Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1922-07-22
BRUNSWICK REPLIES
|l9PORT STATEMENT

The committee representing the
n fi of Brunswick, in an effort to
q h@vethe proposed state-owned port
5eIninal located thereI Wednesday
ISSUED a statement in reply to
wtez Chairman Kittrell, of the port
Q3urnission, who, a few days ago,
#aaR6 reasons why the commission
zstconaRnended Savannah as the To-
4eation of the terminal.
~ The Brunswick statement is as
Follows: a..
i The statement in the newspapers
Eouehing the port OF Brunswick
made by DR.. c. H. Kittren, appear
sllg in state papers of today, has
4 nEeated considerable resentment on
sfae part of some conditions in no
10y relevent the present state port
aaatter. Mr.. Kittrell mentions the
3Snkng of $4,000 by H. M. At.
NssAan in what he states to be an
Mort to make Brunswick a great
commercial port.
- This statement is erroneous in
ssaeveral particulars. In the first
zsac6s the A, B. & A. terminals at
s6raHsWick do not represent one
kAght49%of that amount of money. In
second place the failure to
maintain the first-class condition of
ne docks at the Brunswick ter
7aiHal was due entirely to the mis-
likes. OF a foreign engineer in To-
-atton and design, type and con-
|shruction of the terminals, against
|N5hich error he was repeatedly adj
|FiSed. by those familiar with, local
sprrdftions, including even the
omitted States engineer located in
BRUNSWICK at the time.
efne dlScontinuance Of shipping
II these terminals, Brunswick
|NaoWs, was due to combination of
circumstances in shipping interests
Ind financial circles over which
brunswick exercised no control
whatever.
Mr.. Kittreil will have to go
Elsewhere for arguments against
ocating state port terminals if this
|-Sssthe type Of his objections to
cru hswick as a site. With respect
~ the statement appearing in the
|aewspapers that the commission
|&ould make no report until after
ne meeting of the Georgia Press
ASSOCIATION Brunswick knows moth
hg whatever about it, but num-
|3ers of Brunswick citizens have
BEARD members of the port commits
slQn. state that for reasons of diplo-
macy and to assure better support
lnr their project the naming of
|aify port would be deferred until
[aTter legislative action on the gen.
|sral proposition and the passage of
he bond issue covering it, which
|1ttlon would have been, in the opin-
on of Brunswick citizens, prefer
able, to. the precipitant choice and
announcement made last April.
Further referring to Mr.. Kit
|iEell's statement regarding a daily
|5i11p to New York and regular sail
ngs to other ports as justifying the
fsh0ieeo of Savannah, present ship
E9ang is in no sense an evidence Of
The, fact that ships will not come
FOR cargoes wherever located if
'acilities with cargoes are avail
able. Perishable products in less
shan cargo lots would necessarily
he stored in the cold storage ware
inouses of the proposed state port
E1nless Immediately loaded as part
/ Jf mixed cargoes.
tx ut is presumed that the volume
E7fi business will attract shipping
! slse the proposed state port at Sa-
Egannah would compete with it's
present facilities instead of aug
|nenting them.
Brunswick feels like there
Es1ould be further commission ap.
pointed to handle this port matter
Filth board of engineers, import
ing and exporting concerns. Ship
owners and ship operators and all
|stAef- interests which might be af.
|lected consulted before an expendi.
lure of 100000 on a projecl at
|fectiugs the coming generations is
EHI1allH. thrOlI CHI To cnnS11narsa a ton -