Municipal ports can, if the owners so desire as a matter of policy, be subsidized out of the general rates of the city, and in England these are the nearest analogy to the national ports of the Continent. As port works from their nature take a long time to construct, and as new trade offering naturally cannot wait while facilities are being provided, it is necessary if a port is to maintain its position to provide facilities in advance of the current demand. It is, therefore, in the power of a municipality, if it is prepared to accept a present burden upon its rates in the hope of being eventually recouped, to provide for the future to an extent which private enterprise cannot afford. In some cities of the United States the practice prevails of levying a specific rate on houses and property in aid of port improvements, and an early example in England is the case of Bristol, the largest municipally owned port, which from 1849 to 1897 levied a rate of £4,000 a year on houses for port purposes. Since the last date this levy has been merged in the general rate-in-aid to balance the revenue account which, however, for many years has been less than the annual contribution towards the sinking fund for the extinction of the capital.
Railway-owned docks also can, subject to certain provisions of the Railways Act of 1921 under which all the railways and their ports were amalgamated into four grouped systems, similarly meet any shortage of earnings of the port out of their general revenues, and this power similarly enables them to indulge in a more generous provision of facilities beyond the immediate needs of the trade in order to provide for future development.
Private Ownership.—In the case of the fifth class of ports, the property of private companies, the same end can only be obtained by the shareholders foregoing their dividends during a long fructifying period, which has actually been the experience of both the ports named above. In fact, in the case of the Man chester Ship Canal Company, now the outstanding example of a successful company port, the period of fruition was so long delayed that its capital and credit were exhausted and the Cor poration of. Manchester had to come to its aid by the provision of additional capital on which it had for a period to forego interest, and in consideration of which it was entitled to representation on the board of directors. But as the management is still with the company's directors, the classification of the undertaking here adopted remains correct.
The decadence of so many English ports under private owner ship may be traced to this natural law. Ports constantly tend to become out of date owing to the increasing size of ships, and are faced with the alternative of seeing their present trade depart or of undertaking expenditure on which the return must be far distant, and which often proves to be beyond their unaided resources. London and Bristol, Southampton and Hull are exam ples of company owned undertakings which were becoming derelict when they obtained outside aid—the first absorbed by a power ful trust under the direct aegis of Government, the second by the local authority, and both have become self-supporting. The last
two, though returning large profits to the railway companies which own them, have never directly given a commensurate re turn on their cost. Immingham and Fishguard, both railway owned from the beginning, have never been remunerative under takings to their owners, or any great advantage to the trade of the country. The relation between the several classes of ports in the United Kingdom has been largely affected by the Railways Act of 1921 under which the great railway systems have become great port proprietors in competition with others dependent on their own resources. This implies a combination of the two systems of extraneous subsidy and self-containment, each of which has been applied successfully in some countries, but never before both in the same country, and it will be some years before the result can be determined.
Functions of Port Authority.—The functions of a port authority may be classified as conservancy and dock-ownership.
The first head comprises all operations connected with making the port available for shipping, maintenance of navigation chan nels, surveying the same, buoying and lighting, removal of wrecks, signal service, pilotage service, supervision of foreshore to pre vent interference with navigation channels.
The conservancy boundaries of a port are laid down in its Acts of Parliament, or in the case of ancient ports may be de rived from Royal Charters, and if any portion of those waters form a highway to other ports, the lighting and charting of that portion is usually undertaken by the State, e.g., Trinity House for English waters, and the Scottish Board of Lights for Scottish.
As dock owners the authority provides the equipment neces sary for the accommodation of ships, their loading and discharg ing and the movement of their cargoes, including the provision of transit sheds, cranes and other cargo working machinery, power plants, railway lines and roads, etc.: "facilities," as working of lock gates (if any), lighting, berthing masters and everything necessary to enable a ship to get with safety to a position to dis charge and load its cargo, and "services" which include every thing connected with the handling of cargo, discharging or load ing, receiving, sorting, despatching and storing. "Facilities" are necessarily provided by the dock owner. In regard to the render ing of "services," the practice varies within wide limits. In some ports these are rendered by the dock owners in whole, or in part. In others, the policy is to leave the services to private enter prise. The Port of Manchester is the only example in the United Kingdom of a statutory monopoly of all the services within the dock area, but all ports have power under their acts to provide services and to make "reasonable" charges therefor. The policy, however, differs materially in the various ports, some encourag ing departmental working, and others favouring separate private enterprise. The principle of a complete monopoly of all services within the port limits is more prevalent in foreign ports.