The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-02-21


 the traffic of the suez canal. In my Judgment the very able argument is vitiated by their failure to pay proper heed to the lessons taught by the com struction and operation of the 500 ca- nal It must be borne In mind. as the commission points out. that there is no question of building what has been pie turesquely termed the straits of Pan- anna that is. waterway through which the largest vessels could go with safety at uninterrupted high speed
 Both the sea level canal and the proposed lock canal would be too nar- row and shallow to be called with any truthfulness a strait, or to have any of the properties of wide, deep water strip. Both of them would be canals pure and simple. Each type as certain disadvantages are fewer and the advantages very much greater in the case of a lock canal substantially as proposed in the papers forwarded herewith: and I call especial attention to the feet that the chief engineers who will be mainly responsible for the success for this mighty engineering feat, and who has therefore peculiar personal interest in judging alright, is emphatfcally and earnestly in favor of the lock canal project and against the sea level project.
 A careful study of the reports seems to establish strong probability that the following are the facts:
 The sea-levei canal would be slightly Hess exposed to damage in the event of war, the running expenses apart from the heavy cost of interest on the amount employed to build it would be less; and for small ships the time of transit would probably be less.
 On the other hand, the local canal at level of 80 feet or thereabouts would not cost much more than half as much to build and could be built | in about half the time, while there would be very much less risk connected with building it and for large ships ! the transit would be quicker; while, | taking into account the interest on the amount saved in building, the actual | cost of maintenance would be less. Ar | ter being built 1t would be easier to en- large the lock canal than the sea | level canal.
 | Moreover, what has been actually l demonstrated in making and operating I the great lock canal. the Soo. a more | important artery of traffic than the great sea-leveI canal. the Suez, goes | to support the opinion of the minority | of the consulting board of engineers I and of the majority of the Isthmian Canal Commission, as to the superior | safety, feasibility and desirability of | building a lock canal at Panama. l The law now on our statute books | seems to contemplate a lock canal Ill l my judgment a lock canal as herein | recommended is advisable. If the Con- l gress directs that a sea lever canal | be constructed. its direction will. of | course, be carried out Otherwise the | canal will be built on substantially the l plan for a lock canal outlined in the 4 accompanying papers, such changes be. 1 ing made of course, as may be found | actually necessary including possibly
 the change recommended by the secre' l tary of war as to the site of the dam | on the Pacifis side.
 I Theodore Roosevelt.
 The White House, February 19, 1906
 The letter of Secretary Taft treats
 at length the recommendations of the Board and Commission, and didscusse'
 the reasons why he is led to approve
 the construction of a lock canal in stead of a sea level canal. In closing
 he invites attention to the satisfactory character of the discussion of the two 1 types of canal. 'by the greatest cana | engineers of the world" which, he says l insures to the President and to Con- | gressmen opportunity to consider the | arguments pro and con in reaching | proper conclusion.