The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-05-18
A SEA LEVEL CANAL
REPORT OF THE MAJORITY or
 SENATE COMMITTEE.
CAlffornta Earthquake Ishuences Meme hers to Declare Against Elahes- ate systeyu of Locks Which
 Would he EnsIfy Destroy

l |
 Washington. May l7.--fSpeciaL)-r
 That the earthquake which destroyed
 San Francisco was an important elc-.
 ment in determining the vote of the
 Senate Committee on Inter oceanic Ca-
 nals in favor of sea level type Is
 apparent from the fact that a feature
 of the majority report Is a discussion
 of the effect such an earthquake might
 have on locks and dams. Tho majority
 report in favor of the sea level canal
 was submitted today by Senator Kit
 tredge On the subject of danger from
 earthquakes on the isthmus and the
 possible effect on the two types of | canal proposed the report says:
 The recent calamity that over 1 whelmed one of our great cities has caused many forebodinRs The asser- tion that any particular spot in the tropics Is exempt from all danger rom l such convulsions of nature as recently visited Califofnia or wrought great | havoc near. Charleston, S. C., in 1888. or changed the face of nature in | Southeastern Missouri near the begin- I ning of this century would not be I hazarded by any wise man. That the l isfhmus of Panama Is not exempt con- eiusively appears and we can have 10 | guaranty that the canal zone will ia the future be exempt from such disas- | ter.
 | Then canal structures that would ba | most exposed to injury by the passing 1 O. an earthquake are the locks pro- | posed by the minority. whose walls | many hundreds of feet or even two or three thousand feet long at Gatun | would at least some of them be more than seventy-five feet high and entire | iy unsupported on one side save for a part of the height by water. If thess l walls should be moved at all the nat ural and probable result would be in fkAtw 1An lrt.. ~r- | ing of the gates--ar injury for which . suggestion of extra gates on hand | would be useless for no one could guess the extent of the movement. The Dam At Gamhoa.
 The minority suggests that the dam
 at Gamboa included In the plan of the | beard would be as likely to sustain
 damage from such convulsion as ths structure above mentioned. This is not the fact. The Gamboa dam Is built on
 solid rock foundation, reinforced
 with strong walls and buttressed at i,
 either end with walls of rock. It is ai
 strtGture the least likely to be affect- 1 ed of any superimposed on the earth's-
 surface. and no record is found tn any
 similar structure being permanently in- [
 tured under similar circumstances. "An earth dam on an alluvial base.
 as proposed by the minority, might bs
 Assured if the earthquake passed the
 locality and if crack In the dam or
 It's base should open. the dam would
 go out the lock drain, and the canal be ruined"
 After reviewing the legislation ana the messages of the President on the
 subject of the canal, the report says
 that It is due to the executive branelT
 of the Government that the unesrtain-r
 ties confronting the President as to his powers in the premises be settled and disposed of affirmativeIy. once and foF all. by the only national authority com-
 petent to pass upon the auestion--tha national Legislature,
 The division among experts as to the best type of canal is treated by the re~ l port, which says that the conclusion has been reached that the following propositions are irrefutahle. that the ideal canal is one at sea level; that its construction would be attended with no more and probably with less hazard
 than one with locks and dams on deubt-
 fui foundations; that the sea-Ievel | canal Is safer and m ire convenient than one with locks: that 1t would take
 but little longer time to build: that 1t
 is the simpler and the more economf-
 cal in operation and maintenance.
 Question of Time.
 The majority report concludes that
 the sea level canal would not require more than two or three years more than the lock type.
 | to the locks and dams proposed by the minority report of tic consulting en- gineers. and these are asserted to be an element of danger. The various aeci- dents to which such mechanism might be subject are recounted and the repoFt says these hazards can be avoided by the small sacrifice of time necessary to the construction of the sea level canal.
 The claim is made by the report that ships of all classes could be passed through the sea level canal in eight hours and that half that time would he
 consumed in passing ships through locks alone. The cost of annual main-l tenance Is estimated at sl,SS4,000 for a sea level and $eS30,o00 for the lock type.
 l Discussing the advantage of the sea level canal to the country controlling 1t in time of war the report says: If free from all obstacles to quick ! transit, 100 warships of average size , moving in one direction. route clear, could be passed from ocean to ocean in less than a day
 Naval commanders and commercial masters of the great national and pri- vate vessels of the world are almost l to A man opposed unalterably to the Introduction of any lock to lift ves- seIs over the low summit that nature has left for us to remove.
 | could destroy a lock canal much eass fer than a sea level canal with expiose ives. | The Ultimate Cost.
 The ultimate final cost of the seq level canal as estimated by the ma- ior,ty Is sa50 000. 900 while the cost of the lock canal is regarded as uneeF-i tn eloc kcanal Is regarded as uncer- tain. The minority of the board of ] consulting engineers estimated the cost at s13s.705,201 and to this the | majority says should be added the | interest on the extra cost of mainte-4 nance the expenses of clearing the titles to the 11s,000 acres of land that would be submerged by the central lake proposed by the lock plan which, | 1t Is estimated would make the total cost at least &i90.00o. .o0o. The cost l of transforming the lock plant Into e l sea level canal after the former is completed is estimated at s20o.0oo,ooo. Tn conclusion the majority says; Your committee feels entirely eon- | l ndent that the board of consulting en- gineers selected to study this problem has submitted a plan that responds in every respect to the conditions stated above and that the sea level canal can be realised in ten or eleven years at a cost not to exceed $6o,0O0,o0o above that required for the construction of the multi-loek canal approved by the minority"