The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-02-18
THE NICARAGUA
CANAL MEASURE E !! S
Favorable Report Submitted on the
Hepburn Bill.
ESTIMATES OF COST VARY.
The Estimated Receipts From the
Canal Would Amount to at Least
$6,OOO.OOO Annualiy-t;onsent
ofNicara.ua and Costa Eica.
ESTIMATES OF COST VARY.

report says in part:
"If the provisions of the bill can be
carried out the United states will, within
a few years Qrom six to elshV' DC III
full ownership and control OF 4 water
way connecting the oceans; that II can
defend and that it can use in the IN
terosts of its navy and its merchant
marine as wisdom may dictate.
There seems to be put ilttle uouo.
that the States Of Nicaragua and Costa
Rica will give their coiissr
construction OF this great Work.
After Reviewing, the several surveys,
the report continues: ~,
"rhese reports above referred TO- tlle
opinions of the engineers ana scAen'iets'
believed to be entirely co1npeteil Aoi
their work. justify your coinln''eee .n
recommending the undertaking u the
enterprise as one that IS en'lrels ~
ticable, and that can De co4Npi
Il sum of money, tne
which will be wise.
~ ic ,rue that the estimates OF cost
are variable, ranging as they 40 lon -.
less than $i0900,0o9 to- a possiole Siso, ,,
p1U.00p 1t is, however, proper ~ sJ
that the size and character " 't 49,
ostimated for is us variable as IS the
cost. Fifteen feet depth anu ~
width was the size OF the eailiei p -.
rrhirtv feet depth and one huhuieo hee.
width are the dimensions
proposed canal. ,rIo&
..your committee suggests, IN US,
GUESSING the cash remuneration tlaI W.
come to the United States l'oill
ownership OF this canal est'ii"'e ~
can be made. ;,b tho Mari
Gentlemen connected WIN thoir
time Canal Company gave II as -
opinion that five or SIX hiii''on, would
mage would be the amount
mass the canal annually. 49,, Toll
i'N','' rason+ s.53 per ton is the 'o!i
,.,,oad for the use Of the Suez c''iiat
II.,sat ratc was the rate charged az nc
,-;aa,.,,,,,, canal, and four mlIlloi'9 "
40 tonnage passing through ~ COO o5s
.o,ota sum of more IMAM so'9o';;".II
,.on,d be the receipts. 1t IS ese
+hot the cost of maintaining az az: Eol-
otinc the canal would De one 'i'''1
lars annually ro I'M, there
l,1rher of persons who claim ~
- CONCESSIONS from the government
40 >-;corar,1a. and Costa Flea, lh'eat,'7
men, with rights TO naEiSa'e .,c
nav River and Lake Nicaragua. NC
| claim to be authorized 10 cons NO
creaf waterway connecting INC
oceans. but it is believed pE E'u -
,n,rtee that these rlGAls 10 or
! lapsed or are of lncohsAu .;,,s mr.
nnya been obtained Tor specuia .iEe ~"
,,oeac however this may ne, IL SHo"'s,
- .,,a ,,,,rnnse Of the government 10 us'''
| JSrocTl1- with the governments OIL 1'te'-
rog,ia. and Costa RIGA; those soEeA -,
can adjust all questions CROWNS o"'
| these concessions much easier Ina" "
| United States. . v,r,d.s
| I'VE want our share oil thc 80.
! commerce. and TO secure it We must IA We
all the utilities that are poss.D'e ~,
| we expect to get our share WITHOUT i
| struggle.
| ."rnere is now the most intense riVaiTy
| for mis- commerce on the part OF CONNER
| clal nations and our rivals VIII use az
| nolitical and commercial influences, anu
| diplomacy without its arts ana Inetaci'S
! phrases TO drive us out OF the he!u.
| .srhcre are persons who say we ara
| bound nv treaty. stipulations with the
| government of Great Britain TO refrain
| from carving out this great enterprise.
| Iris statement we do not believe we
| recognize the fact that 80 years ago Inc
| United States and Great Britain entered
| into an alliance to secure the building OF
| the Nicaragua Canal. Any person VINO
! dispassionately studies carefully that
(
| the primary s;ipulattons IN the Clayton
| Bu!wcr Convention looked to the iinIne-
! diate building OF Il canal under the in
| fiuence that might be eNerted by the two
! governments rather than a prohibition
| TO either to build IT,
| After quoting the treaty the report goes
! on:
| mo one can read that article without
I concluding that the Nicaragua Canal con-
{ 1a~t1 inc p1T ty
| be completed through the kindly aid of
, the two governments. Great Britain has
| allowed 30 years to elapse without any
! movement on her part to carry out the
| provisions of that article. 1t has been o
! dead letter from the day the treaty was
! signed to the present time.
| The last fifty years has wrought re-
| markabe change in our relation to a
| waterway crossing the sthmus; 1850 was
only four years removed from our first
| occupation of California; not more than
| l0,0G0 inhabitants were on the Pacific
| coast. Our trade coastw!se with that
| coast was insignificant in value and
| amount. Now have millions of citi-
! zers living on that coast. We have hun
dreds of millions of commerce.: we have
| tens of millions Of wealth; we have ac-
CURED Alaska, Hawaii, the Philippine
| Islands. There Is no comparison between
| the meagre interests OF nifty years ago
| and the colossal interests of to-day.
NEW CONDITIONS.
1.-The situation has so changed. the in
| tercsts of our people now and then are
so diverse. that the necessity of respond
ing to these changed conditions are SO
| Overwhelming that the more serious OF
| those who lead in the formation Of the
| worlds judgment would say that our
present action must be in harmony with
| these new conditions rather than the
old. There is a law Of seif-preservation
that should control the action of COM
| munities no less than of individuals.
! 'Irrepealable statutes are not tolerated
| Even the most solemnly-enacted leSls!a-
| tons must give way to the demands of
| the later generations when 1t is found
| that their provisions are harmful to the
| public welfare, and we know of no other
form of enactment having ssanctity above
! law and legislation that the ovcrwhelm-
Ing needs of the people, may not with
J consistency and morality demand the re-
peal Of
The report quotes Professor Lawrence
I in .Principles of International Law,
| where he discusses the extent to which