The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-01-04
The Contractor and the Canal.

The Panama Canal from a contractors
point of view is presented by Mr.. GEORGE
w. CBICHFIELD in the North American
Reriew with breezy vigor. He sweeps
away the plans and theories Of engi-
neering experts and declares in effect,
that the Panama Canal is a big ditch
and that the way to dig that ditch is to
put an army Of contractors and their
men into it, with steam shovels, drills,
overhead cables and hosting engines.
That Is, "there is only one way to finish
the canal, and that is to dig dirt" Put
TO work a crowd Of diggers, and Mr..
CRICHFIELD believes that they would
complete sea level canal in little more
than three years, and for no greater cost
than that estimated by the engineers for
the construction Of vast system OF
locks and dams whose cost is uncertain
and whose stability is dubious.
In fine, Mr. CRICHFIELD would dig the
canal as farmer would dig trench, the
only difference being of scale. He points
10 the uncertainty Of the Bohio dam; the
difficulties of gigantic locks, by which,
step after step, huge steamers would
climb one side Of n ridge and descend
the other side; the danger of destruction
to a vast system of masonry from earth
quakes or from few pounds Of dyna-
mite in the hands of an enemy; and then
expresses the conviction that If such a
system is installed 1T will not be fifty
wears until the United States will tear
out all these locks and dams and dig
the canal az it should be dug now-that
is, forty feet below low tide level.
So far as concerns a tide level canal,
Mr.. CRICHFIELD appears to be sustained
by Engineer WALLACE, They both differ
from the conclusion reached in the re-
port of the Isthmian Canal Commission
in 1901, that while asealevel canal would
be physically practicable and might be
adopted if no other solution were avail
able, the difficulties of all kinds, and
especially those of time and cost, would
be so great that canal with a summit
level reached by locks is TO be preferred.
Mr.. CRICHFIRLD, for his part, as a prac-
teal contractor, sets it down as utterly
fallacious.
Enthusiastically, n sea level canal with
the avoidance of huge and somewhat I'M
certain structures of masonry, will seem
to most people the better plan We are
now familiar with works of excavation
on a gigantic scale. We have seen the
modern steam shovel plunging its iron
fist into the earth or under the water to
draw up a ton Of dirt at each grasp and
spill it into a carrier for removal. Mr..
CRIcHFIELD's argument seems to have
force, therefore, when he contends that,
with a calculable number OF cubic yards
of earth to be excavated, the time re-
quired for the removal Of the dirt is ap-
proximately determinable by the daily
working capacity OF the steam shovels
which can be put into the ditch. This
bulk, we may add has already been
roughly computed at 26e, 22s, 900 cubic
yards.
If the authorities split the total dis
lance into fifty-eight distinct sections,
for example, and advertise for bids from
contractors who understand the BUSH
ness Oh excavation uht NAVNi Nies7'i1'
Mr. CRICHFIELD holds that sea level
canal can be in operation before the next
Presidential election, at a cost probably
no greater than that estimated for the
lock system, which may take fifteen or
twenty years for its construction.
Engineers have been sent to Panama
by the dozen. 1t might be wise to take
the opinion Of a score or so OF practical
contractors before spending millions Of
dollars on possibly needless plans for
gigantic dams and an elaborate system
OF locks.