Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-08-03
GENERAL OPPOSITION
AGAINST HARBOR
OBSTRUCTION.
Continued from Page 4.

scheme which would in any way
abrldge the advantages which nature
first gave 1t. am not sufficiently ia
miliar with our harbor or it's channel
TO give an opinion on as to whether or
not a pier encroaching further in the
waterway than the present ones, would
interfere with the passage of such
ships as we hope to have in few
years plying between this and other
ports. but am informed that the larg-
est ships can with ease land at the
present piers, and that with some
dredging piers several hundred feet
shorter than the present ones would
answer every purpose. l do not there
1ore, see why the Norfolk and Western
runway Company should not be will
ing to expend some money in dredging.
when the result is to it's benefit, rather
than ask the port of Norfolk TO grant
q privilege which would likely injurc
It's harbor. L do know. however, that
sucn pier as is proposed would serl-
ously mar the natural beauty and ad-
Vantases of the harbor of Norfolk. and
because of this fact alone L would op-
pose its construction"
a prominent citizen who looks into
cause and effect said on this subject
There are some points in this mat
ter that Should be carefully consider
ed The increasing size of ships ne
cessitates the enlargement rather than
curtailment of the channeiway or
ca out for an enlarged chnnnclway
The application of the Norfolk and
Western Railway Company. where it
refers TO the increasing height OF YES
seis, is coniirmatory evidence of this
increase of the height beam. length
and draft of the new vessels.
Further Strangulation of the mouths
OF our rivers, especially the Western
Branch. will eventually create an ebb
Tide chat small craft (our big mosquito
tow bills for these little craft-this
means an added cost to every barrel
OF truck or bushel of oysters that the
western Branch sends to this port for
shipment. IL such tow charges drive
this fleet of perhaps 5000 small craft
to some other port 1t means the loss
to this port of vast volume of freight
traffic; also the loss to our merchants
of a large volume of trade. /. e., sup
plies of all kinds purchased here by
this fleet for consumption on the West
ern Branch farms: groceries, dry
goods. clothing. boots and shoes. hard
ware. drugs. etc. etc; in fact. this is
n matter that comes home directly to
every retail or wholesale dealer in
Norfolk. Portsmouth, or Berkeley, who
shares in this large aggregate of trade.
This fleet has been one of Norfolk S
big trade features. Shall we. by In
creased port charges. drive these thou
sands of consumers to other markets
ana cut down our vast truck ship
mentS?
AS business proposition. mere
matter Of dollars and cents. are the
statistical figures showing big coal
shipments worth this price?
If we build big piers out on this side
of the river and the riparian owners
on the other side build also big piers
out TO the Port Warden's line. and we
extend the Port Warden's line as the
Norfolk and Western propose (see their
own plans submitted to the Board OF
Harbor Commissioners. and then eX-
tend the piers on to the new Port
Warden's line, what will be left OF the
channelway?
If we permit the erection of costly
permanent structures, and the increas-
ing demands of the port eventually de-
mand their removal. what sort of q
pie and our children?
The wise man looks out for the flu
ture. If we may read the future by
the past. let us make haste slowly.
MIR. r. II. WRIGHT.
The fact that Mr.. r. II. Wright APP
peared before the Harbor Commission
crs Wednesday and stated that he did
not object to the granting of the pier
privilege at Lamberts Point seemed &c
conflict with Mr.. Wrlght's previous ut
terancc on this subject.
In order to ascertain what new light
MIR. Wright had received on the sub
ject at this meeting OF the Harbor
Commissioners Virginian-P Pilot rep
resentative called on him yesterday
afternoon. The reporter understood
that Mr. Wright regards the existing
piers as permanency, and that added
piers that do not extend further ouI
into the water Will not specially aug
ment existing undesirable conditions.
To the interviewer Mr. Wright frank
la lit tat yzak 10
and Western should not have been per
mitted to build its piers out to the
Lambert's Point light. That the pier:
ought to be shortened, and that the
present piers tended to cause conges
ton by forcing the large harbor fee
OF small craft into the main channel.
He admitted that privileges granted
the Norfolk and Western would natur
ally be cited as a precedent when Other
riparian owners wished to build out e
the Port Warden'S line on either side
of the river, and that the result might
be a contracted channelway inadequate
for future needs.
CAPT. c. T. PHILLIPS.
Capt. C. L. Phillips. clerk of the
Hastings Court of Portsmouth, is op
posed TO any further extension OF the
Port Warden's line at LamDerts Point
He said: II regard the effort of the
Norfolk and Western Railway to pust
further into the stream at Lambert:
Point as n violent trespass on the peo.
pies rights, and it would be a detri
mcnt to the commerce of the harbor
Instead of extending the line I am IN
favor Of forcing the Norfolk and West
ern to have its piers moved back sew
cral hundred feet"
MIR. EMMETT CRUMP.
Mr.. Emmett Crump. n member of The
CITY Council of Portsmouth. is opposed
TO extending the harbor line at Lam
bert's Point. Mr.. Crump is connected
with the Greenleaf, Johnson Lumber
Company. Il don't think any en-.