TEXAS Bu (~t;!~~\s REVIEW 

\' A.o'.. ',·.J:.~,~2 -/ /!
A Monthly Summary of Business a'(\<t~c '·J;i,~· ..~tions in Texas and the South"est 

\;. /;""'-. ·;;;t:..:-,·-.fl~~/ 
··~;-,.!(?-'\"",;..,~~/ 
Bureau of~sResearch 
The University of Texas 

YOLCv1E n. \C:\IBER H 
Septemher 21, 1932 

wHILE the businf'ss horizon is still far from clear. cheerful news hearin:r on a rnriety of business items and covering many sections of thf' ('Ountn-is becoming more and more common. For example, railway carloadings have shown more than seasonal gain for fi,·e successiYe weeks. Electric power production is making an increas­ingly favorable showing compared with last year, and the textile industry has been showing marked improve­ment. In \ew York State, factories have run counter to the August seasonal down trend with a gain of 3. 7 per cent in payroll and 2.9 per cent in emploYment. Further suhstantial decline has occurred in the searnnalh· adjusted daily average of money in circulation. Th~ trend of bank failures continues downward, and the downward trend of total deposits of closed banks is even more pronounced. 
"Under normal conditions," quoting from the Standard Statistics Company, "the improvement thus far wit­nessed could confidently he expected lo broaden out and build up. This, however, is a presidential year when not only personalities but fundamental policies hang in balance. The tariff has been injected into the situation. A powerful bloc of ex-soldier citizens is demandin::r a bonus of $2,300,000.000 from the federal treasurv which is already running at a deficit of more than S200,000,000 monthly." 
A number of other disquieting problems still await solution on a fundamental hasis: among them are those relating to transportation, finance, lahor. and agricul­ture. So far only palliati\("S ha\e been applied for tiding over immediate emergencies and proYiding breath­ing spells for inaugurating more permanent policies. 
A widening circle of puhlic opinion in Pach of the industrial countries of the world is coming to realize that what appear at first sight to be local or at most national problems, are in realit\· international pmblrms and must he attacked from that angle. The full si;rnifi­cance of the disruption during the war of thP deli('ate mechanism of international trade and finance which had gradually evolved during many decadPs. is just now becoming apparent. It is also becomin;r more dear that although international trade con,titute~ on h JO per f'ent of our total business, its signifiance to industn· is far greater than this percenta;re would imply. If there are profits at all in industry it is the final sales that deter· mine the amount of that profit. :\foreowr. !'laple com­modity prices are determined on the world market. 
In Augu:-t 19.)l. follr11' in;r thr finanr·ial CTl'JS in Europe and HooYer·s announf'PnJPnt ,,f a one Year mora­torium on European politi,.al dPht;; to thi" .countrl". a commitleP of financiers and pc·r111<1mi;.t3 headed h,· :\lbPrt H. \\-iggin made thr followin7 qatemrnt. ··1;1 recent Years thP \\·oriel ha" been endean1rin;r to pur"ui> t\rn contradictory policies in permitting the de,·Pl<•p· ment of an international financial "' sti>m \rhich inn>h e" the annual pannent of large mm" i)\ debtor to creditor countries ,,·hile at the same time puttini" obstacles in the ,,.a, of free moYement of !!<Joel:,. So lun2 as these obstacl~s remain such rno\emer;ls of capital n~u"l neces­sarih thro\\· the world·s finmH·ial halance out of equiiibrium. Financial remedie" alone will be ])(>11·erless to restore the \\·oriel's econrm1ic prosperit,· until there is a radical change in this policY of ob,.truction. and international commerce-on '' hich dPpends the progress of ci,·ilization--is allowed ti"• resume its natural deYelop­ment. \\'e therefore conclude h' urging most earnesth· upon all gonrnments concerned that theY lose no time in taking the necessan measures... 
The dia;rno,is made b,· thf' \"\-iggin·s f'omrnittee wa;­confirmed by the Special . .\dYis<>n (11rnmittPf' ,-onn1kf'd bY the Bank of International Settlement Dru·ml1rr. 19:1 I. 
A. most emphatic warnin;r of dangPr. u11lrs• immrdialr steps \\·ere taken, was also gi,en in this rPpnrt. 
Last June al LausannP a great forn·ard :'tep "a:' taken in that a ne11· reparation,; "ettl!'nwnt \1·as arri,rd at. bringing in sight at last thr f'nd of that tra.2ic prr1h!Pm \\·hich has worked untold mi3d1irf during thr p<•-t-1,ar Years. In the final act of this f'<1nfne1wf' it "a:' dPcirlrd ~manimoush· that much m<1re CC>rnprellf'll"in· ar·tir111 1,·a• imperati\·ph· needed. Out r,f thi" d,.. r·isir111 ha'-' 7rrnrn the forthcoming \H1rld pr·r111nmic. finaiwial. a11d mo1w­tan· cnnfrrr1we in London. This confrren<·P will under· tak.r t<• soh·e two '-'Pis nf prr1hlrm•. Fir"t. m<•nrlan and crPdit polin·. forei)!n f'Xl'han)!P difTir·ultiP•. thP Je,PI of priCPS and m<1\·f'mrnt nf r·apilal. :'F·r·11nd. imprn\·ed conditions of prochwtion and int,..rd1an'.!(' r1f r·<•llllll<>ditif'" with particular allC'ntion tn tarilT pr1lin. pn1hil1ition" and re"lriction3 of import• and np<irl'-'. qtir>la• and r1thPr harriers tn trade and produr·Pr'-'· a,2reemP1Jl'-'. It is expected that ciut of thi• u1nfrrpnce "·ill also crime a final solution of reparation• and ,,·ar deht". 
The degree of ~ucce"" <if thr r·r,nferPnce will dP!Prmine in large measure the spPPd and PXtPnt of 1rnrld Pc:nnromic 

---_---_-_. = ===-=··-::-.c.:::-_-_---=-:==------:······----···---·· 
FINANCIAL 
The gerwral banking situation continued to improve throughout August. Short term rates in the New York money markels remained consistently low, fcwrr hank failures were reportrd, the volume of currency in circu­lation (adjusted ) decrrascd rnrasurahly, and gold con­tinued lo ilow in at a fairl y rapid rate. From July 23 to Sqilember 3, the average daily volume of currency in c-ir('11lation, (adjusted for seasonal variations) dcr-n'asr,(I Ill ~1211,000,000, thus rnncelling about 36 pr'r !Till o[ tlw i.1H-rcas1' whi('h o<TttnTd helwern April 30 and July 2:). Cold i111porh, chidly in the form of metal rdr'a"cd [ro111 !'ar111ark, have aggregated $1 :17,.)40,000 from J111H· I'l to Septemlwr 7. The most favorahlr. dcvelopm!,llt of the summer months, however, is to he round in the tremendous innc:ise in value of commer­cial hank horn! portfolios as a result of the markPd i111provcnl{'nl in the hond market. The l\'ew York Times average of !l.O hond prices rose f mm .S l .94 on May :-1 l lo 71. l 6 on St,plcmhcr 7, a net gain of almost 20 points. 
Despite the general improvement in the banking sit ualion, however, commercial banks continued through­out August to he very chary with new lending. Total loans of the reporting memher hanks decreased almost continuously from $10,992,000,000 on July 27 to $10,­796,000,000 on August 31, a net decline of $196,000,000. During the same period, on the other hand, bond hold­ings of the reporting banks increased by $401,000,000, practically all of the gain resulting from increased holdings of United States Government securities. Appar­!'nlly, any material increase in hank lending depends upon mon~ ddinite indications of husiness recovery and greater assurance that another wave of small bank failures will not he experienC'cd this autumn. 
Data on banking conditions in the l l th District con­tinue to reveal disappointing trends. Debits to individual a!'counts declined substantiall y as compared with July figures. Demand deposits and total loans extended con­tracted slightly. However, holdings of government senirities rnnained fairly constant and borrowings from the lfosf'ne Bank were reduced hy half. The rise in c-otlon pric-Ps ('oupled with the normal rnsonal increase in llllsi1H'ss adil'ilv should r<'<H'l favorahlY on Texas l1anb during the c\1rrPnl month. . 
(In Millions of Dollars) 
Aug. Jul y Aug. 
19:12 1932 1931 
Debits to Individual Accounts $460* 4.02 $610-* 
Aug. 3 1, July 27, Sept. 2, 
Con<lition of Hcporting MemlH•r Ba nks on 1932 1932 1931 Deposits (total) ··-$.~45 $350 $4 00 Time . 125
125 138 Demand ----220 225 262 Borrowings from Federal Reserve -------------3 6 2 Loans (total} 237
236 293 On Securities 73 74 
91 All Other -----------163 163 202 Government Securities Owned .. 83 83 61 
•Five weeks. 
STOCK PRICES 
A H' ragp prices of :"!'r-uritif's rose with rnthw•iasm durin g August. Tlw 121 sloC'k' inr·ludf'd in tlw Standard ~tati,ti<'s Co1111rnny·s index Pxpnierwrd onh a mild drop during the week ended August 17 and aver~ged 17.4 points higher for tlw month of August than m July, a oain of 4<J per cent. ,... Thr group of railroad stocks, though. ~t~ll being quoted al prices lower than industrials or ut1ht1es, made the 1110:,;t illl]H<'~~ivc rPlative gains, the index showing au incrf'aSC of B/ jl!'r ('etil. 
Aug.  July  Aug.  
1932  1932  193l  
The  Standard  Indexes  of  
the Security Market:  
421 Stocks Combin ed  53.3  35.9  95.5  
351 IndustrjaJs .. ·-··········· ....... 35 Rails ·····-········ ...... ... .... ..  51.5 29.2  35.8 15.6  88.5 66.2  

37 Utilities ................ ······-····· 84.2 55.4 154.0 

WHOLESALE ----------------' AND RETAIL PRICES 
Wholesale prices continued on the upgrade throughout August, and all of the indexes listed below registered gains. Bradstreet's rose from $6.80 on August 1 lo $7.17 on Seplemher l, a gain of .S.4 per cent; and Dun's rrained 4. l per cPnt from $] 28. 76 on August 1 Lo $134.10 on September 1. Farm prices made suh· "tantial gains; the United Statec; Bureau of Agricultural Economics index of farm prices rose 2 points from 57 in Jul y to .S<J in August, and the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index of 7g4 whole~ale commodity prices increased 1.1 per cent due, to a considerable extf.nt, lo the improvement in farm prices. 
The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics index of retail prices of food decreased from 101.0 for July to 
100.8 for August. 
Aug.  July  Aug.  
1932  1932  1931  
Burnau of L a bor  
Statisti cs  ....................... -·······  ........  65.2  64.5  72.l  
Farm  Price  Index*........ ···-··········.--···  59.0  57.0  75.0  
The  Annalist  ...................... ········-·····  94.l  92.1  101.6  

Dun's ···-····-··········· ··-· ..................... $134 .. 10 $128.76 $141.72 
Bradstreet's . ·············-····························· $7.17 $6.80 $8.49 

*Durcau of Agrii:ultural Economics. -------------' 
TEXAS CHARTERS 
The Secretary of State granted charters to 138 new rnrporalions durin~ August. Although this number was 
4.H per cent smallt'r than that for July, authorized capital stock of the 1ww companies was $2,944,000, or B per cent greater than that for the previous month. 
Charters granted hy the Secretary of Stale were: 
Au g.  Jul y  Aug.  
1932  1932  1931  
Authorized Capital Stock _ $2,944,000  $2,723,000  $3,185,000  
Number  ...... ···-····  .. .. . .  138  145  147  
Classificati on of new  corporations :  
Oil  ....................... ... .. .  28  32  29  
Public Service  ..... ....  . .. .  3  
Manufacturing  . ___  .. ......  21  18  24  
Banking-Finance  ....... ..  12  5  9  
Real  Estate-Buil ding  ···-·  10  17  17  
Transportation  ·········-····-·  2  4  8  
Merchandising  ···············-­ 38  38  29  
General  ···-······················-­ 27  31  28  
Foreign  Permits  ···-····-·······  18  22  31  

There was a sharp reduction in the number of very small companies. Only 36 companies with authorized <' <1 pita! stock of less than $5,000 received charters, as against 52 in July and 41 in August la~t year. Four of the companies had authoriied capital slol'k of $200,UOO or more, one of them, a mortgage loan l'Ompany, being capitalized at half-a-million dollars. 

More new banking and finance companies were in­corporated during August than in any other month si1u-e April 1931; 12 of the new charters granted were tu companies induded in this group, as compared with S in July and 9 in August a year ago. The 11umber uf manufacturing companies increased from ] 8 in July Lu 21 in August. 
COMMERCIAL FAILURES 

An encouraging decline in average liabilities per failure coupled with no gain in the numher of bank­ruptcies resulted in a definitely good showing for com­mercial failures in Texas during August. The total number of failures in August, as reported weekly lo the Bureau of Business Research by R. G. Dun & Co., was 70; in the preceding month 70 insolvencies were also reported and 101 in August last year. Although the average weekly number increased from 14 in July tu 17 in August, the comparison with August a year ago, when there was an average of 20 failures per week, showed improvement. 
Only two of the firms reported had total liabilitie:; of more than $100,000; one of these bankruptcies, how­ever, exerted an unusually depressing influence 0 11 the State totals because only about $20,000 assets were offered to offset liabilities approaching half-a-mi llion dollars. Without this laller firm, average liabilities per failure would have heen only $13,000; including it, the average liabilities per failure amounted lo $20,14-:1, a drop of 46 per cent as compared with average liabilities of $37,071 reported the previous month and an increase of 73 per cent as compared with the average of $11 ,59-1 in August a year ago. Total liabilities of the 70 insol­vencies were $1,410,000 as compared with liabilities of $2,595,000 for the failures in July and Sl,171,000 for the August ] 931 bankruptcies. 
Dry goods and clothing stores accounted for ] I uf the 

failures; 9 of the bankruptcies were drug store.;, 7 were 
groceries and meat markets, (i were wo1.1wn\ w1 ~ar a11<l 
millinery shops, and S were manufac:Lurers. 
Aug.  Jul y  Au~.  
1932  1932*  1931•  
Number  70  70  101  
Liabilities  1,410,000  2,595,000  $1,171,000  
Assets  397,000  1,171,000  621,000  

Average Liabilities per 

Failure  -·-­ -·­ 20,143  37,071  11,594  
Average Weekly  umber  17  14  20  
•Five weeks.  
DEPARTMENT STORE SALES  

Part!y because a cool Auµ:ust made cu,;tonwrs un­usually attentive to new fall offerings and part! y because of improved business sentiment generally, Augu~l sales of the 99 department and clothing stores rcpurlinµ: lo the Bureau of Busine~s Hesearch increase! b1· sub~ta11Liallv more than tlw seasonal gain ex perie1we~I in the year·s 1927--1930. The 99 stores. \\·hif'h indude department stores, dry goods and clothing stores, wun11·n's specially shops, and men's wear shops, had total sal t~s duri ng AugtH of 82/><>:~.122. a" t'"lllJ>art·d "ith S:z.:m9.9:~<J in Juh-, an incn·a"t' of 11 pn t"t'lll: tilt' a1i"raµ: t> i1H·r1·a"t' i11 tlw 1 t'ar" nw11tio1lt'd al1111t· \\a" 0111' :l 1wr 1T11l. 
P t•rcc ntagt.' Ch:ine:c in S.1lt·j Number Aug. Au g. YC'ar·IO· of 1932 1932 date, 1932. Siores from from from R eport-Aug. July Year-to· ing 1931 1932 da.te, 193! 
Abilene 3 -16.2 + 2.9 -27.9 Austin 6 -18.l + 6.8 -20.0 Beaumont 6 -35.8 -5.6 -37.8 Corsicana --3 -18.5 + 4-+ -2+.3 Dallas 8 -26.0 + 23.2 -24.5 El Paso 4 -27.2 + 27.3 -31.9 Fort Worth 5 -26.4 + 11.6 -28.8 Galveston .. ----------------5 -49.l -16.2 -33.6 Houston ~ -------------12 -33.0 + 5.9 -31.8 Lubbock -29.2 -19.4 -18.8
------------3 
Port A1thur 4 -31.7 + 0-4 -27.1 San Angelo ---------------3 -22.8 + 24.2 -35.0 San Antonio 9 -27.2 + 14.1 -34.1 
Tyler -----------3 -25.8 -4.4 -23.4 -
Waco 3 -34.7 + 15.5 -25.l All Others 22 -30.6 -8.5 -29.+ STATE 99 -28.4 + 11.4 -29.1
-·----------­Department Stores (Annual Volume over 500,000) _ 17 -27.2 + 15.1 -28.8 Department tores (Annual Volume under 500,000J 34 -29.l -3.2 -30.2 Dry Goods and Apparel 
Stores 24 -33.2 -0.5 -31.0 Women's Specialty Shops 11 -33.6 t-18.6 -28.1 Men's Clothing Stores 13 -24.0 + 13.8 -30.5 

As compared with sales in :'l.ugust a \ear ago, tlw Lota! sales for August this yi·ar \\ ere onh· 28 per cent behind--the first time since last .\l arch that sales ha\ t' hen less than 30 per cent below those in the correspond­ing month in 1931. As confidence among the bu1 inl}. public is restored and as customers begin lo takr adYan­taµ:e of the undoubtedly good rnlucs being offered at pri<;es whil'h are, according Lo the Fairl'hild Pulilic·;1­Lions about 20 per cent bP!mr la4 ,·1·ar·", thi" lag in dollar ya\ue of $ales a;; compar<'d with a n·ar aµ-•> 111a1 be greatly rPdueed by increased 1·olunw l1efore tlit• 1•11d uf the year. 
EMPLOYME NT 

There was an increase of 0. 7 1wr 1·cnt rn the nu1nlwr of workers on payrolls in Tcxa" durinµ: .\uµ:u•t. 111 \ iew of the fact that this mi" thf' fl 1A ti nw "i 11n· 1'J2'J that the number of worker~ in \uµ:u"t <·x1T1·d,·d that in the preYious month, thi;; ill(-rf·a"e a;;.-unw" an un u~ua l interest. The 9.')'l C!'lahlishlllcnb n·portinµ: <'lllJ! lu1·n11~nl to the Bur<'au of Business Resean-h and the l nitPd 'tatf'.­Bun~au of Labor Statistil';; had .')}:J,:::-: 1111rb•r;; 1111 their payrolls on Augu~l 1:) a.-t·11n1pari'<I 11ith :)::.:;11-;-11 11rk1·r.­011 July ] .'). The numl"'r of 11< >1-kt·r.-in .\ u'.!'u.'t 11a;:; ](, per ce;il liclow that in the 1·11rr1·, p1111di11µ· 111,111ilh a 11·,1r 
aµ'(J. 
A1·eragP-weekh· 1rngP• pn 1111rkn an1011111t-d t" _;:;:z:z.77 i11 Augu~t : in Juh, the a1na,u1· \1t·1•kl\ 11 aµ•·" 11·en· s2:3.I.5. Thi, dedinc in a1 t·ra~·· \\ 1·i·kl I \\il!!' t'' f .. r all groups \\·as malerialh· aff<.i·t1·d· 111 tlw ~u!i.-u\nti ,d dro p in the a1·erage ,,·eekh· 11«1)-!·•·• ,,f thr .')./;I :) 11·11rkn;; in petroleum refincrie~. (Jf tlw r,: ;:; rll!plu1 i·i·• al .-utlon compressc~, of the 2,Cil;CJ W1Jrkn, al ll!Cat • lauµ:hterin~· 
= = = = ===='-=------··-·--·--=='-'.c.....:..:.===--=--=c:::=:===== = = ========= = ===== 
and packin;.: plant,-. of the .'i'JO p:·r,-on~ 111anufaclurinµ: women\ clothing. and of tht' I:1,2 1<> p:~r~on~ elllployed 111 the Ol'( 'ttpation~ indud1·d 111 the 111is('(·l larwous group. 
No. of Workers Percentage Change Es1ah · from fr11111 lish­Aug. July Aug. July Aug. ments 1932 1932 1931 1932 193 1 
Austin ·--30 636 602 848 + 5.6 -25.0 Beaumont ···-28 2,647 2,638 3,092 + 0.3 -14..4 Dallas __ --120 8,833 9,051 10,247 2.4 -13.8 El Paso 41 1,290 1,261 1,715 + :Z.3 -24.8 Fort Worth 46 4.,613 4·,486 4,915 + 2.8 -6.2 Galveston 25 1,015 1,127 1,025 9.9 -1.0 I fouston 74 7,778 7,734 9,4.24· + 0.6 -17.5 San Antonio 73 3,394 3,144 3,689 + 8.0 -8.0 Waco 20 728 806 819 9.7 -11.1 Wichita Falls 30 673 713 749 5.6 -10.l 
Mis­cellaneous 467 27,081 26,745 33,143 + 1-3 -18.3 STATE .. 954, 58,688 58,307 69,666 + 0.7 -15.8 
BUILDING 
Buildinµ: per111its <t1\ard1·d in :11 of tht' leading l'llll'S of Lfw Stale totalled S 1,:)2-1.,IJ .'i during the !llonth of Auµ:u~l. aC'l·ording to reports by cha111bcrs of co111me1-ce din~d lo the Bureau of Busincs~ Hesearcb. \Vhile this total was :).(, per cent larger than that fur July, the a\craµ:1~ µ:ain between July and August during the li\c vears from 1921 through 1931 was ;3 1 per cenl. As 
Aug. Jul y Aug. 1932 1932 1931 
Abilene -----------------------2,490 $ 1,325 $ 8,365 Ainarillo -------· --------35,675 10,932 363,387 A us tin -----------------72,654 91,392 124,188 Beaumont ----------------19,696 12)35 75,726 Brownsville ____ 3,397 2,920 46,066 Brownwood __ 7,200 2,000 7,400 Cleburne 4.,025 2,570 1,800 Corpus ChriHi 14,098 11,026 61,950 Corsicana 10,345 21,975 7,800 Dal las 255,339 201,831 293,005
--·­Del Rio ___ --------------3,485 4.,215 1,427 Denison -------------------3,840 1,940 9,395 
Eastland 3,700 El Pao 93,001 19,906 80,193 Fort Worth 78,480 158,245 403,223 CalveJton 36,562 41,089 56,092 Harlingi;n* 6,025 4,250 t I louston 183,480 135,088 812,185 Jackuonville 3,600 2,050 15,000 J,nredo 5,000 400 1,300 Longview 48,784 166,658 110,460 Lubbock 3,397 l,400 23,520 McAllen 200 185 11,500 :'.lfarn hall 6,310 6,052 5,258 l)aris 7,065 10,798 5,914 Plainview 95,000 l 52,000 13,200 Port Arthur 8,349 5,696 14,876 Ranger 500 San Angelo 4,330 3,840 15,755 
an Antonio 122,643 120,516 361,033 Shcnnan 5,745 32,170 19,325 Snyder 500 100 980 Sweetwater 4.,275 4,800 1,800 Temple 9.930 9,425 51,630 Tyler 72,104 21,548 212,867 Waco 26,738 16,887 29,060 Wichita Falls 76,478t 4,953 13,.580 TOTAL 1,324,715 1,278,067 83,263,500 
t·omp<Hf'd with the total for August a year ago, building permits in the month just past were 59 per cent smaller. 
Total construC'lion contracts awarded in Texas during August acrnrding to tllf' F. W. Dodge Corporation were 1alucd at S5,.'i(>2/>00, of whil'h $(>64,100 was for resi­d1·ntial building. SI ,(iO(i. /00 for non-rt'sidential building, S2.9(i(J, I Oil fur pub! ir worb, and S:t2.'i. l 00 for public utilities: in August a yt>ar ag•>, total t·unstnll'tion con­tract~ awarded 1\ ere \ alued at SI l.51:(>.()()0. of which S1,818,000 ''as for residential bui !ding. :32.519,300 for 
non-residential  building,  S.J.,521,1"!)0  for  public  worb,  
and  S2.G(> l ,600  for  public  utilities.  
LUMBER  

An unusual speeding up of lumber act1v1ty, not what might be termed "in line" with the continued pessimism in the building industry, occurred in the southern pine mills reporting to the Southern Pine Association. During the past fi1·e years there has been little ur no change in production schedules between July and August; yet this year. m erage weekly output per mill rose from 153,920 feet in July to 1G3,615 fept in August and had reached l 13,g4-J. feel for the week ending August 27. The average for August was only 11 per cent under that for August last year, by far the most active ~bowing which has been made in many months. 
This extra-seasonal increase in production was not the onl y sign of increased activity al southern pine mills. A1·erage weekly shipments per unit, for in;;tancc, were greater by 24 per cent in August than in July; and, at 218,045 feet, a1erage weekly shipments during August were 45,000 feet greater than average weekI y output. 
l'nfilled orders on August 27 amounted to an average of 592,344 feet per unit, an increase of 39 per cent as compared with bookings a month earlier and only 3 per c-~nt below those at the close of August a year ago. Lnfilled orders were only 8,000 feet below the high c~tablishe<l 011 March 26. 
The Southern Pine Association reports thf' following data for its mcmlier mills: 
(In Board Feet)  
Aug. 1932  July 1932  Aug. 1931  
Average Weekly  
P roduction per Average Weekly  Unjt._______ _____ 163,615  153,920  197,632  
Shipments  per  Unit ______ ·---218,045  176,137  255,243  
Average Unfill ed Orders  
per Unit,  End of Month ___ _ 592,344  427,327  611,489  



CEMENT 
The same stepping up of actiYity which was expe­ri1·1w1~d i11 tlw lumber industn i11 Augu~l 1vas manifested i11 tlw Texas purtlancl cenwnt industrv also. Production at T1,xas mills, which normally changes Yery little lwt1,1·en July and August, rose this year from 216,000 k1rn·_l' in July to :123,00IJ liarrels in. August, a gain of pra«lll'all y Jg 1wr cent, aC'cording: to the l'nited States Burl'au of \lines. Last \Car in August, 644,000 barrels of <-enwnt were prudU('l'd al Texas mills. 
•\'ot included in total. 
~hipments increased hy 26 per cent 01er Julv and 

f\o re port. 
! Jnclud l·s onP suburban JH'rmit for S73,000. totaled ;)B6,000 barrels. the hig:hPst fur any one ;11onth 

===============================~....= .:::-··---·: 
since last October, and made a drain of (12,000 barrel~ on existing stocks at mills. At 603,000 barrels, stocb at Texas mills were 10 per cent less than those at the close of July and equalled those at the close of August 
a year ago. According to the Bureau of Mines, ac:tivitv in Texas cement miils was as follows : . 
(In Thousands of Ban-els)  
Aug.  foly  Aug.  
1932  1932  1931  
Production  ·································-·····  ..  325  276  644  
Shipments  ................. ··········-·······  ...  386  307  667  
tocks  . . .... ··················-··················  603  667  603  


PETROLEUM 

Just at present the oil industry is greatly concerned over the fact that while production of crude has been thus far maintained through 1932 on a much lower le, el than was the case for most of 1931, and while at the same time the volume of crude runs to stills has been c;onsiderably lower through 1932 than in 1931, yet gaso­line stocks at refineries since the middle of July this year have continued to be higher than they were for the same period of 1931. One expression of the influence of these excess stocks is the lowering of retail prices of gasoline in certain sections of the country. 
With respect to the immediate production situation in Texas, in spite of the dominance of the position in oil produc;tion held some time now by the East Texas field and its three large pools, exploration and discovery con­tinue in other sections of the State. For instance, during the past month only, 7 oil wells were completed in the Conroe field, making a total of 11 successful completions in that field. The choked-in potential of this field is around 11,000 barrels a day, while the open-flow poten­tial is estimated at around 30,000 barrels a day. Jn addi­tion to these recent completions, there are now 13 drill­ing operations at work in the Conroe field. Other recent completions have occurred in Bee County, 3 miles south of the Pettus field and 3 mile!! north of the i\ormanna field. Still another is the Coyle-Concord l\o. 1 in Colo­rado County; this is a gas producer with an estimated 50,000,000 c;uliic feet per day, which i;; obtained at a depth of a little more than 4,000 feet. 
Continued successful exploration and the reasons for such operations need not be confused with the sig­nificance of the great Ea;;t Texas field ; <luring the first half of this year the Long,·ie11 pool of this field pro­duced 22,345,000 barn+ •, Kilgore 19,715,000 barrels, and Joiner 18,662,000 barrels, or a total of 60,752,000 barrels. The dominance of these pools stands out in comparison with production from other big fields of the country; for example, <luring the first half of 19.32 the Oklahoma City field produced 18,187,300 barrels, or a little less than the smallest pool of the East Texas field: <luring the same period Long Beach, California, fur­nished 14,.153,600 barrels: Santa Fe Springs, California, 11 ,7tl0,000 ; Yates, Tnas, l 1.28B.300; Kettleman Hills, California, 10,WH,600; Van pool in Van Zandt County, Texas, 3,B21,000 barrel,. During this same period of the first half of the year the dozen pools that compri,e the greater Seminole field of Oklahoma produced a total of 18,110.:100 barrrk 11 hi.-11 aµ:ain i~ IP,;,; than thl' report­ed production of tht> -111allt'"l of tlw LH Tt>xa" Jl'"'k It is true that all of lht'"t' µ:n·at fit·Id" 11hid1 pr11du1·1• "" large a share of the .\mni1·a11 11t1lput art· pi1wlwd-i11. and the proper pinching-in in t·o11tr1ill1·d prndtl!'li11n in a tidd should he as a rule in din·<·t n·lation to tlrt' p11lt'11ti'il" of the field. 
\Vith these rnst potentiab pn·:;t·11t in le:-.:;1:; and a" oil constitutes one of the major n<lturnl resourn·" uf the State, the question of the succe:;sful and effecti\t• opera­tion of the oil indu~tn force:; it:;t·lf into the pt1:;itin11 of one of the really big economic questions confrontinp: the people of the State of Texas. 
Daily aYerage production as reportrd by tht' .\mniran Petroleum Institute was as follo\\ ;;: 
(In Barrels) 
Aug. Jul y ..\ug. 1932 1932 1931 
Panhandle ............ -----··-· 53,980 53,712 57.725 l orth Texas 49,860 49,975 55.800 We t Central Texa.o 24,590 21.563 23.387 West Texas __ -·-··-··-_.. _ 173,620 178,475 201,587 East Central Texa 56.MO 57.337 52.787 
Ea t Texa ·····-----···· -------··· 328,000 337.363 7 l-0.900. Southwest Texas ···---·· __ .. 5.J..640 55,937 57,175 Coa ta! Texas ·········-·····-·. 124.280 118,650 130.512 STATE __ . ---······ ···········-··· 865,610 876.012 Ll-11.650 
ITED STATES _________ 2,133,630 2,162.687 2.353,.J.62 Imports ····-····--·········-_____ 91,686 77,750 178.571 
•Average for three weeks only. 

:\cw de\'elopmenh ll1 Tf'xa" as reported Jiy the Oil Weekly were: 
Aug. Julr .\ ,1e:. 1932• 1932 1931 
Permit for New Wells ···--905 870 514 Wells Completed ----1,011 878 414 Producers: 
Oil Well .. 828 721 321 Gas Wells ... 17 16 7 Initial Production (In Thou ands of Ba1TefsJ 5,286 ·1.874 2,105 
•Five weeks. 

Gasoline sale,, accordinf! t1i law" t1illectt-d l>1· tlw State Comptroller. amount1•d t•i (,(>, H(dJIJ(J f!a l!..11, in July, as compared with 6:!.920.()()IJ gallon-in Ju111· and 80.121,000 gallons in Augu:'t a \ear ag". 
COTTON MANUFACTURING IN TEXAS 

\\'ith the materializing intCJ act ual <Hein,; uf '' l1al t·1 1­dcntl\' was deferred demand. Texa" 1·1Jtt1111 milb ex­perie;1ced a much more animattd month during .-\ui!u't than had J)feYaile<l in man,· m1;nth•. ~l"rr; than "•'a"11n al gains as compared \\·ith the ]Hf'\ iou." month IH 'n ' nwde in all phases of procluctif>n anrl "alt·:': i1 
am•JL111t of cotton consumed, cott'rn i!""d" ,alt·"· urdillf'd .-.rdf'r". and spindle hours operated..\uµ:u:'l a.-ti1 it1 l\il." 1"·11 :dwad of that for the corrc:;piJndin;r 1111111th a \l•ar aµ". 
Cr,tton goods sa]e, follo1,<'d up tlw impr1l\t·1n1·11l 111acl1· during Jul\' \\·ith a µ:ai n uf :-2 ]Jf'r t"('lll f11r .\ uµ:tH . l•> reach 5,-100,000 rnrck the hi!!IH":'l figure \\ith 1J11l1 11nr· exception since :\(J\('mlwr. 1929. 
l:nfilled orders mon· than d11uliled durin p: Auµu,t: at the end of the month. u11fill1·d <1rdPrs am<)untf'd t11 ­.')80,000 yards a" ag-ain"t :1.H1.').l1()1J rnr<l~ at tlw end uf 
July. In the years 1927-1 9~1. tlwrc was an al'naµ:t> drop of 29 pe'r cent in unfillt:d orders from July to August. Bookings were 1,017,000 yards in August LH year. 
One mill which had been closed down during the lat­ter part of July was reopened, and the total number of spindles active ruse from 123,719 in July tu 1:39, 120 in August. 
lleports from 21 Texas cotton mills were as fo llows: 
Bales of Cotton Used.__________ 
Yards of Cloth: Produced ---------------------­Sold --------------------------------­
Unfilled Orders --------------­Active Spindles ----------------­
Spindle Hours ____________________42,311,000 29,523,000 33,158,000 

SPINNERS MARGIN 
The rise in the price of both cotton an<l yarn lowered 
1he averaµ:(' spinners ratio margin frorn J73 in July tu I(1(j during August. It is significant to note that the pence ur absolute margin actually widened from an average uf 3.72d in July tu 3.8ld <luring August. It i~ also significant tu nute that the pence margin was higher at the end of the month than at the beginning. The advance in the price during August was due largely tu the Government report on the prospective crop, but in the face of that, yarn prices went up more in pence than die! cotton. During the first week in Au;!llst, the pence margin was :3.GBd and the last week it was 3.92rl. During August 19:31 , the ratio margin n~ached its peak for this swing at 21 :3 and the pence ntaq!in was 4.2.'id. 
Aug. Jul y Aug. 1932 1932 1931 
4,817 3,234 4,176 
3,552,000 2,4S5,000 3,930,000 5,400,000 3,141,000 4,851,000 7,580,000 3,265,000 4,017,000 139,426 128,718 173,729 


COTTON BALANCE SHEET IN THE UNITED STATES 
AS OF SEPTEMBER 1 
Year 
1925-1926 1926-1927 1927-1928 1928-1929 1929-1930 1930-1931 1931-1932 
-----·------------------------------------------­-----------------·-------------------­
---------------· -------------------------­
1932-1933 
•In 500-pound balea. 


TEXTILE SITUATION 
Sak,; of rntton ('arded cloth during August were 510,· .'i:l I.00() _1 ard~; thi" was 2B2.4 per cent of production, <l('('ordi11g to the rq)()rt of the Association of Cotton T1 ·x til1· \l1·n-ha11t~ of \1•w York. Stocks on hand dc('rt'il'l'd from 2U 1.21.9.000 yards August 1 to 209,­.j,()/_()()() \<mis Augu"t :11. and unfillt•d orders jumped from 227,952,()()() 1ards Augu,;t I to -HlS,HG0,000 yards 
\ ugust 31. Last year during August, sales amounted to only 107,.S55,000 yards and unfilled orders at the end of August 11·ere only 217,503,000 yards. These figures indicate that cotton is in a stronger position now than it wa,-on this date in 1931 due to stronger demand. 
COTTON BALANCE SHEET 
According to official figures the indicated cotton in the Cnited States on September 1 171 ,000 bales. This i,-1,25.3,000 bales less ~uppl1 un September l , 193 l. The estimated 
supply of was 20,· than the crop this 
ll'ar is :L)/ .S,OUO bales le.<s than last 1ear on Septem­Ler I. but unfortunate! 1 thl' carr1u1 er in America wa'> increased by 01 er :1.200,000 bal~s. 
Total changes in supply during the previous sen'n ) ears a,; of Septcmlier l equalled 12,230,000 bales. The total co1Te;; ponding changes in the .\ ew Orleans index price fur middling "put cotton as of the close of August il 11as 2,777 points, ur an a1erage change of 22.71 points in the price for each change of 100,000 bales in supply. If this rate uf change in price tu changes in supply holds good now, this figure alone would indicate an index price some 2H-I-points abo1e last 1ear's. European port stocb are 10.S.OOO hales abu1·e last year and the Bureau of Labor Stati~tics 11 holesale price i;1dex has gone down from 71.2 last year to G.'i.2 September 1 this year. When tht· price i,; adjustt>d for the~e and alsu the spinners 111argi11, Lht~ final calculated \ew Orleans spot price ba-ed 011 thi' method uf calculation is 7.99 cents. 
A,-has been pointed out before, when the suppl) i:s alrn1 e an·rage, a change of l 00,000 bales in supply l·au-es le;-,; than a\ er age change in price. When that i,; taken intu account. the indicated price is 7.17 cents fur \ cw Orleans middling spot~. 
\\'hen the price calculation is based on a1·erage per­1·1'11tag1· change in price corresponding to percentage ..hanges in suppl,, the indicated price is only 6.84 cents. The supply price chart for September indicates a price of !wt11·ee11 6 . .'iO cenh and 7 cents. 

(In Thousands of Running 
Carry·  Sept.  l  
over  Imports•  Estimate•  
1,610  9  13,740  
3,543  13  15.166  
3,762  28  12,692  
2,536  25  14.439  
2,313  25  14,825  
4,530 6,369  6 7  14,340 15.685  
9,682  7  11,310  

Bales)  
Tn1al  Couumption  E:i:poru  Tota)  Ra lance  
15,359 18,722 16,482 17,000 17,163 18,876 22,061 20,999  451 500 635 526 559 352 426 403  313 385 322 253 226 366 211 425  764 885 957 779 785 718 637 828  14,595 17,837 15,525 16,221 16,378 18,158 21,424 20,171  


The cotton yea r begins on August 1. 
COTTON 

The prospectiH' crop of thr l 'nitcd StalP~ ~ti l l hold~ the center of the stage in so far as cotton market new" is c~ncerned. Most private estimates have been shooting wide of the mark if the GO\·ernment is right. On an aver­age, private estimates were much larger than the Go,·ern­ment report on August 8. On September 8, the concensus of opinion among private estimators indicated a declinr of at least 500,000 bales from the August report. The Government estimate wa:-11.310,000 bales. or an in­crease over August of Ll,000 bales. Opin.ion now is divided as to whether the crop as a whole has made a net gain or loss. The prevailing opinion among tradPrs now seems to be "stay on thP consen alive !'ide. or wait 
and see." . . This conservative attitudi> ha~ al~o hc'en slrPrErlhPnPd hy the increasing attention beinf?: giw~n to cott~-n crop prospects outside the l :nited States, f':<per·ialh· in India and China. World supply of r·otton for the vear 19:)2­1933 bids fair to he approximately the same as that last year. In other words, the large increase in the carryover of American cotton over August l last vear plus increased prospects in India and China ju5t about offset the indicated decline in American, Eg~ ptian, and sundries production for this year. 
AGRICULTURE 

Estimated production of Texas crops for 1932 is less than was actually harvested in 1931 with the exception of corn, grain sorghums, peanuts for nuts, swf'el pola· toes, and apples, according to the Gnited Statf'S Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Thf' followinf?: tabulation gives the estimated production of the various crops for 1932 in Texas and the United States and the actual pro­duction in 1931 for comparison: 
Production (In Thousands)• Texas nitcd States Estimated Actual Estimated Actual 1932 1931 1932 1931 
Cotton --------------------4,092 5,320 11,300 17,100 ------·---------­
Corn 105,580 94,248 2,854,000 2,563,000 Winter Wheat _ ·------29,779 57,572 442,000 789,000 All Wheat 29,779 57,572 715,000 894,000 Oats 43,659 59,976 1.245,000 1,112,000
-
Barley 4,218 5,194 303,000 198,000 
Rice 8,601 10.653 37,700 45.200 
Grain Sorghums 66.896 60,000 118,000 105,000 
Peanuts for uts 99,900 85,330 1,026,000 1.083.000 
All Tame Hay 616 606 68.600 64,200 
Wild Hay 186 174 11,400 8.100 
Sweet Potatoes ___ 6.391 4.968 76.200 62,900 
Broom Corn 1.4 1.5 37 4,5 
Apples 158 150 138.000 202.000 
Peaches 792 1.500 46,4-00 76.600 
Pears 224 383 22.200 23,300 
Grapes 1.8 1.8 2,090 1.620 
Grapefruit 2.480 14,700 
Oranges 520 49,500 
Pecans ------· 19.500 32.0DO 76.700 


•Cotton in bal!'s. Peanuts and Pecan<s in pounds, Tame Hay, Wild Hay, Broom Corn. and Grapes in Ton... All othE"rs in bushels. 
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE SHIPMENTS 

With the ~<.'ason for Texas fruits and ,-egetable:: ju•t about over. a summary CJf th r-daih reports CJf thr United Statrs DPpartmrnt of /\p:rirulturf' ' ho11·• that 50,165 carloads of Texas fruits and wg:Ptahlr!' 11r·rr shippf'cl durinfr thP t11·f'ln' 111011th,-f'11di11fr ~rptf'ml)('r 1. 19'.)2. a' comparrd with .).'i.'Y:-2 ,·,uload,-durinfr tlw previous 'Pason. \'o rpr·ord,-an• a' ailah!P at this timf' 011 shipnlf'nts hy truck. 
Thr frrezr la~l \larC"h. 11'11id1 C'il ll""d 1·1) 11,.idnahlf' damaf!'.r to fruit and lruC" k )!'a rrl rn,; in wid<.'h ~C'atli>rrd ser·tions of thf' Stale, resulted in rf'dtwtinn of close to .')() per cent in shipment:; of tomat•)('s. peaC"hf'5. "traw· berries, and f'arh· summer Yegetahlf'~ ~uC'h a" 5trini! beans and peppers. \\Thereas 8..56.3 rarlnads of tomalot>s were shipped during 1930-1931, onh l.1 97 carloads were shipped during: the season just past. \Iixf'd YPi!rtabl f'~ dropped from 8_069 cars in 1930-19:)1 to 7.28 i cars in 1931-19.32; only 6,371 carloads of spinarh and 6.1.3."> car­loads of cahhagf' were shipped durinf! the past season as compared with 7.100 carloads and 8.56.) carloads re!'pecti, ely in thf 1930-1931 sra::on. \\"atnmelon load­inf!'.S amounted to onh-3.117 car!• as compared with L023 cars the preceding war. Potato :-hipments dropped from 
5.022 cars in 1930-1931 to 3 .. i3.) cars in 1931-1932. Only about half as manv cars .of lwrt" and green rorn \1·ere shipped in 1931-1932 as in the preceding Year. 
\lost notable among the gains in shipment~ were thosf' for grapefruit. which accounted for .).230 cars as com­pared with onl\' 2,096 cars during the preceding season, and for onions. which totalled 8.0.39 rarloads as a!!'ainst .5,562 carloads in the 1930-1931 season. l-nusualh -Llarge relative gains were made in all othn citru3 fruits. cauliflower. green peas, carrots, turnips and rutabagas. and greens. 
Although there is not availablf' at the presrnt tin1f' an index of the returns to producers of Texas fruits and ,·egetables, the Cnited States Department of _-\griculture index of prices paid to producers of farm product-in thf' Pntire Cnited Stales sho,1·s that prices of fruits and wgetables rose gradualh· throul!hout the shippinf!'. season, as indicated h~· thf l!ain in the indf'x of fruit and vegetable pricfs from 62 in Fehruan to 83 in Juh·. 
Shipments of fruits and \Pgetables during .-\ugust were as follows: 
Cln Carloads) 
Aug. July Aug. 1932 1932 1931 
~fixed Vegetables ------------------------1
-· 
weet Potatoes ----5 8 3
--------· ·­Onions ------------------------------·-----------3 151 8 Tomatoes -----------------· -------------------­
280 Potatoes ---------------------------------2 26 4 Watermelons -----------------------108 1.4.Sl 4-02 
Cantaloupes ---· ------------309 24.5 153 
Peaches ·-------------------1 19 
Grapes ---·-------·---· ---1 4 
Pears 44 50 56 
Deciduou~ Fruit ------·--l 
473 2.235 627
TOTAL ·------------------­
POULTRY AND EGGS 

Total interstate rail shipnJPnt• ,,f poultn and Cf!gs amountf'd to 99 cars durin,!!' .-\ui!ust. r.omparf'd with 111 rar;; during the cnrrPspondin;r month last vear. Poultn· ;;hipments declined from n2 r-ar;; a \ear ago to .)8 car~ during the month undPr rP1·iP11·. 11hilf' pgg shipments of 11 cars "·ere morr than JI) pn cf'nl i!rf'aln than thr 29 cars shippPd .-\ugu::.t 1931. 
.. ·-···-,._::::_·---::;_-~=-==================
----'-·. 
_ -__·-· 

l11L<'r~lal1· rail n·1 ·1·ipl~ of 1·µ:µ:..; durinµ: :\11µ:11 ;;t a1nounlf' rl lo 21 rnr..; or li11· tinll'..; tlw 1ol11nll' lirrn1 µ: ht i•t la~l y<'a r. T1·n t'ar~ 1·anw front Kan..;a..;. I front \[ j..;,011ri. :~ from Oklaho1na. and l from \\ 'i~1 ·011,in. 
C"ld ;;loraµ:P lwldinµ:;; nf froz1·11 and ;;hl'll 1·µ:µ:~ ('Olll ­l1i1wrl 011 ~1 ·pl1•rnlwr l a111ou11L Prl to H.(109.00() 1·a..;f';; com­pared 11 ith 12.1 (1/.()()[) 1·a..;p..; a 1('ar <l"o and l:Z.2:H .000 
1\ 'GLST C \ RLO \D ;\10\ DfENT OF 
DC'c;tlnation 

TOT L Tnlra<;tate Interstate New York lllinois \lassachu,elt' 
ew Jer>e) Penn,yhania Louisiana Conneeticut :\1issou ri Georgia Michigan California Alabama Florida Rhode I.land Ohio Tennessee \faryland Mississippi Kan•as Iowa Kentucky 
Origin 

TOTAL 
[nlrastate 

Interstate 
Kansas 
.\lissouri 
Oklahoma Wisconsin POL'LTRY A D EGGS* 
hipments from Texas Stations 
Cars of P oultry L v,. Dres<1e<l Chickrns Turk~·''" Chickens Turkeys 1q32 19:\1 1q:;~ 19JI 1932 1931 1932 1931 
9 61 75 2 
.3 ~ 9 58 71 2 5 32 26 
1 9 
3 12 
12 9 
3 3 1 
4 10 
2 2 

1 
1 
Receipts at Texas Stations 
1 
1 
Can 
of Eggs

1932 1931 
55 39 14 JO 41 29 1 2 
4 5 
1 
3 
11 9 
3 1 7 
1 3 1 4 1 
1 
1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 
33 16 12 12 21 4 10 4 
7 
3 
1 


•These data arc furnisheJ thf" U. S Department of Agriculture. Division of Crop and Livc<Jtock Estimates, by railway officials through agents at all stations which originate and receive carload shipmenll of poultry and eggs. The data are compiled by the Bureau of Rusincss Research. 
Cattle Calves 
1932 1931 1932 1931 Total Inter tale Plus Fort Worth+ 156 141 14 28 Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth§ _____ 586 802 166 145 TOTAL RECEIPTS _ -------------··--------742 943 180 173 
•These data arr furnished the Uaited Statf"a Bureau of Agricultural Economics by railway officials stock shipping point in the State; the data are compiled by the Bureau of Business Research. 
tRail-car basis: cattle. 30 head per car; calves, 60; swine, 80; and sheep, 250. 
irncludes receipts at "other" Texas r~oints from Fort Worth. 
§Represents all intrastate receipta, except those received at Fort Worth. 

1 ·a~c·s thr 1111'-yf'ar an·rage. a derline of ll and 42 per 1·1'11l rrs])f'cliH·ly. This farnrable statistical position of ,lorag<' Pgµ:~ LogPlhf' r with the pick-up in demand ll'hich 'c't'lll"' tn ]H' 1111dt'r wa1· gin'!' a more fayorable outlook for pgg pril'<'~ unlf',, rxt'essil'e current receipts should ofT;;pt tlw;;r ad1·a11tagf':". 
LIVESTOCK CONDITION AND MOVEMENTS 
The Cnitrd Stall's Bureau of Agricultural Economics in its September 12 release reports condition of ranges \H'll abo1·e a1·erage and feed supplies abundant in ]Hae· ticalh all feed-producing areas. Reflecting the favorable free! and range situation. the condition of both cattle and shPPp 1rns hi~hf'r th~n during August 1931. 
The follo\\ing tahulation giYes condition of ranges and 
li1r"'tock in Texas as 
September l, 1932 One ,\if.nth Ago _______ _ One Year Ago 5-Ycar Average 
of Septemhcr 1. 
Condition of Ranges Condition of Livestock 
Per Cent of Normal Per Cent of Normal 

Cattle Sheep & Goats Cattle  Sheep  Goata  
83  88  86  85  86  
85  85  86  85  86  
79  82  84  84  85  
78  78.6  84.2  83.8  86.2  

Ranges in the western ran11e states arc in much better condition than a war ago due to the sel'ere drouth last 1·ear. 
Total interstate Iplus Fort Worth I shipments of live· stn<'k from Texas amounted to 2,15!1 cars, a decline of almost 31 per cent from the 3,108 cars shipped during Au11ust last year. The decline in shipments was due mainh· to the sharp slump of cattle shipments to Fort Worth, which were less than half those last year. Ship­ments of cah-es 1rere onh· slightly less than those of last 1·ear. ll'hile hogs and sheep showed a substantial in­c:rf'asc. Almost ten times as many cattle and three times rts many shrep 11·ere shipped from Texas to Los Angeles a!' 11·ere df'stined for that market August ] 931. 
Interstate I plus Fort \\'orth I rail and truck ship­mrnts of all clas,rs of rattle during: the first Pight months of th!' year amounted to 33/>68 ear!' or practicalh· the ' ame as the 33Jl70 cars shipped during the correspond­ing: period last 1rar. Thf' small decreasr 1rns dve to ~ma] In ~hi pmPnls nf call IP. 1d1ich 1rf're not quite off,et l1y the larger shipmPnls of the other classe!' of li1·estr.rk. 

AUG ST CAR-LOP SHTP.\! ENTS OF LIVESTOCK* 
Cattle Ca1vee Swine 
1932 1931 1932 1931 1932 1931 Total Interstate Plus Fort WorthU 1.209 2,322 441 460 156 93 Total Intra,tate Omitting Fort Worth 759 952 179 171 51 70 
TOTAL Sl!IPME T -...._.1.968 3.274 620 631 207 163 
AUGUST CAR-LOTt RECETPT OF LI\'E TOCK* 
Swine 1932 1931 56 98 43 66 99 164 
Sheep Total 
1932 1931 1932 1931 348 233 2,154 3,108 69 61 1.058 1,257 417 297 3.212 4.365 
Sheep Total 
1932 1931 1932 1931 
3 9 229 276 
59 52 854 1,065 
62 61 1,083 1,341 
through more than 1,500 station agents, representing every lin· 

Fort Worth shipments are combin<'d with interstate forwardings in order that the bulk of market disappearance for the month may be shown. Those wishing the Texas Business Review regularly will receive it without charge upon app lication Entered as second-class matter on May 7, 1928, at the postoffice at Austin, Texas, under the Act of August 24, 1912.