.1 38.3 1.5 1.4 36.4 2.0 2.1 computation• : (1) Credit tc1ltt Salarie1 of the credit depll'tmeDI Third Quarter 1936 13,144 13,879,050 13,500,192 115,202 for the third quarter of each year, 1935 5,910 6,879,585 8,721,281 53,847 11 mlll1. TEXAS COMMERCIAL FAILURES TEXAS CHARTERS Sept. 1936 Number -----------------------­9 Average Weekly Number_____ 2 Llabilitiesl\ ______________________ $114 AssetsII -----------------------$ 26 Sept. 1935* 13 3 $155 $ 66 Aug. 1936• 17 3 $249 $ 51 Third Quarter 1936§ 1936~ 38 68 3 5 $417 $1,479 $ 96 $ 358 Sept. 1936 Domestic Corporations: Capitalizationl\ --------·--$1,639 Number ----·--·------------­123 Classification of new Sept. 1935 $1,594 100 Aug. 1936 $2,311 132 Third Quarter 1936 1935 $5,521 $6,211 383 284 Average Liabilities perFailurel\ _______________________$ 13 $ 12 $ 15 $ 11 $ 22 corporations: Banking-Finance ------· 5 9 3 13 21 *Five weeks. NOTE: From Dun §Thirteen weeks. and Bradstreet, Inc. 'ilFourteen weeks. ll ln thousands. Manufacturing -------· Merchandising _______ 19 30 3 32 25 34 72 91 48 94 LUMBER (Jn Board Feet) Southern Pine Mills: Average Weekly Production Sept. 1936 • per Unit _____________________________________312,762 Average Weekly Shipments per Unit___________________________________346,881 Average Unfilled Orders per Sept. 1935 286,936 275,947 Aug. 1936 320,481 318,035 Oil -------·---------­Public Service___________ Real Estate-Building_ Transportation _______ All Others Number capitali;;d-~-t­less than $5,000 _______ Number capitalized at $100,000 or more______ Foreign Corporations (Number) -------­ 38 1 4 1 25 55 3 31 29 7 3 17 32 5 23t 31 2 10 1 26 53 4 29 96 6 31 3 71 158 9 96 111 25 16 69 144 16 92t Unit, End of Month._________________736,589 616,455 777,677 tRevised. Uln thousands. N,,n: From Southern Pine As1ociation. NOTE: Compiled from records of the Secretary of State. SEPTEMBER CARLOAD MOVEMENT OF POULTRY POSTAL RECEIPTS AND EGGS Shipments from Texas Stations Cars of Poultry Live Dressed Can of Egga Chickens Turkeys Chickens Turkey! 1936 1935 1936 1935 1936 1935 1936 1935 TOTAL __________ Intrastate ________ Interstate --------­____ lntirrstate New York________ Illinois _____________ Massachusetts__ __ _ New Jersey---­____ Pennsylvania____ --· Louisiana -----­___ Connecticut ____ Missouri ________ Georgia _________ ___ 19 11 2 2 2 17 11 Shipments Classified 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 2 1 5 1 1936 1935 33 38 7 13 26 25 3 7 1 1 1 9 6 2 3 1 Sept. 1936 Abilene ________$ 14,233 Amarillo _______ 27,382 Austin ----------­59,093 Beaumont ________ 21,251 Big Spring______ 4,834 Brownwood _____ 5,537 Cleburne _________ 3,021 Corpus Christi___ 17,446 Dallas _________ 363,619 Del Rie>__________ 3,146 Denison _______ 4,207 El Paso ----------­39,894 Fort Worth______ 143,526 Galveston ________ 24,241 Harlingen ------­4,637 Houston ---------­199,054 Jacksonville _______ 2,954 Longview _______ 7,724 Sept. 193> $ 12,752 23,423 43,171 16,695 4,014 4,338 3,107 13,251 202,790 3,073 3,924 34,517 114,903 22,636 3,335 173,595 2,508 6.605 $ Aug. 1936 14,4-01 25,749 49.388 20,557 4,119 4,287 3,199 17,248 327,069 2,780 4,083 36,748 121.096 25:360 3.849 190.451 2,763 8.351 California _____ __ Alabama ________ Florida ________ --­Rhode Island_____ 1 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 Lubbock McAllen Marshall Palestine ---------­---------­----------· ________ 15,715 3,182 5,0084,499 13,915 2,322 4,575 4,317 11,152 3,055 5.345 6.194 Mississippi ___ --­ 1 Pampa ___________ 5,179 4,949 5,009 Receipts at Texas Stations 1TOTAL _____________ ---­Intrastate ---­-----­____ 1 Interstate ---------­__ Interstate Receipts Classified Kansas ___________ ___ 32 6 26 9 15 12 3 2 Paris --·-----­Plainview _____ Port Arthur________ San Angelo________ San Antonio_________ Sherman ·---------­Snyder ------------­ 5,5143,309 9,915 9,360 106,844 7,163 1,307 4,889 4,911 8,702 8,849 94,040 6,632 930 5,415 2.830 10,016 9.705 100.835 6,367 1.076 Missouri -------------9 Sweetwater ...----5,138 3.849 4.821 Oklahoma _________ 1 13,300 14,74-0 Tyler -----------------14,632 27.346 Nebraska ________ ---· 7 Waco ---·-----------·-30,210 27,138 Louisiana ------------1 Wichita Falls._-----18,889 17,115 21,066 TOTAL ____________$1,191,663 $1,009,080 $1,096,470 NOTE: The!le data are furnished the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Divi~ion of Crop and Livestock Estimates, by railway officials through agents at all stations NoTE: Compi1ed from reports from Texas chambers of commerce to thewhich originate and receive carload shipments of poultry and eggs. The data are Bureau of Business Research. compiled by the Bureau of Business Research. CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRIC POWER I TEXAS Percentage ChangePower Consumed Sept. 1936 Sept. 1936 Third Quarter 1936(In Thousands of K.W.H.) Third Quarter from from from Sept. Sept. Aug. Sept. 1935 Aug. 1936 Third Quarter 1935 1936 1935 130,227 109,243 +24.4 + 2.1 + 19.2 1936 1935 1936 44,845 36,048 43,902 CommerciaL---··---------------·-·------------------100,731 82,185 101,463 296,762 254,469 + 22.6 0.7 + 16.6 lndustriaL------------------·---------------------30,469 25,348 29,606 87,910 73,962 +20.2 + 2.9 + 18.9 Residential----------------------------------26,562 20,972 26,908 77,288 66,763 + 26.7 1.3 + 15.8 All Other-------------------------·-----------------· 202,607 164,553 201,879 592,187 504,437 +23.l + 0.4 + 17.4 TOTAL---------------------------------.. . .. . reports from I7 electric power companf~ to the Bare.au of Bueinea& Ree-earch. Non: Prepared from COMMODITY PRICES PETROLEUM Sept. Sept. Aug. Daily Average Production 1936 1935 1936 WHOLESALE PRICES: (In Barrels) U. S. Bureau of Labor Statjstics (1926 = 100) ------------81.6 80.7 81.6 Sept. Sept. Aug. 1936 1935 127.8 127.6 127.8 1936 The Annalist (1913 = 100) ___ ___ { Coastal TexasU_________________ _____________ 253,920 75.8U 75.8U 75.8U 192,750 258,300 East Central Texas__________ _________ 62,800 FARM PR1cES: 46,750 60,4.50 East Texas___ ____________________ _________ 435,210 U.S. Bureau of Labor 442,950 432,000 (1926 = 100) _________ 84.0 79.5 83.8 North Texas__________ -----------------------61,090 59,100 60,950 Statistics RETAIL PRICES: 61,600 Panhandle -----------------------------------61,370 54,350 Southwest Texas_ ___________________ 85,620 Food (U.S. Bureau of Labor 59,850 86,350 West Central Texas __________________ 26,990 Statistics, 1923-25 = 100) _____ 84.3 80.1 84.0 25,800 26,550 West Texas______________________________ 172,320 Department Stores (Fairchild's 154,050 180,600 STATE ___________________ __________________ l,159,320 Publications, Jan. 1931=100) 89.3 86.6 88.5 1,035,600 1,166,800 UNITED STATES_____________________3,016,850 2,736,950 3,033,950 11IBased on exchange quotations for Franc.e, Switzerland. and Holland. Imports ----------------------------------------166,057 147,786 161,643 CEMENT 1JJncludes Conroe. Nori:: From American Petroleum Institute. (In Thousands of Barrela) Gasoline sales as indicated by taxes collected by the State Sept. Sept. Aug. Third Quarter Comptroller were: August 1936, 98,377,000 gallons; August 1935, 1936 1935 1936 1936 1935 87,432,000 gallons; July 1936, 100,357,000 gallons. Texas Plants- Production ----------------595 259 581 1,625 990 STOCK PRICESShipments ---------------450 257 509 1,455 998 Stocks -------------------732 642 587 Sept. Sept. Aug. 1936 1935 1936 United States-Standard Indexes of the Securities Production ______________ 12,292 7,173 12,535 36,273 22,429 Markets: ____________ 12,564 Shipments 7,799 12,560 36,890 23,717 419 Stocks Combined_________________ 114.l Stocks ___________________18,648 85.0 113.0 21,783 18,920t 347 Industrials -----------------------130.2 97.5 128.4 Capacity OperatecL__ 57.1% 32.6% 56.2% 32 Rails ---------------------------55.4 37.0 53.9 40 Utilities --------------------107.7 81.9 108.8 tRevised . Non: From U. S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mine.. Non;: From Standard Stati1tic1 Co., Inc. BUILDING PERMITS Sept. Sept. Aui. Third Quarter 1936 1935 1936 1936 1935 Abilene_________ ----------------------$ 7,310 $ 7,865 $ 30,170 $ 68,562 $ 43,794 Amarillo----------------------------------------------------------------------59,559 22,720 69,141 161,792 78,816 Austin___________________________________________________ 576,881 164,827U 275,887 1,202,314 668,297U Beaumont-----------------------------------------------------------------------· 61,637 55,093 36,320 174,146 189,537 Big Spring______________________________________________________ _______ __ _ 13,420 3,883 ll,688U 39,778U 14,143U Brownsville____________________________________________ ________ __________________ _ Brownwood_________________________ _ __________________________________ ________ _ 4,490 5,493 H!,658 26,090 2,015 450 250 5,147 525 Cleburne_________________________________________ 3,261 6,350 2,913 :j: :j:Corpus Christi______________________________________________________ _ 212,305 40,230 818,572 1,193,449 147,675 Corsicana_____________________ ____________________________________ _________ _ 6,063 11,025 93,568 37,171 Dallas--------------------------------------------------------688,211 441,481 655,827 1,967,288 1,452,811 Del Rio---------------------------------------------------------------------_ 2,255 6,435 4,125 16,080 14,369 EI Paso _________________________________________________________________________ _ Fort Worth_____________________________________________________________________ 56,152 18,585 46,074 203,611 89,4.54 Galveston__________________ ____________________________________________________________ _ 414,949 224,000 815,585 1,992,130 990,480U 166,923 46,975 67,166 805,960 ll8,086 Houston·---------------------------------------------------------------------------_ 1,077,59·4 554,150 922,412 2,847,7ll 1,916,845 Jacksonville----------------------------------------------------------------------2,750 4,325 7,715 4,650 Laredo._____________________________________________________________________________ _ 10,560 3,600 11,425 32.260 12,675 Lubbock----------------------------------------------------------------------------112,967 11,010 65,934 279:648 40,848 McA!len________________________________________ _____________________________________________ _ 4,200 16,550 16,450 55,950 28,900 Marshall__________ __ ________ ______________ ___________________________________________ _ 35,192 4,945 37,719 %,369 36,886U Palestine_____________________________________________ ______________________________________ _ 31,095 11,687 15,424 63,0% 42,212 Pampa------------------------------------------------------------------------~-----43,050 10,950 17,528U 80,478U 41,650 Paris·------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------__ _ 9,150 7,119 13,160 31,850 18,184 Port Arthur________________________________________________________________ ________________ _ 69,519 27,957 86,140 267,484 lll,779U San Angelo ---------------_______ -----------------------------------------___ _ 12,670 22.645 28,625 48,570 47,137San Antonio____________________________ -------------------------------------------------258,593 184)83 281,478U 777,723U 586,452U Sherman_____________________________________ ---------------------------------------_ ___ ____ _ 17,114 11,973 29,979 86,692 46,643 Snyder________________________________________________________ _ __________________________________ _ 500 500 Sweetwater------------------------------------------------------------­4,127 3,275 17,568U 32,085U 48,857U Tyler---------------------------------------------------·-------------------------------179,673 93,840 95,836 393,591 296,170U Waco ________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------­ 83,703 24,567U 46,616 220,747 141,873U Wichita Falls_________ ________ ____________________ __ _________________________________________ _ 37,945 1,210 17,843 80,973 75,750 TOTAL--------------------------------'-------------------~---------------------------$4,265,833 $2,029,155 $4,558,698 $13,345,925 $7,368,759 'Do~~ not include public worka. f.Not available. Non: Compiled from reports from Te:1u chamber! of commerce to the Bureau of BusinP.M Research. COTTON BALANCE SHEET IN THE UNITED STATES AS OF OCTOBER (In Thousands of Running Bales Except as Noted) Government Carryover Imports Estimate as Consumption Exporta 1929-1930_ --. ------------------------------------­ 1930-1931 ______________________________________________ ­1931-1932__________________________________________________ 1932-1933 _____________________________ ____________ __ 1.933-1934 ____________________________________________ ­1934-1935____________________________________________ 1935-1936______________________________________ 1936-1937_______________________________ Aui;. l to Oct. l~ of o~t. 1§ Total to Oct. I§ to Ort 2,313 4,530 6,369 9,682 8,176 7,746 7,138 5,397 The cotton year begins August 1. 11In 500-pound bales. §In running N OTE: The figures llave been revised in accordance with the reviaions SEPTEMBER SHIPMENTS OF LlVE Cattle I§ 49 14,915 17,277 1,105 952 2,057 15.220 9 14,~6 19,025 746 1,269 2,015 17,01013 16,284 22,666 889 769 1,658 21,00814 11,425 21,121 897 1,186 2,083 19,0: 3 23 12,885 21,084 1,088 1,400 2,488 18,596 19 9,443 17,208 714 706 1,420 15,788 14 11,464 18,616 859 728 1,587 17,029 22 11,609 17,028 1,204 752 1,956 15,072 bales, counting round bales as half bales. made by the Uni:rd States Bureau of the Census. STOCK CONVERTED TO A RAIL-CAR BASIS§ 1936 1935 1936 193!; 1936 1935 Total Interstate Plus Fort Worthn--------­ 2,492 3,446 854 827 354 192 Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth.. _____ -­ 601 793 108 116 51 6 TOT AL SHIPMENTS_________ ____________ 3,093 4,239 962 943 405 198 TEXAS CAR-LOT§ SHIPMENTS OF LIVE STOCK JANUARY 1, 1936, TO Cattle Calvc1 Hogs 1936 1930 1936 1935 1936 193; Total Interstate Plus Fort WorthL ----------------29,157 31,564 5,246 5,816 5,132 2,556 Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth ____________ 5,610 8,724 1,036 1,306 346 118 TOTAL SHIPMENTS ______________________ 34,767 40,288 6,282 7,122 5,478 2,674 faail-car Basis: Cattle, 30 head per car; calve5, 60; bogs. 80; and eheep, 250. . 1Fort Worth §hipmente are combined with intentate forwardings _in order that th~ bulk o_f market _disappearance for Non· 0 These data are furnishod the United State11 Bureau of Agncuhural Econom1c11 by railway officials through more live atock shippine: point in the State. The data are compiled by the Bureau of Business Re11earch. BANKING STATISTICS (In Millions of Dollars) Sept. 1936 Dallas United District States Calves Hogs DEBITS to individual accounts_ ------------------------------734 33,115 Condition of reporting member banks on-Sept. 30, 1936 ASSETS: Loans and investments--total ______________________________ --------------490 Loans to brokers and dealers: In New York CitY-------------------------------------------------------­ Outside New York CitY--------------------------------------3 Loans on securities to others (except banks) --------------------------------42 Acceptances and commercial paper bought________________________________ 1 Loans on real estate_____________________ -----23 6~h~: l~~nsb~~-~S--~~=~ .=~~~~~-========::-------=~~-= 1~~ U S Government direct obhgat10ns _____________________________________________ Obli~ations fully guaranteed by U. S. Government______________________________ 37 Other securities -------------------------------------------------~ Reserve with Federal Reserve Banks___________________________________ 9g Cash in vaulL----.--------------------------------------------------173 Due from Domestic banks-------------------------------28 Time deposits 43 Other assets--net LIABILITIES: 361 Demand dei;iosits--a_djusted --------------120 -----------;----------------------------------­ U.S. Government deposits-------------------------------­lnter-bank deposits: 190 Domestic banks --------------------------------------------­ Foreign banks --------------------------------------­Borrowings --------------------------------------5 Other liabilities ---------------------------------------77 Capital account -------------------------------­ 22,682 972 222 2,0~ 311 1,139 112 3,949 9,336 1,256 3,337 5,023 378 2,363 1,341 15,116 5,063 847 5,919 ~4 848 3,510 Bala nce Total Oct. I Sheep Total 1936 1935 1936 1935 501 466 4,201 4,931 204 263 964 1,178 705 729 5,165 6,109 OCTOBER 1, 1936 Sheep Total 1936 1935 1936 1935 3,597 3,332 43,132 43,268 513 684 7,505 10,832 4,110 4,016 50,637 54,100 the month ma_y be 11bo...-u. . than 1,500 station agents, represent101 every Sept. 1935 Aug. 1936 Dallas United Dallas United District S1ates District Stale• 616 31,834 815* 39,811 * Oct. 2. 1935 Sept. 2. 1936 433 20,4.W 468 22,263 846 958 169 2 205 t 2,080 40 2,014 2 324 1 318 21 1,144 23 1,145 + + 87 1 65 + + 3,380 139 3,749 158 8,183 178 9.263 50 1,094 36 1.236 45 3,113 ~ 3.310 61 4.200 97 5,082 8 325 9 371 i 2,256 175 2.272 + 1,386 27 1.307 + + + 13,246 359 14.867 + 4,890 120 5,032 + 25 722 37 820 5,198 179 5,860 + + 407 + 311 + 1 + 4 t 731 6 805 + + 3,~8 75 3,500 •F!vo weeks. . •2 221 000 000 as compared with SJ,977,000,000 daria1 the lNo~ avad~bl~. . I t f the Dallas Federal Reserve District durin_g t?e third_ quarter o! 1936 were "'r'10"6 .' ... ::.1:r 932.G'Xl.OOO as C"ompared wi .h !97,702,· Debits to 10d1v1dua acc.oun " . odr..d I aunts for all Federal Reserve D111tncte durmg the third quaner o ··' WP. ·• <>, third quarter of 1935. Debits to ID ivi ua ace OOO 000 during the third quarter of 1935. Non: From Federal Reserve Boa.rd. Pay Rolls Ending Nearest Fifteenth of Month Workers Pay Roll No. of Number Percentage Change Dollan Percentage Change' Average Weekly WageEstab · from from from from per Worker li•h· Sept. Sept. Aug. Sept. Sept. Aug. Sept. Sept. Aue. men ts 1936 1935 1936 1936 1935 1936 1936 1935 1936 Abilene______________ _______________________________________. 17 304 + 12.2 + 15.2 $ 5,501 + 3.9 + 1.9 Amarillo_____________________________________ 35 870 + 11.0 + 3.9 19,553 + 17.2 + 1.5 Austin.------------------------------------------21 717 + 24.5 + 4.5 15,564 + 33.3 0.7 Beaumont -----------------------------------------· 31 3,186 + 13.1 + 7.6 71,943 + 9.5 + 1.6 Corpus Christi________________________________ 6 257 + 11.3 3.0 3,384 +25.6 8.7 195 11,207 + 14.4 + 3.7 240,686 Dallas-----------------------------------+ 15.7 + 4.1 Denison_____________________________________ 10 839 + 30.l + 8.1 9,%6 + 17.0 4.2 El Paso__________________________________________________ 63 2,256 + 21.3 + 7.7 42,554 + 27.2 + 12.2 Fort Worth.____________________________________ 73 6,374 + 13.2 + 6.5 126,553 + 16.5 + 5.2 Galveston_____________ _______________________________ 13 514 + 5.1 + 2.2 11,618 + 8.7 + 5.6 Houston____ _______________________ ___________________________ 134 9,446 + 7.8 + 3.4 218,775 + 13.9 + 3.8 9 166 + 11.4 Laredo ---------------------------------------------------------+ 6.4 2,479 + 14.1 + 6.6 Lubbock.------------------------------------------------------6 222 + 6.7 -11.9 3,223 +56.8 -10.7 Port Arthur...--------------------------------------------------· 12 7,500 -2.4 + 0.2 200,264 + 5.7 + 3.3 San Antonio______________________________________________ 111 4,058 + 6.9 + 1.6 76,079 + 10.1 + 1.6 Sherman_____ __ __ _______________________________________________. 13 740 + 12.8 3.4 13,239 + 37.8 -13.6 Waco ·--·-------------------------------------------------------· 30 1,365 + 13.1 + 6.6 23,534 + 15.0 + 3.1 Wichita Falls____________________________ -------------30 780 + 12.7 3.7 17,031 + 10.7 3.0 All Other Cities_________________________________________ 712 28,972 + 3.8 + 1.6 687,277 + 2.4 + 2.3 STATE ______ _______ __ _________ _____________________l,521 79,773 + 7.5 + 2.9 1,788,723 + 8.9 + 2.9 BUILDING MATERIALS__________________ 93 7,352 + 24.9 + 1.2 139,481 + 38.9 + 0.4 $18.97 $17.06 $19.11 Brick, Tile, Terra Cotta_____________________ 9 370 + 49.2 9.1 4,211 + 76.9 -14.8 11.38 9.60 12.14 Cement__ _____ ___________________________________ 7 1,160 + 46.8 + 9.8 23,731 + 58.9 + 9.4 20.46 18.90 20.54 Foundries, Machine Shops_ __________________ 29 2,240 + 27.2 1.5 54,268 + 41.5 3.0 24.23 21.77 24.59 Millwork__________________ _____________________ 14 427 + 21.0 8.0 8,461 + 32.2 7.8 19.81 18.13 19.79 Quarrying_________________________________________ 10 29'2 +37.1 + 3.2 6,345 + 44.2 7.1 21.73 20.66 24.13 Saw Mill~------------------------------------------13 2,709 + 13.3 + 3.3 39,495 + 24.3 + 7.2 14.58 13.28 14.05 All Other Building Materials_______________________ 11 154 + 20.3 4.3 2,970 + 36.7 -14.3 19.29 16.98 21.53 CHEMICALSU --··----·--··-···---·-··-·--·-·--·-·--------------18 457 -4.0 + 8.3 8,831 + 2.1 + 4.3 19.32 18.17 20.07 CLOTHING AND TEXTILES___________________ ________ 25 2,281 + 33.2 + 4.2 23,779 +32.3 -7.1 10.42 10.50 11.69 Cotton Textile Mills ------------------------------· 5 832 + 78.2 -6.0 9,347 + 83.2 -15.l 11.23 10.93 12.44 Men's Clothing Manufacturing ·----------------IO l ,230 + 26.2 + 13.3 12,085 + 25.0 -0.6 9.83 9.84 11.19 Other Clothing and Textile Manufacturing____ IO 219 -18.9 + 0.5 2,347 -28.5 -3.8 I0.72 12.16 11.19 COTTON______________________________________________ 18 942 -4.3 + 53.7 13,607 -2.2 + 43.5 14.44 14.13 15.46 Cotton Compresses_____________________________________ 5 425 -33.3 + 25.4 7,802 -23.4 +26.9 18.36 16.00 18.14 Cotton Oil Mills____________________________________ 13 517 +4°9.0 + 88.7 5,805 + 56.2 + 74.3 11.23 10.71 12.15 DISTRIBUTION________________________________ ____ 590 18.213 + 9.9 + 5.4 359.755 + 10.6 + 5.3 19.73 19.61 19.76 Retail Trade.----------------------------------------· 386 13.092 + 9.2 + 6.8 229,896 + 9.3 + 7.1 17.56 17.56 17.50 Wholesale Trade -------------------------------204 5;141 + 11.7 + 2.2 129,859 + 13.0 + 2.2 25.26 24.97 25.25 FOOD PRODUCTS____________________________________________ 67 6,167 + 11.2 + 1.4 123,711 + 14.8 + 3.7 20.06 19.43 19.61 Bakeries -----------------------------------------------------15 633 + 15.7 + 4.5 12,461 + 26.7 + 8.2 19.69 17.98 19.01 Beverages_____________________________________________ 9 222 +49.0 5.5 5,017 + 71.8 -3.8 22.60 19.60 22.19 Confertioneries..... ____ ----------------------------·------·-·· 5 196 -6.2 + 21.0 2,546 -3.9 + 11.4 12.99 12.68 14.IO Flour Mills ----------------····-------------------------5 336 -3.7 1.5 7,223 + 3.0 1.7 21.50 20.09 21.55 Ice Cream Factories ··-·····-----··-··· ·-------------·-----5 283 -11.3 8.7 5,641 -5.5 3.1 19.93 18.72 18.77 Meat Packing, Slaughtering___________________________ 8 3,345 + 9.0 + 2.7 72,406 + 11.3 + 3.8 21.65 21.19 21.