|
<br />
<br />II
<br />
<br />M4 HiDIl.
<br />
<br />Ii NOBTIt 'lfES\I'JlBlT'DPOBTBB, ad smm:s
<br />
<br />I
<br />,,'.i
<br />\ :
<br />-jj;j
<br />
<br />pasi (and the evidence warrants a '-finding
<br />that up to now' the pOrt has deteriorated
<br />considerably) is the -question generally as
<br />to whether the {unction of operating 11 port
<br />s1.;1ch as the one contemplated for the harbor
<br />at Duluth, with the prospect in the immedi-
<br />ate future of greatly increased shipping as
<br />a result of the' development and opening
<br />'of the Great Lakes~St. Lawrence Seaway
<br />projec~ caobe considered the performance
<br />of. a'governmental function.
<br />
<br />H;istorically,. the establishment and main~
<br />tenance of ports, at 'least on the sea, intend-
<br />ed' to provide te;mina't fadlities for ship-
<br />ping open to all who wish to use them, has
<br />been -considered universally to be ~ func-
<br />tion _of gQ~emment. Various forms of
<br />commissions Jta.ve been Set up to supervise
<br />and control pOrt facilities, but whenever
<br />they h~ve been engaged principally in es~
<br />tabHshing and operating an open port fur.
<br />nishing -, terminal _ fa~i1i~~ : and docking
<br />priviJeges to ali who wish' to use it, sub.
<br />jea to ~ifoon: and, reasonable rules and
<br />regulations, the function' has been consid~
<br />ered to be a g~:we~ental one. The estab-
<br />lishment_ a.n,~ maintenance of port! -in many
<br />pa~ of the-old w~rJd, ar:erelated .in Com.
<br />missioner of Intemal,;Revenue v. Ten Eyck,
<br />2 Cir., 76- F.2d 515,' a case, in which the
<br />court hcld that the ,Albany (l!"ew, York)
<br />Port District, Commission was engaged in
<br />the. perfo~ance c'# an tas,ential gpv~rn~
<br />mental -function. Ip.. an. -exhaustive opinion
<br />reviewing this- entire matter, the court
<br />-said (76 F.2d 518):' .
<br />
<br />~, * 8.1$ * it: 1S' Cltar that own~rship,
<br />cantrt.1f and operation of 'porl' facilities
<br />are -essentially aild usu'ally preroga-
<br />tives of sovereigntY; especially of the
<br />soverejgrit:)t'--of .the' constituent' state
<br />govenimeriti"-Ofthe"Umh~d States.' "In
<br />England and in SCQtland, the right to
<br />erect ,8 P9i't.was.'part of'the.rgyal pre.
<br />rogati~e. ,N.o port could, eXist except
<br />und~r the -aittho.ri~ of the sovereign."
<br />
<br />In State _of Ca1ifor~ia v. Anglim, D.c'
<br />N.p.CaI" 37 Ii'.supp. 663, 664, the court,
<br />following largely Den~iJlg v. State, 123 Cal.
<br />316,55 P.lOOO, said:
<br />
<br />i
<br />,I::
<br />., t;
<br />"
<br />I;.
<br />':1
<br />
<br />::l
<br />
<br />. ~ ~
<br />:.,
<br />q
<br />Ii
<br />:!,1
<br />
<br />'I.'
<br />!1 :;
<br />,'II
<br />; !')
<br />
<br />;:-1
<br />j.'i_,
<br />i';
<br />.ff
<br />1-- .!
<br />f il
<br />'i~...l.
<br />~~!.'
<br />'!fl-=J
<br />ffll!
<br />!~I f
<br />I""
<br />!~i "
<br />r,,,
<br />.i!: U
<br />I' , .
<br />nl,:
<br />t' .
<br />!~ ::1
<br />!' ).
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />liThe establishment by government
<br />of ports and .harbors, wherever tondi.
<br />tions exist which render harbor deve!..
<br />opment advantageous, is designed to'
<br />afford a medium for the attraction ~nd
<br />flow of commerce into and through the
<br />seaport area tor the benefit and pros~
<br />perity of the numerous persons neces-
<br />sarily affected by the resulting stiinu~
<br />latibn of industrial and trade activity
<br />in such area. In its scope and dIect,
<br />port and harbor development, designed
<br />to facilitate the flow of commerce, can-
<br />not properly be classified as commerce
<br />itself, normally conducted by private
<br />industry. The importance to the- gen-
<br />eral welfare, the public at large, of
<br />adequate parts and harbors for .'the
<br />stimulation of navigation and com~
<br />merce; the fact that the development
<br />of ports and harbors has not occurred
<br />at the hands of private industry, but
<br />ha.s remained in, the reigns of govern..
<br />ment &s a recognized sovere.ign right
<br />a~d duty, the!!~ considerations, in the
<br />opinion of this court, have rightfully
<br />tnarked the operation 0 f ports and har.
<br />. bors a proper function, of government.1t
<br />
<br />In Cook v: Port of Portland,io Or. silO,
<br />590, 27 P. 263, 266, 13 L.R.A. 533, 537, the
<br />Oreg-on court said:
<br />
<br />ff. . *" that anything that. will
<br />cheapen the handling of what the coun-
<br />try -exports and imports w'iU be a: betie~
<br />fit to all is a 8elf~evident fact,', and'
<br />leav~s no doubt of tbe public interest
<br />in, this improvement."
<br />
<br />. In Pori of New York Authority v. J. E.
<br />Linde Paper Co., 2(lS Mise. llP, 113, 127
<br />N.y.S~ 155, 158, {he ,court ;;;idi
<br />
<br />tiThe Port Authority is an arm and
<br />ag~ncy of tbe States of ~ew.YQrk'
<br />and New Jersey, and in all anu'activ-
<br />ities, is engaged in the performance-Of
<br />essential governmental funetions;l'" I,
<br />
<br />See, also, North Car61ina State Ports Au.
<br />thority.v, ,First-Citizens Bank & Trust"Co.,
<br />242 N.C. 416, ,88 S.E.2d 109.
<br />
|