Entered as sccond-clus matter on May 7, 1928, at the post office at Auslin, Volume Vllf, Number 3 Texas, under the Act of August 2-1, 1912. April 2H, 193± Business Review and Prospect S EASOl\AL peab in industrial production have ap­parently hcen real'hed and sagging tendencies may lw expected during coming weeks although general busi­1!ess acli vil y is 1 ikcl y to continue at a fair! y high level when compared with the low point of the depression. Recovery still is not proceeding at an equal rate in the various lirlf's of industry. Greatest expansion has occurred in consumers' goods or in those industries stimulated by Government aid. On the other hand, industries which depend primarily upon stimulation from private capital continue to lag because legislative, monetary and trade uncertainties have discouraged placing fu~ds in long term enterprises. Until the Congressional program is more r:lcarly defined, and assurances provided against L..th furlher drastic reform legislation and unsound curn!ncy inflation measures, a moderate lag in trade volumes is lik1'ly. Heavy Cov1!rnment purchases of raw materials invoh f'd in the P. W. A. and other projects, however. will sustain certain of the lagging industries during the next several months and thus ameliorate any 11~ te spring recession. Adjournment of Congress is ex pected lo occur within the next six weeks, and, in the meantime, a certain amount of <'ompromise legislation will probably be enacted. ,'\ lthough some concessions lo the radical inflationists and social reformers are anticipated, the growing sentiment seems Lo he that the Administration will in the future place greater reliance for attaining improvement upon the removal of unnecessary obstacles lo business management and enterprise and less upon artificial stimuli of doubtful immediate value and with potentially unfavorable results over the longer period. Not alone economil' but longer term political con­siderations seem to suggest dearly the wisdom of a policy which will be reassuring lo efficient business manage­ment in both large and small enlt>rprises. Successful economic planning can be carried out only as the whole­hearted cooperation of pri\ ale enterprise is enlisted; and such l'oii pcration in Lu rn presupposes confidence on tlw part of busine;;s men in the underlying philosophy of the Governmental program. It is becoming incrf'asingly clear that in any sound program of economic planning, promotion of inter­national trade is of fin;l importance. In this connectio11 the following statement by B. :\1. Anderson of Cha::;c National Bank of J\ew York is worthy of cardul c·on­sideration. "Manufacturing activity is 1011-, while agri­cultural produdion and raw material production, apart from mining goes on on a large scale. The low prices received by farmers and producers of raw materials do not, however, enable them to buy eYen the relatiYely scant output of the factories at prevailing prices in adequate volume, and are far from being enough to enable them to consume the output of which the factory is capable. Equilibrium could be quickly restored by a restorat'on of the foreign markets for our excess farm products, our excess raw materials, giving the farmers and other producers of raw materials good prices once more which would enable them to buy vastly greater quantities of manufactured goods which, in turn, would permit a great expansion of manufacturing. "There are many who recognize this but who, none the less, fear that the imports of manufactured goods which are needed to make posisble the exports of agri­cultural products would force upon the factories them­selves a painful readjustment. There are many men who, fearing this, none the less propose to go on with the restoration of the export trade for agriculture by the acceptance of imports of manufa<.:tures, feeling that it is a matter of justice to the farmers to do it and feeling that in the long run it will be good for the country, but who still fear that what is gained for the farmers 11·ill, for a time at least, be taken away from the man ufacturers. "I do not share these fears. I believe that both farmers and manufacturers would gain enormously ]Jy the im­mense expansion of total production in the l"nited Stales, by the immense growth in emploYment and the immen~c increase in the utilization of plant and equipment in manufacturing which the rfstnratio11 of eq11i1 ibrium would involve." Although the resloralio11 of equililJriu111 lwl\n'en agri­culture and urban industn thl'llt1 /.d1 cxpa11~io11 uf trade ruther than restriction of out put '' ou Id be fw11f'l1cial to all classes of society and c~peC' ially lo farmer;; 01·er thr entire \ation, the 111o•t direct and immediate benefits of such a program would he felt bY producers of ra\\~ materials in Texas and the Gulf Southwest. The fact that al present 90 per cent uf Texas collo11 i:; ;;hipped ahrnad and oil produds n•p1Tsc11ling a suhstantial pro­portion of total production finr than in March 1933. Shipments were up 27 per cent from February but down 8 per cent from March 1933. Stocks at the end of March were 9.5 per cent below those on the ccrrrsponding date a year ago. The number of commercial failures in the State was 34 per cent lower and liabilities of firms that failed were 24. per cent below those in March 1933. Emplo~·ment conditions in Texas continue to show markrd improvement o\'er the corresponding period a YC'ar ago. For the week ending April 14, reports from 3.0:rn Texas establishments show a gain of 16.4 per cent in the number of workers employed and a rise of 15.5· per cent in payrolls in comparison with these same firms during the corresponding period last year. An increase of 1.2 per cent in payrolls and less than l per cent in the number employed occurred in these establishments between March and April. Cities in which the increase in the number employed was above the average in comparison with April 1933 were: Port Arthur, San Angelo, Dallas, Austin, and Wichita Falls. F_ A. BUECHEL. For complete data, see statistical tables at the end of this publication. Financial /\ n·ncwal of the agitation for inflation has featured the finanl'ial news from Washington during the past rnonth. It will he rr mcmhereme and the i11fl.alio11isb ha1 P $f'izf'd upon tht> opportunity to push llH'1r pL111s fnr additional inflalion. ArTording to them, tlw first dosf' wa" a str·p in th<' right dirf'dinn. hut it did nol µ-o far enough: what i' needr.d no11· is a higger dose 11 ith a hiµ-ht> r alcoholic· l'onl<'nt. Th<' n'r·r'11l sharp (!pc] in<'s in l'Olllmodit,· prices, par­1i('ularh i11 \\hPal prir·c~. ha1C· arldPd materially to the i11flati1J11 'r·11ti11w11l. Jf tJw,c· pric·rcs do not im1;rove in thf' rwar fut1m·. it i' Pntireh po,sihlc that the inflation prrs~urr· in Con,!!rf'~s 1\·ilf pr()\c irresistihlt>. The attitude or 1111' l'rf'~irlcnt 11ith re$pe('[ lo nf'\\' inflationary measures j,; no cl u 1r. . \lilwu_'.!h still r·o111111illcd to hi~ policy of pril'c rais111g, hr. apparently has lost some faith in cur­J'f'm·y tinkering as an economie panacea and would prder. for the present, to maintain the status quo, allow­ing time for the measures already taken to prove their efficacy or lack of efficacy. 'iew currency inflationary moves may follow any one o!' more of three program!'. Tt is possible that the gold dollar will he further devalued or debased. or that fiat cu1-re1H0 will be issued in laro-e quantitie~ or that an cxtensi1;e \· silver purchase progra';n will be ad~pted. Of these three plans, it is probable that the President farnrs the first. l'nder existing law, hf' has the authority lo devalur. the dollar bv as much as 50 per cent. The Januar) devaluation amounted to 40.94. pt>r cent, leaving a further dernluation of some 9 per cent which could be ('arrierl into effed at a moment's notice by executive proclamation. The re('ent weakness of the dollar in terms of ;,rold curreneies suggests that the foreign <'xchange market regards this procedure as more than a mere possibilitY. Pressure to issue fiat currency has taken various forms. Cnder the famous Thomas Amendment, the President is <·111 powered lo redeem·government honds up to $3,000,. 000,()()() with fiat 1:urrency. Thus far, hf' has not used this JHrn cr, but it i~ possible that Congrc~siunal pressure may compel him to act. Other plans involving new currency issues now being considered include: the bill to pay the soldier's bonus in fiat currency, the Frazier­Lemke Bill providing for the liquidation and refinancing of farm mortgages via bond and federal reserve note isf;ues, and the McLeod Bill, which would require the federal government to pay off depositors in closed national banks with fiat currency. This latter measure has been disapproved by the President but might easily be passed over his veto as the bill is very popular with the depositors involved and might be expected to win many votes for the legislators who sponsor it. Should its provisions be extended to include closed state banks, the bill would involve a total outlay of some $4,000,000,000. Legislative proposals to do something more for silver li1ke two general forms, the establishment of a bimetallic standard at some selected ratio of silver to gold, and a simple program requiring the government to purchase large quantities of silver at rising prices. The chief advocate of the former policy is Senator Borah who favors the free coinage of silver at the ratio of 16 to 1. The latter policy is represented by numerous bills such as the Pitman 13ill, the Feisenger Bill, and the Dies Bill. The latter Bill, as it was passed by the House, provides that the Treasury shall accept silver bullion in payment for American agricultural exports at higher than the market price for silver. In other words, it provides for dumping farm' produce abroad. Real silver purchasing, however, is provided hy an amendment unanimously adopted by the Senate Agricultural Committee. This amendment permits the redemption of all currency in silver, provides for the seizure by the Treasury of all monetary silver bullion domiciled in the United States, and requires the Treasury after January 1, 1935, to purchase 50,000,000 ounces of silver each month in the world market until the domestic price level shall have risen to the 1926 plane or the price of silver shall have reached a price 1/ 16 that of gold. In view of the present great pressure to do something more for silver and of the possibility that further silver legislation will hf~ enacted shortly, it may be well to examine briefly some of the probable effects which could be expected to result from such legislation. Most authorities on money agree that an international bimetallic standard might possibly be successful, but that bimentallism adopted by a single country would be doomed to early failure. There is, at present, little prospect of obtaining an international agreement govern­. ing the remonetization of silver. Nor is there much likelihood that the Congress will attempt to establish a bimetallic standard independent of the rest of the world. If bimetallism is adopted, however, it will probab I y be at a mint ratio of 30 to l or lower. With gold at $35 an ounce and silver at 44c an ounce, the present market ratio of the two metals is about 80 to 1. A mint ratio of :10 to l, therefore, would greatly over­ value silver at the mint and under free bimetallism could be expected to produce the following results: The market price of silver would be forced up quickl y. Gold would be withdrawn for hoarding purposes or to be shipped abroad and, the country's gold stock would tend to be rapidly exhau~tcd. ;\~ long a" gold could he ohtainPd to export, the foreign <'\.l'lw11g(' ralr,; wnuld pnihably he held at or clo$e to the gold <'xpnrl point:;. Within a "hort time, howe1n, the pxha11,.t io11 of µ:old ,_to('b 1rnnld pla('e the country on an outright ,.ilH'r ,_;[a11danl anti the dollar exchange rntes 11·uuld rise rapidh· to a le1f'I roughly measuring the world pric«> of ,:ih<·r in lern1s of µ-old. Commodity prices probahh 1rnu ld !:' purl al fir$!. tht>n drop hack, and then f;[art 011 a long aid fairly rapid rise, which would be n10f;[ diffil'ult lo l'heck. Although bimetalism is unlikeh· of earh adoption, an extensive silver purchase program, my al the rate of 25 to 50 million ounces a month, is quite possible. Such a program would duplicate on a larger seale the Bland-Allison Act of ]8/g and the Sherman Act of ln90. The silver purchased under a plan of this sort would be paid for with siker certificates which would go into circulation temporarily. As there is nu present need for more cu1Tency in ciffulation, howe1·er, this money would ~hortly J.el'on1e redundant and pile up in commercial banks, from where it would be srnt to the Federal Reserve Banks, thus adding to the alread1· tup­heavy excess reserve balances of the commercial banks and broadening the base for future credit expansion. Silver prices would tend to rise as the artificial go1·ern­ment demand set in. Just how rapidly this rise would develop, it is hard to say. The estimated world produc­tion of silver is 250 to 300 million ounces annualh·, and the stock of silver bullion on hand is conserv~tively estimated at l 2 billion ounces. The people who would benefit from the rise in price would of course be the silver speculators and silver producers such as Anaconda Copper and Phelps Dodge. When the artificial demand for silver ceased, the price could be expected to fall back to its natural level, leaving the Government with a huge loss on its silver inventory. Commodity prices probably would spurt at first, then fall back, after which the long-term trend would be upward, as it is at present, depending upon the utilization of excess reserves by the banks. The net effect of a silver purchase program 1rnuld lw to raise temporarily the pri('e of ~ilver at the expenst' of government credit and a loss of confidence in the currency. The silver purchase pressure originates, now as hereto­fore, with the group of congressmen from the 1H·stern silver-producing states, who, for political reasons, are interested in benefiting their home state industries. To this ever present group is now added the inflation group 1vhich thinks that higher silver prices 11·ill raise com­modity prices and is willing Lo experiment to that t>n cl despite the example of past rxperiencc. The public in general favors inflation and can easih be led to believe thaL hy some mysterious procC$!<, n~ising the price of sil\·pr will somehow raise the price of corn, furniture, and labo r. This is the easier to bclie1·(' sirice our fractional coins an~ largely made of sill er and, in the popular imagination, silver has long been regarded as a 111011e1· metal. It is very mul'h tu lie hoped that the Preside1;t will not risk further impairing: confidence in the national curren('y through a111 ~ihPr purcha~e plan. J. C. DOLLEY. Petrolet1m CURHEl\T EXPANSION In considering the in-OF OIL PRODUCTION creased produclion of crude IN UN !TED STATES oil in the United States since · Lhe beginning of 1934, as !'on1pared with Lhe production for Lhe corresponding period in 19:~:~, a fow percentage figures may serve to give a more definite pitture of whal is happening in this parl of Lhe oil induslry. The estimated daily average production of crude oil in this country for the week ending April 21, 19:~4 (as reported in the Oil and Gas l onmal J, is almost 2:1 per cent greater than that for the week ending April 22, 1933. This expansion of produc­tion is being paralleled by the greater activity that has become manifest in field operations and in field develop­111cnls throughout the entire oil producing territory of Lhc United Stales. This expansion of operations,LEADERSHIP OF and particular!y Lhe expansion inTEXAS IN THIS producing oil fields, is not uni­EXPANSION form by any means. Texas, for instance, which has been furnishing for some months more Lhan ·10 per cent of Lhe national production, was producing during the week ending April 21, 1931, al­ most ·12 per cent of the total crude oil for the country; for Llw week ending April 22 a year ago this State was producing a little more 1han 36 per cent of the national output. Moreover, it is important to note that the daily average production of Texas is now 41.6 per cent grcall'r than it was a year ago. Certainly this increase is one of vast significance to Texas as well as to the oil industry. FurLhcrmore, in the week ending April 21, 1934, the three East Texas fidds (Lathrop, Kilgore, and Joiner) furnished more than 4B pc rcent of the entire Texas out­ put. And it should be noted that the East Texas fields, according to the data in the Oil and Gas Journal for April 26, 1931, have increased their output by more than Isg 1wr c·<>nl over that of a year ago. I11 gerwral, fields in the major oil districts of the C'ou11Lry show an increase in production over that of this linw Ia~l \t·ar ; a notable exception, however, occurs rn the larger fields of California, all of which currently an furnishing less oil 1ha11 during Lhi~ period of 1933 Such fields as Santa Fe Springs, Long Ikach, and Kettle· man Hills all register decreases; the stale of California as a whole, however, shows a slight increase. Another field showing a slight decrease is the Seu1i11ole-St. Loui~ of Oklahoma. The state of Oklahoma is producing con­siderably more oil than it was a year ago; Oklahoma City has increased its output by more than 74 per cent. Likewise, most Texas dis·TEXAS OIL DISTRICTS tricts show substantial in­EQUIVALENT TO creases-West Texas, North OTHER OIL STATES Central Texas, Texas Pan­handle, and the Gulf Coast. The current production of the Gulf Coast, for instance, registers a gain of 5.6 per cent over that for the same period in 1933. Various comparisons bring into perspective the dominance of Texas and of several of its various fields in the produc· tion of oil. For instance, the entire state of Kansas is producing currently less oil than even the single district of West Texas, and therefore considerably less than the Texas Gulf Coast. Arkansas is producing less than any one of the major Texas ~istricts. All of Louisiana is producing considerably less than North Central Texas, and thus much less than either West Texas or the Texas Gulf Coast. The current output of the entire state of Oklahoma is less than one-half that of Texas; and the current output of Oklahoma is somewhat greater than that of California. Kettleman Hills, for instance, is pro­ducing only a little more than the Texas Panhandle; and the output of the three large California fields-Santa Fe Springs, Long Beach, and Kettlernan Hills-is only a little more than that of the Texas Gulf Coast and is only a third that of the three fields of East Texas. And the total production of California is less than that of East Texas alone. Thus it is necessary to consider the major individual oil districts of Texas as comparable to or even ('Xceeding in irnporlance 1hat of other oil producing stales_ ELMEH H . .TonNsoN. Cotton TllE COTTO\ World supply situation of American SlTUATIO\. c:olton is the slrongest since 1931. Ac­ cording lo Garside of the New York Col Lon Exchangt'. thP world supp! y of American cotton '"1s I 1.CJHl ,000 hales April I, lo,(>79,000 a year ago, 11.21:uioo Lwo )Par~ ago, and 9,9.Sn.ooo on April 1, 11xm It is Loo Par!; )t'L lo obtain definite information about irHT(•a:-t>s in aneagt' in forc,ign c·ounlri('s, though it is gerwrall y c·onC'ed1·d that there will he an increase. The orr h q ueslion is, how much? In some quarters much reliance was placed in the Bankhead Bill to solve the cotton problems. The fact is the Bankhead Bill taken alone will result in another holding movement similar to that of the Farm Board with this additional drawback, that it will have an unprecedented amount of Governmental administration machinery allached to it. The Bill does not limit either production or ginning. It looks as though we must have another demonstration that the total supply of cotton i~ the real market supply n'gardless of who holds ii. The fact is, we would probably have had less cotton and higher prices without the Ba11khrad Bill tha11 \\ith it m the form it passed. SPIJ\!\ EHS Spi11111·rs nwrg111s rnntinut~ tn hold up MARGI\ rcmarkahh \Vf'll \vhich indiC"al<>s a fair demand. 'i'hc ratio margin for '\lar<"h \ms 162, comparl'd with ](>2 for Februar y and 11;) for MarC"h h!st year. The an~rnge pPnc<> margin during '\larch was 4.07 d cr,rnpared with l.09 cl for Fcliruan and :)./2 d for March last year. Total -;u pplies of C"Olton in th e Cnitcd COTTO\ Stalt·s April I were l O,B9S,OOO bales corn­BA LAI\ Cl·: parcd \\ ith l 2,G'1l .OOO hales last year. The SHEET cl<'n<~a:,;t· in !-'upplie~ of cotton in the Cnitt·d StatP-s and "f Anwri<"an ('Olton in Europt~an ports and afloat to l·:uropP d11ring tht· past \l'ar 1rns l ,:Hl/JJ()() halc5. CalC'ldainl <"ha11gl'" i11 llw indl''I: prit'l' of ('1111011 ha~cd oi; Lhe"t' d1a1J(!• '~ i11 "'ll'i'h i11di .. alt' a11 a(h an1't' of :1:21 Jl"i11l.; 1111·r lilt' pri1·1 · i11 \pril l:i,-1 \car. \\ 'llt'11 d1a11g1·-' ill llw indl'\ 1111111l1t·1 and llw -pi11111·1·.; 111argi11 an· p11l i11lo Iii" pt i<"t' 1·;1ku lali1111. ill<' 1·al1·uLll1·d n'lll-' pri1 ·1• f11r \,.,,. Orl1·a11-\Iiddli11,'.!: 7, i1ll'h ~P"' 1·11111111 i,-9.::o 1't·nt.;. Tlw Hun·a11 of Ilu.;im•,;.; l~1·-'1·ard1 .;11p1il1 ·prin· C"hart ir•di<"a l"" a pri <"<' 11f ali1111L 1) 1·t•11l-'. Tlw prin· (',1k11Liti1111" i>a;wd "n p1·11'1·11ta,C!t' 1lia11µ1·" i11di1·at1· a pri1·1· ,[i!..d11h· u11der l.J <"Pill.;. Th('"'' r·a!,.tilati1111 " cl" 1111t takr' i11l11 ai.,.1111111 dt'\ ,1 !11alin11 "f till' dollar li1·1 ond lhal rl'fl1Tt1·d i11 tlw i11dt' 'I: 1111111lwr. ,.\],;11 lhn d" not take i11to aC<"llt111l \!'/'\ larµ:•' i1HTC'a•1•,.; uf suppli('• "f µ:ro11·th;o of cullon other than :\meri1·an. Thi· fad i". tlw n·dul'!io11 in "llJ>j>lit·" 11f all 1·"tl"11 j,­<'<;11sidnal1h It'"" than a 111illi1111 lialf'". Livestock and Poultry TF:XAS LIVESTOCK. SHlPM E:\TS 7 per ('Cnl. Ship111c11ls of Texas livestock to Fort Worth and intcr~lale points durin g Mardi la11ha11r!l1· "'ho11<·d a -;-:\ p(:r 1·1•nt i11n1·a,e in .;hipnll'lll" of cat ll1> liul a dr11p of.=)() pn r·enl i11 ,.hipnwnl• of 1·aln•;;. (,,:; Jlt'l' cent i11 h"i!"· a11rl (10 JWI' <'t'llt in ;.;h1·Pp: \\hilt' i11 tlw '"'ullwrn half of tlw l'a11ha11dlr· llll'rf 11·a" liut little d1ang1· fro111 LH 1Tar. _\ cll'di11f' in ~hipm1·11t" of all <"L""f'" uf li\(•,.t11f'k tJt·1·u1Tf'd in tlw cliep 111·11· "l1ipp1·rl fr11111 tlw Tran;. 1'1·r·o.; 1·ountr1. 11hil1· ,..Jiip­llll'llt, fro111 Llw l·:d11a/'(I" l'la11 ·a u 1T1·n· lar'.!:• ·r fo1· ;di das"<'" of li1c:'Lu<"k. . 111 ;;p ill' of t!w Ltrg•· it11'/'l''l"'' i11 ,Jiip1111•11t.; 11f l'allll'. 11ot 0111' fr.. 111 T1·\a" !.ut from ..1hn Ji,·1·-'l11d.. art'a". pri1 ·r·" ha11· l11·t·11 ri."in'.!: "lf'arlih a11d -:11l1,..la11li:dh. l·>1ll'· 1·wll1 has thi." lw1·11 L1·u1· f"r tlw lwlln ..Ja,-<'" .,f li,,.q,ll'k. Thi" ' il11ati1111 i;.; in rnarkt•d l'u11tra-t !11 th1• '"'nditig-p1:01·('""in~ LI\ ,if· s:2.:2.'i pn J()() p111111d• i-ill<'l11d1·d. tilt' ""'t of ho;" 111 sL111glil<·rns rl11ri11µ \L1r•·li 11a.-111·11 al1111" .-:(1,lll) l'~'r lil1l 11•w11rl" 11r 111111·1· 111<111 .)11 111·1· 1·,.11t µ-1·1·at1T 1ha11 a 1 ··ar 1·al'li<'r. l11t1·r"l 'll'' rail -hip111t·11t" fJf poultn and 1'0! LTH i ''!!'2" f111111 l1"\"" durin!!· \larcl1 [()tailed \ \D u,c:-; I.'i I • ar" agai1 1-t l :iri ca;-5 in .\Inn h l 1).\:1. 21 pn 1·1·11t. P"ult11 "hipnw11l" fur the t110 periods were 102 and 133 cars respectivel y, accounting for most of the decline. Egg shipments of 52 cars almost Pquallecl the 53 cars shipped in March last year. \<1 rail shipments of eggs were received from oul"icle "lates in :\lar('h thi" \ ear whereas last vear 5 c·ars were >'hippt·d 111 from Kai~sas and 3 from ~lissouri. Subscription to the TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW $1.00 per year TEXAS COMMERCIAL FAILL RES* f.hant:<' in Shipments from Texas Stations Number Dollar .. aks of )('ar-to-dJlc Care of Poultry Stores \l.ir. 1Q3 I \ lar. 1931 1<>:U from Live Dressed Cars of Eggs Report· from from Year-to-date Chickens Turkeys Chickens Turkeys inc Frb. 1911 \lar. 1931 1933 1934 1933 1934 1933 1934 1933 1934 1933 1934 1933 Abilene 3 18.7 50.2 37.1 TOTAL 26 32 5 78 92 5 93 89 Austin 5 12.S ~29.l 24-.7 Intrastate ---2 1 41 36 Beaumont 5 -Sl.l _._ 59.7 _._ 32.l Interstate 24· 31 5 78 92 5 52 53 Corsicana 3 1-0.9 -61.8 _._ 32.7 Dallas 8 25.2 _J_ 55.5 _._ 36.5 Interstate Shipments Classified Fort Worth 6 -39.7 -+s.2 4-33.0 ew York 18 28 2 33 48 2 9 13 Galveston ___ 4 69.7 ..J._ 58.5 -24.1 Tllinois ___ 8 1 4 10 Houston 9 -'--17.9 _,. 65.8 -48.7 l\fa ·sachusell 2 10 5 3 4 Port Arthur 3 +-60.l +72.9 +59.8 New Jt>rsey 5 7 15 ] San Angelo 3 58.8 +39.7 + 31.0 San Antonio 5 + ~5.9 +56.5 +36.9 Penn~ylvania 1 9 17 1 8 Temple 3 L 53.4 +81.7 +3.5.0 T,()U isiana 2 3 5 1 Tyler -· 3 32.6 + 71.1 + 78.2 Connecticut 5 4 1 Waco 4, + 50.8 +66.3 +4.5.6 Georgia 1 2 2 3 Wichita Falls 3 ~ S9.l + 50.7 .L 35.0 Michigan 2 All Others 18 +48.7 +63.3 +46.6 California 4, 3 3 3 4 4 STATE 85 + 11.1 +57.1 -"-40.0 Alahama 2 Department Stores (Annual Florida 2 volume over ~500,000) 16 11.7 _J_ 55.l _J_ 39.8 Department Stores (AnnualRhode Island 3 volume under 500.000) 29 19.2 +58.9 +46.l Tennessee 1 Dry Goods and ApparelMaryland 1 Stores 13 +49.8 +46.5 +26.l Oklahoma 2 Women's Specialty Shops 12 +32.6 +56.4 _J_ 34.4 Kansas 8 :\fen's Clothing Stores IS +33,3 +85.0 +47.0 Nebraska _ 1 *The c lac:sification by towns includes all of the stores reporting as indicated in Towa __ 1 th<' clas11ification by types of stores. North Carolina 3 NOTE: Reported to the Buteau of Du!!incci;s Research by Texas Department Stores. Receipts at Texas Stations BUILDING PERMITS TOTAL 33 38 Mar. Feb. ~far. Fir... t Quarlcr Tntrastatc 33 30 1934 1934 1933 1934 1933 Tnterstate 8 Abilene ~ 970. 5.280. 2_99.5 42.04.5 5.440 Interstate Receipts Classified Amarillo 8,378 5.08Cl 10,160 76.315 26.411 Austin 85.406 29.300 72.355 14.5..J.91 .508.469 Kan as 5 Beaumont 17.690 10.33.5 8.6.52 38.575 35_33sMissouri 3 Brown<;ville J7.135 3.021 l.1.50 14 .86,'3 3.055 Bro\\nwood 325 30 2.-:., 1.655 76."> NOTE: These data arC' furnished the U. S. Drpartment of Agriculture. Divisiot Cleburne l.02S 2.250 4_ 150 ·1.7SO of Crop and Livestock Estimates. by railway .320 176.880 Avprage I nfilkd Order< prr LuhhnC'k 7.706 S.379 2.126 19.791 17_91."> Unit, End of Month 782,866 660_0.36 585.670 \lrAllen 5.50 73_) 1.050 2.87."> l.750 NoTE: From Southern Pi ne Association. \far,.,hall 7.72S l .3-t.5 l2.0S7 lLl.50 l8.Jl9 Paris 10.094 1.600 8.7S:J 11.391 +.1.070 COTTON MANUFACTURING IN TEXAS Plainvi<'w 9.200 3.500 22..100 8.500 Pt. Arthur 11.106 12,989 7.7S5 31-.209 15.960 Mar. Feb. ~far. . an Angelo 16.7.50 1-886 l.125 22.711 6,085 1934 1934 1933 ~an Antonio 66_281 68.990 222.133 201.718 297.291 Bales of cotton used 6.803 6,013 4,752 ~h!'rman 3.868 15,038 718 20.381 5.312 Yards of cloth: ~'·nyd!'r 7SO 2.650 Produced 6.930,000 5,899,000 4,855,000 . weetwater 1.000 soo .) l:J 1.670 1.8-l.) Solcl 5.199,000 6,515,000 5.228,000 Tdcr S5.074 26.645 70.166 123.408 l-tU35 UnfillPd ordPrs 12.858,000 16,653,000 9.759,000 \\'ar·1 15.067 8.907 25.826 50.121 7-l.61.') Activp spindle.; 179,909 175,683 141.647 Wichita Falls 4.995 2,160 L122 30.480 11.029 pindle hours 51.318.000 48,855.000 41.147.000 TOTAL .,l.243_155 893.298 . 1.217.816 .3.138.972 3.227.980 Non: Reported to the Bureau of Bu!!ine~s Research by Texas Cotton Mills. :Son:: Reported by Texas Chambers of Commerce, COMMODITY PRICES Wholesale Prices: U. S. Bureau of Labor S1a1istics (1926 = JO()) The Annalist (1913 = 100) Dun's Brads! reel\ Farm Prices: U.S. Department of Agricul­lure (]9J0-19L1 = JOOI U. S. Bureau of Labor S!alistics (1926 =JO()) Retail Prices: Food (U. S. Bureau of Labor Sia! is tics 11913 = 100) lkparlmi·nt ~lores (Fairchild\ l\111r. Fd1. l\) 8,626 '\lumber Classifical ion of nc\\ corporations: Oil Public Sen ice :\Ianufacturing Ba11king-Finance Real Estate-Building Transporlation \fprchandi,ing General Von·if!n Permit s \umlit r capitalized at kss 1han .5.000 \ umlJPr capitalized al . J00,000 or more i\0·1L: Cnmpil~·d from record! Texas Mills Production Shipments E'toch United States Produclion Shipments ~tocks Capacity Operated *Revised. No-rE: From u. s. Dcpar!tn<'Dl or Commerce, Bureau of ~lines. COTTON BALANCE SHEET FOR THE UNITED STATES AS OF APRIL l (In TI1ousands of Running Bales Except as Noted) Final Ginnings Carryover lmport<11 Report Con<11umption Aug. l to \pr. l• Mar. 2ot Total to \pr. I 3,543 273 17.7.53 21571 1,712 3,762 267 12,783 16,812 4.782 -­ 2,536 28.3 l !.297 17.116 ·1.67 1 2,313 241 14 ..518 l 7.105 1.316 4,530 51 B.7.56 l8.~.37 3.384 6,369 66 16 . .59.5 2.3.030 3,.570 9,682 88 12.70.) 22,473 3,747 8,176 102 12,6<'0 20,938 3.945 Tiu· cnlton yrar hr:;?; in!; \u~ust 1. *Tn :)-01).pound hairs. fGin run b.d1·~. countin:?; 139 120 l 11 .Jl5 424 36 38 :39 101 94 2 .5 I 21 :w 17 .57 53 6 6 8 20 25 7 6 9 32 36 3 J. 2 8 4 36 31 -15 104 124 30 20 2i 88 87 29 36 22 % 67 62 61 .56 178 146 9 20 or the Sccrrtary of State. CEMENT (In Barrels) ~lar. Feb. Mar • 1931 1934 1933 133.000 280,000 375, 3.J6.000 273.000 375, 579,000 192.000 640, .5,2.57.000 4.168,000 3.684, ·1,6l8,000 2,9.52.000 3 . .510, 21.401.000 20.i62.000* 21.2~ 23.0% 20.2% 16.1 E: OF Ll\ E.TOCK CO\\ ERTED TO \RAIL-CAR BASISt Cattle Calve!! Hog! Sheep Total 1931 1933 1931 1933 1934 1933 1931 1933 1931 1933 Total Interstate Plus Fort Wortht 2.127 1,858 107 390 373 721 30.5 493 3.212 3.462 Total Intraslate Omilling Fort Worth 191 31.) 1.51 129 3 16 92 22 i43 540 TOTAL SHIPMENTS 2.621 2,201 561 519 376 767 397 .51.5 3.95.5 4.002 TEX l\S CAR-LOTJ: "fll P\fEYfS OF LI\ ESTOCK JA''WARY 1 TO APRIL 1 Cattle Calves Hog9 Sheep Total 1931 19.33 1031 1933 1931 1933 1931 1933 1931 1933 Total Interstate Plus Fort Wortht 15.1.')0 S.lll l.i09 1.331 96.5 l.3Si 1.272 1.311 J0.396 9.113 Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth l.] 18 913 5.51 170 21 141 293 19.5 2.013 1.749 TOTAL SHIPME TS 7 . .598 6.0S1 2.260 1,801 986 1.19.5 l..565 1..509 12.409 10,862 tFort Worth shipments are combinrd with intrr~tat,. forwardines in order that the bulk of market disappearance for thr month may be shown. !Rail-Car na~is: Cattlr. 30 h<>ad per car; cal"es. 60; hogs. 80; and sheep. 250. :\'"oTE: These data are furnished the Unitrd Stall's Bureau of Agricultural Economics by railway officials throui:;?:h more than 1,500 station agent9, representin1 livestock l!lhipping point in the State. The