The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-09-02
DISCUSSING THE CANAL Shall It Be Sea Level or
 Lock Variety? ENGINEERS IN SESSION Notable Board Convened by
 Roosevelt. Master Minds of Profession Gathered From America and Europe to De- termine Puszifng and Mo-
 mentous Question.
 

| run AmCEIG1 1mU EukVEC kV 1G-
 termine Purzifng and Mo-
 meatous Question.
 | Washington, Sept LA notable board of distinguished engineers as- sembled in Washington today upon the requesf of President Roosevelt to de- termine the re.ative feasibility of a sea level or lock canal in the division of the American continent at the 18th mus of Panama.
 Constituting the consulting board of engineers for the canal plan, these men gathere from both American and Eu- rope were picked from among those foremost in their profession.
 The first of the meetings at which they grapple with the great problem began this morning in a small room at the office building of the Isthmian canal commission. The proceedings were opened by the reading of the letter of the President. calling them Shonts of the commission which gives In detail the purposes for which the i engineers are convened. In the Pres ident's order, 1t is called the Consult ing Board of Engineers" but the let- ter of Chairman Shonts is addressed to the Advisory Board of Engineers upon plans for the Panama Canal"
 The letter in part says:
 Tn accordance with the directions of the President dated April 1. 1905. the Isthmian Canal Commission has the honor to lay before you physical data concerning the Isthmus of Pana- ma and to solicit your opinion as to the best plan to be followed in the completion of the Panama canal within tVnftR AE
 "As you are aware. this question has been the subject of prolonged and elaborate studies for many years by numerous able engineers. A vast amount of labor nas been expended in the collections of information con- corning the physics of the Isthmus and in digesting it and Formulating 1t into plans for the canal
 Ne RaascmH Change.
 During the last year additional surveys and Observations have been made upon the Hsfhmus, the results of which are laid before you. It may be stated here in gcneFal terms that the informatlqF they furnish does f not involve Ahy radical change in the plans previously favored. Among the observations alluded to may be in- cluded the experience of the last year in excavating the Culebra cut, from which some of our engineers have drawn unwarranted conclusions as to the probable cost of the work There is nothing in this experience to jus tify the belief that the unit prices used in previous estimates were too high or that the estimate of the time required for completing the work was too liberal. Nevertheless, this experi- ence has been used as an argument ir favor of a sea level canal, which plan has been condemned by the two com ah An. Al | necessary to consider once more the sea level canal scheme.
 The plan described in the drst i pamphlet (which is submitted among | other papers) Is the one which was adopted by Congress-at least by in- ference--in the act approved Juno 2S. | 1902 It is the plan under which the work Is now progressing and under which all work of the construction has been done since the United States ac- quired the property. It closely resem- bles the plan of the technical commits sion described in the second pamphlet, in many essential particulars, but diff | fers from 1t in the height of the Bohio dam and the important results which 1 flow therefFom. The advantages which it's authors expected to derive from this change were:
 Advantages Expected.
 "First-To take fuller advantage of | the topography of the country by which l 1t was possible to make the immediate | gigantic spillway automatic instead of mechanical and adequate for the dis | charge of the greatest floods with only | one channel to sea instead of two. | "Second-To increase the distance of lake navigation from seven to nearly thirteen miles.
 '"Third-To reduce the estimated cost of the canal by about $15.O0O.0O0.
 The disadvantage of the change Is the somewhat greater difhculties. how ever. which are by no means insuper- able.
 "A disadvantage which the two plans have in common Is that the rapid de velopment of naval architecture make it difficult to determine the proper di- mensions of the lock chambers. It is to be considered, however, that up to the present time much development has not geen greatly hampered by de- fcient depth in the harbors of the world and that development hereafter will have that obstruction to contend with. Moreover, It is not possible tc dispense with locks entirely. Ever with the sea-level canal a tide lock will be required at the Panama end.
 "A paper has been submitted to the President by Mir. P. Buneau-Varills which explains the method by which { canal constructed first with locks ma, be subsequently altered to sea sea-leve canal. This paper also is submitted fol your consideration"
 Mir Shonts at this point calls atten ton to that portion of the act of Con Rress which prescribes the physica features of the proposed canal anC directs that the work already begun shall be utilized as far as possible. H. concludes his letter as follows:
 'The Commission expects to visit thu Isthnus of Panama, sailing from New York during the last week in Septem ber, the exact date to be fixed hereaf ter. You are cordially invited to ac company it."
 The Board.
 By the executive order made las June. A board of consulting engineer was constituted consisting of Genera George W. Davis, Alfred Noble. VII liam Barclay Parsons. William H Burr, General Henry l.. Abbott. Fred erick P. Stearns, Joseph Ripley, Ishan Randolph, all American engineers Henry Hunter. named by the Britisl government; Herr Engene TincauseH named by the German government; N Guerard, named by tue French govern
 nent: M. Quellenec, consulting engi neer suez canal, and J w. WelckeI named by the government of the Meth Ia fhfe hoa rd xvhfrt, r,ra