The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1907-11-23

battleships Maine, Missouri, Ohio,
Georgia, Nebraska, Virginia, New Jer-
sey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Louis. |
lana, Kansas, Minnesota, Vermont, |
South Carolina, Michigan, Idaho, Mis- !
sissippi. New Hampshire, or the two |
larger ships proposed-the Delaware
and North Carolina. If the DeLesseps |
canal had been built our Atlantic fleet
would have to go around South Amer
lea in spite of the existence OF the
canal.
Then came the Walker commits
sion's report of November l6, 1901,
recommending locks ST feet wide.
That commission declared that the
locks then recommended would pass
the largest vessel then in the world
the Oceanic-which has beam
Of 6S4.
Conditions have continued to
change. At the time of the Walker
report five battleships of the Virginia
class, the Georgia, Nebraska Virginia,
New Jersey and Rhode Island, had
been authorized for the American
navy, each with beam of &c feet 2la
inches. But the very congress to
which the Walker report was made
in July, 1902, authorized the construc
ton of the battleships Connecticut
and Louisiana, each with a beam of 76
feet 10 inches or ~ inches greater
than the beam Of the largest Amer
lean battleships which had been au-
thorized before the Walker report was
submitted. In 1903 congress au-
thorized three more ships, the Kansas,
Minnesota and Vermont, all now in
commission, each with beam of 76
feet 10 inches. The same year saw
the authorization for the Idaho and
Mississippi, with an increase to II
feet in their beam. During the first
session Of the last congress came the
authorization for the South Carolina
and Michigan, which are building with
a beam of so feet 2a inches each.
Last winter congress authorized the
Delaware and North Dakota, which
are each to have beam Of IS feet >
inches.
These figures show that in spite of
their ability and their evident inten-
ton to provide for the future, the
members Of the Walker commission
failed to foresee the construction Of
the all-big-gun ship, which is too wide
for the locks incorporated in the Walk
er plans.
The locks that are planned for the
Panama canal are larger than any that
have ever been built. The majority
of the consulting board expressed the
opinion that locks of that size are
beyond the limit of prudent design"
The minority expressed the opinion
that 1T can no more be said Of lock
building that it has reached the limit
of judicious construction than Of ship
building or any other branch of
engineering construction" Former
Chief Engineer Shonts and a special
| committee consisting Of Gen. Peter
| c. Hams, Col. II. Ernst and several
others have told Secretary Taft they
estimated that it would cost at least
| sS7 100000 to widen the sealevel
canal 100 feet without deepening it if
the sea-level were adopted. In its
| special report to Secretary Taft this
same committee went on record as
| follows:
| "Inasmuch as the new Cunarders
are not yet completed, are very much
larger than any other vessels in ex.
istence, and must still be regarded az
experimental, II seems to US that
this is looking as far into the future
as is expedient. If ships too large
for these locks should hereafter be
developed, it will be possible to add
new and larger locks to accommodate
them. The total estimated cost Of all
/ locks and approach walls In the pres
ent project including the contingency
item Of 20 per cent, Is $44,435, 900
They can therefore be entirely re
| newed for about one-half what Il
would cost to widen the sea-level canal
100 feet
This statement was made by Chief
Engineer Shonts on February ), 1906,
In an official report to Secretary Taft
On the face Of this record It win
cost at least si3,5O0.OOO to tear the
locks down and widen them IL Il al
tlmateIy develops that the adopted
width Of 100 feet is too small to ac
commodate the largest battleshlps,
lust as the locks Of the Kaiser VIII
helm canal have proved inadequate,
and are to De rebuilt