The Washington weekly post., 1899-06-20
The Attack On Admiral Walker.

he EtEdSE on AOHllfcl nofkSf
We are in receipt OF the advance proof
of an article soon TO appear In Engineer
ing News. Of New york-an article which
deals with the question OF the Nicaragua
Canal and the commission recently ap-
pointed to make full and complete in
yestigatiOn Of any and all practical routes
for a canal across the Isthmus OF Panama
to determine the most feasible and prae-
teal route across said isthmus for
canal together with the cost Of construct
ing same and placing It under the con-
troll management, and ownership OF the
United States"
A glance at the matter thus submitted
shows that it contains a compact and
most lucid resume Of the past history Of
the canal enterprise, together with
rather hopeful forecast of the future.
There is one feature, however, which we
do not clearly understand and as 20
which, we are quite sure, the public
viii ask for further light:
Concerning the improperly of reap
pointing Messrs Walker and H3upt as
members OF this new commission, We
expressed our frank opinion in our issue
o. March =, when we showed in detail
the partisan attitude which Prof. Haupt
had displayed from the outset of his con-
nection with the old commission, and the
evidence that Admiral Walker was Ike
wise untitled TO render competent ana
impartial opinion upon the difficult ques-
tions at issue. We have seen no reason
to modify in any way the statements
which we then made public. On the
contrary. the recent published utterances
of Prof Haupt since his appointment TO
the new commission, which we have re-
produced below. have added emphasis 20
the opinions which we then expressed.
AT the same time ii is true that
Messrs Walker and Haupt form so small
a minority in this new commission that
they can hardly lead 1t far astray in its
final conclusions"
It Is not difficult to enter into our con-
temporary's objections to Prof Haupt
That gentleman has publicly branded
the commission as the instrument Of a
fixed policy of procrastination. He says
that the first Walker commission spent
two years and a lot of money" and
made an elaborate report which nobody
has ever seen and which, he intimates,
would explain the inaction and delay.
He adds. Furthermore, that the new
commission will follow In its predeces-
would be out of place. Indeed, we hard
~ see how a man holding such views
could consistently accept the appoint
ment. What we do not understand, how
ever. is the assertion that Admiral Walk
er is untitled TO render competent and
impartial opinion" The article refers to
some past declaration on this point. but
as we have never seen or heard of Il. and
as the proof now before US contains no
suggestion as to its character we are
left wholly in the dark. Such a condem-
nation, however, seems to require further
and more explicit statement Ad-
miral Walker occupies a very high
position in the official world. He
exceptional ability in his profession, and
this charge, vague and indefinite as it is.
though, of course, injuriously intended,
viii come to the country in the nature of
surprise.
Engineering News disposes, somewhat
contemptuously, of Prof Haupt's argu-
ment that powerful influences, foreign
and domestic. are at work to hinder any,
thing like a practical Inauguration Of
canal-building in Nicaragua Our con-
temporary's hypothesis is that foreign
intrigue would amount TO nothing with
Congress, even if the attempt were made.
and that the talk about transcontinentaI
railroad opposition is all moonshine. 1t
asserts. moreover, that the Maritime
Canal Company has made its last Sight
and. although it was at one time power
ful TO obstruct it is so no longer. All of
which is easy to believe. But if such be
the case, what does Engineering News
mean by attacking Admiral Walker and
insisting that he is an unfit member of
the commission? We should really like
to know.