act of 1875, seem to be an unjust and, unfair discrimination against the American shipping interest.

Your committee would recoinmend the repeal of that provision of the act of 1875 which permits the leasing of bulk-heads, and the building of sheds thereon, or the anchorage of scows between piers upon the North and East rivers; and that every fifth pier hereafter constructed upon the North river shall be reserved for general commercial purposes; and as the present leases expire the same rule shall apply to them.

Your committee is of the opinion that the shedding of piers on the East river, and the want of accommodations upon the North river for local commerce, is a great detriment to the port of New York; and prompt action should be taken by the legislature to adopt measures of relief.

The gentlemen representing the steamship interests, by their testimony convince your committee that for the accommodation of their business they require shedded piers. But the privilege granted to the steamship companies of allowing them to shed piers has in nearly every instance been abused by the lessees, in that they have used the piers for storage and other purposes, in direct violation of section 4 of chapter 249 of the act of 1875. The evidence shows that most of the companies hold out as an inducement to foreign shippers the fact that their merchandise may be stored at this port for days and weeks without extra charge; and in one case a witness testified that their company had actually charged storage on goods that had been stored on the second floor of their shed, which is also a violation of the rules of the dock department, which require all goods to be removed within forty-eight hours. It is in evidence that the several foreign steamship companies have formed an organization for their protection. This was admitted by the representative of one of the largest steamship companies, who stated before the committee, that the organization was for the purpose of regulating the delivery of goods to consignees, and the removal and regulating the consignment of goods to the consignees. The understanding, it was stated, was only known to those who were in the organization; and while it was admitted that there were printed rules and regulations, the witness declined to produce a copy of such rules and regulations, or to state, more specifically, for what objects the organization was formed.

The steamship companies have also monopolized the bulk-heads adjoining their piers, and the space between West street and the new bulk-head line, a distance of 250 feet from the street. Personal visits of the committee along the water front of the North river disclose the fact that nearly all the space between West street and the new bulk-head line is occupied and incumbered by steamship companies with casks, pig iron, crates, lumber, ballast, and other materials, and have been so occupied and incumbered ever since the several sections were completed by the dock department, a period of several years, for which the dock department receive no revenue.

(See report of city wharfingers, annexed.) In consequence of such incumbrances there is scarcely a bulk-head remaining upon the North river for the accommodation of any other than steamship companies occupying adjoining piers. The testimony upon this subject shows that the dock commissioners have repeatedly passed resolutions directing the removal of incumbrances; and when they have not been rescinded, the officers authorized to enforce the orders have been verbally informed they need not execute them. The vascillating course of the commissioners in treating this matter has been the cause of much trouble to them, inconvenience to the people and profit to the steamship companies. As a proof of which, it appears in the evidence that the board passed a resolution directing the wharfingers to notify all of the parties having incumbrances upon the piers to remove the same upon the 23d of February, 1881, and that on the 25th of March, of the same year, they rescinded said resolution.

The use of the piers and bulk-heads for the storage of merchandise until delivered has grown into a habit at this port, and it raises the question for consideration, what additional facilities ought to be provided to accommodate the wants of commerce in this regard. The piers and bulk-heads exist for the accommodation of all commerce, and not for any special class, and all proper facilities should be provided for in the plan of improvement of the water-front, to reduce the charges upon the receipt and delivery of freight; and the time has come when the subject of the removal of goods at or near the points of receipt and delivery thereof must be taken up and carefully considered; but until this is done the committee are. of the opinion that much less latitude should be permitted in this matter of incumbering the piers and bulk-heads, and some stringent and effectual measures adopted.

It is in evidence before your committee, that pier 1, in the city of New York, which is built of stone at a cost of over half a million of dollars, has been recently leased to a steamboat excursion company, who have put upon the same a double shed, which is of frequent occurrence, and have kept a restaurant; and are now charging the public an admission fee for entrance to said pier. That this is a direct violation of the lease of said company is admitted to be so by the commissioners; and your committee consider it only one of the many outrages to which the public are obliged to submit:. that no proceedings have been taken to revoke the lease by reason of this violation, or to correct the abuses thereof. Your committee would strongly urge that an act be passed prohibiting any person from charging the public any admission fee for going upon any of the piers or bulk-heads of the city in New York.

It is in evidence before your committee that the ports of Boston, Philadelphia and Baltimore hold out special inducements to shippers and merchants as to the rates of wharage and other expenses attendant thereto, to increase their shipping interest. It is also in evidence that the charges at this port are exorbitant, and are almost

double and treble those of any other port; which, together with the terminal charges and other costs, seriously retard and affect the prosperity and progress of the shipping interest at the port of New York. Unless a wise and liberal policy is adopted toward commerce with a view of facilitating and increasing it, we will eventually find that the ports just mentioned will control almost all the commerce of this country.

The port of New York having the greatest and most natural facilities for commerce, self-preservation would suggest that some effective measures, with proper penalties attached thereto, to enforce them, be enacted to protect it before it is too late.

It is in evidence before your committee that the piers which are being built at present and for some time past are bringing enormous rents, to the amount of some $30,000 to $35,000 per annum; and in one instance a witness stated that on behalf of his steamship company they were willing to pay as high as $50,000 for a pier which had been leased for $30,000, with the same privileges, to another company, which shows conclusively to your committee that there is a scarcity and lack of accommodations for the shipping interests."

It is a question in the minds of the committee as to whether this.. large revenue from these piers will eventually decrease commerce to such an extent as to have been a disadvantage instead of a benefit, all excessive rentals being a direct charge upon commerce.

The annual rental of most of the piers, especially of those occupied under new leases, is uniformly alike. But in determining the annual rental of other dock property there appears to be no fixed standard of value adopted by the dock department. It is in evidence that a bulk-head upon the North river at the foot of Twenty-third street, and 34,094 feet of land adjoining, was leased at public auction May 1, 1879, to May 1, 1881, at $500 per annum, while the bulk-head and land at the foot of Thirty-third street, the same class of property, of some 29,000 feet, was leased November 1, 1873, to November 1, 1883, at the rental of $5,000 per annum; whereas a short distance beyond, at the foot of West Forty-third street, the department rents for $100 per year 23,480 feet. The commissioners have leased a great deal of dock property and water-front, at the pleasure of the board, yielding in many cases but a nominal rental. The annual rental of the property leased at the pleasure of the board, according to the figures of one of the present commissioners, is about $58,000 on the North river and $8,600 on the East river, making a total of $66,600; and the land under the water on the North river $15,550, and on the East and Harlem rivers $7,500, making a total of $89,650. In the opinion of this commissioner the amount should be double; while another of the present commissioners expressed the opinion that it should be three times that amount. It is in evidence before your committee that nothing practically has been done up to the present time to recover for the city the increased revenues which they testify should be paid.

The representatives of the canal interests appeared before your committee, and stated that they needed much more room for the accommodation of their business. The original canal district on the East river, as laid out by an act of the legislature some years ago, has been largely encroached upon, and a large portion of it taken for other purposes, thereby cramping them and their interests to some considerable extent. A number of witnesses on behalf of the Hamilton Ferry Company appeared before your committee, and they desired an additional portion of the canal district, which they claim they must have now, or eventually they would be seriously injured and could not accommodate their patrons. On the other hand, a petition very numerously signed by some of the largest grain merchants in the city and general dealers was presented to the committee, strongly protesting against the removal of the canal district. A number of witnesses were examined as to the feasibility or practicability of removing the present canal district to some other point on the North or East river. Your committee have no recommendations to make in this particular. But we believe that the time will soon arrive when such removal will be a matter of necessity; and the evidence presented with this report upon this subject may be of interest and value to those whom it directly affects.

In conducting the investigation as to the management of the dock department, its methods, employees, the cost of building the bulkhead wall, and the general details of this branch of our examination, it has been difficult in the extreme, and in fact almost impossible to obtain any reliable or definite data from which a satisfactory conclusion might be drawn, from the fact that no two persons connected with the department agree upon any general subject.

The report of the experts of your committee gives a full and general statement of the deficiencies, defalcations, and various other errors connected with the book-keeping, finances and other matters pertaining to the department. They are very full and complete, and it affords the committee pleasure to state that the experts employed have performed their laborious duties with great diligence, fidelity and satisfaction to the committee; and we may be pardoned if we state here that our thanks are due them for the willing and cheerful manner in which they have performed the many services required of them.

The books of the department were found to have been kept in a very loose manner, no entries being made for months at a time in the cash book. From the month of September, 1880, to the month of May, 1881 (the time when your committee went to the department to make the examination), no entries had been made.

The defalcations of the former book-keeper of the department, Mr. Burnham, began in June, 1875, and ended in the early part of 1878; and they amounted to the sum of $42,292.56, of which the commissioners, Westervelt, Dimock and Vanderpoel, paid into the department $4,925 each, making a total of $14,775, and leaving a balance due the city from that source of $27,007.56. The balance

of his account was charged up in various items upon the books of the department, the balance being charged to the account of the counsel of the corporation for collection; but as prior thereto Mr. Burnham had been indicted and fled, no service has ever been had upon him for the purpose of suit. Since the 30th day of April, 1881, Commissioner Vanderpoel has paid in addition upon said account the sum of $621.61; and the sum of $26,385.95 remains unpaid at this date. This defalcation continuously occurred during a period of about three years. From the testimony of the experts it is somewhat doubtful if the peculations of Mr. Burnham will ever be fully known; and, considering the fact that he is deceased, and also the treasurer under whose administration the larger portion of the defalcation occurred, it is doubtful if any part of that amount is ever recovered. For a detailed statement of this subject we refer you to the report of the experts.

We have carefully considered the questions arising out of the defalcations of the former book-keeper of the department, Mr. Burnham. The law seems to place the legal responsibility for the collection and safe custody and deposit of the moneys upon the treasurer of the board.

The charter of the city, by section 89, provides that "Each board may, except as herein otherwise provided, choose, in its own pleasure, one of its members, who shall be its president, and one who shall be its treasurer."

The office of treasurer seems to involve the conduct and safe management of the money transactions of the board, and the bylaws of the department had defined the duties of the treasurer to be to "collect, receive and pay over semi-weekly to the city chamberlain all rents for the use and occupation of the wharf and slip property of the city of New York, and all fines and penalties imposed by the department of docks, and all other moneys payable to said department.”

These defalcations occurred under the treasurerships of William Budd, Jacob A. Westervelt and Jacob Vanderpoel.

The committee are agreed that there has been great negligence in the conduct of these affairs by the respective treasurers.

It is proper to say for them, that Mr. Burnham had, for a long time prior to the organization of the dock department as a separate department of the city government, charge of the collections of the wharf and pier rents in the comptroller's office, and down to the time of the discovery of these defalcations, had the entire confidence of those who knew him as a man of truthfulness and honesty.

Much of the moneys taken by Mr. Burnham consisted of sums received for wharfage, and entered on the books of the department, but never deposited with the city chamberlain. Collectors at that time of wharf rents were required to make daily returns of the same, and also weekly returns, the latter being required to be sworn to. Some of these returns were found to be of irregular date, not sworn