6. Ownership and control.—It seems evident on the face of it that some measure of utility in the control of administration if not necessarily in the ownership is essential to efficiency of ports. Yet there are few American ports which recognize it. They have de veloped along lines of least resistance with slight co operation between federal and local authorities, no attempt to utilize harbor or river frontage to the best advantasge, no advanced coordination of rail and water terminal facilities, oftentimes with the control of water frontage handed over to the railroad com panies and with a general lack of loading and unload ing machinery.
The reason for this haphazard development lies largely in the Anglo-Saxon respect for competition. We have thought in this country as Sir Douglas Owen thought in England that "a port can hardly be at its best until the railways contend for its trade, and when the railways have not only to compete with one an other, but also to face the.competition of canals, great should be the prosperity of the port." The control of ports in the United States is shared by the federal, state and municipal authorities. The federal government, in virtue of its power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, has control of the navigable channel and fixes the lines beyond which shore structures may not extend. Between the pier line and the shore the state government is supreme, while the shore itself is usually controlled by the mu nicipality.
In most states the control of the state's jurisdiction is_vested in a board of harbor commissioners. A harbor master may be delegated authority to regulate the time of loading and unloading, to collect fees and to arbitrate disputes between owners, shipmasters and crews.
In American ports ownership of facilities is largely in private hands. There are, however, noteworthy exceptions.
In the words of Herbert Knox Smith, United States Commissioner of Corporations, in a report on "Transportation by water in the United States": Two ports only, New Orleans and San Francisco, are noteworthy for their high degree of public ownership, con trol, efficiency and equipment. At New Orleans the active waterfront is admirably equipped and controlled by a state board; most of the wharves and sheds are open to general traffic, and a municipal board operates ten miles of belt line railway, giving coordination between the waterway local industries and trunk line railroads. At San Francisco 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.
The principle of public ownership of the water front has been considered in countries of Continental Europe as fundamental to the efficient development of port facilities.
In Great Britain the right to construct and control harbors is vested in the crown, but the right is gen erally delegated to boards created by special act of Parliament.
In London the port is administered by the Port of London Authority which in 1908 took over all pri vate corporations at an expenditure of approximately £22,000,000. The board of 28 members is elected by the users of the port, the national government, the city government and the Board of Trade.
In Liverpool the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has absolute control over port facilities. Short leases to private interests are given. A similar con dition prevails in Montreal; all harbor lands are held "in trust" by a harbor commission and the life of leases is limited to 40 years.
Hamburg harbor is owned in its entirety by the state of Hamburg and administered by the Deputa tion for Trade, Navigation and Commerce. The harbor improvements represent an outlay in excess of $100,000,000. United States Consul General Robert P. Skinner, in a report to the Department of Commerce and Labor, a few years ago, made the statement : "Few ports in the world, if any, are equipped to handle merchandise more expeditiously and economically than Hamburg, and this in spite of a situation 75 nautical miles from the open sea." Rotterdam, situated about 18 miles from the sea, acquired in 1882 all the private harbor property of the Rotterdamsche Handels Maatschappy. At pres ent all but Spoorweghaven, a small section of the harbor, is owned by the municipality, which supplies it with ample loading and unloading facilities, bonded warehouses and all other equipment calculated to make the port efficient.
Compared with these striking examples the situa tion in American ports is not encouraging.
7. Port efficiency.—The lack of coordination of facilities in a port resulting from multiple control and ownership means a loss of efficiency. Mr. H. McL. Harding states that many European ports transfer on the average more than 1500 tons of freight per day for every linear foot of quay, as compared with 150 tons at New York.