PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF DOCKS
AND RAILWAY TERMINAL
FACILITIES
> • * V
Means the Industrial and Commerdel
Supremacy of the City of Seattle-
Paper Prepared by ROBERT BRIDGES
SECRETARY OF THE
PORT COMMISSION OF THE PORT OF SEATTLE
distributed from the office of
McKenzie, bridges & McFarlane
439.40 NEW YORK BLOCK
SEATTLE, WASH.
<:=. c r?
Paper Prepared for the Use of the Goramittee of the Commercial
Club of the City of Seattle, by Robert Bridges, Secretary of the
Port Commission, Port of Seattle;
History of Harbor Line Matters in
the State.
Tlie greatest struggle that took
place la the constitutional convention
of the State of Washington was that
between the advocates of state con¬
trol of all harbor facilities and those
who believed in private control there¬
of. The ablest men in the state were
arrayed on one side or the other, both
within and without the bar of the
convention, and the discussion took
more time than any other subject
that came up for consideration. It
finally resulted in the policy of state
control being adopted, the provision
of the fundamental law which was in¬
tended to secure that result being
as follows:
Art. XV, Sec. 1. The Legislature
shall provide for the appointment of
a commission whose duty it shall be
to locate and establish harbor lines
in the navigable waters of all har¬
bors, estuaries, bays, and inlets of
this state, wherever such navigable
w_^ers lie within or in front of any
corporate limits of any city or within
one mile thereof upon either side.
The state shall never give, sell or
lease to any private person, corpo¬
ration or association any rights what¬
ever in the waters beyond such har¬
bor lines, nor shall any of the area
lying between any harbor line and
the line of ordinary high tide, and
within not less than fifty feet nor
more than six hundred feet of such
harbor line (as the commission shall
determine) be sold or granted by the
state, nor its right to control the
same relinquished, but such area
shall be forever reserved for land¬
ings, wharves, streets, and other con¬
veniences of navigation and com¬
merce.
Sec. 2. The legislature shall pro¬
vide general laws ■ for, the ; le9.sing of
the right to < . buil^ and maintain
wharves, docks, and other structures
upon the areas mentioned in section
1 of this article, but no lease shall
be made for any term longer than
thirty years, or the legislature may
provide by general laws for the build¬
ing and maintaining upon such
areas, wharves, docks and other
structures.
Sec. 3. Municipal corporations
shall have the right to extend their
streets over intervening tide lands
to and across the area reserved as
herein provided.
To emphasize the intent of Art. XV,
the convention afterwards by Sec. 2,
of Art. XXVII, provided as follows:
Sec. 2. All laws now in force in
the Territory of Washington, which
are not repugnant to this constitu¬
tion, shall remain in force until they
expire by their own limitation, or are
altered or repealed by the legisla¬
ture: Provided, that this section shall
not be so construed as to validate any
act of the legislature of Washington
territory granting shore or tide lands
to any person, company, or any muni¬
cipal or private corporation.
State ex rel. Wm .P. Trimble, re¬
lator, vs. Robert Bridges, et al. as
the Board of State Land Commis¬
sioners, respondents.
Section 53, of the act of March 16,
1897 (Laws 1897, p. 225), from the
state of the right to erect wharves,
docks and other structures as pro¬
vided in the section, in a designated
portion of the harbor area in front
of the City of Seattle. Among other
provisions in the section it was de¬
clared that,
"After the expiration of one year,
if the parties who have leased any
of the said areas, do not commence to
build wharves, docks, or to make
such other improvements as provid¬
ed in this act, the commission may
cancel the lease and re-lease the same
under - the provisions of this act."
"But the section as amend^in
404905
1899, (Laws 1899, p. 225) contained
the following provision in lieu of the
requirement to improve:
"The lessee of any part of such
harbor area may at his or its option,
improve the same in such manner,
subject to the approval of the board,
and to such extent as such lessee
shall elect."
"The vital question for determin¬
ation is, was the legislature author¬
ized to relieve the lessee from the
obligation to improve the harbor
area leased by him?
"if this provision be valid, it con¬
tains a contract with the state by
which the lessee, under the terms of
the lease provided in the statute, may
hold a portion of the harbor area for
a period of thirty years and beyond
the power of the state to improve or
to have the same improved. Such
lease becomes a contract, and by the
rendition of a merely nominal rental
the lessee may hold at his pleasure
the harbor area without improving
it. This is not in accord with the
intent and manifest prescription of
the constitution.
"The vices of the amended section
in the act of 1899 is that it vests the
option and election to improve the
harbor area in the lessee, a private
individual or corporation, rather
than resting it, as vested by the con¬
stitution, in the state. The provis¬
ions relative to improvements by the
lessee incorporated in the amend¬
atory act of 1899 are therefore void.
"The writ is denied."
Public Ownership of Docks.
A harbor is essentially public. The
right to embark and disembark again
to the land should be as free as the
people whose property it is.
It is said by Lord Justice Hale, de
Portibus Maris;
"When a port is fixed, both natives
and foreigners are interested by reas¬
on of common commerce, trade and
intercourse; and they ought to be
preserved from impediments and
nuisances that may hinder or annoy
tiib access or abode of ships and
—4
vessels and seamen, or the unloading
or reloading of goods."
It would not be profitable to go
into the history of foreign ports to
traice their origin, whether from
royal edict, parliamentary grant or
a free town's decree.
In a democratic republic like the
United States, the harbors are held
by the state government as a sacred
public trust, which even the legis¬
latures have no right permanently to
impair.
In Martin vs. Waddell, 16 Pet. Rep.
410, the United States Supreme
Court says:
"When the revolution took place,,
the people of each state became them¬
selves sovereign, and in that char¬
acter held the absolute right to all
the navigable waters, and the soil
under them, for their own common
use, subject only to the rights sur¬
rendered by the constitution."
In the weii known MassachtiscUs
case of the commonwealth V. Alger,
in the opinion of the court. Chief
Justice Shaw uses the following lan¬
guage :
"Supposing, then, that the common¬
wealth does hold all the power which
exists anywhere to regulate and dis¬
pose of the seashores and tide waters
of all lands under them and all public
rights connected with them; whether
this power be traced to the right of
propert'- or the right of sovereignty
as its principal source, it must be
regarded as held in trust for the best
interest of the public, for commerce
and navigation, and for all the legiti¬
mate and appropriate uses to which,
it may be subservient."
This is not a new doctrine, but it
is well, occasionally, to restate It;
and it is found reaffirmed by the Su¬
preme Court of the United States In
what is known as the "Lake Front"
case of Chicago, where, in delivering
the opinion of the court, Mr. Justice
Brewer, says;
"The position advanced by the rail¬
road company in support of its clainx
to the ownership of the submerged
lands and the right to the erection
of Wharves, piers and docks at its
pleasure or for its business in the
harbor of Chicago, would place every
harbor in the country at the mercy
of a majority of the legislature of the
state in which the harbor is situated.
We cannot, it is true, cite any author¬
ity where a grant of this kind has
been held invalid, for we believe no
Instances exist where the harbor of
a great city and its commerce have
been allowed to pass into the control
of any private corporation. But the
decisions are numerous which declare
that such property is held by the
state, by virtue of its sovereignity,
in trust for the public.
"The ownership of the navigable
waters of the harbor and the lands
under them is subject of public con¬
cern to the whole people of the state.
The trust with which they are held,
therefore, is governmental, and can¬
not he alienated except in those in¬
stances mentioned of parcels used in
the improvement of the interest thus
held, or when parcels can be dis¬
posed oí without detriment to the
public interest in the lands and
waters remaining. This follows nec¬
essarily from the public character of
the property, being held by the whole
people for purposes in which the
whole people are in'erested."
The opinions here stated are cited
as an indication "of proper grounds
upon which may be baseà a propo¬
sition on behalf of public ownership
and control of the wharves of a great
port; and they seem to be laid in the
foundations of natural riglit, of
public convenience and in principles
of justice.
Wharves are the means whereby
the public on land can transfer them¬
selves and their goods to the water,
and vice versa—just as turnpikes,
streets and highways are the means
for enabling free and easy transpor¬
tation wholly on land. No impedi¬
ments or barriers beyond the limit
of public control should be permitted
to obstruct freedom of communi¬
cation between land and water. The
rivers and seas are the highways of
water-borne freight and passengers.
and the right of landing and embark¬
ing ought to suffer no more or greater
legal obstruction than the right of
traversing the higl^way on sea or
land. It becomes the duty of the
public, then, to preserve that right
for present and future use.
In order to reap the fullest enjoy¬
ment of this right, facilities and con¬
veniences must be supplied for the
required use. These necessarily be¬
come a public charge, owing to the
cost of construction and mainte¬
nance, in consequence of which a
toll must be paid by the users. This
toll is an unavoidable obstruction to
free transference over a wharf which
is built for increased accommodation
and for lessening the cost of handling
But it is obvious that the smaller the
toll the less will be the obstruction.
Aside, however, from questions of
natural right and justice, there are
other business and practical con¬
siderations which appear as satis¬
factory reasons as given in the com¬
munications of our consuls from for¬
eign ports. The following are con¬
densed from certain consuler reports:
AUCKLAND—Public ownership
manages matters solely for the benefit
of the public. It does not seek to
make profit. All accumulations of
money from every source are returned
to those who paid it, in the shape of
increased accommodation and appli¬
ances for the benefit of trade. Under
public ownership charges are levied
upon all classes of goods, and equally
upon all individuals. Favoring of
particular lines of trade is avoided.
Public ownership looks for the great¬
est return it can get.
COPENHAGEN—Charges at public
wharves are generally less than at
private wharves.
GLASGOW—Public ownership of
docks gives cheaper rates and dues,
and better facilities for the purposes
of commerce.
H A M B U R G—Public ownership
gives lower profits to owners than
private parties would be contented
with.
LIVERPOOL—The commercial ad-
5—
vantages of public control would be
that the docks and harbor are worked
entirely for the benefit of the traders
and those using and frequenting the
port; and that all surplus revenue,
after payment of interest on borrowed
capital, should either go toward re¬
ducing the debt, or capital of the
company, or should be expended in
extension of the dock system, or in
providing new facilities and improving
those already existing at the port.
MELBOURNE—Under public own¬
ership steps can be taken to meet the
requirements of the port in a better
manner than by private ownership.
It supplies the necessary accommo¬
dation for shipping at a more reason¬
able charge.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE— Pub¬
lic ownership has no motive other
than to extend and benefit the trade
of the port.
QUEBEC—Except for the public
ownership none of the improvements
now existing would have been made.
ROTTERDAM—A great and suc¬
cessful sea-port can be built up only
by united effort. The docks, quays
and necessary mechanical appliances
are part and parcel of the port and
harbor. How the harmony, order and
method so essential to the develop¬
ment and successful administration
of vast and varied interests can be
secured unlesss the sea-port and its
harbor service in their entirety be
subjected to the direction of one cen¬
tral controlling power, is, indeed,
difficult to understand.
Most fortunately, the United States
Commissioner of Corporations, Mr.
Herbert Knox Smith, of the Depart¬
ment of Commerce and Labor, has
made an exhaustive study of trans¬
portation by water in the United
States, in connection with which he
has issued three substantial volumes,
the last (Part III, Water Terminals)
having been put forth in 1910 and
comprises about 400 pages of most
interesting and enlightening data on
the subject.
CommisMoner Smith's views of
what a water terminal should con¬
sist of. He says:
—6
"In addition to harbor organization,
there are four prime factors in a
good water terminal: (1) Adequate
wharves; (2) warehouse space; (3)
trans-shipping machinery; and (4)
belt-line railway connection between
general water traffic, the adjacent
railroads, and, if possible, the local
industries. (The depth of water is a
matter of channels, not terminals).
Furthermore, these vital factors
should not be under adverse or exclu¬
sive control, especially the belt rail¬
way, which should be the public ser¬
vant of the whole port. It is a matter
of more than passing attention that
the three best managed ports on this
continent are the three that are
managed, not by the municipalities
themselves, but by the state.
These ports are the most up-to-date
in their equipment, and the charac¬
ter of the construction of both wharves
and sheds, as well as of their equip¬
ment, leaves little to be desired."
On this point. Commissioner Smith
says:
"Two ports only. New Orleans and
San Francisco, are noteworthy for
their high degree of public owner¬
ship, control, efficiency, and equip¬
ment. At New Orleans the active
waterfront is admirably equipped and
controlled by a State Board; most
of the wharves and sheds are open
for gener/i traffic, and a municipal
board operates ten miles of belt-line
railway giving co-ordination between
the waterway local industries, and
trunk-line railroads. At San Fran¬
cisco there is an excellent system of
wharves under state control kept
open for general traffic. The water
terminal situation in these two cities
is by far the best in the country."
Mr. George C. Sikes, an expert on
harbors and their development, em¬
ployed by the Chicago Harbor Com¬
mission to make an investigation and
administration, in his valuable report
made in the fall of 1909 says, in part,
regarding Montreal, which is owned
by the Dominion government, and ad¬
ministered by a Dominion board of
three commissioners:
"The Harbor commissioners control
the entire waterfront of the city and
manage it on the basis of a public
monopoly. Within the last few years
very extensive Improvements have
been made and more are planned for
the near future. The Harbor com¬
missioners own and operate a belt
railroad, the tracks of which are lo¬
cated on the property they control
so that switch engines may be oper¬
ated at any time of the day or night.
In some places, notably in Boston,
Philadelphia and Baltimore, the
switching of cars, in parts of the
harbor at least, is prohibited ex¬
cept at night. The facilities for the
interchange of commodities between
the railroad and the boat line are
especially good in Montreal. The har¬
bor commissioners otvn grain eleva¬
tors which recently have been equip¬
ped with conveyor systems that make
it possible for the boat to take on
grain at the berth to which it goes to
unload its cargo."
Mr. Sikes most highly commends
the administrtration of the harbor of
Montreal, and adds that, "In addition
to its needs, the dock system of
Montreal is one of the best on the
continent. It is so, largely because
the development is on a basis of
unity, the harbor commissioners be¬
ing the sole owners of dock facilities
in the port."
He quotes statements by the com¬
missioners, resulting in part, from
their study of harbor administration
in Europe, in the light of their own
experience at Montreal: They advo¬
cate:
Ownership and control of the en¬
tire harbor area. No complete de¬
velopment can take place without
unity of purpose and concentration of
authority. The value of complete
ownership and non-alienation of any
territory or rights are inestimable.
The existence of rights, franchises
and privileges in the hands of indi¬
viduals may hamper business and en¬
danger or discourage further exten-
sipn. .
The Evil of Definite Term Leases.
The greatest objection to private
ownership of dock facilities is that
the owners may use their control to
suppress competition and promote mo¬
nopoly. A study of the New York
situation indicates that public owner¬
ship under the system of long term
leases may be productive of the same
evil, but to a lesser degree. Private
ownership, heing perpetual, would
tend to make the abuses perpetual.
But under public ownership, and with
the leasing system in use in New
York City, the leases will expire in
twenty and thirty years at the out¬
side and thus enable the public in the
course of time to regain control. It
all leases to piers in the harbor of
New York were subject to revocation
at any time, as is the policy in New
Orleans, San Francisco, Montreal,
Liverpool, Glasgow and many other
European ports, the evils I have
pointed out in the New York situation
would not develop, or it they did,
could he easily remedied.
The only excuses offered in New
York for leases of twenty years' or
thirty years' duration is that the
lessee is usually required to build a
shed upon the pier, and that as the
shed, at the end of the lease, becomes
the property of the city, the lessee
must have a sufficient guaranteed
time to insure his getting his value
out of the shed. There are two ways
of meeting this objection. Either the
city should build the shed as well as
the dock in the first instance, or the
city in reserving the right to terminate
the lease should provide for reason¬
able payment on account of the shed
in case of revocation.
The Bush Terminal Company in
New York makes no leases for longer
than ten years. It is urged by officers
of this company that ten years is
about as long as conditions can be
foreseen with any degree of accuracy.
It is impossible to avoid the con¬
clusion that influence, political and
otherwise, has been a factor in. the
leasing policy of the New York Dock
Department. Moreover, this influence
jbesn e¥erte4 ii^ a plan¬
ner detrijnental to the interest? of
çhippias ap<J of the public.
The most conspicuous instance is
afforded by the ice trust scandals of
the Van Wyck adipinistration. It
was largely through the favoritism of
the dock department that the so-
called ice trust was enabled to get
such a strong hold upon the situation
at that time. Many instances can be
cited of politicians securing leases to
Pier space devoted to dump uses for
less than market value of the space.
If such leases, instead of being definite
term contracts for fixed periods of
considerable length, were revocable
at will, any serious abuses that might
develop could be easily remedied.
The history of those older states
which have large commercial interests
is full of the evidence of loose, negli¬
gent or wilfully corrupt management
of their properties upon the water¬
front of their various harbors. The
state and city of New York, for ex¬
ample, have been striving for years
in the courts, by means of condemna¬
tion proceeding's and otherwise, at
vast expense, to recover their control
of the water-front of that city, in order
that it may be properly maintained
and improved for the public benefit.
In the year 1810, the city granted to
John Jacob Astor certain water lots
in the lower part of the city of New
York, aggregating 425 feet and 4 1-4
inches along the water front at a
yearly rental of $356.91. In the year
1892, his heirs were paid, after a long
and expensive course of litigation,
the sum of $520,709.49, in order to
secure their relinquishment of the
claim they held to wharfage rights
upon this property.
San Francisco.
Report of Harbor Line Commission.
State of Washington. 1893.
From 1850 to 1863, wharves and
piers were built by private parties
upon limited franchises granted by
the city and county of San Francisco,
which power to grant was held under
State laws by the board of county
supervisors. From this system arose
YSti.ous abuses and much misraanage-
i»ent, and ti'S tbese franchises expired
t%ey were pot renewed, an<i the state
assumed control of these wharves and
piers by act of tbe legislature of April
24, 18d3. This act created a state
board of harbor commissioners and
defined their powers and jurisdiction.
The board was organized the same
year and assumed charge over the
water front and all structures thereon.
It required several years of litigation
to regain all. Several long leases
did not expire for many years.
Section 2527—Requisites of Valid
Contracts. Laws governing Board of
State Harbor Commissioners.
No contract or obligation entered
into by the Harbor Commissioners,
which creates a liability or author¬
izes the payment of money, shall be
valid or binding force unless signed
by all three of the Commissioners,
and countersigned by the secretary
of the board, nor shall any contract,
involving the payment of motiey, be
made by the said Commissioners
unless the amount then to the
credit of the Harbor improvement
fund, together with the revenue esti¬
mated to accrue up to the time of the
maturity of such contract, over and
above the current expenses of the
Commission, be sufficient to meet the
payments to become due thereon;
provided, such estimate of revenue
shall be limited, as to time, to fifteen
(15) years. Where the work to be
done is the construction of a new
wharf, bulkhead, or breakwater and
its appurtenances, the board may
lease said wharf, bulkhead, or break¬
water and its appurtenances for a
period not to exceed fifteen years, and
for an amount not to exceed the cost
of constructing said work, the rents
therefrom to be applied, in whole or
in part, in paynient for the cost of
such construction, and said Board
may provide in the contracts for the
same that the rents therefrom shall
be so applied, or the work be paid
for, in whole or in part, from such
repts and revenues.
Sec. 2. AU leases hereunder shall
be made upon competitive bids after
eucli pu}>lic advertisement as tiie Com-
mlssioB shall deem sufficient, ipviting
proposals or bids tlierefor, ^nd shall
he awarded to the persop who will
pay the amount required to construct
such improvements, and execute and
take a lease thereof for the shortest
period of such time. (Statutes 1903,
P. 270; in effect March 20, 1903;
Cal. Rep. Cit. 54, 292; 81, 23; 111, 583.
Following is a copy of a lease
made and entered into by the Harbor
Commission of San Francisco:
(Copy.)
This indenture, made this 4th day
of August, in the year of our Lord,
One Thousand Nine Hundred and
Ten, by and between W. V. Stafford,
W. E. Dennison and P. S. Teller, as
and constituting the Board of State
Harbor Commissioners of the State
of California, parties of the first part,
hereinafter called lessors, and West¬
ern Pacific Railway Company, a cor¬
poration, organized and existing un¬
der and by virtue of the laws of the
State of California, and having its
principal place of business in the City
and County of San Francisco State
aforesaid, party of the second part,
hereinafter called lessee;
WITNESSETH, That said parties
of the first part do hereby lease to
said lessee and said lessee does here¬
by accept a lease of the l ew wharf,
known as Pier No. 34, sit.jated on
the water front of the City aiid Coun¬
ty of San Francisco, the same being
642 feet 10 17-32 incnes m length and
130 feet in width, which wharf was
erected and constructed in accord¬
ance with a contract entered into on
the 18th day of March, 1909, by and
between the said lessors and Asso¬
ciated Contracting Company, a corpo¬
ration, in accordance with the plans
and specifications attached to said
contract, (which contract was as¬
signed in writing on September 16,
1909, to said lessee) for a term of
One Hundred and Eighty (180)
months from and after said 4th day
of August, 1910, for a rental sum of
One Hundred and Sixty-Seven Thou¬
sand Seven Hundred and Thirty
($167,730) Dollars, payable in ad¬
vance, the receipt whereof is hereby
aeknowlehged, it being understood
and agreed that said rental sum above
specified is and shall be exclusive
of dockage and tolls.
It is further understood and agreed
that said lessee shall, during the
term of this lease, keep and main¬
tain said wharf in repair at said les¬
see's sole expense; and that said les¬
see shall, at the termination of this
lease, turn said structure back to
said lessors in as good order and con¬
dition as when received, reasonable
use and wear and tear thereof except¬
ed.
It is further understood and agreed
that said lessors shall have the right
at any time during the term of this
lease to annul and cancel the same
by paying back to said lessee an
amount in such proportion to the en¬
tire rental sum as the unexpired
term of said lease bears to the whole
thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said
lessors have hereunto set their hands
and caused their official seal to be at¬
tached hereto and said lessee has
caused this instrument to be execut¬
ed and its seal attached by its offi¬
cers thereunto duly authorized, in
duplicate, the day and year first
written above.
W. V. STAFFORD,
W. E. DENNISON,
P. S. TELLER,
Board of State Harbor
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
LEE V. MERLE, JR.,
Secretary.
WESTERN PACIFIC RAILWAY
COMPANY,
A Corporation, of San Francisco, Cal.
STATE OF NEW YORK.
Barge Canal Terminal Commission.
1911.
VOLUME I.
State Ownership, Control and Ad¬
ministration of Canal Terminals
Advocated.
Elsewhere in the State we know of
no city or town where there has been
even a semblance of policy or system
9—
adopted with regard to the improve¬
ment or development of its water¬
front, hut, on the contrary, these mu¬
nicipalities have permitted private—
chiefly railroad—interests to acquire
such of the choicest waterfront prop¬
erty as the latter desired, apparently
without let or hindrance and much
to the embarrassment of water car¬
riers of an independent character, and
in no sense helpful to the promotion
of canal borne commerce. It is the
belief of this Commission that there
should be legislative action that
would stimulate the aifrerent cities
and towns of the sate to adopt some
systematic, progressive and useful de¬
velopment of its waterfront of a char¬
acter that shall have the effect of
giving the fullest possible impetus to
water borne, and thus cheaper, trans¬
portation.
If we have not already convinced
your honorable body that we regard
terminals for the use of canal boats
as an essential and vital instrumen¬
tality for the efficient and economi¬
cal promotion of canal commerce,
then we have utterly tailed of our
purpose. We cannot too strongly, nor
too emphatically, express ourselves
to that effect. So necessary, and so
vital, to the proper use of the canals
do we regard terminals, frequently
and conveniently located, well built
and thoroughly equipped, that we
recommend that the State shall build,
own, control and administer such ter¬
minals, wherever located within the
State, as are deemed necessary for
the use of boats within the State,
as are deemed necssary for the use
of boats carrying freight upon the
canals of this State, under such rules
and regulations as it may establish.
So vital to the preservation and pro¬
motion of canal transportation do we
regard terminals, that it is our hope
that at the next general submission
of amendments to the Constitution for
the approval of the people, there shall
be also submitted an amendment to
the effect that the terminals for the
use of canal boats shall not be sold,
leased or otherwise disposed of, but
that they shall remain the property
and under the control of the State
forever.
The Commission is also of the opin¬
ion that the plans and specifications
for the building of such terminal
structures, and the proper equipment
of same, should be prepared by the
State Engineer and Surveyor, subject
to the approval of the Canal Board,
that their erection be under the su¬
pervision of that officer.
Since the submission of the bond
issue to the people of King County,
communications have been received
from port authorities from various
parts of the country. The following
is taken from a communication re¬
ceived from the board of commission¬
ers of the Port of New Orleans:
Your favor of the 9th inst., ad¬
dressed to Mr. Dumser, Secretary of
the Board of Commissioners of the
Port of New Orleans, and bulletin re¬
garding the Port of Seattle Commis¬
sion, have been received. In the opin¬
ion of the Port Commissioners of this
city, founded on an experience of
sixteen years, it would be suicidal to
lose control of your docks to private
parties, in any shape, manner or
form. It has been proven by experi¬
ence of others than ourselves, that
the greatest benefits accrue to a port
owning and controlling its own docks.
In this way the docks are managed
for the benefit of all, giving equal fa¬
cilities to those to whom their use is
necessary and special privileges to
none. The docks in this city are pub-
ixly owned, as is also the Belt Rail¬
road. Under the management of the
Port Commission, revenues have
nearly doubled, while the charges
have been reduced one-half. These
docks are open to the world at the
same price. No interest or steamship
company has any special rights to
any dock, as these are under the ab¬
solute control of the commissioners,
who can place any vessel that they
desire at them.
This Commission issued $3,500,000
in bonds, paying five per cent inter¬
est, out of the proceeds of which
they constructed the docks as they
stand today, and which are an asset
10
amounting to $4,250,000 and for use
of which they collect a revenue out of
which they pay the Interest on the
bonds, the operating expenses, and
have a surplus. It can be easily fig¬
ured that In forty-two years, out of
the revenues, they will not only have
collected enough to pay the bonds,
principal and Interest, but have suf¬
ficient to rebuild the docks and leave
a handsome surplus. Under the plan
such as you Indicate, no such results
could be obtained. Many other strong
and convincing arguments could be
adduced to prove thre Is no compar¬
ison between the conditions which ex¬
ist In a publicly owned property and
administered for the public good, and
one controlled by private Interest.
If the Port Commission of the Port
of Seattle was to enter Into such a
lease as was contemplated by the so-
called Gentlemen's Agreement, of
Ayres et al.. It would be seen that It
would be contrary to the advise gllven
by those ports that have learned by
experience the vice of long time
leases, and also from the board of
State Harbor Commissions, San Fran¬
cisco, California.
As regards leases of publicly owned
docks and wharves. All wharves and
piers on the San Francisco side of
the bay are owned by the State and
operated for the people by the State
Board of Harbor Commissioners.
In most Instances the State con¬
structs the wharves and assigns them
on a month to month tenancy to the
various shipping firms.
At the present time a charge of 45c
per linear foot Is collected dockage,
wharfage and toll charges. For In¬
stance: The Kosmos Line has as¬
signed to It the entire north side of
Pier 19, Union St. Wharf No. 2. This
wharf Is 600 feet long and for the use
of it this company pays $270.00 per
month. In addition to which we col¬
lect the dockage, wharfage and toll
charges.
The assignment In this manner of
a pier to a steamship company as¬
sures them of docking space for their
vessels at any time they may touch
at this point.
In every Instance the operation of
the local waterfront Is directly under
the jurisdiction of this Board.
As San Francisco Is so situated that
upon the completion and opening of
the Panama Canal it will become In
fact our principal rival and competi¬
tor, It would seem at least to be the
part of wisdom In the Interest of the
people of King Conny In the up-bulld-
Ing of the Commerce of this port to
adopt as near as practicable the pol¬
icy of said Port of San Francisco,
which years of experience on their
part has brought them to a state of
efficiency, dispatch, and economy, to
a position where they are referred to
In connection with New Orleans, as
being the most highly efficient and
noteworthy harbor In the United
States.
(COPY)
CALYTN TOMPKINS,
Commissioner.
B. P. CRESSON, JR.,
First Deputy Commissioner.
WILLIAM J. BARNEY,
Second Deputy Commissioner.
MATTHEW J. HARRINGTON,
Secretary.
FRANCIS J. RYAN,
Assistant Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OP DOCKS AND
PERRIES,
CITY OF NEW YORK ,
Pier "A" North River.
New York, April 11th, 1912.
Brlg.-Gen. H. M. Chittenden,
United States Army (Retired),
124 Fifteenth Avenue N.,
Seattle, Washington.
My dear General:
I was complimented to receive your
personal letter of April 2nd and to
learn that I have been of some ser¬
vice to you In the great responsibil¬
ities which you have undertaken. Ex¬
ploiting speculators crowd about
such opportunities just as files do
around sugar, and the community Is
fortunate which can avoid having Its
plans spoiled by the disrupting Influ¬
ence of private speculation.
There Is no competition so sharp as
that which exists between the great
seaports of the world, and from what
I know of local conditions on the Pa¬
cific Coast. I think it is important
that each one of these ports should
avoid any entangling alliance which
will limit this competitive efficency
as it develops. Ihave no hesitancy
in saying that if the public support
of the community is sufficiently alert,
the best method of procedure is to
undertake the physical planning and
administration of the port as a public
function. Montreal has done this
with most satisfactory results, and
European seaports have done like¬
wise.
It would seem to me that your
problem is not so complicated but
what this kind of treatment would be
effective at Seattle. Even if mistakes
are made, and the utmost limit of
economy is not always attained, nev¬
ertheless, control is assured by this
method as it can be in any other way.
I also think that public administra¬
tion is in accord with the trend of
public opinion, and what may seem
advanced ideas will appear to be very
moderate within a short time. The
main consideration always to keep in
mind is the necessity for public con¬
trol to provide for unity of adminis¬
tration and physical planning. All of
the features of port administration
should be co-ordinated, and this can¬
not be brought about in the simplest
and most satisfactory way, unless
public control is absolute.
I shall send you within a few days
a report on the relations of New Jer¬
sey to New York within the port dis¬
trict, which, I think, you will find of
interest. Our problem is a peculiarly
difficult one here on account of its
magnitude, complexity, rivalries of
private interests and the fact that the
port lies in two states; still we are
making headway.
I enclose copy of a recent report on
a pla.n for South Brooklyn adminis¬
tration, which is novel and which
may be suggestive.
It is possible I may be able to visit
you in Seattle some time this year. I
am looking forward to the possibility
of this trip with a great deal of pleas¬
ure. Sincerely yours,
(Signed) CALVIN TOMPKINS.
(COPY)
New Orleans, April 8th, 1912.
Port Commission of Seattle,
Seattle, Washington.
Gentlemen:
While on a visit to Seattle last
September, I had the pleasure of
meeting your Commission, and con¬
ferring with them on the subject of
the Port Terminals of Seattle, and
was impressed with the possibilities
of your city.
I noticed recently in the press
that Seattle has voted a bond issue
for the development of its water front
terminal facilities. It was also stat¬
ed "That it was the present thought
of the Port Commission that an invi-
taion is exended to those interested to
enter into negotiations with the Port
Commission for a lease of the pro¬
posed Harbor Island improvements,
and that the present thought of the
Commission is to invite co-operation
of private capital in the development
of the project. The Port Commission to
acquire the bulk of the land needed
and to erect thereon the necessary
piers and sheds. These structures
and the additional lands acquired by
the Commission will be leased on
equitable terms to the co-operating
company which will be expected to
add to such structures from its own
funds as may be necessary to com¬
plete the developments on a compre¬
hensive basis. The investment of
private funds to be not less than half
of the Port District, etc., etc., and
that correspondence is invited look¬
ing to arrangement along the lines
above suggested.
Prompted by my interest in the fu¬
ture of Seattle, and all other ports of
the Pacific Coast, as the method of
their management will affect not only
the Pacific Coast, but also the entire
nation, I am constrained to write
you this letter.
Seattle has magnificent possibili¬
ties as a Port, and a great future as
the population of the West increases
I
and the trade of China, Japan and the
far East continues to expand. In
this connection it is interesting to
note the growth of tue commerce of
the United States, for instance; the
total foreign Commerce of imports
and exports in 1880 was about fifteen
hundred millions of dollars; in 1900
about twenty-two hundred and fifty
millions of dollars, and in 1910 thirty-
three hundred millions of dollars. I
would call attention to the growth in
the last ten years as compared with
the previous twenty years. With the
immense deveiopment that is going
on in the United States, the need of
port terminals becomes more intense
and thus the terminals become more
valuable and of extreme necessity.
Unfortunately almost every seaport
in the United States has lost control
of its water fronts. I àm pleased to
state that New Orleans is one of the
very few ports that owns and operates
its own terminals. Some of the large
cities are .making an effort to buy
back what they have lost, but the im¬
mense cost to do so makes it almost
prohibitive.
The City of New Orleans has had
bitter experience .in disposing of
some of its public utilities. It sold
out its water works system and grant¬
ed to a corporation an exclusive mon¬
opoly to supply water for a period of
fifty years. It granted a franchise
to a company to put in the sewerage
for the city. Fortunately for the peo¬
ple, New Orleans was able to termi¬
nate these arrangements, and our
city now has a magnificent water
works and sewerage system owned
and operated by it. The city many
years ago granted the right to a rail¬
road company to lay a track along
the river front, but as the terms of the
contract were not complied with, the
ciy recovered the space. Various
propositions have been made in the
past to permit railroads to get addi¬
tional tracks on the river front, but
by public agitation they were defeat¬
ed for the city's good.
New Orleans some years ago leased
its Wharves on the river front and the
résulta were very unsatisfactory.
After a long agitation against the
lease it was not renewed, but a Port
Commission was organized, which
took over the wharves and erected
the miles of sheds and docks which
have become famous. Delegations
from many cities visit New Orleans
to inspect the dock and the belt rail¬
road facilities.
The dock rates are much lower
than when the docks were under
lease. The corporations that lease
desire to make as much as possible
from the lease, and will put as little
as possible back into the property.
Contracts can be drawn to contain
all possible safeguards. The enforce¬
ment of the terms depends largely
on public officials, the membership of
such boards who are frequently dis¬
placed to make room for others. It is
quite possible that in future years
the lessees may have political influence
to designate the officials who are
charged withe the enforcement of the
terms of the lease. The safest plan
is to take no chances whatsoever, and
the way to do this is for the people
never to lose control, ownership and
operation of their public utilities.
Between the choice of owning and
operating, a corporation would natur¬
ally prefer the latter, as the city
puts up the money to acquire the
utility, while the lessees operate it.
A city owning and operating its
docks, warehouses and railroad ter¬
minals can prevent discrimination
against the port. Invite new business,
and compel railroad and steamship
lines to look after the city's interest,
otherwise they will be deprived of
the facilities.
There is a probability that when
the people surrender control of their
docks, warehouses and belt railroad
through a lease or any other form,
they will lose interest in, and become
indifferent to their own property.
Where the people exclusively own
and operate, they will have a pride
of ownership, which brings better re¬
sults flowing from the utilities. Then
again where the people lose control
a proposition may be made at
some future time for the city
to dispose of the terminals, or
revise the terms of the lease
or contract. Public sentiment is
so uncertain, and we are all aware
how a few men can skilfully organize
and work up public sentiment to
favor and carry through almost any¬
thing.
The City of New Orleans, through
the Port Commission, exclusively
owns and operates the wharves and
docks, while the public belt railroad
is owned and operated exclusively by
the City of New Orleans through a
belt commission. I have referred
in this letter to the possibility of
a city losing valuable public utili¬
ties; this did occur several years
ago, and New Orleans almost lost its
belt railroad. Public sentiment was
worked up to the necessity of bring¬
ing in new railroads, and that the
railroads would go elsewhere, etc.
The. agitation was kept up continu¬
ously and finally the city council
passed an ordinance permitting
a railroad to operate their trains
over the public belt railroad, provided
such would join in prorating the cost
of extending the tracks. All such
railroads were to pay the City of New
Orleans for the use of the tracks on
a wheelage basis. Fortunately the
Port Commission instituted legal pro¬
ceedings to have the ordinance an¬
nulled, on the basis that they con¬
trolled the management of the river
front, and had given the City of New
Orleans the right to construct and
operate a public belt railroad, but
only so long as the said railroad was
operated and controlled by a public
commission and that its management
and control should be separate and
distinct from that of any railroad
entering New Orleans. The court
sustained these contentions, other
wise the City of New Orleans would
have lost control of its public belt
railroad. With this experience New
Orleans almost losing its public
belt railroad, and to prevent further
attacks by promoters and railroads,
and further reasons; the belt railroad
system of New Orleans was made a
constitutional amendment of this
state. I refer you to Act No. 179 of
the legislature of 1908, and would ask
you to note the safeguard contained
therein.
Nothwithstanding these stringent
provisions, I. am always uneasy that
some effort will be made by some
corporation or promoter to get poses-
sion of the public belt railroad. I
consider it the most valuable asset
of the City of New Orleans, and there¬
fore a very rich prize to strive for. It
has been in operation for about three
years, and its business has grown
from handling the first year 82,000
loaded and empty cars, to 144,000
loaded and empty cars the third
year.
The Hon. Herbert Knox Smith,
Commissioner of Corporations, U. S.
Department of Commerce and Labor,
on Water Terminals, Part 3, submit¬
ted September 26, 1910, states, re¬
garding New Orleans' PubUc Belt
Railroad, the following: , "The belt
railroad already completed and its
extensions already provided for, is
the best example in the country of
a practical co-ordination, of rail, in¬
dustrial and watev business for the
entire community." Mr. Smith's re¬
port gives the terminal condition of
all the ports in the United States.
A corporation that leases usually
issues s.n excessive amount of bonds
and stock, on which interest and
dividends are to be paid. Commerce
must bear the charges which will
thus be higher than if the city owns
and operates, in which case only the
cost of maintenance and operation
have to be provided for. Commerce
seeks the line of least resistance, and
Seattle will lose business if it costs
more through the leasing of the
docks, warehouses and belt railroad,
notwithstanding the large bond is¬
sue voted by the people. The public
belt railroad owned and operated by
the City of New Orieans over a zone
of more than ten miles charges two
dollars per car for placing a loaded
car and returning the empty, which
is believed to be the lowest terminal
charge in the United States. Busi-
ness is thus attracted, due to the
low dock and belt railroad charges.
Another reason why a city should
own and operate Its dock and belt
railroad. Is that all the railroads. In¬
dustries and shippers, are treated Im¬
partially and without discrimination,
and complaint can he made either to
the dock or belt railroad hoards for
relief.
Before New Orleans owned and
operated the belt railroad, cars were
moved to suit the convenience of
the railroads, and shippers were
treated with more or less Indifference,
and their charges were considerably
higher.
Assuming that some persons or
corporations obtained control of port
facilities of Seattle, under lease or
some other contract, and they offer
to make the charges less than If
Seattle owned and operated them,
I would still favor operation by
Seattle. There are some things that
a city should never part with, and
among them are the ¡water works
system and port facilities. It seems
to me unnatural for a few ~to own
and operate these systems, that
should by right he owned and operat¬
ed by the people. I am confident
that Seattle can make the lowest
rates and continue to reduce them
form time to time as commerce In¬
creases. By owning and operating
there will be less chance of losing
them and business will he attracted
and discrimination against the port
prevented.
With my experience, extending
over many years, and with the Inter¬
est of Seattle In mind, and not
wanting her to lose her birthright and
greatest asset, the waterfront termi¬
nals, I moat earnestly advise you not
for any consideration whatsoever, to
lease the docks, warehouses, and
belt railroad, now In contemplation,
and for which the people of Seattle
have voted a bond Issue.
I assume that the bonds voted by
the people of Seattle for port termi¬
nal Improvements are secured by a
tax. If such Is the case, and more
money Is required for harbor Improve¬
ments and an additional tax Is not
desirable, more funds can be secured
by pledging the revenues from the
docks, warehouses and belt railroad.
The docks of New Orleans were
hullt by sale of bonds against the
revenues of the docks. The public
belt railroad expects to sell some
bonds shortly, the payment of the
same to he secured by the pledge
of all revenues of the public belt rail¬
road.
The control, administration, man¬
agement and supervision of the con¬
struction, maintenance, operation and
development of the docks, warehouses
and railroad terminals should he In
the Port Commission for the use and
benefit of the people of Seattle, and
should remain the sole property of
the people of Seattle at all times and
under all circumstances, and should
In no way or manner ever be hy¬
pothecated or alienated. The title
and use to all that may he established
now or hereafter, should be, and
should forever he. In the people of
the City of Seattle.
With best wishes for the greatest
success of the Port Commission of
Seattle In their exclusive operation
of the docks, warehouses and rail¬
road terminals, that should he owned
exclusively by the City of Seattle.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) WM. BLOOMFIBLD,
(Member Public Belt R. Com.
It will be observed by a perusal
of the foregoing, that each of the
successful ports In the United States
has gone through the experience of
private ownership and long time
lease and that the tendecy of all
the successful ports, not only of this
country, hut of the world today. Is
for a single control, and that control
to be PUBLIC.
Would It he good policy on the part
of the Port Commission of the City
of Seattle to enter Into a thirty year
lease with a contractural obligation
to extend the same to sixty years,
as Is required by the so-called
"Gentlemen's Agreement," that com-
pHseS a térrltóry ëquai to the íol-
lowltig dfescfibed lines.
If the same weré projected in the
public section of the City of Seattle
it -would read as follo-ws:
Beginning at the intersection of
King St. and Occidental Ave.; thence
northèf-ljt àlong the -west line of R.
R. Ave. and R. ft. Ave. produced to
Stewart St.; thence easterly along
Stewart St to Eighth Ave.; thence
sontherljf along Eighth Ave. and
Eighth Ave. produced to Charles St
and Eleventh Ave. So.; thence
westerly to bOint Of beginning.
Press of the Duwamish Valley News, Seattle.