acquisition of approximately 860 acres in the city of Elizabeth, adjoining the airport and south of the Essex County line. The proposal also contemplated the construction and provision of the necessary Dassenger terminals, hangars, and other facilities.

An analysis was included of future aircraft movements. It supported the conclusion that, if the Newark city officials wished the city o maintain its place as a center of air commerce, a major construcion program and a heavy expenditure would be required. It agreed ith the conclusion of the Bartholomew report that a major air erminal was needed for the service of the air passengers and cargo f northern New Jersey and to maintain the important position of New ersey in the transportation picture of the air age.

A critical problem in the development of Newark Airport was the haracter of the terrain upon which it was built. The original runays constructed by the city were built upon filled marshland which ad not been stabilized against the soft, sinking meadowmat undering them. These runways had been subject to severe settlement. he ultimate runways required for the kind of airport development e city commissioners were considering would need extensive subil treatment and consolidation so that the new runways would have lid footing.

We advised them that such a new airport would involve a capital st of approximately $50 million.

You gentlemen may have noted that I said the port authority's port referred to the airport facilities "as they stand today"; that to say, as of the time of the 1946 report. The records show that he airport comprised 1,300 acres at the time the city of Newark irned it over to the Air Force in December 1941. In March 1948, hen the port authority finally went into possession under the airport greement, the city then had 1,400 acres devoted to airport purposes. Inder the agreement, the port authority was obligated to increase the creage to 2,300, and that was finally accomplished in 1951.

The widest public discussion and the intensive consideration of the unicipal authorities, civic groups, and individual citizens were iven to the port-authority proposal to the Commissioners of the City f Newark. The official presentation of the proposal to the commisoners of the city was attended not only by the commissioners of the ort authority but by the representatives of municipal and civic roups of both Newark and Elizabeth. The hearing room was crowdd. In the open meeting, the mayor of the city of Newark said reading]:

This is a serious and an important decision that the board of commissioners s being called upon to make, and I believe that copies of this proposal should e made available to our planning board, our complete Citizens Committee en 'lanning, our business interests, our veterans, labor, civic, fraternal, and soial groups, to any and all groups or any individual citizen who may desire copy of this report, and I think a reasonable period of time should be given to them to study this proposal

said the mayor

then this board of commissioners can set a date for final action by the Board of Commissioners of Newark.

Then he said:

I understand that the Port of New York Authority has had several thousand copies of this proposal printed. They have been made available to anyone

23336-53-14

who desires a copy. I also understand that they will be glad to appear before any group to explain the proposal as much in detail as is possible.

In submitting the proposal, Commissioner Pope, speaking for the port authority, said in part:

Coming before you this morning with this plan, we are unanimous. We have one objective. We have one point of view. So that, although the commissioners of the Port of New York Authority are appointed by the governors of these neighboring States, I remind you that they have, and always have had, only one responsibility, and that is the development of this port area for the benefit of the people who lie within it. As you have suggested, Mr. Mayor, some months have passed since you asked us to study the question. We have studied it with great care. We have had the best advice with respect to traffic, with respect to the future, with respect to costs, with respect to all of the problems that enter into such a development. We believe the plan that we are putting before you is economically sound and offers the utmost in development that is reasonably possible to make within the next few years if you will take full advantage of the opportunity that this presents for this area.

In the period following this submission-that is, the submission of this proposal to the city of Newark, to the date of the execution of the lease over a year later, October 22, 1947-all aspects of this proposal were submitted to searching public scrutiny, both offical and unoffical

To cite only several examples, on August 1 it was presented to the Central Planning Board of Newark; on August 2 to the Ironbound Manufacturers Association of Newark and the board of directors of the Broad Street and Merchants Association of Newark; on August 5th to the Newark Chamber of Commerce, and on August 5th also, in the evening, to the Elizabeth City Council.

At that time the major considerations were the financial proposals Commissioner Ellenstein, who appeared before this committee, argued that the proposal should be rejected on the grounds that it did not include a high enough monetary return to the city of Newark. Bj resolution of September 17, 1946, therefore, the Board of Commission ers of the City of Newark accordingly rejected the port authority proposal for the purchase of these terminal facilities.

A counteroffer involving a substantially greater purchase price wa put forward by the city, thereafter reviewed by the port-authority commissioners, and rejected by them on September 26, 1936, as eco nomically impractical.

A negotiating committee was then named to explore all possibl avenues of financial compromise. Commissioner Ellenstein was on of the representatives of the city of Newark on this committee. Thus in addition to the original port-authority proposal of July 31, 1946) there were three formal communications, dated September 9, 1946) January 7, 1947, and May 21, 1947, respectively, from the port author ity to the city of Newark, outlining alternative proposals for discus

sion.

On June 13, 1947, I wrote a letter to Commissioner Ellenstein, the introductory paragraph of which will indicate to the committee the extent and thoroughness of the discussions of these airport plans be tween the Commissioners of the City of Newark and the commissioners of the port authority.

That paragraph is as follows:

MY DEAR COMMISSIONER ELLENSTEIN: At the meeting of the negotiating committee on Tuesday, June 3, 1947, you presented 18 questions with respect to the port authority's proposal for the development and operation of the Newark marine and air terminals. These were answered orally during the course of that meet

ing. As you requested, however, I am submitting on behalf of our special committee, Commissioners Howard R. Cruse and Bayard F. Pope, the following written replies.

Instead of reading the entire letter, the full text of this letter is submitted as an exhibit.

Mr. KLEIN. The letter from the port authority to Commissioner Ellenstein will be received in evidence and marked "Exhibit PA-2A." (The item referred to was marked "Exhibit PA-2A" and made a part of the committee files.)

Mr. TOBIN. So, too, at another one of the many meetings between the commissioners of the city and the commissioners of the port authority on July 9, 1947, at which were present Commissioners Ellenstein, Villani, Keenan, and Brady of the city of Newark, and Commissioners Byrne, Pope, Cruse, Moran, Abell, and Lowe of the port authority, the following very interesting and pertinent questions and answers appear in the record. It was submitted in writing by Commissioner Ellenstein and his associates, and I quote:

Will the port authority agree that all plane take-off paths shall be south in the direction of Elizabeth at all times?

And the port authority's answer was:

The port authority has no authority over aircraft in flight, and obviously cannot agree to any restriction on the traffic pattern serving the airport. However, it is agreeable to using its best efforts at all times to minimize any annoyance caused to residents of the surrounding area by aircraft in flight.

Typical points of view during the course of this public discussion which was published by the Newark Civic Association and others will give the committee a further picture of the public debate.

For example, on October 4, 1946, the Broad Street and Merchants Association of Newark, N. J., issued a special bulletin in which it said:

It is superfluous to reiterate that this proposal is far too important for the city of Newark to drop without the Commissioners showing a willingness to negotiate face-to-face with the members of the port atuhority. It is gratifying to note that three city commissioners favor a conference.

The same association, on August 12, 1946, had written to the Board of Commissioners of the City of Newark, and I quote:

Newark is on the direct line of flight to all the important centers of this country and the world. The airliners will go over Newark, anyway. It would be criminally short-sighted to keep them from making Newark a main center by failing to provide the facilities needed. Only a body with the experience, the same standing and the fund-raising ability of the port authority can handle the situation.

The report of the Port Newark subcommittee of the citizens advisory planning board of the city of Newark, dated August 15, 1946— and I offer that as an exhibit-in part emphasized:

We believe that Newark will remain a busy and prosperous industrial city only so long as the transportation value of the city is supreme in the area. A well-rounded transportation program must include the air and sea, as well as rail and highway. Both our airport and seaport are necessary to a prosperous Newark, and because the location and traffic of these facilities are so completely integrated with the Newark-New York metropolitan area, it becomes of vital importance that they be under some regional control, so that the maximum of coordination with all other facilities in the area can be attained.

Mr. KLEIN. The report of the Port Newark subcommittee of the citizens advisory committee to the central planning board of the city

of Newark, dated August 15, 1946, will be received in evidence and marked as "Exhibit PA-3."

(The item referred to was marked "Exhibit PA-3" and made a part of the committee files.)

Mr. TOBIN. A resolution was adopted recommending:

That the offer submitted to the city of Newark by the Port of New York Authority be accepted in full.

Another point of view was that of the New Jersey Industrial Traffic League, which, on October 10, 1946, wrote to the Newark city commissioners stating that it was their considered opinion that—

Present conditions in the airport, and even more the seaport, seriously merit expedited negotiations with the port authority, with an eye to almost immediate action so as to afford comparatively prompt improvement of the more aggravated physical conditions. It is our thought, as transportation men, that perhaps the city commissioners, in their commendable efforts to secure the most favorable terms for the city, are forgetting, or at least overlooking, the fundamental purpose of the two facilities involved, namely, to provide adequate transportation services for the present and future needs of the area served.

The position of the Chamber of Commerce of the City of Newark was expressed in its letter of August 16, 1946, to the commissioners of the city. It strongly recommended the adoption of the port authority's proposal. I offer that letter as an exhibit.

Mr. KLEIN. The chamber of commerce letter to the city of Newark dated August 16, 1946, will be received in evidence and marked "Exhibit PA-4."

(The item referred to was marked "Exhibit PA-4" and made a part of the committee files.)

Mr. TOBIN. The magnitude of the problem presented to the city of Newark, i. e., whether or not to have a major air terminal within its city limits operated and developed by the port authority, coupled with the protracted period of public debate and consideration of the conflicting viewpoints, made the lease proposed by the port authority the center of controversy.

Interestingly enough, this controversy concerned itself with whether or not the city would obtain from the port authority a satisfactory financial arrangement. The opposition, led by Commissioner Ellenstein, circulated and published numerous and extensive written statements highly critical of the proposal. The basic ground of this opposition was the contention that the port authority's guaranteed rental of $100,000 per year was unsatisfactory, that the lease provisions for the payment to Newark of 75 percent of the annual revenue after payment of operating expenses and debt service charge was illusory. and that the port authority proposal did not assume payment of the debt previously incurred by the city for the construction of the Newark marine and air terminals. Both of these were the principal grounds of opposition.

Commissioner Ellenstein circulated petitions which, had they been effective, would have required a municipal referendum on proposed ordinances, the effect of which would have been to prevent the sale or lease of the Newark terminal properties for less than a guaranteed minimal annual rental of $750,000.

Finally, however, the negotiating committee arrived at an acceptable leasing arrangement, the essential basis of which was completely worked out by July 9, 1947.

I should like to say something at this time about the public support of the development of Newark Airport and Seaport by the port authority. So voluminous was the press in unanimously urging the port authority development of Newark Airport and Seaport, that some of the clippings from October 1945 through February 1947 literally fill a book. Without taking the time of this committee, I will introduce in the record a collection of this unanimous opinion of the press advocating the port authority's development of the Newark Airport and Seaport. The clippings are from practically every newspaper area within the environs of the airport. To mention but a few: Newark Evening News, Newark Star-Ledger, Newark Sunday Call, Newark Sunday News, Newark Sunday Star-Ledger, New York Times, New York Herald-Tribune, Hudson Dispatch, Elizabeth Daily Journal, Jersey Observer, the Jersey Journal, Atlantic City Press, Trenton Evening Times, Bergen Evening Record, the Nutley Sun and Herald-News.

in an

This unanimous public support of the proposal continued right up to the signing of the agreement in October 1947.

I offer the volume of clippings as an exhibit.

Mr. KLEIN. The clippings, which are bound in two parts, will be received in evidence and marked "Exhibit PA-5."

(The items referred to were marked "Exhibit PA-5" and made a part of the committee files.)

Mr. TOBIN. So, too, the plans and activities of the port authority were acclaimed by the press after the signing of the agreement in October 1947, which agreement I offer as an exhibit.

Mr. KLEIN. The agreement will be received in evidence and marked "Exhibit PA-6."

(The item referrd to was markd "Exhibit PA-6 and made a part of the committee files.)

Mr. TOBIN. The agreement with respect to the Newark marine and air terminals of October 22, 1947, was thus not adopted by the city commission on the basis of either private or hurried action. The terms and details of this contract were worked and reworked in the period between the submission of the original port authority proposal on July 31, 1946, and the final adoption of the negotiated lease on October 22, 1947.

To ascertain as fully as possible the views of its electorate, the Newark city commissioners held public hearings on October 15 and 16, 1947, with respect to the merits of the port authority proposal. The opponents were allowed the entire day of October 15, 1947, to present their views, while the proponents were allowed the entire day of October 16, 1947. Some 31 persons appeared in opposition. I have a record of those who appeared in opposition, which I would like to offer as an exhibit.

Mr. KLEIN. The list of opponents will be received in evidence and marked "Exhibit PA-7."

(The item referred to was marked "Exhibit PA-7" and made a part of the committee files.)

Mr. TOBIN. Of those, 12 were individual taxpayers. Sixteen others in attendance opposed, but did not desire to be heard.

On the other hand, a very large list of proponents appeared at the hearings, numbering over 300, most of whom represented large groups