The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1879-06-09
Not Pleasing to National Pride.

The American members OF tho Inter-
oceanic Canal Congress will return from
Paris crcstfallcn. If they went thithcr to
shear, they will come back shorn. By over
whclmiug majoritics the elaborate surveys
conducted by our naval officers were sue
ccssivcly rejected, and the route of the
French explorer, Lieut.. WysE, somewhat
modified. was chosen and ratified.
Five surveys for the purpose, 10y our navy,
were laid before the Congress through
BcGr-Ad.niral ANMgS. One Of them was
the survey Of the lsthmus of Tchuantepcc
by Commodore II. T. SHUFELDT; second,
the definite location ~ n Nicaragua ship
canal, with several tentative lines, 10y Com
mandcr LULL, aided 10y Engineer MESocAL,
also of the navy; n third, the location OF a
ship canal between Aspinwall and Panama,
including "A feeder; fourth, the elaborate
surveys Of Commander SELFRIDGE, be-
tween the Gulf Of San Bias and the
mouth OF the Atrato River on the Atlantic
side, and the Gulf OF San Miguel and the
mouth of the Bayamo or Chepo River on the
Pacific coast, and along both the Atrato
and Napipi rivers, forming what is known
MS the Atrato-Napipi route; a fifth, II
terminating like the other at Chr-chiri,
by Lieut.. COLLINS of the navy.
The Commission which had had these and
other plans under consideration was up
pointed over seven years ago by GRANT, and
consisted OF the Chief OF Engineers of the
army, the Superintendent OF the Coast Sur
vey, and the Chief OF Navigation Of the
navy 1t incubated on its report n long
time. and after It was made in 1876, the
Atrato-Napipi route was rcGxamincd care
fully. With all this elaborate preparation,
its views have been set aside at Paris, and
the variety Of routes II offered did not in
cude the one selected by the Congress
Even the line from Aspinwall TO Panama
examined by the American officers and
Commission in 1875, was not the tide-water,
sca-level, Panama and Llmon Bay plan
actually adopted by the Congress; and such
as it was the route had been examined,
during the LULL survey, only TO be con-
demned in favor Of the Nicaragua route.
Thus, Admiral AMMENs address TO the Con-
gress, contrasting the two routes, used the
following emphatic language regarding the
Panama route:
"A dry exists but 1t is limited to two three
months cssening eUccuve LABOR and OF
parauve hcahfulness OF the aboers employed the wet
being the sickly season.
no building maternal suitable is known IN hatregion
The and railroad telegraph poles the Panama Rat
road are brought from Carthagena or elsewhere
The population is in enor to Nicaragua and the
country ability TO furnish subsistence for arge
Der Of laborerA
The cost OF the feeder and adunet well as other
disadvantages nowith the shortnes the line.
shown by maps plans and estimates, make total OF
sei5l 500 against those OF the Nicaragua
s5 ~. 1877 basis Of cost II material and
labor when in Nicaragua the material Is At hand.
and subsistence abundant and the Panama route or
in its region. there is material for construction,
inferior subsistence. and less favorable climatic con.
diuons for labor, As before stated"
Whether the Congress decided wisely or
not is matter for scientific research and
practical experience yet to determine. But
It is perhaps not surprising that, when our
American delegates, who, by dint Of n great
| outlay OF time, money, and labor, joined h.
the natural weight due TO American in
| nuence from the proximity Of the United
States to the isthmus, had felt themselves
almost masters OF the situation. yet saw
themselves overwhelmingly in the minority,
Commander SELPRTDGE found 1t convenient
TO be absent at the final decision, and Rear
Admiral AMNES, who was present, refused
| Ia vota