TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas February, 27, 1937 Vol. XI, No. 1 P1.R·C1.NT · or·AcA.LA01.·1N·M1av1.•nD ·CR.oPs e, y . 0 I s T A I c. T $ . I N . TI.)(A$ fROM • U ~ CLN$U$ 19~0 eu11.E•U Of e>USINlSS QlSHAC" T•Ho UNIVLQSITY or · Tl~AS NO.lA. ~ • .79.~,.o~~ OIST. 1-N 01.ST. l-:O, ~ ~ -La.G "'-NO­CROP:. HARVLSTl!.0 -A LL OTHLR AC.RE.AGL CJ ~ Cl)(]) ~ ~'"0 01ST. 7. Dl~T. 0 DIST 9. 01ST. 10 PLA. CLNT ·or ·MAA.VLSTLD ·AcA.LAG1..·1N &E.Lf.CTE.D. CR.Ops . e,y. DISTRICT& . IN.. TLX1'!t fROM • U l' Cl.N~U:>, 19~0 s C>uciLAu or eus1Nts::. RtstAAcM ~ Le.GE:.ND 'I COTTON D 4 SORGHUM ll1ll 2 CORN m 50AT5 -3 \VM tAT -E:> ALL OTMLRS• b NOTE :-See map, page 12, shownig the crop reporting districts. N0.2!J. TEN CENTS PER COPY ONE DOLLAR PER YEAR 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 u eecond claH matter on May 7. 1928, at the po11t office at Au!ltin, Texu, under Act of August 24. 1912 Vol. XI, No. 1 February 27, 1937 CONTENTS PAGE Business Review and Prospect, F. A. BuecheL________________ ___________________ _ ________________ ____ 3 Cotton, A. B. Cox--------------------------------------------------------·---------------------------------------------------5 Texas in Perspective, Elmer H. Johnson_______________________ _______ ____________________________________ 6 LIST OF CHARTS Acreage in Harvested Crops in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------1 Indexes of Business Activity_ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------4 LIST OF TABLES Banking Statistics ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 Building Permits --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 Carload Movement of Poultry and Eggs _______________ _ ___________________ ___ _____________________ 14 Charters ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 Commercial Failures --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 Commodity Prices ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 Consumption of Electric Power____ ____________________________ _ _______ __ ______________________________ 15 Cotton Balance Sheet_ ____________________________________________ ___ _ _____ __ __________________ _ _________ 15 Credit Ratios of Retail Stores_____________________________________________ __ ________ ___________ __ ______ __ _ 13 Employment and Pay Rolls Classified by Cities and Employment Groups________ 16 Lumber ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 Petro1eum ________________ ------------------------_____ -------------------------------------------------------------------14 Postal Receipts --------------·---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 Retail Sales of Independent Stores ________________ _ _ __________________________________________ ll, 12 Shipments of Livestock Converted to a Rail-Car Basis________________ __ ___________________ 14 Stock Prices ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 Partial Liat of Publication• luued by the Bureau of Business Research PRICE What Place Has the Advertising Agency in Market Research______ _________________$LOO William J. Reilly Methods for the Study of Retail Relationships______________________ ___________________________ LOO William J. Reilly A System of Accounting Procedure for Livestock Ranches_____________________________ L50 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 ____________________________________________________ LOO 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 ________________________________________________________________ 1.00 F. A. Buechel Farm Cash Income in Texas, 1927-1936____________________________________ 1.00 F. A. Buechel Business Review and Prospect Industrial activity and trade in the country at large compare favorably with a year ago in spite of labor disturbances, record breaking floods, and reports of extreme political tension in Europe. Moreover, the President's recent proposal for reorganizing the Federal courts has had surprisingly little effect on business so far as can be determined by inspection of business in­ dexes. These facts seem to suggest that there are pow­ erful underlying economic forces which adverse cir­cumstances have not been able seriously to retard and indicate that, given a favorable outlook, further substan­tial progress may be expected. Among the reasons for expecting a much further extension of business recovery than has thus far been attained is the fact that after seven years of subnormal ~nditions, industrial activity and trade as a whole, when aromputed on a per capita basis, are still 25 per cent ~low the level attained during 1925-30 and nearly 15 ~r cent below the trend line established during 1899­1931. This situation suggests a vast back-log of poten­ 'Jal demand if we may assume that the trend line estab­Hished during the first three decades of this century will J?e reached again. ~ Some of the major activities such as building con­~truction, which involves a multitude of industries, are i:q;till far below normal. According to the February number of the Survey of Current Business, construction contracts awarded during 1936 were less than half those of 1929, notwithstanding the huge expenditures for pub­lic construction and the increase in population of more than 8,000,000. Another setback, however, could be given this industry similar to that which occurred in 1933 and 1934 when building costs advanced far more rapidly than the national income. Freight carloadings in 1936 were still 30 per cent below the 1929 level; and even steel ingot and automobile production, which rose so sharply during 1936, were still about 13 per cent and 17 per cent, respectively, below their 1929 levels. Texas Business General business in Texas during January was at a level about 14 per cent above that of January last year, although the composite index of 94.l represented a de­cline of a fraction of a point from December. Each component in the composite index registered an im­provement over last year, but some of the indexes dropped quite sharly from the preceding month. The employment index dropped from 91. 7 to 88. 7; pay rolls, from 86.2 to 83.9; miscellaneous freight, from 87.6 to 81.0; and department stores sales, from 99.7 to 92.0. The two indexes showing a rise were runs of crude oil to stills, from 152.8 to 172.0, and electric power consumption, from 101.9 to 113.0. Index of Farm Cash Income An increase of over 20 per cent occurred in the index of farm cash income of Texas from December to Jan­uary, but the January index was 5.6 per cent below that of the corresponding month last year. Normally the farm cash income for January is 48.2 per cent of the average month. The average monthly income during the base period 1928-32 was 841,000,000. Therefore, the January income during this period aver­aged $19,762,000. The index of farm cash income dur­ing January this year was exactly equal to that of the base period. The indexes for the individual districts, as well as for the State, are shown in the following table: Index of Ag-ricultural Cash Income January January December Diotrict 1937 1936 1936 1-N -------------95.9 84.l 92.7 1-S ___________103.6 128.0 92.6 2 --------------372 101.6 32.5 3 ______________110.2 141.1 124.4 4 ----------------72.4 98.8 742 5 ------------74.0 111.4 79.6 6 117.8 56.8 129.8 7 107.3 126.7 89.6 8 _____________109.7 99.6 107.0 9 _ ____________291.3 104.3 1112 10 ______________224.5 136.8 157.3 State 100.0 105.9 82. 7 NOTE: See map, page 12, showing the crop reportin2 districtJ. As usual, the indexes for the various districts show wide variations in comparison with the two comparable periods. Attention is especially directed to compari­sons of the current monthly indexes with those of Jan­uary last year. The increase in the indexes in districts 1-N and 6 over January last year was caused by the greater income from cattle, while the decrease in the indexes in dis­tricts 1-S, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 was the result of general declines in shipments of the principal products from these districts. The sharp rise in the index of district 9 was caused by the unusually heavy marketings of rice. Receipts at rice mills constitute our basis for computing income from rice, and these were abnormally large in January. It is presumed that rice farmers held their product for a higher price, which fact, combined with the huge increase in shipments, resulted in the marked rise in the index. District IO also showed a sharp rise in the index in comparison with January 1937. Fruits and vegetables accounted for most of this increase. The \·olume of shipments greatly exceeded that of Januarv last vear, and toward the end of the month prices rose substan­tially because of the frezeing temperature and damage to citrus fruit in California. F. A. BeEcHEL. For Other Texas Data, See Statistical Tables at the End of This Publicatwn TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 11INOLX or COMSUMPTl·~-~:>1?l .J~~~c!.~1e PowLR '" TLXA$ - • : ::::: : :~ 111 11 111 .Ill! 1 Iii Ii' Ii Ii 11 Iii II 11111 iill 1 11111 111 I 111111111: 11111•1'11 "" ' 11!1 ' -II I I.d1llllilli Ill' lllll ·',,... I 1: I I M II 11111 ·1l1 11llit1 Ill \111111111 illi. 1111"'111' 11111 1:1 "" I 'I li.1:\11111 II' l1fii;;JT , II 1ii 1"11·lloll l1111111\ ,, : 1 11111 1111 11111111111 11111 1 111111111111111 11 111 1111111rn 1.11nmn 11111 ,,1 I \'I i I I I" Iii 1. : ,., Ill .. I ,,, lo ! II I 11!11 'ii .11111 '11 1:111 I! .A Ill il1,il ,II .m ~i_.I I 1 II 11 I! ,I 111 'J .. ,, 111 ~ ,• I~ II I' "" 111111 11111111 11ililllil 1lill1 1111111 Ii II .. I ~I 11111111 11 I I 111111 ' I I II: l 1l11JilTI ;'1 "1 '11 · 1111 I :'III' I ' 1111 1111111 111 II. ' I 1•i 11111111111111. 'I Iii 'illl 1111' I ~illli I I .. ~ : ~ I W L IO"f 1" co.. .-0~ 11 L i.. ca .11. • o•t I Av t.R.•G£ MONTM Of 19)0• IOO~ lML UMIVLQ.~ITY o, TLX~ Cotton How much are customers worth? What are necessary conditions to retain them, and what are the possibilities of finding new ones? Three questions were never more to the point and more urgent than these are to the cotton industry of the United States at this time. How much is a cotton market worth? That depends on the amount and quality of cotton the market takes. Prior to the depression, the United States furnished about 57 per cent of the world's cotton for consump· tion. If we had furnished that percentage of this year's consumption, it would have meant the farmers would have sold 16,500,000 bales instead of 12,500,000; or it means a loss of markets to the extent of about 4,000,000 bales. The South has developed land and facilities to produce and market at least 15,500,000 to 16,500,000 bales of cotton. This means the South has lost markets for cotton to the extent of at least 3,000,000 bales. What is a market for 3,000,000 bales of cotton worth? Let us illustrate it this way. The average cotton pro­duction per farm family in the South in normal times was about eight bales. Loss of markets, then, for 3,­000,000 bales means the loss of employment for over 375,000 farm families, about 3,000 ginners, and a pro­portionate number of cotton merchants, cotton classers, railroad employees, bank clerks, cottonseed crushers, and many others on down the line. What is a market for 3,000,000 bales of cotton worth to the South and the Nation? Who knows? Who can vision the full import of the consequences of it? The economic life of the South is largely built around the cotton industry. The South is adapted to its production, and the great mass of the people are trained to its cultivation and harvest. A loss of markets for cotton means a far. reaching adjustment in southern economy, education, and social life, and that will be tremendously expensive. One thing seems certain : The effects of a loss of markets for cotton cannot be localized in the South, for the cotton industry of the South has been historically the mainspring of the specialized regional system of large scale production of the United States. It has been the enormous sum of six to eight hundred million dollars received annually for cotton exported and spent for food in the Corn Belt and other specialized food producing areas, and for manufactured products in the North and East, which has been a big factor in enabling these regions to develop specialization to the degree they have. It is possible that a loss of markets for cotton may cost the Nation a large part of this highly efficient system of specialized regional production for market. If the South cannot find markets for cotton, it will be forced into food production and into manufacturing. The Southwest has advantages for the production of livestock and livestock products equal to those of any region in the Nation, and, in addition, has superior advantages for certain types of industry. The Southeast is certainly destined for greater industrial development and a greater production of fruits and vegetables; but, even so, the Southeast will probably find it more diffi­cult to adjust its agriculture to a drastic loss of cotton markets than the Southwest. How much is a market for 3,000,000 bales of cotton worth and who will eventually pay the price of it is yet to be determined. Some say we do not want the market at six cents. No, but that is beside the point, for there is now a market for 29,000,000 bales at above 12 cents. The trouble is, we gave our customers to our com­petitors when the price was low. Should it seem strange to us that our competitors are loathe to give the markets back now that the price of cotton is advancing? If the cotton markets are unquestionably so vital to the South and to the highly efficient system of specialized regional production, what steps are necessary to regain and retain them? To describe the necessary conditions is simplicity itself. It is necessary to produce a de­pendable quantity of the qualities of cotton the world demands, and offer it freely at competitiYe price levels. Trade is essentially exchange of goods and services. If a part of that market is foreign, as in the case of cotton, then some means must be found for the foreign buyer to get dollar exchange. Give the cotton growers of the South as free a market in which to buy their supplies as that in which they are forced to sell their cotton, and they will regain their markets and prosper. If they are to continue to be denied the right to exchange freely their cotton for the goods of their customers, then does not justice demand that the cotton growers should re· ceive a bonus which will fully offset the tariff, the thing that prevents the free exchange? Does not the denial of this compensation to offset tariff burdens subject the cotton growers to special taxes for the special benefit of other groups? It is necessary to produce the type of cotton the customers want, but that is not enough. The cotton must always be available to the buyer at a competitive price, especially when there is an alternate seller. This means the market must be free from monopoly control and price manipulation. At the present time, southern cotton growers are losing foreign customers because the United States Government owns the major share of the unsold stock of American cotton and has priced it out of the market by setting the price relatively higher than competing foreign growths. For example, the price of Fair Pernambuco, which according to the i\'ew York Cotton Exchange service has for ten years averaged 99.6 per cent of the price of middling % -inch American, is now only 94.2 per cent. The price of Number 1 Fine Oomra, which over the past ten years averaged 79.l per cent of American, is now 74 per cent; and, thus without exception, foreign cottons are priced relatively cheaper than American. How much is a customer worth? h not our Government selling the cotton growers' cus­tomers at a ridiculously low price when it prices its 3,000,000 bales out of their reach in terms of competing growths and virtually forces them to buy other cottons than ours? Would it not be a wise policy and good business for the Federal Government to take an addi­tional loss of two or three million dollars now to saYe a million-bale market for the cotton growers for the future, and in doing so take the weight of the 3,000,000 bales off the market for new crop cotton so the farmers will get more for that? Incidentally, the Government would save at least $5,000,000 in carrying charges by following this policy. The February Monthly Review of Lloyds Bank of England had this to say: "The esti­mates for the current season give the American produc­tion as 12,396,000 running bales in a total world pro­duction of commercial cotton of approximately 30,000, 000 bales. In Liverpool the imports of American have for some months past been insufficient to prevent prem­iums on the near deliveries, and a position of some difficulty has arisen. The advisability of discontinuing the present American 'futures' contract and substituting a new contract, against which several growths could be tendered, is being considered." Is the cotton market worth saving? If not, what will be the substitute? The interest now developing in discovery of new uses for cotton to regain lost markets is constructive. A well directed, well manned, and well financed effort along this line is long overdue. A sound program should be developed with vigor and without delay. It should be realized, on the other hand, that large sums are already being spent in both private and public research to dis­cover new uses and expand markets for cotton, not only in this country but in many foreign countries as well. Therefore, the only sort of a laboratory that will be of any appreciable value is one pitched in proportion to the size of the problem, one that has the best equip­ment available and manned with internationally known scientists who can command the respect and cooperation of other scientists in the field. Regardless of how much money is spent in a labora­tory to discover new uses for cotton, it will not solve the cotton problem of the South. The job is too big for that; it can help. It is significant to note that thus far those discussing new uses for cotton have almost invariably used as examples uses requiring low price cotton. That is not accidental. It is necessary, and thus serves to call attention to the seriousness of the problem. Does it not suggest also that a strong effort to restore lost markets would yield best results in that, in the main, they are already established and represent quality uses? Regardless of how markets are restored, this central fact must always be remembered and poli­cies developed accordingly. That is, regardless of its good intentions, it was the policy of the Federal Govern­ment which was largely responsible for the loss of foreign cotton markets of the South. Does it not follow from this that the Federal Government owes to the cotton growers the obligation to adjust tariffs and other re­strictions to give them at least an equal chance? A. B. Cox. Total supplies of cotton in the UnitedCOTTON States February 1 were approximatelyBALANCE 10,593,000 bales, compared with 10,935,­SHEET 000 bales February 1 last year, 11,994,000 two seasons ago, and an all time high of 15,749,000 bales February 1, 1932. Stocks of cotton in the United States have decreased 342,000 bales from February last year, but stocks of American cotton in European ports and afloat to Europe increased 19,000 bales. The net decrease of these items of supply is 323,000 bales. During the past seven years an average change of 100,000 bales in the supply on February 1 from the previous February has caused an average change in the index price of 15.88 points. If that ratio should hold good now, the index price based on these changes in supply should be 51 points higher than last year. When this calculated index price is adjusted for changes in the price level, the price of New Orleans spot mid­dling % -inch cotton is 12.63 cents; but, when further adjusted by the spinners margin, the calculated price is 14.28 cents. When the price is calculated in terms of average percentage changes in relation of supply to price, the indicated price is 12.70 cents. SPINNERS Spinners ratio margin on American MARGIN cotton based on the price of 32's twist yarn in Manchester and the price of mid­dling % -inch cotton in Liverpool was 181 in January. In December the ratio margin was 175, and in January 1936 it was 172. The pence margin in January averaged 5.62d, com­pared with 5.24d in December and 4.44d in January 1936. The pence margin of the English spinners is one of the largest on record. It indicates increased cotton consumption. Texas-In Perspective In the nature of the country lies the destiny of its people SOME DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TEXAS Texas, east of the Pecos and the New Mexico boun­dary, is made up of a greatly diversified series of plains, each series of which from west to east comprises topographically a down-step from the higher Western Plains to sea-level along the Gulf of Mexico. Most of these down-steps are indicated by the occurrence of rather sharp topographic breaks designated as escarp­ments. In contrast with the lack of continuity associated with the irregular and eccentric relief forms character­izing Trans-Pecos Texas, there is a marked degree of continuity associated with the various plains regions of the State. Texas-A Land of Distinctive Plains Regions Considered from a broad perspective, these series of more or less homogenous plains comprising the greater part of the State include: (a) Mesa plains and table­lands-the Llano Estacada or High Plains, and the Edwards Plateau; (b) Dissected plains-such as the Red Beds . or Permian Plains and the Lampasas Cut Plain ; (c) Cuesta Plains, such as the Grand Prairies and the Black Prairies; and (d) Dip Plains, such as the various elongated units of the belted Coastal Plains. Several other striking topographic features character­ize portions of these diversified plains regions, such as the bordering persistent escarpments like the Balcones Escarpment, the Cap Rock Escarpment, the Goodland Escarpment, or the Austin Chalk Escarpment. Too, there are the "scalped" areas from which the sedi­mentary strata have been removed by erosion exposing the basement complex of ancient rocks such as the Llano basin district; there are the flat-topped mountains characterizing the landscape of central Texas from Comanche Peak in Hood County to the rim rock escarp­ment of the High Plains, including such well-known landmarks as Round Mountain, Santa Anna Mountain, the many flat-topped areas and peaks comprising the Callahan Divide country, Double Mountain in Stone­wall County, and the numerous, flat-topped, solitary eminences just east of the Cap-rock of the High Plains. Also, the drainage and the stream characteristics of each of the main plains regions possess individualities all their own. The Pecos at the west is a groove in the earth's surface more like a great canal than a river. The Canadian, the Red, the Brazos and the Colorado, and their larger friliutaries are sand rivers--a type characteristic of the Wes tern Plains north to the Platte, and which form a characteristic feature of the drainage ways throughout the Southwest. Other stream character­istics of the various plains regions include such features as intrenched meanders-as in the Grand Prairies and southward and southwestward to the lower Pecos and the Rio Grande along the southern margin of the Edwards Plateau-the different sorts of stream terraces, and the wide flood plains of the master streams extend­ing across the "soft" materials of the Coastal Plain. Each feature of these various plains is closely asso­ciated with the regional history of the area concerned. Each feature is not only part and parcel of the geographic geology, the physiography, the plant geog­raphy and ecology of the region, but every one of these features has played, and will continue to play, an im­portant part in man's occupation of these regions, whether in determining prehistoric assemblage places, Indian trails, or Spanish settlements, or in the adjust­ments concerned in Anglo-American settlement and sub­sequent occupation, whether these embrace railways or highways, the location of towns or cities, patterns of land utilization, either farm or range, industrial plant location, or other things. Perhaps most expressive, however, of the environ­mental features of the various regions, or of the con­trasts between them, are the major vegetation formations of the State-forested East Texas, the tall-grass Prairies with the cross-timber strips within the Prairies or the bordering timbered margins, the short-grass plains of Western Texas, and the chaparral lands and cactus plains in the southern portion of the Texas Gulf Plain, as that physiographic region merges into the environment domi­nating the Southwest Border country. Closely associated with the vegetative expression of the various portions of the State are the soils-which in turn are to be consid­ered as the result of atmospheric factors acting upon the surface geologic materials and the subsequent modifica­tions induced by the presence and action of the vegeta­tion. That is, every element comprising the surface environment is interrelated and interdependent, owing to inherent factors concerned in the origin of these various elements. And every element, in the sum-total of the regional environment, is of consequence to the adjustments or maladjustments concerned in the human occupation of the area. Owing to the interactions of these various physical factors and the large areas over which these interde­pendent features are geographically dispersed, the Texas environment comprises a distinctive section-perhaps the most distinctive section-of the American continent. Other than the distinctiveness characterizing the Texas regional environment itself-a distinctiveness with which is unmiztakably associated what may be termed the spirit of Texas-there is the further important situation that Texas is the meeting ground of a large number of differ­ent and distinct continental regions-the Coastal Plains and the Great Plains, the tall grass Prairies and the sub­humid short-grass plains, the Gulf Timber Belt, the Cordilleran or Western Mountains, and the always­different aspects of the Southwest Border country, not to mention the various major structural trends of the continent that meet and cross within the boundaries of the State. The features of the geographic geology of Texas have been admirably summed up in a masterful way by Robert T. Hill in his classic Physical Geography of the Texas Region published nearly 40 years ago: "Nowhere is there a more intimate relation between geologic forma­tion and physiography than in the Texas region. Nearly all topographic conditions which influence human en­vironment, except climate, depend on the composition and arrangement of the various rock sheets. Each formation has pecularities of stratification, consolidation, cohesion, friability, and porosity which, when the forma­tion is reacted upon by climatic factors, result in various relief forms. "The induration or hardness of the rock sheet is the chief factor influencing the character of the relief. All hills, scarps, plateaus, mountains, and other relief fea­tures of Texas are manifestations of the survival of the hardest in the denuding processes of land degradation; correspondingly the minute configuration of the stream valleys, valley plains, escarpments, and many of the level prairies bordered or surrounded by scarps also depend upon the relative hardness of the rocks. "The inclination of the rock sheets is an important factor in producing relief. Where these are horizontal or but gently inclined, the tendency is toward plane surfaces with vertical cliffs bordering the drainage grooves; where steeply inclined, ragged mountainous forms are the resultant relief. "Consolidation, friability, cohesion, solubility, and porosity modify the relief in various ways. Loose sands are heaped by the wind into low hills or dunes; uncon­solidated clays weather into rounded hills and flat sur­faces; soluble rocks produce sink holes and other irregu­lar surfaces, with caverns and bluffs, and the degree of porosity facilitates or retards decay." Climate and Location Climatically, the humid environment of Southeastern United States extends well into East Texas; and from the sub-tropical Rio Grande country at the south, with its citrus production, the temperature conditions range through regions well suited to cotton growing and merge in the Texas Panhandle with conditions excellently adapted to hard winter wheat production. In addition, Texas contains more of the Coastal Plain territory than any other State, more of the High Plains country, and besides contains distinctive regions of its own. The black soil Prairies of Texas, although akin to the Corn Belt Prairies of the Middle West, are dis­tinct regions, owing to the geographic geology and the climate environment; the Red Beds of North-central Texas and Western Oklahoma are in their environmental characteristics peculiar to the Gulf Southwest; and no other section of the continent offers anything like a counterpart to the Edwards Plateau region. Along the Balcones Escarpment, the Edwards Plateau, a region of the Great Plains, lies adjacent to the interior portion of the Coastal Plains; the Balcones zone is the one meet­ing place on the continent of these two great physi­ographic regions. The Great Plains is an attendant fea­ture of and lies eastward from the Rocky Mountains; the Gulf Coastal Plain is a recent annex to the continent. North of the Colorado at Austin these two great physi­ographic divisions diverge from each other, to encircle partially, as it were, the great Mid-Continent section of the United States with its many and varied geologic and topographic features. The section of the Gulf Coastal Plain lying between the Balcones Escarpment and the coast presents a land­scape quite different from the forested lands of the Gulf and Atlantic Timber Belt, which occupy humid portions of the Coastal Plain. In these South Texas Plains, owing to the climatic aspects of lessened rain­fall and increased evaporation and also to differences in the geographic geology, there occurs a variety of en­vironmental features, which reflects the drier aspects of the sub-tropical conditions of the Southwest Border coun­try. Outstanding among these features are such things as the large areas of thorny chaparral, the wide extent of thick accumulation of indurated caliche and the great apron.like deposits of overwash transported from the westward; these land-deposited materials have since been greatly modified by dissection and erosion and by caliche accumulation. Owing to their inherent physical charac­teristics, the South Texas Plains constitute another one of the distinct regions of Texas, and a region without counterpart elsewhere in the country. In this brief sketch of things, distinctive in the physical environment of Texas, attention is centered primarily upon the environmental conditions characterizing the surface of the State and its diverse natural regions. The subsurface features are just as truly distinctive of the environment of Texas and of the Gulf Southwest section. These distinctive features include the extremely deep deposits of geologic strata, composed of layer upon layer, all arranged in a series of great couplets of layers of sands alternating with layers of clay, which are char­acteristic of, and responsible for, the distinctly belted arrangement of the entire section margining the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana, and which provide the vast reserves actually known, and the still greater poten­tial reserves of petroleum and natural gas, of salt and sulphur, and of other non-metallic resources of this sec­tion of the Nati on; too, there is the combination of structural conditions that have resulted in the great sup­plies of petroleum in the gigantic East Texas Field, and of the interior Coastal Salt Dome section as well, all in the Coastal Plains territory. West Texas has the great Permian Basin-a vast geo-syncline-underlying the High Plains, or Llano Estacado, the lateral margins of the syncline having been uncovered by erosion and now comprising on either side of the trough of the basin, the Red Beds country of Texas and a portion of the Pecos Lowland in New Mexico. Also, there are the ex­tensive but buried mountain structures in the Panhandle with the associated petroleum accumulations and the very large natural gas reserves of the great Panhandle field. And, a mere outline of the structures and struc­tural relations of the Trans-Pecos would m itself com­prise a good-sized monograph. A most significant fact pertaining to Texas is, obviously, from any point of view the manifestations pertaining to its size-its spacial extent. The fact that Texas includes one-twelfth the area of continental United States is, in itself, impressive. Within the borders of Texas could be placed the entire extent of Pennsylvania, New York, Indiana, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Ver­mont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Delaware, and New Jersey, and still have 91,234 square miles to spare­or an area almost equal to the combined areas of Illinois and Ohio. The area of the High Plains of Texas is about equal to that of Ohio. The area of Trans-Pecos Texas and the Edwards Plateau combined is about equal to that of Oklahoma. The area of the Texas Coastal Plains is almost equal to the combined area of Michigan and Wisconsin. Reflections of the attributes of size include such fea­tures as outstanding leadership of Texas in the produc­tion of raw materials-of raw cotton, of cattle, of wool and mohair-of vast areas devoted to cotton, of wide stretches of ranch country, and of larcre ranches-of leadership in petroleum and natural gas ;roduction, and of reserves of these mineral resources, of reserves of salt and sulphur, of the raw materials for Portland cement, and of gypsum products. Size is reflected in still another way-~y i;iileage in railways and highways, and the costs therem mvolved. Texas production and ~he resources upo_n which this production is based are msepara~ly asso~ia~ed . with the natural regions of the Sta~e-w1th the d1stmctJve environments of these regions, then natural resources, and the availability of these natural resources. The agricultural wealth of the United States is founded very largely upon the utilization of the vast Prairie regions and the still larrrer expanses of the Western Plains. Texas possesses a :ood-sized share of the extent and the agricultural weal~h of both these major divisions of the North American continent. It is no~ to be assumed that only qualities pertaining to mere. size are ~or~hy of consideration, even though the ~ttnbutes of size m the various lines of Texas pro­du~t10n play a part in national economy-a feature ~h1ch has ?ot been a~corded to these lines of produc­tion. For mstance, without the vast quantity of Texas oil production-which for several years has been around 40 per cent of the national output-the United States would perhaps already be a large importer of crude petroleum and consequently the structure of the Ameri­can oil industry would be greatly changed; and one reflection of such a change would undoubtedly be higher prices for petroleum products. Although Texas is out­standing in oil reserves, these reserves will not last for­ever. This consideration leads directly to the question of the whole problem of the future of Texas production. The migration of the pulp and paper industry into the Southern pines country of the Gulf Timber Belt is al­ready well under way; this is a major industry which undoubtedly will continue to expand not only in volume of production but also in quality of products; its com­ing into the South constitutes perhaps the most im­portant economic factor in the economic development of the piney woods upland regions that has occurred in seventy-five years. This development, based upon raw materials which replenish themselves, assures to Southeastern United States a permanent industry of sub­stantial proportions. What permanent industries can Texas look forward to as the distinctive features of its great petroleum industry begin to fade within, say, the next fifteen years? What, it should be asked, may be regarded as permanent, or long-lived, resources and attributes of Texas? For upon these physical condi­tions depend, in very large measure, the future of the State, agriculturally, industrially, and otherwise. Forested East Texas The forests of East Texas may be regarded as perma­nent resources, that is, if they are given proper care. A lumbering industry still remains in East Texas; the new pulp plant of the Champion Paper and Fiber Company, now ready to start the production of bleached sulfate pulp at Houston is indicative of a new and important industry for East Texas. And the time may come when properly cared for forests in East Texas will be given the aesthetic consideration such landscapes merit. The Texas Prairies West and south of the humid forested lands of East Texas occur two great groups of plains-the Prairies and the sub-humid Plains. Climatically, the Prairies may be regarded as moderately humid and the sub­humid Plains grade westward into lands of still less rainfall. That the Texas Black Land Prairies merit careful attention is obvious. These Texas Prairies are some­what akin to the Corn Belt Prairies but owing to climatic and geologic factors the Texas Prairies are marked by distinctive characteristics of their own. The Black Lands of the Texas Prairies are founded upon calcareous materials; and the great calcareous­bearing materials of the State are the numerous forma­tions of the Cretaceous sediments, which in regard to areal extent, and to most other characteristics, may be regarded as the master geologic formations of the State. Nearly a half century ago Robert T. Hill summed up in his own masterful way the oustanding features of the Cretaceous as follows: "To these strata the State owes a large part of her agricultural and general prosperity, for they are the foundation of the rich black waxy and other calcareous soils of those regions. In addition to their agricultural features they are the most productive source of building material, while adjacent to the part­ing between them [between the Upper and the Lower Cretaceous], extending the entire length of the State and dependent upon their stratigraphY, is a remarkable area of natural and artesian wells, a~ seen at Fort \\'orth, Austin, \Vaco, Taylor, San Marcos, and elsewhere. That these formations are of great economic value to the State is also shown by the fact that they are the site of our principal inland cities, and the rich agricultural soils which surround them. "This is in general a chalky country, and uniquely Texan, so far as the United States are concerned, con­stituting a distinct geographic region, in every topo­graphic, economic, and cultural aspect, and one which should not be confused with other portions of our country . . .. "This region, with its many different prairies, each covered by its peculiar vegetation, its sweepino-plains and diverse valleys, its undulating slopes clad wi~h molts of live oak, its narrow strips of cross-timbers its rao-aed ' "" buttes and mesas, presents a landscape varied, yet pos­sessing as a whole an individuality peculiarly its own. All these features, with their different tints and tones of soil and vegetation, with their varied conditions for human habitation, are but the surface aspects of the system o~ chalky rocks (chalky sands, chalky clays, and chalky limestones) upon which it is founded, and to which is primarily due every physical quality of the country. In fact it is the great chalky reo-ion of the United States." " Concerning the productivity of Prairies soils the late Dr. Marbut wrote, that, excepting alluvial lands, "As a whole the soils of this region [the Prairies of the United States] have a producing capacity higher than that of the soils in any of the other soil regions of the United States, and, probably of the world. These soils are characterized by all those features which give soils their high productivity. In addition, these soils occupy a region in which climatic conditions are highly favorable to plant growth." Prairie soils are unique in that they occur over large areas only in the United States; of the rest of the world, only Argentina has an area of such soils, but the Argentine area is small in extent. The Prairies, characterized by their rolling landscapes and dark to black colored soils, originally supported a rather dense growth of tall grasses. All of the Texas Prairies occur on limestones, marly, or limy clay areas. Under the conditions of the prevailing climatic factors and the existing stage in topographic de,·elopment, the processes of rock disintegration work so rapidly on these calcareous geologic materials that the weathered products become very finely divided (clays, highly colloidal) be­fore the climatic forces have had time to leach the cal­cium carbonate out of them. Under these circumstances the presence of lime becomes the predominant factor in determining the characteristics of the soils of such areas and regions. The heavy textured and deep soils accu­~ulations are not suited to forest growth and par­ticularly not to temperate zone forest vegetation; but conditions of the Prairies are ideal for grass vegetation. Again quoting from Dr. Marbut: "The "Tass accumu­lated considerable organic matter and b~cause of the high content of calcium carbonate and the heavy texture of the soil material, from which the calcium was re­moved very slowly, the organic colloids were fixed, through saturation by the calcium, and were not re­moved from the soil by solution [such as occurs gen­erally in humid forested areas]. The resulting accumu­lation of organic matter up to a relatively high per­centage gave the soil its dark color." It is interesting to compare the preceding statement with one written about 40 years previously by Robert T. Hill on the "Cretaceous Rocks of Texas" and pub­lished in the First Annual Report of the Geological Sur­vey of Texas. With reference to the "black waxy," Dr. Hill wrote: " It in general is the residuum of the un­derlying clays, and contains an excess of lime, which acting upon the vegetation by complicated changes, causes the black color." Concerning the geologic factors, these Prairie soils are al ways derived from "soft" limestones ("rotten" limestones, as they are designated by farmers) or from unconsolidated highly calcareous materials, such as marls, limy clays, or wind deposited loess. The largest region of Prairie soils in Texas is that of the Black Prairies. Again quoting an almost forgotten statement of Robert T. Hill on this region: "It is exceedingly productive, and nearly every foot of its area is suscep­tible of a high state of cultivation, constituting one of the largest continuous agricultural regions of the United States." Other Prairie regions of Texas include the Coastal Prairies and the interior strip of black soils occurring partly in Washington and Fayette counties. In representative Prairie soils in Texas the soils gen­erally have enough lime in them to effervesce freely (when hydrochloric acid is applied) from the surface downward. The geographic extent of the Black Prairies is generally well known; that they are distinctly Texan may not be so well recognized. The Coastal Prairies may be regarded as Texan also, for in coastal Louisiana these Prairies are pinched out and there is nothing cor­ responding to them east of the Mississippi River. Of the fertility of lands, on what are now termed the Taylor Marls of the Black Prairies, Robert T. Hill wrote in 1390: "The economic value of these chalky clay marls is in that they are the foundation and the source of the rich soil of the main Black Waxy Prairie of Texas, the largest continuous area of residual agricul­tural soil in the United States, apparently inexhaustible in fertility; for as the farmer plows deeper and deeper he constantly turns to light the fertile marls which re­new the vitality." The Short-Grass Plains Westward and southward from the moderately humid black soil Prairies of Texas occur the sub-humid Plains in which the moisture content of the soils is less than that characteristic of the Prairies. Large areas in this sub-humid zone are rough enough to have an actively erosional surface. But also large flattish areas occur which are physiographically stable; and in these areas occur mod era tel y deep to deep accumulations of soil materials, which originally supported a dense sod of short grasses; the soils of these areas and regions are highly productive except in seasons of reduced rainfall. In those areas and regions of the Western and South­ern Plains where physiographically stable conditions have existed for some time, there have developed the characteristics of the so-called Black Earth soils-the geographic analogue of the great zone of Black Earth of the Steppes of southern European Russia and south­western Siberia. These Black Earth soils are, the world over, owing to their inherent soil characteristics and the sub-humid environment, the great surplus producing lands of the hard wheats. Owing to the temperature conditions, however, the Black Earth regions of most of western and southern Texas and of southwestern Ok­lahoma are well adapted to the growing of cotton and of grain sorghums. The distinctive features of the sub-humid lands of Texas are associated with the facts of geographic geology and of climate. Practically all of these lands are un­derlain by geologic materials high in lime. Owing to the sub-humid climate the readily soluble substances which support plant growth are not as a rule leached out of these materials; instead, the dominating charac­teristic of these lands is that instead of constant leach­ing there has been, on account of the climate, an accu­mulation of such soluble compounds in the soils and particularly in the subsoils; this accumulation is repre­sented most strikingly in the accumulated layer of lime in the subsoil which characterizes such sub-humid areas the world over. In the sub-humid areas of Texas and in the old terrace materials beyond the Pecos in the Southwest Border country of New Mexico and Arizona, this accumulation of lime often appears as indurated caliche. This caliche often appears at the surface in erosional areas, but in physiographically stable areas such as most of the High Plains of Texas, the flatter portions of the Permian Red Beds country, the summit areas of the Edwards Plateau, and in most of the cal­careous belts of the South Texas Plains and the Rio Grande Embayment, the lime layer is unconsolidated, and it may be regarded as a reserve of plant food ma­terials for decades to come. Both cotton and grain sorghums are drought resistant and drought enduring crops. Methods of farm manage­ment, in which power machinery plays an important part, in these sub-humid lands, have proven important in conserving the seasonal supply of moisture; no doubt these methods will be continuously improved upon. The Black Prairies and those sections of the Coastal Prairies characterized by black soils are devoted chiefly to cotton growing; they will, however, pro­ duce successfully a number of other crops including corn and forage plants. Cotton and grain sorghums, cattle and other livestock and their products all serve to give the sub-humid plains as a whole a high degree of diversified agricultural interests; in addition, wheat is successfully grown in the northern sections of these lands in Texas-which form the southern extension of the hard winter wheat belt that centers in the sub-humid regions of Kansas. The diversity in agricultural interests in Texas-a diversity already achieved--constitutes in itself a dis­ tinctive attribute of the State. In the light of both physical conditions and of economic interests, it is to be expected not only that this diversity will continue, but that, owing to trends already operating, it may be ex­interest in and love for the beautiful land of rolling pected that an increasing diversity of these interests will prairies which faces a bright future; and it fill ed 1m· be attained for the State as a whole and for the various heart with sadness to be compelled to bid it farewell major sections of the State. forever. However, there remain with me agreeable and In conclusion, it may be asked-it is no mere rich memories and I will always follow from the dis­academic question-why so many apparently try to read tance the further development of this country with keen into Texas the deadening uniformity of things which interest. May its wide, green prairies become the undoubtedly does characterize some portions of the home of a large and happy population." American continent. For more than a century commen­tators and observers from outside the State have been ELMER H. JOHi\SON. struck by the distinctiveness and the individuality of the features which comprise Texas and of its varied sec­tions; and not a few have commented on what they term the spirit of Texas. In closing this brief sketch it may not be amiss to quote from one who in the perspective of nearly a century of time seems in so many Announcements ways to have been endowed with prophetic insight re­garding Texas and things Texan. Ferdinand von Roemer Convention dates have been announced for the follow­ of the University of Bonn on sailing from Galveston in April, 1847, wrote: ing Texas organizations: "When the stronger rocking of the boat indicated that Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, we had passed the harbor-bar, and when soon thereafter March 16-18, Fort Worth. the land of the narrow island appeared only as a low streak, I felt that it was time to say farewell to Texas. Lumbermen's Association of Texas, April 13, Houston. During my stay of more than a year, I had developed RETAIL SALES OF INDEPENDENT STORES IN NEW MEXICO, OKLAHOMA, A D TEXAS January 1937 !\"umber Percentaae Cbanee of in Dollar Sales Firms from from Re-Jan. Dec. J)Oitin& Dollar Sales 1936 1936 TOTAL (New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas Combined) __________________ 997 $12,108,780 + 5.7 -4-1.7 NEW MEXICO-----------------------------------------------------------------61 568,064 + 17.1 -26.2 OKLAHOMA___________________________________________________________________________________ 230 1,219,227 -7.2 -32.9 TEXAS.----------------------------------------------------------------------·-"" 706 10,321,489 + 6.9 -43.3 TEXAS STORES GROUPED BY LINE OF GOODS CARRIED: APPAREL..·---------------------------------------------100 1,544,347 + 17.1 -47.3 Family Clothing Stores.--------··········-···--------------------·--------­28 261,953 + 6.7 -51.9 Men's and Boys' Clothing Stores ... --------·-----------------------------····----------38 607,550 + 22.8 -46.2 Shoe Stores.-----------------------------------------------·--------------12 70,676 + 10.3 -49.3 Women's Specialty Shops _________________ 22 604,168 + 17.4 -46.0 AUTOMOTIVE __________________________________________________ 110 2,717,490 0.7 -27.3 Filling Stations..·------------------------------------------------------------­30 106,713 + 5.4 -8.1 Motor Vehicle Dealers ..... --------------------------------------------------------------------------80 2,610,777 1.0 -27.9 COU TRY GENERAL AND FARMERS' SUPPLIES ______________________ 83 466,529 + 7.2 -21.2 DEPARTMENT STORES ______________________________________ 48 3,295,927 + 9.3 -57.7 DRUG STORES _________________________________________ 141 435,500 + 4.4 -24.0 FOOD-------------------------------------------------------~-------------­119 791,198 + 9.4 -5.9 Grocery ... -------------------------------------------------------------·--------------31 165,114 + 4.5 -12.4 Grocery.and-Meat Stores____________________________________________ 88 626,084 + 10.7 -4.0 FURNITURE AND HOUSEHOLD________________ ______ 30 362,520 + 8.0 -43.3 Furniture Stores____________ _______________________ 19 284,514 + 3.6 -45.3 Household Appliance Stores _____________________________ 5 43,945 +28.0 -33.1 Other Home Furnishings Stores___________________ _____ 6 34,061 +27.5 -36.9 JEWELRY..·-------------------------------------------------------9 39,665 + 15.8 -86.8 LUMBER, BUILDING, AND HARDWARE.. ______ 47 561,235 + 2.3 -18.9 Farm Implement Stores _____________________________ 3 14,741 -31.5 -49.2 Hardware Stores __________________________ 20 251,114 + 18.4 -14.0 Lumber and Building Material Dealers ..·----------------------------­24 295,380 -6.2 -20.5 REST A URANTS ....----------------------------------~-----------14 63,297 + 2.7 + 3.8 ALL OTHER STORES ______________________________________ 5 43,781 +46.0 + 1.1 TEXAS STORES GROUPED ACCORDING TO POPULATION OF CITY: All Stores in Cities of- OVER 100,000 POPULATION ____________________________________ 166 5,911,642 + 12.4 -47.5 50,000--100,000 POPULATION______________________________ 62 861,933 + 6.7 -50.6 2,500--50,000 POPULATIO ------------309 2,716,863 -0.2 -34.4 LESS THAN 2,500 POPULATION _____________________ _ 169 831,051 -4.2 -21.6 NOTE: Prepared from reports from independent retail stores to the Bureau of BusineSB Research, coOperating with the United States Department of Commerce. JANUARY SALES OF INDEPENDENT STORES IN TEXAS TotalTotal Number Percentage Change Number Percentage Chance of in Dollar Sales of in Dollar Sales Firms Jan. 1937 Jan. 1937 Firm.a Jan. 1937 Jan. 1937 Re­from from Re· from from porting Jan. 1936 Dec. 1936 porting Jan. 1936 Dec. 1936 TOTAL TEXAS __ __ .... 706 + 6.9 -43.3 DISTRICT 3....·-···--·--·····--··--17 -7.1 -27.0 TEXAS STORES GRO PED BY PRODUCING AREAS: DlSTRICT 1-N Amarillo Pampa .. -· ---·--···-·-·· Plainview . ... ----··--··­All Others . __ ·--·· DISTRICT 1-S ···-----­... Lubbock ----·­_----·-·--­·---­All Others..... ________ . DISTRICT 2.·--·····-------·--···-Abil ene .. ----·-·-····--·-·--­·---­Vernon .. ------..-----·-··· Wichita Falls..._.. --·­All Others..... _ 39 10 3 6 20 17 10 7 62 8 5 8 41 + 6.0 + 27.2 -23.2 + 4.9 + 8.1 + 31.2 + 28.7 + 41.3 -10.8 + 20.0 -16.6 -20.5 -14.7 -16.1 -8.6 -15.9 -24.2 -24.9 -16.5 -23.4 + 25.8 -37.1 -48.2 -38.6 -39.0 -28.9 Brownwood ···--·······---········ 3 All Others·---·····-·---···········­14 DISTRICT 4----··--·····-·········--182 Cleburne ···--·---·················-·· 8 Corsicana ····-------·----·····-··-­8 Dallas ------·---·----·----···-······· 47 Denison ---·--··---···-····-····-···· 3 Fort Worth.________________ ____ 23 Greenville -------·-------···-··-· 4 Paris ····-··-­-·-·-----·-··--·­·­3 Sherman --------·--··-··-····-··· 5 Taylor ------·-·--------·-···-·· 10 Temple ----··-----··--···-···---­7 Waco --·-··-··-···-···-····--··---·· 13 All Others·-----·········--····-·---­51 DISTRICT 5....-------···----------·­71 Bryan ····----·-··--··-·---··--·-­9 Longview ···--···-···---·····--······ 6 Marshall .... -------·····­----··----· 4 -13.3 3.3 + 5.8 + 4.6 + 2.6 + 12.3 + 33.7 + 4.2 + 0.4 + 5.5 + 5.1 -23.3 + 1.8 + 1.4 -26.1 -4.3 -21.9 -2.7 + 12.3 -30.9 -24.6 -50.7 -49.9 -52.2 -50.0 -41.2 -55.6 -7.8 -38.9 -26.3 -42.5 -42.5 -57.2 -43.3 -42.8 -50.0 -45.3 -57.7 Nacogdoches ····-···-···-····-·-· Tyler ·-·--·---··············---···-·-­All Others....------··-··-·-·····-­ 4 8 40 -14.3 -9.0 + 1.7 -37.2 -43.0 -39.3 DISTRICT 6.......-------··-··-····­ 36 +24.9 -38.5 El Paso_·-·-···-·--···-···-··--­All Others....-----·-·-·-·-----­ 26 10 +26.9 + 11.2 -40.8 -12.2 DISTRICT 7....-------····-···----· San Angelo....______________ __ __ 2816 + 13.7 + 13.7 -34.8 -36.0 All Others...-----·········-·----12 + 13.6 -30.2 DISTRICT 8_________________________ 102 Corpus Christi_____________________ 7 + 12.7 -23.8 Lockhart ----·----·--·-··---···-· 5 -20.2 -26.2 San Antonio____________________ 23 + 16.0 -35.6 All Others..·------···-····-·----51 -0.5 -27.7 DISTRICT 9-·-·--·---····--···-106 + 6.9 -44.5 Beaumont ------··-··------·------· 8 +13.2 -56.1 Galveston ·----------·----···--····· 11 +16.3 -35.3 Houston --------····--···--·-·····-47 + 9.2 -44.9 Port Arthur............---·-········-14 +25.8 -47.5 All Others...............___________ 26 -25.1 -32.5 DISTRICT 10_______________________ 46 + 10.5 -18.4 Brownsville ---------------------15 + 20.1 -27.2 Harlingen ------------------------8 -4.6 -28.1 All Others...._____________________ 23 + 12.4 -8.8 NoTE : Prepared from report1 from independent retail 1tore1 to the Bureau of Business Research, coOperating with the United Statea Department of Commerce. BUREAU OF BUSINESS RESEARCH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS The Staff A. B. COX ________ ___ -------__ ------------------------------------------------------------------Director F. A. BUECHEL_____ _ ___ _____________________________________________ .Assistant Director ELMER H. JOHNSON._______ --... _______________________________Jndustrial Geographer CLARA H. LEWIS -·--------------__________________________________Editorial Assistant STERLING WILLIAMS ____ ------____________.. Assistant Marketing Statistician KATHERINE RANDALL_____ -----------------------------------------------------------8 ecretary GARTH DANIEL IMA BEATRICE PAYNE RONALD CALLANDER GARTH YORK CRAIG CAMPBELL WORTH JOHNSON ALTON P. VICKERY WALTON PAYNE FOSTER PARKER JANUARY CREDIT RATIOS IN TEXAS RETAIL STORES (Expressed in Per Cent) Ratio of Ratio of Ratio of Number of Credit Sales Collections to Credit Salaries Stores to Net Sales Ou tstandinge to Crecfit Sales Reporting 1937 1936 1937 1936 1937 1936 All Stores---------------------------------------·----------------------------------------54 64.3 62.4 39.2 38.l 1.6 1.8 Stores Grouped by Cities: 4 57.1 53.0 41.0 40.2 2.3 2.8 !~~~~~~:~-=--=::=::::::::::::=:::::::::-_:::=--_--::::::::::::::=-~=:~~==:::::::::::::::::=:=::::::: 3 60.3 60.3 42.8 41.6 1.6 1.4 Dallas ---------------------------------------------------------------------· 8 71.9 69.9 37.3 34.8 1.3 1.5 Fort Worth____________________________________________________________ 6 59.8 56.8 32.4 34.4 1.8 2.0 GalvestOil--------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 3 76.5 73.0 47.4 40.5 4.1 2.4 Houston--------------------------------------------------------------------­7 64.0 63.0 44.4 42.9 1.6 2.2 Waco --------------------------------------------------------------------------­4 62.9 60.5 36.4 35.9 1.8 1.8 All Others·---------------------------------------------------------------·--------19 55.7 53.9 43.1 42 .6 2.1 2.3 Stores Grouped According to Type of Store: Department Stores (Annual Volume Over $500,000) ___ _ _______________________. 16 62.2 60.4 39.9 38.9 1.6 1.8 Departm ent Stores (Annual Volume Under $500,000) ______________ -----------13 59.4 56.8 39.8 36.4 2.4 2.6 4 63.3 59.7 30.2 30.0 2.5 2.8 ~im~~~~S-p~~i~~~;ls1ti;~::::::::::::::::==::::::::::::::=:::::::==-~::::::=::=:~~::::===: 8 69.3 68.5 37.3 36.7 1.1 1.4 Men's Clothing Stores..·------------------------------------------------------------------13 72.0 70.2 38.5 37.7 1.8 1.7 Stores Grouped According to Volume of Net Sales During 1936: Over $2,500,000...----------------------------------------------------------------------------------8 67.2 66.0 44.2 41.8 1.4 1.5 $2,500,000 down to $1,000,000_____________________________________________________________ __ 7 62.6 60.5 35.7 34.4 1.7 1.8 $1,000,000 down to $300,00Q_____________________________________________________________ 17 58.8 60.6 4°1.9 41.5 2.0 1.9 Less than $300,000._________________________________________________________________________ 22 63.0 58.9 37.3 36.9 3.2 4.0 .. Nott: div~ded bydivided by The ratioa shown for ~ach yea!, in the order .i? which they appear from net ~al es. (2) Collcct1ons during the month d1v1ded by the total accounts credit sales. left to unpaid right, are obtained by the following computations: on the first of the month. (3) Salaries of the (1) Credit ea.lee er d't d t t e i epar men The data are reported to the Bureau of Businees Research by Te:r:u retail stores. BUILDING PERMITS POSTAL RECEIPTS Jan. 1937 Abilene _________________$ 35,721 Amarillo -··-·-··---·--­45,978 Austin --------------·---· 220,092 Beaumont 42,260 · ~-------­5,553 Brownsville 19,925 2,600~---;-------­sti______ _ 278,638 Corsicana 7,300 Dallas -----------------­911,986 Del Rio _______________ 8,950 El Paso ___________________ 119,349 Fort Worth..____________ 280,231 Galveston ------------­150,917 -6r!rl1affi ------------·-­15,050U ..J.larlil'I~ ------­-----· 14,725U Houston -----------­-­2,906,605 ).acksco:Kille --------­--­----------­Laredo ---------------­11,350 Lubbock --------------­73,412 McAllen 45,350 Marshall ---------------­18,765 Palestine -------------­7,105 ~---------------­29,000U Paris -----------------­1,555 +?Jain; iew­2,410 Port Arthur __________ 52,124 San Angelo ____________ 27,818 San Antonio _________ 320,009U Sherman -------------­12,846 Snyder -----------------­5,350 Sweetwater 10,556 Tyler --------------------­-79,210 Waco -------------------­39,046 Wichita Falls ________ 8,950 TOTAL ________________ $5,805,736 Jan. 1936 $ 10,390 43,334 265,124U 219,838 4,925 11,063 275 125,530 4,166 1,221,095 2,200 43,093 582,400 25,561 6,600 1,570 793,921 7,610 4,125 40,355 7,450 12,425 10,095 9,940 10,740 -------------­25,409 5,625 244,389U 7,915 3,500 1,913 81,553 27,753 12,995 $3,874,877 Dec. 1936 $ 84,310 39,607 214,526 174,075 8,920 2,710 1,675 141,635 10,747 2,146,304 1,500 50,601 614,760 32,765 35,200 9,425U 1,649,370 200 38,900 61,465U 7,300 22,520 8,552 16,600 6,355 10,000 58,802 51,760 262,809U 6,552 500 4,548 76,285 144.150 547,577 $6,543,005 Jan. 1937 Abilene ___________________ $ 16,680 Amarillo ----------------­27,182 Austin -------------------­54,781 Beaumont -·--------­---· 23,160 Browrn;ville -------------­6,094Brownwood _____________ 5,894 Cleburne --------------­3,257 Corpus Christi..________ 19,558 Dallas --·------------------· 332,817 Del Rio __________________ 5,718 Denison --------------------­4,444 El Paso -------------------­44,216 Fort Worth.______________ 131,783 Galveston --------------­24,860 Graham ------------------­2,168U Harlingen ------­------­5,065 Houston --·--------------­212,022 Jacksonville -----------­3,184 Longview --------·------­10,055 Lubbock ---------------­13,053 McAll en -----------------­3,989 Marshall --------­---­5,444 Palestine ------·-------­5,247 Pampa -------------------­6,923 Paris ---------------------­5,462 Plainview --------------­4,024 Port Arthur ------------­11,097 San Angelo ------------­10,992 San Antonio____________ 108,610 San Benito________________ 2,585 Sherman ---------------­6,930 Snyder ---------------­------­1,406 Sweetwater ----­--------­5,208 Tyler ------------------------­16,093 Wac-0 --­----------------­31,100 Wichita Falls ___________ 22,356 TOTAL ______ __ ___________$1,191,289 Jan. 1936 $ 15,011 27,258 49,504 21,645 5,575 5,513 2,723 15,525 326,527 4,286 4,640 40,060 117,710 24,015 2,027U 4,686 194.,878 3,388 8,942 12,839 3,348 5,679 4,860 6,727 5,914 3,745 10,047 10,905 108,967 2,371 6,439 1,412 4,249 17,350 31,017 19,813 Sl,127,568 Dec. 1936 $ 21 ,069 37,479 65,382 30,930 9,076 6,728 4,749 24,471 457,614 5,050 6,941 63,603 184,567 37,182 :j: 7,671 275,249 3,583 31.282 17,528 7,514 8.560 5,551 8,674 7,332 4,965 17,655 14,077 159.357 3,783 9,674 1,500 5,814 22.2.13 39,030 27,225 $1,633,098 Not included in total. lNot available. Woes not include public works. Non:: Compiled from report• from Te:ue chamben of commerce to the Bureau Non: Compiled from reporta from Teu1 chambera of commerce to the of Buaineee Research. Bureau of Butlneu Reeearch. TEXAS CHARTERS Jan. Jan. Dec. 1937 1936 1936t Domestic Corporations: PANllANDU. Capita1izationll ----_ -------1.980 $1,690 1,717 umber ____ ---------------129 141 113 Classification of new corporations: Banking-Finance ----·------· 5 7 2 fanufacturing -------------27 17 18 f Prchandising _____ ·--_ 27 38 24 Oil ---------------31 37 28 Public Service.._ ________ _ 2 1 Real Estat~Building ___ . 10 13 10 Transportation _.. ····--_ 4 5 4 All Oilier ~ ~ 26 umber capitalized at less than 5,000 38 50 44 umber capitalized at 100.000 or more __ _ 3 3 4 Foreign Corporations ( umber) 42 35 42 fRevi!led. Din thoueands. Non: Compi1ed from records of the Secretary of State. JA UARY CARLOAD MOVEMENT OF POULTRY A D EGGS Cars of Poultry PETROLEUM Live Dressed Can of E11ti::t1 Chickens Turkeys Chickens Turkey11 Daily Average Production 1937 1936 1937 1936 1937 1936 1937 1936 1937 1936 (In Barrels) Shipments from Texas Stations TOTAL 11 6 3 42 21 35 4 23 54 Jan. Jan. Dec. 1937 1936 1936 lntrastate 1 1 4 5 East Central Texas______ 101,900 [nterstate 10 5 3 42 21 35 4 19 49 45,490 88,140 East Texas____________ 448,500 433,270 44.5,540 Receipts at Texas Stations Gulf CoastU__________ 179,600 205,910 166,590 TOTAL orth Texas__________ 65,350 4 5 56,700 64,530 Intrastate 4 5 Panhandle -------67,750 58,810 62,770Southwest Texas________ 185,850 Interstate 67,540 178,200 West Central Texas_____ 32,750 ~,370 33,180 '\'on:: These data are furnished the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Divi!ion West Texas ____________ 170,700 149,690 165,110 of Crop and Livestock Estimate . by railway officials through agent!! at all stations which originate and recei"e carload shipments of poultry and eggs. The data are 1,042,780 1,204,060 STATE ____________l,252,400 complied by the Bureau of Business Research. LU 1BER On Board Feet) Jan. 1937 Southern Pine :Mills: Average Weekly Production per Unit._ ___ .. _ -----· 291,979 Average Weekly Shipments per Unit ___ ·---·--__ 336.607 Average nfilled Orders per nit, End of Month___ _ _____ l,209.892 NOTE: From Sou them Pine A sociation. Subscription to the TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW $1.00 per year JA UARY HIP IB.'ff OF LIVE TOCK CONVERTED TO A RAIL-CAR BASIS§ Cattle Cal•es Hoc• Sheep Total 1937 1936 1937 1936 1937 1936 1937 1936 1937 1936Total Inter late Plus Fort Worth~-----3305 3,450 776 661 736 598 369 263 5,186 4,972 Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth____ 524 804 199 134 70 8 65 28 858 974 TOTAL HIP.MENTS________ 3,829 4,254 975 795 806 606 434 291 6,044 5,946 §Rail-car Basis: Cattle, 30 head per ear; calves, 60; hocs. 80; and abeep, 250. Fort \1/orth shipments arc combined with intenitatc forwarding• in order that lhe bulk of market diuppearance for the month may be lhown. 'on: These data are furnished the United Statet Bureau of Apieoltural Economica by railway officialt tbrouch more than l,500 1tation acent1, repreeenti.q nery li-tocl: 1hipping point in tho Sta..,_ Tho data arc oompiled by the Bureau of Business Research. UNITED STATES___________3,l75,400 2,816,510 3,104,010 Imports -------------105,143 120,857 136,457 Includes Conroe. 'on: From American Petroleum In11titute. See accompanying map showing the oil producing districts of Texu. Gasoline sales as indicated by tues collected by the State Comptroller were: December 1936, 95,358,000 gallons; Decem· her 1935, 78,406,000 gallons; November 1936, 92,794,000 gallons. TEXAS COMMERCIAL FAILURES Jan. Jan. Dec. 1937 l936t 1936t umber --------------------13U 28 11 Liabilitiesll _______________$ 56 $294 $130As etsll ________________ $ 19 $104 $ 35 Average Liabilities per FailurelJ__ 5 10 $ 12 !Revi.ed. rlncludes one failure which is not included in the other January firuret because a&!ets and liabilities data for the firm are not available. In thousands. XoTE: From Dun aod Bradstreet, Inc. Jan. 1936 280,715 277,576 830,914 Dec. 1936 279.902 324,086 1.096.529 COMMODITY PRICES STOCK PRICES WHOLESALE PRICES : Jan. 1937 Jan. 1936 Dec. 1936 Standard Indexes of the Securities Markets : Jan. 1937 Jan. 1936 Dec. 1936 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1926 =100) ----------­ 85.9 80.6 84.2 419 Stocks Combined_____________ 347 Industrials ------------------------­ 126.4 146.8 100.1 114.5 123.1 143.0 The Annalist (1913 =100) ______ { 138.4 81.7U 128.3 75.8U 134.0 79.lU 32 Rails -----------------------------------­40 Utilities -----------------------------­ 55.9 113.8 43.8 97.0 54.4 110.6 FARM PRICES: Non: From Standard Stati1tie1 Co., Inc. U. S. Department of Agricul­ture (1910--14 =100)____________ 131.0 109.0 126.0 CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRIC POWER IN TEXAS U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1926 =100) _________ 91.3 78.2 88.5 Power Consumed (In Tbou..nd1 of K.W.H.) Jan. Jan. Dec. Percentae-e Chance Jan . 1937 Jan . 1937 from from RETAIL PRICES: Food (U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1923-25 =100) ________ 84.6 81.7 82.9 1937 Commercial ____ 33,348 Industrial -------­81,984 Residential ____ 25,965 1936 29,160 67,395 22,539 1936 32,856 79,273 24,268 Jan. 1936 +14.4 +21.6 +15.2 Dec. 1936 + 1.5 + 3.4 + 7.0 Department Stores (Fairchild's Publications, Jan. 1931 =100) 93.0 88.3 91.7 All Other_______ 24,990 TOTAL ________ 166,287 20,271 139,365 20,556 156,953 +23.3 +19.3 +21.6 + 5.9 NOTE: Prepared from reports from 15 electric power companies to the Bureau , In old gold dollar. of Business Research. COTTON BALANCE SHEET IN THE UNITED STATES AS OF FEBRUARY 1 (In Thousands of Bales) Government Carryover Imports Eetimate as Consumption Exports BalanceAug. I to Feb.11 of Dec. I§ Total to Feb. I§ to Feb. I§ Total Feb. 1 1929-1930_________________________ 2,313 192 14,919 17,424 3,314 4,891 8,205 9,219 1930-1931_____________________________ 4,530 30 14,243 18,803 2,460 4,479 6,939 11,864 1931-1932_______________________________ 6,369 47 16,918 23,334 2,626 4,957 7,583 15,751 1932-1933____________________________ 9,682 59 12,727 22,468 2,812 5,040 7,852 14,616 I933---1934__________________________________________ 8,176 68 13,177 21,421 2,923 4,919 7,84·2 13,579 1934-1935______________________________________ 7,746 56 9,731 17,533 2,685 2,865 5,550 11,983 1935-1936_________________________ 7,138 56 10,734 17,928 3,014 4,004 7,018 10,910 1936-1937____________________________ 5,397 72 12,407 17,876 3,435 3,848 7,283 10,593 The cotton year begin• August 1. 'illn 500-pound bale1. IIn runnlnc balee, counting round bales as half bales. Non: The fipre1 have been reviaed in accordance with the reTi1ion1 made by the United State1 Bureau of the Cen1u1. BANKING STATISTICS (In Millions of Dollars) Jan. 1937 Jan. 1936 Dec. 1936 Dallas United Dallas United Dallas United District States District States District States DEBITS to individual accounts ------------------------1,048* 49,906* 688 35,011 827 43,363 Condition of reporting member banks on-Feb. 3, 1937 Jan. 29, 1936 Dec. 30, 1936 ASSETS: Loans and investments-total______________________________________________________________ 497 22,579 435 20,995 521 22,931 Loans to brokers and dealers: In New York CitY------------------------------------------------------964 89·3 1,0'47 Outside New York City__________________________________ 3 240 2 171 3 242 Loans on securities to others (except banks) _______________________________________ 43 2,034 40 2,064 44, 2,037Acceptances and commercial paper bought_______________________________________ 2 392 2 360 2 351 Loans on real estate -----------------------­23 1,151 21 1,142 24 1,156 Loans to banks----------------------------------­60 1 65 66 Other loans --------------------------------140 4,100 123 3,304 159 4.290 U. S. Government direct obligations________________________________________ 200 9,149 146 8,§55 197 9.241 Obligations fully guaranteed by U. S. Government -----------------------30 1,214 52 1,172 39 1,238 Other securities -------------------------------------------56 3,275 48 3,169 53 3,263 Reserve with Federal Reserve Banks____________________ ________________________ 108 5,330 79 4,843 105 5,163 Cash in vaulL­-----------------------------------------------------------­ 9 375 9 353 11 433 Due from Domestic banks--------------------------------------------------------­ 178 2,249 182 2,366 179 2,345 Other assets-net ---------------------------------------------------­ 28 1,349 28 1,336 29 1,378 LIABILITIES: Demand deposits-adjusted ----------------------------------­Time deposits --------------------------------------------­U. S. Government deposits______ -----­ 384 121 31 15,493 5,077 476 326 119 23 14,017 4,888 604 380 121 4Q 15,571 5,067 702 Inter-bank deposits: Domestic banks Wl 5,988 184 5,621 216 6,009 Foreign banks ----­Borrowings ----­Other liabilities 5 417 867 5 427 2 829 1 1 7 427 23 902 Capital account 78 3,564 76 3,505 79 3,549 •Five week.a. Nora: From Fedocal B-rve Board. JANUARY EMPLOYMENT AND PAY ROLLS IN TEXAS CLASSIFIED BY CITIES AND EMPLOYMENT GROUPS Pay Rolls Ending Nearest Fifteenth of Month Worken Pay Roll '• No. of Number P e rcentage Change Dollan Percentage Change' Averare Weekly Ware E1tab-from from from from per Worker lioh-Jnn. Jan. Dec. Jan. Jan. Dec. Jan. Jan. Dec. ment1 1937 1936 1936 1937 1936 1936 1937 1936 1936 Abilene___________ _____.. 19 261 + 13.0 -1.9 $ 5,379 + 4.0 0.0 Amarillo ---46 1,025 + 18.l + 0.9 24,356 '+27.7 + 2.8 Austin... ---24 633 -3.4 + 0.8 11,834 -22.1 -9.5 Beaumont______________ ____ 31 3,172 + 3.6 + l.l 82,340 + 15.1 + 2.4 Dallas.. --------172 9,224 + 6.4 -13.0 204,967 +13.9 -11.8 Denison___________________ 8 909 + 13.3 + 0.7 12,437 + 11.7 + 9.0 El Paso ____________________________________ 71 2,579 +19.8 + 4.2 50,255 +25.3 + 2.1 Fort Worth_ ------78 2,975 + 20.9 -0.6 60,084 +28.0 -1.9 Galveston____________ _________ ____ 16 664 + 13.7 + 1.4 15,779 + 9.7 -7.1 Houston _______________ _ ____ , 160 11,025 + 14.2 -6.1 245,860 +18.9 -6.8 Laredo_________________________________________ 9 214 + 8.1 -4.9 2,969 +22.7 + 6.7 - Port Arthur..--------------------------------· 9 7,389 -10.3 + 1.6 199,075 + l.l l.l San Angelo ----------------------------------------------9 14·7 + 0.7 -5.2 2,310 -7.6 -8.2 San Antonio.-------------------------------139 3,966 + 10.6 -8.5 76,675 + 14.7 -4.0 Sherman_______________________________ 12 578 + 9.7 -5.1 7,907 +17.3 -13.4 Waco...·--------------------------------------· 38 1,489 + 13.8 -11.2 26,157 +19.4 -7.3 Wichita Falls_______________________________ 28 881 + 6.5 -1.6 19,340 + 3.7 -4.9 All Other Cities________________ 708 29,876 + 11.4 -0.5 743,958 + 17.4 + 0.9 STATE ---------------------------1,577 77,007 + 8.8 -3.3 1,791,682 +14.9 -2.6 $23.27 $22.04 $23.10 BUILDING MATERIALS_______.. 86 8,236 + 18.7 -0.1 144,413 +21.9 -l.l 17.53 17.07 17.71 Brick, Tile, Terra Cotta__________________ 11 515 +25.6 -2.6 4,719 + 2.1 ...: 23.0 9.16 11.27 11.58 Cement..____________________ 7 1,306 +43.7 + 6.1 23,0ll +24.8 -7.4 17.62 20.28 20.19 Foundries, Machine Shops______________ 28 2,083 +29.9 + 2.1 46,973 +26.7 + 0.8 22.55 23.12 22.83 Mill work___ ___________________ 17 610 +36.5 + 1.2 ll,216 +40.4 + 0.4 18.39 17.87 18.52 Saw Mill~--------------------------16 3,143 + 0.8 -5.4 44,382. + 6.5 -5.5 14.12 13.37 14.14Structural Iron Works -----------------------------7 579 +28.1 + 11.8 14,112 +63.2 +37.5 24.37 19.13 19.82 CHEMICALSff _____ ____________________________ 23 432 -5.3 + 3.3 7,728 + 4.2 + 5.3 17.89 16.26 17.56 CLOTHING AND TEXTILES_______ ____ ___ - 37 3,316 +13.8 1.4 39,642 +25.8 + 3.4 11.95 10.82 11.40 Cotton Textile Mills________ _________________ 6 1,466 +36.l + 2.0 19.718 +81.2 + 7.7 13.45 10.ll 12.74 Men's Work Clothing Manufacturing________ 14 ­l,llO 7.8 -10.8 10,291; -15.7 -9.4 9.27 10.14 9.13 Women's Clothing Manufactming _____________ 6 106 -15.2 + 17.8 -28.4 1,031 +21.9 9.73 11.51 9.40 Other Oothing and Textile Manufacturing_. ll 634 +25.0 + 7.5 8,6021 +23.1 + 9.9 13.57 13.79 13.27 COTTON -----------· -------" -----------------------------37 1,924 + 0.7 -20.7 27,994 -3.5 -25.7 14.55 15.17 15.54 Cotton Compresses ----------------------------------6 960 -4.3 -28.9 15,803 -5.9 -34.0 16.46 16.75 17.73 Cotton Oil Mills -----------------------31 964 + 6.2 -10.2 12,191 0.0 -11.2 12.65 13.43 12.78 DISTRIBUTION__________________ 532 14,663 + 9.5 -13.7 319,171 +13.2 -10.9 21.77 21.05 21.10 Retail Trade_____________ _________ 339 9,865 + 8.8 -18.l 197,722 +13.8 -14.7 20.04 19.16 19.24 Wholesale Trade___________________________ 193 4,798 +10.8 -2.8 121,449 +12.3 -4.1 25.31 24.98 25.64 FOOD PRODUCTS..·--·--------------------99 4,133 +10.5 + 0.6 76,420 +15.8 ­ Bakeries________________________ ______ 0.6 18.49 17.63 18.72 19 608 + 15.2 -2.9 ll,909 +20.s -4.4 19.59 18.68 19.91 Beverages_______ ___________ _______ 15 300 + 4.5 + 1.4 6,710 + 2.8 -5.9 22.37 22.74 24.10 Confectioneries ......... ·-------------------------------· 9 247 +13.8 -10.2 3,258 + 9.2 -18.6 13.19 13.75 14.55 Flour Mills_____________________________ 6 490 + 7.5 + 1.4 ll,194 +24.6 -0.3 22.84 19.70 23.25Jee Cream Factories --------------------------7 257 + 7.1 + 7.1 5,382 +27.4 +10.3 20.94 17.60 20.33 Mt>at Packing, Slaughtering______________ 6 654 + 3.8 + 0.8 12,480 + 4.9 ­ All Other Food Products______________________ 3.3 19.08 18.88 19.88 37 1,577 +14.0 + 2.5 25,487 + 18.6 + 5.1 16.16 15.54 15.77 FOREST PRODUCTS ________.. _____________ _ FURNJTUR E MANUFACTURING______________ 22 854 + 0.2 -3.0 l4,3ll + 9.7 -6.8 16.76! 15.31 17.45 7 4,95 + 21.9 + 3.1 8,508 -17.19 15.98 18.80 PETROLEUM ._____________________________ +31.2 5.7 52 20,613 + 3.6 + 0.5 626,790 + 16.4! + 2.6 Crude Petroleum Producing__________________ 30.41 27.05 29.78 20 4,122 + 5.9 + 0.8 151,062 +16.0 + 8.5 36.65 33.48 34.04 Petroleum Refining ------------------------32 16,491 + 3.0 + 0.4 475,728 +16.6 + PRINTING AND PUBLISHING___________________ 0.9 28.85 25.48 28.72 48 1,537 + 5.7 -3.6 48,ll2 + 7.0 -10.6 31.30 30.92 Commercial Printing_____________________ 33.75 29 446 + 8.0 -1.8 10,480 + 5.5 -6.6 23.50 24.06 24.70 Newspaper Publishing __ --------------------19 1,091 + 4.8 -4.4 37,632 + 7.5 -11.7 34.49 33.64 37.35 PUBLIC UTILITIES ___________ --·-------------------402 13,559 + 11.1 + 1.3 350,966 +!3.9 -1.3 25.88 25.25 26.57 Powe? and Light ____ -..------------------------289 6,781 + 12.7 + 3.4 179,528 +14.9 + 0.5 26.48 25.98 27.24 St ea m Railroad Car Shops 18 -·--------------------2.985 + 11.2 + 2.2 75,926 +15.3 ­ 3.0 25.44 24.53 26.82 All Other Public Utiliti f's -. 95 3,793 + 8.3 -3.0 95,512 +n.o -3.3 24.56 QUARRY! 'G & NON-METALLIC MINING 18 769 -14..3 -4.5 17,339 -25.8 -25.18 25.26 SERVICE . 9.4 22.55 26.04 23.76 ------------·----------------·--124 3,914 + 9.1 + 1.5 55,397 +10.3 + 0.7 14.15 14.00 Bu iness and Personal Service_____________ ----· 14.26 20 304 + 19.2 -1.9 7,108 +39.5 3.8 + 23.38 19.98 22.0S Hotels _ -------------------------______ 25 1,838 + 14.7 + 5.3 Ice____________________________________________ 20,175 + 11.6 0.0 10.98 ll.28 ll.5643 517 -8.3 -3.2 9,789 -12.s -1.4 18.93 19.83 18.59 Laundries, Dyeing and Oeaning .............___ 26 1,135 + 7.4 -0.9 15,355 +13.6 + 0.9 13.53 12.79 All Other Service Industries --·-IO 120 + 10.1 -2.4 2,970 + 4.8 13.28 +26.7 24.75 21.50 23.03 ALL OTHER INDUSTRIES__________________ 90 2,562 +21.0 0.5 ­ + 54,891 +33.7 1.0 21.43 19.39 21.77 Chemical and AIHed lndustTies not elsewhere classified. Non: Prepa.rod from reports from Texae induauial eatablishmenUJ to the Bureau of Buainou Re.earcb, ooOperatine with the United Statee Bureau of Labor " Statiatio..