-21-
118
(78) The misconception may perhaps have arisen from a
statement made by Messrs. Coode, Fitzmaurice, Wilson & Mitchell,
Consulting Engineers, who were asked to advise on certain Port
matters some time ago. In their Report dated 24th November, 1922,
they spoke of the possibility of the "formation of a Port Trust
which would take over existing wharves and manage the new
wharves and those taken over", the inference which might be
drawn being that the formation of a Port Trust would necessarily
mean their taking over and managing all wharves, etc.
(79)
Incidentally, Messrs. Coode & Company were against such
a proposal, but the important point to be noted is that a Port
may be "owned" or "controlled" by a state, a city, a corporation
or a Public Trust, and yet not be "operated" by the owner. The
distinction between "controlled" and "operated" as applied to a
Port should clearly be borne in mind.
(80) "Control" denotes supervision, i.e. the drawing up of
regulations and seeing that they are observed, and settling the
policy, while "operating" is the actual handling and the business management of all work connected with the berthing of
ships, the discharge of their cargoes and the removal of the
goods to and from warehouses or godowns.
(81) One Port Authority may own and control but not operate,
a striking example being Liverpool where, however, while the
general operating is left to private enterprise the Authority do carry on an amount of warehousing of goods. Another Port Authority may both control and operate, as at London. No one system can be laid down as the ideal, for it entirely depends on
tradition, custom and local conditions.
(82) It is, however, significant that at most of the Ports
in the United Kingdom and the Empire, some form of Public Port Trust has evolved, the obvious lesson to be learned being that it
has been proved to be for the best. I need only mention London,
Liverpool, Glasgow, Belfast, Quebec, Montreal, Bombay, Karachi,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.