DEVELOPMENT OF A MERCHANT MARINE AND COMMERCE. 229 



by any freight from which the railroad cannot earn, through a line haul, enough to reimburse 

 it for the cost of terminal operation. 



The most important matter confronting our ports, and on which the welfare of our port 

 facilities and our merchant marine depends in large degree, is the type of administration that 

 shall exercise control over our ports. Of course, for our smaller ports and for those ports 

 where the commerce is confined to a few commodities shipped in bulk, and where port facil- 

 ities have been amply provided by railroads or by other private interests, the need today for 

 a special administrative organization to exercise supervision over the affairs of such a port 

 is not especially important. No one can say, however, whether these smaller ports in time will 

 not become important ports with diverse interests, and from this viewpoint, even these smaller 

 ports should be so administered that their growth will be along correct lines. The principal 

 types of port administration or control are as follows : 



1. Municipal department control. 



2. Harbor board control, either municipal or state. 



3. Independent or public control. 



The most common type of control of our ports is the mimicipal department control, in 

 which the port comes under a department of the city government, such as the Department of 

 Public Works. At New York and Philadelphia the interests of the port are so large that 

 there is a separate Department of Wharves and Docks. This type of port control is best 

 adapted for small ports and places the entire control of port development and operation under 

 the municipal authorities; in some cases it is operated as a revenue-producing department. 

 New York City is often cited in this connection, because the revenue that New York City 

 derives annually from the rental of its piers runs into the millions. 



New York has been thoroughly aware of the serious situation confronting it through the 

 increase in its teiTninal costs, due not only to the tremendous volume of its overseas com- 

 merce but also to the great concentration of population and industrial establishments which 

 have congested the space required for port operations ; and as a consequence the flow of com- 

 merce has been becoming more irregular, terminal costs have risen, and the situation has be- 

 come more unsatisfactory from year to year. As an outcome of the appointment, in 1917, of 

 the New York-New Jersey Port and Harbor Development Commission, by the concurrent 

 action of the legislatures of New York and New Jersey, a report was submitted in 1920 by 

 this commission, from which much is expected. In the opinion of the commission the vital 

 matter lacking in New York is port organization, and in a progress report in 1919 the com- 

 mission recommended the creation of a port authority with adequate powers to carry out a 

 comprehensive plan, when adopted by the legislatures of the two states. Agreement has finally 

 been reached upon a grant of power to the "New York Port Authority," which provides an 

 agency to proceed with the work, at the same time leaving the local authorities with large 

 freedom. This agreement has been ratified by both states and by Congress. The commis- 

 sion was very urgent in stating that the creatioiU of a port authority with powers to go for- 

 ward is absolutely necessary. 



The method of municipal department control may be discarded from consideration as an 

 approved permanent type of port administration. From this type of control was evolved 

 the harbor board or commission type. In some cases these harbor boards are creations 

 of the municipality; in others, of the state. Some of our leading ports have the mu- 

 nicipal or state harbor board type of administration. Of the two, the latter is preferable; 

 and three of our largest ports — viz., Boston, New Orleans, and San Francisco — ^have this 



