The New York herald., 1922-02-01
HYLAN'S PORT PLAN HIT BY
SMITH AT ALBANY HEARING

have the right 10 say how their own
supplies and industries shall be handled.
This plan substitutes coercion for
cooperation. A State imposed and ire
81 onsible commission Is unthinSable. 1t
was my suggestion originally that the
three chief officials Of the city should
be members of the port commission and
that was concurred in by the then and
l hope the next Governor of this State"
This reference to Mr.. Smith brought
out big demonstration.
Arthur s. Tuttle. chief engineer of the
Beard of Estimate. said the Port Au-
thority plan falls far short of what is
needed and IL reversal of the original
plans. 1t does not deal rightly with
Staten Island, he said. The plan will
create evils IL Is supposed to stop, said
Col. William J. Wilgus, consulting engi-
ncer of the Board OF Estimate.
This State is surrenderins its rights
to New Jersey. Murray Hubert. Presi-
dent of the Board OF Aldermen, told the
committee. After the Interstate agree
ment Is concluded It can be unmade only
by consent of New Jersey on two
thirds vote, he pointed out. The former
Dock Commissioner answered the at
tack OF the Meeyr committee in It's
report to the Legislature last night
That report is part of the propa-
sanda." Hubert said. ''It charges that
the city has lost S4,000.0O0 on twenty
four piers in the North River and that
the present administration ID to blame.
One OF those piers was leased under
the Low administration. seven under
Mcclellan, elk under Gaynor, four un-
der Mitchell and six under Hylan."
Taking UP the six leases made in the
last four years. Hubert showed each
was at better advantage to the city
than others OF recent years. The pro-
posed plan. he said, sets up competition
with the city and will get nowhere. EIe
asked that the whole subject be post
poned until the next session OF the
Legislature.
HyIan's Letter.
Mayor Hylan's statement, which was
read. summed up the city's argument as
follows:
THE people OF the city of New York
ana their duly elected representatives,
uhe board OF Estimate and Apportion-
ment are opposed to the enactment of
Senate bill II. Assembly bill 129
(Port Authority because It is violative
or home rule; it does not appear that
me plan has been matyred. as is evil
oenced by a comparison or the strong
recommendations made only year ago.
which have now been radically changed
with no explanation as to the occasion
for such a change: it leaves Staten
Island marooned. while the already
badly congested Newark Bay territory
would be still further congested: it would
provide for the development of the
Hackensack Meadows and other parts
OF Jersey at the expense of the city Of
New York. it would divert. almost in its
entirety. the commerce of the city of
New York to New Jersey: 1t would in
volve the transfer of the control OF the
city's waterfront from the people and
their duly elected responsible local Of
ficials and lodge it in bi-State com
mission. responsible to no one. three of
the members OF this commission coming
from New Jersey ii has q tendency to
concentrate the control of the railroad
transportation for the metropolitan dis
trict In very small group of roads, and
1t lends what Is now corporation property
TO exploitation by reason of tax exemp-
ton. not only depriving the municipality
OF New York OF almost s1v.00 900 an
nual revenue but establishing unfair
competition with the city and other
owners.
Competent authorities who have
angles. In the interest Of the City of
New York. as well as neighborine COM
nunitics. have pronounced the scheme
imnrac;icable and grotespue financial
nightmorc. These authorities have chal-
ienged the proponents OF the Port Au
thority plan 20 issue statement OF the
cost of constructing and operating the
several portions Of the project: how the
enormous sums required for these pur-
poses are to be raised the particular
order in which 1t is proposed to carry
out the various features of the plan and
the time involved for and between each
of the successive steps.
1T is also q fact that II this Port
Authority plan is riveted upon the people
OF the city of New York after the public
hearing in Albany. no change can be
made in il except by the concurrent
action of the boards of both the State
of New York ard the State of New Jer-
sey. and a vote of two OF the members Of
each board will be required for any
modification to correct features which
are clearly impracticable and unwork-
able.
1--WE contend that the provision in the
bill giving the Port Authority the status
OF a municipal corporate instrumentality.
when In fact II Is a private instrument
tality, is designed to relieve from the
payment of taxes both the Port Author
ity and those whose property 1t will take
over.
II the city OF New York has foisted
upon II the proposed plan OF the Port
Authority Il will be mulcted out OF a
sum between s9.000,00 and $4,000. 900
annually In taxes. and the Port Author
ity. I'm its capacity as a so-called 'mu-
nlcipal corporate instrumentality.' which
would be practically controlled by pri-
vate interests, will be the supreme die
tator of New York citys waterfront"
Pleads for Home Rule.
The Mayor opposed the Port Authority
plan on the ground that, through amend
ment of the original statute. the city had
been robbed OF representation on that
iezl.-. ~