TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Bureau of Business Research The University of Texas Vol. XII, No. 3 _,,April 28; 1938 A Monthly Summary of Business and Economic Conditions in Texas and the Southwest Bureau of Business Research, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas Entered •• Hcond elue matter on May 7, 1928, at the po•t office at Auatin, Te:ru, ooder Act ef Auiu•t 24, 1912 TEN CENTS PER COPY ONE DOLLAR PER YEAR TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 2~====================================================== TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW Vol. XII, No. 3 April 28, 1938 CONTENTS PAGE ANNOUNCEMENTS __ __ __ _ _ ____ ---------------------------------------------------------------------16 Business Review and Prospect, F. A. Buechel_________ __ _ ______ ------------------------------------3 Cotton, A. B. Cox__________________________ _ ____________ -----------------------------------------------------------9 Current Manufacturing Developments, Clara H. Lewis·---------------------------------------------8 Financial, James C. Dolley __ ._ . __ _---------------------------------------------------------------5 Some Economic Aspects of Texas Resources, Elmer H. Johnson -----------------------------6 LIST OF CHARTS Indexes of Business Activity in Texas______ __ _ __ ____ ------------------------------------------4 Oil Pipe Lines_ ______ ____ __ __ __ __ _ _____ . _____ __ __ ---------------------------------------1 LIST OF TABLES Banking Statistics _________ --------------------------------------------------------------------------16 Building Permits ____ _ __________ -------------------------__------------------------___ __ _ _ __ _____________ 14 Carload Movement of Poultry and Eggs__ ____________________________________ ___________ _ _______ 15 Cement --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 Charters --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 Commercial Failures ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 Commodity Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 Consumption of Electric Power___________________________ ________________ ________________ ___ _________ 9 Cotton Balance Sheet_____________________________ __ ____ ----------------------------____ __ _____ _ _ __ ___ 9 Credit Ratios in Texas Retail Stores____ _________ __ __ ____ ____ ____________ _____ __ __ _ _ ________ 11 Employment and Pay Rolls Classified by Cities and Employment Groups . _ 12 Lumber ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14 Petroleum ______ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15 Postal Receipts ___ _ ____ _ _________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 Retail Sales of Independent Stores_________________ _______ _ _____________ ___ ________________ 10, 13 Shipments of Live Stock Converted to a Rail-Car Basis _________ ____ __ __ ______________ 15 Stock Prices -----------------------------___ _ ___ _ --------------- ---------------------------------------------------____ 14 Partial List of Publications luued by the Bureau of Buaineu Research PRICE What Place Has the Advertising Agency in Market Research_____________ ____________$I.OO William J. Reilly Methods for the Study of Retail Relationships__________________________________________________ 1.00 William J. Reilly A System of Accounting Procedure for Livestock Ranches_____________________________ I.SO Frederick W. Woodbridge The Natural Regions of Texas --------------------------------------------------------------------------1.00 Elmer H. Johnson The Basis of the Commercial and Industrial Development of Texa5________ _______ 2.00 Elmer H. Johnson Eight Years of Livestock Shipments in Texas ---------------------------------------------------1.00 F. A. Buechel Directory of Texas Manufacturers as of January 1,1936 ________________________________ 1.00 F. A. Buechel and Clara H. Lewis Recent Mimeographed Studies Studies of Employment Problems in Texas_____ _________ _____________________________________ 1.00 A. B. Cox Possibilities of Industrial Expansion in Texas___________________________________________ 1.00 Elmer H. Johnson Dairy Manufacturing in Texas_______________________________________________________________ 1.00 F. A. Buechel Farm Cash Income in Texas, 1927-1936_____ ________ ___________________________________ 1.00 F. A. Buechel Business Review and Prospect Political factors, both foreign and domestic, rather than economic factors have been most influential in de­termining the course of industry and trade in this coun­try during recent months, and this situation promises to continue for an indefinite period. Although the interna­tional political situation shows definite signs of apparent clarification and at least temporary improvement, the domestic political situation is becoming increasingly more complex and confusing. The American public is vitally interested in the prac­tical adjustment of differ<'nces in points of view, which apparently exist between government and industrial lead­ers, on a basis which not only will ameliorate extremely depressed current business conditions but which will have in view the development of policies designed to promote cumulative improvement in industry and trade and to avoid future violent business fluctuations. At present there seems not only to be a conflict between leaders in government and industry as to what consti­tutes the vital economic issues of the country, but even within the government itself there appears to be such sharp division between the executive and legislative branches in attacking these problems that a stalemate has ensued which may take weeks to break down. The question in the minds of great numbers of citi­zens now doubtless is, "How successful in bringing about permanent economic improvement will a huge govern­ment spending program be if it is not accompanied by a corresponding program for the expansion of private enterprise?" And a corollary to this question is, pre­cisely, "What policy is needed to stimulate such ex­pansion in private industry?" If the new government spending program and further expansion of credit reservoirs are not accompanied by restoration of confidence in the longer term outlook for private enterprise it is difficult to see how there could be at best more than temporary improvement. Spe­cifically among the questions now in the minds of mil­lions of thoughtful citizens is this, "What will be the national policy with respect to railroads, utilities (both private and government), taxation, and employer-em­ployee relationships?" The uncertainty which still prevails is again reflected in Barron's business index. For the week ended April 9 the index stood at 56.9 which was only a fraction of a point over the preceding week in comparison with 83.6 during the corresponding period last year. TEXAS BUSINESS The low ebb of industry and trade in the country at large is having the expected effect on Texas business. Although industry and trade in this State have thus far yielded grudgingly to depression influences, there are growing indications that the downward phase of the business cycle has not yet run its course in Texas. Should the national index turn definitely upward within the next few weeks there would be good grounds for belief that Texas would not lag far behind, and that the really acute depression witnessed in other parts of the country might be avoided here. The Texas business indexes for March and the two comparable months are as follows: Mar. Mar. Feb. 1938 1937 1938 Composite (All factors combined) ---93.43 96.38 95.03 Employment ---------------------------·· 87.99 90.17 88.63 Pay Rolls ----------------------------------92.04 89.17 91.44 Miscellaneous Carloadings ----------65.32 84.83 65.05 Runs of Crude Oil to Stills ________ 163.11 171.81 182.00 Department Store Sales___________ 97.25 99.31 100.55 Electric Power Consumption ____________ 116.51 107.06 120.22 The decline in the composite index from February to March was nearly two per cent, which was a slightly more rapid rate of decline than from January to Feb­ruary. For the first time since the recession began the current composite index is lower than on the corre­sponding month the year before. Only two factors in the composite index are above those of March 1937-the index of pay rolls and electric power consumption. It is extremely doubtful whether the favorable year to year comparisons of the index of pay rolls will continue much longer for it was about a year ago at this time that many increases in wages were made. Therefore, future year to year comparisons of pay rolls will be on a considerably higher base, making the current index look less favorable even though there may be no actual decline in pay rolls. FARM CASH INCOME ---~ Farm cash income in Texas as a whole increased slightly more than usual from February to March, and, as a consequence, there was an increase in the March index number as compared with that of the preceding month. The March index was, however, substantially below that of the corresponding month last year as the following figures show. INDEX OF AGRICULTURAL CASH INCOME Mar. Mar. Feb. Distrfot 1938 1937 1938 1-N ---------------------------------.. 107.7 115.5 105.9 1-S ------------------------------·. 112.3 133.7 148.l 2 -------------·-------------------100.5 119.4 61.0 3 ------------------------------------. 165.9 194.0 137.5 4 ----------------------------. 118.7 130.9 107.4 5 ---------------------.... -131.8 110.8 118.0 6 -----------------------194.4 96.6 186.7 7 --------------------------------116.7 142.4 97.0 8 -----------------------------------112.8 122.9 111.5 9 ---------------------------------184.6 120.1 178.2 10 -------------------------------------74.0 116.6 117.3 10-A ..................................... 155.7 250.7 184.5 STATE --------------------------120.7 140.1 117.6 :\oTE: For Texas crop reporting districts see March R EVJEW, page 13. Computed farm cash income, estimated to be about 90 per cent of actual farm cash income, was $16,434,000 in March, compared with $14,225,000 in February and $19,066.000 in March last year. After adjustment for For Other Texas Data, See Statistical Tablell at the End of This Publication TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW .. ------------" ---···---------------------·­ INDEXES OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN TEXAS AVERAGE MONTH or 1930 = 100 (o W [ IC:. ti T COMPOS IT( lt'O(X [ MPLOY ME ... T ---2S'I', rR[lt".1-n CARLOAOtP-IC.S---2.0V, p,,.y R 0 LL.S ZS 'II, CRUO( OIL AU1'1S SY, OCP•PT,.C>.1T STORC SALCS-10 ~. CLCCTlllC POW(l'I CONSVMPTION-I~"• e u rt• u of Aus 1" t ss Ats tart h the v n' v er) II y o f Tt•• i seasonal vanat10n, the March index is 120. 7 compared with 117.6 for February and 140.l in March 1937. De­cline in prices rather than in marketings is responsible for the drop in comparison with last year. The reader is requested to compare the February farm cash index numbers for the various districts and for the entire State in this article with the corresponding figures in the March REVIEW. Discrepancies will be noted in the February indexes of nearly all of the districts, be­cause of the fact that adjustments had to be made in the cotton income figures in conformity with the final gin­nings report. For example, to use the most extreme case, in District 6 where relatively little cotton is pro­duced, the final ginnings report showed 4,079 bales for Pecos County and 5,969 for Ree\·es County; whereas last year no cotton was reported for these counties and relatively little had been reported during preceding months of the present season. The relatively large in· come from cotton in conjunction with the normally low income at this season of year caused the sharp rise in the index for District 6. The discrepancy in the Feb­ruary indexes for the other districts and for the State is also the result of adjustment for the cotton income arising from the final cotton ginnings report. F. A. BUECHEL. Financial On April 14, President Roosevelt recommended to Congress a resumption of government "pump priming" expenditures on a large scale. At the same time, he announced his decision to take certain steps looking toward a yet easier money market. From a financial viewpoint, this proposed program is distinctly the most significant development of the month. In brief the President has recommended that Congress appropriate $1,550,000,000 for W.P.A. and other Fed­eral relief agency expenditures for the first seven months of the fiscal year beginning July 1. Of this sum $1,000,­000,000 for the W.P.A. was included formerly in the 1938-39 budget. In addition, he has requested Congress to authorize and appropriate for a new $1,462,000,000 public works program. To pay in part the cost of this new program the Treasury has sold $1,400,000,000 of its inactive gold to the Federal Reserve System. To assure continued low interest rates and a good market for government obligations, the Board of Governors has already complied with a request to lower member bank legal reserve requirements by 12% per cent. The proposed new government spending program in­volves nothing new except in the method of partial financing. It is the same program initiated by the Administration in 1933 and carried on continuously since then under the varying guise of Civil Works Adminis­tration, Public Works Administration, and Works Progress Administration. Since mid-summer last year the rate of expenditure for public works has been mark­edly lower than in preceding years; however, other types of Federal spending have increased more than enough to offset this shrinkage. As reported by The Annalist, total expenditures for public works during the current fiscal year to March 31 were Sl,298,336,000 as com­pared with $2,071,078,000 for the corresponding period of the preceding year. Total expenditures, however, for all purposes less debt retirement for the current fiscal year to March 31 were $5,619,413,000 as compared with $5,441,809,000 during the same period of the previous year. In effect, therefore, the President is merely proposing to step up the present extremely high rate of Treasury spending by at least $2,000,000,000 next year. Assum­ing approval of the policy by Congress to be inevitable, the following observations on the "pump priming" theory of business recovery might be offered. Such a program is always slow in getting under way. Considerable delay is necessarily involved in approving projects, drawing up plans, and letting contracts. To be most effective, public works expenditures should be timed to take up slack as business activity falls off, rather than to attempt to pull out of a year-long depression. Past experience, as witness the business decline since last August, indicates that the effect of "pump priming" is quite likely to be temporary; there is no necessary as­surance that business will follow the government's lead. Some improvement in retail trade can Le expected tu follow public works expenditures but only to the extent that the aggregate income of the beneficiaries of the program is increased above their previous aggregate income. The capital goods industries can expect to de­rive some direct benefit from government contracts, an advantage probably more than offset by subsequent taxa­tion to pay the cost of the program. The long-run effect of "pump priming" is inflationary in character; but this effect will be felt only when business begins to make use of the new bank credit created by government borrow­ing to finance the program. At the start only a tem­porary psychological reaction can be expected. The major criticism of extensive public works expenditures is the effect on the Treasury budget. Already almost hopelessly out of balance, the prospect of an additional $2,000,000,000 or more of expense renders the desidera­tum of a balanced budget mere wishful thinking. To provide funds to meet in part the extra cost of the public works program and also to broaden the already huge credit base, the President instructed the Treasury to release $1,400,000,000 of its inactiYe gold to the Federal Reserve Banks. Of this sum, approximately Sl,200,000,­000 was in the so-called "inactive" gold account, and the balance represented free gold held by the TreasurY. Incidentally, the Treasury yet holds almost S2,000,000,­000 in free gold of which Sl,800,000,000 is in the Ex­change Stabilization Fund. With congressional apprornl all of this sum could be similarly sold. The procedure of this sale is simplicity itself. The Treasury turned over to the ReserYe Banks Sl,400,000,­000 in gold certificates (not currency) and took payment in the form of a credit of equal amount to its checkin" account with these banks. Against this credit, the Trea; ury can draw checks to meet any expenses or to retire debt. The gold certificates add to the reserves of the Federal Reserve Banks upon which secondary credit expansion can be based should the member banks ever desire to borrow from the central banks. Based on present lerral reserve requirements, this additional stock of rrold ce~tificates would support a potential secondary credit expansion of some $13,000,000,000. Existing ex­cess reserve balances of the member banks will not be affected until such time as the Treasury spends a part or all of its new $1,4.00,000,000 credit. When all of this credit has been spent, approximately $1,100,000,000 will have been added to such excess reserves which increase in turn will support a primary credit expansion of some $5,500,000,000. Although the sale of $1,400,000,000 in gold obviates the need for the Treasury to borrow an equal amount through bond issues, it would be a mistake to assume that the operation has not increased the burden of the Federal debt. In effect the Treasury has cashed in a large part of the one asset, gold, on which it could expect a 100 per cent cash recovery. To that extent, its balance sheet position has been impaired. The lowering of member bank required reserve ratios by 121/z per cent represents in all probability an effort to bulwark an already strong market for government bonds. The reduction adds approximately $750,000,000 to existing excess reserve balances, which were estimated on April 13 to total $1,730,000,000. These extra loan· able [unds might well be: expected to lead to a stronger demand for high grade bonds for bank investment at the same time that the sale of gold has obviated the immediate need for further issues of government obliga· tions. It is unlikely, however, that other than a psycho­logical effect will be experienced in the bond market. If the banks were unable to utilize satisfactorily $1,730,­000,000 of loanable funds it is difficult to see how they could employ $2,480,000,000 to better advantage. }AMES c. DOLLEY. Some Economic Aspects of Texas Resources The Material Environment as the Base. Past attain­ments of an economic nature, the present diverse struc­ture of economic life, and the future promise of still greater economir dAvPlopmcnt iu Texa~ are all Jepe11Je11t upon the utilization of the State's natural resources. Problems of employment, income, standards of living, growth and areal distribution of population, urbaniza­tion, the development of industries and the like, all have a common base-the geography of the State and its natural resources. The varied and interrelated combina­tions of geography and resources give in no unmistakable manner an individuality to Texas and to its various natural subdivisions or regions. The material wealth of Texas like the wealth of the nation is based upon the resources and the degree to which their utilization is carried. Economics of Resource Utilization. Given the natural resources, the degree to which their utilization advances is determined by a complex of circumstances in which the state of technology is one outstanding item, and of which the available markets is another. The degree to which resources can be utilized, in the light of the existing attainments of technology, is dependent upon the extent of the market. It is not to be assumed that other items are considered unimportant-but any sound study of world economics or regional economics, land or agri­cultural economics, the economics of oil, or of the chem­ical industry and so on, has to be based primarily upon a comprehensive r:onsideration of the natural resources, the slate of the industrial arts, and the availability of markets, actual or potential. Witness, for instance, the world-wide scramble for oil resources and all the polit­ical implications thereof during the past two decades; or the degree lo which a progressively advancing tech­nology is transforming the world we live in or the extent to which the "have-not" nations are supporting industrial scientific laboratories; or the keen, even deadly, compe­ Furthermore, economic thinkers uf Lhe iutdledual caliber of Leith or Zimmermann have no hesitancy in associating the underlying bases of modern industry or uf the aclivaliug economic (and political) centers of the world of today with the combinations of certain es­sential natural resources and the patterns of economic life built out of the effective utilization of those natural resources. Even the dynamics of markets no less than the activating factors of production are coming to be interpreted in the light of these basic conditions. Regional Economy. Reactions to the diverse conditions of the regional environments of the world and to the unequal distribution of natural resources inherently as­sociated with regional conditions are etched in unmis­takable manner in the life of peoples and of their occupations throughout the entire perspective of the past and of the present. The impact of the Industrial Revo· lution and its machine economy has served to bring into clearer view the inherent nature of regions as regards the bases of economic life; and no less has this impact served to bring regions together into a closely knit, in· terdependent web, the strands of which constitute the threads of economic life. The advances of technology, the fuller availability of resources, the driving power of self-reliance, have brought into being with the turn of the century the potentials for the conquest of scarcity. Strong obstacles have thus far prevented the actual conquest of scarcity, but that progress has been made toward this goal is not to be denied. The challenge of the day is how to break up the log-jams, economic and otherwise, in order that productive forces will func· tion for the welfare of all-to expand and widen pur· chasing power, for the poorest individual is potentially a large factor in consumption, that is, in the extent of the market upon which the economics of production de­pends. This is a national challenge no less than a state or an individual challenge. tition for markets whether in the Orient or South Amer­ We have the resources, considered in the aggregate; ica, Central Europe, or elsewhere. we have the technology; and we have the people who would like to enlarge in no small degree their con­sumption of goods and services. A somewhat similar impasse was broken at the time of the closing era of mercantilism in Western Europe by the opening up of producing regions and markets in the newly discovered overseas countries. Time after time impasses of smaller territorial proportions were broken in the United States by successive waves of settlements that pushed the farm­ing and ranching frontiers westward when there were new lands in large quantity to be taken up almost for the asking; and the sequence in the Westward Movement as regards the internal economy of the Uinted States was the growth of territorial specialization as adaptations to the major natural regions of this country. Nor was this process of enlargement of the nation, the growth of various regional economies, without its zones of tension. And all the while the United States had an almost un­limited and continuously expanding market in the rap­idly evolving industrial regions of Europe for all the goods this country could produce. From the middle of last century until the World War the economic history of the Western World was centered in the evolution of a new sort of regional economy that through the technology and the machines of the Indus­ trial Revolution spread far and wide. This phase of a more inclusive impulse of historical evolution began to change early in the present century. Then came the War like a gigantic earthquake to disturb the very foundations of the Western World. And like an earth­ quake, the War had its aftermaths hardly less destructive than the War itself. But, on the other hand, in the swift tempo characteristic of today, there is now taking place before our eyes an economic and social revolution the like of which the world has never before witnessed, and, as in the earlier phase of the nineteenth century develop­ ment, the first and varied attempts at adjustment to these sharply changed conditions often seem to yield results dominantly pessimistic in nature. Significant in the trends of the past half century that are dominating the structure of economic life are the enlargement and geographic extension of industrializa­ tion. The central fact of industrialization during the whole of the nineteenth century was the steam engine and the consequent reactions of economic life thereto which expressed themselves in the geographic concentra­ tion of industrial operations and the formation of vast aggregations of populations in the comparatively few industrial centers. Significant of the present century are the enlargement and extension of electric power, which more than any­ thing else serves to bring about a geographic dispersion of industrial centralization-the formation of a compara­ tively large number of industrial centers. This trend so characteristic of the twentieth century has been greatly influenced by the large utilization of other energy sources -oil, natural gas, water power--of sources of power other than coal. Since the turn of the century, even since the close of the World War, the industrial map of the country, and of the world as well, has been remade to a very consid­ erable extent-and that in spite of the inertia character­ istic of older industrial centers by virtue of their earlier start. During three-quarters of the nineteenth century th_e economic development of the United States was dollli· nated by the Westward Movement; but the agricultural frontier by 1900 was approaching the vanishing point. During the twentieth century another type of economic expasion has been dominant-an advancing of the frontier of industrialization, an advance associated with the enlargement of the geographic availability of electric power, the extension of automatic machinery, and the expansion particularly of the petroleum and natural gas industries. This dispersal of centers of industry marked by the creation of new centers, not only serves to decen­tralize at least relatively, if not absolutely, the older concentrations, but it also brings to communities peri­pheral to the industrial centers a degree of economic mobility impossible under the former highly concen­trated patterns which characterized all manufacturing industry until the turn of the century. Obviously, it is the spread, and the continued spread, of this new pattern of industrialization that has become the domi­nant economic force of the present. It is the remaking of the industrial map upon a progressively larger base, in the stages of geographic extension of the new indus­trial frontier, that is so important to Texas and the Southwest. Older centers and older industries of the country are disturbed by these newer developments: the rise of new industrial centers, the growth, often re­markably rapid, of the new industries, and the enlarged utilization of "new" natural resources. It should be pointed out that the substantial economic growth of the United States has always come from the coordinated and interrelated growth of the various sections of the coun­try-and not through destructive competition between these sections. The economic growth of the major natural regions of the United States is dependent upon the interde­pendence of these regions. Whatever manufacturing in­dustry in the United States may be taken for considera­tion the greatest factor in its fortunes or misfortunes is the extent of the American market; except for a few items, the major market for industries is the market made possible by the economic interdependence of all sections of the nation. Markets represent buying power; and buying power in the last analysis is based upon production. Obviously the enlargement of the American market is dependent upon enlarged buying power; but, it cannot be too much emphasized, the enlargement of American buying power is dependent upon an enlarged buying power of all sections. Readjustments may be painful-but change is the law of life. Readjustments there will be, even if we tried to stop them, by whatever means. The spread of buying power in this country can come in a substantial manner only through the expansion and geographic dispersal of industry-the progressive spread of the industrial fron­tier exemplified by the creation of new processes, the ever wider use of raw materials, the developments of new industries, and the growth of new industrial centers. In this trend of expansion and enlargement Texas occupies a most advantageous position. Its vast supplies of diversified agricultural raw materials can still further be enlarged as economic circumstances warrant; its mag­nificent reserves of petroleum and natural gas are more than the spear-points-they are the bases of its industrial advance; its vast non-metallic resources are available to supply thousands of market outlets as the economic integration of the nation proceeds; its favorable location on and with reference to the Gulf of Mexico gives, or will give, to Texas industries commercial access to the markets of the Eastern Seaboard and to overseas mar­kets as well. For although the oceans are the greatest of barriers they are also the greatest of highways-a fact of momentous importance to the future of Texas. The economy of this country is dynamic; it will con­tinue to Le. The regional economy of the nation makes necP-ssary a high degree of economic interdependence within the country. The economic growth of any one region, if based upon substaptial foundations, makes for the growth of industries, if economically justified, else­where in the country. These industries should awake to this fact, that their future is also the future of enlarged buying power and that this enlarged buying power must permeate every community in the nation. In sum, since the economic life of the nation is necessarily interde­pendent, the facts and factors of progressive integration of regions and occupations which comprise our eco­nomic life must be given careful consideration. A new outlook on the economics of agriculture as well as on the economics of manufacturing industry is on its way, and, as usual, those theorists with their eyes only on the distant past are having a difficult time to keep up with the procession. Of course, these newer phases of developments mentioned above are, in one way or an­other, having their impacts upon other countries-and although those reactions are highly significant, they are beyond the space available for this paper. In Conclusion Texas and the Southwest are growing up. The outlook in anything but a troubled world would be very bright indeed. The obstacles to be overcome-and overcome they will be, even though they delay the procession­serve to curb over-confidence, and to test and to sharpen the agencies of progress. And, basically, the great agencies for the maintenance of progress have been the great experimenters in the laboratories of science; these have supplied the bases of those qualities of leadership for tackling the problems, the solution of which has brought about the potential conquest of scarcity-for they have been the spear-heads in creating new proc· esses, in establishing new industries, in making possible the fuller utilization of natural resources, and in raising the levels of intellectual attainment. Contrasted with the simple patterns of economic life which obtained at the close of last century, the present situation is infinitely complex; a whole new series of problems and questions call for immediate attention. It is painfully obvious that these problems are not being solved on the old patterns of another century; nor is there any indication that the old patterns will be ade· quate. The solution must be attacked on the lines of research and investigation that will yield results-results that will make for a richer life of individuals and com­munities the country over. ELMER H. JoHNSON. Current Manufacturing Developments in Texas Despite the increasingly widespread use of mechan­ical refrigeration, new ice plants continue to be added to the list of those already in operation, and there are at present a total of 580 plants manufacturing ice in the State. New ice factories built since the beginning of the year include plants of the Dixie Ice Company and the Independent Ice Company recently established m Corpus Christi. The revised edition of "Dairy Manufacturing in Texas" soon to be released by the Bureau of Business Research will contain a complete list of the dairy manu­facturing industries in Texas, including plants producing butter, cheese, and ice cream. Among the new plants established this year is the plant of the Marygold Ice Cream Company in Houston. Manufacturers and distributors of heavy machinery, particularly of oil field equipment, have continued to increase in the oil producing areas of the State. Several of these establishments recently opened are located in or near Wichita Falls where the K.M.A. and other fields arc 11011· being developed. At Amarillo the Superior Manufacturing Company is constructing a plant for the manufacture of !wavy machinery used by the petroleum indu~try which will lie able lo meet the demands for a large part of the machinery used in that territory. In Houston Llw Butler Manufacturing Company has begun the manufacture of steel tanks, drums, etc. Also tlu~ Rig-A-Lite Company and Shamrock Welding Service Corporation ha\'c recently been put into operation serv­ing the oil industry in the Houston area. The Southern Alkali Corporation of Corpus Christi, manufacturer of heavy chemicals, has expanded its ac· tivities to include two new plants, a chlorine plant and a salt plant both of which have been recently completed. Charters granted to manufacturers in Texas during the month of March, 1938, include: Texas Labor Journal Publishing Company, Austin, printing and publishing; Brownsville Herald Publishing Company, printing and publishing; 7-Up Panhandle Company, Amarillo, beverages; Barq's Beverages of Corpus Christi; Dallas Engineering Company and Su· perior Decalcomania Company of Dallas; Technical Chemical Company, Dallas, manufacturing chemicals; Great National Air Conditioning Company, Dallas; Val V~rde Wool and Mohair Company, Del Rio, mill; Fred· encksburg Coca-Cola Bottling Company; Coastal Bag and Bagging Corporation, Marygold Ice Cream Com· pany, Pennington Tool Company, and Uptown Optical Company, all of Houston; Independent Ice and Service Company, Iowa Park; Independent Ice Company, Double Cola Bottling Company, and Atlas Glass Company of Lubbock; the Mission Canning Corporation, Mission; Valley Evening Monitor, McAllen, printing and publish· ing; F. E. Prince Company, Pittsburg; the Patent En· velope Company, San Antonio, printing and publishing; the Frank Park Gin Company, Whitesboro; and Wichita Falls Publishing Company of Wichita Falls. CLARA H. LEWIS. Cotton Gross income from cotton production is measured by the volume times price per pound. Cotton is a world commodity in the sense that world supplies and world demand determine price levels for all those countries on an export basis. The United States is on an export basis for all but a small per cent of its best staples. The income from cotton production in this country then depends primarily on its percentage of total world pro­duction and the quality of the crop. The income from cotton production in the United States has declined drastically since 1929 because of an actual loss in production and a still greater loss in per­centage of world production, a drastic decline in prices, and a decline in the quality of production, particularly in relation to competing foreign crops. During the five years ending July, 1929, the United States produced an average of 15,028,000 bales of 4 78 pounds net, and this averaged 58.8 per cent of world production. During the five years ending July, 1938, the United States produced an average of about 12,780,­000 bales, which was only 44.3 per cent of world pro· duction. The average dollar price of New Orleans spot cotton during the five years ending July, 1938, will have averaged about 34 per cent less than the price for the five years ending July, 1939, and the gold price shows an average price decline of over 60 per cent from the former to the latter period. Is it any wonder the cotton production industry in the United States is sick? A. B. Cox. COTTON BALANCE SHEET Total supplies of cotton in the United States, April 1, were 14,139,000 bales, as compared with 8,009,000 bales last year, 8, 758,000 two years ago, and a previous all· time high of 12,639,000 bales on April I, 1933. The total increase in the supply of American cotton in the United States and of American cotton in European ports and afloat to Europe from April I, 1937, to this April was 6,628,000 bales. No similar previous period has had half that much increase. This enormous increase in stocks from last year is due first of all to the greatest United States crop on record and to a decrease in world consumption of American cotton through February, com· pared with the same period of last year, of 757,000 bales according to Garside of the New York Cotton Exchange. Calculated changes in the index price of cotton based on these changes in supply indicate a decline in price of about seven cents from April last year. When changes in the index number and spinners margins are taken into consideration the calculated price for mid­dling % -inch spot cotton in New Orleans is about 8.-tO cents. It seems evident that Government loans are a substantial prop under the market. SPINNERS MARGIN Spinners ratio margins on 32's twist yarn m Man­chester to middling %-inch American cotton in Liver­pool averaged 213 during March compared with 214 for February and 182 for March last year. The pence margin in Manchester averaged 5.66d dur­ing March compared with 5,80d during February and 6.45d for March, 1937. These margins indicate a con· tinued slowing down of cotton consumption in England. COTTON BALANCE SHEET IN THE UNITED STATES AS OF APRIL 1 (In Thousands of Running Bales Except as Noted) Carryover Imports Final Consumption Exporta Balance 1928-1929_________________________________________________ 1929-1930___________________________________________________ 1930-1931________________________________________ 1931-1932____________________________________ 1932-1933. __________________________________________ 1933-1934_____________________________________________________ 1934-1935__________________________________________, 1935-1936_____________________________________________ 1936-1937____________________________________________ 1937-1938__________________________________________ Aug. l 2,536 2,313 4,530 6,369 9,682 8,176 7,746 7,138 5,397 4,498 to Aprill~ 283 244 52 66 88 100 74 90 139 80 Ginnings 14,297 14,548 13,756 16,629 12,710 12,664 9,472 10,420 12,130 18,242 Total 17,116 17,105 18,338 23,064 22,480 20,940 17,292 17,648 17,666 22,820 to April 1 4,674 4,316 3,384 3,566 3,749 3,945 3,034 4,081 5,298 4,024 to April 1 6,746 5,771 5,518 6,852 6,085 6,098 3,573 4,814 4,389 4,657 Total 11,420 10,087 8,902 10,418 9,834 10,043 6,607 8,895 9,687 8,681 Mar. l 5,696 7,018 9,436 12,646 12,646 10,897 10,685 8,753 7,979 14,139 In 500-pound bales. Non:: The figures have been revi1ed in accordance with the revisions made by the United States Bureau of the Censu1. CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRIC POWER IN TEXAS Power Consumed (In Thousands of K.W.H.) Percentage Change Mar. 1938 Mar. 1938 Quarter 1938 Mar. Mar. Feb. First Quarter from from from 1938 1937 1938 1938 1937 Mar. 1937 Feb. 1938 Quarter 1937 CommerciaL----------------------------------------------­40,075 36,028 40,333 124,972 111,062 + 11.2 -0.6 + 12.5 Industrial -------------------------------------------------­ 97,903 90,791 89,621 283,455 260,316 + 7.8 + 9.2 + 8.9 ResidentiaL..-------------------·--------------------------­ 30,344 26,758 30,717 96,761 85,205 + 13.4 -1.2 + 13.6 All Other _________________________________ _ 23,515 22,633 26,341 74,500 70,247 + 3.9 -10.7 + 6.1 TOTAL______________________ 191,837 176,210 187,012 579,682 526,830 + 8.9 + 2.6 +10.0 Non: Prepared from report• from 17 electric power compaoie1 to tho Bureau of Buaioeas Research. March 1938 Year-to-date 1938 Number Percentage Chana:e Number Percentqe of of Cbanae in in Dollar Salea Firm.a from from Firms Dollar Saloo Re-Mar. Feb. Re- from Year-to. Jtartine Dollar Salea 1937 1938 -,ortine Dollar Sales date 1937 - TOTAL TEXAS--------------------------------------------1,292 16,644,279 7.9 + 20.1 1,057 39,555,876 2.7 TEXAS STORES GROUPED BY PRODUCING AREAS: DISTRICT 1-N-..-----------··-····-····-------------77 590,54S -11.5 + 34.0 60 1,325,567 -3.6 Amarillo ..... ----------------------······-----------· 16 216,153 -13.0 + 37.7 l3 461,915 -4.9 Pampa... -..············-----------------------------14 171,268 -16.2 + 41.9 10 393,107 -10.8 Plainvif!!W..---·····-·-··---·······-····-··-···-·····--·-13 95,788 3.4 + 23.8 10 234,860 + 8.2 All Others_·-··-······-··------------·········----····---------35 107,339 6.8 + 25.2 27 235,685 + 2.1 - DISTRICT 1-S..... --------------·-·-··-----------------···· 29 472,504 0.4 + 18.3 20 1,112,043 + 7.7 Big Spring_______________________________________ ­ 9 51,033 4.1 + 12.8 7 78,311 + 10.1 Lubbock__________________________________________ 13 362,251 + 2.3 + 18.6 9 937,374 + 14.7 All Others ... ·-··---····-----------------------·-·· 7 59,220 -11.8 + 2.1.6 4 96,358 -33.1 DISTRICT 2..---···-···--·--····---·······-··-------··· 107 764,272, -4.4 + 28.1 92 1,808,117 + 3.3 Abilene ................ ---------------------·-·····-··--· 15 207,780 + 0.9 + 40.3 14 512,283 -3.4 Snyder .. ·-·········-····-·--····----------------·-·-···· 5 25,022 -15.6 + 8.3 4 59,850 -1.8 - Vernon_···-····-···-----·····-····-···-····-··-·-···--7 30,018 9.8 + 24.9 7 83,966 -5.7 Wichita Falls_____________________________________ - 14 199,683 4.7 + 21.7 8 4-00,724 + 15.7 - All Uthers ... ·-····-····-···-·········-··········-···········-·· 66 301,769 6.0 + 27.0 59 751,294 + 3.9 DISTRICT 3 ...... ----···-········-······-···-···-····-·······-37 295,054 -19.2 +20.6 25 392,099 -9.4 Brownwood._________________________________________________ 7 51,591 -28.9 + 18.7 5 115,101 -26.3 Eastland______________________________________________ 7 15,709 + 15.4 + 19.8 4 28,201 0.0 Stephenville____________________________________________ - Commerce .. 6 31,627 5.0 + 27.9 3 65,229 1.9 All Others ··-················-··········-····· --·-······-····-·· 17 196,127 -20.2 + 20.0 13 183,568 + 0.8 DISTRICT 4 ... ---············----······-············-··-······-·· 322 4,%8,779 6.6 + 20.8 263 12,485,143 2.7 Cleburne.·-···········-···-·-······-··-····-···-·····--11 46,183 + 1.1 + 22.3 10 109,693 + 0.9 ---------------------------------------------~ 7 19,372 0.8 + 15.1 4 35,538 + 1.5 Corsicana. ____ ·-··········-·········-----······-··--·---------11 88,686 9.5 + 24..l 10 186,295 2.3 Dallas ....... ·········-····-····-----···-···-·········-···-54 2,350,092 3.4 + 15.6 47 6,233,708 0.3 Denison .......... -------······----····--··-······-··-···-·····-8 36,799 0.7 + 27.6 8 94,033 -10.3 Ennis..·--···----··-······--·-------·-······----------···· 6 24,625 -18.4 + 8.8 6 66,755 + 1.7 Fort Worth.___________________________________ 66 1,414,028 -5.9 + 12.6 45 3,499,743 1.4 Gainesville ... -----···-···-····-···-··--····--·--···--· 5 24,024 -10.8 + 31.7 3 47,437 1.3 Sherman. ...... ·------------·-·····-----------------· 8 51,415 -4.1 +30.6 7 122,667 + 0.6 Taylor___________________________ _________________ 5 42,172 -25.5 + 32.1 5 110,647 6.5 Temple ...... ·------·--·-·-···--·-····-···--------·· 10 56,548 -12.2 + 14.5 10 160,233 5.8 Waco_______________________________________ 33 313,175 -14.5 + 24.2 27 710,771 9.7All Others.·----·-···········-·--···--···-----------· 98 501,660 -14.4 +26.8 81 1,107,623 -13.6 DISTRICT 5_______________________________________ 126 1,192,905 -10.2 + 23.2. 105 2,712,963 -3.6 Bryan. ... ··········-·····-··--··-··--·-··-···-···-----11 88,141 + 0.5 + 16.6 Longvif!!W___________________________________________________ 11 255,067 + 14.1 7 51,845 -8.6 + 9.1 6 144,925 + 10.7 MarshalL.------·-···--··---------------·-· 12 54,624 -20.7 + 13.0 10 147,406 7.7 Tyler ···-···-····--·--··-·····-··-·-···--·······------23 398,696 -8.4 +31.9 lS 863,425 4.0All Others·-------------------···-···-····-··-······-·· 73 599,599 + 1.9 + 2'1.2 60 l,302,140 7.1DISTRICT 6 .. ·-····--··········-···-··········-····-···-·········· 44 1,021,549 -11.0 + 19.6 43 2,708,485· 6.9El Paso..·-·----------------------------·-·-···---·· ­ 30 903,811 9.5 + 20.3 29 2,390,745 5.0 P ecos.·--·--------·····-··-------···-----·····-····-···-···· 3 53,871 -10.1 + 18.9 3 4.1 149,992 All Others .. ·-------------·······------------· 11 63,867 + 2.9.1 + 11.1 11 -29.6 DISTRICT 7______________________________________________ 167,748 63 390,474 9.4 + 25.2. 53 930,801 -9.1 Brady--------·-········-···-·········-····-·······--·-··········-· 7 41,962 -4.5 + 54.9 6 96,592 -14.6 Del Rio ... --·····-······-······-······-······-······-······--······ 3 36,220 -6.3 ­ San Angelo. _____________________________________ 0.2. 3 99,695 + 3.2 16 179,567 + 0.3 + 32.2 14 441,723 -2.9All Others--------····-----·-------····-···-·-············· 37 132,72.5 -21.8 + 17.9 30 292,791 -18.5DISTRICT 8.·-···-·········-···-·······--------········· 227 2,921,832 4.21 + 24.4 187 6,688,021 2.4 Austin._________________________________________________ 26 Corpus ChristL.________________________________ 538,047 3.9 + 22.3 25 l,165,407 + 0.6 Cuero________________________________________ 13 79,540 1.5 -0.1 10 205,804 + 5.3 Lockhart________________________________ 8 29,122 + 4.7 + 16.4 8 76,243 + 8.4 10 70,693 7.4 + 44.9 San Antonio___________________________________ 6 132,933 + 0.5 79 1,640,373 5.6 + 28.4 64 3-,825,223 4.6 San Marcos .. ·-···-····-···-------····------·-···----5 31,877 + 0.6 Yoakum.. __________________________________________________ + 62.5 5 76,567 + 3.5 5 38,363 + 5.2 + 49.9 4 69,811 + 7.8 All Others_·-·-···--·-----···-····-····--·--········ 81 493,817 DISTRICT 9______________________, 1.3 + 14.3 65 1,136,033 1.2 185 3,489,932 -10.7 + 12.5 147 8,151,619 3.0 Bay CitY------·-··········-··-·········----------·-······· 5 44,080 -25.4 + 15.6 3 82,898 2.0 Beaumont___________________________________ 23 280,212 -13-.1 + 19.8 2'1 754,906 2.3 Galveston. ________________________________ 17 335,980 + 8.3 + 22.1 13 ­ Houston.._______________________ 494,668 5.4 68 2,160,306 -15.0 + 7.8 59 ­ Port Arthur____________________ 5,731,268 4.5 221 328,578 -8.4 + 23.2 ­ Victoria________________________ 16 411,923 4.9 9 57,870 +16.5 + Wharton.____________________________________ 6.3 6 103,431 + 16.l 3 18,815 + 2.9 All Others__________________________ + 33.4 3 47,750 + 17.5 38 264,091 + DISTRICT 10_______________________ 6.6 + 22.7 26 524,775 + 14.8 75 536,430 ­ Brownsville___________________ 6.4 + 11.4 63 1,241,018 + 0.5 Harlingen._______ 14 86,097 + 4.1 + 19.8 14 240,400 + 3.9 14 120,836 -9.2 + 24.4 13 304,858 -4.6 Laredo--------------~~= 8 116,120 -17.7 -3.6 O.l Weslaco______ 5 278,729 + All Others_____________~ 5 55,760 + 6.4 + 2.5.8 3 12.,091 +38.2 34 157,617 -3.7 + 6.8 24 404,940 + 2.2 See map on pace 13 of the March 28, 1938, i11ue ahowing crop reporting di1trict1. Non: : Prepared from report1 from independent retail •tore1 to the Bureau of Busineu Reeearch, coOpentin1 witli the United Statee Department of Commerct. MARCH CREDIT RATIOS IN TEXAS RETAIL STORES (Expressed in Per Cent) Ratio of Ratio of Ratio of Number of Credit Salet Collectioa1 to Credit Salariea Store. to Net Salee Outstandine• to Credit Sale9 'Reporting 1938 1937 1938 1937 1938 1937 75 66.4 63.6 38.7 40.8 1.5 1.4 Sto~Greuped by Cities: Abilent'----------------------------------------------------------------­ All Store&-------------------------------------------------·--··-·-··---------­ 4 61.0 62.1 33.4 36.3 1.8 1.6 Amarillo______________________________________________________________________________ 3 60.5 58.0 46.4 4.5.7 2.1 1.9 Austin____________________________________________________________ ---­7 60.5 59.2 39.8 39.5 1.3 1.2 Beaumont..___________________________________________________________________________ 3 64.4 61.8 40.2 44.8 1.5 1.4 Dallas----------------------------------------------------------------· 11 72.3 70.2 39.1 43.1 1.6 1.5 Fort Worth____________________________________________________ _ 8 64.5 61.1 35.5 33.4 1.3 1.3 Houston__________________________________________________ 9 64.8 63.0 41.2 43.7 1.8 1.3 San Antonio.... -------------------------------------------------------------------­ 5 64.4 57.0 43.4 43.9 0.8 0.9 Waco·--------------------------------------------------------------­4 65.7 66.1 29.6 32.2 1.4 1.2 All Others --------------------------------------------··-----------------21 59.6 56.6 37.3 39.4 1.5 1.3 Stores Grouped According to Type of Store: Department Stores (Annual Volume Over $500,000) __________________________ _ 21 65.6 63.5 40.4 40.9 1.5 1.4 Department Stores (Annual Volume UndeT $500,000) .... ___________________ . __ 13 64.l 60.7 35.3 37.8 1.8 1.7 Dry Goods-Apparel Stores___________________________________________ __ _ ···-··· .. 5 58.3 60.4 35.2 30.7 2.0 2.1 Women's Specialty ShoJl8----------------------------------------------·-------··· 14 70.9 63.1 35.6 42.5 0.9 0.9 Men's Clothing Stores_____________________________________________________________ 22 66.3 66.0 36.6 39.8 2.3 1.8 Stores Grouped According to Volume of Net Sales During 1937: Over $2,500,000 _____ ------------------------------------------------------------11 66.9 61.6 41.9 43.6 0.9 0.9 $2,500,000 down to $1,000,000 ... _____________________________________________________ 10 64.5 61.8 38.4 40.9 1.3 1.2 $1,000,000 down to $500,000__________________________________________ ·-· ----­ 10 61.9 60.9 41.4 44.8 1.5 1.2 $500,000 down to $100,000____________ _______________________________________ _ 32 59.9 58.8 34.0 39.7 1.9 1.5 Less than $100,000_____________________________________________________________ 12 62.5 57.9 36.4 42.1 3.8 2.9 NOTE: Tl1e rntioe shown for each year, in the order in which they appear from left to right, are obtained by the following computations: (1) Credit sales divid('d by net sales. (2) Collections durinc the month divided by the total accounts unpaid on the first of the month. (3) Salaries of the credit depart· mcnt divided by credit sales. The data aro reported to the Bureau of Bu1ine11 Research by Texaa retail stores. POSTAL RECEIPTS Mar. Mar. Feb. First Quarter 1938 1937 1938 1938 1937 Abilene--------------------------------------------------­$ 18,287 $ 16,857 $ 15,904 $ 52,911 $ 48,233 Amarillo... --------------------------------------------·----------­30,826 29,9-53 31,477 90,620 83,128 Austin·------·----·--------------------·--------------------· 58,867 66,801 53,111 179,556 176,607 BeaumonL.--------------------------------------·---------· 26,686 24,874 23,788 76,062 68,241 Big Spring·-------------------------------·-----6,017 5,892 5,393 17,687 15,309 Brownsville. _____________________________________________________ 6,4.53 8,211 6,233 18,572 19,776 Brownwood___________________________________________ 5,621 5,151 5,894 17,527 16,225 Cleburne.---------------------------------------·----------------· 3,329 3,070 2,602 9,100 9,494 Corpus Christi.. ___________________ ------------------24,501 21,241 22,633 70,523 59,202 Corsicana ... ---------------------------·--·---------------­5,024 5,778 4,,967 15,250 15,668 Dallas .. ·--------------------------------------····----­370,366 385,263 312,817 1,014,257 1,049,944 Del Rio·------------------------------------··-----------·----------­3,107 4,283 4,783 13,611 14,266 DenisoIL .. ---------------------------------·---------­4,933 4,777 4,570 14°,442 13,435 El Paso·--------------------------------------------·------­43,753 47,224 35,694 116,586 131,367 Fort Worth..·--------------------·---------·-------·---------·--------139,834 157,228 136,576 405,260 420,271 Galveston_________________________________________. ____ _ 28,636 28,542 26,990 80,522 77,858 Graham..·-----------------------·-··--------··-·-·---2,264 2,124 2,136 6,568 6,226 Harlingen____________________________._.._____________ 5,845 5,883 5,510 17,223 15,607 Houston-----------------------------------------241,053 235,555 212,677 671,015 646,481 1acksonville_________________________________________ 2,975 3,182 2,941 9,329 8,982Longview____________________________________________ 9,804 9,729 8,963 30,079 28,036Luhbock___________________________ ·-----········--17,140 13,857 15,529 49,387 39,477McAllen.._______________________________________ 4,573 4,857 4,131 14,550 12,387 Marshall___________________________________ . 5,721 5,248 5,182 16,780 15,742 4,336 4,873 4,388 17,198 17,547PalestinePampa________________________________________ _·----------------------------·--------_ 6,169 5,912 5,912 19,074 18,644 Paris·---------------------------------·--------·-------7:;:79 6,312 5,333 18,187 17,576 Plainview_________________________________ 4,265 4,056 3,631 12,199 11,043 Port Arthur_____________________________ 13,020 11,519 11,436 37,824 33,4.58 San Angelo_______ -----------11,824 10,938 9,842 33,243 31,599 San Antonio___________________________. 125,210 125,953 112,802 356,976 339,209 San Benito·---------------------------------· 2,605 3,251 2,492 u 8,4.59:1: Sherman._____________________ 7,250 7,303 6,4.57 20,809 20,770 Snyder___________________________ 1,449 1,377 1,215 4,224 4,037 Sweetwater_____________ ____ 5,509 4,807 4,607 14,692 14,521 Waco____________________________ 32,489 34,468 29,314 97,228 91,692 Wichita Falls_____________________ 27,051 21,565 20,797 72,913 61,932 TOTAL._______________________ $ 1,314,071 $ 1,337,914 $ 1,168,727 $ 3,711,984 s 3,653,990 Not available. lNot included in total. Non: Compiled from report• from Teu1 chambers of commerce to the Bureau of Bu1ineH Re1earch. BY INDUSTRIKS :AND SELE<::TED CITIES, MA CH, 1938 EMPLOYMENT AND PAY ROLLS IN TEXAS, CLASSIFIED Pay Rolls for One Week Ending Nearest Fifteenth of Month Number Number of J'ercentae:e Amount of Percentae:e Average Weekly Wa1e of Eatab -Employee• Change from Pay Roll Change from per Employee• lishments Re-March Feb. March March Feb. March March Feb. March Industry porting 1938 1938 1937 1938 1938 1937 1938 1938 1937 All M anu/acturing Industries ____________________________ 711 48,828 + 0.1 0.9 $1,166,231 + 1.3 + 5.9 $23.88 $23.60 $23.60 Food Products 31 1,037 + 0.4 1.5 21,368 1.0 + 5.8 20.61 20.89 19.67 Bakery Goods.. ____________ --------------------------------------­ Beverages, Carbonated ________________________________________ 48 559 + 6.3' + 35.9 11,922 + 6.8 +26.6 21.33 21.22 21.58 6 230 § + 4,3. 3,166 + 3.4 -1.4 13.77 13.31 13.08 Confectionery _.------------------------------------------­ 5.7 11,873 0.3 +21.9 22.70 22.39 20.28 Flour Milling_. __ ---------------------------------------------9 523 1.7 + 71 614 + 4.4 -8.4 11,152 + 4.3 -1.0 18.16 18.19 16.84 Ice, Manufactured -· -------------------------­ 6 222 -14.0 -25.1 4,596 -10.5 -2.1.4 20.70 19.90 19.37 Ice Cream ------··-----·----------------------------------­ 12 3,096 + 2.0 -19.8 77,392 + 4.9 -21.2 25.00 24.32 26.16 Meat Packing _______ -------------------------------------­ Textiles 10 2,8921 + 3.5 +21.4 37,159 + 0.8 -6.2 12-.85 13.20 13.99 Cotton Textile Mills .... ----------------------------·---­12 1,270 3.9 -36.1 14,284 +11.8 -44.0' 11.25 9.67 11.44 Men's Work Clothing ---------------------------------· Forest Products 9 231 + 3.1 9.'i 4,336 + 1.2 -19.9 18.77 19.13 19.25 Furniture -------------------------------------------------­20 613 + 7.5 7.3 13,180 + 1.8 -0.4 21.50 22.71 19.36 Lumber: Planing Mills .--------------------------------­ 20 3,525 + 2.0 7.9 49,739 II -11.2 14.11 14.40 16.14 Lumber: Saw Mills ... ----------------------------------­12 507 + 0.8 II 10,047 5.2 + 3.0 19.82 21.08 18.88 Paper Products ________ ---------------------------------­ Printing and Publishing 42: 775 1.4 5.5 22,507 + 0.2. + 5.0 29.04 29.41 26.04 Commercial Printing ------------------------------------+ + 18 1,111 0.5 + 1.1 37,814 + 1.1 + 3.3 34.04 33.50 35.08 Newspaper Publishing_ ... ------------------------------------· Chemical and Allied Products 31 1,013 -23.0 +24.4 14,218 -21.1 +4.3.8 14.04 13.69 13.87 Cottonseed Oil Products------------------------------· Petroleum Refining_ ______ ____________________________________ 32 14,508 + 1.3 + 0.3 468,772: + 2.2 +16.6 32.31 32.03 29.14 Stone and Clay Products 16 758 +18.6 -11.7 9,811 +21.7 + 2.5 12.94 12.62 11.95 Brick and Tile.. ... ------------------------------------------­8 1,356 + 11.1 8.3 30,914 + 15.6 + 27.1 22.80 2:1.91 17.51 CemenL.. ---------------------------------·--------------­ Iron and Steel Products Foundries, Machine Shops_____________________________ 35 2,802 + 1.6 + 2.9 73,333 + 1.6 + 4.8 26.17 26.16 26.10 Steam Railroad Repair Shops______________________ __ 17 2,122 5.5 -21.9 61,554 4.5 -17.9 29.01 28.71 27.30 Structural and Ornamental Iron_________________________ 15 1,123 + 1.7 -0.7 24,897 + 7.9 + 2.0 22:.17 20.90 21.07 Unclassified Miscellaneou.s Manufacturing_ _____________________ 231 7,941 3.4 +12.2 152,197 2.2 +12.4 19.17 18.93 21.26 N onmanu/acturing Industries Crude Petroleum Productiont--------------------· 47 5,272 2.7 + 9.5 180,0'43 1.5 +10.3 34.15 33.73 35.49 Quarrying and Nonmetallic Mining_________________ 34 1,651 + 1.0 + 2.1 38,431 0.4 -2.2 23.28 23.61 25.25 Public Utilities_______________________________________________ 814 18,159 0.5 2.0 483,256 + 0.5 +12.6 26.61 26.35 27.62 Retail Trade._____________________________________________ 670 15,789 + 1.5 6.3 302,948 + 1.3 -4.2 19.19 19.23 18.37 Wholesale Trade________________________________________ 273 5,592 1.1 + 5.7 136,597 0.7 + 6.6 24.43 24.31 25.81 Cotton Compresses __________________ _________________________ 17 1,056 -13.4 + 0.5 15,463, -20.9 -3.8 14.64 16.04 18.00 Dyeing and Cleaning______________________________________ 13 283 + 4.0 + 9.2 5,616 + 4.5 +13.6 19.84 19.76 16.81 Hotels+--------------------------------------------------------26 2,757 + 2.3 + 6.4 34,986 + 0.5 + 15.8 12.69 12.93 12.62 Laundries______________________________________________________ 25 1,53-2 + 1.6 + 2.1 19,107 + 0.3 + 1.7 12.47 12.63 12.56 Miscellaneous Nonmanufacturing _______________________ 56 954 + 19.5 3.6 22,074 +10.2 2.5 23.14 25.10 23.82 STATE____________________________________________________ 2,666 101,873 + 0.1 0.3 2,404,752 + 0.7 + 6.6 23.61 23.47 23.12 Cities Abilene__________ ________________________________ 26 410 + 5.1 + 1.4 7,858 + 4°.2 + 4.7 Amarillo___________________________________________________ 30 978 0•.8 + 5.6 26,849 II + 13.2 Austin._____________________________________________ 26 635 0.8 + 11.2 11,494 1.5 + 6.1 BeaumonL______________________________________ 39 3,139 + 2.7 3,.8 86,903 + 2.9 + 9.3 Dallas_______________________________________________ 259 17,124 + 0.4 -2.6 413-,296 + 0.8 + 2.9 El Paso_______________________________________________ 93 2,991 0.9 + 2.3 59,803 0.2 + 5.9 Fort Worth._______________________________________ 110 7,710 + 2.1 -6.8 175,139 + 3.6 6.9 Galveston._________________________________ ___ _________ 27 800 + Q.6 + 11.3 19,144 3.2: + 9.9 Houston__________________________________, 244 15,288 0.5 + 5.9 377,13·7 + 0.5 + 9.9 Port Arthur________________________________ 16 7,321 + 0.4 -11.1 235,199 + 0.7 + 3.0 San Antonio________________________________ 172 6,009 + 2.5 + 0.2 124,747 + 3.4 + 7.4 Sherman.____________________________________ 21 875 + 2.3 -3.8 15,137 + 2.1 + 1.8 Waco ___________________________________ 62 1,787 + 5.5 + 0.2 32,767 + 3·.6 + 3.7 Wichita Falls____________________________________ 34 966 § +26.7 22:,082 1.2 +48.7 •Not strictly comparable from month to mC'lnth becauee of changes in the size and composition of the reportin& sample. tCrude petroleum and natural gas production, including natural gasoline. %Cash payments only; the additional value of board, room and tips cannot be computed. §No change. !!Decrease of less than one-tenth of one per cent. 'Jlncrease of les9 than one-tenth of one per cent. Prepared from reports from Texas industrial establishments to ,the Bureau of Busineu Research, coiiperating with the United State1 Bureau of Labor Statbdcl. MARCH RETAIL SALES OF INDEPENDENT STORES IN TEXAS March, 1938 Year 1938 Number Percentage Change Number Percentage of fa. Dollar Sales oi Change in Firms from from Firms Dollar Sales Re­Mar. Feb. Re-from porting Dollar Sales 1937 1938 porting Dollar Sales Year 1937 TEXAS ---------------------------------------------------------------1,292 $16,644,279 7.9 +20.1 1,057 39,555,876 2.7 STORES GROUPED BY LINE OF GOODS CARRIED: APPAREL__________________________________________ 139 2,100,473 6.4 + 16.9 129 5,823,188 + 2.8Family Clothing Stores_____________________________ 31 192,6% -15.7 + 21.2 29 501,781 2.0Men's and Boys' Clothing Stores_____________________ _____ 54 736,984 -7.8 + 14.7 49 2,169,476 + 4.4 Shoe Stores________________________________________________ 19 144,391 -11.4 +42.2 19 335,287 2.0 Women's Specialty Shops.____________________________________ 35 1,026,4-02 -2.6 + 14.9 32 2,816,644 + 3.0AUTOMOTIVE_________________________________________________________ 150 4,263,087 -16.2 + 25.8 125 9,855,991 9.9 Filling Stations.·-------------------------------------------------------43 126,465 + 1.6 + 16.3 36 316,996 + 1.2 Motor Vehicle Dealer&·----------------------------------------------· 107 4,136,622 -16.6 + 26.2 89 9,538,995 -10.2 COUNTRY GENERAL AND FARMERS' SUPPLIES.... 110 708,225 -11.2 + 17.7 99 1,532,670 5.7 DEPARTMENT STORES__________________________________________ 64 4,780,352 -1.8 + 24°.3 62 12.480,368 + 2.8 DRUG STORES_________________________________________________________ 167 531,155 + 0.2 + 4.2 142 1,350,316 + 1.6 FLORISTS_________________________________________________________ 39 61,746 -23.1 + 1.0 27 127,138 7.0 FOOD ------------------------------------------------------------187 1,065,144 6.5 + 7.8 155 2,594,636 2.1 Grocery Stores__·-------------------------------------------~ 52 209,512 7.6 + 8.4 4.5 569,319 5.6 Grocery and Meat Stores___________________________________________ 135 855,632 6.2 + 7.6 110 2,025,317 1.1FURNITURE AND HOUSEHOLD________________________ 62 853,595 3.0 + 18.1 47 1,775,000 5.2 Furniture Stores_______________________________________ 50 729,283 3.8 + 15.5 37 1,568,977 5.0Household Appliance Stores___________________________ 6 62,873 + 6.7 + 57.4 5 103,289 -10.9Other Home Furnishings Stores____________________________ 6 61,439 3.0 + 19.8 5 102,734 -2.6 JEWELRY_·-------------------------------·-----------------------------· 52 149,283 --18.2 -2.4 40 310,514 -5.7 LUMBER, BUILDING, AND HARDWARE___________________ 284 1,990,727 5.0 + 19.6 201 3,365,401 -7.5 Farm Implement Dealers_____________________________________ 10 58,837 -6.2 + 3.7 9 160,739 -10.7 Hardware Stores.......--------------------------------------------------· 73 376,195 -3.6 + 22.1 61 810,112 -10.2 Lumber and Building Material Dealers__________________ ....... 197 1,511,816 6.0 -+ 19.7 128 2.282,863 6.7 Heating and Plumbing Shops ----------------------------------------4 43,879 + 30.2 + 18.0 3 111,687 + 1.4 RESTAURANTS..___________________________________________________ ... 25 100,099 -5.1 + 7.6 19 253,698 + 0.5 ALL OTHER STORES______ .... ----------------------------... 13 40,393 -23.1 + 5.8 11 86,956 3.0 TEXAS STORES GROUPED ACCORDING TO POPU­LATION OF CITY: All Stores in Cities of- OVER 100,000POPULATION 297 8,468,610 8.1 + 17.9 244 21,680,687 2.950,000-100,000 POPULATION__________ . 121 ] ,795,992 6.4 + 22.4 102 3,537,675 3.7 2,500-50,000POPULATION --------------____ 537 4,686,442 8.1 + 23.6 441 10,887,675 1.1LESS THAN 2,500 POPULATION________________________ .. 337 1,693,235 7.8 + 19.4 270 3,449,839 5.5 Nou.:: Prepared from reports from independent retail store1 to the Bureau of Business Research, coOperating with the Uoited States Department of Commerce COMMODITY PRICES CEMENT Mar. Mar. Feb. (In Thousands of Barrels) WHOLESALE PRICES: 1938 1937 1938 exas Plants Production Mar. 1938 664 Mar. 1937 592 Feb. 1938 444 Finl Quarter 1938 1937 1,442 1,613 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1926 =100 ) The Annalist (1926 =100) FARM PRICES: 79.7 82.5 87.8 94.5 79.8 82.8 Shipments ---------­_ -­646 Stocks -------------------­681 Uni ted States Production ------­-­5,879 Shipments ---­·-----· -7,259 Stocks . -· --. . ...---22,981 Capacity Opera ted..26.9% NOTE: From U. S. Department of 576 532 1,708 905 664 8,443 3,916 14,329 7,879 4,575 16,224 25,623 24,361 38.6% 19.8% Interior, Bureau of Min es. 1,439 20,896 17,731 U. S. Department of Agricul­ture (1910-14· = lOO L ..... u. . Bureau of Labor Statistics (1926 =100) RETAIL PRICES: Food (U. S. Bureau of Labor tatistics, 1923-25 = 100) Department Stores (Fairchild's Publications, Jan. 1931 = 100) %.o• 70.3 78.6* 90.6 128.0 94.1 85.4 94.5 97.0* 69.8 78.4 91.2 •Preliminary. BUILDING PERMITS Mar. Mar. Feb. First Quarter 1938 1937 1938 1938 Abilene_____ ------------------------------------------------·$ 56,920 $ 29,380 $ 17,724 $ 101,794 $ 86,083 Amarillo___________________________________________________________ 119,071U 59,957 74,155 244,744 199,597 Austin-----------------------------------------------------------------· 630,158 776,638 290,292 725,807 1,633,688 BeaumonL---------------------------------------------·-----253,277 181,039 68,730 403,086 341,099 Big Spring--------------------------------------------------------------43,413 22,360 2'1,022 76,765 45,283 Brownwood______________________________________________________ 7,425 2,465 1,000 8,600 5,965 Cleburne------------------------------------------------------·--------13,603 1,2.75 7,050 29,888 9,745 Corpus CluistL-------------------------------------------264,931 208,560 384,453 853,469 734,924 14,010 26,280 49,336 Corsicana --------------------------------------------------------------------17,275 26,075 Dallas---------------------------------------------------------------------996,388 1,501,058 812,558 2,774,589 3,270,858 Del Rio ------------------------------------------------------------15,600 5,065 2,900 31,835 19,058 Denison___ ··--------------------------------------------------------------------7,810 3,183 27,150 42,214 17,183 El Paso ---------------------------------------------------------------105,501 78,774 118,711 274,251 316,121 Fort Worth________________________________________________________________________ 'Xl6,605 1,642,244 1,317,166 320,272 2,198,280 Galveston. --------------------------------------------------------602,891 77,652U 243,471 967,910 328,506 Graham_ _____________________________________________________________________ 15,950 25,275 23,510 46,260 62,655 Harlingen -------------------------·--·----------------------------------12,495 55,245 10,018 31,215 101,530 Houston._---------------------------------------------------------------------· 3,211,880 1,628,865 1,606,270 5,985,94.5 5,882,680 Jacksonville..·---------------------------------------------------------------------------6,900 7,325 1,165 13,065 68,475 Kilgore... --·------------------------------------------------------------·-----· 106,000 17,425U 92,250 325,679. t Laredo ·-----------·------·-------------------------------------------------------4,425 29,450 6,855 18,375 41,475 Lubbock_________________________________________________________ 242,979 91,602 184,04.5 544,690 225,724 McAllen._______________________________________________________________ 8,590 32,650 31,310 68,445 94,600 New Braunfels..·-------------------------------------------------------·------7,550 11,730 15,650 31,415 67,070 Palestine.________________________________________________________________ 56,867 22,133 27,656 88,313 42,983 Pampa_ ------------------------------------------·---------25,075 19,850 12,950 59,025 79,9-ID Paris------------------------------------------------------------9,490 10,440 19,665 38,888 15,260 Plainview--------------------------------------------------------------2,670 15,720 5,100 10,020 19,475 107,093 450,093 613,196 241,682 30,890 15,225 74,522 70,978 507,497 172,371U 726,066 1,405,845 10,777 26,800 70,101 39,027 2,500 5,350 5,350 23,025 9,515 44,500 38,931 113,420 97,575 216,818 204,161 l~~~I;~~~~I~~I 18,734 36,351 136,167 52,554 TOTAL _________________________________________________________________________$7,723,127 $6,896,460 $ 5,698,157 $17,631,711 $17,135,810 lNot available. *Not included in tota1. ~Docs not include public works. NoTE: Compiled from rcport1 from Texas chamben of commerce to the Bureau of Bu1ine11 Research. STOCK PRICES TEXAS CHARTERS Mar. Mar. Feb. 1938 1937 1938 Mar. Mar. Feb. First Quarter 1938 1937 1938 1938 1937 Standard Indexes of the Securities Domestic Corporations-­ Markets: 419 Stocks Combined________ ------------------77.9 129.9 80.7 Capitalizationl! -----------------------$2003 $2,048 $1,804 $6,078 $6,193 34,7 Industrials ----------------------------____ 92.7 152.6 95.7 Number -----------------------------137 143 120 396 406 32 Rails -----------------------------------------25.5 62.8 28.3 Clasaification of new 40 Utilities -------------------------------------68.5 105.7 71.2 corporations: Banking-Finance --------------5 9 2 12 20 NoTE: From Standards Statistics Co., Inc. Manufacturing (JO ------------------24 12 20 63 Merchandising 114 102 -----------------34 33 38 LUMBER Oil 29 36 22 92 97 Pubfi~--5-;~~~:::~~:=-~::=::::=: 1 5 1 6 (In Board Feet) Real &tate-Building_________ 8 15 9 27 34 _____________....,___ Mar. Mar. Feb. Transpo·rtation 5 2 2 9 IO 1938 1937 1938 Others____ ____________________ All 77 Average Weekly Production Number capitalized at Southern Pine Mills: 31 31 'Xl 79 than $5,000_________________ per unit _____________________.278,053 less 47 51 49 143 135 324,536 266,161 Average Weekly Shipments Number capitalize·d at more________________ $100,00 or 4 4 4 14 11 per unit -··· ----------------------281,770 308,977 274,420 Average Unfilled Orders per Foreign Corporations (Number) 36 27 20 94 99 Unit, End of Month___________ 576,563 834,970 653,372 ll ln thouund1. Non : From Southern Pine Anociation. Non: Compiled from recorde of the Secretary of State. MARCH SHIPMENTS OF LIVE STOCK CONVERTED TO A RAIL-CAR BASIS§ Cattle Cahee Hogo Sheep Total 1938 1937 1938 1937 1938 1937 1938 1937 1938 1937 Total Interstate Plus Fort Worth1f________________ 3,033 3,333 659 506 782 898 560 538 5,034 5,275Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth___________ 620 494 90 113 80 42 27 44 817 693 TOTAL SHIPMENTS__________________________________ 3,653 3,827 749 619 862 940 587 582 5,851 5,968 TEXAS CAR-LOT§ SHIPMENTS OF LIVE STOCK, JANUARY 1 TO APRIL I Cattle 1938 1937 Total Interstate Plus Fort Worth1f_______________ 8,575 9,253 Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth__ _________ 1,507 1,410 TOTAL SHIPMENTS________ _ ________ ________ 10,082 10,663 §Rail-car Basie: Cattle, 30 head per car; calves, 60; hoge, 80; and sheep, ~Fort Worth shipments are combined with interstate forwardings in order that Non: These data are furniehed the United States Bureau of Agricultural every livestock ehipping point in the State. The data are compiled by the Bureau PETROLEUM Daily Average Production (In Barrels) Coastal TexasU.. -------------------­East Central Texas__ ______________ East Texas ----------------------------­North Texas --------------------­Panhandle ----------------------------­ Southwest Texas____________________ West Central Texas______________ West Texas___________________________ Mar. 1938 199,080 97,050 428,310 69,500 67,4°20 226,280 27,510 187,130 STATE -------------------_____________l,302,280 UNITED STATES___________________3,385,640 Imports ---------------------------------147,657 Includes Conroe. NOTE: From American Petroleum Institute. Mar. Feb. 1937 1938 206,940 182,850 119,710 89,950 454,310 424,900 67,840 63,850 76,380 62,700 228,070 210,450 32,550 26,600 206,120 178,200 1,391,920 1,239,500 3,394,690 3,333,250 168,972 135,286 See accompanying map showing oil producing districts of Te:ras. Gasoline sales as indicated by taxes collected by the State Comptroller were: February, 1938, 90,638,000 gallons; February, 1937, 84,611,000 gallons; January, 1938, 93,764,000 gallons. Calves Hoge 1938 1937 1938 1937 1,839 1,743 1,871 2,437 331 414 156 169 2,170 2,157 2,027 2,606 250. the bulk of market disappearance for Economics by railway officials through of Bueineea Research. Sheep Total 1938 1,304 162 1,466 the month more than 1937 1938 1937 1,146 13,589 14,579 147 2,156 2,140 1,293 15,745 16,719 may be shown. 1,500 station agents, representing MARCH CARLOAD MOVEMENT OF POULTRY AND EGGS Cars of Poultry Live Dressed Cars of Egp Chickens Turkeyl!I Chickens Turkeys TOTAL Intrastate Interstate 1938 1937 1938 1937 1938 1937 1938 Shipments from Texas Stations -------------­ 12 9 ________ __ __ I 4 ---------­ 11 5 Interstate New York________ 7 Illinois -----------___ _ Massachusetts _ I 2 New Jersey_____ Pennsylvania __ I 2 Louisiana _______ _ Connecticut __ Missouri _________ Georgia _________ __ _ California ________ 2 I Alabama __________ Florida ----------­Rhode Island__ Tennessee ______ Maryland ______ _ Oklahoma _______ Nebraska _______ S. Carolina_____ _ Dist. of Col.____ N. Carolina_____ _ 42 64 6 1 42 63 6 Shipments Classified 13 19 2 2 5 7 3 11 11 1 8 12 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 5 Receipts at Texas Stations TOTAL _____________ _ Intrastate Interstate Interstate Receipts Classified Kansas ___________ Missouri _______ __ _ 1937 1938 1937 11 97 143 50 49 11 47 94 1 11 7 1 10 20 5 1 2 4 1 2 2 4 25 1 8 3 2 5 6 1 3 2 4 3 2 10 2 1 3 42 30 29 30 13 12 1 Non : Theae_ data are f~rnished the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Divieion of Crop and L1ve1tock Eeumatea, by railway officials through agent1 at all etation., which originate and receive carload shipments of poultry and eggs. The data are compiled by the Bureau of Busine99 Research. TEXAS COMMERCTAL FAILURES Mar. 1938 Number _ _____ __ _____ ____ 17 Liabilitiesl/ ____________________ $248 Assetsl/ -----------------------JH69 Average Liabilities per Failurel/ ____________________$ 15 tRevised. II In thouaands. Non: From Dun and Bradetreet, Inc. Mar. Feb. 1937 1938 7 15t $101 153t First Quarter 1938 1937 54 34 546 $.>17 $ 32 74t $326 $145 s 14 $ lot $ 10 $ 9 BANKING STATISTICS (In Millions of Dollars) March 1938 March 1937 February 1938 Dallu United Dallu United Dallu United Di1trict States District Statee Di1triet State1 774 30,531 808 39,754 723 27,933 DEBITS to individual accounts----------------------------------------------------­ Condition of reporting member banks on- March 30, 1938 March 31, 1937 March 2, 1938 AssETS: Loans and investments--total_________________________________________________ 489 20,810 490 22,273 486 21,231 231 8,771 217 9,366 232 8,933 Loana-total--------------------------------------------------------­Commercial, 0~ustrial, and agricultural loans: 10 568 10 559On secunties -------------------------------------------------------------------­ Otherwise secured and unsecured___________________________________ 137 3,731 • 139 3,798 2 418 • 2 431 Open market paper-------------------------------------------------­ Loans to brokers and dealers in securities________________________________ 2 680 3 1,305 2 7(/) Other loans for purchasing or carrying securities__________________________ 14 605 • 14 616 Real estate loans___________________________________________________ 21 1,150 23 1,157 20 1,158 • 96 • 81 • 82 Loans to banks-------------------------------------------------------------------­ Other loans: 11 714 • 10 713 On securities----------------------------------------·------­ Otherwise secured and unsecured___________________________________ 34 8()<) 35 807 175 7,778 185 8,396 174 8,137 U.S. Government obligations-------------------------------------­ Obligations fully guaranteed by U.S. Government_________________________ 33 1,156 30 1,199 29 1,159 50 3,105 58 3,312 51 3,002 Other securities---------------------------------------------------· Reserve with Federal Reserve Bank_____________________________________________ _ 106 5,755 103 5,173 113 5,627 11 330 9 346 9 279 Cash in vauJL-----------------------------------------------------------------­ Balances with domestic banks__________________ ________________________ 173 1,898 154 1,886 184 2,039 Other assets-net___________________________________________________ 29 1,350 Zl 1,330 26 1,285 L!ABn.ITIES: Demand deposits-adjusted__________________________________ -------------------393 14,268 392 15,126 400 14,381 Time deposits___________________________________________________ -----------------130 5,218 120 5,144 130 5,260 U.S. Government deposits____________________________________________________________ _ 12 353 21 673 26 696 Inter-bank deposits: Domestic banks -----------------------------------------------------------------------170 5,083 176 5,462 182 5,384 Foreign banks ______ -----------------------------------------------------------------• 3$ • 453 • 368 • • 5 Borrowings ---------------------------------------------------------------------11 6 5 805 Other liabilities-----------------------------------------------------------------5 827 6 903 Capital account --------------------------------------------------------- 81 3,620 79 3,581 81 3,630 •Not available. NOTE : From Federal Reserve Board. Debits for the Dallas Federal Reserve district during the firet quarter were $2,507,167,000 compared with $2,609,791,000 for the same period in 1937. Debi11 for all Federal Reserve districts during the first quarter of 1938 were $100,001,608,000 as compared with $126,896,228,000 for the aame period of 1937. ANNOUNCEMENTS The following organizations will hold conventions m Dallas during the month of May: Retail Merchants Association of Texas, May 22-25. Texas Cotton Growers Association, May 29-June 1. Southwest Compress and Warehouse Association, May 29-June 1. Associated Retail Credit Men of Texas, May 22-25. Texas Retail Credit Bureaus, May 22-25. United States Wholesale Grocers Association, May 8.