Page images

equivalent, at least, to what he was led to believe he would receive-and he can go home and be happy.

It is true that he will not have received an income of exactly 25.47 each six months on the principal which he had invested each of those six months. But, if he has spent exactly 25.47 each six months, he will, at maturity, be in exactly the same condition as if he had actually spent each half-year the income that he actually earned on the sums he had invested at the first of each period. Hence, practically, this is simply a matter of tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee, not only in the case of one who holds a bond to maturity, but in every case, no matter how long the bond is held by the same party. Each holder of a bond for a part of the time, will, if he pay the proper price (the bond value book price) for it at the time of buying, and sell it for the proper price at the time of selling, get his equivalent income; but, in each case, he must find what his instalments to be placed in the sinking fund are to be. This will be done, as in case of the holder to maturity—taking what he paid for the bond as his investment, and finding therefrom what sum he must invest in a sinking fund.

The exact sums that would, in this case, have to be invested in a sinking fund which is to wipe out the premium at maturitysupposing the bond to be bought when it had four half years to run, would be .240818 x 18.81 = 4.5298 (see sinking fund table 8 in the “Robinsonian Bond and Investment Tables" or in the “Robinsonian Building-Loan Interest Tables").

There are many other phases of bond values, some of them touched upon in the article I am commenting upon—but I have not the time at present to comment upon them.

Dock Capital, Expenditure, Receipts and

By Lee Galloway, Ph.D.

PART II. An examination of the dock systems of the various ports discloses a variety of control not found, perhaps, in any other one enterprise in the world. Even in any one country no general classification would include all the forms of dock control without exception. Historically, ports and waterways have been so closely connected with problems of the national defense that all governments have deemed it necessary to keep a certain amount of control over them. The docks, however, were early differentiated from the rest of the port, and have developed under numerous forms.

In Great Britain the most prominent type of control is that of the “ Public Trust." Because of the prominence and signal success under British conditions of this non-profit corporation type of control, the Liverpool management will be described at some length.

In 1857 the Mersey Dock and Harbor Board took over the management of the Port of Liverpool, and the port started on its career with a capital of £7,600,000. Since then the board has been authorized by various acts of Parliament to borrow about £25,000,000 on the security of the dock tonnage rates on ships and dues on goods. The amount actually borrowed is nearly £20,000,000. The business policy of the board is to charge simply those rates whereby their financial position may be maintained; as a consequence, beginning with 1880, dues on goods and ships were reduced £112,000 per annum; in 1884 dues on goods, principally cotton, rice, iron, and steel were reduced £29,000 per annum; in 1895 dues on merchandise, principally wheat, petroleum and provisions were reduced £24,000 per annum; and in the same year dues on ships were lessened £29,000. In 1896 the last big reduction was made ; that was on cotton, and amounted to £37,000 per year.

The board consists of twenty-eight members, of which twentyfour are “elective” members, and four are“ nominee " members. The elective members must be British subjects, must reside within ten miles of the port, and pay dock dues of not less than £10. The four nominee members are appointed by the Conservancy Commissioners of the River Mersey who are: the First Lord of the Admiralty, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, for the time being. As the board is made up at present, the following interests are represented: the Steamship Owners' Association, Shipowners' Association, General Brokers' Association; Cotton, Corn, Provisions, and Fruit Associations. The members of the board receive no remuneration for their services, and if a member comes into a place of profit under the board, or is concerned in the profits of any work done by order of the board, he ceases to be a member.

A chairman is appointed from among the members for one year. The general work for the trust is carried on chiefly by standing committees, or, as occasion arises, by special committees. The office of every committee ends on the 19th of December in each year, and new ones are appointed at the first session of the board held on or after December 21. For the carrying on of the different branches of the work, the management is divided into departments, of which the engineer's department is, perhaps, the largest, employing under its supervision at times 8,000 men.

Another type of management in Great Britain is that exercised by the railway. This is of growing importance, and is in thorough harmony with the modern tendency toward more complete organization of the means of transport. The progressive railway of to-day is bound to put forth every effort to gain full ownership of those harbor and dock works which constitute the termini of their lines. There is a growing interdependence between the railway and its port terminals, and the extent to which the railroads have pushed forward the acquisition of dock properties has been little noted. The very nature of the railway makes the acquisition of dock property by it a natural proceeding. Tied to its roadbed, confined to a limited territory, and similar in the nature of its capital and expenditures to that of the dock, it is natural that the railway should not hesitate to acquire this new property and responsibility, provided it offered a fair chance of increasing its traffic and earnings. The importance of docks to railways is shown in a recent statement issued by the Bristol Channel Dockowners' association. These are closely connected with the railways, and in this year there was a net registered tonnage upon which dues were paid of nearly 20,000,000 tons.

There are two other types of dock control in Great Britain, i. e., the control by a company which makes this its chief business. London is the best example of this form. The other type is seen in the control exercised by the city corporation. This form is gradually dying out, and Bristol and Preston are the only cities of importance still retaining this method. Yet in the past nearly all of the larger ports in the Kingdom have passed through this form of public control

Upon the Continent the connection of the central governments with the harbor control has always been somewhat close. In France all harbor works are undertaken and executed by the government, which makes the necessary financial arrangements to that effect with the town and Chamber of Commerce. In Germany, although the Imperial Government has no control over the harbors, the State Government does have. Its aid is not given, however, except in cases of very extensive undertakings, such as the dredging of the outer harbor and channel. The facilities for carrying on the general port business is left to the enterprise and initiative of the local governments.

In the United States the control of the ports presents many complex features, but, in general, the National Government limits itself to dredging the channel and harbor basin. The chief power resides in the individual states, subject to the constitutional provision regulating commerce. In the cases of most of the large ports, however, the states have given up the direct management to the port city.

Through all these various forms of ownership and control, there appears one element common to all countries. This is the part that the public takes. Under the form of the “Public Trust,” the public are indirectly represented through the great commercial interests with which they are directly concerned. In other forms of public control—the state and municipal types— the community is directly represented through its political managers. Even in the form of private control which the great railway systems are acquiring, there is exerted a larger element of public influence than exists under the strictly private dock company which is gradually disappearing. In fact, the economic forces that are directing the docks into the public form of management are the same as those that are compelling the railway companies to acquire this terminal property. The explanation is found in the growing necessity for cutting expenses at every point possible upon the whole transportation route which lies between the producer and the consumer. The organization of the railway and ocean transportation has accomplished much, but competition is forcing a closer and still closer union between the two. The expenses which go with a scattered and unorganized port management stand as a neutralizing factor among the economies already effected by rail and steamship. In every port there are two chief outlays. The first is in the dock system, the second is in the harbor basin and channel approaches. Private dock companies have not, as a rule, felt able or inclined to undertake the heavy expenses connected with modern harbor improvement, and when this has been done by the public, the dock companies naturally hesitate to reconstruct their docks at great cost to provide for a trade in the indefinite future. The dock company may reckon that the port may and must support a trade of sufficient magnitude to pay profits upon a capital already invested, and would consequently be satisfied in limiting the capabilities of a port to a coasting or small steamer trade. But the port city and the hinterland have not taken this view of the matter. Their interests lie rather in the increase of the traffic, and this could only be done by meeting modern requirements, which means heavy expenditures. As a result, the dock has been forced under some kind of unified control with the harbor. In the larger ports this has taken the form of State, Municipal, and Public Trust; but in some of the secondary and smaller ports the benefits of a unified management and the support of sufficient capital have come by absorption into the railway system. In all cases the attempt has been to distribute the costs of the harbor and dock improvement among the various parts of the community interested in the trade. The state and municipality have been able to do this through their taxing power; the trust as a non-profit corporation, through the applications of its surplus and the regulating of its charges. The railway, on the other hand, reaches the same goal by distributing the losses incurred by the dock and har

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »