_To the Senate and House of Representatives_:
I submit herewith the letter of the Secretary of War transmitting the
report of the Board of Consulting Engineers on the Panama Canal, and
the report of the Isthmian Canal Commission thereon, together with
a letter written to the Chairman of the Isthmian Canal Commission
by Chief Engineer Stevens. Both the Board of Consulting Engineers
and the Canal Commission divide in their report. The majority of the
Board of Consulting Engineers, eight in number, including the five
foreign engineers, favor a sea-level canal; and one member of the
Canal Commission, Admiral Endicott, takes the same view. Five of the
eight American members of the Board of Consulting Engineers and five
members of the Isthmian Canal Commission favor the lock canal, and so
does Chief Engineer Stevens. The Secretary of War recommends a lock
canal pursuant to the recommendation of the minority of the Board of
Consulting Engineers and of the majority of the Canal Commission.
After careful study of the papers submitted and full and exhaustive
consideration of the whole subject, I concur in this recommendation.
It will be noticed that the American engineers on the consulting board
and on the commission by a more than two to one majority favor the
lock canal, whereas the foreign engineers are a unit against it.
I think this is partly to be explained by the fact that the great
traffic canal of the Old World is the Suez Canal, a sea-level canal,
whereas the great traffic canal of the New World is the Sault Ste.
Marie Canal, a lock canal. Although the latter, the Soo, is closed to
navigation during the winter months, it carries annually three times
the traffic of the Suez Canal. In my judgment the very able argument
of the majority of the Board of Consulting Engineers is vitiated
by their failure to pay proper heed to the lessons taught by the
construction and operation of the Soo Canal. It must be borne in mind,
as the Commission points out, that there is no question of building
what has been picturesquely termed “the Straits of Panama”; that is,
a 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 narrow and shallow to be called with any
truthfulness a strait, or to have any of the properties of a wide, deep
water strip. Both of them would be canals, pure and simple. Each type
has certain disadvantages and certain advantages. But in my judgment
the 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 fact that the Chief
Engineer, who will be mainly responsible for the success of this mighty
engineering feat, and who has therefore a peculiar personal interest
in judging aright, is emphatically and earnestly in favor of the
lock-canal project and against the sea-level project.
A careful study of the reports seems to establish a strong probability
that the following are the facts: The sea-level canal would be slightly
less 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 lock canal at a level of eighty feet
or thereabout 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.
After being built it would be easier to enlarge the lock canal than
the sea-level canal. Moreover, what has been actually demonstrated in
making and operating the great lock canal, the Soo, a more important
artery of traffic than the great sea-level canal, the Suez, goes
to support the opinion of the minority of the Consulting Board of
Engineers and of the majority of the Isthmian Canal Commission as to
the superior safety, feasibility, and desirability of building a lock
canal at Panama.
The law now on our statute books seems to contemplate a lock canal. In
my judgment a lock canal as herein recommended is advisable. If the
Congress directs that a sea-level canal be constructed its direction
will of course be carried out. Otherwise the canal will be built on
substantially the plan for a lock canal outlined in the accompanying
papers, such changes being made of course as may be found actually
necessary; including possibly the change recommended by the Secretary
of War as to the site of the dam on the Pacific side.