store-door delivery system, which means that the drayage is to be absorbed by the carriers and that all consignments of C. L. or L. C. L. freight are to be handled immediately upon arrival and delivered to the storedoor of the consignee. During the war, the Federal Railroad Administration worked out the details of the scheme. A drayage director was to organize the entire process on the basis of efficiency and elimination of waste. Elaborate rules had been worked out covering the details of the plan, based largely on the suggestions of a Committee of the Public Service Commission and approved by Mr. McAdoo as Director-General of the Railroads. The idea of store-door delivery is by no means a new one. In 1909 the Pennsylvania Railroad inaugurated, at its own expense, a system of direct consignment in Baltimore as a means of meeting water competition. A similar system had been in operation in Washington for many years. But the Inter-State Commerce Commission ruled that the railroad had no right to discriminate in favor of some cities against others. The abnormal congestion at the port of New York, due to immense war traffic, especially during the winter of 1917-1918, resulted in an effort to clear the piers and rolling stock for purely transit purposes, by abolishing the abuse of treating them as part of the port's warehousing facilities. Formerly a few days' time was allowed to save the necessity of actually storing goods which could not be immediately placed on ships or removed. But such warehousing on piers and sidings is an obvious misuse of facilities meant for an entirely different purpose and cannot be tolerated when the trans ference of goods requires every spare foot of available space. An extension of warehouse facilities would be necessary if the scheme were put into operation. The armistice came before the plans were put into operation and, although much congestion continues to .exist, there seems no immediate prospect of seeing the scheme of store-door delivery adopted in New York. REFERENCES BUSH TERMINAL COMPANY. Various Publications. GREGORY, KELLER AND BISHOP. Physical and Commercial Geography. Chap. I. (1910). Goode, J. P. The Development of Commercial Ports. (1908). HOUGH, B. O. Ocean Traffic and Trade. Chap. IV. (1915). JOHNSON AND HUEBNER. Principles of Ocean Transportation. Chap. X. (1919). KIRKALL, A. W. British Shipping, Book IV. (1914). MAC ELWEE, R. S. Ports and Terminal Facilities. (1918). Industrial and Commercial Geography. Part II. Chap. XIII. UNITED STATES. Acting Secretary of War. Water Terminals and Transfer Facilities (House Doc. No. 226, 63 Cong. 1 Sess., 1913). Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. Ports of the United States. (Miscellaneous Series No. 33, 1916). Commissioner of Corporations. Report on Transportation by Water in the United States, Part III, Water Terminals. (1910). Shipping Board, Port and Harbor Facilities Commission. Twentyseven Ports of the United States. (1919). CHAPTER V ENTREPÔT CENTRES AND FREE PORTS Nature of entrepôt trade.-According to the definition given in the preceding chapter, the third function of seaports is to distribute foreign goods to foreign countries. That phase of commerce is known as entrepôt or intermediary trade. The port handling this trade is interposed between a producing and a consuming country just as a middleman stands between seller and buyer. Such trade is supplementary to that which falls to a city because of its own consuming power and its relation to a strong hinterland. Thus London, the greatest consuming centre of Europe, is, at the same time, the greatest entrepôt of the world, although the war has deducted much from her former influence. As the capital of the British Empire, she for decades possessed the most complete net of connections throughout the world, which is the first prerequisite of a great entrepôt. History of entrepôt trade.-In days gone by entrepôt trade played a relatively more important part than it does to-day. The commerce of Venice, Bruges, Lisbon, Antwerp and Amsterdam during the height of their power was primarily of this type. Several reasons account for this fact. In the first place, the political map was cut up into innumerable small units, so that much trade appeared as entrepôt, which would not be counted as such to-day. In those days entrepôt trade was monopolistic and the monopoly was backed by force of arms. The entrepôt center known as "the staple" owed much of its prominence to royal "fiat." Moreover, the foreign trade of that period was confined to the exchange of goods between the Orient and the Occident and consisted of just such commodities as are best adapted to this kind of trading-non-perishable valuables of small volume. Entrepôt trade, being indirect in most cases, involves circuitous routing and detours which are too expensive when cheap bulk goods are carried. The small quantities of spice, silk, tea and curios which filled the holds of the small sailing craft could well stand an extra trip of a few days. This counts less the longer the entire voyage. Therefore, the more remote the origin and destination of the traffic, the stronger is the hold upon the trade of the entrepôt. Finally, the demand for Oriental products was very limited and few localities could absorb whole shiploads at a time. Hence these intermediary distributing centres sprang up, which became central markets for as wide a territory as their prowess could hold tributary. Volume of entrepôt trade of different countries. It is estimated that more than $4,000,000,000 worth a year of all the commodities that move around the world in commerce is handled at least twice, going from the place of production to some of the great merchandising ports of another.country, to be there resold and exported again to the country where they are consumed. The bulk of the merchandising trade is carried on in the few ports grouped around the British Channel, with London. as the leader. The entrepôt trade of this country has assumed large proportions only in recent years, partly owing to the temporary dislocation of merchandising commerce hitherto established. The following data, which are taken from The Americas,1 March, 1915, referring to the last years before the war, give an interesting comparison of English, German and American re-export trade: "England's total foreign commerce, including its import and re-export of foreign and colonial goods, averaged $6,121,499,319 a year from 1909 to 1913, and $5,036,973,264 from 1904 to 1908. The average of re-exports was $498,431,527 from 1909 to 1913, and $393,827,376 from 1904 to 1908. Exports of English products averaged $2,220,763,559 and $1,760,406,839. The re-export commerce, counting the value of goods only once, grew from 9.2 per cent. of the total of all the other commerce to 9.7 per cent., and from 22.3 per cent. of the value of exports of English products to 22.5 per cent. "Of the goods moving seaward out of London during the five years ended with 1912, re-exports averaged $243,635,267 yearly against $380,202,981 worth of English exports. In the previous five years it was $202,222,106 worth of traded products against $316,207,925 of the produce of English industry. The statistics of the port of Liverpool show an annual average of $127,395,810 in re-exports against $682,599,168 of English products in the latter five-year period and $98,526,556 in re-exports against $692,964,494 direct exports in the preceding five-year period. London's re-exports rose in value from 63.9 per cent to 64.1 per cent of the exports. Liverpool's rose from 14.2 per cent to 18.6 per cent. "The trade figures of the German Empire do not give such details as do the British statistics. But the "special" exports are ordinarily subtracted from the general to give German re-exports. There are also special imports. German statistics for 1907-1911 show average yearly re-export trade of $153,672,832, against general exports of $1,841,373,792 and a total commerce of $4,086,820,058. In the 1902-6 period it was 1 This publication of the National City Bank of New York through various articles has contributed to the literature on this subject and throughout this discussion we have freely drawn from this valuable source. |