of the American Bar Association a brief outline of the nature and scope of the New York-New Jersey port treaty, and of what is contemplated thereunder.

First, a brief survey of the circumstances under which the treaty came to pass. In 1834, New York and New Jersey entered into a treaty' which determined the property rights and the jurisdiction of the two states and the territory within which criminal process might issue.'

In 1911, ex-President Wilson, then Governor of New Jersey, appointed a commission of three members to study the problem of port development in cooperation with a similar body representing the State of New York. Following the report of that Commission to the Legislature of New Jersey in 1914, the New Jersey Harbor Commission was created, consisting of five members. In 1915 the Commission was merged, together with several others, into the New Jersey Board of Commerce and Navigation. As a result of reports made by that Commission to the then Governor of New Jersey, Hon. James F. Fielder, he appointed a special committee to discover ways and means of securing a a readjustment of freight rates. This committee, which was known as the " Committee on Ways and Means to Prosecute the Case of Alleged Railroad Rate and Service Discrimination at the port of New York," instituted a proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission which is officially known as the New York Harbor Case, No. 8994. This case aroused very considerable opposition on the part of the State of New York, the City of New York and various civic and commercial bodies. The Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York in an intervening petition filed on the 19th day of October, 1916, alleged that the proceeding was "instituted for the purpose of shifting the basic center of the commerce of the port of New York and thus artificially to stimulate the transfer of commercial and industrial advantages to the State of New Jersey, but to the great disadvantage of the City and State of New York."

'Chap. 8, Laws of New York, 1834; Laws of New Jersey, 1833-34, p. 118; confirmed by the Congress of the United States, June 28, 1834 (U. S. 23 Cong., 1 Sess., Sen. Doc. No. 239).

'State vs. Babcock, 1 Vroom, 29; People vs. Central Railroad of New Jersey, 42 N. Y., 283; Ferguson vs. Ross, 126 N. Y., 459.

In its opinion, the Interstate Commerce Commission said: The ever-increasing cost of terminals and of terminal services presents a problem which the carriers must sooner or later face and solve. In the early days, when terminals were small and inexpensive, the cost of the line haul was the most conspicuous item of expense in the transportation service performed by the railroad.

The difficulty of attaining a physical co-ordination of facilities at the port, and administering them as an organic whole, is attributable in part to the nature of the harbor and to the fact that the opposite sides of the port lie in different states. One of the peculiar features of the port is its division into separate units. Manhattan, as previously explained, is separated from other parts of the port by the Hudson River, the East River and New York Bay. Staten Island, separated from Manhattan by the waters of the upper bay, presents peculiarly difficult problems to those who believe that the port can best be developed by co-ordinating its various parts and bringing them under a single administrative authority. Brooklyn, located on Long Island, is separated from New Jersey by the broad waters of the upper bay, and from Manhattan by the East River. That part of the port lying west of the Hudson River is in the State of New Jersey, and the fact that the port is thus divided into two parts by a state line cannot be overlooked by those who would understand its history and the problem confronting those who are interested in its development.

The Commission further found "that there is merit in the contention of the New York interveners that the metropolitan district should be regarded as a unit, and that lower rates to and from northern New Jersey would subject New York to undue prejudice,” and finally the Commission said that it could not "overlook the fact that historically, geographically, and commercially New York and the industrial district in the northern part of the State of New Jersey constitute a single community.' Nevertheless, it said that the position taken by the complainants (New Jersey) "is in a measure justified from an economic viewpoint, and that while at the present time all parts of the metropolitan district may with propriety be grouped for ratemaking purposes, there may come a time when the burden of handling the enormous tonnage in and out of the port will be so onerous that Manhattan itself may need such relief as lower rates to and from the New Jersey shore would in part afford."

While the New York Harbor Case was pending it resulted in wide discussion of the problem of port organization. Every trade and civic body within the metropolitan district became vitally interested. Fortunately, the case had an educational influence upon all of the participants as well as upon those concerned with the future development of the metropolitan district, and

even while the case was pending, there gradually emerged the conception that whatever New Jersey might gain through success in the litigation, it could gain more through cooperation with New York, and that, on the other hand, New York could not afford to ignore the fact that it had heretofore regarded that portion of the port within state lines as being the entire port.

Chapter 426 of the Laws of 1917 of the State of New York and Chapter 130 of the Laws of 1917 of the State of New Jersey expressed in legislative enactment the first endeavor of the two states to cooperate. In urging the Legislature of New Jersey to pass this legislation, Governor Edge, in a special message in 1917, stressed the creation of a "far-sighted interstate commission, which is oblivious to sectional prejudices and intent upon developing an important section of the country along broad lines."

The two commissions, though legally independent, but required by the statutes to submit a joint report, organized as a single commission. The commission soon found that whatever physical plans might ultimately be worked out, it was essential that the two states be brought together in an agreement or com-pact fixing the bases and terms of cooperation and providing for legal machinery through which this cooperation could be made effective. Accordingly, as early as 1919 it directed its counsel to make a careful and exhaustive study of all the legal phases of the problem. Such a study was made and is contained in the "Preliminary Report of Counsel to Accompany the Ten-. tative Draft of Proposed Treaty Amendatory and Supplementary to the Treaty of 1834," annexed to the Progress Report of the Commission for 1919. The Commission concluded, as it says in its report,

that the structure of a port authority for the port of New York should be built upon the firm foundation of the New York-New Jersey Treaty of 1834. It concluded, further, that in such an amendment of the treaty account should be taken of what is now known as the "Metropolitan District" and that commercially, as well as historically, the district is in fact, if not in law, one district.

With the cooperation of the leaders of the legislatures of both states, of both parties, and of Governors Whitman, Edge, Alfred E. Smith and finally Governor Miller, at the sessions of the New York and New Jersey legislatures of 1921 acts were passed by

which commissioners were authorized to sign and execute the compact. It was executed and signed on April 30, 1921. The resolution of Congress giving approval to the compact was passed in the Senate on the 5th day of August, 1921, and in the House on the 12th day of August, 1921, and was signed by President Harding on August 23, 1921.

The recitals in the compact refer to the Treaty of 1834 between the states of New York and New Jersey "fixing and determining the rights and obligations of the two states in and about the waters between the two states, especially in and about the bay of New York and the Hudson River"; to the fact that "Since that time the commerce of the port of New York has greatly developed and increased and the territory in and around the port has become commercially one center or district"; that "It is confidently believed that a better coordination of the terminal, transportation and other facilities of commerce in, about and through the port of New York, will result in great economies, benefiting the nation, as well as the states of New York and New Jersey "; that "The future development of such terminal, transportation and other facilities of commerce will require the expenditure of large sums of money and the cordial cooperation of the states of New York and New Jersey in the encouragement of the investment of capital, and in the formulation and execution of the necessary physical plans"; and that "Such result can best be accomplished through the cooperation of the two states by and through a joint or common agency." For these reasons the two states Do supplement and amend" the Treaty of 1834 in the following respects:

ARTICLE I.

They agree to and pledge, each to the other, faithful cooperation in the future planning and development of the port of New York, holding in high trust for the benefit of the nation the special blessings and natural advantages thereof.

ARTICLE II.

To that end the two states do agree that there shall be created and they do hereby create a district to be known as the "Port of New York District (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "The District ") which shall embrace the territory bounded and described as follows:

(As the crow or aeroplane flies, the Port of New York District starts at about Piermont, crosses over somewhere between Helen Gould's play

ground and John D. Rockefeller's golf course, touches the Connecticut line, goes through Port Chester, then down and around Jamaica Bay, passes over to Sandy Hook, back and around the silk and woolen mills of Paterson, Passaic and thence up to Piermont again. The compact itself bounds the district by connecting points of known latitude and longitude.)

Article III provides as follows:

There is hereby created "The Port of New York Authority" (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the "Port Authority "), which shall be a body corporate and politic, having the powers and jurisdiction hereinafter enumerated, and such other and additional powers as shall be conferred upon it by the legislature of either state concurred in by the legislature of the other, or by act or acts of Congress, as hereinafter provided.

Article IV provides that the Port Authority shall consist of six commissioners, three selected in such manner as shall be determined by the legislature of the State of New York and three selected in such manner as shall be determined by the legislature of the State of New Jersey, with the limitation that two commissioners from New York must be resident voters of the City of New York, and two commissioners from New Jersey must be resident voters within the New Jersey portion of the district, the terms of office of the commissioners, as well as the manner of their selection, to be fixed and determined from time to time by the legislature of each state. "Each commissioner may be removed or suspended from office as provided by the law of the state for which he shall be appointed." Article V provides that the commissioners shall constitute a board and may adopt suitable by-laws for its management. Article VI provides that

the port authority shall constitute a body, both corporate and politic, with full power and authority to purchase, construct, lease and/or operate any terminal or transportation facility within said district; and to make charges for the use thereof; and for any of such purposes to own, hold, lease and/or operate real or personal property, to borrow money and secure the same by bonds or by mortgages upon any property held or to be held by it.

This article is subject to two important limitations:

No property now or hereafter vested in or held by either state, or by any county, city, borough, village, township or other municipality, shall be taken by the port authority, without the authority or consent of such state, county, city, borough, village, township or other municipality, nor shall anything herein impair or invalidate in any way any bonded indebtedness of such state, county, city, borough, village, township or other municipality, nor impair the provisions of law regulating the payment into sinking funds of revenues derived from municipal property, or dedicating the revenues derived from any municipal property to a specific purpose.