Arizona republican., 1902-02-11

! A great many lamercans-pcrhap. .t majority-are so constituted in tenn ! perament that they | EITHER feel compelled to | ROUTE take sides on all SATISFACTORY. qu stion with i which they are fa-
 miliar. Accordingly, there is much more ! excitement and emphatic language [ than the facts call fer concerning the respective merits of the Nicaragua and
 Panama canal routes. From the best evidence at hand it appears that con-
 gTess will make no serious mistake if it chooses either route. With a handicap of $40.0GO, ,0G0 for the initial cost of the { Panama works. it seems that there is
 not a great deal of room for deciding between the two. This view is borne
 out by the most conservative experts. and in support of the theory that the United States cannot go far astray in constructing a canal ever either route, Mr. William H. Burr, a. member O; the
 isthmian canal commission, makes a
 notable contribution to the litcra ature on the subect in the current number of
 Scribners Magazine. According to Mir. Burr. both routes are entirely practic- able and feasible"
 1 Neither route has any material com . mercial advantage over the other as to
 time. although the distance between our Atlantic GncIuding gulO and Pa
 cific ports is less by the Nicar2gua route.
 The Panama route is about one fourth the length of that in Nicaragua: ! it has less locks. less elevat tion of sum
 mit-level, and far less curvature, all contributing to correspondingIy de- creased risks peculiar to the passage through q canal. The estimated annual cost of operation and maintenance ot the Panama route is but six-tenths { that for the Nicaragua route.
 The harbor features may be made adequate for all the needs of q canal
 by either route, with such little pre- ponderance of advantage as may exist in favor of the Panama crossing. The commission estimated ten years for the completion Of the Panama canal and eight years for the Nicaragua waterway, but the writer believes that
 these relations should be exchanged. Or
 at least that the time of completion for the Panama route should not be esti-
 mated greater than for the Nicaragua. The water supply is practically un- limited on both routes, but the con trolling and regulating works, being automatic, are much simpler and more easily operated and maintained on the 1 Panama route.
 | The Nicaragua route is practically
 uninhabited and consequently practic- i ally no sickness exists there. On the ! Panama route. on the contrary. there fs
 a considerable population extending
 along the entire line, among which vel low fever and other tropical diseases
 are probably always found. Initial
 sanitary works of much larger magni-
 tude would be required on the Panama
 route than on the Nicaragua, although
 probably as rigorous sanitary measures
 would be required during the construc-
 tion of the canal on ore route as on the
 other.
 The railroad on the Panama route
 and other facilities offered by 2 con-
 siderable existing population render the | beginning of work and housing and or
 ganization of the requisite labor force less difficult and more prompt than on | the Nicaragua route.
 l The greater amount of work on the 1 Nicaragua route, and it's distribution
 over a far greater length of line. in-
 volve the employment of a correspond ingly greater force of 1aborers for an
 equally prompt completion of the work. ] The relative seismic conditions of the
 two routes cannot be quantitively
 stated with accuracy. but in neither
 case are they of sufficient gravity to
 cause anxiety as to the effect upon completed canal structures.
 Concessions and treaties require to be
 secured and negotiated for the con-
 struction of the canal on either route.
 but the Nicaragua route only is free
 from tho compIicat ations of prior rights
 and concessions.
 The certainty that no asrioua mistake
 would be involved in the selection of
 either Panama or Nicaragua lends
 additional force tu the argument ad-