CONGRESS AND THE CANAL
While the Congress of the United States ever has been charged with a
lack of appreciation of the needs of the executive branch of the
Government, spending money foolishly here and being niggardly with its
appropriations there, the history of the legislation under which the
Panama Canal was undertaken and completed shows that American
lawmakers backed up the canal diggers in every necessary way.
One may read in all the hearings that were conducted, both on the
Isthmus and in Washington, a desire on the part of the congressional
committees having to do with the canal matters, to promote the work,
and to enable those directly concerned in its execution to carry out
their plans without hindrance.
It is probable that no project ever carried to completion under the
aegis of the United States Government was studied more carefully by
the legislators than the Panama Canal. There was a standing invitation
from the Isthmian Canal Commission to members of the Senate and House
of Representatives to visit the Isthmus, collectively or individually,
for the purpose of acquainting themselves with the character of the
work and its needs. This invitation was accepted by a large
percentage of the members of the House and Senate who served during
the construction period. When a member of either branch of Congress
visited the Isthmus and saw there the character of the work being
done, and the spirit of the men behind it, he never failed to return
an enthusiastic supporter of the work, ready by vote and voice to
contribute his share to the legislation needed.
When the final Isthmian Canal Commission came into power a policy of
absolute candor with Congress was adopted. When the annual estimates
for appropriations were submitted, they came to Congress with the
understanding that they represented exactly what was needed, no more
and no less. Instead of recommending from 10 to 25 per cent more than
they hoped to get, upon the assumption that Congress would scale down
the appropriations--a policy long followed in many of the bureaus of
the Government--the canal officials asked Congress to understand from
the beginning that the figures they submitted had been pared down to
the bone. The result was a happy one. Congress learned to depend upon
the figures and to make its appropriations accordingly; consequently,
the work was never handicapped by appropriations deficient in one
branch and overabundant in another.
Congress for several years made its appropriations for building the
canal under the assumption that it was to cost about $145,000,000,
exclusive of government, sanitation, purchase price, and payments to
the Republic of Panama. It was not until 1908 that a straightforward,
definite effort was made to fix the ultimate cost. Experience showed
clearly that all hands had hopelessly underestimated both the total
amount of work to be done and the unit cost of doing it.
After a year's experience of carrying forward the work at full swing,
the commission decided to face the situation frankly and attempt to
ascertain exactly what might be expected. This investigation disclosed
the fact that the estimates of the amount of work to be done were a
little over 50 per cent short. Under the experience of one year's work
it was calculated that the total cost of the canal would be
$375,000,000, including sanitation, government, and payments to the
New Panama Canal Company and the Republic of Panama, instead of
$210,000,000, as these items would have aggregated under the estimates
made in 1906. This was about one and a half times as much as the
estimated cost of a sea-level canal. But, although Congress had fixed
the limit upon the basis of an aggregate cost of $210,000,000, it
cheerfully faced the restatement of the anticipated cost, and finally
set the limit at $375,000,000.
From that day forward the great effort at Panama was to live within
this limit, in spite of the extra work required. While Congress might
have been willing to increase this limit, in view of the fact that an
additional 97,000,000 cubic yards of material had to be removed, it
was not asked to do so. The engineers desired above everything else to
stay within their own estimates, and they did the extra work with
money saved by increasing the efficiency of the force.
The first law providing for the government of the Canal Zone was
enacted in 1904. It gave to the President and those appointed by him
the right to govern the Zone and imposed the duty "of maintaining and
protecting its inhabitants in the free enjoyment of their liberty,
property, and religion."
In 1907 an effort was made to reduce wages on the canal. The sundry
civil bill of that year carried a provision that wages on the Isthmus
for skilled and unskilled labor should not exceed more than 25 per
cent the average wage paid in the United States for similar labor.
This proposition was urged by Representative James A. Tawney, of
Minnesota, then chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the House.
When it came to a vote the wages fixed under Chief Engineers Wallace
and Stevens were upheld by a vote of 101 to 10. Congress took the
ground that the canal could be built only by the most liberal
treatment of the people who were building it.
At another time a provision was inserted in the appropriation law
establishing the 8-hour day law for American workers on the canal. A
fight was made by the American Federation of Labor and other
organizations to make it apply to the common laborer as well as to the
Americans, but this was unsuccessful. The 8-hour provision did not
work well, since the foremen and superintendents were permitted to
stop work after 8 hours, while the laborers under them had to work an
hour longer. This was later rectified by providing that the 8-hour law
should not affect foremen and superintendents in charge of alien
labor; and thus was overcome the difficulty of having an army of
common laborers at work an hour or so each day without superintendence
or direction.
In 1906 it was provided by a joint resolution of the Senate and House
that the purchase of material and equipment for use in the
construction of the canal should be restricted to articles of American
production and manufacture, except in cases where the President should
deem prices extortionate or unreasonable. This provision undoubtedly
increased by many millions of dollars the cost of the machinery with
which the canal work was executed. While some dredges and other
equipment were purchased in Europe, foreign purchases were the
exception rather than the rule. When bids were submitted there were
times when European prices of dredges were placed at less than
$700,000, while American prices for the same dredges would amount to
more than $1,000,000. When there were such marked difference in bids
the awards were made to the European manufacturers.
Although the construction of the canal was authorized by the Spooner
Act in 1902, it was not until 1906 that Congress expressed its views
in legislation on the question of the type of canal that should be
built. It was then that it declared the canal should be of the general
lock type proposed by the minority of the board of consulting
engineers, which was a complete approval of the plans urged by
President Roosevelt. In order to make certain this decision as to the
type of canal, a provision was incorporated in the appropriation bill
of that year, setting forth that no part of the sums therein
appropriated should be used for the construction of a sea-level
canal.
Congress was always willing to aid the engineers in meeting unforeseen
contingencies by giving them unusual liberties in the application of
moneys appropriated. It was provided that as much as 10 per cent of
any appropriation might be used for any of the other purposes for
which money was appropriated, thus allowing the necessary leeway to
insure a systematic progress of the work throughout all its features.
This provision many times came to the rescue of the chief engineer,
when he found that more money was needed at one point and less at
another than had been estimated 16 or 18 months before.
While President Roosevelt was in the White House Congress gave him
abundant authority over all phases of the task at Panama. He was
empowered to do almost anything he thought expedient for hastening the
work. For instance, in 1907 when he considered building the canal by
contract, Congress provided that nothing in the Spooner Act should
prevent him from entering into such contract or contracts as he might
deem expedient for the construction of the canal. This practically
gave him full authority over the limit of cost and the methods of
building. He was thus the sole judge of the character of the contracts
that he might make. No President in the history of the country ever
was vested with fuller jurisdiction and control over a great matter
than was President Roosevelt in this case. That he did not enter into
such contract was due mainly to the reports made to him by Col. George
W. Goethals, who had just been appointed chief engineer.
In 1908 the Secretary of War was authorized to purchase for the
Panama Railroad Company two steamships of American registry of not
less than 9,000 gross tons each, the cost of which should not exceed
$1,550,000, for the transportation of supplies, equipment, and
material, and of officers and employees of the Canal Commission. These
ships, when no longer required for that service were to be transferred
to the Secretary of the Navy for use as colliers or other auxiliary
naval vessels. These ships carried the bulk of the cement used in
building of the great locks, and more than paid for themselves in the
saving of transportation charges which would have been levied by
private carriers. In the appropriation act of 1909 Congress decided
that the carrying of marine or fire insurance was bad policy for the
Government, and provided that no such insurance should be carried by
the Panama Railroad Company, but that it should be reimbursed for any
loss it might sustain from the appropriations made by Congress for the
building of the canal.
[Illustration: A NEGRO GIRL A MARTINIQUE WOMAN SAN BLAS CHIEF AN
INDIAN GIRL]
AN ITALIAN A TIMEKEEPER A SPANIARD A NEGRO BOY
A FEW OF THE MANY TYPES ON THE ISTHMUS]
[Illustration: COL. HARRY F. HODGES
TESTING THE EMERGENCY DAM, GATUN LOCKS]
There were a number of committees in Congress which dealt with canal
legislation. Principal among these were the Committees on
Appropriations of the two Houses, the Committee on Interoceanic Canals
of the Senate, and the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of
the House. The Appropriations Committees dealt with the question of
appropriations. The House Appropriations Committee usually made a trip
to the Isthmus before each session of Congress. There it would hold
hearings, questioning closely every person connected with the work who
had made estimates for its benefit, its members seeing with their
own eyes the projects for which each individual appropriation was
asked. The practice was, during these visits, to go over a part of the
work and then to hold sessions of the committee for the purpose of
asking questions about that phase of the undertaking. The testimony
was taken down by an official stenographer and printed for the use of
every Member of Congress. A few months later the chairman and chief
engineer would make a trip to Washington and furnish the committee
with such supplementary information as the intervening time might have
disclosed.
The Senate Committee did not visit the Isthmus as frequently, as it
usually found that the hearings held by the House Committee afforded
it sufficient information on which to predicate its action. All
matters having to do with organization traffic, or general laws for
the Canal Zone, were handled by the Committee on Interoceanic Canals
of the Senate and the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of
the House. It was the latter committee, under the chairmanship of
Representative William C. Adamson, of Georgia, which framed the
permanent Canal Law, under which the Isthmian waterway will be
governed and operated. The big fight in Congress over the type of
canal was waged before the Senate Committee on Interoceanic Canals.
The records of this committee, together with the additional records in
the hands of Congress, constitute one of the most extensive accounts
of a great work anywhere to be found. The official literature of the
Panama Canal is almost as voluminous as the canal is big.
Although Congress usually left the details of canal construction to be
worked out by the Canal Commission and the President, from start to
finish it showed a determination so to deal with the big project that
it could look back over the work with the feeling that it had
contributed its share to the triumph of the undertaking.