^*-^' 'rn.^ I -'vli^C *. >^/>* The date shows when this voltune was taken. To renew this book copy the call No. and give to the librarian. ;> |: .J HOME USE RULES >rv.'^ AU books subject to -recall W' f. All borrowers must regis- \ ter in the library to borrow books for home use. All books must be re- turned at end of college ' * year for inspection and repairs. Limited books must be returned within the four week limit and not renewed. Students must return all books before leaving town. ^ Officers should arrange for the return of books wanted during their absence from town. Volumes of periodicals and of pamphlets are held in the library as much as possible. For special pur- poses they are given out for a limited time. Borrowers should not use their library privileges for the'benefit of other persons. Boeks of special value and gift books, when the giver wishes t' the Port, New Jei-sey is likely to secure a preference in railroad rates. It is thought by many authorities that should New Jersey proceed alone in developing her portion of the harbor New York would not be successful as it was some years ago in a contest before the Interstate Commerce Commission to preserve the New York Rate Zone. In Januarj-, 1918, the Interstate Commerce Commission de- cided against the New Jersey cities in their contest to overthrow the existing f reigh rates to New York and the New Jersey shore and to do away ^\-ith free lighterage to New York. Should the New Jei-sey cities have been successful, the City of New York would have been placed at a serious economic disadvantage. The Interstate Comjneree Commission at that time suggested that "adequate freight tunnels under the North River, which appar- ently could be constructed at a cost quite in comparison with the resulting benefit, would make it possible to handle a large portion of ilaiihattan freight traffic without the use of lighters on ear floats." If the Port Authority plan does not succeed, there is every reason to believe that some day the New Jersey cities will be able to secure a differential in the railroad rates on freight allowing them 3^ per hundred pounds less than prevails on goods to be delivered in New York. New York will gain more by being a partner with New Jersey in future Port development. ACTION BY CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND OTHER ORGANIZA- TIONS FAVORING PORT PLAN AND NECESSARY LEGISLATION. Among the Chambers of Commerce and other organizations which have favored the plan are the following : Organizations Endorsing the Port Plsm. Central Mercantile Association Chamber of Commerce of the State of Xew York City CTub of Xew York Council of Jewish Women Merchants Association of Xew York ilunieipal Art Society of Xew York Xational Marine League Lighterage Association of the Port of Xew York Xew York State Federation of Women's Clubs Xew York State League of Women A'oters Xew York Towboat Exchange Women "s Citv Club of Xew York Women "s Municipal League of Xew York Bronx Board of Trade Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce Commerce Club of Brooklyn Flatbush Chamber of Commerce Greenpoint Tax Payers' Association New York Boat Owners' Association National Civic Federation of New York Kings Kighwaj Board of Trade Staten Island Chamber of Commerce (With reservations rela- tive to Narrows Tunnel) Queens Chamber of Commerce Albany Chamber of Commerce Amsterdam Board of Trade Beacon Chamber of Commerce Binghamton Chamber of Commerce Board of Commerce, Peekskill Buffalo Chamber of Commerce Elmira Chamber of Commerce Fulton Chamber of Commerce Middletown Chamber of Commerce Mount Vernon Chamber of Commerce Nyack Chamber of Commerce Oneida Chamber of Commerce Peekskill Chamber of Commerce Tonawanda Chamber of Commerce Westchester Chamber of Commerce White Plains Chamber of Commerce Port Authority Favored by N. Y. Chamber. At the regular monthly meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, held January 5, 1922, the following Report and Resolutions, submitted by its Committee on the Harbor and Shipping, were unanimously adopted: To the Chamber of Commerce: The Chamber and its Committee on the Harbor and Shipping have been actively interested, from its inception, in the plan to place the Port of New York under a single port authority. The desirability of centrali- zation of authority has been shown by the experience of other important ports throughout the world. The great advantages to New York of such a step are obvious, and the Chamber has accordingly carefully followed the work of the New York-New Jersey Port and Harbor Development Com- mission and of its successor, the Port of New York Authority, which has resulted in the adoption of the treaty between the States of New York and New Jersey for the establishment of a central Port Authority. It is, therefore, well known here that both the Bi-State Commission and the Port of New York Authority, formed to study the plans recom- mended by the Commission, and to make a comprehensive report to the Legislatures of the two States, have carried on their work in a most ef&cient and comprehensive manner. The painstaking and unselfish devotion and public-spirited enterprise of the members of these two bodies, looking to a solution of the problems of this port, have been seldom, if ever, equalled. The New York-New Jersey Port and Harbor Development Commis- sion some months ago reported a comprehensive plan for the development of the Port of New York. The Port of New York Authority since its organization some seven months ago has made a very complete and ex- haustive examination of the report of the Bi-State Commission, and at a conference of the Advisory Council on December 7th, 1921, Mr. Eugenius H. Outerbridge, Chairman of the Port of New York Authority, read a pre- liminary report of a comprehensive plan for the development of the Port of New York. This preliminary report adopts the main essentials of the compre- hensive plan reported previously by the Bi-State Commission, making, however, a number of suggested alterations which their study seemed to make necessary. The report of the Bi-State Commission occupies a large 9 volume and goes into many details which it is not necessary nor the province of this Committee to pass upon. Your Committee, however, has made a study, and is in favor of the basic principles underlying the devel- opment of the port as outlined in the preliminary report of Mr. Outer- bridge, above referred to. These are as foUovfs: "First — That terminal operations within the port district must be unified and under one administration; "Second — That there should be consolidation of shipments at proper classification points so as to eliminate duplication of effort, in efScient loading of equipment and realize reduction in expenses; ' ' Third — That there must be the most direct routing of all commodities so as to avoid centers of congestion, conflicting currents and long truck- hauls ; "Fourth — That aU terminal stations should be Union stations; "Fifth — That the process of eo-ordinating facilities should so far as practicable adapt existing facilities as integral parts of the new system so as to avoid needless destruction of existing capital investment and reduce so far as may be possible the requirements for new capital; "Sixth — That all railroads must be brought to all parts of the port and wherever practicable without cars breaking bulk, and that this neces- sitates tunnel connection between New Jersey and Long Island; "Seventh — That there must be urged upon the Federal Authorities im- provement of channels so as to give access for that type of water-borne commerce adapted to the various forms of development which the respective shore-fronts and adjacent lands of the port would best lend themselves to; "Eighth — Highways for motor truck trafle must be laid out so as to permit the most efficient inter-relation between terminals, pier and indus- trial establishments not equipped with railroad sidings and for the dis- tribution and collection of building materials and many other commodities which must be handled by trucks. ' ' It will be noted that a report covering the island of Manhattan has not yet been presented for the consideration of the Advisory Council, al- though the service to Manhattan is covered to some extent in Mr. . Outer- bridge 's preliminary report. A further report, however, on the island of Manhattan is promised, and your Committee will consider that report when it has been outlined. Your Committee, therefore, offers the following resolutions: Sesolved, That the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York approves in general the plans of the Port of New York Authority as thus far announced ; and be it further Resolved, That the Legislatures of the States of New York and New Jersey be urged to enact laws at the next session of the Legislatures which shall make it possible for the Port of New York Authority to carry out the general principles of port development as outlined. Plan Endorsed by Merchants' Association. This plan has been endorsed in general by The Merchants' Association in the following resolution : "Resolved, By The Merchants' Association of New York that it approves in general of the system of belt and marginal railroad lines proposed in the Port Authority's Preliminary Report of a Comprehensive Plan for the Development of the Port of New York, and that such belt lines should be constructed as need for them is demon- strated. 10 "Eesohcd. That final action upon the proposed under- ground automatic electric system in the Borough of Man- hattan should be deferred pending further study of plans which promise greater economies and immediate relief." Resolutions Asking the State Legislature to Sustain the Report o( the Interstate Commission and the Recommendations of the Honorable Nathan L. Miller, Governor of the State of New York, in Reference to the Port of New York. Whereas, The Oneida Chamber of Commerce have given careful study and consid- eration to the plan of improving the Ports of New York and New Jersey, and combin- ing them under what is known as the Fort of New York. Whereas, We find this to be an economical measure particularly affecting the com- merce of the State outside of the Port district, and believing this plan would greatly relieve congestion at times of e^cport freights. Therefore, Be it resolved. That we respectfully urge the Legislature of the State of New York to enact such laws and make such provision as is necessary to perfect this plan as outlined and recommended by the joint Commission. Further Resolved, That we heartily commend the Hon. Xathan I,. Miller for his clear and concise recommendations in reference to this subje<:t. Further Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be submitted to the committee in charge of this measure, to the Hon. Allen J. Bloomfield, State Senator, Hon. J. Arthur Brooks, Member of the Assembly, to the Speaker of the Assembly and Presi- dent of the Senate. Dated January 9, 1922. Lighterage Association of the Port of New York. At a stated meeting of the Lighterage Association of the Port of New York, held December 14th, 1921, the following Preamble and Eesolution was unanimously adopted: Whereas, the Port of New York Authority was created by compact signed on April 30, 1921, by representatives of the States of New York and New Jersey, and which compact was authorized by Congress and signed by President Harding on August 23, 1921, and Whereas, the Port of New York Authority has been directed by the Joint Legislatures of these two States to present to them a compact business plan by January 1, 1922, and Whereas, the Port of New York Authority through its Chairman, Eugenius H. Outerbridge, presented such a plan at a conference of the Advisory Council, December 7, 1921, therefore be it Ueso^ved, That the Lighterage Association of the Port of Xew York, heartily endorses the comprehensive plan as presented and recommends its adoption by the Legislatures of the State of New York and the State of New Jersey. The City Club of New York, 55 West 44th Street, MEilOEAXDIJM ENDOKSING THE PLAN OF THE PORT AUTHORITY and in support of biUs Senate Int. Xo. -tl, Meyer; and Assembly Int. No. 129, ilastick The City Club of New York endorses the Plan of the Port of New York Authority for the Comprehensive Development of the Port of New York. The official port plans have been under preparation for a number of years. They have been much discussed and have stood the test of popular and expert criticism. At the same time, sections six and seven of the Meyer-Mastiek bUl give sufficient leeway for future modification of details. The need now is for prompt affirmative legislative action in approval of the plan. The Club's support of the plan is the result of a long and earefiil study of the problem. As a whole the plan proposed by the Port Authority 11 is not in its essence a technical matter. It is one that can be understood by an3-one who is willing to consider the difficulties that threaten to cripple the Port of New York. Congestion in Manhattan and growing congestion in other parts of the Port District, is leading to a blockade of industry. This is adding daily to the inconvenience of living or carrying on business in New York and is increasing the cost of food and shelter t&oughont the District. The passage of the Meyer-Mastick bill is strongly recommended. Govemors Endorse Plan (or Port Development. Chief Executives of New York and New Jersey Ask the Legisla- tures of the Two States to Approve the Scheme Proposed by the Port of New York Autfwrity — BiU Is Introduced to Give the Plan the Sanction of the Law Makers — The Erie Plan Described. (From Bulletin of the ]\Ierchants' Association of New York, Jan. 18, 1922.) Governor Nathan L. Miller, in a special message to the Legisla- ture last Monday night, strongly recommended the adoption of the plan proposed by the Port of New York Authority for the improvement of the Port. Governor Edward I. Edwards, of New Jersey, in his regular message to the Legislature last Tuesday, also recommended the adoption of the development plan by the Legislature, notwith- standing the fact that he opposed last year the bUl creating the Port Authority. He calls the plan fair to New Jersey. A bill embodying the plan has been introduced in the New York Legislature. It sanctions in detail the features described in the report made by the Port Authority to the Legislature as printed in "Greater New York," and gives the Port Authority power to proceed with the improvement. In submitting the plan to the Legislature, the Governor briefly reviews the consideration given to the improvement of the Port by the New York- New Jersey Port and Harbor Development Commission from 1917 to 1920, and refers to the creation of the Port Authority which was required by the act of last year to submit the plan of improvement to the Legislature. The Grovernor then says: "The Port Authority has intensely reviewed the work of the former bi-State commission, has conducted further research work, has conferred with practically every agency, pubUe or private, whose activities bear any relation to the subject, with every trade and civic organization, and wili every municipal authority, willing to confer, within the Port District, and has carefully considered every plan proposed, every suggestion made and every criticism offered. ' ' The plan now submitted is the result. "It is not perfect. ' ' No plan of such magnitude ever will be submitted perfect in all its details. "Any plan will be found upon execution to require modification from time to time. The plan itself contemplates that. The statute of the two States and the compact between them pursuant thereto expressly provide for it. The act approving the plan should, like the plan itself, be flexible enough to admit of needful changes from time to time as the necessity therefor may be developed in its actual execution. 12 "The immediate question for consideration, the question whose answer should be decisive of the action now to be taken by the Legislature of the two States, is whether the plan as a whole is based on sound fundamental principles. '•I am persuaded that it is fundamentally sound, not alone from the character and ability of the men who have been intensively studying it for five years, not alone from my own views formed after considerable study of it, but also because of the practically unanimous approval of its general principles by every civic and trade organization within the 105 municipali- ties included within the Port District, and because after ample opportunity for the widest discussion and the most general consideration of it, there appears to be general approval of the plan and opposition only from a single quarter and that opposition entirely of a destructive character. "The statute made it the duty of the Port Authority to confer with the governing bodies of all the municipalities within the Port District. Pursuant thereto after submitting copies of the report of the bi-State Com- mission to such bodies, the Port Authority invited each of them to con- ferences and requested the benefit of their criticisms, suggestions and advice. One such governing body alone declined in any way to cooperate, and that was the City Administration of the City of New York. It re- fused even to confer in spite of the fact that the one member of the City Administration, who understood the subject, the Commissioner of Docks, had been a member of the bi-State Commission and had signed the report recommending a compact between the two States and the cre- ation of a Port District and a Port Authority with adequate powers for the comprehensive development of the Port, and in spite of the further fact that the Democratic State Platform in 1920 unequivocally declared in favor of a compact between the two States providing 'for the creation of a Port District and a Port Authority with adequate powers to develop the Port comprehensively.' "All agree that there is immediate, pressing, critical need of the comprehensive improvement of port and terminal conditions at the Port of New York. ' ' The present facilities have been developed without plan, largely as mere expedients and in such fashion as to create rather than to relieve congestion. No one disputes that they are inadequate to the prompt handling of the commerce of the Port and unduly expensive. The resulting burden of expense and loss falls upon the commerce of the country, upon consumer and producer alike, for New York is the great distributing, re- ceiving and manufacturing center. That burden taxes the means of earn- ing a living and directly adds to the cost of living of the eight million inhabitants of the Port District. Every article consumed or manufactured in the district, every article which comes to or passes through the dis- trict pays tribute. Shipping is leaving the Port. Commerce is seeking other outlets to the sea. But incapable itself of affording any rslief, the New York City Administration not only refuses to cooperate but for par- tisan reasons attempts to obstruct any constructive effort to solve a prob- lem, which is difficult enough at best and in the solution of which politics should play no part whatsoever. Its obstructive tactics prevented action on the report of the bi-State Commission in 1919. Again similar tactics prevented the making of a compact between the two States in 1920. Those tactics did not prevail with the Legislature of 1921. They have now taken on a new form for which an opportunity was presented by chapter 700 of the Laws of 1921, which provided for the construction of a freight and passenger tunnel between the Boroughs of Richmond and Brooklyn. I signed that bill, though conscious of its defects, in the hope that it might stimulate study which would lead to the construction of the long dis- cussed and sadly needed Staten Island tunnel, and in the further hope, though I cannot say in the expectation, that the City Administration would confer and cooperate with the Port Authority, if not with the Transit Commis- 13 sion, and that a plan would be devised so as to bring the tunnel project 'into proper relation to the two great problems of development of port and transit facilities. ' ' ' But the City Administration used the authority conferred by the act not to construct the Staten Island tunnel, not to prepare for construction of a tunnel, either freight or passenger, not even to discover the defects in the bill with the view to have them remedied, but solely to prepare a plan for Port development, which is obviously brought forward for no other purpose than to frustrate the work of the Port Authority and if possible prevent the adoption of its plan. The bad faith of this new proposal is sufficiently dis- closed by the fact that as reported it involves an issue of the corporate stock of the City to an estimated amount of $225,000,000, which is much beyond the borrowing capacity of the City and will continue indefinitely beyond its bor- rowing capacity unless provision is made to release the credit of the City now frozen in unproductive subway bonds. It is reported that an appeal is to be made to the Legislature to authorize such an issue of corporate stock. I have to assume that those making the appeal know that all the Legislature can do in the way of increasing the debt limit is to submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the people, which will require at least two years, even supposing that any one of sense would look with favor upon a proposal to increase the debt limit. "The chief engineer of the City urges the pressing necessity of Port improvement and suggests as a substitute for the Port Authority already created by the compact between the two States that a new State be organized comprising the 105 municipalities within the Port District. Meanwhile it is proposed by the New York City Administration that it is a suitable agency to undertake the development of port facilities in a district comprising parts of two States and 104 municipalities besides the City of New York, and to coordinate the terminal facilities of the trunk railroads most of which terminate in the State of New Jersey. "Last year the bill authorizing the compact between the two States was opposed by the City Administration on the ground that it violated home rule. After its passage and when the question of its approval by Congress was pending, the City's opposition to such approval was put upon the ground that the compact was an interference with the federal power to regulate interstate commerce. "The truth is that no power, no right, no property of the City is to be interfered with, and the powers of the Port Authority are such that they could not be exercised by the local administration of one of the municipalities involved even assuming that such agency were otherwise suited or had the capacity to undertake the task. "The power of each municipality to develop its own water front is expressly preserved. "There is no power in the Port Authority to pledge the credit either of the municipalities or of the State. Any plan which it presents will have to be financed on its own merits. ' ' The Port Authority has already been constituted. The compact creating it has been unanimously approved by Congress. It is the one existing agency having the power, the capacity, the public confidence, the necessary contacts with other agencies, municipal. State and National, and the knowledge of the problem required for the inauguration of prompt measures of relief. "Obviously the first thing to do is to bring about a better coordi- nation and unification of existing facilities so as to secure a maximum of efficiency at a minimum of expense and delay. The report discloses that much can be done in that respect. That work needs to be begun now, not next year or the year after or some indefinite time in the future. The approval of the plan is essential to the first step. "The Port of New York with its bays and rivers, its 800 nules of water front, much of it still undeveloped, offers unrivaled natural ad- vantages capable of almost limitless development to handle not only the 14 ■past commerce which now originates in, comes to or passes through the Port, but the natural increase of that commerce as well. ' ' The question now is whether those unrivaled advantages shall longer be handicapped by obsolete and inadequate methods and facilities. "The subject has been debated for years. Congress is watching, the rest of the country is watching to see whether the measures which have been promised to relieve the commerce of the country are really going to be taken. ' ' The time has now come for action. Further delay will be notice to the country not to rely on the promised measures of relief, and will accelerate the drift away from the Port of New York and the effort to commit the Federal government to a vast expenditure for another outlet to the sea. "I submit the matter to the Legislature trusting that prompt action will be taken." Eeconunendations favoring the ratifications of the Port Authority plan were contained in the annual message of Governor Edwards submitted to the New Jersey Legislature. He said of it: "While I opposed the creation of the body believing that the interest of New Jersey lay in working out alone the development of its resources it is my present opinion from an examination of the report and plan that the Commissioners of the Port have dealt justly by this State and that the plan should be approved." Albany Chamber of Commerce. Whereas, The Port of New York Authority has submitted to the Legis- lature a report including plan for the comprehensive development of the Port of New York without the use of the public funds of the State, and Whereas, The plan includes a practical method for utilizing and de- veloping the facilities in and near New York City in such a manner as to greatly reduce the handling charges on all freight passing through the dis- trict and in a manner consistent with the best modern practice and capable of adaptation to the needs for many years to come, and Whereas, It is of vital interest to every business man and citizen in the locality that the Port of New York shall now and hereafter handle aB freight in a most efficient manner. Be it therefore resolved, That we, the Board of Directors of the Albany Chamber of Commerce, hereby urge that favorable action by the Legislature be taken on the report of the Port of New York Authority. January 12, 1922. PRESS OPINION FAVORING PORT PLAN AND LEGISLATION TO CARRY IT OUT. The Port Plan. (From "Journal of Commerce," Friday, January 6, 1922.) A comprehensive and carefully devised plan for the co-ordination and development of the facilities of the port of New York is now before the Governors of New York and New Jersey. The proposals therein contained are in a very real way of vital interest to the people of the nation at large. They are the especial concern of the citizens of the two States directly charged with the adoption or rejection of the scheme in whole or in part. Most of all, these plans affect the interest of the population of the port district itself. It is well therefore that the public be reminded once more of the salient facts and problems involved. The task laid upon the Commission 15 and later upon the Port Authority is a large, difficult and complex one, and the relatively complete eradication of existing ills and the preparation for future expansion require considerable time. It is vastly to the credit of those charged with these duties that they have realized these facts and are proposing evolutionary rather than revolutionary treatment. The twelve trunk lines serving this port bring in, take out or bear through the district more than 75,000,000 tons of freight each year. Steamships, not less than 8,000 in number, bring to or take from the port over 45,000,000 tons of freight per annum. In addition, the amount of local water borne commerce is almost incalculable. Provisions for the ter- minal handling of this vast trade have been developed in a haphazard fashion without comprehensive planning, as demands from widely vary- ing and co-ordinated interests required. Congestion, delay in service and high costs are the result. As uneconomic and inadvisable from the larger viewpoint as much of this is, it is not to be forgotten that efforts to bring about unduly sudden or drastic changes, even if feasible, could hardly fail to bring eon- fusion and heavy property losses to legitimate interests. This fact the Port Authority happily realizes and suggests steps looking toward an or- derly readjustment in methods and practices and progressive improvement in facilities. Temporary plans for immediate relief appear to be sound and conservative and are scheduled in due time to give place in a logical manner to permanent arrangements. It will naturally take some years for the full development of the "plan" now proposed. Its consummation is to come step by step. The chronological sequence in which the sundry component parts are to be constructed cannot be definitely set in advance, but is to be determined as exigencies seem to demand. Under the law such facilities as the Port Authority undertakes to construct or operate must stand on their own feet as business enterprises. No power of taxation and no authority to pledge the credit of any political organization, State or local, is granted to the Authority. This' undoubtedly is as it ought to be. A very important part of the normal functions of such an organiza- tion, entirely apart from construction or the operation of new facilities, is that of co-ordinating existing arrangements and those planned for the future by the States and municipalities within the district. For this reason and because of the fact that the Authority has no power of eminent domain it is essential that bona fide co-operation on the part of the 105 municipal- ities within the port area be had. Needless to say, therefore, the atti- tude of the present administration in this city in this connection is more than reprehensible. The future of the port of New York is in its own hands. Practically the only limit to the volume of trade that will in the future come in or pass through it is that imposed by its ability to handle the trade. For many years partisan polities have stood in the way of the logical and sane development of facilities here. Now at length we have a compre- hensive plan which appears to embody the combined wisdom of the engi- neering and business world. What is to be the attitude of the legisla- tures of the two States? Unless this plan can be shown to have grave defects now unsuspected, and unless its opponents are able to ofEer con- structive criticism of real weight, it would be little short of criminal for the project to be impeded or impaired in Trenton or Albany. A Unified Port. (Journal of Commerce, N. Y., May 2, 1921.) It was a significant and impressive ceremony which occurred on Satur- day at the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York, when the representatives of New Jersey and New York officially signed the treaty between the two States wherein provision is made for the creation of a 16 Port Authority and for a port district to be supervised jointly by com- missioners from both States. The signers of the document were mem- bers of the New York and New Jersey Harbor Development Commission, which has devoted more than two years to an investigation of conditions affecting this port and whose recommendations resulted in the act author- izing the treaty. So fully have the elements in the general problem of our port been discussed in these columns in months past that no more than a reference to the outstanding issues involved in the historic event of last Saturday are necessary. Hitherto we have suffered from haphazard and some- times conflicting policies relating to the development of the harbor and the working out of the many economic questions relating to it. Growth has been hampered by the restrictions inevitable under existing laws and charters, concerning the incurring of fresh indebtedness beyond certain limits and the ambitions and rivalries of various communities which should have worked together toward the common good have too often displaced considerations growing out of the general welfare. The evils and difficulties of the past should now be at an end, since the foundation has been laid for the establishment of the machinery necessary for the vigorous advancement of the interests of this port. There is no reason to doubt that the progress will be continuous and its results commensurate with the greatness of the issues which are at stake. Despite its difficulties New York has, by reason of its superior natural advantages, already attained by far the chief position among American ports as the gateway through which a large proportion of our export and import trade moves. What is now to be done will facilitate and increase the convenience of this trade and will reduce the expense attendant upon it. It is not a, local problem pure and simple. The highest of national service is now open to the New Port Authority. Local and National Port Interests. (N. ¥. Times, Dec. 1, 1921.) In behalf of the plan to develop the Port of New York by co-opera- tion between New York and New Jersey, the Chairman of the commis- sion makes a comparison between what may be called the national plan and the local plan proposed by the Board of Estimate. The point of difference between the plans is that one proposes a tunnel between two boroughs of the city and the other a tunnel between the States of New York and New Jersey. A tunnel between Staten Island and Brooklyn would not benefit the city any more than connecting the railroads of New Jersey and the steamships of Manhattan by way of a tunnel between Greenville and Bay Ridge. On the contrary, the Port Authority plan would so much better accommodate the national traffic that the incidental local benefits promise to be greater than by the city plan. The city plan would have to depend upon city resources, whereas the bi-8tate plan would have a superior claim to support from both States and national resources as well. If either plan is to be carried through, it is important to emphasize the national rather than the local phases, for there are local rivalries and jealousies threatening any and every plan. Queens Borough is worried lest the westerly side of the national harbor should be benefited at its expense. On the other hand, there are those in New Jersey who would rather develop the Port of Newark than the Port of New York. There could be no national interest in the development of either Queens Borough or Newark, but there could hardly be a greater national interest of the sort than the linking together in the most efficient manner of the railways of New Jersey and the steamships of Manhattan. About 80 per cent of the rail tonnage enters or leaves harbor waters from New Jersey. About 75 per cent of the water tonnage finds its terminals going or coming on the 17 New York side of the port. The problem from a national point of view is to bring together lie rail and steamship terminals in such a manner as to serve most economically and efficiently both the land and water carriers and the nation's largest market. No plan designed to serve particularly any borough or any city can compare with that national service. No doubt the city plan proposed by the Board of Estimate would improve the existing service, but it is inferior to the broader and better plan. From a New York point of view it is not a valid objection that New Jersey would benefit from the Port Authority plan. Neither ia it a merit of the Board of Estimate plan that New York might attract some business which otherwise might go to New Jersey. The benefit of both, as incidental to benefit to the nation, is the controlling consideration. The criticism of the Port Authority Chairman is that the Board of Esti- mate plan does not so well adapt itself to the existing facilities of the New Jersey railways or to distribution of the traffic on the New York side of the port. If the local plan were adopted, the existing classifica- tion yards of the railways would have to be scrapped or rebuilt, and there would be a waste of mileage in operation. The suggestion that either plan is necessary because of the dwindling trade of New York is mistaken. It is true that there has been a great decline of foreign trade through New York in both directions; but that ia not peculiar to New York. Collector of the Port Aldridge has analyzed the loss of New York in connection with the loss of the country, and shows that "the relative volume of business at New York for the first nine months of 1921, as compared with the entire country, has been maintained with a remarkable degree of uniformity. ' ' The plan of the Port Authority is not one designed to benefit New York at the expense of other ports, and in particular is not motived by any anxiety at the loss of its share. New York is doing very well, and wishes to do better only as it serves the nation better. Development Plans. (^New York Times, January 1, 1922.) We publish this morning a very full summary of the plan for the de- velopment of the Port of New York under the Port Authority created by agreement between the States of New York and New Jersey and ratified by Congress. Every reader of The Times who takes an intelligent interest in the welfare of the community should make himself familiar with the work of the Port Authority and its plans. He should find out what the development plan means. That may be best understood, perhaps, if we say at once that the facilities of the Port of New York for receiving, distributing and ship- ping commodities are the worst to be found in any great port in the world. There is a population of about 8,000,000 in the port district; there are twelve trunk line railroads which transport to, from or through the port more than 75,000,000 tons of freight per annimi; 8,000 steamships bring or carry away 45,000,000 tons more of freight; the local movement is im- mense. A very slight increase or decrease in the cost per ton, per package or per consignment of moving this immense mass of goods means a great deal to the prosperity of the merchants of the port, and, consequently, to the relative standing of the port in comparison with others. These costs are now very high, extravagantly high. They drive trade elsewhere. It is the plan of the Port Authority to reduce costs and mate- rially to promote the convenience of doing business by unifying the port. It has two sides, the New Jersey side and the New York side, including Long Island. The port plan wiU unite the nine railroads on the westerly side of the port by a belt line, and the three trunk lines on the easterly side by another belt line. The two sides will be united by a timnel under the bay. 18 There are plans for the extensive use of motor trucks in distribution, which will be facilitated by the employment of the most modern labor-saving de- vices for the loading and unloading of goods. System will be substituted for chaos. Delays in delivery will be vastly diminished, costs reduced, swift- ness and certainty of commodity interchanges promoted. The plan offers certain and enormous advantages to the city, yet the present City Administration opposes it with a blind and dull obstinacy difficult to understand. An aroused public opinion must be marshaled in support of the plan. It must be carried through to execution or the Port of New York will see a great part of its business attracted to other ports less favored by nature but more intelligently administered. The Port Authority plan has two merits which should notably commend it to the approval of the people of New York City. By eliminating ex- cessive handling costs, it will tend directly and certainly to lower prices of necessary supplies, clothing, foodstuffs and building material, and so will reduce living costs. Secondly, it calls for no expenditure of tax money; the plan will be carried out altogether with private funds. On the contrary, the City Administration's projects can be executed only by taxing the people. Port and Board o( Estimate. {New YorTc Sun, July 25, 1921.) The failure of representatives of the city government to come to a conference with the lately created Board of the Port Authority suggests a lack of the proper spirit of understanding between those working for the port and those in charge of the affairs of the city. The members of the Board of Estimate had an invitation to meet the port board at its first hearing. They neither attended nor are known to have proposed any substitute plan for bringing the two groups into co-operation. . . . New York needs a Board of Estimate that will take care of its in- terests in the port development; and will not put ahead Tammany's pier leasing interests or any other obstructive considerations. The present board may not be obedient to this or that hostile interest that the New Yorker could name. The fact remains that it has not shown alacrity in taking up the port matter; and the public result is the same. Port Development Absurdities. {Journal of Commerce, N. ¥., Jan. 14, 1922.) It has been clear all along to well informed observers that the BO-called port development plan put forward by city officials here was to be considered as nothing more than a scheme hastily designed for political purposes. Mayor Hylan and his followers found themselves in a position such that in order to give any strength to their fight in Albany against the plan of the Port Authority they had to present a counter proposal which would at least have the appearance of constructive thought. The plan now put forward is the result. That this strategy has not been entirely unsuccessful is evidenced by the fact that the "plan" thus thrust forward at the eleventh hour is, in some quarters at least, apparently taken seriously. If city officials have any constructive criticism to offer why did they not come forward with it long ago? As a matter of fact, they have none. The counter proposals now made are so obviously ill advised and poorly planned that even a wayfaring man need not err therein. Not the slightest attention should be paid to them. 19 A Port o( 8,200,000 Inhabitants. (N. T. Morning World, Dec 13, 1921.) The Port of New York Authority figures at 7,974,019 the 1920 census population of the district comprised in its plans, including part of West- chester County and the nearby Jersey area. In 1900 there were in this area 4,700,759 people. Since the 1920 census was taken, further growth makes a present total of more than 8,200,000. But Greater New York has now reached, like Greater London, the condition of a diminishing rate of increase in the older settled portions, with an actual decrease in downtown wards. The twenty-year increase in New York City has been 63 per cent and in Southern Westchester 117 per cent. In the Jersey area the increase is 83 per cent, but its further portions have grown as fast as Westchester. In the face of figures like these it is idle to talk of the Port of New York as if it were simply the city. It is a community embracing fourteen counties or parts of counties, with 5,800,000 people inside the city Unes and 2,400,000, more rapidly increasing, outside these lines. And nowhere from Piermont to South Amboy can a ship so small tie up to a wharf so remote that it does not mean business for the financial and commercial centres of the region, the greatest of which is Lower Man- hattan. The interests of the entire port area are one and indivisible. In criticising details of the Port Authority's plans Mayor Hylan may be right or wrong. That is a question for engineers to study. But the place to argue the question is with the Port Authority and not in the Board of Estimate. A port territory embracing parts of two States and many local governments cannot be handled in a single municipality of that area. In the broad outlines of its plan the Port Authority is on the right track. Keep Politics Out of the Port. (N. T. Morning World, Jan. 10, 1922.) In his special message on the Port Authority Gov. Miller disposes of factious opposition in a way that should be final. The city opposes action. But the "one member of the City Adminis- tration who understood the subject, the Dock Commissioner, had been a member of the Bi-State Commission and had signed the report" favor- ing the Port District and Authority. There is partisan opposition. But that looks foolish in the face of the Democratic State platform of 1920 for the "creation of a Port District and Port Authority with adequate powers. ' ' Having power, conferred by the Legislature, to build a tunnel to Staten Island, the city, says Gov. MBler, used that power to present a plan for port development, "obviously brought forward for no other purpose than to frustrate the work of the Port Authority" and to block its plan. The Hylan Administration acts in "bad faith;" its proposed $225,000,000 bond issue exceeds the debt limit and cannot be legalized except by constitutional amendment, a process consuming two years, "even supposing that any one with sense would look with favor" on sneh a procedure. The city cannot act for two States and 105 separate communities. Why it should wish to prevent port development by the one power that can act, continuing the burden that adds to the cost of living and drives 20 commerce to other ports, is a puzzle. But that seems to be the situation. The State was compelled to create the Transit Commission and deal with the transit problem because the City Administration was doing nothing. It is doing nothing for the port except to obstruct the only feasible means of development, and the State, in concert with New Jersey, will have to undertake that labor also, deprived of the city's aid and advice which it has the right to expect. New York City of the Future (Mail, Dee. 14, 1921.) New York City, unfortunately, does not and can not politically con- trol all the territory directly affected by its port development. Sections lying outside the city limits in New York State and in New Jersey, how- ever, are of great importance and are vitally interested in the scheme of improvement and co-ordination. This is being worked out by what is known as the Port of New York Authority, composed of commissioners of this State and New Jersey, ap- pointed under the provisions of an interstate treaty entered into last AprU. The commission has laid out a metropolitan port district of 1,463 square miles, vidth a population, according to the 1920 census, of 7,974,019. Territorially the actual city of New York embraces but a small part of the district, about 375 square miles, but it contains more than two-thirds of the population and a still greater fraction of the wealth. However, the city can never realize the full potentialities of its port facilities without the co-operation of these outside districts. They are in fact part of the city, but so far as those lying in New Jersey are concerned, •cannot be physically included in it. To meet this difficulty, the bi-state treaty was negotiated, and the joint commission named. The object is to unite all these communities in a vast and scientific plan for the effective utilization of that remarkable confluence of waters that has been the chief influence in the building about New York bay of the greatest city the world has ever known. A city official seeking to block this enterprise shows as much sense of proportion as a tomeod trying to keep a school of whales out of the harbor. The territory included in the port district constitutes the real city of New York. It extends from the City Hall twenty-five miles to the south, and twenty miles to the west. In twenty years its population has grown 65 per cent. Six of those years were under the blight of the World War and its after effects. In the next two decades growth probably wiU be even greater than in the last two. It may be reasonably expected that in 1940, when the babies of this time are coming into active citizenship, they will form part of a metropolitan organization approximating 15,000,000 of people, controlling a wealth and wielding a power exceeding that of most of the nations of the earth. Wise and unselfish planning and execution now will add to their in- heritance and make their problems easier. 21 For the Whole Port o£ New York. {Brooklyn Times, Dee. 30, 1921.) Tor most New Yoriers during this eentttry the talk about develop- ing the Port of New York has been a vast, vague and intangible project which would be of no personal benefit to them and which might cost them a good deal in taxes. For the men having a direct interest in the waterfront and in transportation it has been too largely a scheme to develop certain sections of the waterfront at the expense of other sec- tions. With this control of personal interests and with a background of public indifference it is not strange that almost nothing has been done, until New York has fallen fifty years behind younger ports in its facilities and is in grave danger of losing much of the commerce upon which the wealth of the city has been built. This general indifference should be dispelled by the admirable pres- entation of the subject made by Governor Miller before the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce on Saturday, in which he pointed out that a chief factor in the high cost of living in New York is this lack of co-ordina- tion of the port faeUities, which largely increases the cost of hauling foodstuffs from the railroad terminals of New Jersey to the various boroughs of this city. For the men who are interested in commerce he also showed that the problem is much larger than any rivalry between Jamaica Bay and Newark Bay; that it is so big, in fact, that it can only be properly handled by one central authority dealing with the whole 800 miles of waterfront of this harbor, and with the trunk line railroads having terminals in New Jersey in such a way that they may send their freight in bulk to every borough of New York. Such a central force has been created in the Port Authority, created by the States of New York and New Jersey and approved by the Con- gress of the United States, which has control of the waters of the harbor. . . . The problem is vast and demands first of all intelligence in its working out. But when the best thought of the community has succeeded in building up a plan, then the utmost energy and enthusiasm of the city will be needed to carry it through. The initiative lies with the Port Authority. The immediate duty is to support the plans of that Authority. Port's Loading Situation. {New YorTc livening Telegram, January 1, 1922.) Not a detail comes to light as to the lack of co-ordination of the vari- ous agencies of commerce in the harbor but goes to show the vast impor- tance of having put in force with the shortest possible delay the plan form- ulated by the Port of New York Authority and placed before the liCgisla- ture by the Governor on Monday. Take, for example, the loading situation, as set forth by Arthur C. McKeever, vice president of the Merchant Truckmen's Bureau, in an ad- dress delivered by him at the annual dinner of the Downtown League. He pointed out among other things that the cost of loading alone repre- sented twenty-five per cent, of the total trucking bUl and that the loading charges dtiiing the war had increased about 300 per cent. Technically, loading is the work of lifting freight from the floor or platform of a terminal or a warehouse to the floor of the truck that carries it away. In many eases, owing to the increase in the size of the packages, 22 most of the work is done with the aid of a block and tackle, with very little physical labor. One pier may be full of men doing nothing, but their assistance is not available on another where there is a congestion of goods. Mr. McKeever explains the situation as follows: — Some idea may be had of the room for improvement in procedure when we consider that few if any groups of loafers serve more than one pier or terminal, and they are affiliated only in that practically all are union men. They wait for trucks, or trucks wait for them, regardless of conditions of adjacent piers, and each collects his own money, many visiting the same truckmen on the same day. This antiquated system is peculiar to New York and is one of the rea- sons why other commercial centres have an advantage over this city Among the aims of the Port of New York Authority are these: To promote efficiency, to save time and labor and thereby to remove New York's handicap in competing with other ports. City's Attitude Toward Port Development. {New York Commercial, December 13, 1921.) It is to be hoped that a closer study of the plan of port development submitted by the Port Authority will cause the city to revise its attitude as expressed in a statement prepared by Mayor Hylan. Close students of the problem will not be able to agree with the Mayor in his assertion that it is a proposition to deliver the Port of Xew York into the hands of New Jersey. Eight at the outset there is a mistake in conception of what the Port of New York really is. The assumption is that the Port of New York and the City of New York are the same, whereas the City of New York la merely a part of the Port of New York. It has been greatly to the dis- advantage of the port that a state line ran down the middle of it. By natural location, as well as by a treaty between the States of New York and New Jersey, ratified by Act of Congress as required by the Con- stitution of the United States, the territory included within the Port of New York not only includes the City of New York, but it also takes in many municipalities in New Jersey as far south as Sandy Hook, as far west as Summit, and up into New York State to include Piermont and almost to Tarrytown, and also including Yonkers, White Plains, Mt. Vernon, New Eochelle and Bye and portions of Nassau County on Long Island outside of the boundary line of New York City. Thus the Port Authority is obliged to consider the proposition as a whole. There is no intention to im- properly secure control of New York City's waterfront. On the contrary, there is a desire to release it from railway uses in order to devote it to its natural use for shipping. The great difficulty with attempts at port development heretofore has been the jealousy and selfishness of the various municipalities, each fear- ing that some other might gain strategic advantage. The New York City administration has now assumed this position and evidently intends to block progress as much as possible. It must be borne in mind that the Port Authority plan is what is declares itself to be — a comprehensive plan. It wiU take years to carry it out, but unless a definite plan is agreed upon beforehand so that in the course of time whatever improvements are made will work into a unified whole, there is no use going ahead. The Port of Xew York must not be considered with reference to the needs of New York City alone. It is the gateway of the nation and middle 23 western states are just as vitally interested in its development as is New York State. The city administration should by all means take a much broader view of the proposition than that which the Mayor has expressed. Obstruction and the Port Plan. (AT. y. Bvening Post, Jan. 11, 1922.) Gov. Miller's special message is a full statement of the reasons why the Port Authority is the logical body, and indeed the only body, to carry through tiie gigantic project of port development. An agency is required which can act for the two States and 125 municipalities. Mayor Hylan, who would have New York City go it alone, can act for only one side of the port, and not even all of that. It is only by putting rivalry away and substituting cooperation that port development can effect any large result. Mayor Hylan instead breathes hostility to New Jersey. The project will require hundreds of millions of dollars. Mayor Hylan's plan to spend $225,000,000 is out of the question, for a bond issue of that amount would exceed the city's debt limit. The plan which the Port Authority has submitted, based upon the findings of the earlier Port and Harbor Development Commission, embodies years of intensive research, guided and corrected by the criticism of competent engineering, trade, and civic organizations. Mayor Hylan*s plan is a snap-judgment scheme, and competent engineers harshly criticise the feature in which it most sharply departs from that of the Port Authority. As a matter of fact, Mayor Hylan admits in substance every one of Gov. Miller's contentions. He admits the need of coooperating with New Jersey, for his plan in- volves a New Jersey belt line. He admits the fundamental soundness of the Port Authority's plan, for his own contains most of its essential elements. That is, it regards the problem as one primarily of railways; it attempts to free the west side of Manhattan for passenger lines and fast freight, it calls for belt lines wholly encircling the city, and it would furnish a tunnel connection between the two sides of the port. One member of his administration, Murray Hulbert, signed the report of the Port Development Commission so far as it embodied the comprehensive port plan, though he did not accept the Port Authority. The Mayor and the Port Authority are not so far apart as many think. They must find a modus operandi. The city cannot act alone; the Port Authority cannot pledge city funds, or use municipal property without municipal consent, or in any way override the city's power to develop its own waterfront. It is Mayor Hylan's duty to waive all mere stubbornness, and that of the Port Authority to make whatever reason- able concessions he asks. Port Unity, Not Disunity. (iV. y. Tribune, Jan. 11, 1922.) Governor Miller has asked the I^egislature to approve the comprehensive plan for the development of the Port of New York submitted by the Port Authority. This plan concerns IDS separate municipalities included within the port district. These lie in two states — New York and New Jersey — which have made a port treaty. The legisla- tures of these two states are the only bodies competent to approve the comprehensive plan and to direct the Port Authority to execute it. New York City is the one municipality in the port area to stand out against the plan. The Board of Estimate has consistently fought the unification scheme, the bi-state treaty and the engineering project worked out first by the New York-New Jer- sey Port and Harbor Development Commission and later adopted and improved by the Port Authority. The board has never produced an opposition scheme worthy of serious consideration. Its attitude has been essentially obstructive. The treaty doesn't attempt to take control of its waterfront from this or any other city. It imposes no financial burden whatever on our city government. But the Board of Estimate comes forward with a proposal which would add $225,000,000 to the city debt and at the same time would sacrifice all the advantages of co-operation with the 104 other municipalities within the port limits. The city government is not a suitable agency to undertake to reconstruct the port or to co-ordinate the terminal facilities of the trunk railroads, most of which reach tidewater on the Jersey side of the Hudson River. It is hardly worth while to argue that point. On the other hand, the Port Authority, created by the two states and acing wih the sanction of the Federal government, able to finance itself and equipped with a practical, carefully thought-out plan, is at once the most suitable and only com- petent agency. As Governor Miller says, it is "the one existing agency having the power, the capacity, the public confidence, the necessary contracts with otiier agencies. 24 iinmici]>al, «tate and national, and the knowledge of the problem required for the in- auguration of prompt measures of relief-" , - t_ Relief ii urgent. The cott of living in ererf port area commtmi^ it innated or our archaic port facilities. Congestion, delays in handling, waste ettort and exce*« delivery charges take a toll from every New York business man, shipper or manufac- turer. The city government's obstmction. Governor Miller says, is partisan. It can- not be economic. It cannot spring from an intelligent desire to protect the city s interests. Even so far as it is partisan, it is unrepresentatiTe and inconsiftcnt, for the Democratic state platform of 1920 declared in favor of a bi-«tat« compact provid- ing for "the creation of a port district and a port authority, with adequate powers to develop the port comprehensively." Former (Srvemor Smith, the most trusted Demo- cratic leader in the city or state, is a member of the Port Authority, A great measure of economic reconstruction ought not to be smeared with p»T>.'/r.al or party politics. The port needs to be modernized. Why not modernize it in th» w^ in which the port area can be treated most beneficially — that is, as an economic unit? The Wrong Angle. (Prom If. Y. TTibwne, Vee. 18, 1921.) The Board erf Estijnate and Apportionment 'u objeetiona to the Port Authority plan are political in character. It i» 'An'':n'i<-A that the city't power to administer it« part of the port i» being taken away from it. Sinee the port inelndes territory' in this state out-Jde the city and al«o territory in New Jersey, the only way to eeenre nnified operation is marjifesstly throtigh an authority representing the entire area. Yet for those who Hre within the eity limits and for whom Kr. Hvlan arid Hr. Craig speak offi- cially, the poUtieal consideration h minor. The board is approaehini; the problem from the wrong &ngJe. Port reorganization is needed primarily in order to enable merehanti, manufact';Ter-. and shipper- here to do bnitiness on a more eeonomieal basis. It is needed mf«t of all in order to re'J .xe the cost of food and otber necessaries consumed by New Yorker-. Few persons have an interes*. in the politieal di^^/ite. Everj-body has a i-ital interest in the economic problem. Any Xe-fl- Yorker who has a piece of freight shipped to him finds out at once what the trouble !» which the Port Authority w 'r-.i.'ig to corre'rt. He win diwoTer that the rsLlroads will carr;.- his freight sei'eral hundred miles for less tt^.i what it costs to deliver it sfrer it gets here. There is an enormous waste in handiing after the rti road hi.jl ends. Thw eieesws charge falls on ever;- mintiia^rturer in the eity as well as o.'. ever;.- wholesaler and retailer and is pawed along into the local crr-it of liring. It makes Ne"!^ York an tmneeeaaarily expensive piice to ».hip to or through, to do burine-,- in or to Uve in. The Port Arjthori*;.- oS^er» a plan Trhieh vdll greatly reduee terminal and delivery efcirge*. Everjbody within the port area v.iJ be directly benefited by this sa-xng. If th« city goremment is oppO)-:ed to the p).an i* ought to supplement its politieal ob eetions o;.- produeing a l)«fer plan of reorganjza-ion — or.e that aI»o will end eonge-.^i-Mi, delay and wastesige and guarantee cheaiKrr food and raw .'/.iteri.-, i.-. the local r/iar/iet*. People here want to be prote«*ed from eie«*., in li-sing costs due to i>. i.tv delivery facilities and not, as the Itsyor and his asaoeiaties think, from the exercise of port authority under etiite or bi-state ir-Ttead of minicipal sanction. 25 City Versus Port. iN. Y. Times, Jan. 3, 1922.) Whatever benefits tlie Port of New York benefits the city, because they are indivisible parts of an economic whole and no part of either can afford to thrive at the cost and injury of any other part. It is as impossible to join the parts of the port politically as it is impossible to separate them economically. Yet the city insists upon emphasizing the political separate and makes it a weapon to justify the attempt to separate the economic interests of the parts of the port. The political separation need be no bar to economic unity of interests. They ^ould co-operate for the benefit of all concerned, which covers continental or rather world-wide interests. The port is for the service of the railways of the continent and the ships of all nations. The city's conception of the port is that it should make profits for the city's docks, and that it can be done by attracting to them business which can be done better on the other side of the political and geographical boundaries . of the dty. That conception creates uneconomic competition instead of mutually beneficial co- operation. New Jersey sees this more clearly than New York City and is more loyal to the bi-State compact. It is easier to understand the complete port plan from pictures than from text, and opportunity for this easy study is afforded by the bird's-eye views contained in the report just published by the Port Authority. Compare, for example, the pictures and maps of the Port of Newark and the New York City port. It is plsun that Newark has the railways in greater completeness than the city has the ships. New- ark's competitive effort is to get access to the ships, just as the competitive effort by the City Administration is to get access to the railway feeders of its docks. Newark is a completer economic unit than the city, because Newark — the port, not the city — has better access to deep water than New York City has to the railways across the Hudson. In contrast to the Port of Newark terminal appears the city's docks and piers on Staten Island. The $25,000,000 put into them betters the traffic situation, but the same money would double its efficiency if put into the Port Authority plan. In that case the city would not have had to finance the improve- ment with its necessity of throwing more money into the enterprise which must always be a cripple, unless rescued by the Port Authority plan. New York City's taxpayers must shudder at the thought of the application for authority to enlarge the debt limit m order to put the city into competition with Newark instead of supporting the Port Auhority in its proposal to finance itself. The Port Authority must make its plans economic if the plan is to be executed. It can find no money unless its plans appeal to financial judgment. The city's issue of bonds is different. The money comes from taxpayers, and must come whether the plan succeeds or fails. It may be had on a vote, instead of appeal to investors, and therefore is likelier to raise the tax rate than to make profits for the city. Newark port has another advantage in the great area of waste and level marshes which compare with Staten Island's hilly and diversified territory. Staten Island is as much better adapted for residential improvement as Port Newark is better adapted for traffic improvement. The City of New York cannot spare Staten Island for a use to which it is not adapted. Staten Island itself shotild see that its interests lie with the Port Authority plan or the Transit^ Commission plan. Either, or rather both, may be said to carry hope for both freight and passenger tunnels, with connections in all directions for both. The city plan, on Uie other hand, is better for the city's piers than for the borough's larger interests. It is almost correct to say that the city plan rests on the Mayor's authority alone. The Port Authority plan rests on the authority of a long list of engineers, lawyers, merchants and public-spirited students of commercial problems. A Port Plan and More. From N. Y. Evening Post, Jan. 4, 1922. It is really more than a port plan that is offered by the Port Authority, as any one will appreciate who reads the summary issued. We think of a port as a body and its waterfront. But the plan has rather more to do with railways than with shipping. It is a scheme to reorganize the whole terminal and transfer system, for shipping and railroads, of a region embraced within a circle drawn thirty miles from the Battery, and containing 8,000,000 people. The changes on the waterfront will be less extensive than many might suppose. It will look much as before, save that there will be a better classification of types of vessels, better dock and warehousing facilities, adequate marginal railways, and less of the lighterage clutter. But the railways which serve the port — nine trunk lines on the west, tibree on the east — ^will be asked to reor- 26 ganize traffic in a far-reaching way. Before the war these railways moved 76,000,000 tons of freight in and out of the port yearly. How to prevent the excessive rehandling, the excessive trucking, the excessive exposure of foodstuffs and delays, and the exces- sive congestion of harbor and streets with railway-delivered commodities, was the Port Authority's chief problem. The two chief elements in the Port Authority's scheme are identical with the chief elements in the plan offered by the Port and Harbor Development Commission a year ago, though important changes in application have been made. These elements are an outer belt line or lines linking up the twelve trunk railways, somewhat after the fashion in which railways converging on Paris are linked by the Grande Ceinture, and an auto- matic electric system for Manhattan. The Port Authority recommends a belt line which will encircle the whole port, running from Spuyten Duyvil along the Harlem River, over Hell Gate Bridge, thence south through Queens and Kings to Bay Ridge, thence under the bay westward to the portal of the Pennsylvania and Lehigh Railways in Jersey City, and thence northerly some ten miles, connecting with all the other rail- ways terminating on the Jersey shore. A southerly division from Jersey City would cross to Staten Island, connecting with the B. & O. and the new municipal piers. The automatic electric system, a plan for transferring goods between the outer Jersey ter- minals and Manhattan by tunnel under the Hudson, has been thoroughly indorsed by engineers. New York cannot act alone if port development is to be worthy of the name. Mayor Hylan calls the Port Authority's plan one to develop the Hackensack Meadows and Newark Bay at New York's expense. The harsh fact is that if we do not co- operate with New Jersey, the latter State can go ahead and build up port facilities on the mainland which will do the gravest injury to this city. If we do co-operate, we shall obtain a symmetrical development which will be of immediate benefit not only to both States but to the great interior, which now pays so dearly for waste and delay here. The Real Greater New York. (Brooklyn Eagle, Dec. 12, 1921.) The plan proposed by the Port Authority would not only control the freight facilities ot this city, but those of a strip of New Jersey running from Piermont on the north to below South Amboy and New Brunswick and reaching as far west as Summit and Plainfield. Over this large area the Port Authority would have equal jurisdiction in the one matter committed to it, thus making a metropolitan area comparable in some respects to that of London; the area occupied by the 7,000,000 people with whom London is credited. This comparison is stimulated by figures of area and population given out by the Port Authority. These figures show some 800, or a little more square miles of habitable territory under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority, against a few less than 700 square miles in London: with a population of 8,000,000 in the New York territory to 7,258,000 for metropolitan London. Such figures of population have always had an influence over the imaginations of men far exceeding their actual importance. The most significant instance of that influence in our local history was the effect of the great growth of Chicago shown by the census of 1890, and the loud boasts from that city that in the next decade she would equal or pass New York- Until that time consolidation of the Greater City of New York had been merely an academic question advocated by a few far-sighted men, like J. S. T. Stranahan and Andrew H. Green, but bitterly opposed by Brooklyn and the outlying territory, which feared the loss of local rights through being swallowed up. But the possibility of Chicago becoming the largest city of the country set the movement on its feet, and in 1898 consolidation became a fact. It is of merely sentimental importance whether we can stretch a string around enough territory in New Jersey to enable us to claim the Port of New York as the largest metropolitan area in the world. But the rapid growth of that area in popula- tion and wealth is a matter of real consequence as showing values and conditions for which intelligent provision must be made. The figures from the census show a growth of New York City from 1900 to 1920 from 3,000,000 to 5,000,000, and in the New Jersey area of from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000. Counting the odd figures which we have dropped from these totals as an aid to memory, and the part of Westchester to be included the total comes very close to 8,000,000—7,974,000 in exact figures. That is a district of 8,000,000 people who have a like interest in the handling of freight quickly and cheaply, so that the cost of living may be reduced and the pros- perity of the metropolitan area may he increased. Heretofore the problem has been one of competition for commerce between the east and west side of the harbor, with the authorities in New Jersey showing greater energy and foresight in its local development than our own. But that sort of piece- meal provision cannot long continue. The problem has grown too big and the nation U too keenly interested in having a great port here adequate to the commerce of the 27 country. A unified plan for handling that commerce is imperative and the Port Authority has produced such a plan. That it should evoke the hostility of the City Administration of New York is unfortunate but inevitable. No grezt consolidation is ever put througfh except over the protest of local interests and local jealousies. If the prestigre of the Port of New York and the commerce which sustains that prestige are to be maintained, it must be done by overcoming jealousies and rivalries. The smaller interests must give way to the larger. The Mayor and the Port Authority. (.Brooklyn Baffle, Jan. 3, 1922.) Part of Mayor Hylan's inaugural address was devoted to a condemnation of the Port Authority as a State agency in the development of harbor facilities in and about New York City. "The existence of this Port Authority," said the Mayor, "again dem- onstrates the danger of having Albany create boards, commissions and bodies not re- sponsible to the people.'* What the Mayor meant, of course* was bodies not respon- sible to the people of New York City. The Port Authority is responsible to the legislative powers of the States of New York and New Jersey, and through those powers it is responsible to the people of the two States. It is responsible to the people in a much broader sense than the Park Board of the City of New York is responsible, as appointed by Mayor Hylan. The people elect I^egislatures and Governors and_ hold them accountable for their acts precisely as they elect Mayors and Boards of Estimate and hold them accountable. One of the most wearying aspects of Mr. Hylan's thought on public questions is his calm assumption that the city is something with which the State has only casual concern. Apparently, he thinks that the State which created the city exists mainly for purposes of government above the Bronx and west of the Nassau County line. He would have the State, through its I^e^slature and Governor, obediently respond to any demand which the city may make for enlarged powers, but beyond that perfunc- tory exercise of authority he sees no necessity for the State legislating in regard to the city. He has some ground for protesting when mandatory legislation takes from the city authorities control over the salaries of city employees, but he has no ground — certainly no logical ground — for protest when the State of New York in conjunction with the State of New Jersey and with the approval of the Federal Government under- takes a wholesale improvement in the Port of New York which no city administration, acting alone, could improve otherwise than by piecemeal. This city never bred a better, a more sincere or more intelligent home ruler than Alfred E. Smith. As Governor he gave his whole-hearted approval to the plans for harbor development which Mr. Hylan denounces. Retiring from the Governorship he promptly accepted an appointment from his successor as one of the three members of the Port Authority which the Mayor regards as one of those "superfluous, State-created agencies" existing in "disregard of the rights of the people." He was present at the City Hall yesterday when the Mayor excoriated the body to which Smith has given such excellent service. If he had given them utterance the thoughts of Al Smith on this significant occasion micfht have made quite the most interesting feature of the news reports printed this morning. The Improvement of This Port. {Brooklyn Eagle, Dec. 19, 1921.) A most significant event of the approaching Albany session will be the presenta- tion of the report on port development prepared by the Port Authority, of which Eugenius H. Outerbridge is chairman and of which former Governor Alfred E. Smith and Lewis H. Pounds are members. The report is ready and while the details of it are yet to be disclosed its purposes and scope were plainly indicated m the address which Mr. Outerbridge made less than a fortnight ago at a conference of the Advisory Council assisting the Port Authority in its work. The basis of the Port Authority's operations is the comprehensive and admirable joint report prepared last year by the Port and Harbor Development Commission representing the States of New York and New Jersey. No fewer than one hundred and five municipalities are affected by conditions pre- vailing in this port. Twelve trunk line railroads carry into the port or out of it every year more than 75.000,000 tons of freight. More than 45.000,000 tons are moved by steamships engaged in foreign and domestic trade. The necessities of 8 000,000 people are involved in this enormous traffic, their living costs multiplied by inadequate and inefficient methods of handling food supplies, their business enter- prises hindered and in some cases seriously crippled in competition with business 28 enterprises in more favored neighborhoods. The former Bi-State Commission, to the results of whose labors the new Port Authority fell heir, so carefully and fully analyzed these conditions that the Chairman of the Port Authority was able to say to the Advisory Council in his address of December 7 that "not a single fundamental fact set forth in that analysis has been found in error or disproved, and it has been generally indorsed as the only complete, thorough and accurate determination of fundamental conditions as they existed at the time of that study." Slight fundamental principles underlie the problem of port development. Those principles, as Mr. Outerbridge set them forth, are as follows: First — Terminal operations within the port district must be unified under a single control. Second — Shipments must be consolidated at certain classification points to eliminate duplication of effort to promote efficiency and lessen expense. Third — Commodities must be directly routed to obviate congestion and long trucking hauls. Fourth — All terminal stations must become Union stations. Fifth — In the process of co-ordinating facilities the facilities already existing must be used wherever practicable to prevent needless destruction of existing capital and reduce the requirements for new capital. Sixth — All railroads must be connected with all parts of the port to prevent the breaking of cars in bulk, a provision which demands for its successful application a tunnel connection between New Jersey and Long Island. Seventh — The improvement of channels must be urged upon the Federal Gov- ernment. FJighth — Motortruck highways must be laid out to secure more efficient inter- relation of terminals, piers and industrial establishments. This is an ambitious program and the complete execution of it will need much time and a great deal of money. The tunnel between New Jersey and Bay Ridge, which is a most important feature of the port development and which will give facilities for the movement of freight trains without breaking bulk to and from Long Island, the Bronx and points in New England, may need for construction not less than $30,000,000. But the tunnel would transport about 18,000,000 tons of freight a year and it is an indispensable part of the entire plan and ought to be the first to be constructed. The automatic electric system for the carriage of freight within the port district is another undertaking approved by the Port Authority which will be expensive — it will cost more than $200,000,000 — -but the good results promised from its installation are enormous. These and other features of the plan represent a total expenditure which will, of necessity, be spread over a period of years, but unless the two States are content to see the primacy of the port destroyed and the cost of liv- ing to their citizens steadily increased they will be generous in meeting the recom- mendations submitted to them. How far the Board of Estimate in this city is prepared to oppose the Port Authority plan remains to be seen. How far some of the trunk line railroads will oppose it is also to be disclosed. tTp to the present time the attitude of the Board has been distinctly hostile. Some, but not all, of the trunk line roads are obstinate because they know that privileges held by them for many years will be taken away. In both cases the Port Authority has endeavored to reason with the obstructionists, but so far without success. But allowing for the force of opposition from either source it is probable that the Legislatures of both States will stand behind the Port Authority and this influence with that of the Federal Government which has approved the port treaty entered into by the two States should go far toward carrying the improvement plans to success. One thing is certain: The Port of New York cannot give the service required of it under prevailing conditions and it cannot be devel- oped to the point of highest efficiency by separate State action. And the only opportunity for joint State action is that presented by the operation of the Port Authority. Those who obstruct that operation, no matter what their motives, are working directly against the interest of 8,000,000 people, of whom more than 5,000,000 live within the municipal limits of New York City. Rehabilitating the Port. (AT. Y. Tribune, Jan. 3, 1922.) The Port Authority has sent to the governors of New York and New Jersey its plan for the comprehensive development of the Port of New York. The port dis- trict has a population of 8,000,000. It embraces 105 organized municipalities, some in New York, some in New Jersey. Seventy-five million tons of freight are carried annually into or out of the district by its twelve trunk-line railroads. Eight thousand steamships bring in or take out 45,000,000 tons of freight each year. Four million tons of foodstuffs are required annually to feed the people within the port area. Our present port facilities are notoriously unequal to handling this enormous 29 business economically. Delays, waste motion and archaic methods of distrihution harshly penalize the local merchant, manufacturer and consumer. A barrel or a bag of potatoes, for instance, can be carried by rail from the Mississippi Valley to the break-up terminal here for less than the cost of g:etting it from that terminal to the retailer in New York City, Newark or Paterson. The Port Authority offers a plan to cut out excess local delivery costs. It is a matured project, sound in engineering and in financing. It treats the port area as an economic unit, overlapping state lineSf whose development on the broadest lines is to be secured under a bi-state treaty, approved by the national government. The port is to be modernized for the benefit of ail the inhabitants of the two States within whose boundaries it lies and of the nation for which it is the chief com- mercial inlet and outlet. The Port Authority's plan aims at connecting up the railroads with the piers and with the centers of local distribution. It is even more than a port scheme. It is a scheme for the co-ordination of practically all inbound and outbound frdght traffic It overcomes the river barriers which have isolated New York City and put an extra toll on its commerce. The whole thing is to be financed without recourse to the state or the city treasury. Here is a definite, workable project for the relief of the entire port area. It is within the Legislature's province to approve it. The dty authorities are talk- ing about presenting a rival plan, caring for this city only. New Yorkers are not interested in the political and separatist feattires of port reconstruction. They are for a larger measure of improvement rather than a smaller one. They don't want to see hope deferred by wrangles among officials. The Board of Estimate's substi- tute project must show a marked superiority over the Port Authority's scheme if it is to obtain a serious hearing. It can hardly do this, and co-operation with New Jersey under the bi-state treaty has gone too far to be interrupted by purely surface local oppositions and jealousies. Nevr Jersey and the Port. (.Telegram (N. Y.), Dec. 19, 1921.) That leading men on the other side of the Hudson River are anxious to speed up the work of the Port of New York Authority was shown clearly on Thursday. At a ineeting in Paterson of representatives of chambers of commerce, railroad officials, engineers, editors and municipal officers of Passaic, Bergen, Hudson and Union counties, it was proposed that there should be created in New Jersey a rapid transit commission to co-operate with the New York body. The object of the plan was to improve transporta'tion conditions in that part of the metropolitan area and to forward in a general way the aims and objects of the Port Authority. Some idea of the existing difficulties was given by President Rea, of the Pennsylvania, in a letter read to the gathering. He pointed out that the congestion in the Pennsylvania Station in this dty has become so great that it will be impossible within a few years to accommodate any other railroad or rapid transit lines. Similar conditions, he stated, existed in the case of the part of the station given over to the traffic of the Long Island Railroad, which has reached a point of development that had not been expected for ten years to come. Daniel L. Turner, consulting engineer of the New York Transit Commission, said that serious results might be expected unless the general plan for the port district was carried into effect. With an increase of 117 per cent in traffic at the Grand Central Terminal in nine years and of 141 per cent in the Long Island Railroad Station at Atiantic and Flatbush avenues in Brooklyn, with 275 per cent growth at the Pennsylvania Station and 40 per cent in ten years on the Krie, Jersey Central and Ladcawanna railroads, the lesson was plain. , , . * „ As for the commuter system, Mr. Turner outlined the general objects as follows: The commuter service must be transformed into a metropolitan rapid transit service which will make it possible to take commuters from their homes to any objective in New York, just as the dty rider is carried. There must be a pooling of railroad interests, extension of electrification and con- struction of additional tubes under the Hudson and East rivers. Governor Edwards has expressed his approval of the objects of the Paterson conference, and Robert G. Hughes, of the Paterson Zoning Commission, who pro- posed the plan, has asked for a committee of fifteen, three from each of the counties represented. ... . , ,. With ever>' day that passes the representative busmess men in the metropohtan area are banding themselves more solidly together in favor of the great scheme which will affect the whole future of the Twin State Port 30 Hylan's Destructive Position. {Albany Press, January 11, 1922.) Governor Miller's strong statement to the legislature, in regard to the harbor development plan submitted by the port of New York authority, is, in effect, an allegation that the opposition of Mayor Hylan and the New York city administration is partisan, destructive and dangerous. The Governor is correct. The port authority plan for belt lines, mar- ginal railways, docks, tunnels, truck routes and other improvements, in order to provide for the quick and easy movement of cars and cargoes in and out of the metropolitan district, and in order to accomplish the distribution which is essential to the existence of the 8,000,000 persons within the limits of the port, has been worked out in a masterful manner. Former Governor Alfred E. Smith, incidentally, has had a conspicuous part in framing this project, and is its leading defender. Mayor Hylan's opposition to it can only be based upon a narrow and petty political jealousy, and it should have no weight; it ought rather to be the occasion of bringing Mayor Hylan into contempt. Careful analysis of the Port Authority's proposition and of that ad- vanced by the board of estimate of New York City shows that they are virtually identical in every essential aspect, except that the latter would bar New Jersey from participation in the scheme. In a matter which affects the prosperity of the whole country, and is directly essential to the maintenance of New York's position as a port, can it be possible that a costly, delaying, partisan political fight will be endured on such a pretext? Great is New York! (Prom Buffalo Courier, Jan. 10, 1922.) The commanding importance of the subject justifies Governor MUler's special message to the legislature appealing for prompt action on the report of a comprehensive plan submitted by a treaty agreement of the legislatures of New York and New Jersey, approved by 105 municipalities, included within the port district, for the development and improvement of the port of New York, a great project practically sustained by the overwhelming bulk of the organized business interests of the district which includes 8,000,000 people. The great undertaking has already had the unanimous approval of Congress. The Governor expresses the opinion that the submitted plan as a whole is funamentally sound, and has been intensively studied for five years by men of ability and character and its general principles approved by every civic and trade organization and all the 105 municipalities in the district except the city administration of New York. Whether the oppo- sition of the present city administration will be fatal to the project or will compel the Port Authority (created by the two legislatures), to modify the plan proposed or adopt a new plan is to be tested. Governor Miller charges that the opposition of the Hylan administra- tion is political and partisan. If this should turn out to be true, it is feared that there will be much further delay in beginning a magidficent public work which, if once completed, would create the greatest port in the world in affording facilities for commerce. 31 Various Views. (Troy Times Editorially quotes N. ¥. Tribune, Jan. 12, 1922.) Governor Miller has asked the Legislature to approve the compre- hensive plan for the development of the Port of New York submitted by the Port Authority. This plan eoncerus 105 separate municipalities in- cluded within the port district. These lie in two states — New York and New Jersey — which have made a port treaty. The Legislatures of these two states are the only bodies competent to approve the comprehensive plan and to direct the Port Authority to execute it. Belief is urgent. The cost of living in every port area community is inflated by our archaic port facilities. Congestion, delays in handling, waste effort and excess delivery charges take a toU from every New York business man, shipper or manu- facturer. Former Governor Smith, the most trusted Democratic leader in the city or state, is a member of the Port Authority. A great measure of economic reconstruction ought not to be smeared with personal or party politics. The port needs to be modernized. Why not modernize it in the way in which the port area can be treated most beneficially — that is, as an economic unit? For the Port of New York. (From Buffalo Express, Jan. 11, 1922.) Governor Miller's special message to the legislature urging prompt action by that body on the comprehensive scheme for the port develop- ment advanced by the Port of New York Authority will be echoed in the two states concerned and elsewhere. The argument necessarily involved an attack on the obstructionist tactics adopted by the Hylan administration of the metropolis. The city itself must acquiesce in the scheme even if it does not actively co-operate before there can be real progress toward relieving the existing congestion and providing for the growth of what ought always to be the nation 's greatest port. There is nothing hidebound about the scheme. As the Governor ad- mits that it may not be perfect, he adds that the way is left open for modification. It takes away from none of the 105 municipalities in the district those principles of home rule which are worth safeguarding. It merely provides co-ordinating plans for the improvement of the port in both states from the lower bay up the Hudson and up Long Island Sound. It makes use wherever possible of the facilities already in existence. The tunnels, bridges and railroads to be built will connect the municipal enter- prises which must be built in accordance with this or some other general scheme if New York is to retain its pre-eminent position as a port. Mayor Hylan T|alks Nonsense About the Port Authority. (Hudson (N. Y.) Observer, Dec. 14, 1921.) Opposition to the port development plans by Mayor Hylan and other New York officials is based upon an absolutely false premise. It is not 32 true, nor can it ever be true, that the problem is one which concerns New York City alone. In its wider aspects it affects the entire country, for the port as a whole is the greatest gateway for both the outgoing and incoming traffic of the nation. In its narrower aspects, losses, delays, high prices, even actual suffer- ing at times for the necessaries of life have been the penalty of a divided authority and the absence of proper facilities for the transportation of freight in the thickly congested district known as the metropolitan area. Not a ship docks or a freight car is unloaded upon this side of the Hudson that does not actually in some way or otner contribute to the business of New York City. On the other hand, when food and coal are held up here because of inadequate terminal facilities the dweller in New York promptly feels the pinch. The only excuse for the existence of a Port Authority is to unify and simplify the handling of freight in this district. To say that it is the problem of New York City alone, that New York can do the work as well as a body representing all of the municipalities affected, is to talk obvious nonsense. The New York Port Bill. {Ithaca News, November 15, 1921.) The Edge-Ansorge bill calls for the expenditure of a large sum by the national government for the development of the port of New York. In Washington and elsewhere strong opposition is being voiced, but these opponents are looking at the size of the sum ratiher than at the merits of the matter and the benefits sure to accrue. Not only the city of New York but the entire country will gain by im- proving harbor, shipping and dockage facilities for New York City and the adjacent Jersey shore. Pifty-one per cent of the nation's commerce passes through the port of New York, but thus far it has received only three per cent of the national river and harbor appropriations. Of course, New York City profits most directly by the volume of commerce passing through its port, but the na- tion at large also is benefited to a great extent, and the City of New York should not be asked to pay almost the whole bill for the development of the great national port. The Port of New York Authority. (From Glens FalJs Times, Jan. 10, 1922.) No community is so small and none so large that it will not feel the effect of a comprehensive plan for the development of the Port of New York. Just submitted to the Legislature by the Port of New York Authority, the comprehensive plan indicates months of careful study on the part of the engineers and the members of the Commission. Former Governor Smith, Mr. E. H. Outerbridge and Mr. Lewis H. Pounds, who make up the New York members of the Commission, have reason to be proud of the accomplishment. Doing business as we do, with market prices of commodities so largely controlled by the City of New York, a comprehensive plan to unify rail and water distribution at that point, and to enlarge facilities for handling freight so as to wipe out geographic limitations between New York and 33 New Jersey, is epoch making. Onee the business man and the small con- sumer of household necessities understand that the cost of doing business and the cost of living will be lowered by Port Development, there will arise the general demand for the adoption of the carefully studied scheme of the Port Authority. Figures clearly demonstrate the cost of doing business through the Port of New York now; and yet the State has been steadily progressing for years. The increasing use of the Barge Canal with its system of ter- minals and the appointment of the Port Authority, are evidences of a con- scious effort on the part of the State to improve methods of distribution and transportation. In order that the system of waterways, terminal facilities, and im- proved transportation may reach its fullest availability, it is necessary that the Legislature this year adopt the comprehensive plan proposed. New York State cannot hold its supremacy unless it continues to go forward with the times. Western shippers threaten to cut the State of New York out of their program if improvements are not made. It is worth while noting that the program is to be carried out with- out taxing people other than the interests which make use of the facilities planned. The Legislature can make no mistake in adopting the plan and will make a serious one if any port -proponent is countenanced. Water Transportation Problems. (Jamestown Post, Jan. 9, 1922.) Water transportation and port developments are receiving unusual at- tention in the United States. The problem of developing the American merchant marine is before Congress. Governor Miller has just sent a special message to the New York Legislature reviewing the work of the Port of New York Authority and the immediate, pressing and critical need of com- prehensive improvement of port and terminal conditions. Then there is the barge canal and the proposed ship canal through the St. Lawrence to the Great Lakes, that is arousing much controversy. The first week in March wSl be a "Water Transportation Week" in Washington. On Wednesday and Thursday, the Seventeenth Convention of the National Rivers and Harbors Congress will be held. This conven- tion was postponed from its regular time in December because of the Conference on the Limitation of Armaments. On Friday and Saturday following, the National Merchant Marine Association will hold its annual convention. These two conventions coming so near together will enable rep- resentatives to be present at both, for there is much of common interest for the two organizations. ' Questions relating to navigation, both on inland waterways and the high seas, will be discussed by distinguished speakers. The need for terminal facilities during the war emphasized the necessity of port devel- opment. The entire population of the country is interested in this sub- ject, for trade and commerce, both domestic and foreign, is greatly af- fected by river and harbor shipping facilities. In view of the unemploy- ment in the country, this is particularly a good time to press forward construction along this line. 34 The Nation's Greatest Port. {Schenectady Star, Jan. 9, 1922.) The report on the development of New York harbor, which was sub- mitted to the Legislature last night and which was the occasion of a special message from Governor Nathan L. Miller, is such a comprehensive and extensive proposition that it transcends the scope of the cities about the mouth of the Hudson. It even transcends in importance the State of New York, and becomes a national project. It must be remembered that the port of New York is the best and most important harbor in this country. Its eight hundred miles of shore line afford wharfage for the shipping of the world, while the peculiar con- formation of the land line makes it a harbor well protected. It is open the entire year. Its location, moreover, at the mouth of the Hudson, which in its lower stretches is little more than an estuary of the sea, gives to this port command of the commerce of the interior of this continent such as is possessed by no other port. Not only is this true of the water traf&c which now is brought from the Great Lakes through the new channel of commerce, the Barge and Hudson route — the only water level route from the seaboard to the interior — but it is true of rail traffic which converges at New York from every quarter of the country. It is plain that such a harbor as this is a national asset, and that its development must be undertaken along comprehensive lines wherein neither state boundaries nor local politics shall hinder the flow of commerce. About this harbor are a hundred five municipalities, with an aggregate popiilation of eight million people. These people live in two States, New York and New Jersey. Unless the harbor region becomes federalized, it will devolve on these two States acting jointly to develop the shipping facilities so that the prestige of the port of New York shall not diminish. This is exactly what is contemplated. Since 1917 a bi-state commis- sion has been at work on the project. It has employed such eminent counsel as Major General George W. Goethals, whose fame rests on the Panama Canal achievement. The report of this commission with three wonderful maps is that which was presented to the Legislature last night, and which was the subject of the Governor 's message. Something of the scope of this project has been outlined in the papers. To grasp its details would require long study. It co-ordinates rail and water commerce with the least possible confusion, cost and delay. It contemplates, not only the victualling of New York, but the facilitation of the commerce of this country. It is a stupendous project, drawn in bold general outline, whose consummation would involve an enormous amount of detail. In view of the magnitude of the project, and in view of its intimate relations with the welfare of all New York and the Nation itself, persons of breadth of vision can see that this work, which would spread over a series of years is no thing for politicians to bandy about like a football Singularly, however, the burden of the Governor's message is that oppo- sition to the port development comes from the present city adminlstratioii of New York, which has developed a most amazing propensity for mud- dling things, and the plea that the Legislature accept the port project and give it life. It is important, if it is desirable that the port of New York be developed — and we beUevc it is — that th,e work be done without politics in the intelligent, capable, comprehensive clean manner that is contemplated in the splendid plan that the bi-state commission offers as the result of its four years' work. 35 New York's Port Crisis. {Troy Times, Jan. 10, 1922.) In his message transmitting to the Legislature the report and plans of the Port of New York Authority and recommending early and favorable action, Governor Miller speaks with characteristic clearness and vigor. The situation is outlined with exactness. Something must be done to meet conditions that wiU have to be radically changed if the best interests not only of the city of New York but of the entire country are to be served. It is no time for factitious opposition, based on narrow conceptions, parti- san prejudice or local antipathies. The Port of New York Authority was created as the result of a ' ' treaty ' ' between the states of New York and New Jersey, with the sanction of Congress. The commissioners are men of the highest char- acter and the most disinterested purpose. With great pains and care they have devised a comprehensive plan looking to the unification of control of port facilities and distribution of freight expeditiously and at low cost. As the governor frankly admits, the plan is not perfect; but it is a tremendous step forward and embodies principles that must be recognized if the port is to retain its pre-eminence. Those who have given the matter impartial consideration will agree with the governor that the plan is ' ' fundamentally sound ' ' and merits the approval which has been given by the great majority of the 8,000,000 iihabitants of the metropolitan district directly affected and the practically unanimous in- dorsement from civic and trade organizations of the 105 municipalities included in that area. Moreover, the Democratic party of this state, in the platform for 1920, is on record in favor of an agreement between the two states providing for ' ' a port district and a port authority with adequate powers to develop the port comprehensively." Yet the New York City government, led by Mayor Hylan, has arrayed itself against the plan, has initiated a movement looking to a system of harbor improvement under exclusively municipal control and has taken other steps the only effect of which, if successful, will be to block the scheme of the Port Authority, prolong the existing congestion of traf&e and add to the cost of living. The inadequacy of the present facilities has been fully demonstrated, and, as the governor says, "the resulting burden of expense and loss falls upon the commerce of the country, upon consumer and producer alike, for New York is the great distributing, receiving and manufacturing centre. ' ' The sharpness with which the governor criticises the Hylan administration for its stubborn and unrea- sonable opposition is fully warranted by the facts, and the Legislature should properly discount this unwarranted opposition. The Port of New York Authority has shown intelligent conception of a problem of vast magnitude the solution of which will have far-reaching effect, and the Legislatures of New York and New Jersey wiU act well their part by accepting the report and upholding the principles upon which it is based. Shipping is leaving New York because of the present conditions. Reaching After Trade. (Prom Troy Times, Jan. 18, 1922.) While the municipal authorities of New York are maintaining a posi- tion which tends to obstruct and delay the carrying out of great plans 36 looking to the immediate and future welfare of the metropolis, other cities are moving along lines of progress that promise most beneficial results. The tactics employed by the present administration in New York, if per- sisted in, must indefinitely defer the carrying out of such sorely needed improvements as are contemplated by the Port Authority and the Transit Commission. New York City because of its situation enjoys advantages possessed by no other coast town. Yet it may easily lose much of the maritime business which centres there, and is pretty certain to do so unless it "speeds up" in the matter of harbor facilities. Meanwhile other ports are stirring. The opening and operating of the Panama Canal has had the effect of stimulating trade at various Southern towns so located as to be convenient shipping points. New Orleans is one of these. That city seems to be thoroughly alive to the opportunities offered. Notwithstand- ing the depression through which traffic of all kinds has passed within recent months, New Orleans has pushed forward an enterprise expected to add vastly to the material prosperity of the city and vicinity — a canal which gives a shortcut to the Gulf oi Mexico and also opens up a large section for industrial development. The undertaking represents the ex- penditure of $25,000,000 or more, but New Orleans expects to get results that will show the money was well invested. It is something of a New York habit to regard Philadelphia as ' ' slow. ' ' There is no lack of energy as regards some of the activities to which Philadelphia is devoting itself just now. A few days ago work was begun on a bridge that wiU cross the Delaware Eiver, uniting Phila- delphia with Camden, New Jersey, and the structure, when completed, will be one of the largest of the kind ever erected. This bridge is designed to meet the requirements of local transportation, present conveniences being totally inadequate. But the scheme is intended to play a part in a large expansion which Philadelphia anticipates in the near future. At a meeting the other day there was discussion of arrangements relating to a national foreign trade convention to be held there next spring, and it was agreed that an important part of the work before the Philadelphians is to im- press the visitors, representing manufacturing, transportation and other interests and coming from all parts of the country, with the port facilities of that section. Delegates to the convention will be taken on trips which win enable them to see the situation clearly, and it is announced that the Secretary of Commerce will send men from his department to aid the Philadelphians in the work of explaining matters to the visitors. These and many other facts that might be cited furnish proof that various ports are actively engaged in efforts to secure business and are giving hearty support to enterprises which have that end in view. The significance of this should not be lost sight of by New York. That city is the greatest on the American hemisphere as regards population and material wealth, and is likely to retain that place. But it is also in a fair way of losing trade which seeks better facilities than the port of New York now offers. Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and New Orleans are reaching out for more business. And there are others. New York should take the hint and act accordingly. Governor Miller and New York City. (Prom Watertown, N. ¥., Times, Jan. 10, 1922.) Governor Miller scores Mayor Hylan's tactics of obstruction in attempt- ing to block the development of the port of New York. The Hylan ad- 37 ministration refuses to cooperate with the port authority. The governor's message to the state legislature and dealing with the subject is another noteworthy state paper of the present state executive. The governor makes a telling point of the inconsistency of New York City's position of opposition to port authority and its vigorous argument in behalf of the barge canal as opposed to the St. Lawrence canal. The plea is being made that the barge canal and Hudson can take care of all the traffic from the West, and yet New York City's administration re- fuses to prepare for that heavy traffic which it sees coming, by working with New Jersey and our own state to equip the water fronts and other- wise provide for trans-shipment facilities. The city engineer of New York makes the recommendation that New York City and the surrounding municipalities set ofE a state of their own, apart from the upstate. This is a Hearst scheme. Hearst's paper has been advocating the setting up of this state for years. Possibly he would be governor of the new state. He tried to be governor of the state as it is now constituted and failed; why not cut down the boundaries to territory that he can control. It is certain, as the governor points out, that there is politics back of the failure to cooperate in port development, just as there is politics back of the proposal as to a separate state. On the fallacious plea of home rule New York City is bucking every- thing the governor proposes. As a matter of fact it is the New York City Democratic crowd, Hylan, Hearst, Murphy, Al Smith and others, work- ing constantly to build up a political bailiwick which will be unassailable. They have lost sight of the greater good to city and state by the narrow view they take. Mr. Al Smith is a big enough man to take firm hold of this situation and contribute materially in straightening it out. Certainly he should have sufficient influence among his fellow Democrats to do so. In his silence he only acquiesces and becomes party to the whole affair. He is broad enough and wise enough to appreciate that the port of New York can never be developed properly with all interests working separately, and he must know full well that the present position of the city administration is only a dog-in-the-manger attitude. Governor Miller is charged with trying to grasp control of New York City and abolish every vestige of home rule. He is only trying to bring New York City to a status of cooperative working with the rest of the state and for the best interest of the state as a whole, including New York City. ?7 Cornell University Library HE554.N56 N53 The Plan of the Port Authority of New Yo Clin 3 1924 030 111 342 t*i' '^^^^'P^' f: -H