The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-01-29
SEA LEVEL OR LOCKS ArPANAMA,
An American contractor Severely Crlti.
cIseS MI. nunau-N ArillA,s Plan.

To THE EDITOR or THE SUS-Sir. There
will no doubt be many absurd proposition,
made with reference to the Panama Canal
before Il Ia completed. but think II unlikely
that one more impracticable than that made
by Mr.. Philippe Bunau- Varllla, as published
in your paper OF Jan 70. will be brought forth
Of any time between now and the compile
ton OF the work,
Mr. Bunau-Varla proposes. In effect. 10
hrst build lock canal. with its enornlou,
dams. slocks. epillways, &c. and then. after
this is built. proceed to make deep sea canal
OF Il by dredging out the upper sections AMI
then tearing out the dams. locks. DC
The mere statement OF such proposition
would seem to carry its own reiuiation. for.
from the point Of view OF an engineer or con-
tractor. n more ridiculous scheme could not
be proposed: but. as you have editorialy
commented on the plan and invited the a.
tentlon OF Senators and Representatives TO Il,
! will point out clearly why tho scheme Is
wholly preposterous
Among the objections to the Bunau-vari.la
scheme are the following.
L. The locks. dams and spillways OF lock
IScanal will cost probably from $40 900 900 70
So, 900, 600: and these would be built. IN the
Bunau-Yarilla scheme. only to be destroyed
Rgain-a case OF throwing that much money
into the FIRE
2 Dredging out the upper section OF this
canal is wholly impractcabe Rock UNDER
lies a large portion OF the Culebra Cut. and 10
excavate rock under thirty-si1 feet or forty o.
water costs 81 or IS a cubic yard-three or
four times what IL costs in an open ditch free
from water Therefore to cut down Culebra
by Bunau-Varilla = method would cost hum
dreds OF millions OF dollars more than u
would 20 do the work as an original PROPOSE
g. II a deep Sea canal be made, CulebrA
Cut Will have to be greatly wldened, to give
the necessary slope TO the sides. and IN places
retaining walls of masonry must be con-
Rtrliuted TO prevent the caving in OF the sides,
especially II auicksand be enconnteren II
constructed on Bunan-Narilla's Schemel
these retaining walls would be undermined
by dred ging, while to construct additional
retaining walls or foundations for thoss
already in existence under thirty-six or forty
feet OF water is an incredibly expensive task
= To take care of the spoil from such A
even II the ditch s dry. II the overhead caole
system Is adopted. az IL doubtless will be, 20
handle the loose dirt and rock Is S9m M Sa,
500 or 600 feet long, In many cases can os
attached 20 the end Of the working cable, and
the carriers can be transferred from the main
cable to the supplemental cable. TO be carried
over some mel 0hborinR rayine 20 be dumped
and when this ia impracticable. permanent
railways on the surface Of the ground on the
edge OF the canal. and parallel 70 II. can be
constructed cheaply. 20 that the spoils can
be dumped directly from the SKIP OF tho ne oyer.
head cable into cars. BY Bunau- Varlllas
scheme IL would be several times as costly
to handle this enormous amount OF spoil NJ
any system which could be devised
J. The upper section OF the canal, on 'h-
plan proposed by tho Isthmian Canal Com;
mission would he twenty miles long. and
ninety feet higher than the adjacent SEQ
tions Even II no underlying rock or quick
sand or any other obstacle were encountered.
the mere phyEcal task Of removing such =
require such a number of dredRes, mud
scows. hydraulic pumps. &c. II the task we're
10 be completed within any reasonable num-
Der OF years would practically prevent
ma vgation while the work was in progress
while tho mud water and slush which would
be dumped out upon the surrounding country
by such scheme would be- ntolerahe
Resides the cost Of doing such work in such
n manner would he hundreds Of millions OF
dollars more than n would cost to mike deep
sea canal nt the outset In other words eI
cavation OF hard material IL more cheaplv
done by steam shovels in dry ditch than nv
dredgcs under thirtysix or forty feet OF
water.
But, aside from these reasons, the whols
scheme proposed by Bunau-Varilla is ohimerl-
cal and nonsensical. and unworthy Of serious
discussion GEORGE w. CBICHFlELD.
NEW YORK. Jan. %.