In doing so, we are well aware that the present condition of our merchant marine is such that few of the graduates of the Nautical School can find desirable positions on board commercial ships flying our flag, but we are equally convinced that the opening of the Panama Canal and the present interest in the improvement of waterways will surely lead to a renewal of our coastwise and ocean traffic; and considering the fact that a Nautical School has been maintained in New York for such a long period, we trust and hope that it may be continued, as there is great danger, considering the finances of this city, that unless some early action be taken the Board of Education may discontinue a school which, in our opinion, is of vital benefit to marine interests. We, therefore offer the following preamble and resolution for such action as the Chamber may seem fit:

Whereas, There seems to be an immediate danger that the Nautical School of the City of New York may be discontinued on account of its excessive expense to the Board of Education of this city; and

Whereas, It is essential at this time to educate the youth of this port in sea discipline, system and knowledge in order to fit it for an increased merchant marine; therefore be it

Resolved, That the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York both collectively and individually urges upon the United States Government an appropriation of $25,000, under the act "for the establishment of marine schools and for further purposes," approved March 4, 1911, and that the Council of the Nautical School of the Port of New York of this Chamber is hereby instructed to communicate with our Representatives in Congress asking them to forward in every possible manner the purposes for which the act was passed.

The report and accompanying preamble and resolution were adopted.

REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES.

GEORGE P. BRETT, Chairman of the Committee on Commercial Education made the following report which was received and placed on file:

In accordance with the authority given the Committee on Commercial Education at the last meeting of the Chamber, the following

invitations have been sent for the Conference on Commercial Educa tion, to be held at a special meeting of the Chamber of Commerce on February 15th.

To Mayor GAYNOR, who was asked to address the Conference on Commercial Education from the Citizens' Point of View;

To JAMES G. CANNON, for an address on Commercial Education from the Business Man's Standpoint;

To Dr. ELMER E. BROWN, on The Place of the University and the Teachers' Training College in Commercial Education;

To Dr. WILLIAM H. MAXWELL, on the Elementary School in Commercial Education;

To Dr. JAMES J. SHEPPARD, on the Place of the High School in Commercial Education; and

To Dr. JOHN L. TILDSLEY, on The Place of the Evening Schools in Commercial Education.

The Committee on Commercial Education takes pleasure in announcing that all these invitations have been accepted.

If time permits, the Chairman of the Committee on Commercial Education, proposes to read a short paper describing in a general way what the work in Commercial Education is which the Chamber of Commerce has undertaken, and giving in addition a suggested program of the committee's future plans for Commercial Education in this city.

The Committee on Commercial Education also plans to issue invitations to attend the conference to more than one hundred teachers and other residents of the city who are working for, or are interested in Commercial Education.

In view of the importance of Commercial Education to the present and future welfare of this city, the Committee on Commercial Education hopes that the members of the Chamber of Commerce will aid the committee in its work by attending the Conference on Commercial

Education on

February 15th in order to show in a practical way the

interest which the members of the Chamber of Commerce have in this vital subject and in order to encourage the work in Commercial Education which many of our invited guests are already doing in this

city.

THE PRESIDENT.-The Chamber has already fixed the special meeting for the 15th, and you will see by the program that it is proposed to have the subject thoroughly ventilated and discussed, and I hope we will have a tremendously large meeting.

THE NATIONAL GUARD.

The President announced in pursuance of the resolution passed, the following Special Committee on the National Guard and Naval Militia:

The President announced as in order the report of the Committee on the Harbor and Shipping laid over from the last meeting.

E. H. OUTERBRIDGE.—Before presenting the report authorized at the last meeting for discussion, I wish to state that, after its presentation at the last meeting, the committee learned that the State Commission and the New York City authorities had already entered upon the work of conference with the War Department in reference to the matter of pier head lines which was covered in the third resolution of the report; and in view of that fact that the work has already been done, it might be unwise to press that subject further at this time. Therefore, the committee desire to amend the third resolution by expunging the reference to the pier head line question, so that it shall read:

Resolved, That the Chamber recommends to the Dock Department that no opportunity be lost to transfer Sound Lines from the North to the East River.

THE PRESIDENT.-You have heard the statement of the Chairman of the committee. The resolutions as they now stand, having in mind the portion that is withdrawn by the committee, are now before the Chamber for consideration.

REMARKS OF HONORABLE JOHN A. BENSEL, STATE ENGINEER.

JOHN A. BENSEL.-While the report of the Committee on the Harbor and Shipping shows a painstaking effort to start a new procedure in the administrative treatment of the interests of the harbor, a critical examination leads one to wonder whether the business people of this city are yet in a position to put aside the results of evolution in trade and "jump from the frying-pan into the fire" by trying to cure the ills that are complained of and by experiments with the city's water front.

In the report it may be found that stress is laid upon the isolation of Manhattan from the mainland, and the question arises as to what this means, taking into consideration the fact that the railroads connect with Manhattan Island on the north and on the east side by means of bridges and tunnels, and the only thing which resembles

isolation is the fact that there is a large body of water well adapted to water transportation bounding Manhattan Island on the west side. This is to my mind New York's unique distinction and advantage.

Is it conceivable that artificial efforts that would place more freight terminals on the Island of Manhattan would stimulate trade in any way, or would any one desire to see the area now occupied on Manhattan Island by the New York Central, for instance, multiplied by six in order to accommodate other railroad yards in order to do the business that is now done and would New York by this be the gainer?

The report states that the question of access by water and the possibilities of transportation explain why New York has never had a definite municipal policy in reference to the control and orderly development of its port facilities. Here again, I would take issue as to the facts, for New York is the only city in this country that has taken up as a municipal proposition the orderly control of its water fronts, fathered as it has been in this regard by the state in committing to the municipality the ownership of the land under water along the shores of Manhattan Island and the Bronx. There be, and of course will be a considerable variation in opinion from time to time as to the manner in which the city should operate with this municipal problem, but I think it may be taken as a fact that the city has planned a development of its own. water front and with its control of the privately owned water front, by allowing free play and initiation to the private owner, has met the requirements of commerce in a manner which, in general, may be said to have met in fair shape the views of those interested in the commerce of the port.

may

In an effort to meet the changing conditions, I think no better example may be had than the manner in which the city has changed and developed the water front adapted for trans-atlantic purposes by the building of three different terminals for this trade during a period. of about fifteen years, and I would like especially to call attention to the fact that the city in the leasing of these piers for trans-atlantic purposes has never regarded the matter as one for revenue only, and has not admitted the railroads into competition with the trans-atlantic lines, but has so fixed the rental which it receives as to allow for the expansion of trans-atlantic commerce, and at the same time, get a fair return on the money invested by the city.

One would gather from the report that large increase in trade is expected on Manhattan Island if some physical connection could be made by means of which freight cars were to be transported directly from the terminals of the different railroads along the Jersey water front to the island. Consider for a minute what this means. While an ordinary freight car may be said to be the proper means of transportation, where such transportation is for a considerable distance along the main lines of a railroad, there is no more inconexpensive form of freight movement than that of the freight car within a congested area, and Manhattan Island is probably

venient or more

about as ill-adapted for general freight yard use as any which can be conceived besides which it may be said, without controversy, that all of the area of Manhattan Island is needed for the housing and for the activities of Manhattan's population. No scheme for placing freight cars within the confines of Manhattan Island would, in my opinion, end in anything but a more expensive method of operation than that which the railroads now use.

In the separation of freight on the Jersey shore and the movement of this freight to convenient points for distribution along the water front of Manhattan Island, you have as nearly as can be conceived the ideal and the cheapest method for freight transportation, and besides this we have the ideal, or nearly so, condition of being able to transfer cars in bulk without any great expense in their movement where they lie upon a railroad float and can be moved twenty-eight cars at a time to any point convenient for distribution of the freight in the car, without breaking bulk, until it reaches the shore of the island, and it may be said too that the most economical movement of cars that can be made is in the slip between two piers.

In closing the report, the Committee on the Harbor and Shipping calls attention to the following:

First, that the port facilities of New York are greatly congested at some points and wholly undeveloped at others, resulting in abnormal cost to steamship lines and merchants at congested points. To the extent that this is true, the same may be said of many other sections of the city whether used for living, trade or recreation; it is a problem in all cities, but a disturbance of conditions that have come to pass by the slow processes of evolution is not to be entered upon lightly.

The report in question states further that a proper regard for the city's interest of trade and commerce makes it imperative that the city should adopt a comprehensive plan for the control and development of the port facilities upon the best system which can be devised to the end that modern, scientific and economic methods may preserve and advance the commercial interests of this port. This statement, as a statement, cannot be controverted but this Chamber should have in view that it may be possible that what is thought to be the best and most scientific system at any one time from the point of view of those who are writing on the subject, may not develop or meet the views of those who are interested as a business in the commerce of the port and have to do with the port facilities directly.

Certainly the City of New York can be said to have adopted a method considered in a large way for the control and development of its port facilities which should allow for proper presentation of the schemes for improvement to be made to the city authorities from time to time as may be necessary.

Manhattan Island in its entire water front is now practically under municipal control and ownership. The control of the privately owned water front is vested in the Department of Docks who have jurisdic tion in regard to the lay-out of the piers and the improvements which are necessarily called for from time to time, and if any better method