The age-herald., 1900-10-07
ADDITIONAL FACTS CONCERNING
 THE GREAT NICARAGUA CANAL

found one naval lieutenant opposed to the canal. On urging him to candidly state his reason for this opposition, he at first stated
 his reason was personal one and like our friends not made on very broad lines He finally admitted that he opposed canal because if we do not have one we shall need two navies, one on each side or the continent more naval officers would be
 necessary and his promotion would ensue
 much more rapidly! Although at first sur priSed at this view of the case l thanked him for his friendly candor, and replied | that his argument as a personal one was on sound basis; much more so than the railway magnates who oppose the canal on the erroneous ground that their overland railways will be injured thereby when challenge anyone to cite an instonce where l any canal has not benefited the railways nearest thereto: notably the St. Mary's and Erie canals in our own country. Our friend starts with the assumption l that the canal is to be constructed for the purpose of making money. This I deny in toto. The United States government will build a canal on a broader and more bene- ficent basis, for the political and military safety of our country, for the development of It's commerce and industries and to se- cure short cheap water route to and from our Pacific ocean possessions. The Suez Canal which cost ninety-four millions was built to make money and earns II to 70
 
 per ton, whereas our government could not charge over one dollar per ton when the Nicaragua Canal Is opened and when It's traffic increases, probably half dollar per ton Will pay cost of maintenance and leave
 small per centage for a sinking fund. Secondly, he states the canal will have
 no business when first opened. Why not? Will freight continue to prefer ten
 thousand miles greater distance around
 Cape Horn or higher Panama Railway route and overland railway charges? The business of the canal will come from new interests which 1t will develop and from ether routes which cannot compete with it in rates.
 Third he asserts that 1t will cost no less than $1500O0,000. How much the canal will cost depends upon Its capacity and its honest construction. Since the Maritime Canal Company figured on $s0,0S4,176 for 2S foot canal, the majority report of the United States Commission has increased the possible cost, including 20 per cent contingency to SIS, 790 for a canal two
 feet deeper and much wider, with dupli- cate locks of increased size. But experts who have investigated the question have no fear of financial results even at the
 cost of one hundred and fifty millions. Fourth deny that 1t will be much more expensive than the Suez Canal, which needs constant dredging to keep 1t from hlling with desert sands, as against the nominal cost of operating modern locks at Nicaragua, proof of which we have in the cost of lockage at the Saint Mary's Cana,. Neither Is there apprehension of difficulty in water control at Nicaragua. Nature has provided against this as any canal engineer who has examinel the route can prove. An abundance of fresh water under absolute control is the striking advantage devel- oped at Nicaragua, as against the Suez Canal built through irreclaimable sand desert, constantly encroaching upon it and necessitating constant dredging. But I may remark that the Suez Canal with an expensive staff expends only S1h per cent of gross receipts for management while the cheapest and most efficient railway in the United States uses AT per cent of gross receipts for operating expenses, and many of our railways between 50 and 60 per cent. This Is one of several reasons why canal can afford 10 carry cheaper than any rail- way; 1t has practically no wear and tear and no depreciation to contend with.
 Examining carefully the animus of the paper l find only two main points to con- test. First: The Nicaragua Canal will d- vert commerce from San Francisco and other Pacific coast ports. Second: It is Outrageous and ineXcusable' that the gov ernment shall create a competing route which will injure railways overland which 1t has already aided in construction Hav ing reasoned from a fallacious standpoint the conclusions are without foundation and the last one entirely regardless of the na- tional and public interest. That the Nica- ragua canal will divert maritime con- merce from San Francisco and other Pa cific coast ports is fallacy based upon the proposition that, with the advantage of 5000 miles of navigation and canal toll in their favor the merchants of Pacific coast ports will be unable to compete with their Atlantic coast and European rivals. Such proposition implies an incompetency which 1 am not disposed to admit. It is a fallacy for another reason connected with navigation. A steamship from Hong Kong to the western terminus of the Nicaragua Canal and vice versa, only increases her distance by calling at San Francisco twen- ty miles; from Yokohama ninety miles.
 The steam route from Yokohama to Brito (western terminus of the canaD via Hono- lulu (practioally on thumb lne) is 374 miles longer and from Hong Kong 367 miles longer. These two most important ports il- lustrate the same fact as appncable to all other Asatic ports within the distance of attraction of the canal, the divisional line of which from the United States Atlantic coast is at Singapore. The carriage of fuel being a serious factor in steamsip expense, and San Francisco being practically half way port on run of over 10000 miles 1t must become a port of call for coal and freight, for all steamships in the Atlantic Asiatic trade, unless such special limited
 business offers at Hawaii as will induce
 them to navigate nearly four hundred miles
 additional. Under these conditions these
 steamships will often handle California
 freights to be discharged and replaced
 with a second freight for the Atlantic or
 for Asiatic ports, while coaling. The in-
 creased tonnage using Pacific coast ports
 for this reason will cheapen freights and add greatly to the business of its ports. It cannot be claimed that steamers will pre- fer the longest route. Even between New York and Europe, where the shortest Cor great circle" route) infringes upon Cape Race, the transatlantic steamers run that
 dangerous. foggy and iceberg line, in pref erence to the longer thumb line further south, to save a much less distance, and they will certainly do the Pacific where the saving Is much greater. I beg attention to the subjoned third table of
 distances proving the assertions above
 madt.
 That the canal will divert some overland
 trade form the railways is an indisputable
 conditions. But there will arise with this