wharves on the river Delaware in front of the city and county of Philadelphia or the establishment of wharf lines unless the wharf lines should first be approved by the Board of Wardens for the Port of Philadelphia.

At this time the Board consisted of the Master Warden appointed by the Governor and thirteen port wardens appointed by the Select and Common Councils and the Commissioners of the Boroughs of Bridesburg, Richmond, Kensington, the Northern Liberties, Southwark and Moyamensing.

In 1853 the jurisdiction of the Board was extended over the entire county and only wharves licensed by them were lawful structures. The Board was now made to consist of one master appointed by the Governor and sixteen assistant wardens elected by the Select and Common Councils. This Act made it the duty of Councils to fix wharf lines beyond which no wharf or pier may be built; to keep the navigable water within the city open and free from obstructions; to regulate pilots and the better disposition of vessels within the port.

An Act of March 31, 1864, made it the duty of the Board of Wardens, guided by the plan prepared by the City Surveyor, to fix the wharf lines of Delaware County beyond which they could not authorize the construction of any wharf or pier. In the same year they were given the authority to fix an arbitrary low water mark beyond which no encroachment nor improvement should be made without a license from the Board.

In 1870, owing to a decision of the Supreme Court, 18 above mentioned, the Board of Port Wardens was constituted a department of the city known as "the Department of Port Wardens," all its receipts being paid into the city treasury and its accounts audited by the City Controller. Previous to this the Master Warden and Harbor Master had received a fee of seventy-five cents collected from each vessel coming into the harbor. The fee having been declared unconstitutional, the payment of the salaries was assumed by the State government.

The Board of Wardens has supervision of the port of Philadelphia under the guidance of the State and the municipal governments and operates principally through the Master Warden, and the

18Steamship Company vs. Portwardens, 6 Wallace 31.

Harbor Master who has charge of the placing of vessels, the cleaning of docks and wharves and other similar duties.

Summary.

In the past we have thought of harbors and transportation terminals as places where commerce was halted, now we are learning to think of them as integral parts of the great carrying systems, parts where speed and freedom of movement must be unrestricted, where discriminations and petty bickerings which result from unrestrained competition must be eliminated. While our foreign trade was comparatively small and sea-going vessels, of shallow draft, the equipment of harbors was of less importance; but with our immense and rapidly growing foreign trade, and with modern ocean vessels that draw from twenty-seven to thirty-three feet, special harbor facilities are indispensable. In 1902, 561 vessels with a loaded draft of from twenty-seven to thirty-three feet left New York harbor. In order to provide for such vessels as these, the Federal Government is deepening and improving our channel ways and giving increased power and supervision to the Secretary of War. The State and the municipal governments are centralizing the responsibilities of their Harbor Commissioners and granting specific powers, as well as general supervision. The Board of Docks in New York City has been superseded by the Commissioner of Docks. The powers of the Boston Harbor and Land Commissioners have been increased by authority to construct the South Boston pier. The New Orleans Board of Commissioners was given authority to repossess themselves of the river front, farmed out under the ten year lease and to regulate the commerce and traffic of the harbor "in such manner as may in their judgment be best;" while the harbor of San Francisco and the shore line of the State of Washington are under the direct guardianship of the State Government.

As stated earlier in the paper the Federal Government has control over the channels of rivers between wharf lines and the State Governments have control over the docks and wharves. In some States this authority is exercised through the municipalities as is the case in Maryland, Pennsylvania and New York, where the ports are controlled largely by the municipality or by a department of the municipality, but in Massachusetts, Louisiana, California and Wash

ington the authority is exercised by State Boards appointed by the Governors. But in either case the tendency has been the same, to centralize the authority of the Board and to grant more complete discretionary powers.

Philadelphia, Pa.

J. BRUCE BYALL.

THE BRITISH SYSTEM OF IMPROVING AND ADMINISTERING PORTS AND TERMINAL FACILITIES

European countries present a wide range of experience in the management and ownership of ports and harbors. England alone has many varieties, differing in nearly all cases from those most in vogue on the Continent. Germany is a country with a highly organized and successful governmental activity for fostering trade. The present striking success of these efforts is calling the attention of other nations to what Germany is doing, but it is true that England has been for more than a century the prominent figure in the commercial world, and that, too, without the thorough and formal organization of Germany. British freedom of trade has had a deeper meaning than the mere question of tariffs. The German governments act. The British government has only guided and controlled the action of individuals.

These different policies are in part explained by the differing history of the two nations. For nearly ten centuries England has been united, unconquered and practically unthreatened by a foreign foe. During the whole of this period she has had more internal freedom in her political and economic life than any country of Europe except Holland. For two centuries England and Scotland have been united with freedom of trade and almost continuous internal peace. British wars have been fought abroad. During this same period the continent of Europe has, decade after decade, been devastated by war from end to end, and the British manufacturers and traders have profited by the disturbance and have been allowed to develop their industries naturally.

The continental manufacturer has been harassed more by tariffs than by wars. Germany in 1818 with sixty or more tariff-levying divisions with independent and varying fiscal policies was an impossible place for import, export or the assembling of raw material. Dynastic, military and political disturbances strengthened the hand of centralization and fettered individual liberty and initiative. The raw materials of the Continent, especially of Germany, were scattered and must needs await the coming of the railway and the steamer. Principalities, wars and tyrants dammed up the stream

of German progress until that country with its increasing population was a disconnected mass of prostrate possibilities needing only the touch of opportunity to move forward with exceptional rapidity. That opportunity has come with the latter part of the 19th century at the hands of a government that had tasted the bitterness of defeat and had realized and acted upon the idea that national power was desirable and only to be attained by the raising of the efficiency of every individual and of every industry. After the German humiliation at Jena, Prussia began consciously and deliberately to educate that she might have efficiency and through efficiency, power. This policy was vindicated in 1870 when it was said that the German schoolmaster won at Sedan. It might also be said that he is now winning in the foreign market. The policy that began by educating the German peasant in 1820 has broken down Germany's internal tariffs, has made the leading technical and commercial schools of the world, and through state activity, has produced the Prussian state railway system with its preferential and export rates; has put the export bounty on sugar, the bounties on shipbuilding; has sent subsidized steamships to the far Indies and has made Hamburg the most efficient port in the world.

England has had a more even, a more natural and latterly a less systematic development of commerce and its necessary facilities. Her raw materials, especially of coal and iron, and her water power have been abundant and favorably located. Internal freedom of trade and internal peace have left her people free to develop industry and trade. Her insular position has removed her from danger of foreign aggression so that the force of tyranny has declined and the individuals or the associations of individuals have been free to, act as occasion demanded, and they have met commercial wants as they arose. Not being hampered like Germany, Britain's wants have not accumulated until a comprehensive system was demanded. These wants having been satisfied as they manifested themselves, we find that instead of a comprehensive system Britain has a complex accretion, the result of slow and gradual growth and chiefly by individual initiative. Such is the system of operating commercial facilities, such is the British school system, the British Constitution and the genius of British civilization.

The British system has its advantages and its drawbacks.