The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-05-31
AME ERlCAN PORTS HAVE UNUSUALLY
 STEADY CROW TH
Opening of Panama Canal Brings Development of
 Our Harbors.

svelOpm ent of ports. Fln one or the most timely and most conpr extensive bulletins ever Issued by the Bur eau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Departm ent Of Commerce this rapid development is attributed to the: re- cent commercial growth of the coun try, to the building of the Panama Canal and to the recent tendency of Congress to require Communities re- cetving Federal appropriations for riv-sl CT and harbor work to sco-operate in rnalzing the improvement or to pro- vide public terminals
 All Americana will be pleased to learn that American ports are better suited by nature to handle the largest liners than any of the o1d-world ports. The author of the report. Commercial Agent Grosvenor M. Jones, states that there are four American ports--Sew sYork. San Francisco. Seattle and Ia coma@where it is possible to dock hoats as large as the Aquitania and 1mperafbr at arfys stage kof the tides and inaBoston such boats can proceed to the wharves at high tide. In. snaturaI advantages the busiest of the European ports do not compare fla vorab1y with these and a number of. other American ports
 II is interesting to note the state nent that the great majority of our ports along the sea board are actual 1y located on rivers. some of the most important ports reached by ocean-go-l ing vessels being located far inland. Thus New Orleans is 106 miles from the Gulf of Mexcos Philadelphia 105 miles from Delaware Bay; Baltfmore 151 miles from Hampton roads. Other ports located a considerable distance inland are Brunswick. which is about 13 miles from the ocean; Hartford, about 52 miles, Houston. 50 miles: Jacksonville. 27 1-2 miles; Mobile, 30. miles; Port Arthur. Texas, about r miles; P0rtland, Oregon, 112 miles; Richmond, 104 miles; Sacramento. III miles; Savannah. 26 miles; Washing ton. 195 miles; Wilmington, Delaware. S2 miles, Wilmington, North Carolina, 30 miles.
 7Tr. Jones has confined his attention to those ports having a water-borne commerce amounting to 1.oO0. 900. Fhort tons in volume or $30 100000 in -saIue. It is rather surprising to find th1t there are 68 ports of this inn portance in the Edited StatesH23 on the Atlantic Coast, eight on the Gulf of Mexico 10 on the Pacific Coast, two on the Ohio river and no less than 25 on the Great Lakes.
 Tn recent years there has been a. decided tendency toward public own ership of waterfront property, due in part to recognition of the com rlunfty value of q port and, in part to the increasing tendency of Con gress to require communities receiving Federal aid in harbor and waterways Improvements to znaintaint public ter mlnaIs. Only a few ports, namely, l New Orleans, San Francisco. Los An geIes and San Diego, own the major portion of their water fronts or are l in a position to acquire the bulk of t. The ports of Oakland. Sacra- m@nto. Stockton and Washington are cir 1<,1 T7I1 ov fIz1 ! only ports Of the 6S studied in which the public Interest is dominant Six of these eight ports are located on the Pacific Coast.
 Although at each of the other ports the frontage owned and contr oiled by the state or city is less than one-ha1f of the total avaiJableS frontage such frontage nevertheless usually repre- Eents substantial interest This is true of the ports of New York, Phila- delphias Boston and Baltimore on the Atlantic Coast, and of the ports of Seattle and Tacoma on the Pacific T Coast During recent years note worthy progress toward domfnans public ownership of water front prop erty has been made in Ba1tinnore, Bos- ton, Hartford, Jacksonville. New Bed ford, New London, Pensacola, PhiIa- delphia, Providence, Portland Greg S Seattle, Tacoma and Tampa
 The majority Of the seaboafd ports mentioned in the report own public terminals. New Orleans and San Fran cisco leading in this respect. At both of these ports the entire water fron1 Is not only publicly lowned or subject to appropriation at any time for pub lie use. but is also largely improved by an adequate system of public ter Ininals under immediate public con- troll At both these ports the tern1in- als are coordinated by beIt-Iine rail ways, also under public control high degree of success has aftendec the administration of, port affairs 1T these cities. The city of New York owns the greater part of the most i'm portant frontage at that port ana ha. constructed a large number of excel lent piers. but has leased for lons terms to private individuals practical 1y all of these terminals Pier rentals yield the city a handsome revenue, .bu the policy of leasing terminals fol long periods prevents an effective public control and makes extremeIy difficult any effort to coordinate tn, terminal facilities of the port. Tn, port of New York suffers severely from lack of such coordination and it il interesting to note, states the report that the city has recently appotnte, Q commission of three engineers t study the organization of the faci1itie
 Of the port with a view to tneIr rm provement and coerdfnation in com prehensive manner.
 It will be news to some to learl that Boston has the most expansiv as well as the largest pier in the Uni ted States, if not in the world. Com lnonwealth Pier N. 5 has cost upwar, of $4,0OO,000 and is 1,200 feet loni and 400 feet wide. Boston will sool have another dfstincfior-that O
 owning the largest dry dock in tn Western hemisphere. Already worl has begun on dry dock 1900 fee long. M 4a
 The most noteworthy progress mad fin recent years in port development However, has been shown by the lead ang ports on the Pacific coast--Sa1 Francisco. Seattle, Los Angeles, Port land. Tacoma, and sap Diego. Tn n