San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1889-10-11
PANAMA AND NICARAGUA.

| PANAMA AND NICARAGUA.
With the presence in this country
of the representatives in attendance
upon the American international con-
gress, interest naturally centers
around the efforts being made in MIC
aragua to open communication across
| the isthmus. There does not appear
to be the utmost faith in the outcome
of that canal project, and there is no
doubt that the reckless expenditure
and abortive efforts at Panama have
prepared many to look with suspicion
on the efforts being made at Nicara-
qua. Nj. de Lesseps had led the world
to anticipate great results from his
Panama scheme, having so signally
succeeded with the Suez canal. The
disappointment is all the more keen
on that account, and the expenditure
of $3.50, 100000 at Panama with in,
Cured obligations of$45O, 900, 900 more
with nothing to show for it save
dredging and buildings, has led to a
disbelief in the completion of that
work which, quite logically as it
would seem, carries with it disbelief
in the accomplishment of the work at
Nicaragua. Why this is so does not APP
pear, and there is certainly no logical
connection between the failure at
Panama and an anticipated failure at
Nicaragua. The ability and scien-
tific attachments of the great French
engineer are cited, and the deduction
drawn that because his Panama canal
project has aborted, the American
work at Nicaragua must also prove
failure. This method of unreasOn has
no good basis. Lessup at Panama
seems to have been seized with a spir-
it of recklessness never before dis
played by him, and it may well be
questioned if time and previous sue
cess have not impaired his Judgment
and voided his mind of that clear per-
ception necessary to carry forward
so vast a project as he
has undertaken on the American 18TH
mus. This supposition is strength
ened by the fact that he spent $780,
OOO, 900 before he had taken an accur-
ate topographic and photographic
survey of his proposed route and had
ascertained his land and
water levels. Taking this as a fair
sample of his unscientific and reckless
methods, it does not seem logical to
predicate failure at Nicaragua, be-
cause of failure under such unwise
procedures at Panama.
The work at Nicaragua has been
II 70 L
and hap-hazard way. The engineers
in charge of this work report most
careful photographic and topographic |
matters of cost, including eXcava-
tions, masonry, etc. This estimated
cost is placed at So, ZOO, 900 for the en-
tire work, and because Lessup by his
recklessness expended 500, 900, 900 at
Panama the conclusion is jumped at
that S65 900, 900 must necessarily be a
very nconsiderable proportion of the
amount that will be expended, and
prophecies of failure are made, pre-
dictated it would seem on no good
ground. In fact the only ground adj
duced for such prophecy of failure is
the result at Panama. Let the
prophets of failure show good ground
for the predictions. Why attempt to
discredit so necessary work and one
so important to the commerce Of this
nation on an unwarrautable assump-
ton? What reason have these dis
couragers to affirm that the surveys
and estimates have not been accur-
ately made? Have they sources of
information not opened to the country
at large? If so, let the data be forth
coming, and let the public know on
what grounds the failure and final
abandonment of the work is predict
ed. Rivil schemes OF canal and ship |
railway projects may have something
70 do with this attempt to discred,t
the Nicaragua work, but such
considerations as these should not
be allowed TO prejudice the country
again st the prosecution of work
which, if successfully carried out,
will so greatly facilitate our CONNER
cial exchanges with both the old and
the pew world a work, which for
all that has so far been demonstrated
to the contrary, promises success,
and in the success Of which this ma
ton will reap for all its outlay an
hundred fold.