50 DOCK FACILITIES IN NEW YORK CITY. 
satisfaction to know the problem is being developed as it is under able management, 
but if you will notice, gentlemen, the paper is about the Harbor of New York, but 
the State of New Jersey is left completely out of consideration. Now, I am a little 
proud of the State of New Jersey, and I think if the Department of Docks and 
Ferries would look over to the west shore they might see something of interest. 
It may have been considered, and I would like to ask whether it is contemplated to 
use the Jersey shore in the project, because back of the Jersey shore lies the whole 
United States. This section is not by any means the greatest part of the United 
States. Theeastern part of the country the harbor of Boston can take care of, 
but beyond the Jersey shore the whole distribution of the United States starts and 
it seems to me that this fact should be looked into with care in considering the harbor 
of New York. 
THE PRESIDENT:—Are there any further remarks on the Paper? 
Mr. F. L. DuBosour, Member of Council:—While I did not intend to say 
anything on this paper I would like to make a criticism of one statement con- 
tained therein: “‘The logical plan for handling these four classes of freight would 
be to reserve the water front and the immediately adjacent upland for the mari- 
time commerce.’’ It seems to me the logical plan is to do just the contrary. The 
effort of the Commission seems to be to take care of ships bringing passengers and 
freight to New York, without regard to other classes of freight, and while it is true 
that the railroads do occupy a large part of the river front the reason is not very 
hard to find. The policy of the city of New York has been to give the steamship 
companies a long time lease with all kinds of facilities at a very low cost, but to 
give to a railroad company a lease extending not over a year at a most exorbitant 
charge and then compelling them to do all the improvements at their own expense. 
If the railroad companies will bring to and take from New York so much more 
freight than the steamship companies it seems as though the logical conclusion is 
not to cater to the steamship freight, but to that class of freight requiring the most 
facilities. 
I feel there is ample room on the Hudson River to accommodate the passenger 
travel and the express freight coming in steamships to New York City, and also 
to take care of the railroad freight without any such elaborate arrangement as here 
suggested, and this thought is encouraged by the fact that the most profitable and 
satisfactory arrangement for taking care of exclusively steamship freight, as pointed 
out by Mr. Barney, is now being pursued at the Bush Terminal in Brooklyn, and 
if the Commission would lay out a scheme that would segregate the exclusively 
steamship freight from the passenger and express matter, and locate the steamship 
freight at points where the land is not so valuable, as has been done at the Bush 
Terminal, and then give up to the railroads a very much less portion of the river 
front than now occupied with long term leases, they would be encouraged to go to 
the expense of putting in modern mechanical facilities for handling railroad freight 
and a solution of the problem would be more profitably reached. 
