The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

28 public authorities. The Hennepin ca- nal, lately completed by the federal gov- ernment at a cost of approximately $8,000,000, is unused, largely because of the absence of terminal facilities. On the west this canal opens into the Mis- sissippi river, and hence through that outlet has access to river cities with dock facilities. But the eastern termi- nus is practically in open country and not at a point for traffic origin. Major Marshall long ago expressed the opin- ion that the Hennepin canal could never have much traffic until given direct con- nection with Chicago. "Proper terminal facilitfes are quite as important for a transportation route, whether rail or water, as the connect- ing way between the terminals. A rail- road line between New York and Cnhi- cago be it ever so good would have little value without terminal facilities in the two cities. Railroad expenditures for improvement at the present time are largely taking the form of giving bet- ter.terminal facilities. The Pennsylva- nia railroad is spending an enormous amount, said to be in the neighborhood of $100,000,000--or as much as the state of New York is expending to secure a larger Erie canal across the state--in providing itself better facilities, both passenger and freight, for getting into and through New York City. The New York Central is spending $60,000,000 for passenger terminal improvements in New York City. MONOPOLY CONTROL OF TERMINALS. "Monopoly control of terminal facili- ties gives monopoly control of the trans- portation business between terminals. This is true of waterways, open to all on like terms, as well as of railways. Competition can have free play on a waterway only in case there is access to the terminal facilities by all boats on like terms. "The railroads provide their own terminal facilities, assisted 'by the grant from the. public for that pur- pose of the power of eminent do- main. By analogy the boat lines are expected at first thought to do the same thing, though it is uncommon for them to be given condemnation ' powers to that end. In practice, how- ever, the world over, boat lines do not as a rule provide their own term- inal facilities. "In continental Europe public own- ership of docks is the prevailing cus- tom. In Great Britain the harbor trust idea is the predominant one. In this country the dock facilities in first-class ports are provided either by the public authorities or by the railroads. They are not provided by the boat owners as a rule. There are THE MaRINE REVIEW important exceptions, of course. New York, New Orleans, and San Francis- co have public ownership. About three-fifths of the water-front of Manhattan Island is publicly owned. Some of the large companies have their own docks, but more lease from the. eny..... in. Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Newport News and Gal- veston the railroads own and control the important docks. Coming to the great lakes it is the same. The rail- roads. control practically all of the terminal facilities of Buffalo, water as well as freight. In Duluth and Milwaukee it is the railroads that furnish the boat lines with dockage. This is partially tte' in Chicago also. While each boat line entering this city has its own terminal, a large part of the package freight is loaded and unloaded at dock houses pro- vided by the western railroads. HANDLING FACILITIES AT TERMINALS. "Handling facilities at terminal points for the bulk commodities that constitute the heavy tonnage of lake commerce--iron ore, coal, grain, lum- ber and salt--may 'be provided by the private capital interested in the par- ticular lines of business dealing with those commodities. But when it comes to the miscellaneous cargo, it would seem that satisfactory hand- ling facilities are likely to be provid- ed only by the public or by the railroads.. And in Chicago's case it would seem doubtful if the railroads are likely to rise to the needs of the situation, chiefly because of their number and their inability to co-op- erate on a matter involving the gen- eral public welfare. "Milwaukee's excellent terminal fa- cilities for the package freight lines are provided by the Chicago, Milwau- kee. @, St. Paul railroad, ©The latter part of the water-borne freight con- signed to Milwaukee does not stop there, but is carried to its destina- tion by rail. The interest of the railroad in providing terminal facili- Hes tor <the water line is to get the rail haul. The interest of the St. Paul road in providing better dock facilities in Milwaukee than in Chicago, and in diverting water traffic from one point to the other, is two-fold. In the first place it can handle the business easier in Milwau- kee because the congestion is less there than in Chicago. In the second place, the St. Paul road has but one important competitor in Milwaukee-- the Chicago & Northwestern railroad. Water traffic in that port must be divided only between the two roads, whereas the competitors' for it in Chicago will be more numerous. It jg much the same with roads to other outlets where the competitors are fewer. The Santa Fe, for example, has an interest in diverting business to Galveston, because it has to com- pete with fewer rivals for the hayl from that point to and from the cen- tral west. CHICAGO A RAILROAD CENTER. "Tf Chicago had but one or two railroads dominating the traffic sit- uation at this point it might expect the railroads from self interest to develop facilities for connecting water lines. But because it is the great center for many rival railroad inter- ests this city cannot expect any one of these railroads to do for it what the St. Paul road has done for Mil- waukee, nor is it likely that all can be induced to co-operate to the same end, at least not without the initia- tive and directing supervision of the public authorities. "The problem of providing ade- quate water terminal facilities at Chicago, therefore, must be regarded as one calling for solution by the public authorities. "There are different views as to the importance of harbor improvements for Chicago. There are those who contend that this city has little to gain from spending any money on water development; that the railroads can perform the service better and at not much if any greater cost. It is significant that some persons who have followed the business of water transportation all their lives believe that inland water carriage is doomed tc be driven out by the railroad. "The general case of the railroads versus inland water transportation presents too large a field for discus- sion here. The advocates of water transportation make two chief con- tentions. They say: (1) That primi- tive waterway development cannot be expected to compete successfully with modern railroads; that water- ways, to be effective, must be pro- moted on a larger scale. (2) That the railroads have deliberately throt- tled water transportation, "Of course the great lakes are not to be hkened to primitive waterways, whatever may be said of the present canals connecting them with the seaboard. Chicago's supremacy is due to the fact that it is the worlds ereatest railroad center and the rail- road centralization at this point would seem to be due in turn to the city's strategic location with reference to lake transportation. Deprive Chicago of its advantages with reference to