New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1920-08-26
No Port Monopoly
Here Shipping, Men
RetOrt TO Benson
Credit, Not Condemnation,
is Due TO New York, States
Maritime Association TO
Government Board Head

Denial that the Port of New York
has monopoly OF shipping is made in
g letter sent to Admiral Benson, chair
man Of the United States Shipping
Board, by the directors of the Maritime
Association OF the Port Of New York.
Referring to statements made by Ad-
niral Benson at luncheon of the Ad-
vertising Agencies Corporation at the
Waldorf-Astoria on July ID the associa-
ton says:
''You state that the Shipping Board
proposes to break up the monopoly
heretofore held by the Port of New
York. We fail to see how the term
monopoly is applicable to New Yorks
shipping, and believe that the general
Interpretation placed upon your state
ment in this connection has created
false impression regarding our port
which should be corrected
"Nessels have been free to, 90 to
other ports if it was in their interest
to do so; the fact that they have con-
tinued to come here, it is apparent
must have been because they We're bet
ter served here. There can be no other
conclusion. Even discrimination in
railroad rates against the Port Of New
York and in favor Of competing ports
has not heretofore resulted in any
great diversion Of traffic from our port.
II it IS the case, as must be apparent,
that vessels frequent this port because
they can secure better accommo dations
than elsewhere, we fail to see how this
H. ts|1ii q
con the other hand, it might be con-
sidered that the United States govern
n.ent should deem itself fortunate to
have been able during the period of the
war, at least, TO avail itself, as it did
most extensively, of this ports facili-
ties. without which we believe you will
agree our participation in the war
would have been rendered extremely
difficult. Credit, therefore, instead of
condemnation, we feel should be &C
corded to our port.
of charges for docking facilities are
higher than at other ports, it could be
considered most justitiable in view of
the large expenditure made by the city
and by private interests for dock I'M
provonents on which there must be a
reasonable return.
1--WE shall await with interest the
promised reports which you state will
show that the Shipping Hoard has been
charged outrageous prices Tor docking
facilities.
There can be no possible objection
to the development of other ports in
this country, and we realize the deslra-
bility Of such development as a result
OF natural growth and for the reasons
set forth in your statement, but for
any movement in this direction to be
undertaken solely with the idea in
mind of injuring the Port Of New York
and breaking up a so-called monopoly,
which in fact does not exist, appears to
US to be a mistaken policy. and we fail
to understand how it could be adopted
by any government department or bu-
reau.
"While it is no doubt one of the
functions of the United States Ship
ping Board to lay out routes and en-
deavor to systematic our shipping in
every possible way, which is most COM
mendable, we do not understand that it
is a function of the board or any men,
Der thereof, to use the powers of the
board with the special intent and pur-
pose of doing injury to particular
locality.
1--WE believe it will be proved that,
compared with other ports, the charges
on vessels coming to this port are not
excessive. considering the accomm da-
tons provided. and we further believe
that the practice of discrimination
such as you apparently advocate
against this port is unwarranted and IS
bound to react against the entire coun-
NV -