Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 34, Number 26, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 29 November 1901 — LIGHT ON CANAL REPORT. [ARTICLE]

LIGHT ON CANAL REPORT.

Chief Beasons Why the Commission Ftvors Nicaragua Route. A synopsis of the report of the isthmian canal commission gives the commission’s reasons for selecting the Nicaragua route in preference to the Panama route. It says that the Panama route alone is feasible for a sea level canal, although both are entirely practicable and feasible for a canal with locks. The time required to complete a sea level canal on the Panama route, probably more than twice that needed to build a canal with locks, excludes it from favorable consideration aside from other features of its construction. With an adequate force and plant ttie commission estimates that the Nicaragua canal can be completed in four years. This indicates, under reasonable allowance for ordinary delays, that if the force and plant are available to secure a practically concurrent execution of all portions of the work on the route the completion of the entire work might be effected within six years after its beginning exclusive of the two years estimated for the period of preparation. The greatest single feature of work on the Panama route is the excavation in the Culebra section, amounting to about 43,000,000 cubic yards of hard clay, much cf which is classed as soft rock. It is estimated that this cut can be completed in eight years exclusive of a two-year period for preparation. The report goes on to say: “A canal by the Panama route will be simply a means ©f communicating between the two oceans. The Nicaragua route, on the other hand, would bring Nicaragua and a large portion of Costa Rica and other Central American States into close and easy communication with the United Btates and with Europe.” The report also points out differences in hygiene conditions existing along the Nicaragua and Panama routes and makes it clear that in this respect owing to •parse population the Nicaragua route is much more preferable than the Panama route. The total length of the Nicaragua route from sea to sea is 183.66 miles, while the total length of the Panama route is 49.9 miles. The length in standard canal •ections and in harbor entrances is 73.78 miles for the Nicaragua route and 36.41 for the Panama route. The estimated cost of construction of the canal on the Nicaragua route is $45,630,704 more than of completing the Panama canal, omitting the cost of acquiring the latter property. The estimated annual cost of maintaining and operating the Nicaragua canal is $1,350,000 greater than the corresponding charges for the Panama canal. The estimated time for a deep-drafg vessel to pass through is about twelve hours for Panama and thirty-three hours for Nicaragua. The cost of constructing a canal by tho Nicaragua route and of completing the Panama canal, without including the cost of acquiring the concessions from the different governments, is estimated as follows: / Nicaragua $189,864,062 Panama 144,233,358 For the proper comparison there must be added to the Panama route the cost <rf acquiring the rights and property of the new Panama Canal Company. The commission has estimated the value of these and the project recommended by it at $40,000,000. The report says that the French Panama Company asks $109,141,500 for Its property and concessions. This, added Io the coat of completing the work, makes the whole cost of a canal by the Panama route $253374,858, while the cost by the Nicaragua route is $189,804,062, a difference of $63,510,796 in favor of the Nicaragua route.