The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
r- MONT~~Y -~~~i~;o~BusiN~ssAND-- i
i
,
INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
!
!
IN THE
i
i
ELEVENTH FEDERAL RESERVE DISTRICT
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
!
w. F. RAMSEY, Chairman and Federal Reserve Agent
L. . . _ . --_. --........--.. -....-................ - ... -----....
. .........
Volume 6
CHAS. C. HALL, Assistant Federal ReserVe Agent
- ~--.-_._.
Dallas, Texas, May
I
i
I
__._-_........._......_......._........ _--_.. _..... _--_ .....- I
15. 1921
No. 4
A reduction of at least 30 per cent in the cotton
acreage of the State of Texas stands out as perhaps
the most important development brought to light
during the past thirty days in the district's industrial situation. This reduction is evidenced by returns just received from a questionnaire addressed
by this bank to its correspondents in all of the cotton producing counties of the State.
An unusually large surplus of farm labor is reported
from the rural districts, due largely to the growing
tendency on the part of the farmers to cultivate
only such acreage as they are able to take care of
without hired help. In fact, a conspicuous feature
of the agricultural situation this year is the unusually large amount of farm land not under cultivation.
Credit conditions have eased somewhat since our
last report. The month of April, contrary to what
has been the usual credit movement during that
month, witnessed a contraction in the volume of outstanding indebtedness of member banks to the
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, there being a net
retirement during the month of *4,900,000.00, while
during the corresponding month last year there was
a net expansion of $18,700,000.00. It should be
noted, however, that the recent liquidation was confined to paper secured by government securities,
there being a slight increase in other classes of
paper.
A hopeful sign of reviving life in the Southwestern wool market was the recent auction sale of
half a million pounds of fleece at San Angelo, at
prices ranging from 16 to 211/2 cents. This marks
the reopening of the open wool market in this section after being dormant for twelve months.
The past month saw a slowing up in the district's
wholesale and retail trade activities, bank clearings
and charges to depositors' accounts. The slower
pace in business is ascribed to a variety of causes,
including continued unsettlement of prices, industrial unemployment, and unseasonable weather. By
contrast with the situation a year ago, such transactions as merchandise sales, construction contracts,
and bank clearings are being carried on upon a
largely reduced scale, judging from the measurement of movements by dollar totals. The latter,
however, on account of the past year's sweeping
and uneven readjustments of values, is no longer a
reliable instrument for measuring industrial and
commercial activities where a twelve months' comparison is sought.
The volume of building activities in this district
increased 9 per cent during the month of April as
compared with March. All reports indicate that labor
is plentiful, more efficient, and generally contented.
AGRICULTURE
A Late Start. Unseasonably low temperatures
which have prevailed since our last
report have administered a setback to early planted
crops, and generally resulted in an unfavorable start
for farm operations. Not only has the weather been
too cool for the best growth of cotton, corn, and
small grain, but these crops have also been adversely
affected by the extremely uneven rainfall throughout the district. In East Texas and parts of Central
and North Texas there has been too much rain;
while in the South Plains and throughout West
Texas, Southern New Mexico, and Southern Arizona,
there has been a scarcity of moisture which has
reached the proportions of a serious drouth.
The effect of the cold waves occurring in April
and May was to check the growth of cotton where
the plant had germinated and to retard its germination elsewhere. Poor germination, both of cotton
and corn, has necessitated the replanting of these
Cl'OpS over a considerable part of the di triet. Botl!
planting and replanting of cotton i progres ing
lowly throughout the State- except in West Texa ,
where plowing and planting have been delayed by
drouth. The late start due to slow germination and
This 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
much replanting places an unfavorable aspect upon
the outlook for 1921 cotton production, as it lessens
the chances for the crop to escape the ravages of
the boll weevil.
Winter
Wheat.
The condition of winter wheat is reported to be only fair in Arizona and
New Mexico. The condition of the
Texas crop on May 1st was placed by the government at 72 per cent of normal, representing a fall of
16 per cent since April 1st. The deterioration is
attributed to drouth, high winds and the inroads of
greenbugs and rust. The Texas acreage, allowing
for a 4 per cent abandonment, is officially estimated
to be 1,760,640 acres. The Texas Panhandle seems
to be the most favored part of the district just now
with respect to wheat prospects.
The district's fruit prospects indicate a larger and
more satisfactory yield than that of 1920, although.
late frosts and subsequent hailstorms have inflicted
some damage in West Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, the extent of which has not yet been definitely
determined. A heavy watermelon crop is in prospect in Texas.
Texas Cotton Below will be found a synopsis of
the results of a survey made by the
Acreage
Reduced 30%. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas covering the cotton situation in 150
counties as of May 1st. These counties,-which in
1920 produced nine-tenths of the Texas cotton crophave submitted reports which indicate a net reduction of 30 per cent in the Texas cotton acreage for
1921 as compared with 1920. Reductions, ranging
from 5 per cent to 75 per cent, are shown by all
counties in the reporting list except Eastland,
Hidalgo, and Lubbock. As planting has been completed in most of the reporting counties, it is believed that the acreage estimates are in the main
conservative and reliable. These statistics indicate
a somewhat heavier reduction than was generally
estimated a month ago, but the present figures are
corroborated to some extent by recent official reports
on the increased acreage devoted to other crops.
While growing conditions in 1921 will play an important part in determining whether the reduction
in acreage will be followed by a corresponding curtailment of production, there are evidences,-such
as the late start, unfavorable weather, and the
shrinkage in fertilizer sales,-to indicate that the
per-acre output this year cannot be expected to exceed last-year's yield. A 30 per cent reduction in
the production of Texas cotton this year would mean
a 2,900,000 bale crop as compared with the 1920
crop of 4,100,000 bales.
In addition to acreage statistics, our survey developed the following data: observers estimate that
the number of bales of old cotton on hand and unsold
in the reporting counties on May 1st was 714,790
bales. With respect to the supply of farm labor as of
May 1st, 1921, 61 counties (40.6 %) reported a surplus of labor, 87 counties a normal supply, and one
county (Young) a shortage. With respect to farm
wages the reports show that a year ago the average
cash wage was $2.80 per day, while the present
average is $1.36, a decrease of about 51 per cent.
The results of the survey, based on replies received
from two member banks in each of the counties under
investigation, are shown below in detail:
THE TEXAS COTTON SITUATION BY COUNTIES
as of May 1st 1921:
Reporting
Acr'ge
0/0 of
De- Labor
creal!) Supply
City
County
Anderllon _ ..____ Palmtlne ___ .
AngelinL _ ._ ..__ Lu!kin __. _
Arche
AbuI<:oa
._._.... _
Dundee _ .. _.
J"ourdllnton _
Amtln.~ ..... _._ ..... Bcllv!lle
B""tr"olI _ _ ..•_.... Baatrop •••_ ..
Baylo" ' - -_ _ . Seymour _ _
BeIl.. _ .......... ........ Beeville ....__
.&11 ___ ........ _ _ .. Belton
BCltilr.. _ ...._............. San Antonio
BI~meo . ___ .. _
•.. Blanco
"8Ol1l1ue............ _ ....... Meridian .. __..
BI'I1%08•..___ .. _._ Bryan
Brown____ ._.. _ .. Brownwood _
BUl'ltl11On. _ _ _• Caldwell _ .. _ ..
Burnet._. _ _ ...... Burnet
CaldwelL .. _ .._ .. _ ... Lockhart ___ _
Calhoun
.. _ Port L.waClB
Callah"n.____ ~ ....... l'Iaird
CameroD..--.... _ Bl'IJWfUjvillo _
Camp _ _ _ _ _ "Pltbibll'1'g _
Caa ...._ _ _ _ Linden _ _ _
Cheroket!._ .•_. _ _ RIlIIk
ChllllJ' ....... ___ OhUdrOlJll ........
Olay _ _ .. _
.. _ Iienrlet\:a
_
COI1!ffittn... .. _._ .... _ Coleman ......_
Co llln .... _
_ ...... _ McKinney __
CollingswQrth. _.... Wel lil1,1fton _.
COmttnche.____ COmllncb.c __ ..
Conabo__ ....... _ ...... Eden
COlorndo _..... _ _ Columbus
Oooke ..___.•_ _ Gai nesville _
CoryelL __ .. _ . _ Gatesville .•....
Ol'Oaby_._.._._. Crc.>Sbyton __
Dalln.L..._ .......... _ ..... Dallas .... _ .._
nento
._. __ Denton _ _
DeltA _ _ _ ........ _ Cooper _........ _
DcWItt. .._ .. ____ .._ Cut!ro __ ...._
DonJey _ _ _ ...... Clarendon _ ...
Duvl\l _" ___' _ _ San Diego
EutJan ____ ...._ Ksrtl1tnd
ElIi •... __ ._..__..... .. . Waxahachie
1'll'lllh _,,_,,_, ___ , SteJlh nville
Filllo_ . ___ .. _ .... 1\11l1'11" .......... _
1"..nnin_. ____ . ~~hnm _
Foy ·t
__ LnGrlllllt"l __
F lsher......_ _ _. ~bY _ __
F1oyd .__ ......~ ,.:.,oydnlla .. .
FOArd _ ................... _ Orow!!!1 .... _
Fort Bend. __.. _._ Richmond
Fronk1.l:n .......... _ .... Mt. Vernon
Fn tone __ .._
....
Teague _ ...
Frio .._ .•.. _ _._. Pcnrsali _ .......
Garza... .... ______ Post __ .. _
GlJlellple __.____ ..• Frederieksb'lI
Golind .. _._ ..._ _ Goliad __ •. _
('..onzlllf!B _ _ _ G.ln=los __ _
GrllY&on. .. _........... _. Shc:rmn.n _
GrC1Jll--- •.___ .... .LonJc;vlew
Grll'll8.._ _.._ ...._ Anderson ___ .
(;u8d"1\IP"-_ _ _ Seguin _ .. _ .•_
H .... ' ._.. _.~_ _ . Memllbl~ _ .....
Ham.llto.n,........... ~._ Hamilton __ .
lUll:dem8.D. _....._ Qnanab .. _ .
Jrnrmon...._ _ ....• MArabAlI
HllIIk..II... ...._. " ___ ' I~""kc.ll ... ,--.
l h 'Y!I__ " ___ '_'_' I~f\" MIll'COS ..
"flendcTSQA. .. _ _ ... AthllnJ1 _ _._
Rld.IlIgo. __._ ........_ Edinburg ._ .. _
Uood ..... _ _ _ _ Granl)ury _ ..
H o pkins .•_ _ _ Sulphur SIIgII.
Houaton ....... _ _ _ Omelcett _
Hunt .._._ .. _ .. __ Green,om" _ ...
J w:I<.-.-.-... _.. _ ....• Jaeksooro
_
Jncl<.soO-- . _... Ed.Da ••.. _._..
J ....per ..... _ . _... JlUlJ)er .. Jim w~s _ . _ Ali,,~ .........._.
J ahnsoo... _ ...._ ...... Oleb1lJ'ne _ .• _
34
32
42
6
27
Surplus
Normal
Normal
~u.rpiWl
NonnAI
27 NonnaJ
60 SurpiWl
82 ~~1lB
26 ~urpl\l!O
20 SurplUil
as Nurmlll
60 INormal
37 INormal
32 Surplus
22 Normal
20 Normal
1
Nonnlll
27
4.6
12
27
80
26
20
35
Normal
Normal
Normal
Surplua
Surplus
NOl'ffiJIIl
Surplus
Normal
80
Normlll
80 Normal
42 Nomu.l
37 Surplus
86 )ofonnaJ
60 Surplus
42 ,urplus
25 IsurPlus
67 Normru
25 Normal
40 INormal
30 INormal
30 INormal
50 INormal
33 lSurplus
.•.__ ... ISurplus
25 1Surplus
35 INormal
37 1Normal
27
urplWl
15 Normal
17 ISurplus
45 ISurplus
50 Normal
46 INormal
25 INormal
I
i~ ~N~=
80 Normal
26
ormal
30 Normal
30 ~
N~ormal
25
urplus
27
ornm1
~~ ~~=
(0 Surplus
25 N ormal
8& ~urplus
29 Surplus
as Surplus
22 Normal
40 Normal
Saml! S urplUS
38 N ormal
2'1 N ormal
30 N ormal
27 N ormal
37 ~?rmal
SO ~!ormal
,,"0 Normal
86 Surplus
21 Normal
Number Number
Bales
Bales
Ginned
1920
From
Crop
1920 Crop Unsold
17,499
4,084
3,388
14,565
20,976
27,421
18,831
21,188
97,925
17,049
3,844
18,918
18,171
21,238
17,727
18,758
56,201
6,019
19,018
13,098
6,764
18,437
21,998
19.930
20.256
52,735
71,488
8,816
11,659
22,235
17,843
9,835
36,965
11,521
44,212
11,410
24,373
47,434
11,210
10,899
7,608
145,994
9,849
80,845
65,731
37.722
34,902
6,622
14,767
22,829
6,757
26,210
11,474
7,260
9,384
18,077
37,972
43,950
10,080
19,896
37,903
29,678
19,039
22,772
21,441
33,408
22,050
20,355
16,036
1,892
29,509
22,946
60,673
2,571
10,777
670
9,237
41,710
2,500
1,000
700
2,800
6,000
750
5,000
3,000
16,000
7,500
500
100
5,500
5,500
4,500
7,000
900
3,250
1,500
1,500
2,000
4,000
1,500
2,000
9,000
2,500
1,100
1,900
875
5,000
900
8,500
1,500
10,000
2,150
1,500
18.000
200
300
1,500
30,000
400
14.25()
9,750
15,000
l,OO()
600
3,250
2,OO()
1,0()()
2,750
60()
1,250
6,000
2,5()0
10,500
6,600
1,5()0
7,5()O
10,000
1,50()
l,O()O
3,()00
4,50()
3,000
4,O()0
3,O()()
750
500
2,()00
7,500
25,000
35()
1,750
500
2,()00
11,000
....- -
3
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
TEXAS COTTON SITUATION BY COUNTIES-Cont.
Reporting
County
City
J nl!ll _ _ .. _ _ Anson ._._...
Ae.l"ge
0/0 of
De- Labor
CROSQ Supply
Slll'lI lus
Surplus
Normal
Surplus
Surplus
Ls.mPIUlll. _~_ ••. LI\Dlll8Snil ......
Surplus
Lnvaea.............. ____ HllIlctblvU le ..
__
Normal
1.ee......___ ._~ Gidding,o •..••_
Sun> lus
4'00. ............... _. __ Centerville ... .
SW'Illus
Llberty __•____ Liberty __ _
6()
Normal
L imOllwne.._ _ _ Groesbeck ....
35 Surplus
Live Oalc_ ...._ ... George West
17 Normal
Lubboek... _... _ ~ Lubbock ........
..
I~~rplus
Mason. ...__.. _ _. lvI_on _ ........ .
45 1 ~llTJllus
IAtagordl L - -__ Bay Clfy _"
75 Sutollus
McCulloch..._. _ _ B'rndy _ _.
32 Sll1'l>lus
MIlLeIlnll-tl-._.... _ Waco _ .. _... ..
24 I ~?rmal
lItedillll... __ ......... Hondo .......... __ • 60 I~!oJ:mBI
1ofcnlU'd.._ ..___ 14en ...rd _ ... ..
50 Nomw.1
~1loJlL,....._ .. _ _ .. _. Cam"",,, ._ ... ..
27 Normal
MUIs._•... _ _ ..._ . Oo]cU.hwu.lt
_
35 Sru.rplus
Mltchell _ _ .._
C<>londo _ ...
17 Surplus
1I'Ionta'omery_._. Conroe _._.
5() N onna!
Mo....iII .._... _ .......... DaingerfIeld ..
25 Normal
¥otl"y_ ....... _ _ . Matndor __ _
35 Normal
Nncogdoclletl_ .. _ Nacogdoches
37 N O
l'mlll
Navnrro ....... _ ....__ Cors icana. .__
3() Sun>lua
Newto" - - -......_ Newton ......... .
15 Nonnal
Nuee"". _ _..._ .... _ Corpu. Ohl'iatl
20 Surplus
Palo Pinto _ _ .. . Palo Pinto ....
50 Surplus
P an ola._....... _ _ . Oarthage .. _ ...
35 Normal
Parket:.._ _.... __. WC!&theriord ..
29 Normal
Polk..._ _.._ _.. I ~~ng.ton _
37 Nonna!
Ralnll....._ _ . __ E"'0ry __ .....
27 Surplus
JQd River .•. _"_. Ol.n.rltsvill _
37 No-rmal
'Re!UIrio. _ _ .... _ Ttv Ii _._ ....
32 NOl"DUl.l
Roberison......_ _ Fran klin
30 NortllA!
R Ot!kwall .___ ...._. Rockwall ........
27 Normal
RunnelB. .. _ ......_ Balli nger ..._.
35 Surplus
Rwd, ______ B'end\!I'Son ._
35 Surplus
Sahln"-_ ...... _ _ Hemphill " _
3() Normal
an A1IJr1lJItin _ .•. San Augustine
62 Normal
SIUI J'1Ie1nto. _ ... Ooldspri ng ....
25 Normal
San PatJ;ieio_ _ • S<lnton _ .. _._.
20 Normal
San Snba_ . _ .. _ ~nn Saba ........
32 Normal
Shelby.__ ...... ~...... _ Conter __ _
26 ~ormal
Smith _ _ _ .......... Tyl'lr _ ...._ ..
26 i".mplus
SOmervelL .._._.... _ Glen ROIl __..
50 Normlll
StonewalL ....... __ .. Aspermont _.
27 Normal
Tarrant .... __ ....._ Fort W orth ..
40 SUl'J1 lus
T .. , lor. _.... ____ Abilene _ ......
26 SurplWl
Th rookmorton. .. ~_ ... Wood8.,-n ........
67 Norron]
Titus __..._ .._. __ Mt. Pleallant
34 Sun>lus
Travt5. ___._.. _ A11lItln _ _ _
25 S!Ur!;llU8
Trinlw _ ........... _ .. Groveton _ ..
30 s:urplus
'l'l'le.r _ .. ___.. _ Woodvllle ... _
60 I~ urplus
UIIflhur......_ _ Gilmer _ ........
36
u rplus
V"n Zanclt....._ _ Canton. _ .. _
32 SllJ'Dlus
VlatorIL...._ _ _ VIctoria. ...... _
3() Normal
Walk<!r................... .. _HuntllvUic .._
46 Normal
Wnllel' _ _... _ .. H<'DlP'Itead ....
37 Normal
Waahintrton...._ _ Brenham _.._ ..
20 Normal
Wbarton.. ... _._._ Wharto n ...... _
40 NOrmlll
Wbl'elcx_ .. _. __ .. Wheeler _ ......
30 Nonnal
Wichlta. .. _. __ .._._ Wichitn Falls
36 Sut'J'lus
W Ubarger..._ ......... Vernon ........... .
33 Surplus
WUJ inmsOlL ...... _ · ~ol'1letown _
30 Normal
w Uao" - -... _
.... Floresville ....
2li Surul ua
W iec .... ___ ............ Dooatul' _ _
50 SurPlus
W ood.. _ _ .. _ .._.... Quitma.n _ ...
25 No=aj
yOUD!J'. _ _ _ _ .... Gtaluun _ ..... _.
62 Sho't'ge
Kaufnllm_ ....._ _. Kaufman ..._
Kendnll.......... __ ... Boerne ........._
Know _ _........... Truscott. ...... ..
Lllmll.'r _ _ _ ..... PariB _ _ _
29
29
75
42
29
35
27
3()
30
29.7
Number Number
Bales
Bales
Ginned
1920
From
Crop
1920 Crop Unsold
55,041
2,400
19,750
70.005
502
35,634 •
5,000
12,500
56,914
2,000
12,989
42,718
4,750
6,000
9,372
19,557
7,500
300
1.648
80,738
16,000
4,809
90
17,856
2.500
400
3.945
5,583
250
7,000
32.566
30,000
133.373
4,312
2,000
2,305
50
12,600
73 .294
1.600
10.439
5,000
31 ,666
4,062
300
6,830
3,000
1,000
6.660
10,200
17,174
30,000
98,716
29
............. .
20,000
73.197
2,100
800
16,488
............. .
500
3,319
6,607
3.000
6,386
600
9,000
29.216
1,760
17,374
15,000
30,980
19,402
1,760
67,682
2.750
21,588
3.760
2,000
2,866
4,500
6,926
4,248
1.000
10,000
61.480
14,476
760
19,171
6,500
5,000
24.778
100
540
500
15,903
1.600
11,161
5,000
40.762
650
3.600
7,377
3,100
63.915
18.000
4,431
400
1,034
525
19.209
1, 500
5,000
36,395
6,000
23,427
1,40()
8,789
600
8,436
16,000
26,792
1,860
18.072
500
5,970
7.348
1.600
7,000
24,870
157,678
20,000
6,000
20,998
900
6.035
1,600
21.646
5,000
13,014
3.729.846
714.790
COTTON MOVEMENTS THROUGH THE PORT
OF GALVESTON
April
11121
1920
,
Thill
Season
Last
SeJuion
. Gross receipts ........ 216,287 114,016 2,495,175 2,080,4 9
Exports ...... _ __ ....... 168,625 126,914 2,262,579 2,058,502
..
Stocks April 30th.. ............ ............ 341,682 224,650
GALVESTON STOCK STATEMENT
April. 1921
April, 1920
For Great Britain .............................. ..
For France........................................... .
For other foreign ports ..................... .
For coastwise ports .......................... ..
In compresses ...................................... ..
19,073
3,333
40,085
3,500
275,691
12,871
39,759
15,000
157,020
TotaL .............................................. .
341,682
224,650
SEASON'S RECEIPTS, EXPORTS AND STOCKS AT
ALL UNITED STATES PORTS
This
Season
Receipts to April 30th_ .......................
Exports: Great Britain ........................
France ..................................
Continent ..............................
Japan-China ........................
Mexico ..................................
Total foreign exports........
Stocks at all U. S. ports ....
Last
Season
5,291,055
1,340,535
463,539
1,853,232
329,205
24,017
4,010,528
1,470,798
5,531,587
2,753,244
515,377
1,526,396
742,684
512
5,538,213
1,167,668
The appended t able shows a sharp
increase during the month of April
in the volume of wheat receipts at
t he principal cent er of this district compared with
t hose of March. This increase con si t s chiefly of
ru:rivals at t he port of Galveston, wheJ:e the April
export movement of wheat amounted t o 5.666.248
bushel as against total axports for t he corresponding m onth last yeru." of ouly 1,326,874 bushel. The
amount of wheat exported through ' this POlt since
July 1, 1920, is 58,000,000 bushel, which is an increa-se of 42,000,000 bushel over the exports for
the same period during the previous eason.
Grain
Movements.
COMPARATIVE GRAIN RECEIPTS
Allril
(Oal"ll)
M..rch
(Clan!)
3,181
5,176
Wheat _......._._....................... _-_ ... ..
Galveston exports last month ex355
114
Corn ...._ .............. ___ ........................ ..
ceeded those of March by 20 per cent.
163
77
Oats _ ..._ .....- ..... _.......... _ .............
Total exports at this port for the
current season (since August 1st, 1920) have been
2,262,579 bales, which is about 200,000 bales in exLIVESTOCK
cess of the exports for the corresponding period last
The general condition of both liveseason. The increase in the cotton export movement Range
stock and ranges in this district has
through Galveston this year is in marked contrast Conditions.
undergone I ome deterioration sin'ce
s
with cotton exports for the United States as a whole,
as the outbound movement from all ports this sea- our last report. Observers in the Texas Panhandle,
son has been smaller by 1,500,000 bales than last Eastern New Mexico, and Southern Arizona report
that the month of April was marked by a serious
season's exports.
Cotton
Movements.
4
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
shortage in moisture throughout those regions, particularly in the western states. From Arizona advices are to the effect that range cattle and sheep
are in poor condition, the lamb crop small, and stock
is being moved from the drouth stricken regions to
better grazing grounds in other states. The drouth
in New Mexico has necessitated considerable feeding of livestock, which are said to be in poor condition, and heavy losses are feared during the lambing and calving season. The president of the TexasSouthwest Cattle Growars' Association estimates
that more than 2,000,000 cattle in Southern Arizona, New Mexico and that part of Texas contiguous
to EI Paso, have begun to suffer from the effects of
the drouth. Despite the shortage of moistm'e in
t he Texa Panhandle, however, stock in that ection
i r eported fair to good; and elsewhere Texas range
conditions, though not of the best, are reasonably
satisfactory.
Last month witnessed an unus'ually
heavy movement of cattle from winter
ranges to more favorable grazing
lands for the purpose of finishing their
preparation for the market. As a result of the
drouth in the western part of the district; Arizona
and New Mexico cattle in large numbers have been
moved into Texas pastures that have been recently
vacated by the cattle that have been shipped to
Kansas in what is said to be the heaviest "grass
cattle movement" in many years. On the other hand,
the spring market movement has been slow to materialize in the leading Southwestern livestock
markets. Cattle receipts at Fort Worth last month
were the smallest of any April on record except the
month of April, 1903, being 43,200 head which was
about one-half the number yarded during the corresponding month a year ago. Southwest Texas
cattle, which usually reach the market in fair volume at this time of the year, have for some reason
failed to make a showing at the Fort Worth market
during the month just past. Dealers, however, expect a sharp increase in May receipts from that section of Texas.
While the receipts of sheep at this market registered a gain of 33,109 head over March, the total fell
far short of the receipts of April, 1920, which were
120,066. The usual spring run from West Texas.
had not fairly gotten under way at the end of April.
There was a decline of 50 percent in the volume of
hog supplies as compared with the month of March.
Prices during the past month have continued the
downward course which has characterized the
mar ket for the past year. The recessions were generally moder ate, but can-ied quotations on all cIa ses
of livestock to the lowest levels of the past several
years. Buyers succeeded in hammering beef steers
for a net r eduction of $1.00 at the close of the month.
Stockers suffered heavier depreciations, and there
was practically no market for this class an any time.
Genuine lambs reached a top price of $10.25 as compared with the March maximum of $12.00, while
spring lambs at the best period old at $8.00 to
$8.50. The sheep market was camparatively steady
under heavy receipts, but closed at a decline of 75
cents, good wethers seIling late in the month as
high as $5.75.
Livestock
Movements
and Prices.
The drive on hog price can-ied that division
steadily downward until the end of the month, there
being less support for the market than usual from
the outside trade although the April deals again
included some purcha es for shipment to California,
Mexico, and other di tant markets.
The following figures reflect the receipts and
prices of livestock at the Fort Worth market of
April, 1921.
FORT WORTH LIVESTOCK RECEIPTS
A pril
Cattle .. _ ...
Calves . __
Hogs . __ ....
Sheep ...... _
March
192 1
1921
43,200
11,074
34,313
43,741
Loss or
Gain
Apr il
1920
L oss or
Gain
34,712 G 8,488 78,007 L 34,807
8,293 G 2,781
9,893 G 1,181
66,9Q4 L 32,681 38,958 L ' 4,645
10,632 G 33,109 120,066 L 76,325
COMPARATIVE TOP LIVESTOCK PRICES
Ap ril, 1921 March. 1921 April, 1920
Beef steers .... _.................. $
Stocker steers .. ........ _ ... _.
Butcher cows ..........._ ..... ..
Stocker cows .... __ ._....... _..
Calves ......._ ...... _ ....... ..
Hogs ........_.................... _... .
~::bs .. ::::::::::::::=:~==
8.40 [$
7.25
6.50
5.50
9.75
9.10
6.00
10.25
9.00 $
8.10
7.50
6.00
11.00
10.30
6.75
12.00
11.75
10.60
9.50
9.00
14.00
15.35
14.25
19.50
LUMBER
With the resumption of building operations on a
broader basis as spring advances the lumber industry in this district has shown a more favorable
trend. During the past month the improvement,
while moderate, unquestionably denotes renewed life
in the demand for lumber, as is shown by the statistics of twenty-nine reporting mills reproduced below.
Continued reduction in mill stocks is hown by the
fact that April production was again less than shipments for that month, while the 'atio of April
orders to normal production, 72 per cent, pre ents a
substantial improvement over the corresponding
ratio for the month of March, which was 61 per cent.
On April 29th the volume of unfilled orders on the
books of twenty-nine reporting mills was 37,699,200
feet, which compares with 30,265,302 feet reported
by a like number of mills under date of April 1st.
Pine mill statistics for the month of April are as
follows:
APRIL PINE MILL STATISTICS
Number of reporting mills. ...........
29
Average weekly production........ 10,768,051 ft.
Average weekly shipments .......... 11,325,825 ft.
Average weekly orders received 12,643,155 ft.
Unfilled orders April 29th ............ 37,699,200 ft.
Average weekly normal product ion .......................................... 17,672,826 ft.
Production below shipments........
557,774 ft. =
5%
Actual production below normaL 6,904,775 ft. = 39%
Orders below normal production.. 5,029,671 ft. = 28 %
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
PETROLEUM
A decline of 631,000 barrels is shown
in this dis rict's April oil production
when compared with March figures.
However, tbe total. of 11,587,470 barrels slightly
exceeded ~e yield for the corre pan ding month last
year. The falling off in production was not unex·
pected in view of the further decline in the price of
crude, which tended to check drilling operation in
all parts of the country. All fields registered smaller
yields for April. The heaviest decline occurred in
the Central West Texas section.
'Production
Off.
Drilling
Re utt .
The most important development in
the drilling activities of the past
month was the bringing in of a 5,000·
barrel wildcat well near Haynesville, Claiborne
Parish, Loui iana. This well, which is situated
north west of Homer , open . up an entirely new field,
larger, perhaps, than the Homer field and possibly
appr oaching, in size, the E l Dorado, Arkansas, pool.
This discovery has done much t o bolster t he steadily
declining LOllisiana pl"oduction, and drilling enter-
5
prises in the new field will be the center of interest
until its producing area is definitely defined.
With the exception of the new pool tapped in
Louisiana there were no developments of importance
in the drilling activities of the district. To the contrary the month of April was the third month in
succession to show a marked decrease in number of
completed wells, only 359 completions being reported
for the past month, which compares with 395 for
March and a total of 609 for the month of April,
1920.
Prices.
During the past month the large pipe
line companies announced an additional cut of 25 cents in the price of crude at most
of the fields in this district. This reduced the price
to lji1.50 at North Texas fields and to $1.00 in the
coastal section. The reduction is generally attributed
to the recently published statistics of production and
consumption for the month of March. These figures
showed an unprecedented volume of production, with
the rate of consumption about stationary.
OIL PRODUCTION
Mnl'eh
April
• Field
Total
Daily Avg.
North Texas .... __ ... __ . ______ .............. __ .______ ..__ . __ . __ ... ____ . ____ . ______ .
Central-West Texas __ ................. __ ... ____ .__ ............. __ ........... __
. Texas CoastaL __ ..... __ .. __ .__ ............ __ ......... ________ .... ____________ ..__
2,239,530
3,920,640
3,251,850
74,651
130,688
108,395
Totals, Texas.. ______ .__ . __ ............. __ .... __ .. __ .______ ....... __ .... __ ... ______ .
North Louisiana .. ____ ........ ____ .. __ ...... __ ...... __ .. ______ .. ______ .. ____ . ....
9,412,020
2,175,450
313,734
72,515
Totals, Eleventh DistricL __ ........................ ____ ..... __ .:.... __ . 11,587,470
Total
-2,373,375
- --
Increase or Decrease
Daily Avg.
Total
DlIlly AVIl.
4,177,622
3,322,036
76,561 Dec. 133845 Dec. 1,910
134,762 Dec. 256,982 Dec. 4,074
107,162 Dec . 70,186 Inc. 1,233
2,346,376
318,485 Dec.
75,689 Dec.
461,01 3 Dec. 4,751
170,926 Dec. 3,174
386,249 12,219,409
394,174 Dec.
631,939 Dec. 7,926
---9,873,033
- ---
•
APRIL DRILLING RESULTS
Field
It!itfo!
Complcilons
Producers
Central-West Texas .. ____________ .. ____ ..... ____ .. __ ................ _.... __ ....._ ................... __ ..................... ..
North Texas .. __________ ............ __ ......._......................................................... _.......................... .. .
Texas Coastal .............................................__ . ___ ...... __ ........ __ .......................................
Texas Wildcats ........ _
..............................._
.......... _...__ ._....... _..... _: ... _ ....._............ _ ........... .
129
89
61
22
108
52
47
6
21
37
14
16
36,910
6,116
44,383
795
Totals, Texas __ ...... __ ....................................................... -- .. -- ............. -.-......... - ........ - ...- .North Louisiana .. ________ . __ .....__ .......... __ ...... __ ... __ ...... __ .. __ .. __ .... __ .. ____ ...... .............. __ . ______ ._ .. __ ... __ .
301
58
213
43
88
15
88,204
8,972
April Totals, DistricL ...... _._ ... __ . _..... _...__ .......... _..._....._.._ .................................. _.
March Totals, District......................................... ___ ._.... _ ....... _..... _....... _........................ .
359
395
256
281
103
114
97,176
139,413
Failures
Production
CRUDE OIL PRICES
Texas
Corsicana lighL .. ______ .. ________ . ______ ....... __ .... ____ ... ________ .. ________ .$1.00
Corsicana heavy .. __ .______ .. ____________ . __ ... ____ .. __ ...... ____ .. __ .____ .... __ .75
Texas Coastal fields .. ____ .. ______ .. ____ ........ ________ ...... ______ .. __ .. __ 1.00
All other Texas fields __ .. __ ..... __________________ .. ______________ .. ______ . 1.50
Louisiana (38 Gravity and Above)
Caddo ..... __ .............................. __ ......................................... $1.75
Homer __ . ____ ...... __ .. ____ ..... __ ......... ____ . __ .____ . ________ .. __ .............. __ 1.00
Bull Bayou ...... ________ . __ .. __ ...... __ .. __ .__ . __ .. __ . __ ... __ .. ________ . ____ .. __ .. 1.40
De Soto .... __ ......................... __ .. __ ....... __ ...... __ .. __ ........... __ .. __ ... 1.65
(Oil Statistics compiled by the Oil Weekly, Houston, Texas.)
6
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
TRADE
Wholesale
Our April reports from 35 wholesale
Trade.
houses are featured by continued
shrinkage of prices and sales. Generally speaking the downward price curves show no
definite tendency toward flattening out. To the contrary, with one exception, the recessions reported in
April were slightly greater than those shown in
March.
Reports from seventeen wholesale grocery houses
reflect an average decrease of 12 per cent in the
value of April sales as compared with March, accompanied by a 4 per cent fall in prices; and a 48 per
cent decline in sales as compared with the corresponding month last year, partially accounted for by
a concurrent fall of 33 per cent in prices. All firms
report that the trend of prices is still downward and
that buying continued on a hand-to-mouth basis.
Sales of drugs and chemicals were 19 per cent in
value below those of the previous month, and 29
per cent under the record for April, 1920. Some
leading authorities in the drug trade report having
noticed a firmer undertone in prices lately, and
state that, considering the fact that April and May
are usually the dullest months of the year in that
trade, business just now is considered satisfactory.
e
In the dry goods market there has been no important change since our last report. Buying continues
at a slow rate and on a very conservative basis. The
extremely cool spring has depressed the demand for
summer goods, and the spirit of caution which has
dominated retail buying for some months shows no
sign of abatement. Collections in this line are
described as slow to fair.
CONDITION OF WHOLESALE TRADE DURING APRIL, 1921
Percentage of Increase or Decrease in
NET SALES
NET SALES
STOCKS
PRIOES
Allril, 1921, compared January 1st, to date, Allril, 1921, com"nred A pril, 1921, compared
with
compared with same
\vlth
with
April
Ma rch
period, 1920
April
March
April
March
1920
1921
1920
1921
1920
1921
Groceries ..................................................................... .
Drugs ......... __ .............................................................. __ .
Dry Goods __________ .. __ ..............................__ ........ __ .... ----... .
Furniture ______________ .. __ ........... __ ...........__ ......... ______ .. --.. ----.
Farm Implements __ . __ .................. ...... __ __ __ .. __ ... ______ ... __ ..
Hardware ____________ .________ __ ....................__ __ ...... __ .______ ..... --
-48.0
-29.3
-40.7
-48.1
~83.1
-30.0
-12.4
-19.6
-25.8
-20.9
- 2.6
- 9.7
Sales of merchandise by department
stores in April fell below those of
March by 12 per cent. The slackening in demand for seasonable merchandise is partially
attributable to t he weather, which h as been unusually cool f or this season of t he year. The value of
goods sold by reporting firms dUl'ing the first fOllr
months of 1921 was 11 per cent less than for the
corresponding peJ:iod last year. A careful study of
prices, howev er for the past month and for April,
1920, r eveals a deflation estimated as averaging 25
to 30 per cent, indicating that the physical volume
of distribution exceeds that of a year ago.
The automobile and accessory business, which is
Retail
Trade.
-38.2
-28.5
-51.5
-42.4
-80.3
-30.6
-24.3
-10.3
-32.4
+34.4
+ 9.7
+
+
-
3.3
9.2
.3
2.9
1.9
2.9
-33.6
-12.5
-52.5
-20.0
+ 10.0
~20.0
- 4.4
- 1.0
- 5.0
-10.0
-11.3
- 7.2
.
..
partIcuI arly senSItIve to changes in the general business situation, is reported, by some of the largest
firms in the district, to be enjoying a pronounced
increase in income, both in the form of sales and
collections. Accessory dealers report that whereas
a few weeks ago price revisions were being made by
manufacturers almost daily, changes in price lists
are now rare occurrences and the retailers are enlarging their stocks in response to an increased demand and the more stabilized status of prices. The
improvement in automobile sales has been noted in
practically all makes, although those which have
reduced prices from the peak levels seem to have
been in more active demand.
e
BUSINESS OF DEPARTMENT STORES
Increase
or Decrease
Net SalesApril, 1921 compared with April, 1920. __ .__ .______ .__ ............ .__ .... __ .__________ ... __ .__ ............... __ ............____ __ __ . __ ....... __ ......... __ .__ .. __ -17.7
April, 1921, compared with March, 1921... __ ... ____ ............................ __ .... __ ... ________ ... __ .................... __ ................. __ ... ______ .. __ ... .. -12.7
Net SalesJanuary 1st to date, compared with same period, 1920 ............. __ .__ ........ __ .. __ ......................... __ ...................... __ .......... .. -11.2
Stocks at end of April, 1921,Compared .with same month, 1920 .................... __ ................. ............... __ ............... __ ...................................... ____ .... ____ ... ____ .... . -18.1
Compared with stocks at end of March, 1921.. ................................................................................................. __ .. __ ........ .. + .5
Ratio of stocks to sales............ __ ......... __ .... __ ........... __ .............................................................................__ ......... __ ...... __ ................ . 369.6
Ratio of outstanding orders to last year's purchases ............... __ ............................................................................................. .
4.6
Ratio of April collections to Accounts Receivable, due and outstanding, April 1st,.192L ...... __ .... __ .... __ ............. __ ....... __
47.4
Department
Store Losses
in 1919.
A survey, recently completed, cover-
ing losses sustained in 1919 by Texas
department stores doing a credit
business, elicited the fact that during that year the combined charge sales of ten firms
amounted to $17,588,000 ..0.0, against which estimated _
losses amounting to $123,000.0.0 were charged off as ,.,
uncollectable. Of the total amount charged off $61,.0.0.0.00 was subsequently recovered, making a net
loss of $62,00.0.00 for the year 1919, or approximately one-third of one per cent.
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
FINANCIAL
Eleventh District member banks during the month of April reduced their
indebtedness to the Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas by $4,894,299.22,
total outs tan dings on April 30th being $73 403 '
,
886.35, distributed as follows:
Federal
Reserve
Operations.
Member bank collateral notes ........................ $14,775,777.63
(Secured 'b y Government Obligations)
Other loans to member banks, including
rediscounts.................................................. 58,603,286.02
Open market purchases of bankers'
acceptances................................................
24,822.60
Total outstanding loans to member banks $73,403,886.35
The above total (which includes rediscounts with
other Federal reserve banks $8,992,400.00) was practically the same as the amount of member banks'
indebtedness at the corresponding period last year.
On April 30th we had Federal reserve notes outstanding amounting to $58,126,645.00 which reflects
a decrease of $5,728,500.00 since the close of the
previous month and the much heavier decrease of
$25,358,555.00, or 30 per cent, by comparison with
April 30, 1920.
A gain of $2,407,801.00 was made in the amount
of member bank reserve deposits, which on April
30th stood at $45,432,392.12.
Acceptance
Market.
Our holdings of bankers' acceptances
'purchased in the open market aggregated only $24,822.60 at the close of
April. Less than $4,000.00 of these securities were
7
acquired by this bank during that month, and only a
nominal volume seems to have passed through member banks since our last report. The predominating
type of acceptance executed in this district consists
of bills of exchange used to finance the intra-state
movement of cotton. The current rate on this class
of paper at the present time is 8 per cent, which is
the rate quoted by banks at Dallas, EI Paso, and
Waco, no quotations being made at Houston, San
Antonio, or Fort Worth.
Since our last report there has been no visible
improvement in the demand for acceptances as a
medium of investment, nor is such improvement
looked for in this district until money conditions
become easier.
A shrinkage of $5,000,000.00 in deposits, while loans were decreasing
only about one-half that amount,
brought about a somewhat more unfavorable ratio between the deposits
and loans of reserve city member
banks at close of April, which was 112 per cent,
compared with a ratio of 110 per cent at the close
of March.
The pressure which member banks in the larger
cities have exerted for a reduction of their bills
receivable during the past year is clearly refiected
by a comparison of the amount of this item, on
April 29, 1921, $220,900,000.00, with the total carried on April 30th of last year, $244,9 0,000.00,
reflecting a net decrea e of $24,000,000.00 in the
loans and investments of the e banks.
Condition of
Member
Banks in
Selected
Cities.
CONDITION STATISTICS OF MEMBER BANKS IN SELECTED CITIES
April 29, 1921
52
$37,086,000
6,570,000
214,403,000
197,846,000
21,998,000
22,485,000
112%
Number of reporting banks ............................................................................
U. S. Securities owned ........................................................................ ............... .
Loans secured by U. S. War obligations ....................................................... .
All other loans and investments ..................................................................... .
Net demand deposits ......................................................................................... .
Reserve with Federal Reserve Bank .......................................................... .
Bills payable with Federal Reserve Bank .................................................... .
Percentage of loans to deposits ....................................................................... .
Another contraction in bank clearings was reported by all cities in the
district, save two, for the month of
April. Figures of the eleven reporting cities show
an average decline of 12.7 per cent in volume of
April clearing house transactions as compared with
Bank
Clearings.
March 25, 1921
.52
$41,269,000
7,320,000
215,911,000
202,611,000
22,289,000
25,571,000
110%
April 30, 1920
44
$59,707,000
9,767,000
235,274,000
235,431,000
26,472,000
50,739,000
104%
those of the preceding month, and a loss of 32.9 per
cent by comparison with April, 1920. For the first
four months of the year these cities have suffered
a net reduction of 27.6 per cent in bank clearings as
compared with those of the first four months of
1920. Detailed statistics follow:
BANK CLEARINGS
April, 1921
March, 1921
April, 1920
Inc. or Dec.
Inc. or Dec.
Since Jan. I, 1921
Since Jan. 1, 1920 Inc. or Dec.
7,021,959
6,272,945 $
5,228,413
4,347,745
103,295,148
117,553,362
25,833,074
22,654,434
47,562,626
57,389,244
29,539,824
25,090,120
108,114,282
90,772,234
29,881,294
28,908,003
16,427,474
16,576,059
10,667,591
8,753,746
10,677,000
10,266,904
-10.7
-16.8
-12.1
-12.3
-17.1
-15.1
-16.0
- 2.3
+ 0.9
-17.9
+ 4.0
$
8,176,746
6,618,500
164,175,292
27,829,467
86,623,778
28,605,900
121,207,107
36,063,354
24,075,074
15,137,467
25,615,403
-23.3
-34.3
-37.1
-18.6
-45.1
-12.3
-25.0
-19.8
-31.1
-42.2
-58.3
$
24,270,783 $
32,560,072
20,614,855
27,433,729
450,940,055
701,653,304
95,577,009
116,963,787
215,484,797
350,375,887
127,881,927
125,901,532
402,965,051
486,176,457
119,666,355
140,576,301
69,709,361
94,563,541
42,866,624
62,433,436
44,189,333
89,432,011
-25.5
-24.9
-35.7
-18.3
-38.5
+ 1.5
-17.1
-14.9
-26.3
-31.3
-50.6
Totals ..•. $ 364,910,060 $ 417,923,421
-12.7
$ 544,128,088
-32.9
$ 1,614,166,150 $ 2,228,070.057
-27.6
Austin
Beaumont.._.,
Dallas ..__ .._..
EI Paso _ ..
Fort Worth ..
Galveston ....
Houston _._ ..•
San Antonio..
Shreveport _
Waco __..... _.
Wichita Fans
$
8
MONTHLY REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS
Discount
Rates.
Effective May 16, 1921, the Federal
Reserve Bank of Dallas reduced its
discount rate on commercial, agricultural and live-stock paper from 7 per cent to 6%
per cent. At the same time the rate on paper
secured by War Finance Corporation bonds was reduced to 7% per cent.
Dallas
Prime Commercial Paper: H
Customers' 30
to 90 days ______
Customers' 4
to 6 months____
Open market
30 to 90 days
Open market
4. to 6 months
Interbank loans __
Collateral loans,
demand .__ ...•
Collateral loans.
a months .. _...•
Collateral loans,
3 to 6 months
Cattle loans ........
Loans secured by
warehouse receipts, Bs-L. etc.
Loans secured by
Gov. Securities
El Paso
L
C
H
-- - - - - -
In the following table will be found the "high," . .
"low" and "customary" discount rates charged by . .
commercial banks in the cities named below, for the
thirty day period ending May 15th. Fractional declines in customers' paper rates at Fort Worth and
San Antonio are the only changes of consequence
since our previous report.
APRIL DISCOUNT RATES
Houstion
Fort Worth
L
C
--
San Antonio
H
L
C
H
L
C
H
-- - - - - -- - - - - -- - -
L
C
Waco
H
L
-- -- -- --
C
--
8
7
7
10
7
8
8
7
8
8
6
7
8
6
7¥.!
8
7%,
8
8
7
7
10
8
8
8
7
7%
7%
6%
7
8
6
7"1h
8
7*.
8
......
8
8
8
... ... 8
7
8
7
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
8
7% 10
5%
6
7% 10
8
8
6
8
8
8
8
7
8
6
8
6%,
8
6
8
8
a •••••••
.........
~
......... ...... .. ....... ............
,
.....
-~
6
7
8
6
_
7
8
6
7
8
6
7
8
8
8
8%
8
6
7
8
6
7%
8
8
8
8
8
9
8
8
8
6
7
8
7
7% 10
6
6
8
8
'Ph
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
8
7
7
8
6
Hfi
8
8
8
10
7
8
8
6
7
8
6
71k
8
6
8
........ ... __ ... ........ ...........
8
7
7
8
8
7
8
8
8
10
7
7% 10
8
10
8
8
8
9
10
10
7*
7%- 10
8
8
61h
8
6
8
~.-
7
10
.
...............- ---- .. -_ _
.. .... ....----.
~
. ....... ........
_
'7%
COMMERCIAL FAILURES
Number
11121
J anuary_._ .. ___________________ _
__________________________________ .____________________________________ _ _ _
__ _____ _________ ____________ _ _
__
February______________________________________ _
_______________________________________________________ _ _ ____ ______ ______ _____________
__ __
March ________ .___________________________________________________________________________________ .______ _
__________________________________
ApriL.. ________________________________________________ .________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Llabllltles
1921
Numb....
1920
155 $ 3,359,871
137
2,117,068
98
2,702,583
98
2,905,847
Liabilities
1920
33 $ 284,096
31
1,830,522
19
203,445
16
100,582
TotaL ____ ._______________ . _________________________________ . ___________________________;;.;. __ :.:.:.;.:.-:.:.:.:.:.:. ---:.:.:. ---:.:.:. ---:.:.:. ---:.:.:. ---:.:.:.-'--_4.;;;,;8;..;;....J.,8...;;1;,;-1..:.;;.,0.;;;,;815;.:,;.3;..,;;6.;.,9.........---'
_._:.:.:.___ __ -- ---:.:.:. ---:.:.:. ---;.:. ---:.:.:. ---:.:.:. -9.;.,9-'---'....
2 41-:8,:.;.,6.;..4.;.,.5.....;
BUILDING
Building enterprises numbering 2,588 and valued
at $5,633,649.00 were launched during the month of
April according to building permit statistics of the
nine largest_ cities. This reflects an increase of 257
in number and $443,458.00 in valuation, as compared
with the month of March, and is the best month's
record in building activities made by these cities
during the past six months. Although the total outlay represented by the April permits fell below that
of April, 1920, by 12 per cent, a comparison of this
decline with the much heavier decline in the prices
of building material would indicate that the physical
magnitude of construction work is greater than it
was a year ago.
BUILDING PERMITS
April,
1921,
No_
Austin --------------------------------------------------,-----------------.---------------------------------------_
Beaumont ______________________________________________________________ _ _
_____ ________________________________
Dallas _____ ._________________________________________________________________________________________________ _ _
_____
El Paso ________________________ _
___________ _ _
_____ _____________________ _ _
__ _________________________________ _ _
_____
Fort Worth _____________________________________________________________________________ _ _
_____ ___________ _ _
_____
Galveston _________________________________________________ •_______________________________ •_____________________ _
Houston _________________________________________________________________________________ _ _
__ ____________________ _
Shreveport __________________________________________________________________________________ _
__________________ _
San Antonio ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ _
April,
1921,
Valuation
30,560
22 $
128
70,543
1,603,845
448
548,685
183
190
600,919
429
101,402
1,174,695
584
291
341,645
1,161,355
313
April,
1920,
No.
April,
1920,
Valuation
11 $
27,990
149
227,192
266
1,081,252
436,139
152
260
1,757,643
312
83,550
383
2,209,036
187
345,830
283,885
188
TotaL _______________________________________________________ ..... _________________________ .________________ .. 2,588 $ 5,633,649 1,908 $ 6,452,517
Inc_ or Dec.
+
9.2
68.9
48.3
25.8
65.8
21.4
- 46.8
1.2
+309.1
+
+
-
+
-
12.7
@FedFRASER