New-York tribune., 1911-03-04
LnNGrR PLERS. MHEREP

The question of providing ampler
herths for the larger steamships which
are now being constructed. or at least
that part of it which relates TO the eX-
tension of the existing Chelsea piers. will
be- submitted 10 the Secretary Of War
next week on appeal from the decision
of the engineers Of the Federal Harbor
Board. and II is reasonable to hope that
q disposition will he made of II which
will be for the good of all the immense
interests concerned The refusal Of the
harbor board to sanction further eXten-
sion of the Chelsea piers was not Suf-
prising. despite current prOtestations 10
that effect Indeed il would have been
surprising had it been anything else.
Nor can we consider IT unreasonable on
unjust In view of the facts and pre-
ponderant opinions which were before II
that board could not properly have sane
toned any permanent encroachment
upon a fairway which is row much the
narroweSt in the North River. and which.
according 10 compete authorities, could
not be further CONSTRUCTED without dan
ger IN general commerce. The question
of permitting Il temporary extension. 20
meet q pressing emergency. IS. however,
worthy Of consideration; though II is
properly 10 be referred not TO that
board but TO the discretion Of the Secre-
tary of War himself.
II will not. we take il, be disputed
that New York should've may say It
must-provide suitable berths for any
ships which come here. no matter how
large they nav be That does not mean.
however. that such berths must necpS-
sarily be AT some one particular point
on our extensive waterfront. 1t Is equal
" indisputable that freedom aud Sc
curitv of navigation of the harbor waters
for all cla-7e of commerce must he
maintained. and therefore that nothing
is TO be permitted which would danger
ously encrOach upon the channel of the
river or would make It's currents ana
eddies more difficult TO stem. Happily,
view of the case suggests that between
these two indispensable conditions there
is no incompatibility nor conflict. The
commissioner Of Docks has pointed ont
that either above or below Chelsea II
would be possible 10 construct piers LOCO
ar !. 100 feet long. Il right angles to the
waterfront. without encr0aching upon
the prescribed fairway while, of course,
much longer piers could be built at
an angle TO the shore "a system which
las some marked advantages in ease of
handling vessels. though also the disad-
yantage Of involving the occupation or
larger extent Of shore line.
Some steamship men are understood
though reports may do them gross MUS
tice. To reject summarily all such sug-
cestjons ms intolerable and impossible,
and 10 declare that the only conceivable
alternative 20 Il permanent lengthening
of the Chelsea piers is the complete
abandonment Of New York harbor and
fhe establishment of q terminal at some
other port We must doubt if such dec
larations deserve 10 be taken seriously
and we must anticipate for the makers
of them n more than herculean task IN
pcrsuading the Secretary Of War that
II would be unreasonable 10 expect them
to transfer their terminals 10 fine new
riprs Of ample dimensions, fully ms ac.
cessible and eligible in location as their