Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1909-02-18

they conclude that 1T could be safely
reduced twenty feet from hat orig
inally proposed; namely to an eleva-
ton Of ia rect above sea level, 81
thirty feet above the normal Level ~
the water against the dam"
This change. they say, ''will facill-
tato tho work Of construction ana VIII
reduce somewhat the cost of the pro-
posed work AS to the change ~
the lower locks on the Pacific end OF
the canal from Laboea. on the shore
Of Panama Bay TO M%oraflorcs, about
four miles inland they report that the
settlements which occurred as q re-
suit Of the change cause no rcason
TO doubt the stability Of the proposed
dam This change having been made
because objection might be made
from a military viewpoint to placing
locks on the shOrc Of the bay exposed
to guns OF hostile ships the board OF
engineers estimate that IL win In
crease the cost by about $40, 900, 600
but that il VIII greatly lessen the cost
OF fortification.
Another change. that OF Increasing
the minimum width of the bottom of
the canal for about 40 miles in the
Culebra cut. they estimate Will in
crease the cost OF the work by about
$t3, 000, 600. but they say II win not
delay the completion Of the canal,
that It Win permit ships to pass one
another fl this portion of the canal
and VIII otherwise facilitate naviga-
ton 'If slides occur after the com.
plction Of the canal" they say. "the
wider ianal is not as likely to be
blocked as a narrow one" They ap-
prove the change in the proposed lo-
cation Of the broakwater at the At
lantic end Of the canal
Their estimate of the complete cost
of the canal is $500, 000. 00O. They
say fl is incorrect To state that the
original estimate of cost was $40
400, 600 as this does not include "sani-
tntion ana zonc government They
estimate the expense Of sanitation and
zone government at seq 600, 900 while
payments 70 the republic OF Panama
ana to the new Panama canal com
'pany amounted TO $50. 600. 600 which
would make The difference between
the present estimate and the previous
estimate, with cost of sanitation and
gono government and payments added
only S248. 000. 000. "Of this amount"
they say. nearly onc-half can he ac-
counted for by the changes in tho
canal and appurtcnunt works already
to and the remainder is 10
De attributed mainly 10 the higher
unit cost of the different items of the
work"
D~uil'n'nua,ion II expressed at the
pl'sont .~e"hul''oh OF INC work ana the
'nblh'eis VOICE tue h'llei that IN no
''nef great construction work mas so
nlueh heeh aonn lor employees IN the
way 'l furnishing necessities. COM
lo'ts una Injuries OF me az inc cost
tne WORK az mas ne'n DOM IN TINS
WORK ms Is one reason for the hish
''st 81 tn' ''i'a'
IN th'ir opinion tine work is wei
'rsahleeu anu rs neing conducted =
'nrts'ti'AliN ana Wen
ih'N ee'lnl'nN the medical ana
.'nlttfN department Tor ITS success
''''" l'N'i "h'
~.
'''S "uu' WHY
'', W '"H'i''''u as
wv 'ns'h''r' pN y
", i"'t' i seems
+ probable ir an aors Won a
Considering tho cost ana time or j
obstruction OF a sea lo,el AS COM
AIRED with the lock tyno tbcy hotd a
omost of Inc factors which nav. r.
20 Increase Inc cost ~ a.. e.
canal womb on,rate Vim sfmn.,
ffott Ia Increase the rnst az thn son a