The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
~IIIIUUIIIUIfIIIlIlIIIIIlIIIIIIlIIIIllIIIIIIIllIlIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111111"11111111111111 11 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'.::
:; :!"111111111111111111111111111111111111111l11l111111l1111ll11l11l11l11l11l1111l111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIInllllllllllllllllllllllllllli1111111111': ::
"
II
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND
INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
IN THE
ELEVENTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
CHAS.
LYNN P. TALLEY.
Chairman and Fed erol Reserve A gent
c.
HALL- w . ]. EVANS.
A ssistant Federal ReserVe Agents
(Compiled July 15. Iql!4)
§. ~lllIllIIllIllllllllltoJllllIlllllIllllllllllllll llllIllllllll 1111111111111111111111111111111111 1 11111111 1 11 1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111" 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111:"::
;11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111 11111111 111111 1111111111111111111111111 1111111 111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIUIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIJ.411111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIli1111111111111111111111111111111111111111,:::
Volume 9. No. 6
Dallas. Texas. August I. 1924
TH1 S COPY R KLRA s nu POR P UDLICATIO N IN MO HN I NG PAPBRS
July 29th
DISTRICT SUMMARY
g'lllllllllllllllllllllllllll l lllllllllllllll ll lllllllllllllil11111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111 11 11111111111 1111111 11111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111"",
=
I
§
=
I
T:':v::t:U:'~:~~ :':~.G~i~t~i~~
;
•
=
c
=
§
;;
i= ~ ~:;:r~!~~~ t~t~~:i~:l~~~. ~~~.~.~~:~. .~~:.:~. ~:.~ .~.~!.: : : : : : : : : : : :
;;
~
~
g
~
Reserve Bank loans to member banks at end of month............
Reserve Bank ratio at end of month................................................
Building permit valuations at larger centers................................
Commercial failn'es (number) ........................................................
Commercial failures (liabilities ) ....................................................
Oil production (barrels) ....................................................................
Lumber orders at pil.e mills (per cent of normal production)
June
$51~~ ~~~~~~~
$ 15,445,810
60.4%
$ 5,441.208
50
$
765,071
13 358 331
, 82 %
May
Inc. or Dec.
$53~: ~~~:~~~ g~~:
$ 15,418.210
62.4%
$ 6.231,771
58
$
720.652
13396560
• 94 %
Inc.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Inc.
Dec.
Dec.
;
!i
19:~~ -I~
.2 %
2 points
12.7 %
13.8%
6.2 %
3%
12 points
I
I
5
~." ' ' ' ' ' ' ' .' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' ' 1 1' ' ' ' ' ' ' '.' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '""" ", , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,1, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,"' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' "' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '" "h
A seasonal slackening in trade and industry, ported was not only considerably below that of the
which was more pronounced than usual, was the previous month, but registered an exceptionally large
outstanding development in the Eleventh Federal decline as compared to the same month of 1923.
Reserve District during the past month. Trade in Production, shipments, and new orders at Eleventh
both wholesale and retail channels of distribution District pine mills and the production and shipments
reflected a marked contraction from the previous of cement at Texas mills were smaller than in May.
month. In some reporting lines of wholesale trade
A factor of importance in the district's agriculsmaller sales than a year ago were reported and tural situation was the harvesting of a most satisin other lines the margin over last year is gradually factory wheat crop. Despite the small acreage, indiminishing. While consumer buying is still large dications are that the total yield will be the largest
in the aggregate, price concessions in many instances since 1919, and the per acre yield in some localities
have been resorted to in an effort to stimulate de- is reported to be the heaviest on record. Almand. Buying at wholesale continues to exhibit the though the progress of the cotton crop was temcautious and conservative spirit which has been the porarily checked during June on account of the
shortage of rain, high temperatures, and hot winds,
dominant feature throughout the current year.
For the sixth consecutive month the volume of late reports indicate that the crop is making satjs:
checks charged to depositors' accounts has shown factory growth. Cultivation is well advanced and the
a reduction from the previous month and in June fruiting of the cotton is progressing favorably. On
the decline from the corresponding month last year the other hand, the condition of the corn crop is very
Was greater than in May. This is an indication that poor, and prospects are that the yield will be the
lowest in several years.
public spending is showing a steady contraction.
The June aggregate of new building enterprises reThe continuance of low interest rates at commerThis publication was digitized and made available by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Historical Library (FedHistory@dal.frb.org)
2
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
cial banks and the reduction of the rediscount rate
at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas from 41/2 to
4 per cent are indicative of the large volume of
funds available to meet credit demands. Total deposits of member banks showed a slight increase over
last month and were $41,000,000 greater than a year
ago. Commercial banks have obtained a large volume of liquidation from the marketing of wheat,
wool, and mohair, and the reduction in the indebtedness of these banks at the Federal Reserve Bank
has amounted to fully $2,000,000. However, due
. principally to the demand for credit in connection
with the financing of agricultural operations, there
was a net increase in member bank borrowing at the
Federal Reserve Bank of $3,300,000 during the first
sixteen days of July.
A surplus of unskilled labor is apparent in practically every section of the district. While industrial
labor is generally employed, the part time operation
of many industrial plants has had the effect of reducing wages and has curtailed purchasing power.
The demand for labor in the building trades has been
heavy, but a sufficient supply was available to meet
this demand.
t
a
CROP CONDITIONS
The shortage of rainfall over a large portion of
the district's farming area, and high temperatures
accompanied by a long period of hot winds which
caused a rapid evaporation of moisture, were responsible for a severe setback to the growing crops during the past month. On the other hand, in favored
localities where there was an abundance of rainfall,
crops made rapid progress.
Prospects point toward a greatly reduced yield of
corn from this year's crop. There was a substantial
l'eduction in the acreage planted to corn last spring,
due to the untoward weather conditions, and a large
proportion of the crop was planted later than usual.
Added to the damage from grasshoppers and the lack
of rainfall was the long period of hot winds which
caught much of the crop in the tassel stage and
blasted the pollen. The Department of Agriculture
placed the condition of the Texas crop on July 1st
at 72 per cent, which was the lowest condition reported since 1918. Reports received by this bank in
connection with a questionnaire sent out on July 1st
indicate that (with the exception of South Texas and
a few scattered localities in other sections) the crop
is in very poor condition and that the yield will be
light.
A normal improvement in the Texas cotton crop
was noted during the past month, but in most sections it is late and the condition of the plant is still
below the average. The Department of Agriculture
estimated the condition of the crop on June 25th as
70 per cent of normal, which was 4 points higher
than the May 25th condition figure, but 7 points below the figure for June 25th a year ago, and 5 points
lower than the ten-year average. The cultivation of
the crop has made rapid progress, with the result
that the fields are now mostly clean. The fruiting
of the older cotton is reported to be progressing favorably. However, the fields are spotted, the stands
being irregular and the plants showing a wide variation in age ranging from very small to the blooming
stage. In many instances the farmers found it
cheaper to replant than to work the weeds and grass
out of the older cotton.
Reports from practically every section of the cotton growing territory indicate that the present crop
is being made at a greater expense than for several
years past, owing to the high wages, high feed
prices, numerous replantings, and the difficulty experienced in ridding the fields of early cotton of
grass and weeds. Furthermore, the reduction in the
acreage planted in feed crops this year, together
with the generally poor condition of the corn crop
which forecasts a greatly reduced yield, seems to indicate that many farmers will find it necessary to
purchase feed at enhanced prices with which to
make the 1925 cotton crop.
This year's wheat crop has proven to be the most
satisfactory one harvested in several years. The
yields have surpassed all early expectations, and in
many localities have averaged the highest on record.
Not only has there been a heavy yield per acre, but
the quality of the grain is the best in several years.
Despite the heavy reduction in acreage, this year's
production will greatly exceed that of a year ago.
Whereas the production was estimated at 16,483,000 bushels on June 1st, the indicated yield on July
1st had risen to 21,816,000 bushels. This compares
to 16,370,000 bushels harvested last year. It is now
estimated that the per acre yield will average 18
bushels this year as against an average yield of
10.5 bushels per acre last year.
The fall sown oats are making a good yield of
high quality grain, but the yield of the spring crop,
which constituted , a larger percentage than usual
this year, was rather light.
Reports from Oklahoma indicate that crops made
satisfactory growth during the past month. Although the cotton is late, the plant is healthy and
the tap roots are long enough to withstand a moderate period of hot, dry weather. Preliminary esti-
r
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUI3INESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
mates forecast larger yields from the various feed
crops than have been obtained in the past few years.
The Louisiana upland cotton showed a substantial
3
improvement in June. The crop is generally clean
and well cultivated and the weevils are less numerous
than they were last year.
SURVEY OF TEXAS COTTON CROP
In response to inquiries on July 1st to 600 bankers
and county agricultural agents in the cotton prodUcing counties of Texas 414 replies were received
from 173 counties, submitting estimates on the increase or decrease in the cotton acreage of these
counties as compared to the 1923 average. The results of the survey are tabulated in the appended
table, which also includes the 1923 production figures and the comments of the observers regarding
the present condition of the crop, insect damage, etc.
The percentage of increase or decrease shown for
each county is a composite of the estimates of our
correspondents in that county, representing in most
cases two or more bankers and the county agricultural ' agent. While it is believed that these observers are in an exceptionally favorable position to obtain authentic and accurate information, it should be
borne in mind that the figures are offered merely as
A CJ'f'age
County
Anderson ........................
Angelina .........................
Archer .............. ..... ~ ....... .
Atascosa ........................ .
Increase
Per Cent
621/2
10
25
5
11 2/3
15
'1.;;;1:;;:;;;
13~~~s··············:···· · · ·······1
Number Bales
1928
I Ginned
21/2 I
62/ 3
6
None
5
15
21/2
62/3"
None
81/3
13/4
;Hi! f;!l~~;+" li~~ErE:[
71/ S
6
4
121/2
16
cOllingsworth ........ .... .
12
20
8 1/3
10
21 1/2
15
71/2
231/3
6
328/4
5"
10
1
5
16
31/8
5
281/3
5
56
171/2
21/2"
-
81/8
None
11
271/2
·Repreaents decreaae In ncrelLllo.
; rEt:~:::'o'~n
~
21. 450 Fa ir to good ... ........................... Slight............................................ 1Weevils and worms.
81/S"
9
Source of Damage
Insect Damage
26.645 POOl' to fa ir ...... .. ....................... Slight... ~ ....................................... Weevils and grasshoppers.
7.687 Fn!r to good ............................... Slight to heavy .................... ...... Gl'flsshoppers.
10"
10
Condition of Plant
;Hil r~,~f~~,,;~~i+:t f:ll~J~HYYi~: ~~~~~~~::::
10
171 / 3
an approximation of the changes that have actually
occurred in the acreage since 1923.
It will be noted that, while the increase in cotton
acreage was general over the state, the northwest
and west central sections show the heaviest increases. The smallest increases were reported from
the heavy producing counties in the central section.
The outstanding feature of the reports was the presence of insects in practically every cotton growing
county. The grasshoppers are most active in west
and northwest Texas, but the weevils are most active
in south, east, and southeast Texas. While it is reported that the damage so far is slight in most counties, heavy damage was reported in a few counties.
The presence of these insects constitutes a serious
menace to the growing crop, particularly in view of
the fact that the reports indicate a more widespread
and destructive visitation of grasshoppers than has
occurred in this district for several years.
illill
f~~i~,·o,l ;il l:lilllf!!lllill[:I!!Illl!~!~~~:~::~,
15.567 Fair to good ...... ....................... Slight to heavy ......................... Ora sshoppel·S.
l~:m g~~L:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·::::::::::: ~I~!~;. ·i~· ..~·~~ti~;;s:::::::::::::::::::·: g~:::~~~~:~::
92 .270
22.978
21.557
8.838
20.685
Fait· to g ood .............................. S light to heavy .......................... 1weevils. worms and gl'fls" h oppc r~ .
Fair ............................................ ISlight.. .. ........................................ GrasshoPPE:l'B.
Fair to p:ood .............................. .:; light.. .......................................... Weevils and grasshoppers.
Fair ............... ............... .. .............. IHeavy .............................. ...... .. .... '~ rasshoppers.
Good to excellent ...................... Slight.. ...................................... .... Weevils and grasshoppeJ's.
u:m
i~rL::: : : : : : : : : : : : : .: : : ::: : : iI!\~~t:~::~~~~~~::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~~t~p~~~s.:::::::::~.::
53.941 Fail' ........................... .................. iSlight to heavy ..... ............. ........ Weevils. worms and grasshoppers.
~
21.110 Good ................ .. .................... ........
80.389 Fair................... .. ...........................
87.266 Fair to good ................................
88.662 Fuir .................. ............ .. ...............
17,142 Good to oxceJlent.. ....................
677 Good ................... ~..........................
.,Iight ............................................
S light to heavy ........ ..................
Slight............................................
Slight.................. .. ........................
Slight ............................................
Slight..................................... .. .... .
vrasshoppers.
Worms and grasshoppers.
Weevils and grasshoppel·s.
Weevils nnd fleas.
Grasshoppers r
~~:m ~~1~:::::::·.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::·.:· ~lj~~~.. t.;' ..h;;~~~:::::::::::::::::::::::::: W::~h~~pers.
12.5S4 Poor to fair ................................ Slight to heavy ........... ~ ............. Weevils and grasshoppers.
1~~:~~~ ~~~el~~n~~~::....:::::::::::..::::........::::..:::I FJ~~~:
Grasshoppers.
. . . .....:...:... .:. ::. . .... . . .:. . . . . . . :. . :. . . . . .
!!:iH ~f~~::::...:. jil!!I~E
;
j]r~L:!o:::~~=·
10.268 Good to excellent.. .................... Slight............................................ Grasshoppers.
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
4
County
t\-creage
Increase
Per Cent
22/8
72/8
None
28/4
71/2
10
10
None
Foard ................... ·.·.... ·····
Fort Bend..................... .
Franklin ..........................
Freestone ....................... .
Frio ....................... ·.·....... ··
Garza. ..............................
Gillespie........................ ..
Goliad ............................ ..
Gonzales ..........................
Grayson ......................... ..
Gregg...............................
Grimes ................ ............ .
Guadalupe.................... ..
Hale ............................... ..
HIllL ............................. ..
Hamilton ...................... ..
Hardeman ......................
Harris ............................ ..
Harrison ....................... ..
Hnskell... ........................ .
Hays ................................
Henderson ......................
Hidallro .......................... .
HilL .............................. .
Hood ................................
Hopkin ...........................
Houston ......................... ..
Howard ......................... ..
Hunt............................... ·
Jack ............................... .
Jackson ......................... ..
Jasper ........................... ..
Jim Wells .................... ..
Johnson .................. :...... .
Jones ........................... .. .
Karnes .......................... ..
Kaufman ........................
Kendall .......................... ..
Kloburg .......................... .
Knox .............................. .
Lamar.............................
6
11
6
12/3
None
70
31/8·
121/2
10"
e 2/8
71/2
20
NOlle
None
213/4
72/8
16
None
71/2
20
81/3
381/3
None
261/2
20
6
91/2
2 1/2
31/3
80
6
7
21/2
6
88
271/2
Lampasas ...................... .
LaSalle.......................... ..
Lavaca .......................... ..
Lee ................................. .
Leon ................................
Liberty.......................... ..
Limestone ..................... .
Live Oak. ..................... ..
Llano ............................. .
Lubbock ........................ ..
Lynn .............................. ..
Madi.on ........................ ..
Marion ........................... .
Ma.on ............................ .
Matagorda .................... ..
McCulloch .................... ..
McLennan .................... ..
Medina.......................... ..
Menard .......................... ..
Milam ..............................
Mill ..................................
MitchelL ........................
Montalrue ..................... .
Montgomery ................ ..
Morris ............................ ·
Motley............................ .
Nacogdoches ................. .
Navarro ........................ .
Nolan ............................. ..
Nueces ............................ .
Palo Pinto.................... .
Panola ........................... ..
Parker ........................... .
Polk ............................... ..
Rains .............................. .
Red River .................... ..
Refugio .......................... .
Robertson ..................... .
RockwalL ...................... .
Runnel ........................... .
Rusk ................................
Sabine............................ .
San Augustine............ ..
San Jacinto ................ ..
San Patricio ................ ..
San Saba...................... ..
Scurry ............................ .
Shelby ............................ .
Smith .................... ........ ..
Somervell ...................... .
Stonewall. ......................
Tarrant.. ........................ .
Taylor ........................... .
Throckmorton ............. ..
Titus ............................... .
Tom Green .................... .
Travis ..............................
Trinity.......................... .
'l1yler ............................... .
Upshur .......................... ..
Uvlllde............................ .
Van Zandt.. .................. .
None
6
171/2
10·
71/2
6
None
262/3
S·
6
11 2/8
12/3
1
6
32/3
None
81/8
11 2/8
71/2
4
71/2·
9
12/3
4
2
10
122/8
20
6"
20
6
11
81/3
6
71/2
71/2
81/3
61/2
10
121/2
10
71/2
6
Number Bales
1928
I Ginned
9.088
34.681
7.468
24.846
9.472
10.206
9.988
10.672
89.691
67.636
18.509
26.879
Fair to good ................................ Heavy ............................................
Fair to good ................................ Slight.. ..........................................
Fair............................................... Slight.. ..........................................
Poor to fair ................................ Slight to heavy ..........................
Fair to good .................... ............ Slight to heavy ..........................
Good ............................................... Slight.. ..........................................
Good .............................................. Slilrht.. ....................................... ...
Good ............................................... Slight............................................
Fair .................. :.................. .......... Slight to heavy ..........................
Fair to good ................................ Slight.. ..........................................
Poor to fair ............................... Slight.. ..........................................
Fair .................... ........................... Slight to heavy ..........................
Grasshoppers.
Weevils. flaas and grllsshoppel'8.
Weevils and grasshoppers.
Gra.shopper •.
Weevils and gra •• hopper •.
Grasshoppers.
Gras.hoppers.
Weevils.
W~evils. fleas and grlls.hoppCl·•.
Weevils and grasshopper •.
Weevils and worrns.
Weevils and grasshopper •.
28.970 Poor to fair ................................ Slight.. .......................................... Weevils and grasshopper •.
62.896 Poor to fair ................................ Slight to heavy .......................... Weevils.
iHi! ~~~~
71.299
4.912
6.861
1.627
9.008
48.421
66.768
29.091
69.629
781
6.099
28.494
68.689
8.87g
HH. li§1E
• • • • • ••• • ~E~~~~:. ·>~·N.
Fair to good ................................ Slight to heavy .......................... Weevils and grasshoppers.
Poor to good ................................ Heavy ............................................ Weev ils and grasshoppe,·s.
Fair to good ............................... Slight to heavy .......... .. .............. Weevils. fleas and Irrasshoppcrs.
Good .............................................. Slight........................................... Weevils.
Good .............................................. Very slight.. ............................... WeevIls and worms.
Fair ............................................... Slight............................................. Weevils and grasshoppers.
Fair to excellent.. .................. ... Slight to heavy .......................... Grasshoppers.
Fair to good ................................ Slight.. .......................................... Gmsshoppers.
Fair ............................................... Heavy .................................. .......... Worms. weevils and Irrasshopper •.
Fair to excellent.. ..................... Slight.. .......................................... Weevils.
Poor stand ................................. .. Slight... ......................................... Weevils.
Fair to good ................................ Slight to heavy .......................... Grasshoppers.
Fair ................................................ Slight to heavy .......................... Worms. weevils and gra.shopper•.
Fair ............................................... Slighl.. .......................................... Few weevils and gra •• hoppers.
8~:~~t g:~. t~.. ·~;;~~ii~~t::::::::::::::::::::::: ~l:~~L::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~~~i1~~d
weevils.
12.657 Fair to good ................................ Slight... ......................................... Weevils and gras.hoppers.
:tm !g~;~~.·;o:~~;;:.: .;·:·:·:;:.: :;:;.;;:;·:;: lil!g~~·~: ~: . ~·:~.~:·: ~: :.·~:·~: :.:. :~. . ~~!*::a:: g~.::::::~~.:~.
d
1.888 Good ............................................... Slight............................................ Grasshoppen.
~i:m ~~::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~l~~~t::::·::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Grasshopper•.
13.145
6.828
8.403
4.418
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
to
to
to
to
good ...............................
excellent.. .....................
good ................................
good ................................
Slight... .........................................
Slight .. .........................................
Slight.. ..........................................
Slight to heavy ..........................
Weevils and Irrasshopper •.
Weevils.
Weevils and grasshoppel'O.
Weevils.
1ij~:m ~~i;..~.~..~.~.d.:..::.:::..:::::...:.::::.::..:::......: ~ll:~L:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: W:::h~~~~~;.,s
and gras.hoppm.
5.687 Good to excellent....................... Slight.. .......................................... Weevils and grasshoppers.
1.784 Good to excellent... .................... Slight.. .......................................... Grasshoppers.
~~:m ~~l~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ll~~~ ..iO.. ·h~~~y:::::::::::::::::::::::::: ;f,~~~\~~p~~~s.grasshoppers.
80.4781"11.11' to good ................................
16.141 Fair ...............................................
6.540 Fair to exceIlent.. .... .................
8.686 'Fair to Irood ...............................
8.829 Good to excellent .....................
17.876 Fair ...............................................
89.998 Poor to fair ........................ ........
18.676 Fair ................................................
92.260 Fair ...............................................
4.936 Fair ................................................
Slight.. ...................... .................... Grasshoppers.
Slight to heavy .......................... Weevils and gl·asshoppers.
Slight.. ................................. :........ Weevils and grasshoppers.
Slight.. .......................................... Worms and weevils.
Slight.. .......................................... Grasshoppers.
Slight.. .......................................... Weevils.
Slight............................................ Weevils and grasshoppers.
Slight to heavy .... ...................... Grasshoppers.
Slight to heavy .......................... Weevil •.
Slight............................................ Gras.hoppers.
~~:~~~ ~~i: . t~.~~~.~.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ll~~L:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: '~=~~l~ :~~ !~::~~~~~:~::
11.056 Fair to good .. .............................. Slight............................................ WC<lViis and grasshopper •.
2~:~tci ~~~d ..t~...~~.i.r:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~1l~l~L::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~~~~~p:~s.graS8hoIlPer •.
9.778
86.105
28.649
46.687
Fair ...............................................
Good ........ ................................ .......
Poor to good ...............................
Fair to good ................................
Slight... .........................................
Slight to heavy ..........................
Sl!ght to heavy ........ ................ ..
Slight to heavy ..........................
Weevils and fleas.
Grasshoppers.
Weevils. worms and gl'Rss hoppers.
Worms and grass hopper •.
1m f;tt:~:~~~:::.:.: ~: ·.:·:·.· :·.:.: .: .:. ~·: i:~·: 1!lig:~~::~: ~·:.~:~: ~·~: .·~:·~·~: : · :·: :~ ~ml\r
worms and gras.hoppers.
46.686 Poor to fair ............................... Slight to heavy .......................... Weevils.
10.798 Fair ............................................... Slight to heavy .......................... Weevils and g rasshoppers.
7
in
Source of Damage
Insect Damage
! :~! fi!~~;i;;; ~:;;: ~~~{.O~{,,; -i; : ; i ~ii:~~~. ·>~~"
16
62/3
10
10
18
10
121/2
14 1/3
121/2
40
62/3
171/2
31/S
16
81/8
Condition of Plant
-~----------------+---------------~-----------------------
:\:!I!
11.047
6.476
89.987
7.010
1.966
17.678
3.256
81.916
~~~~~;~;;: ~~~;\\~~\;;ii ~~:~{::::''''N
Fair to good ...............................
Fair ...................... .........................
Fair to good ................................
Fair...............................................
Fair ................................................
Fair to good ...............................
Fair to good ...............................
Fair ...............................................
Slight............................................
Slight to heavy ..........................
Heavy ...........................................
Slight.. ..........................................
Slight ........................................... .
Slight ............................................
Slight to heavy ..........................
Heavy ............................................
Weevils and grasshopper•.
Grasshoppers.
<o'leas. worms and gras.hoppers.
Weevils.
Weevils.
Weevils and fleas.
Weevils and grasshopper•.
l
t
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
County
Victoria ..........................
Waller ............................ .
Washington .................. .
Il~~!;!;:! !
~":r~~~:
Per
Number Bales
Condition of Plant
Insect Damage
5
Souroe of Damage
Cc=
n~
t __~G_i_nn
_e_d__1_9_2_3~______________________~____________________~________________________________
5
7
1
40
None
25
20
10
20
2
71/2
15
61/4
171/2
12.146 Fair ................................................ Slight...................~ ....................... Fleas, weevils and grasshoppers.
9,680 Fair ............................................... Slight...................•........................ Grasshoppers.
85.642 Fair ............................................... , Slight._................•........................ Fleas. weevils and g~asshoppers .
2,580 Fair to good ................................ Slight to heavy .......................... Weevils.
24,642 Fair to good .................... .. .......... Slight to heavy .......................... Weevils and grasshoppers.
18,911 Fair ................................................ Slight..................... ....................... Grasshoppers.
5,781 Fair to good ...........................•... Slight to heavy .... ...................... Grasshoppers.
25,604 Fair to good ............................... Slight to heavy........................_ Grasshoppers.
6,064 "Poor .. ............................................. Heavy ............................................ Weevils . .
110,480 Poor to fair ................................. Slight........................................... Weevils and grasshoppers.
19,130 Fair ................................................ Heavy .. ..................................._ Weevils and grasshoppers.
15,644 Fair to good ................................ Slight............................................ Grasshoppers.
21,602 Fair ................................................ Slight............................................ Weevils and grasshoppers.
14,994 Good ............................................... H eavy ............................................ Grasshoppers.
Cotton
Consumption
The June consumption of cotton
amounted to 350,277 bales, as compared to 413,649 bales in May and
542,026 bales in June a year ago, It will be noted
that the June consumption was 35.4 per cent below
that for the same month last year, and the amount
consumed during the eleven months' period ending
June 30th was 13.9 per cent smaller than that consumed during the corresponding period of the previous season.
COTTON CONSUMED~A~NRD~O~N~H=A=N=D~======~~~~~=======
COTTON GROWING STATES
Aug. 1st to Junesoth
June
June
Last
This
1024
1923
Season
Season
Cotton consumed ........................................... .
Cotton on hand at end of June:
§
(a) in consuming establishments..........
§
(b) in public storage and compresses..
June
1924
UNITED STATES
Aug. 1st to June 8iiih
Juno
This
Last
1923
Season
Season
247,478
351,1&1 3,619,957 3,939,486
350,277
542,026 5,341,440 6,203,438
............
............
............
490,8137
749,269
............
............
707,850
935,636
950,625 1,347,468
882,204 1,227,184
~
~
:-,111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111 11111 11111111 11 111111111111111 1111 11 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111 11 11 111111 11111 11111 111111111 11111111111 11 1I111111111111111 11 11 11 111 111 111111111 111 1111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111i?
gllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l llllllllll l llllllllllllllill11111111 11 11 11111111 1 11 1111 11111111 1111111 1111111111 11111111 1 11111111I1 11 111111111111 11111111111111~
Cotton
Movements
Receipts, exports and stocks of cot- g
HOUSTON COTTON MOVEMENTS
~
ton at Galveston and Houston
Aug. 1st to June 80th
June
June
- -This
Laat
reached new low levels during the ~
1924
1928
Season
Souon
~
l110nth of June. However, this season's receipts and _~ Receipts--Gross.... 14,524 16,769 3,460,960 2,674,542 ~_
........
4,268
4,982 1,807,423 1,367,713
exports at these ports have greatly exceeded those ~ Receipts-Net
Exports ..................
16,237
5,599 1,060,804 729,582 ~
47,257
26,345 ~
of the previous season and accounted for the major ~ Stocks, June 30th..
~l1llllllllllllllnlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll1llllll1llllllll111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I111I11111111I1I111I11I"111I1111111111~
Portion of the increase in receipts and exports at all
SEASON'S RECEIPTS, EXPORTS, AND STOCKS AT
United States ports. The combined exports at HousALL UNITED STATES PORTS
ton al.d Galveston this season were 23.7 per cent
'fhi. Season
Last Season
greater than last season, while the increase at all
Receipts
since
Aug.
1st
........
..
6,751,095
5,729,133
D. S. ports amounted to 22.4 per cent.
Exports: Great Britain ........ ..
_=_1
::.111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!,.
I;~~:~_:;:~ME:~:~;;~: ;iij;;i~~~ I
a
-
I
:~~":~:~:~:::~~~~"~~~~:':~;~~~ti~"":::i1i~~"IIII_
F'or France .................................... :.... .
F'or other foreign ports .................... ..
FGr coastwise ports............................
In compresses ......................................
----=;1_=
1,000
35,468
1,200
30,578 ~
i!= Total ... _............ _.............................
48,168
47,428 E
E
~1I1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I1111111111111111111"11I1111111111111111~
1,646,630
705,889
2,506,593
573,323
9,294
5,441,729
1,267,240
600,002
1,936,025
622,559
19,185
4,445,011
284,227
286,170
flllllllllll 111111111 1111111111 III 111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111 1111111111111111 111111111 11II1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111~
' 11 11111111 11 1111 11 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11 11111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111;:;
1-_---,
----
France .................... ..
Continent .............. ..
Japan-China .......... ..
Mexico .................. ..
Total foreign ports
Stocks at all U. S. Ports,
June 30th .......................... ..
:;'1 11111 1111 1111111111 11 1111 11 11111111 11 11 1111 1 11111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11 1111111111111I11I111111111111I11111II11111I11I11111111111111 .~
11
~1 1111
i=_-
i_=
I_=_~
SPOT COTTON PRICES
(Middling Basis)
~ New York ............................
" New Orleans ........................
~ Dallas :...................................
" Houston ................................
; Galveston ............................
1_
~
June. 1924
High
Low
32.75
30.88
30.30
30.00
31.00
28.85
28.63
28,15
28.80
29.10
July 15.
1924
i!~
I
31.05
28.60 =
28.05 ~
28.10 E
29.00
i
=
~lll1ll1lllllll1lllllllllnIIlIIlU\ll\l\tl~l lln\II\ltl l. lltllllllllll.'IIII~~llll\lltl~H\lnnll'l\tlIU1Unl1lllllll1llll1llllll11IIIIIIIIIIIUUI"UMIUIIIUltl~=
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
6
COTTONSEED PRODUCTS
Reports received from 99 cottonseed oil mills located in the Eleventh Federal Reserve District indicate that 8,334,602 pounds of oil were shipped by
these mills during June, and was sold at an average
price of $.0832 per pound f. o. b. the mill, which was
slightly higher than the average price received for
the oil sold in May. The average price received for
cake and meal was $36.06 per ton, while hulls
brought $12.45 per ton. Linters sold at an average
of $.0534 cents per pound.
The statistics compiled by the Bureau of Census
on cottonseed and cottonseed products show that the
Texas mills crushed 30,000 tons of seed in June this
year as compared to 6,000 tons in that month last
year. The crude oil produced at these mills for the
season August 1st to June 30th totalled 369,131,000
pounds as compared to 279,360,000 pounds during
the corresponding period of the previous season.
Stocks of cottonseed and cottonseed products at
Texas mills on June 30th were in excess of those
on hand on that date last year.
1_''''';;:;:;~;:~?~:A:;~;;~:~;il~~~~~;:'''''i
_ Hulls ........................
§ Linters ....................
5,450 tons
3,526,833 Ibs.
12.45 per ton
.0534 per lb.
~
~
:.11 11 11111 11 11111111 111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111 111 111111111 11 1111 11 11111 1111 11 111 111 11 1111 1llil ll llll lll lllll lll lllllllllll lll llllll lllllllllllll'I II
~ 111111111111111111111111'lllll ll ltllllllll l l ll "1111 I tl l l lllll l l ll llll l ll l ll l l) 1 1 11 1 11 1 11 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 11 1 1 11111 111111 11111 1111 1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111)11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111':
•
g~~~:::3 ~~~,~ (;o:;:~(~:::'CS:::O:::SEEDA:DCOTTO[~;~~:J::~i:~:; i~~:;SL~rf~~~ I I
Cottonseed on hand, June 30th (tons ) ............................................................
16,000
5,880' 29;000
13,536
~
Crude oil produced (pounds)............................................................................ 369,131,000 279,360,474 972,356,000 i 994,263,047 ~
Refined oil produced (pounds) .).......................................................................
................
................
................ 899,069,286 ~
Cake and meal produced (tons ......................................................................
609,000 ,
454,977
1507000
1480888 §
Hulls produced (tons) ..............................................................................._.......
381,000
286,713
'933;000
'936;908 §
Linters produced (500-lb. bales)......................................................................
254,000
174,989
663,000
604,987 §
Stocks on hand June 30th§
Crude oil (pounds)..............................................................................................
2,808,000
2,392,684 12,829,000
8,062,376 ~
Refined oil (pounds) ..........................................................................................
................
................
................ 190,442,987 ~
Cake and meal (tons)........................................................................................
19,000
10,932
86,000
83,011 §
Hulls (tons) ........................................................................................................
24,000./
12,132
53,000
32,555
Linters (600-lb. bales) ........................................................................................
23,000
4,620
105,000
40,675 ~
'1
~II III',I IIII III IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII111 11111 1 11111111111111111111111 1111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11 111111111111111111111111 1111111111111 11 111111 1 1111 111111 11111111111 11111 111111111111111111 11 11111I11 111 111111 1111 111 1111111 11111111111111 111 1 1111 1 111 IIIIIIIIIIIIII I~
LIVESTOCK
The district's ranges were affected adversely during the month of June as a result of high temperatures and dry weather. In New Mexico, where only
a small amount of rain had fallen during May and
June, the ranges deteriorated 10 points during the
latter month and in the southwestern portion of the
state the livestock had begun to suffer from the lack
of water. While the livestock were about holding
their own, they were not putting on flesh and there
were large numbers of poor stock. The drouthy condition of the ranges was relieved during the first
half of July when light to moderate rains fell over
Arizona, New Mexico, and some sections of the Panhandle. The supply of stock water has been replenished and the grass is improving.
The condition of cattle ranges in Texas declined
4 points during June, being 87 per cent of normal on
July 1st. This compares with a condition figure of
90 per cent on the same date last year. The condition of cattle was reduced from 92 per cent of nor-
mal on June 1st to 90 per cent on July 1st, and on
the latter date was 2 points lower than on July 1,
1923. The condition of sheep ranges declined to 88
per cent of normal during June, or a loss of six
points, and was one point below the condition figure
of July 1st last year. A loss of 5 points was reported
in the condition of sheep.
Although the supply of all classes
of livestock offered at the Fort
Worth market during June was considerably smaller than in May, the receipts of cat~
tIe, calves, and sheep continued large. On the other
hand, the receipts of hogs were very meager at all
times, the June supply being 32 per cent less than
that of May. The receipts of hogs have been gradU~
ally declining since January. The month was char~
acterized by a gradual reduction in cattle receipts
from South Texas and a proportionate increase in
the movement from West Texas.
Movements
and Prices
l,
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
The downward trend in cattle and sheep values
which was in evidence during May continued
throughout June. During the third week of the
month the cattle market suffered one of the heaviest
price declines of the year and the general trade was
the most stagnant experienced within many months.
This condition was attributed largely to the liberal
receipts which included a large number of mixed
shipments of· inferior quality.
As compared to the close of the previous month,
steer values were $1.50 lower; cows lost $1.75 to
$2.00; yearlings dropped 50 to 75 cents; and calves
declined $2.00. Sheep . prices averaged 75 cents
lower than at the close of May and the decline on
lambs averaged $3.50. The month's top price on
wethers was $7.00, but at the close they were going
at $6.50 to $6.75. Although lambs sold as high as
$14.75 early in the month, the best were bringing
only $10.50 at the end of the month. The hog market, which experienced a series of ups and downs
7
during the month, closed at practically the same
level as at the close of the previous month.
: '11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'1111111 111111 111111111111I11I 1f:
!=
i
I
§
~
E
~
i::
FORT WORTH LIVESTOCK RECEIPTS
June
May
1924
1924
Cattle ........ 81,865 114,203
Calves ........ 21,367 25,610
Hogs .......... 20,688 30,571
Sheep ........ 54,272 82,128
LoS8
of
Gain .
L 32,836
L 4,243
t 2~:~~~
June
Lo8S
1923
88,225
21,040
19,565
43,437
or
Gain
L
L
6,360
327
~ 1~;~~~
i
;
i
i;;
§
=iltlfllllllll'IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII""lllllllIIlItll"1U1II111111111111111111111111111111111"11111111111111111111111111111'1"1111111111111111111111111111111::
,"lll llllllllll 'IIIIIII'II'II'II' II"IIIIIIIII'III'JI" 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11III'':
COMPARATIVE TOP LIVESTOCK PRICES
Beef steers ............................
Stocker steers ........................
Butcher cows ........................
Stocker cows .........................
Calves ......................................
Hogs ........................................
Sheep ......................................
= Lambs ......................................
June
May
June
1924
1924
1928
$ 7.75
6.65
6.00
3.50
8.50
7.55
7.00
14.75
$ 9.50
6.60
6.00
3.50
8.40
7.75
7.35
14.25
$ 8.25
8.50
7.00
8.75
7.75
8.35
15.50 =
~11I11111111I1I111I11I111111111I1111111111111111111l11111111111 1 1 11111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIn,. ~
TEXTILE MILLING
A further decline in the mill consumption of cot- on hand at the end of May, and on June 30th last
ton, in the production of goods, and in unfilled orders year. Stocks showed a large increase over last
on hand at the end of the month, reflects a con- month and last year.
tinuance of the unsatisfactory condition which has
prevailed in the textile industry for several months.
""III""""III"III"III"III";;';;;~';"':;~~~:~"";~:;~~;~~~"""""III""IIIIIIIIIIIIIII~
The June production of reporting mills showed a
falling off of 16.7 per cent from the previous month
and was 32.8 per cent below a year ago. Cotton '
Number bales cotton conconsumed at these mills amounted to 2,142 bales
as against 2,459 in May and 2,836 in June a year
ago. There was a heavy decline in the unfilled orders
on hand at the end of June as compared to those 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111I111111I11I111I11II11111111111111111~ii
~~~: ~~~ ;~~: :_I=~
~~;1E W:~~;'.,l~~~~~: 9;:~:! ,.,:::::: 1.,;::::: I
WHOLESALE TRADE
The effect of the usual midsummer dullness was
Visible in the wholesale channels of distribution during June. Every reporting line of trade reflected
a decline in sales as compared to the previous month,
and the sales of dry goods, furniture, and hardware
Were smaller than those for June last year. Although there has been an increase in the volume of
business transacted in each reporting line during the
first half of 1924 as compared to the corresponding
Period of 1923 ranging from 2.6 per cent in furniture to 49.9 per cent in farm implements, a gradual
slowing down in business has been visible in recent
lUonths. This has been due in part to the unseasonable weather prevailing throughout the spring, but
other factors have been of paramount importance.
Retailers have followed a very cautious and conservative policy in buying, and consequently the di-
min uti on in consumptive demand was immediately
reflected in the demand at wholesale. The downward trend of prices in some lines, which caused
hesitation in buying, has also been a contributing
factor. The unsatisfactory progress of crops has
to some extent restricted farmer buying and the
slowing down in industrial activity has reduced the
purchasing power of the laborers, which in turn has
curtailed their buying capacity.
Although current buying covers largely immediate
needs to fill in stocks, some dealers report that orders for fall delivery are beginning to appear.
Dry
Goods
The dry goods trade at wholesale
was seasonably quiet during the
past month. The June sales of
twelve firms were 12.4 per cent less than in May,
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
8
and were 4.4 per cent below those for the corresponding month of last year. Cautious buying is
still the policy of retail buyers and current business
represents largely replacement orders. However,
some dealers report that retailers are beginning to
buy in limited quantities for fall delivery. Reduced
price sales are being featured by the retailers in an
effort to realize on stocks of spring and summer
merchandise which did not move at the accustomed
time and in order to clear their shelves for fall merchandise.
The distribution of dry goods during the first
half of the year was 5.8 per cent in excess of that
during the corresponding period of 1923 and collections this year have been better than those of
last year.
Although buying is still conservative dealers report that a better feeling is now prevalent in the
trade.
Furniture
and the outcome of the cotton crop is still uncertain, the wheat and oat crops exceeded all early expectations, and the good price. obtained engendered
a spirit of confidence in the farmers.
Collections during the half year have surpassed
those of any like period in several years. Prices
have remained on a steady basis. While the demand for implements during the second half of the
year will depend largely on the outcome of the cotton crop, dealers state that the prospects for fall
business are fairly good.
Groceries
The demand for groceries at wholesale showed a further recession during the past month. The June sales of eleven firms
were 3.3 per cent below those for May, but registered a gain of 3.1 per cent over June a year ago.
The grocery trade has experienced active business
throughout the present year, the distribution for
the first six months being 11.6 per cent in excess of
that during the same period of last year. Prices
have shown no material change during the past
month. The outlook for fall trade is fair.
A further decline of 12.8 per cent
registered in the June sales of furniture at wholesale was due in part to seasonal influences. The month's sales were also seven-tenths
The June sales of ten wholesale
of one per cent less than those for June a year ago. Hardware
hardware
firms reflected a decline
Although the furniture business has been relatively
of
1.2
per
cent
from
the
previous month and 2.3
large this year, the increase in sales over last year
has averaged only 2.6 per cent. It will be remem- per cent from the corresponding month last year.
bered, however, that the distribution of furniture Purchases are still being made on a very conservaduring 1922 and 1923 was exceptionally good. Prices tive basis and retailers appear to be taking only such
on some items of furniture have shown a downward goods as are needed to make replacements in stocks.
. The tendency of prices is still downward.
tendency.
While the sales of wholesale drug
The sales of farm implements dur- Drugs
Farm
firms reflected a seasonal decline of
ing the month of June were 27.6
Implements
per cent below those for May, but 6.2 per cent as compared to the previous month, they
showed an increase of 5.4 per cent over June last were 7.6 per cent in excess of those for June last year.
year. Although the buying demand was light dur- Active business has characterized the drug trade
ing the past month quiet business in this line is to throughout the first half of the year, the sales of
reporting firms being 14.2 per cent larger than for
be expected at this season of the year.
a
similar period in 1923. While retailers have been
Implement dealers have had the best business in
conservative
in making purchases and have avoided
the first half of 1924 that they have had in several
future
commitments,
buying in the aggregate has
years, the percentage of increase in sales averaging
49.9 per cent above those during the corresponding been large. Some dealers report that the business
period of 1923. Although indications are that the so far in July has been more active than in June.
yield of this year's corn crop will be below normal, ~ollections have been fairly good.
::.11111111 1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 11111111111111111111111111111 1 1111111 1 111111111111111111 1 11111111111111111111 1 11111111111111111111111111111 1 111111 1 11111 1 11 1 1111111 1 1111111111111 1 1111111111111 1 111111111111111111 11 111111I11111I 1 11111111 1 1111111111 1 111111111111t 1 11l'~
~
CONDITION OF WHOLESALE TRADE DURING JUNE, 1924
;
~
================P=e=r=c=en=t=a,;;;g::,e=of=I=n=cr=ease or Decrease in
Net Sales
June, 1924
Compared With
May
June
1924
1928
Net Sales
Jan. 1st to Date Compared With Same
Period Last Year
Stocks
June, 1924
Compared With
1928
'OM
1924
~ _ M.,
§
=
~
I
Groceries ..................................................................................... :........ .....
- 3.3
- 7.1
-13 .7
+11.6
+ 3.1
Dry Goods ............................. .... .................................................. ......... .....
0 =
-12..1
- 4.4
+ 5.8
Furniture ........ _.............. ....................... ............ ................................. .....
§
-12.8
.7
+ 2.6
Farm Implements.....................................................................................
3 §
-27.6
+49.9
+ 5.4
Drugs .................................................................................................... .....
- 6.2
+14.2
+ 7.
+ 1. 0 §
+ 7.6
Hardware ............................................................................................ .....
.- 2.3
- 1.2
- 5.61 .6 §
+ 7.1
IIIII"lIIn"lIIlIlIIl1l1"'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIII1IIIIIUlIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111lIllIlIlIIllIllIlIllIlllIlIlIIfllltllll~
-
:11:~ ~. ;:.
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
Operations of While the loans of the Federal Rethe Federal
serve Bank of Dallas to member
Reserve Bank banks remained practically stationary throughout June, there was a marked expansion during the first sixteen days of July. These
loans, which amounted to $15,445,810.51 on June
30th, had risen to $18,758,829.15 on July 16th. This
increase has occurred despite the fact that we have
had liquidations from wheat, wool, and mohair to the
extent of fully $2,000,000 during the past month and
indicates the active demand for credit in connection
with the cultivation of this year's cotton crop. The
number of banks owing the Federal Reserve Bank increased from 281 on May 31st to 317 on June 30th.
The total volume of bills held by this bank increased from ~18,133,981. 40 on May 31st to $23,Savings
Deposits
An increase in the amount of savings deposits was reflected during
the past month when 112 banks in
the Eleventh District which operate a savings department reported a total of $101,275,990 as com-
11
318,223.57 on June 30th, distributed as follows:
'fNI2UA. ._ ...........uu'"mu"'WWIl" KU'U• .,IIt. ~U..... IIMmftnfllllll"tI1l"lIllIlIlIllIlllllll1lll1ll11l1111111111111111111111111;
Ii
I
Member ba nks ' collateral notes secured by
S. Government obligations ...._..__.~ ...._. __.$ 1,4·38,700.00 ~
Rediscounts and a ll other loans to member
§
banks ............................................................ 14,007,110.51 ~
Open mar ket purchases (Bankers' a ccept"
ances) ............................................................ 7,872,413.06 §
u.
~
~
.i
i
~
"
Total bills held ............. :.......................... $23,318.223.57 ~
.UfIl."'WlltNIUUIU:>IIII",.,IMhn",w.UMtult'UUtn"MtUIIIIII'U","Mfrm"nnlm',"",ntIIIltHI.",""",.1IIfUlllll1lll1lll1ll11nlll".
There was a furth er reduction of $1,992,765.00 in
the actual circulation of Federal Reserve notes during June, having declined from $43,221,870.00 on
May 31st to $41,229,105.00 on June 30th. The reserve deposits of member banks rose from $47,910,675.63 on May 31st to $48,813,097.85 on ,June 30th,
or a net increase of $902,422.22.
pared to $98,276,538 on May 31st, and $89,761,515
on June 30th last year. The number of savings depositors of 105 banks on June 30th was 231,266, as
compared to 230,311 on May 31st, and 202,244 on
June 30th last year.
~'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIflIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111111111111111111111111111111'111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111II11II1t111111111111111111111111111111111§
I
-
~
SAVINGS DEPOSTTS
~iE~l~n;f
Beaumont ..................................................................................
§ Dallas ....................... ....... .........................................................
I~~~:~i~ti.;. ..:. :.::. :..: .: .: .:.:.:.:. :. :. :. :..: .: .:.: .:.: .:.: .::. :.::::.:.::: ::::.:: : : : : :
§ Houston ....................................................................................
§ San Antonio ..............................................................................
§ Shreveport ............................................................ .....................
§ Waco ..........................................................................................
§ Wichita Fall s ..........................................................................
~
All others ...................................................................................
I
'rotal ............ ................... .................................................
~,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I II ' 1I111111111 1 1'11111 11 11"
4
ID~e~r
I
June 30. 1924 June 30, 1928
May 81, 1924
ID~e~r
i
-
~I
2.411,176
12.486,972
2,039,297
11,126.465
+18.2
+12.2
2.369.871
12,002,976
14
6
4
4
4
57
21 ,709,848
10,216.094
10.018,966
2,562,851
1.676,945
17.891,257
18,870,520
9.465.536
7,992,962
1,971.772
2.339.081
16.526,334
+ 15.0
+ 7.9
+25.3
+30.0
-28.3
+ 8.3
21,208,410
9,848,025
10,067.812
2,491,788
1,537.427
17.396.498
+2.4 ~
+3.7 §
- .5 §
+2.9 §
+ 9.1 §
+2.8 §
112 101.275,990
89,761,515
+12.8
98,276,538 1
+3.1
~I U~H~~ t~~H~~ t3~:~ ~:i~H~~
+1.71
+ 4.0 §
tH I
i
" "111111111111111111111111111111111 1111'1111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ..;
g lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lll il l1111111111111111111111 11 1111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111ltlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillillllllllllllllllllllllllill111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!:
I~:il~~o~t.:U;;::O~:S:~I::S:EPOSITO:S ~~~!0l~ J":~:~ l J":~ ;! ~~!l I
~_
§
El Paso .....................................................................................................................................
Fort Worth........................................................................................................... - ....................
Galveston ................................................................................................................................
I{S;~~~t~~ • • •·• •·• • •• ••• •·•·••• ••·••• ••• •••• • • •.••••••••. • • • • ••• • • • .• • .• • • ••.• • • :
4
6
3
20,490
20,035
11.790
19,267
17,706
11,850
20.675~_
20,062
11.663
§
.~ ii~t~ lU~ ii:m!
I~:.:"':.ll, •. •. ..•.• . • .••.•••.• • • • .•..•.••• ••• •.• •.•.• •. •.•.• . •..• •.:. . . ... . . . . . .. ..... .:: 2:::::: 2:::::: 2:::;:: I
:11111111111111111111111111111111'1111111111111111111 11111111111 111111111 111111 11111111 1111 11111111111 111111111111 1111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllllllllltlllllllili111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111""111111111111111111111111111111.":
Discount
Rates
The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
reduced its rediscount rate from 4%
to 4 per cent effective July 16th.
There is presented below the prevailing rate charged
during the seven-day period ending July 15th by the
commercial banks in the cities listed below.
MONTRLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
12
I
I!
=
__
_
~===
_
~
redl'(:niu':';!~ ~~-6~~~o~a~"':':~~':'
Rate "".,ged 'n,t.me" .n p,lme ,.mm,,';al pap" ,n,h ., I, n.w eligible f.r
41H
8
6-8
5-6
8
5-6
(b) Time ......................................................................................................................
6-7
Rate on commodity paper secured by warehouse receipts, etc................................. 5 1;2 -7
Rate on cattle loans............................................................................................................
6-8
8
8
8
8-10
Rate(~) ~~sa~~c~~~~.~~.~~~~.~..~~.~~..~.~~.~~~~.~..~~.. ~~~~~~..~~~~.~~.~..~.~.1.1.~~.~~~~.~........
§
~
~
8
(b) Running 4-6 months ..................................................... _.............................
5-6
Rate charged on loans to other banks, secured by bills receivable........................ 41;2 -6
Rate on ordinary c'Ommercial loans running 30-60-90 days secured by Liberty
~h°:S~J ofngo~dst;~~~~~~~ ..~~..~~.~.~.~.:~~~.~~~ ..~.~.~.:..~~.~~~.~.~~~.. ~.~~~.~.. ~~.. ~~.~.~.~~ ..~.~~.~
1
§! i
~ ~ ~ ~ J ~!
!
I
.I
5-6
6-8
6-8
6
66_-7
7 _
5-7 =_~:
6
5-6
6-8
6-8
6-8
6-8
11-8'
6-8!
5-6
5-6
6
7-8
6-8
6-8
7-8
7-8
6-81
6-8 §
6-8 ~
8 ~
6-7
5-6
5-6 41;2-5
_=_1
~
~
I
i
':1111111111111111111 1111111111111 11111111111""1111111111"'1111111 11 111 11 111111111 1111 11111111 111""'111 11111 111111 1111111111111111111111 1111 1" ' 11111111111'''' 11 1111 1111111111111 '11111'"'11111111'111111111111111111111111111111111111111111"'"'"11111111111 1,11111 '1111,11,1"11"'11"11'1111',1,1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 .
FAILURES
While the number of defaulting commercial firms
declined from 58 in May to 50 in June, there was a
slight increase in the aggregate indebtedness, being
$765,071 in June as against $720,652 in May. The
marked improvement over a year ago which has been
in evidence during the earlier months of the current year continued during June. The failure sta-
!
tistics for that month compares with 97 insolvencies
involving an indebtedness of $1,293,018 during the
same month last year. The insolvency record for
the first half of 1924, when compared to the corresponding period of 1923, discloses a decrease of
36 per cent in the number of defaults and 71.2 per
cent in the aggregate amount of the indebtedmlss involved.
!
~1111111111111111111111111 "' "IIIIIIIII'III'III1I1I1I1I1 II I1II1I1 I I1 I11I I1II1II1U I II I II"'111 1 "11 1 1111111' 1 1111111111111"1111111111"1111111111 1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 111111111 1 1111111111111111 1 11 1 11111 1111111 11111 111111 11 11 11 11 1 11 11111111111111111 11 11 1 " '1 11 11111 1 1 11 1 11111111/1111111111'
=
Ja
. ;:
COMMERCIAL FAILURES
!
j~
I
I
J
. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'tllll"II1111 1 11 11 1 11111 1 ~11 1 11 1 1111 ,1 1 1 1 1 1 1", 1 111 1. 1 "111 1 1 ' 111 11 1 1 11 11 11' 11 111'111111"111111111111111111111111 11 111111111111111111111111111111Illtllllllllllllllllllllllllll'II-l',ltIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIII,11111 ,11,,1, 11,111111 1 1111111',',,11,11,11111"',111111 1 111"IJI I IIII"lllllllllllllllllllltIIIIJIIIIIIIIII I IIIIIIII I. I;=:
PETROLEUM
While the total production of crude oil in the Eleventh Federal Reserve District during the month of
June declined to 13,358,331 barrels as compared to
13,396,560 barrels in May, this decline was due to
the thirty-day month, as the daily average production increased 13,131 barrels during June as compared to a decrease of 2,022 barrels during May. Results of curtailed drilling programs were in evidence
in June when the number of completions totalled
only 493 wells as compared to 641 wells completed
during May.
Initial production of the successful
completions showed a considerable decrease when
the 339 successful wells completed netted only 85,028 barrels of new production as compared to a flush
production of 137,678 barrels from the 427 successful wells completed in May.
Total production of crude oil in Texas during
June amounted to only 11,482,821 barrels, which
compares to 11,696,355 barrels produced during May.
However, there was an increase in daily average production of 5,460 barrels as compared to a decrease
of 6,310 barrels during May. The greater portion
of this increase was accounted for by the increased
production in the miscellaneous fields of Texas,
which have been gaining for several months, and
during June much more than offset the heavy decrease registered in the Corsicana-Powell field.
Texas Coastal and North Texas fields also showed
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
increases in daily average production. Archer County remained in the million-barrel-producer class, but
showed a considerable decline from its May production,
Louisiana fields again registered substantial increases both in total and daily average production.
There were 1,875,510 barrels of oil produced during
June as compared to 1,700,205 during May, representing a daily average increase of 7,671 barrels,
which was more than half the total increase for the
13
district. Numerous successful completions in the
Cotton Valley district largely accounted for this
showing.
Price reductions became general
throughout practically all Eleventh
District fields during June when a
25-cent reduction was posted on all grades of Texas
and Louisiana crude oil with the exception of Corsicana heavy and North Texas, the posted price remaining steady at these fields.
Crude Oil
Pl'ices
i:==_,_'''''''"""""I11"""'"""''"I11''""'"'""""'"'"I11"''''"''"'""''"1II""III'"IIIIII"""'"I11"I'II11"IIII'I~~'~II;';~~'~'~;~~~"111111II1""111""",",,""111"'""""111"11"""""""11111111"""11""""""111""""""111111""""""'"""'"
J
§
~
INCREASE OR DECREASE
Total
FieldNorth Texas ------------------ ------------------------ -------
Daily Average
I~ ~:~!:a~:::!l
~~_~~~ __ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Miscellaneous fields ---------------------- -------------
Dec_
22,504 Inc.
Inc.
361,633 Inc.
Total, Texas -----------------------------------------
INo,'h Loui.iana ..... .....................................
Dec.
213,534 Inc.
5,460
In,.
175,305 100.
7,671
Totals, Eleventh District_____ ____ __ __ __ ___ ____
Dec.
38,229 Inc.
13,131
~
I
2,028
g:~: 54i:~~~ f;~'
1kn~ ~
13,16&
I
~
. 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111 111111111 1111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111,1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110
I~E~~~~;T~~~
~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 1111"1111111111111111111111111 1 11111111111111111 111 1111111111111111111111111111111111 11 11111111111111111111111 1 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'
~
J~~~DRILLINGa.~SUT'~''';;i!
Miscellaneous fields ____ ___ ___ ______ ____ _______ ________ __ _________ _.________ ___________ ____ ___ ____.__ _____ ____
22
36
=
__ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I ~:; ~~~:t~: ~~~l~i~t_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_:: ::::-_: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.. Includes 2 g-as wells.
** Includes 1 g-as well.
~ ***Includes 18 g-as wells.
22**
13*
p,!dit~1!
23
27,450
515
4!~ 3g~**..
14~
g:~i~
493
641
154
214
85,028
137,678
§ Texas Wildcats ______ _______ ______ _____ __ _____ ______ _____ ______ ___ ____ _____ _____ _______ _____ __ ___ ___________ __ .__
INort~O~~~isT:~:s
P":i" F.Uon. i!
339
427
§
~
§
§
"'1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111"11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111 11111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII§
~IIIIUIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 11111111111111111111111 1 11 1 1111111111111111111111111II'
S
::
'" ""'AS-
'01;,\"
Corsicana light ____ ____________ ______ ___ ____ __________ _______ __$1. 75
§ Corsicana heavy ______ _____ _________ ___ ______ _____ __ _________ _ 1.00
§ Texa s Coastal ___ ____ __________ ______________________ _____ _____ _ 1.75
§ Mexia __ ____ __ __ __ _____ ______ _______ _________ __ ___ ___________ _____ ___ _ 1.75
I
~~~.~~ T~~~~- (39- g.·~~~ity--~~d- -~b~~~)-:::::::::: : : ~:~~
~:~;E OIL PRI::mS<ANA_
'"l'i."
$1.00
.60
1.50
1.00
Caddo (38 g-ravity and above) _____ ____ ___ ___ _______ $1.60
Bull Bayou (38 gTavity and above) ___ ____ _____ 1.55
Homer (35 gravity and above) ___ __ ________ _______ 1.60
Haynesville (33 gravity and above) ___ _______ __ 1.50
~:~~
De Soto Crude ________ ___ ______ ___ ____ __ ___ ____________________ - 1.60
,~~~0.1
=
1.60 §
1.60 ~
1.45 §
1.80
I
",IIIIIIIIII,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIII,IIHIIIIIIIIIIIIII,I11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111'11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111"',1111"'111111'1 1 1111,11111111'111111111111111111"11111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII~
(Oil Statistics Compiled by the Oil Weekly, Houston, Texas ).
LUMBER
The effect of the continued decrease in new building enterprises was evident when the June operations of the Texas and North Louisiana pine mills
Showed more than the usual summer lull in activi-
ties.
Orders received at the reporting mills decreased to 82 per cent of the normal production rate
as compared to 94 per cent during May. Shipments
for the month were 2 per cent below production as
14
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
" '111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIII111111111111111111111111111111111111 '
compared to 3 per cent above production during
May, while the actual production of the reporting
mills was 14 per cent below normal, which compares to a production rate of only 4 per cent below
normal during May. Stocks increased to 12 per
cent below normal at the end of June as compared
to 14 per cent below normal during May. Unfilled
orders on the books of 49 reporting mills on June
30th amounted to 40,792,422 feet, which compares
to 42,230,496 feet on the books of the same number
of mills on May 31st.
JUNE PINE MILL STATISTICS
Number of reporting mills............
49
Production ...................................... 92,365,408 feet
Shipments ........................................ 90,474,394 feet
Orders .............................................. 88,076,146 feet
Unfilled order s June 30th .............. 40,792,422 feet
Normal production ........................ 106,926,544 feet
Stocks, Jun e SOth ............. .. .. .. ......... 277,388,392 feet
N oI'mal stocks ................................ 313,905,202 feet
Shipments below production........ 1,891,014 feet== 2%
Actual production below normal.. 14,561,136 feet=:14%
Orders below normal production .. 18,850,398 feet=.18',l:>
Stocks below normaL ................... 36,516,810 feet= 12 %
:r
=
I
!
::
::
::
§
§
~
~111111111I1111111I11111111I111111I11111I11I1111I"1 ...... 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.;
BUILDING
tion of $6,231,771 issued in May and 2,591 permits
having a valuation of $6,484,427 issued in June, 1923.
The total value of building permits issued at these
cities during the first six months of 1924 amounted
to $42,862,940, as compared to $45,652,962 during
the corresponding period of 1923, representing a decrease of 6.1 per cent in the estimated cost of building projects launched this year.
For the third consecutive month the valuation of
new building projects launched in eleven principal
cities of the Eleventh Federal Reserve District declined as compared to those of the previous month.
During the month of June there were 2,561 permits
issued at these cities having a valuation of $5,441,208, which compares to 2,?20 permits with a valua-
I
I
'1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,1,,1111,11111,111111"111111111111 1'
=
BUILDING PERMITS
June, 1924
No.
Austin .............. _........_.... _........
Bcaumont.... _...........................
DaH88 .........................................
EI Paso ............ _.......................
!o' ort Worth .............................
Galveston ........................ _........
Hou.ton ................................ .....
Port Arthur........... .................
San Antonio ...........................
Shreveport................................
Wnco..._ ....................................
TotaL .......................................
38
200
397
68
205
298
592
149
318
274
47
-
-
Valuation
64,707
148,506
1,882,666
155,929
506,770
158,404
1,452,248
116,781
361,780
486, 752
106,720
---
2,5611 5,441, 208
June 1923
---- -
No.
Valuation
61
66 ,286
168
168,182
829 1,648,165
94,~60
85
248
684.665
359
79,770
550 1,711,088
222
264,772
801 1,009,630
261
756,614
32
56,860
--
2,691
---
6,4 84,4 27
Inc.or l
Dec.
M a y, 1924
I
-
.0
- 9.0
+14.2
+65.1
-20 .2
+98.6
- 15.1
-55.9
- 64.2
- 85.7
-87.7
- 16.1
No.
Valuation
32
46, 140
216
167.674
865 2,726,780
68
192.877
211
784,454
808
157,051
592
999,327
156
96,615
326
625,4 51
284
424,741
67
112,261
-
2,620
Inc. or
Dec.
_I- ~3.3
- 11.4
- 31.0
- 18.9
- 86.4
.9
+
+46.3
+ 21.0
- 31.2
+14.6
- 4.9
Firs t Six Month .
1928
1924
No. Valuation
Valuation
No.
278
1,270
2,565
426
1.241
1,921
3,587
1,049
2,096
1,728
872
-- - -- 12.7 16,523
6,231,771
637,830
1,385,046
14,719,~58
994,875
8.772,865
1,876,612
9,005,700
866,057
4,018,655
4,528,9 25
1,062,417
42,862,940
348
829
2,588
572
1,784
1,902
3,416
1,088
1,997
1,74 8
28 2
1,182,880
1,300,74 2
12.088,877
1,293,350
4,725,848
924,624
12,072.782
1,782,177
4,996,329
4,679,969
705,884
16,499
45,652,962
--
or
Inc.
Dec.
J
- 48.
+ 6. 5 ~
+21. 8 ~
- 23. 1 ~
- 20. 2 ~
+108 . o §
-25. 4~
- 50. o =
- 19.
- 8.
+60.
~I
-
6. 1 ~
1.,11111111 1 1111111111111111111 1 11 11 1111 11 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111,11111111111111111111 11 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111II111111111111111~
CEMENT
All activities at Portland cement mills o f the
Eleventh District reflected decreases during June
as compared to May, but substantial increases as
compared to the same month of the previous year.
Production declined 5.3 per cent as compared to May,
but increased 16.8 per cent over June, 1923. There
were 401,000 barrels of cement shipped from the
mills during June, which compared to 4440,00 barrels shipped during May, and only 368,000 barrels
shipped in June of last year. Stocks held at the mills
declined 3.6 per cent as compared to those on hand at
the end of May, but were 48.3 per cent greater than
those held at the close of June, 1923.
Production of Portland cement increased 5.2 per
cent during the first half .of 1924 as compared to
the corresponding period of 1923, and shipments almost kept pace with this increase, being 4.5 per cent
greater than those of the same period of the previous year.
.'"1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItlUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111):
I
~
PRODUCTION, SHIPMENTS, AND(:;~~~S OF PORTLAND CEMENT
June, 1924
Production of Texas mills.................
390,000
I
June, 1923
334,000
Per Cent
Inc. or Dec.
+16.8
.
,
May, 1924
412,000
Per Cent
Inc. or Dec.
First SIX MonthS
1924
1923
-5.32,229,0002,119,000
Per Cent
Inc. 01' Dec.
i
§
§
+5.2 ~
~fi~£:~~f:~~~~~~~~~~·.·~~·.·~ ::~::::1. ::::::: :4::: ::::::: =::: 2,~~~:~.~~ ~.:~.~~:~.~.~ ... . .:.~:.~ I
•• IIIf1I1~""'"""*lIl1ll1n"'nll'lfIl1ItUntHn"nlm'"HIIIIIIIIIUN.III""I"'"I"mUttttttNllmntt1ll""I"UII"INIlIllIlIllIllIllIlIlIIlIIlIIIIIIIlIlIII1I1II11II1II1II11I1IIIIIII1I1III1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 11 1 111111111111111111111111111llIlIIllIlIllIlltitllI~
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
15
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL BUSINESS CONDITIONS
(Compiled
by
/he Feder.l Reserve Boord os of
Production of basic commodities and factory employment
showed further declines during June.
Trade both at wholesale and retail also decreased during
(he month and was in s maller volume than a year ago.
July
"5. ''124.)
order sales in June showed less than the usual seasollal
decline and were larger than a year ago. Department stores
further reduced their stocks of mer~handise aud slightly increased their outstanding orders.
PRODUCTION
PRICES
The Federal Reserve Board's index of production in basic
industries adjusted to allow for seasonal variatiou declined
about 9 per cent in June to a point 22 per cent below the level
of the first two months of the year. Iron and steel and
cotton manufacturing industries continued to show the most
!narked curtailment of activity, and decreases were general
ll\ other industries.
Factory employment decreased 3 per cent in June, the
metal, auto, textile, and leather industries reporting the
largest reductions in forces.
Value of building contracts
awarded in June was 8 per cent smaller than in May, though
4 per cent larger than in June of last year.
The condition of the corn crop on July 1st, as reported
by the Department of Agriculture, was the lowest on record
for that date, and indicated a probable yield of about 500,000,000 bushels less than last year. Condition of the cotton
crop was recorded less satisfactory than a month earlier,
while the forecast for wheat and oats was larger than ill
June.
Wholesale prices as measured by the index of the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, declined more than one per cent in June
to a level of 5 per cent below the high point for this year.
Prices of all groups of commodities except clothing showed
declines and decreases were particularly large for building
materials. During the first three weeks of July quotations
on wheat, corn, and hogs advanced sharply, while prices of
sugar, cotton goods, and iron and steel products were lower.
TRADE
Railroad shipments decreased in June and were about 15
Per cent less than a year ago, owing to smaller loadings
of all classes of freight except grain and livestock. Wholesale trade showed a further slight decline in June, and was
11 per cent smaller than a year ago. Sales of hardware,
drugs, shoes, and dry goods decreased, while sales of groceries and meat increased slightly. Sales of department
stores and chain stores showed more than the usual seasonal
decrease during June and were smaller than last year. Mail
L Weekly figUl'es for 12 Federal RQ$el've Banks.
atest figures, July 231'd.
BANK CREDIT
Commercial loans at member banks in leading cities during June and the first two weeks of July remained at a relatively constant level considerably beolw the peak reached
in April, while investment holdings and loans secured by
stocks and bonds increased rapidly and carried total loans
and investments to the high point for the year. Demand deposits, owing partly to the growth of bankers' balances at
financial centers, advanced to a record level. At the reserve
banks there was a continued decline in discounts and an increase in purchases of government securities in the open
market. As a conseque!lCe, total earning assets in the middle
of July were only slightly less than at the beginning of June.
Member bank reserve balances increased rapidly, reflecting'
a return float of currency from circulation and further imports of gold. rrotal deposits at the reserve banks on July
16th were larger than at any time since the organization of
the system. Money rates in July were comparatively steady,
but continued to show a somewhat easier tendency, discount
rates at the Fllderal Reserve Banks of Kansas City and
Dallas were reduced during July from 4Yz to 4 per cent.
Index of 22 basic commodities corrected for seasonal val'iation (1919=100). Latest figure June-94.
16
MONTHL Y REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
COTTONSEED PRODUCTS INDUSTRY
(Note: The followin g is the first of a series of special articles reviewing the growth and development of the cottonseed
products industry and some of the financial and economic problems with which it is now confronted.)
DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDUSTRY
The cottonseed oil industry in the United States had its
beginning more than a hundred years ago, but the real development of this industry did not begin until after 1880... In
t hat year only 45 mills were in operation... However, the rapid
development which occurred in the succeeding years will be
s een from the following table showing the number of mills in
operation during the years listed below:
COTTONSEED OIL MILLS IN THE UNITED STATES
Year
1880
1883
1884
1894
1899
1909
1910
1911
1912
Number
of Mills
................................ 45
................................ 101
................................130
................................252
................................357
................................817
................................810
................................839
................................ 857
Year
1913
1914
1915
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
Number
of Mills
................................ 870
................................882
................................844
................................ 728
................................ 727
................................703
................................675
................................ 560
................................527
Thus it will be seen that while the number of mills had increasE!d from 45 in 1880 to 882 in 1914, there was a rapid decline in the number of operating plants during the next eight
years, the number having been reduced to 527 in 1922. In
1880 only 4 mills were operat ing in Texas, but the number
had increased to 89 in 1894, and to 229 in 1914. However,
during the following nine years the number in operation was
reduced by 54, leaving 175 mills in actual operation during
1923.
The utilization of cottonseed has had an interesting development and has become an -important economic factor in
the production of cotton. In the early days of the cotton
industry the surplus of seed over planting requirements was
generally considered as waste to be disposed of in the best
way possible. In later years when it became evident that
some attention must be given to maintaining the fertility of
the soil, the seed was found to be a valuable fertilizing material. Following the Civil War there was a heavy demand
for fertilizer in the eastern states of the cotton belt, and the
seed were used almost universally for that purpose. Prior
to the Civil War experiments were made in feeding the seed
to livestock, and the satisfactory results of these experiments
led to a steadily growing demand for that purpose. The crushing of the seed for oil began to assume some importance jus t
prior to the Civil War, but developments in this direc tion were
arrested during the war period, as is shown by the fact that
in 1860 there were seven mills in operation but only four
were in operation in 1867. However, in the following three
years 22 additional mills were established, making a total of
26 in operation in 1870. The first refinery was established
in New Orleans in 1875. The discovery in 1879 that cottonseed oil could be used in the making of compound lard gav:e
an impetus to the industry. It should be noted that in that
year more than 5 million gallons of the 7 million gallons of
oil produced was exported. The new discovery brought about
a heavy domestic demand with the · result that in 1882 only
714,000 gallons of the 11,780,000 gallons produced went into
export channels. ffhe demand from abroad, however, had not
abated. It was the heavy domestic consumption, together
with the foreign demand, that led to rapid expansion of the
industry following 1880.
In the beginning the extraction of the oil was the primary
object, but as the industry progressed a number of commercially valuable products were developed, consisting of
cake and meal, linters, and hulls. From the inception of the
industry there was a steady demand for cake and meal for
use both as a fertilizer and for feeding put·poses. The demand for feeding purposes has greatly expanded and this
product is now used as a feed for cattle, horses and mules,
sheep, swine, and poultry. It is also used in dyestuffs and
from it flour is manufactured. In the early years of the
industry the hulls were used solely as a fuel, practically the
entire motive power of the early mills being derived from this
source. This was later abandoned because it was discovered
that the hulls mixed with cottonseed meal formed a feed for
cattle superior to meal. There has been a steadily growing
demand for the hulls for this purpose. Hulls are also used in
fertilizers, in paperstock, in stuffings, and for packing.
Linters, or the short fibre attached to the seed, has also become a commercially valuable product. In the improvement
of the machinery for crushing the seed it was found advant-·
ageous to delint the seed more and more closely because it
enabled the mills to make a better separation of the meat
from the hulls, thereby pr eventing a considerable amount of
waste. Later, as the uses and demand for linters multiplied,
the closer delinting of the seed was made even more desirable
because of the commercial value of this product. Linters tHe
used as batting, wadding, stuffings for pads, cushions, comforts, horsecollars, mattresses, and upholstery, mixing with
shoddy, with wool, and with lambs' wool for fle ece-lined
underwear, also for felt and low grade yarns used in making
lamp and candle wicks, twine, rope, and carpets, also cellulose used in making writing paper and artificial silk, and as
a basis for explosives.
The oil enters into the manufacture of lard compound, butter oil, cooking oil, salad· oil, and oleomargarines. It is used
in the packing of olives and sardines, in miners' oil, and in
mixings for putty. It is also an ingredient of soap, washing
powder, etc.
Thus through the evolution of the cottonseed products industry, the surplus of cottonseed over planting requirements
which was once practically without value to the pr oducer noW
enters into the manufacture of more than a hundred commercially valuable products, and increases the income of cotton farmers by many millions of dollars each year. The following statistics will give a conception of the rapid increase
in percentage of seed crushed and in the market value of the
cottonseed.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIII1111111111111111111111111 1 111111 1 11111111111111 1 11 1 111111111111 I IIIIIII I III I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIII I IIJ I II~
=
Senson
1874-1876 ........
1879-1880...... ..
188,1-1886........
1889-1890........
1894-1896 ........
1899· 1900........
1904-1906 .......•
1909·1910........
COTTONSEED
P r oduced
Crushed
(Tons )
(Tons )
1,687,000
84,000
2,616,000
236,000
2,626.000
499,000
3,496,000
874,000
4,792,000
1,677,000
4,668,000
2, 479,000
6,427,000
3,846,000
4,462, 000
3,269,000
I m~=mL:: : i:m:m tm:m
-
AV~l~~e
I
m~~rH!~ ~tl ~ni
I
V Illue of
Total Crop
$ 2,530,000
6,640.000
10,470,000
16,400.000
24,870.000
42,410,000
69.810,000
106720000
P e r Cent
of Crop of Crop ~
Crushed P cr Ton §
6.0
$1.60 =
9.0
2.16 ~
19.0
3.99 =
25. 0
4.69;;
35.0
6.19 §
63.1
9.09;;
62.0
10.7 8
_~
73 3
23 69
~.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I II I IIIIIIIIIIIIIUII I IlIIl I IIIIlIIIIlIIll11 1 11111111111111111111 1 111111111111111111111111111111'11111111111 1 111,1111111111111I1~
It will be noted that while only 5 per cent of the crop was
crushed in 1875, the percentage has been averaging 75 per
cent or above since 1915. The market value of cottonseed
which averaged only $1.50 per ton in 1875, reached a high
mark of $69.40 per ton in 1920.
Among the factors which appear to be responsible for the
marked contraction that has occurred during the past four
years in the number and output of American cottonseed oil
mills are: (a) the excessive expansion of mill capacity in
previous years, and (b) curtailment of the foreign demand
for cottonseed products, due to the discovery, production and
use of substitutes.
The next article will deal with the purchasing of the raw
material.
@FedFRASER