Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1901-11-30
HIT ON CANAL REPORT.
Reasons Why the Commission FG-
yOrs Nicaragua Route

Beasous Why the Commission FG-
vors Nicaragua Route.
rroDsis Of the report of the 18TH
canal commission gives the com
bas reasons for selecting the Me
route in preference to the Pan
route 1t says that the Panama
alone is feasible for a sea level
although both are entirely practi-
and feasible for a canal with locks.
time required to complete a sea
canal on the Panama route, prob
more than twice that needed to
a canal with locks, excludes it from
&abIe consideration aside from other
Tres of its construction.
tn an adequate force and plant the
mission estimates that the Nicaragua
can be completed in four years.
Indicates, under reasonable allow
for ordinary delays, that if the
and plant are available to secure a
tcg.y concurrent execution of all
io1s Of the work on the route the
petlon Of the entire work might be
fed within six years after its begin
exclusive of the two years esdmat-
or the period of preparation.
be greatest single feature of work on
Panama route is the excavation III
CglebTa section, amounting to about
0O0O cubic yards Of hard clay, much
FAIco IS classel as soft rock. 1t Is
Hnated that this cut can be completed
eight years exclusive of a two-year
81 od for preparation.
8he report goes on to say: "a canal by
u Panama route will be simply n means
e communicating between the two
s@e1S. The Nicaragua route, on the
p hand, would bring Nicaragua and
FTSe portion Of Costa Rica and other
Rra. American States into close and
~ communication with the United
etes and with Europe"
4Ae report also points out differences
kA!SeDe conditions existing along the
EIdSua and Panama routes and makes
sCe2r that in this respect owing to
rs population the Nicaragua route is
Rl1 more preferable than the Panama
Rte.
pae total length Of the Nicaragua route
Pn sea to sea is 1886 miles, while
\ '',al length Of the Panama route is
+ miles. The length in standard canal
I"01S ana in harbor entrances is 1913
pes LOT the Nicaragua route and 36.41
Tie Panama route.
l1e estimated cost Of construction Of
,, yenal on the Nicaragua route Is S45,-
''4 more than Of completing the Pan
ID canal, emitting the cost of acquiring
, latter property.
,Ae estimated annual cost of maintain
al ana operating the Nicaragua canal Is
0','VVJ greater than the correspond
charges for the Panama canal. The
.~S,ed time for a deep-drafa vessel to
y through Is about twelve hours for
1"1l2 and thirty-three hours for Mic
qua
~9 coss Of constructing a canal by the
.1'aS02 route and of completing the
1"ma canal, without including the cost
acquiring the concessions from the
e'e2t governments, Is estimated as
SNas1a Observation-Disclosures, 1854, 062
-1~12 '',.............. 144, 233, 35S
u the proper comparison there must
4~0e1 to the Panama route the cost
acquiring the rights and property Of
ne" Panama Canal Company. The
'"~SS.on has estimated the value of
se ana the project recommended by it
H4o000,000.
lie report says that the French Pan
Company asks S109,141, 800 for Its
perry and concessions. This, added
le cost Of completing the work, makes
VINO. Ios. cost of canal by the Panama
,e S-oo'8I4,S5S, while the cost by the
aEasus route is S1S9, 1854, O62. a differ
OF S63,o1O,796 in favor of the Mic
qua route,