The University of Texas 
Business Review and Prospect 

T
HE present drouth in the Great Plains brings to a sharp focus problems even more fundamental than the probable effect of the drouth on business during the coming year; but possible benefits might ultimately come from the catastrophe if it were to result in a more care­ful consideration by the public generally of a con­structive land-use program for this vast territory. The problem in many important respects has its roots in the policy, or lack of policy, adopted by the Federal Gov­ernment in the distribution of the public domain among the early settlers, and the drouth, plus the depression, has merely brought the weaknesses of the whole pro­~edure to a dramatic climax. 
Originally, under the Homestead Act and related acts, :hrough which the standard sized farm was fixed at 160 1cres, little or no regard was given as to what constituted m economic holding under the diversity of physical ~onditions which prevail between the lOOth meridian md the Rocky Mountains. There is strong reason for believing that even now the ground pattern of this vast region as determined by geologic, topographic, soil, and ~limatic conditions is but vaguely understood and has 
1ot yet been scientifically delineated as a basis for a ;ound program of land utilization. 
But great as were the errnrs in the methods used in Jpening up for settlement the Great Plains country in :he first instance, and the subsequent errors of public rnd private agencies in inducing settlers to build homes .n this vast region without furnishing them with adequate .nformation, there is extreme danger that comparable !rrors may again be committed in handling the present ;ituation made acute to the extent of a major catastrophe )y the series of drouths and the general economic de­ffession of the past seven years. 
Has not the time arrived when the regional and areal 

:haracteristics of this vast expanse of territory, so vital 
o the economic and social life of the country, should be cientifically determined and made the basis for a com­1rehensive land-use policy? Since the uncertainty of 
crops in the western zone of this broad territory is largely responsible for excessiYe production some years and scarcity in others, would not such a program in itself go far toward economically controlling production of staple crops? 
It is now practically certain that owing to the extreme drouth the total output of corn during the current season will be even less than it was in 1934. The official report as of August 1 indicated production of corn for the current year below that indicated on the corresponding date in 1934, and competent obser\'ers express the opin­ion that deterioration since August 1 has been greater than it was in August two years ago. Should present tendencies continue during the remainder of the month. it is possible that the total number of animal feed units produced this year may not be any larger or e\·en as large as in 1934. 
The immediate effects of the drouth on general busi­ness will probably be obscured to some degree by rising cash farm income from distress marketing. But. inas­much as the drouth again centered largeh· in areas severely afflicted two years ago, the ultimate adYerse results are likely to be much greater than theY "·ere then. I\o doubt great numbers of farmers and tradesmen dependent on agriculture in the stricken areas ha,·e ex­hausted their credit. as well as their reserYes. and will either have to leaye. their homes or abandon their busi­ness or be completely supported with public funds. It is more than probable that the proceeds from distress sales will be absorbed in a large percentage of cases in making payments on debts incurred for operating and living expenses in connection \rith this season's crop, or in paying debts still hanging owr from previous years. 
In marked contrast with this current agricultural situa­tion which prevails, broadly speaking. north of the Red River and the Canadian RiYeL the situation south of these ri\•ers is, in the main, the most promising in seYeral years. The condition of both crops and liYe stock are close to average, and prices of all staple farm products are reflecting the shortages occasioned bY the drout!: and 
the increasing consumer demand. Indications are that try and trade are already reflecting the current favorab], 
the upward tendency in farm prices will continue for situation and the optimistic outlook. 
several months at least. Almost all lines of Texas indus-F. A. BUECHEL. 

F or Texas Data, See Statistical Tables at the End of this Publication. 
Petrole11m 
An all-time high was established in production of crude oil in the United States during the week ending August 15, 1936; during that week daily production averaged 3,068,364 barrels. During the week ending August 15 output of crude oil increased over that of the previous week in all the major producing states except Louisiana. 
Since January l, 1936, Texas production of crude oil has average around 39 per cent of the national output. Texas has been furnishing during 1936 almost double the amount of California production and considerably more than double the output of Oklahoma, the third ranking producing state. These three states currently are furnishing almost 78 per cent of the national output. 
Oil production is also highly concentrated in a few localized fields or areas. The Oklahoma City and Seminole fields account for more than half of the total output of Oklahoma. The Gulf Coast fields and East Texas contribute approximately 60 per cent of the out­put of Texas; the Gulf Coast, East Texas, and the West Texas fields account for 70 per cent of the State's total. In Louisiana the Gulf Coast fields furnish nearly 70 per cent of the total of that State. It is of interest also to note that the output of the Gulf Coast fields in Texas and Louisiana during the first half of 1936 was 30 per cent higher than for the corresponding period of 1935; much smaller increases are registered for this period in the States of California, Oklahoma, and Texas. Produc· tion for the United States as a whole increased during the first half of 1936 nearly 13 per cent over that for the corresponding period of 1935. 
Increased activity in the Gulf Coast fields from the Mississippi to the Rio Grande may be expected to con· tinue unabated. Activity in the Rodessa field may he expected to expand. 
The amazing performance of the great East Texas field is shown by the facts that: (a) total production to date of this field now exceeds 900,000,000 barrels; (b) this, the world's premier oil field, covers an area of 100,000 acres, and, it is important to note that the ulti· mate production of this gigantic field has been placed at more than 3,000,000,000 barrels. 
ELMER H. JoHNSON. 


Cotton 

In spite of the upset conditions in world affairs and the fact that the world is not yet out of the depression, world consumption of all cotton reached a new all-time high of about 27,000,000 bales for the year ending July 31, 1936. The United Stales furnished about ]2,500,000 bales of the 27,000,000 and foreign countries 14,500,000 bales. During the five pre-depression years the world consumed an average of 25,109,000 bales of all cotton. The United States furnished an average of 14.,651,000 bales of that or 58.3 per cent, whereas foreign countries furnished only 10,458,000 bales. If the United States had furnished 58.3 per cent of world consumption this past year it would have amounted to 15,741,000 bales of American cotton instead of 12,500,000 bales. Best esti­mates of foreign production this year run over 16,000,­000 bales, whereas United States produl'lion is estimated at 12,tJ.81,000 bales. 
These figures bring into sharp relief the most sig­nificant problem confronting the South and particularfy Texas and the Southwest. Can the lost markets for 3,000,000 bales of American cotton be recovered, and if so, at what price? If it is found that these markets cannot be recovered at a reasonable cost, the next ques­tion is even more serious. What are the more than a million workers thrown out of <'mployment through the loss of these markets going to do? 
The Federal Government was largely responsible for the loss of these markets. The great mass of cotton growers of the South did not profit by the cotton pro· duction restriction experiment. Should they be expecte~ to pay the price of the mistake? The significance of the problem for the country as a whole and particularly the cotton growers demands an immediate and a most care· ful factual analysis upon which to build a constructive program of recovery. 
A. B. Cox.  
COTTON  Indicated supplies of all  cotton in the  
BALANCE  United  States  August  1  were  17,878,000  
SHEET  bales compared with 18,946,000 bales on  
.  this  date  last  year.  World  supplies of  

Amencan cotton amount to about 19,500,000 bales. 
According to the average of the past seven years, a change of 100,000 bales in the supply of cotton in the United States and afloat to and in European porls causes a corresponding change of about 20 points in the index price. From last year to this there has been a reduction in these items of supply of 991,000 bales which should cause the index price to advance aboul Iwo cents over the index price on this date last year. When the calculated index price of 15.04 is convertea 

to present price levels and adjusted to the spinners margin, the calculated New Orleans spot price should be 12.17 cents. When the price is calculated in terms of average percentage changes, the calculated New Orleans spot price based on the above items of supply should be 12.11 cents. 
SPINNERS The spinners ratio margin decreased MARGIN from 158 in June to 157.5 in July. The 
pence margin for July averaged 4.25 d. compared with 4.05 d. for June and 3.90 d. for August last year. These figures indicate the demand for cotton should be about normal. 
Current Manufacturing Developments 

A total of 42 new manufacturing plants established Manufacturers of machinery and oil field equipment in Houston during the first seven months of the present have added five new names to the list of producers of year exceeds by 8 the total number of new plants of 
this type of products in Houston during the summer the same classification located in Houston during the 
months, namely: Hampton-Long Serivce, Control Equip­entire year of 1935. This group relates to well estab­ment Company, Super Vacuum Propeller Corporation,lished manufacturers which give promise of permanent Hawthorne Bit and Tool Company, and Houston :\Iachineinfluence on the industrial life of the city. 
and Supply Company.
Within the past two months, one new brick plant, the Other Houston concerns recently beginning operationBishop Brick Company, producing face and common include the San Jacinto Iron Works, Union Chemical
brick began operation, and one of the older brick com­
panies, the Lighthouse Brick Company, announced plans and Minerals Company, Boldt Bag Company, Guardian 
for plant expansion which will increase the daily output Battery and Cable Company, Beaumont Chemical Com­
of its Cedar Bayou plant from 25,000 to 40,000 bricks pany of Houston, Inc., Dixie Ice Company, Houston 

.per day. 

Milling Company (successors to American Maid) , and 
RETAIL SALES OF INDEPENDENT STORES IN NEW MEXICO, OKLAHOMA, AND TEXAS 
Total 

Number of Firms Reporting Change in Sales From July 1935 From June 1936 Leas Less  Number of Firms  Percentage Change in Do1lar Sales July 1936 July 1936  
Jn.  De·  Than l %  In- De·  Than 1%  Re·  from  from  
crease  crease  Chani:e  crease  crease  Change  porting  July 1935  June 1936  
TOTAL (New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas Com­bined) ......------....-----­---------------.............____________ ___ ..______ NEW MEXICO ....________________.._..____________________................ OKLAHOMA .._________________,,,,_____ ___________.._,,_______________ ....  653 41 113  309 9 96  32 2 4  358 20 92  588 30' 112  •43 2 9  99'4 52 213  + 19.4 + 29.4 + 8.6  -12.2 -5.2 -9.9  

TEXAS ,,________..____________________________..____________________________________ 499 204 26 246 446 37 729 +20.2 -12.8 
TEXAS STORES GROUPED BY LINE OF GOODS CARRIED: APPAREL _,,_________..........------------..--..------------............----85 9 9 84 1 94 + 29.9 -19.1 
Family Clothing Stores..._ .....................-...-....------23 2 4 21 25 + 32.1 -9.8 
Men's and Boys' Clothing Stores..._ ..__.................... 35 4 2 36 1 39, + 22.2 -30.0 
Shoe Stores _____........_______,,..__,,__________.............................. 6 1 5 6 + 19.4 -14.9 
Women's Specialty Shops_____ 
................__________..________ 21 3 2 22 24 + 37.0, -13.7 
AUTOMOTIVE ....._.._______ ................................................. 67 19 4 35 51 4 90 + 27.6 5.8 
Filling Stations ________.._______..__________.............___
______..______ 14 6 4 10 11 3 24 + 21.2 + 7.8 
Motor Vehicle Dealers ____,,___,,_________________,,____ ,,____________ 53 13 25 40 1 66 + 27.9 -6.3 
COUNTRY GENERAL AND FARMERS' SUPPLIES 40 45 2 33 50 4 87 + 1.1 -3.2 
DEPARTMENT STORES_..._.._________ ..............._______..___ 44 4 2 4 45 1 50 + 19.1 -21.9 
DRUG STORES ...... ____,,____________................................. 99 52 5 48 91 17 156 + 7.8 1.7 
FOOD .................................................................................. 74 41 9 74 44 6 124 + 4.9 + 1.8 

Grocery Stores .....................------------------------................. 17 11 4 20 12 32 + 1.2 + 2.0 

Grocery-and-Meat Stores .................._____________________ ____ 57 30 5 54 32 6 92 + 6.1 + 1.8 
FURNITURE AND HOUSEHOLD _______....____________..__ 24 6 1 8 23 31 + 31.7 -15.1 
Furniture Stores ............_.._____________________________..________.. 14 3 3 14 17 + 36.1 -19.5 
Household Appliance Stores ----------............................. 6 1 2 5 7 + 16.5 -3.2 
Other Home Furnishings Stores................................ 4 2 1 3 4 7 + 41.6 + 2.2 

JEWELRY STORES .....________________________........................ 7 2 9 9 + 23.5 -19.9 
LUMBER, BUILDING, AND HARDWARE............. 42 21 1 17 45 2 64 + 15.5 -9.3 
Hardware Stores ............---------....-------------------------------21 15 1 10 26 1 37 + 12.8 -8.1 

Lumber and Building Material Dealers..........._________ 21 6 7 19 1 27 + 17.6 -10.2 

RESTATTRA NTS .........._.._____________..........................----14 2 1 16 1 17 + 25.1 + 8.3 

ALL OTHER STORES..._.._____________..________.._______..______ 3 3 1 2 4 1 7 -14.7 -10.1 TEXAS STORES GROUPED ACCORDING TO POPULATION OF CITY: All Stores in Cities of-OVER 100,000 POPULATION ................................ 139 27 5 50 116 5 171 + 24.1 -16.9 50,000-100,000 POPULATION ................................. 48 16 1 15 48 2 65 + 20.0 -15.7 
2,500-50,000 POPULATION _________..________________ ,,_______ 223 81 13 117 183 17 317 + 17.8 -5.2 LESS THAN 2,500 POPULATION..________________________ 89 80 7 64 99 13 176 + 4.5 -2.8 
NoTE: Prepared from reports from independent retail stores to the Bureau of Business Research, coi:iperating with the United States Department of Commerce. 
one garment manufacturer, Sheinberg Dress Manufactur­ing Company. 
Jefferson County's newest oil refinery, located at Port Arthur, is the property of the Atlantic Refinery Com­pany and represents an investment of approximately three million dollars. While this is not as large as some of the refineries built in recent years, it is pro­vided with the most modern type of equipment which uses a continuous process of conversion from crude oil to gasoline. Other recent activities in the oil refining industry include the beginning of construction of the million-dollar polymerization unit of the Humble Oil Company at Baytown and the letting of contracts for the new cracking plant of the Shell Oil Company at Houston estimated at one and one-half million dollars. 
Canning plants in the eastern and southern sections of the State have been amply supplied this season with fruits and vegetables. At Alvin, Texas, Leverton Com­pany of Houston has remodeled the plant formerly operated by the Texas Preserving Company and are at present employing more than one hundred persons in the canning of figs. It is expected that this plant will operate the year around and will be used for the process. ing of other fruits after the close of the fig season. 
In 1931 the records showed three canning plants in the Rio Grande Valley as compared with twenty-one in operation by June of this year. Valley tomato canning plants processed about 900,000 cases of tomatoes this season, according to the survey of Mr. R. N. Hancock of Hidalgo County. Valley canneries are installing equipment which will permit canning of various vege· tables and fruits in addition to tomatoes and tomato products, and it is predicted that the canning of fruits and vegetables will in the near future become one of the leading industries of the Rio Grande Valley. 
Fourteen new industries have been added to the list of Dallas manufacturers during the past two months and include six concerns producing foods and beverages. The establishment of the Youthmore Garment Compam and Abe Stein Company brings to a total of twenty-eight the number of Dallas factories manufacturing women's and children's garments, according to the statement of the Dallas Chamber of Commerce. 
CLARA H. LEWIS. 


RETAIL SALES OF INDEPENDENT STORES IN TEXAS 
Total Total 
Number Percentage Change Number Percentage Changeof in Dollar Sales of in Dollar Sales 
Firms Jul y 1936 July 1936 Firms July 1936 July 1936 
Re· from from 

Re· from from porting July 1935 June 1936 porting July 1935 June 1936 
TOTAL TEXAS_________________________ 729 + 2(}.2 -12.8 DISTRICT 3_____________________ 19 
+ 6.7 + 10.7 TEXAS STORES GROUPED Brownwood -------------------3 + 9.6 + 16.4 
BY PRODUCING AREAS: All Others__________________________ 16 + 5.4 + 8.1DISTRICT 1-N______________________ 45 + 20.7 -4.4 DISTRICT 4 __________________________ 181 
+ 24.5 -14.6 Amarillo -------------------------------10 + 9.5 -1:u Cleburne ---------------------9 + 9.4 -11.4 Pampa ---------------------------------4 + 15.4 7.1 Corsicana ----------------------7 + 24.5 -1.8 Plainview ---------------------------8 + 22.6 + 9.4 Dallas ---------------------------47 + 29.1 -17.0 All Others -----------------------------23 + 45.6 + 4.5 Fort Worth_____ __ ___________________ 21 + 20.9 -15.7
DISTRICT 1-S________________________ 23 + 18.6 -1.1 

~re~nville ----------------------4 + 6.5 0.0 Lubbock -----------------------------16 + 20.0 + 0.4 ans -----------------------------4 + 81.0 + 12.9 All Others ------------------------------7 + 8.5 -11.2 Temple -------------------------8 + 13.9 -6.6
DISTRICT 2____________________________ 59· + 9.6 -8.1 
Waco ---------------------------12 + 2.0 -16.1 

Abilene --------------------____________ 6 -All Others___________________________ 69
+ 11.0 15.4 + 12.5 -10.6 
Wichita Falls---------------------7 + 12.6 -14.3 DISTRICT 5__________________________ 65 + 15.8 -9.1 
All Other~----------------------------46 + 7.9 -2.7 -12.5 -4.5 

+ 31.9 + 6.7
~f1h~~--:::=::::=:::=:::=:::= ~ -13.9
+ 24.5
All Others_______________________ 49 
+ 16.4 -7.6
DISTRICT 6 _____________________ 30 
+ 
15.4 -23.5 

+ 
16.3 -24.3 




%\1 Post~~;~:::=::::~~::::::::::::=:::: ~ -3.0 0.4
DISTRICT 7 _________________________ 31 
+ 23.3 -3.9
San Angelo___________ ____________ 17 
+ 30.2 -4.3
All Others _____________________ 14 + 7.2 -2.8 
DIASTR.ICT s_________________________ 114 
+ 20.5 -10.8 ustm --------------------------------19 + 5.8 -19.l 
Corpus Christi__________________ 7 
+ 40.4 + 8.5
San Antonio______________________ 29 
+ 31.9 -13.8
All Others_________________________ 59 
+ 4.7 -3.0 
DISTRICT 9___________________________ 109 
+ 
zo..o -14.2 

+ 
56.l -15.l 

+ 
16.6 -10.2 

+ 
18.1 -14.1


~~~,~=-~~~~= ~ 
+ 16.8 -13.3 
All Others_________________________ 26 
+ 4.7 -15.6 
DISTRICT 10________________________ 53 
+ 8.6 -9.4 Brownsville -----------------------19 + 5.9 -19:1 Harlingen -----------------------9 + 5.1 + 3.3 
All Others__________________________ 25 
+ 10.9 -5.1 

Non: Prepa.red from reporta from independent retail stores to the Bursa• of Business Research, coiiperatine: with the United State• Department •f Com•eftt. 
JULY CREDIT RATIOS I TEXAS RETAIL STORES 
(Expressed in Per Cent) 
Number of Ratio of Ratio of Ratio of Stores Credit Sales Collections to Credit Salaries Reportioc to Net Salea Outstandings to Credit Sales 
1936 1935 1936 1935 1936 1935 1936 1935 

All Stores ------------------------------------------60 60 58.0 58.3 36.3 35.3 1.7 1.9 
Stores Grouped by Cities: Abilene 3 3 54.2 55.3 31.9 26.4 2.5 2.5 Austin --------------------------------------3 3 54.7 54.4 41.3 38.2 1.6 1.6 
Beaumont 3 3 59.5 57.4
---------------------------------------------40.l 37.0 1.9 2.4 
Dallas ------------8 8 63.5 67.6 36.8 34.4 1.6 1.7 Fort Worth ---------------------------6 6 58.4 56.2 33.6 31.5 1.7 1.9 -------------2.5
Houston 8 8 58.7 54.7 38.6 40.0 2.0 San Antonio·---------------------------------------------------------4 4 53.8 56.7 35.9 38.1 1.1 1.4 Waco -----------------------------------3 3 57.0 56.3 37.5 37.1 2.6 1.1 
All Others ------------------------------------------------22 50.9 51.6 33.7 33.5 2.2 2.7
22 Stores Grouped According to Type of Store: Department Stores (Annual Volume Over $500,000) ____ ____ .__ 16 16 58.2 57.7 36.5 36.6 1.6 1.8 Department Stores (Annual Volume Under $500,000) ___ 19 19 54.4 54.4 31.1 27.9 2.3 2.4 Dry Goods-Apparel Stores________ 4 4 54.0 57.2 292 26.5 2.8 3.2 Women's Specialty Shops.-------------------------------------9 9 56.7 59.0 36.4 33.8 1.4 1.7 Men's Oothing Stores------------------··-------------12 12 61.8 65.9 41.3 39.0 2.2 2.5 Stores grouped according to Volume of Net Sales during 1935: $2,250,000_______ _
______________________________
$3,750,000 down to 7 7 60.3 62.3 35.7 40.4 1.2 1.5
$1,000,000.______________________________________

$2,250,000 down to 9 9 57.2 59.6 39.5 38.2 1.5 1.6 $1,000,000 down to $275,000 ------------·--------------------18 18 55.l 54.7 41.2 37.4 2.0 2.3 
Less than $275,000________________________________________ 
26 26 53.5 55.0 37.3 33.3 3.5 3.5 

NOTE: The ratio• 11hown for each year, in the order in which they appear fr om left to right, are obtained by the following computations: (1) Credit r.ilei divided by net sales. (2) Collections during the month divided by the total of accounts unpaid on the first of the month. (3) Salaries of the credit department divided by credit sales. 
The data are reported to the Bureau of Busineu Research by Te:r.a1 retail it.re•. 
LUMBER 
(ln Board Feet) 
July July June 1936 1935 1936 

Southern Pine Mills: 
Average Weekly Production 

per Unit________._________ ____________________ 309,308 277,737 316,760 Average Weekly Shipments 
per Unit __________________________________ 302,723 293,911 315,908 

Average Unfilled Orders perUnit, End of Month ______________________ 602,713 559,396 639,358 
N11TE: From Southern Pine Association. 
CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRIC POWER IN TEXAS 
Power Consumed Percentage Change 
(In Thousands of K.W.H.) July 1936 July 1936 
from from 
July 1936 July 1935 June 1936 July 1935 June 1936 

Commercial ____ 39,090 33,399 35,759 + 17.0 + 9.3 
Industrial -------82,227 75,445 79,609 + 9.0 + 3.3 

Residential ____ 25,275 21,360 . 23,425 + 18.3 + 7.9 All Other__________ 21,913 21,041 19,566 + 4.1 + 12.0 TOTAL __________ 168,505 151,246 158,359 + 11.4 + 6.4 
.\oTE: Prepared from reports from 15 electric power companies to the Bureau of Business Research. 
COTTON 1ANUFACTURING IN TEXAS 
July July June 1936 1935 1936 

Bales of Cotton Used ·--------·-----· 5,122 1,828 4,459 
Yards of Cloth: Produced _______________________________ .5,615,803 2,052,637 4,801,654Sold _____________________________________5,571,104 
2,133,980 8,324,722Unfilled Orders_______________________ 8,318,653 2,989,074 8,761,305 Active Spindles_______________________ 116,352 82,920 115,008 Spindle Hours 11 ----------------------·-42,567 14,070 39,946 
il ln thousands. 
TEXAS CHARTERS 
Jul y 1936 

Domestic Corporations: 
Capitalization !! -----------------1,571 Number ---------------128 Classification of new corporations : 
Banldng-Finance ----------­5 ~1anufacturing ------------­28 Merchandising ----------------27 Oil --------------------------27 
Public Service____________________ 
3 Real Estate-Building______________ 
17 Transportation -------------1 All Others_______________ 
20 umber capitalized at less than 5,000 ----------------------------50 Number capitalized at 100,000 or more ------------------------------------2 Foreign Corporations ( umber) ______ 35 

illn thousands. 
July June 1935 1936 
3,097 ·2,161 153 147 
8 5 26 27 33 35 47 42 
1 8 8 5 4 
26 25 
54 61 
8 4 41 49 

NoTP:: Compiled from record,1 of the Secretary of State. 
Subscription to the 
TEXAS BUSINESS REVIEW 
$1.00 per year 


~ NOTE: Reported to the Bureau of Business Research by 12 Texas cotton mills. 
STOCK PRICES 	TEXAS COMMERCIAL FAILURES 
July July June July July June 1936 1935 1936 1936 1935* 1936 
Standard Indexes of the Securities Number ···-··---------·-····-······---···-12 26 9 
Markets: Average Weekly Number.. ...... _________ 3 5 2 419 tocks Combined ....... ······-109.2 78.8 105.6 
Liabilities ll ----····-···--·-··-··----------54 725 80 

347 Industrials ···--··· ···-·····--····-· 124.3 91.2 120.6 Assets ll --------·····----------···-------19 120 37 32 Rails ···-·····---·····-·····-··-------50.7 33.8 47.7 Average Liabilities per Failurel!.... 5 28 9 40 tilities ·········-·········---·--····­
105.8 	73.3 102.0 
*Five weeks.

NoTE: From Standard Statistics Co., Inc. In thousands. 
i\"oTE: From 	Dun and Bradstreet, Inc.
PETROLEUM 

Daily Average Production 	COMMODITY PRICES 
<In Barrels) 	July July June 1936 1935 1936
July July June 
1936 1935 1936 WHOLESALE PRICES: 

Coastal Texas ··-·-····-···· ......... 249,430 187,040 251,500 U. S. Bureau of Labor East Central Texas ....... 55,640 49,510 53,750 Statistics (1926 = lOOJ 80.5 79.4 79.2 East Texas··-····-····-·····.... ...... 426,810 458,120 438,400 125.6 123.6 121.4
The Annalist (1913 = 100)

orth Texas··-····-·-··· .. ·-____ .. 59,450 58,670 58,850 .... sl 74.l 72.9 72.l Panhandle ........ ·-···· .. . 61,470 59,420 61,750 
FARM PRICES:
Southwest Texas ....... _ 84,370 58,010 85,550 

U.S. Department of Agricul-West Central Texas .. 25,680 25,690 25,350 ture (1910-1914 = 100) 115.0 102.0 107.0
West Texas ........... ... . 179,430 155,480 179,350 

. S. BuTeau of Labor STATE ··-····--···--····-____ 1,142,280 1,051,940 1,154,500 

Statistics (1926 = lOOJ 81.3 77.1 78.1 U !TED STATE .............. ___ 2,945,460 2,700,060 2,959,850 
RETAIL PRICES: Imports ·····-···-····----------··········-158,806 140,057 161,393 Food (U. . Bureau of Labor 
Statistics (1923-25 = 100) -···· 84.0 80.2 83.8 NoTE: From American Petroleum Institute. Department Stores (Fairchild's Publications, Jan. 1931 = 100) 88.1 85.2 87.9 
'Includes Conroe. 

Gasoline sales as indicated by taxes collected by the State Comptroller were: June 1936, 99,975,000 gallons; June 1935, 
1 Based on exchange quotations for Frane.e, Swi:zerland, and Holland. 

78,326,000 gallons; May 1936, 83,844,000 gallons. BUILDING PERMITS 
J ULY CARLOAD MOVEi\1ENT OF POULTRY A D EGG July July June Shipments from Texas Stations 1936 1935 1936 
Abilene ··············-····-······· .... 31,082 19,875 27,555
Cars oi Poultry 

Live Chickens Turkeys  Dressed Cars of Eggs Chickens Turkeys  Amarillo -----------··---···-····-­Austin .... -···-·--------···--··-··.  33,092 349,546  32,738 252,236  50,808 378,005  
1936  1935  1936  1935  1936  1935  1936  1935  1936  1935  Beawnont  ---···-·········-·········  76,189  41,192  96,687  
TOTAL  -···-----­ 1  1  33  13  1  36  46  Big Spring _ -···-·····-····-···-·  14,670  7,5..JO  9,007  
Intrastate Interstate  ··-······-­___ 1 2 1 ···--·---­1 1 32 11 Interstate Shipments Classified  6 30  13 33  Brown ville -···---···-···-.... Brownwood --··-·-···-····-­.. Corpus Christi ···············-···-· . Corsicana ···---····-···-·····-.... .  8,675 2,882 162,572 76,480  25,150 75 74,405 11,985  35,095 2,420 104·,038 8,915  
New  York ........  ____  1  21  4  3  Dallas  ....... _______ ···-·-··-··  .. .  623,250  517,017  959.983  
Illinois -··-·--··· Massachusetts..  1 1  1 1  9  6 4  Del El  Rio .. ·-····-----···------····-· Paso ____________ ·-···­__ _  9,700 101,385  1,805 22,188  6.28~ 144,291  
New  Jersey____  2  1  Fort  Worth  ····-·· .....  761,596  221,400  1,457.652  
Pennsylvania....  1  3  1  Galveston  ---····----­_  571,871  39,623  34,640  
Louisiana ........ __ Connecticut .... ____  2  4  10  13  Harlingen -----····-···-.. _.. __ Houston . ____ ·······-····-····--­ 8,100 847,705  24,215 597,315  3,188 1,176.322  
Missouri  ..........  ____  3  Jacksc,nville  ···-····--·········--_  640  2.200  2 000  
Georgia ···-·-----­.... California _____ ____ Alabama .......... ___  1  2 1  1 1  Laredo ..... ···-·-··-·········-···--­Longview ··········-····--·····-·· __ Lubbock ·-··-···-·········-­____ _  10,275 13,410 100,747  7,275 63,862 17,229  5'.210 17,145 58,714  

Flcri da ... ···-··· ___ 2 3 McAllen ... -····--····-·······-----·· 35,300 6,100 12,600 Rhode Island . ____ 1 i\1arshall .... ····--·· --···· .. __ 23,458 9,133U 33,458 Wisconsin _______ 1 Palestine ____ -···-·····-··········· 16,577 18,235 11,439 Tennessee ........ ____ 1 Pampa .... -········-··········-···-··· 19,900 19,900 84,775 Mississippi -···· .... 1 Paris ... ·······-...... .. __ 9,540 8,585 14.238 
Port Arthur _ .. _ ....... _ __ 111,825 33.220 79,103

Receipts at Texas Stations 

an Angelo .. 7,275 14,000 25,450 TOTAL -·········-·-1 3 2 25 16 San Antonio ..... _____ ._ .. 237,652 122,222 298.6921 Intrastate ···----··· 1 3 2 16 10 Sherman ... ···-·····-··-----···· 39,599 16,835 16,148
Interstate _____________ 
9 6 	Snyder ···-···-···-··········-·····-­500 Sweetwater ·····-····-········--··· 10,390 39,482U 4,500Interstate Receipts Classified Tyler . ·······-···-···--·-··············-118,082 106,457U 21,825
Kansas ···--·-··· __ 	7 5 Waco .... ·-·····-····-···--········· 90,428 76,691 75,923Louisiana ______ _ 1 Wichita Falls ----·-·······-·····-25,185 38,715 113,180
Illinois ····------__ 	1 1 TOTAL --···--·-·-····· ···-······ $4,549,078 2,488,900 5,369,790 

r-;'oTE : These data are furnished the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Division of Crop and Livestock Estimates, by railway officials through agents at all stations 1 -Does not include Public works. which originate and receive carload shipments of poultry and eggs. The data are .:'\oTE: Compiled from reports from Texas ch.::i.mbers of commerce to the Buren compiled by the Bureau of Business Research. of Business Research. 
COTTON BALA CE SHEET FOR THE U !TED STATES AS OF AUGUST 1 
(In Thousands of Running Bales) 
Government Carryover Estimate as Aug. I Imports of Aug. 1 Total Consumption Exports Total Balance 
1929-1930 ·-----------------------------------------2,313 15,543 17.856 17,856 
1930-1931______________________________________________ 4,530 

14,362 18,892 18,892 1931-1932 -------------------------------------------6,369 15,581 21,950 21.950 1932-1933 ---------------------------------------------9,682 11,306 20,988 20.988 I 033-1934 ------------------------------------------------------· 8, 176 12,314 20,490 20,490 1934-1935 -------------------------------------·-------------7' 746 9.636 17.382 17.382 1935-1936 ·------------------------------------------------7 ,208 10,638 17,846 17.846 
1936--1937___________________________________________________ 5,397 
12,481 17,878 17,878 
The cotton year begins August 1. 

NOTE: The figures llave been revised in accordance with the revisions made by the United Slates Bureau of the Census. 
JULY  SHIPMENTS  OF  LIVE  STOCK  CONVERTED  TO  A  RAIL-CAR  BASIS§  
Cattle 1936 1935  Calves 1936 1935  Hogs 1936 1935  Sheep 1936 1935  1936  Total 1935  
Total Interstate Plus Fort Worth ff ________________  1,592  2,853  460  602  399  128  204  345  2,655  3.928  
Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth....________  490  919  93  107  40  2  22  85  645  1,113  
TOT AL SHIPMENTS ___ ·---·----·---------·------------·  2,082  3,772  553  709  439  130  226  430  3,300  5,041  

TEXAS CAR-LOT§ SHIPME TS OF LIVE TOCK JANUARY 1, 1936, TO AUGlJ T 1, 1936 
Cattle Calves Hogs Sheep Total 
1936 1935 1936 1935 1936 1935 1936 1935 1936 1935 
Total Interstate Plus Fort WorthU _··--------· 24,631 24,677 3,742 4.170 4.328 2.137 2.701 2.470 35.402 33.454 Total Intrastate Omitting Fort Worth -·-····--·-· 4,602 7,142 8"5 1,114 238 10-1 257 300 5.932 8.660 TOT AL SHIPMENTS ···-·----···--·-·-----·--···----------29,233 31,819 4,577 5,284 4.566 2.241 2,958 2,770 41.334 42.114 
§Rail-car Basis: Cattle, 30 head per car; calves, 60; hogs, 80; and sheep, 250. ~Fort \~1orth shipments are combined with interstate forwardings in order that Lhe bulk of market d:sappearance for the month may be shown. NoTE : These data are furnished the United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics by railway officials through more than 1,500 station agents, representing every Jive stock shipping point in the State. The data are compiled by the Bureau of Business Researc.h. 
BA KING STA TISTICS 
(In Millions of Dollars) 
July 1936 July 1935 June 1936 
Dallas United Dallas United Dallu United District States Di1trict States District Stales 

DEBITS to individual accounts.·-··------------------------------------672 33.006 663 30.475 688 36.730 Condition of reporting member banks on-July 29. 1936 Jul)' 31. 1935 July 1. 1936 ASSETS: Loans and investments-total -··--··--··--····----··--·---------------·-----··-·----·····--------472 22.378 410 19.8--15 464 22.619 Loans to brokers and dealers: In New York City ______ ----·····--·-----·---------------·-·--·---------·------------____ 907 825 973 Outside New York CitY·----·-···-----------------·-----·----------2 220 1 170 3 253 
+

Loans on securities to others (except banksl-----------··-----·------------------41 2.046 + 2.081 41 2.093 
Acceptances and commercial paper bought.________________________________ 2 319 2 306 2 315 Loans on real estate __·-------·----·------------------------22 1.144 24 1.136 22 1.145 Loans to banks ·-------------··---·-------·-----------·---·----------_____ 58 t 103 62 Other loans ------------------------------------------------_______ 135 3.600 ++ 3.190 126 3.619 
U. S. Government direct obligations·-·--------------··-·-----------------191 9,4.56 1.53 7.947 193 9.510 Obligations fully guaranteed by U. S. Government -----··-·--·------·----31 1,272 41 1.017 28 1.289 Other securities ·---·--·-··-----------·-······-----------------·---------·-----48 3.3.56 41 3.070 49 3.360 Reserve with Federal Reserve Banks ----------------·-·---------------------·--------84 4.859 107 4.084 88 4.487 Cash in vault -··----------·----·---·--····-·-··---------·-··-·-·---·----·---·-·--·······-·-------··------·-·--··--10 385 8 322 10 288 Due from Domestic banks···--------····--·---------·····--··-··--------·-·····-····----·-·-··---------· 189 2.113 ++ 2.019 180 2.470 Other assets-net _____·-··-· ·-·---······-··--·-··-···------------·······-----··-------·-·--·---·--·-·----·--27 U29 ++ U72 27 l.3-18 
LIABILITIES: Demand deposits-adjusted ------------------···--·------···-------------------360 14.850 12.962 3-IB 14-679 Time deposits ------·-···--------··----·---------------·-·----------------120 5.015 4.856 120 5.011 
U. S. Government deposits·------------··---------------···--------------37 823 552 38 839 
Inter-bank deposits: Domestic banks ·-·------·---------------------------184 5.938 4.852 182 6.010 Foreign banks ----·----------------------·----422 274 435 Borrowings -------------··-·--------------------------17 Other liabilities ---------------------------------------·--------------4 861 642 4 847 Capital account ---·-·--------------------··------· 77 3.485 3.487 77 3,491 
lNo t availa ble. 
I\uTE: From Federal Reserve Board. 


----·-·"-==== === = = = === = = ====== === ===== 
AUGUST EMPLOYME T AND PAY ROLLS IN TEXAS CLASSIFIED BY CITIES AND EMPLOYMENT GROUPS 
Pay Rolls Ending Nearest Fifteenth of Month 
No. of Workers Percentage Change Average Weekly Wage Eetab­from from per Worker lieh· Aug. Aug. July Aug. July Aug. Aug. July ments 1936 1935 1936 1935 1936 1936 1~35 1936 
Abilene______________________________________________________________________________________ _ 

9 165 140 161 + 17.9 + 2.5 
Amarillo·------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 17 269 262 269 + 2.7 0.0 
Austin·-------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 16 237 230 232 + 3.0 + 2.2 
Beaumont -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------19 674 672 677 + 0'.3 0.4 

Corpus Christi --------------------------------------------------------------------------· 5 254 223 255 + 13.9 0.4 
Dallas --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­97 6,625 5,830 6,397 + 13.6 + 3.6 
Denison ·-----------------------------·----------------------------------------------------­5 715 533 765 + 34.l 6.5 
El Paso -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------· 38 929 966 987 -3.8 5.9 
Fort Worth....-----------------------------------------------------------------------· 41 2,579 2,445 2,693 + 5.5 4.2 
Galveston ----·-------------------------------------·-----------------------...:_______________ _ 10 405 367 398 + 10.4· + 1.8 

Houston._________________________________________ ---------------------------------------· 96 5,325 5,226 5,223 + 1.9 + 2.0 
Laredo _-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 156 151 159 + 3.3 1.9 

Lubbock__________________________________________________________________________________ _ 

6 134 125 113 + 7.2 + 18.6 
Port Arthur·--·-----------------------------------------------------------------------------7 147 138 204 + 6.5 -27.9 

San Antonio__________________________________________________________________________ _ 

82 2,383 2,273 2,344 + 4.8 + 1.7 
Sherman ·---·-------------------------·-----------------------------------------------------· 9 643 580 606 + 10.9 + 6.1 

Waco .. _ -----------------------------------------------------·--------··-----------------22 924 858 915 + 7.7 + 1.0 Wichita Falls .. ______ --··· ·-----·---·---·---------------------·-------------------------20 582 772 592 -24.6 1.7 All 0ther Cities --·---------------------------------------------------------------------· 4°26 B,980 13,181 13,614· + 6.1 + 2.7 STATE ----· -----·-----------·--------------------------------------·----·---------------· 934 37,126 34,972 36,604 + 6.2 + 1.4 BUILDING MATERIALS -------·------------·---·-·-·-------·--------·--___ _ 51 2,908 2,524 2,755 + 15.2 + 5.6 $20.39 $18.85 $19.77 
Brick, Tile, Terra Cotta ------------------·----------·---------···--------· 6 234 177 224 + 32.2 + 4.5 10.07 9.14 9.50 
Cement_________________________________________________ ·------·----------------·---·­

7 1,056 840 947 + 25.7 + 11.5 20.54 18.95 20.12 Foundries, Machine Shops ---------------·---·--------------------------19 779 708 786 + 10.0 0.9 24·.56 22.21 23.24 Millwork ___________________ ------------------------------------------------·-------10 227 193 211 + 17.6 + 7.6 19.60 18.85 19.53 All Other Building Materials _____________ -----··-----__________ .. 9 612 606 587 + 1.0 + 4.3 19.04 17.61 18.58 
CHEMICALSU -----------------------------------------------·-----·----------·----------13 189 181 179 + 4,_4 + 5.6 19.12 18.12 20.54 CLOTHING A D TEXTII4S _-------------------------------·-----------· 17 1,474 1,262 1,305 + 16.8 + 13.0 11.36 10.23 10.65 Mt>n's Clothing Manufacturing __________ ·-------·--------·-------8 986 805 829 + 22.5 + 18.9 11.43 9.95 10.72 Other Clothing and Textile Manufacturing ______:____________ _ 9 488 457 476 
+ 6.8 + 2.5 11.22 10.73 10.52 

COTTON OIL MILLS________________ ---------------·-----------------------------·-13 239 278 179 -14.0 + 33.5 13.28 11.98 14.13 DISTRIBUTION_________________________________________________________________________ _ 
293 9,347 8,819 9,322 + 6.0 + 0.3 22.04 20.72 21.99 Retail Trade ----------------------------------------·-···-----------------·--------14·7 5,937 5,759 6,0'16 + 3.1 1.3 19.84 18.45 19.73 Wholesale Trade --------··--------------·----··---------··---------------------· 146 3,410 3,060 3,306 + 11.4 + 3.1 25.88 25.00 26.10 FOOD PRODUCTS ___ --------·------------------·--------·----------------------· 52 2,140 2,149 2,259· -0.4 5.3 18.97 17.55 18.25 Bakeries -------------·-------------------------------·-----------------------------­17 587 544 578 + 7.9 + 1.6 18.46 17.12 18.08 Beverages ---------------------·---------------------------------------------------· 8 220> HS 219 + 51.7 + 0.5 22.58 22.55 21.83
Confectinneries _______________ ---------------___ _ ____________ _ 7 169 164 173 + 3.0 2.3 13.95 12.01 14.85 

Flour Mills ·------------------------------------------------------------------·-----5 34-1 366 339 -6.8 + 0.6 21.55 20.10 21.95 All Other Food Products ---------·--------·---------------·---·------------15 823 930 950 -11.5 -13.4 18.33 17.00 16.82 FOREST PRODUCT$ ________________ ---------------------------------· _____ _ 8 337 333 
346 + 1.2 -2.6 16.45 15.25 15.51 FURNITURE MANUFACTURING --------·-----------------------------5 191 148 164 + 29.l + 16.5 20.64 18.97 20.41 PETROLEUM ______ ---------------------_____________ .. 20 4,4% 3.779 4,440 + 19.0 
+ 1.3 27.35 27.58 28.20 Crude Petroleum Producing -----------------------------------------10 251 326 232 -23.0 + 8.2 26.60> 22.98 28.02 Petroleum Refining .. ____ ---·-_______ --------------·--------··-__ 10 4,245 
3,453 4,208 + 22.9 + 0.9 27.39 28.02 28.21 
PRINTING AND PUBLISHING ··--_ _ _______________________ _ 

30 822 814 832 + 1.0-1.2 29.38 28.64 29.32 
Commercial P:rin ting -------------------------·------------__________________ _ 

19 343 337 328 + 1.8 + 1.5 25.19 25.47 24.33
Newspaper Publishing __________ ---------·------·-·-_____ -·--------·---11 4,79 4.77 494, + 0.4 3.0 32.39 30.88 32.74
PUBLIC UTILITIES _ _______________ _ 

318 10,007 9,748 9.923 + 2.7 + 0.8 25.24 23.90 26.19
Power and Light __ _______ ---· _____________________________ . 

259 5,856 
5,443 5,680 + 7.6 + 3.1 25.90 25.13 26.97

Steam Railroad Car Shops _.. ·---------· ____ _ 10 1,408 1,266 1,508 + 11.2 6.6 
24.28 25.01 26.53 

A11 Other Public Utilities___ ·--·------------------···---------·---··------· 4.9 2,743 3,039 9.7 24.32
2,735 + 0.3 21.24 24..36
SERVICE __ .. ____________ .. ___________________ _ 

61 3,740 3,645 3,708 + 2.6 + 0.9 14. 
59 13.29 14..48 
Business and Personal Service __ ··--·---------·----------w 516 4,98 572 + 3.6 9.8 18.01 15.23 17.17
Hotels .. ______________ ----··------·------------·------------·-----·-----------· 21 2,180 
1,878 2,119 + 16.l + 2.9 12.81 11.78 12.57 

Ice -----·----·---------_------------------------------------··-------·-------·· 6 458 690 415 -32.2 
+ 12.8 19.78 14.96 20.63
Laundries. Dyeing and Cleaning ----·-·---___________________ _ 

14 576 
579 602 0.5 4.3 14.00 14.52 14.42 ALL OTHER INDUSTRIES ----------------·--------·----------·-----------53 1,236 1,292 1,192 -4.3 + 3.7 20.02 19.55 19.73 STATE ______ -----------·-----·--------·----------·-----------·----------------------------37,126 34,972 36,604· + 6.2 + 1.4. $22.03 $20.86 $22.30 TOTAL WEEKLY PAY ROLLll------------·------------·------·--·-------­
818 720 816 + 12.1 + 0.2 
[[In Thousands. 
..-Chemical and Allied Industries not elsewhere classified. 

l'\oTE: Prepared from reports from Texas industrial estab1ishments to the Bureau of Business Res~arch, coOpcrating with the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.