The Cairo bulletin., 1910-09-27
f'- -~''r~s- +, t 4,


ing letter and summary of the report
OF the commissioner of corporation
and transportation by water in the
United States was submitted today:
Department of Commerce and Labor,
Bureau of Corporations, Wash
ington, Sept. 26, 1910.
Sir--I have the honor to submit
herewith Part Iii Of Report on
Transportation by Water in the United
States. This part deals with water
terminals,
The terminal is the weakest link in
the water system, widely multiplying
the advantages Of cheap water car
riage. Our waterways are important
not as set of static conditions, but
as dynamic transportation system.
Channels alone do not give Iranspor-
tation, they should have adequate
terminals, properly controlled, in har-
bors effectively organized
Our harbor organization as rule
is faulty A harbor has two prime
features, commercial and indus
trial. The commercial function deals
chiefly with through" freight, with
the trans-shipment between rail and
water lines Cor between water lines)
OF freight not destined to or original
ing at the harbor itself. The indus
trial function, on the other hand,
deals with local freight. 1t affords
rail-water connection and wharf stor-
age for local industries and listribut-
ing houses. 1t affects local interests
far more deeply than the mere pas
sage of through traffic The CONNER.
cial use Of our water front often IN
terferes seriously with it's industrial
use Great railroad terminals, largely
used for through freight, extend along
our most active frontage, crowding
out its use by the local Industries In
general, good harbor organization
would place the Though freight te
minaIs at relatively outlying parts of
the harbor, leaving the central portion
ulOIc Iie lot lOCdl DuStHeso' MANY
harbors could do this with much local
benefit especially the important lake
ports. with their inner (river) har-
bors and their outer lake frontage
protected by breakwaters-an almost
ideal conformation.
The supply of wharves generally is
somewhere near adequate. Water
front warehouse space is inadequate,
except at few important ports. Mod.
ern trans-shipping machinery, except
for bulk freight, is almost entirely
lacking. Only seven ports have any
thing approaching a general belt
railroad, with total main track of but
20 miles, serving directly only about
so wharves.
Private interests control nearly all
OF our active water frontage Public
control exists in considerable degree
only at New Orleans, San Francisco,
Baltimore and New York, and Is great
iy modified at New York by exclusive
private leases for long terms. Out OF
so of our foremost ports, only two,
New Orleans and San Francisco, have
practically complete public ownership
and control of their active water
frontage; eight have small degree
of control, and 40 none at ALL Out OF
81 ports for which data are available
(excluding New Orleans and San
Francisco) only IA have any publicly
wharves in all, many privately con-
trolled under long leases), Out Of 25
ports with available data Excluding
New Orleans and San Francisco), only
10 have wharves open" to general
traffic, with total Of only 40 such
wharves, the majority insignificant
and antiquated. Out of 46 such ports
Excluding the same two cities), a
majority of the active frontage is pri-
vately owned in 40, and in six small
amount is so owned Out of the so
foremost ports above mentioned there
are q in which railroad ownership
and occupancy covers over so PEI
cent of the active frontage, and 12
more between % and 80 per cent. II
II our theory that the waterways are
public highways. In fact, their essen
tial terminals are largely under pri.
yate control.
Two ports only, San Francisco and
New Orleans, are noteworthy for their
high degree Of public ownership, con
troll. efficiency and equipment. AT
New Orleans the active watre front Is
admirably equipped and controlled by
Il state board most Of the wharves