The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-02-06

forts of his what is known as the Ludlow Commission was appointed under an act of March 2, 1895, to investigate routes across the Isthmus. and this Commission reported that this Nicaragua route was entirely feasible. Another board was appointed. under the act of June 1. ls97. again as the result of the efforts of Senator Morgan. to investigate, and this board, known as the Nicaragua Canal Commission. also reported that the Nica- ragua route was feasible.
 None of the commissions appointed up to this time had any authority to report upon the feasibility of the construction of a canal by the Panama route, that being preoccupied, as we have stated. by the French company. Now however the Congress has before 1t full information as to the availability of the Panama route. fuller information than it ever had before as to the Nicaragua route, and an opportunity of choosing between the two. This condition of affairs has been brought about by what is known as the Walker Commission. appointed under the act of March 8. 1899. When this act was passed 1t had come to be known to Con- gress that the French Company would probably sell at a reasonable price its rights and concessions in Panama. so that the work of this commission was fuller. It was instructed to Investigate all routes and particularly the Panama and Nicara- qua routes. and to report upon them. The Commission was furnished with ann pie means. It was composed of nine gen. tlemen of ability, most of them civil engineers. On the 30th of November last this commission made Its report. The New Panama Canal Company had offered to sell but had valued its property at something over $l09,0Oo,oOO. The report of the Commission, after enumerating the advantages and disadvantages of the two routes. decided in favor of the Nicaragua route, because of the high price the Panama Company put upon its property. That company had come fully to appre- ciate the difficulties 1t would encounter in constructing and operating successfully an isthmian canal in competition with one to be built by the United States: but its managers. believing as they did that their route was the more practicable. over-estimated the price it could exact from this government, and they do not seem to have discovered their mistake until the Walker Commission had favored and the Hepburn bill had adopted the Nicaragua route. Then on the 4th of January the Panama Company tele- graphed, offering their property and con sessions for s4e.OO0,00o This was the situation when the Hepburn bill came up for discussion in the House. The $4o,- OO0, 900 was known to have been made by telegram to the Walker Commission, but that commission had not passed upon the canal question as modified by this proposition. The offer. however. was debated in the House, and an amend ment was offered to the Hepburn bill, leaving the question of selecting the Panama or the Nicaragua route to the President. The amendment was defeat ed. receiving 112 votes. Then the Hep- burn bill passed receiving every vote except three.
 Since the Hepburn bill went to the Senate the Walker Commission has been called together and in a supplementary report has unanimously recommended the Panama route, pointing out that with the purchase of the Panama property at $40, ,000, 900 a canal by that route will be cheaper by some s5,OOo.Ooo. and saying, among other things:
 The unreasonable sum asked for the property and rights of the new Panama Canal Company, when the Commission reached its former conclusion. over balanced the advantages of that route; but now that the estimates of the two routes have been nearly capitalized, the Commission can form its judgment by weighing the advantages of each and determining which Is the more practica- ble and feasible.
 In the Senate the question Is to come up again somewhat in the shape it took in the House, though the advocates of the Panama route will. in the Senate. have the advantage not enjoyed by those who favored that route in the House. of presenting in favor of their view the unanimous opinion of the Walker Com mission which has studied the whole question for nearly two years.
 Senator Spooner has offered a carefully prepared amendment which provides:
 First-That the President is authorized to buy the rights and property of the new Panama Canal Company for $40,- 100000.
 Secona-That the President shall nego- tiate with the Republic of Colombia for such additional concessions as may be needed to give us perpetual and efficient control of the canal to be constructed.
 Third-That when the President shall have obtained a satisfactory title to the rights of the Panama Canal Company and sufficient concessions from the Re public of Colombia, he shall proceed with the construction of the canal.
 Fourth-That in case the President shall be unable to obtain a satisfactory title to the property of the new Panama Canal Company and satisfactory additional con- sessions from the Republic of Colombia. he shall negotiate with the States of Costa Rica and Nicaragua for proper concessions. and securing these, he shall proceed with the construction of the canal along that route. In both cases the necessary appropriations are made.
 No other propositions than those com prised in the Hepburn bill and the Spooner amendment respectively, seem to have