New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-02-10
ARE PORT CHARGES TOO HIGH?

1t has always been popularity believed thar the
port charges Of New York are greater than any
where else. and this view Is constantly encour-
aged by the steamship man, not because the
charges are greater but because he individually
pears greater proportion Of the burden Of these
charges because Of the system I'm vogue her.
II has become the common practice in nearly an
cases Tor q steamship line dischaFgnR here
either 10 hire at fixed rental pier for th.
accommodation of its vessels or to paw a daily
rate for such accommodation while the niay s
IN use. In many of the foreign ports the use
Of the dock IS practically free and the income
IS derived from a landing charge upon the cargo
IL perhaps makes but little difference how tho
charge is borne. but IL is Idle to state that city
like Liverpool has invested 5000 600 600 I'm Inn
proving ITS docks, and that this investment does
NOT pToduce some income. In Boston the same
general custom exists OF imposing a charge upon
me cargo, but in Newport News and some of the
olher southern ports in this country the piers
are maintained by the railroad GONNA niles ana
free use is given to the steamship in order 10
attract business to the railroad owning tho rJars
shipper, but IT is merely another means Of cut
ing the railroad rate. The cost OF maintaining
ana operating the piers must in the end he
borne by somebody The real question IS whether
the foreign steamship owner is to pay for the
use of the pier. or the American importer and
exporter 10 pay Tor It through landing charge
upon his merchandise
It may be claimed that the steamship owner
gets back this charge in an increased freight
rate, but this IS not true for broadly epeaki1r
the freight rate to this port IS based upon corn.
petltlYe rates 10 and through other ports The
chief disadvantage which New York labors under
has arisen because OF its great advantages. Thai
is, the dtfferential rate which the RAILROADS baI+e
established against this port The reason this
vas done was to divert to other ports n nortior
or the import and export freight The railroads
realized the great advantages which New YORK
offered. and knew that unless some sTttec,o1
means Of diverting portion of the freight was
enforced greater proportion would pass
through New York than could be properly han
died. SPe'4S NAN
Another, and perhaps the chief reason WAS tho
necessity or dfverting enough of the expnrt and
import freight 10 other ports to prevent the lines
terminating at these ports from so cutting the
rates as materially TO interfere with the 1ros
perity OF the roads terminating in New York. n
mas peen TINS dinerential which has been mostly
responsible for taking away from this mort tbe
grain trade which it formerly enjoyed The
method Of handling grain here has heen yor
years practically Identical with the system de-
scrtbed as especially well adapted to the burmese
at the Stuyvesant docks in New Orleans exrsnt
that the elevators are OF older construction and
somewhat more expensive 20 operate. There has
been no induce7nent to rebuild these eIevs+ors
ncause OF tbs yet that the grain trade has been
diverted elsewhere, but II has been for years the
custom 10 send to the elevators here the Sims
taking whole cargoes Of grain. and the transfer