The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-03-06

cannot and an excuse In the ignorance Of the
real condition Of the actual dredging lhfTe
are two most important statements on TINS
point.
On page 200 Of the report Mr., Maltby, the
ing, after giving the actual price Of seven
cents In Colon Ia quoted as saying: we can
do 1t for much less with a modern dredge
that MIR. %eIsher, delegate Of the Dutch
Government, declared that he had dredged
i toar year of Fo IN a aSd oSe, Eitf mics hesn 'fSs 80 Cents Is
/ give this example of the unequal treat
wet to show how easy u 70 to turn the back
to the true Objection, i the austerity Of the
scientific spirit does not maintain r,aidiy s hhS
If. partisan spirit OF preconceiyed Ideas Is
allowed to exert its misleading influence.
EXPERIMENTAL NIT PRICES OF sUBAouKoUs
ROCK EXCAVATION EXAGGERATED BY ~"
PER CENT.
I did not exhibit the above example on
account OF its Importance Tor the selection OF
the proper solution Let US nov tai take a case ee
the adoption OF the logical and, sclenti ac solu-
ton of the Panama problem, the under water
in the list of the standard prices Of the first
the report OF 1901. the extraction of submerged
Such a price would make the cost of the
proposition OF dredging the greater part OF
e expla intsirT tpas Ssna 2a2 e and aso Of the iriesportl
that this diniculty had been wholly wiped
out by the new methods actually In use IN
The best Of these methods. the LobnitZ
developed for the needs Of the suez Canal,
70 cents per cubic yard, that Is to say. at
IS per cent. OF the price admitted by, the
known that this prioe Itself Is Is much higher
than 1t should be owing to the very long dis
tenoe of transportation OF, the spoil and to
] tho . lima Loaf IN Ira1u tuu nna m fha nnalQ Ua
show that the rock is made ~dredg9ble for
IS IS CENTS cents tp png as Sh of tTs rep S9 9F6S BY supp pSMs sS
the Interruptions due to transit. ,(Report
of the Commission Consultative 1nterna-
union du s Nov, l9Oi-Rapport de lIngen-
ieur en- Chef de la Compagnie)
the sq board ard s eoSld C eopsu II 6 on the lns e Snss Mtsse OF
the new method of subaqueous rock extrac-
tion.
board arr p MFrt H HSH 91 .1 CHEF tSfP e%nsi IN n ere Of the Nam
chester Ship Canal. Is quoted as having spoken
Of several millions Of cubic yards to be re-
ultimate depth Of 20 feet. and as having said
that the cost. figured according to a certain
method met 7 MSds Which sS 6on has . b Ss4a a%d 0%Sifl' v weHlS {s
more so than, that Of the Culebra cut in aver
age. With the Lobnltz method IL does not
cost any more to break the rock at a depth Of
SO feet than at a depth Of 20. About hall OF
its cost is the generation Of power by steam.
electrical energy generated by the falls Of the
GQmboa Lake. according TO my plan.
This was the most vital question submitted TO
must have been discussed very much In the
board, and it is a most singular fact that the
| Of the board which refers to the price Of sub
I AQUEOUS rock, extraction by the new method.
Nothing can be discovered either in the pro
| ceedings or In the appendices OF what Mr..
| Quellennec, consulting engineer OF the Suez
Canal, member Of the board, must have said and
Tbjaf an on teIS dPf oi n. ST 3f wss1 s sbiip bGS anal,,
meNber of the board, must have said and
written on the same point.
explicit statement which c%ertifes that these
capital. discussions, OF which no trace re-
mains In the report, have really taken place,
as II is natural to suppose. During Mr.. wall
lace's testimony the former chief engineer
OF the Panama Canal said:
So far as the e1cavatlng OF rock under water
touched Hbon in any OF these reports, but I think
Mr.. Bunau-Varilla referred 70 II. and that. was
work."
NJ. W1nter-yoH mean the L I sys,s%'
Mr.. Hnnter-You perhaps need not enlarge upon
nat: We have dis; DISCUSSED ssSio the, AZ great length her here !
both happen to be extremely familiar.
What can explain the most extraordinary
fact that no traces OF the discussions on tn is
vital subject, thus alluded to. can be found
~ nv ~ - ny al,iSiiN i'1'O Va tA'D
the soient ifo spirit. nor the desire to furnish
the broadest just ihcation to the conclusions
reached, that could explain the elimination
from the records Of the arguments brought
In these extensive discussions.
Nothing has remained OF the light cast by
the experience Of the chief engineers Of the
two greatest canals In the world to enlighten
those, who had charge Of selecting the best
ing the United States, Nothing remains but
the simple fac. chat the consulting board has
1 pIADN az "A "a Aha rlaA ~ -.
rock extraction by dredge. and s1.5O Of it ls
mined in the dry and subsequently exoavated
by, dgedge, page ~ Of the reportJ Am
more erroneous and still more misleading
than the figure inscribed in the schedule OF
! prices for hedging mud and sand at Colon
In the former case the exaggeration was
300 per cent. above experimental reality; in
probably 800 to 900 per cent.
on y is n9t t ths o obseiesfS Srr sSs3s% * TIE
is NOT this price. which certainly was adopted
by the first commission only. because 1t
played an insignificant part In their project.
new system. 80 cents; 1t Is a hybrid, Illogical,
irrational, misleading price, the result ora
cOmnstm between pet Sst nss nro tyre sbi and I'D reg rSesreds e. ~, a
admit compromise. but a compromise which
presents the grave Inconvenience Of basing
been invoked as incontestable truth to elm
inate the transformation system.
II was a compromise probably. generated
by a desire for harmony, but which has been
used as a deadly weapon to fight the principle
of Transformation by dredge of the high level
canal to the sea level water way and to con-
ceul it's superior, it's lnestimable qualities.
The est innate OF the cost Of transformation
based on this erroneous and misleading unit
price is to be found in Appendix p pages All
10 A3 of tine report, If the transformation
is made in order to get the narrow, sea level
canal $50 feet wide Except at Culebra, 200
feet) this estimate reaches. according to the
consulting board, sos ,9Sj 900.
III the transformation is made In order to
get q 800 foot wide channel at sea level the
cost is estimated at sSl6, 82O, 900, according
TO the consulting board.
The substitution of the price of so cents
per cubic yard for the cXorbitant and unjusti-
fled price of under water rock. extraction OF
81. so and sl.5O would reduce the cost In the
first case to sos $50 900. in and the second to
$I5s. 100, 600.
No estimates are made for the 500 foot
channel for the Strait Of Panama, I" but IL
may be fairly calculated. as resulting from
the figures above. that every Increase of 100
feet will cost $50, 00O. 600, and that the trans
formal ion TO the strait would reach. $780,.
OOO, 900; that IL to say, with the usual addition
of 20 per cent. covering the unforeseen. a
total Of $500, 900, 900.
This is precisely the figure I arrived at by
another method of calculation (page 228 OF
the reportl. 1t represents a maximum, of the
cost OF Transformation of the high level canal
to the Strait of Panama, and certainly Is