New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-02-20
LOCK CANAL AT PANAMA
F5VORED BY PRESIDENT.
Reports of Commission and Consult
ing Engineers Sent to Congress.

ing Eng3H66fS OcfT W NoftSf Cos.
washington. Feb. Is-President Roosevelt
...nsrnitted TO Congress to-day the report Of the
so.r5 Of consulting engineers on the Panama
-.,ol together with the letter of Secretary Taft,
- renort Of the Isthmian Canal Commission
-.rommending construction of lock canal. and
,o,ter by Chief Engineer Stevens. The letter
:, ,be President is as follows:
- he Senate and House Of Representatives:
submit herewith the letter of the Secretary
=, war transmitting the report OF the board
- consulting engineers on the Panama Canal
:. "a the report of the lsthrnian Canal Commits
.n thereon together with a letter written TO
- chairman OF the Isthmian Canal Commits
;or bv Chief Engineer Stevens Both the board
- consulting engineers and the canal COM
-isson divide in their report The majority Of
he board of consulting engineers. eight in
,nbe- including the five foreign engineers.
sa,.or a sea level canal; and one member OF the
rsnsI commission Admiral Endicott, takes the
srne position. Five Of the American members
~ tte board Of consulting engineers and five
members OF the Isthmian Canal Commission fa-
YER the lock canal. and SO does Chief Engineer
Stevens The Secretary OF War recommends
iock canal pursuant to the recommendation of
The minority OF the board of consulting engi-
reers and of the majority OF the canal COM
mission After careful study of the papers sub
rritted and full and exhaustive consideration OF
the whole subject / concur in the recommenda-
n Will be noticed that the American engineers
IN the consulting board and the commits
dor by a
the lock canal whereas, the foreign engineers
ere unit against fl. think this is partly TO
ne explained by the fact that the great traffic
canal OF the old World IS the Suez Canal. sea
level canal, whereas the great traffic canal OF
tbe New World IS the Sauit Ste Marie Canal. a
lock canal. Although the latter, the 500, is
closed TO navigation during the winter months
Il carries annually three times the traffic Of the
suez Canal. In my judgment, the very able
argument Of the majority Of the board OF con-
sulting engineers is Vitiated by their failure TO
1rNrn hAaH n
construction and operation of the 500 Canal.
II must be borne in mind. as the commission
points out, that there IS no question of building
what has been picturesquely termed THE Straits
Of Panama; that is, a waterway through which
the largest vessels could 60 with safety at un-
interrupted high speed Both the sea level
canal and the proposed lock canal would be too
narrow and shallow to be called with any truth
f4lness strait, or to have any Of the proper
ties Of a wide, deep water strip. Both OF them
would be canals. pure and simple. Each type
has certain disadvantages and certain advan-
tsges. But, In my judgment, the disadvantages
are fewer and the advantages very much greater
IN the case Of lock canal substantially pro-
posed in the papers forwarded herewith; and
] call especial attention to the fact that the
chief engineer, who would be mainly respon-
sible for the success of this mighty engineering
feat. and who has. therefore, a peculiar personal
interest in judging Alright is emphatically and
earnestly IN favor OF the lock canal project and
against the level project.
careful study Of the reports seems to estab-
nsh g strong probability that the following are
the facts: The sea level canal would be slightly
less exposed 10 damage in the event of war; the
running expenses. apart from the heavy cost Of
interest on the amount employed 10 build II,
would be less and for small ships the time of
transit would probably be less. On the other
hand. the lock canal at a level OF so feet or
thereabouts would not cost much more than
half as much 70 build. and could be built in
tbout half the time, while there would be very
Fsach less risk connected with building II ana
tor large ships the transit would be Quicker.
while. taking into account the interest on the
amount saved in building the actual cost Of
he lecc hafr h,tfIs .
would be easier TO enlarge the lock canal than
the sea level canal. Moreover what has been
actually demonstrated in making and operating
the great lock canal, the 500, more inportnt
artery Of traffic than the great sea level canal.
tne suez' goes TO support the opinion Of the
minority Of the consulting board OF engineers
and OF the majority OF the Isthmian Canal Com
mission as 70 the superior safety feasibility and
oeslrability Of building lock canal at Panama.
The law now on our statute books seems to
contemplate lock canal. In my judgment a
lock canal as herein recommended is advisable.
u the Congress directs that sea. level canal
ot constructed its direction VIII, OF course. be
carried out. Otherwise, the canal will be built
On substantially the plan for a lock canal out
Ihed IN the accompanying papers, such changes
being made. Of course. as may be found actually
necessary; including, possibly. the change recon-
mended by the Secretary of War as to the site
O. the dam the Pacific side
THEODORE ROOSEVELT.
The White House, Feb. 19, 1908.
FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION.
Secretary Taft transmitted the commissions
report and the accompanying documents to the
President, summarizing closely the conclusions
OF the majority and minority, which respectively
favored sea level and lock canal. He called
attention to the fact that the act OF Congress
N effect fixes the minimum dimensions Of the
locks and the width and depth of the canal
prism by the requirement that the canal shall
accommodate the largest vessels afioat, or such
as may reasonably be anticipated. AS two ships
now building. which are 500 feet long Ss feet
oearn and 3S feet draught. can be passed through
the locks proposed by the minority, he says 1T
Is evident this requirement is met The Secre-
tsry seys:
In the high level canal vessel Of the Dimensions
miles where the width is only 300 feet. ample lee
Wy for safe navigation and good speed, without
NE points where changes in course are necessary
OBJECTS TO SEA LEVEL PLAN.
But q the sea level canal project he makes
this criticism:
..Herent- The depth IS but two feet greater than
~ oraught of the ship. not sufficient 10 permit her
- proceed under her own steam, except AZ ereal
iA l~enty-one miles Of the canal is not sulcleni-
wee Tor two such ships TO pass; currents caused
y ne regulation of the ChRgres and by the now
:. vlief streams into the canal, ana us many
SSlrfes combine 20 increase the difficulties abd
eaneefs # navigation IN short, the sea lever
hal recommended is mot OF sufficient capacity ana
spIn 10 afford convenient passage for vessels OF
- tdrsest tonnage and greatest depth, ana can De
.aoe 81 only by materially increasing the depth
90 money. i the suggested width Of 80 10 2oo
80 Is the greatest width economically permssioe
r VI sea Level canal, the cost OF the enlargement
~ therefore follows that the high level canal