Fourth. I deny that it will _be much more expensive to operate than the Suez Canal_, which needs constant dredging to keep it from filling with desert sands, as against the nominal cost of operating modern locks at Nicaragua, proof of which we have in the cost of lockage at the Saint Mary's Canal, which now passes through its locks nearly three times the tonnage that uses the Suez Canal. Neither is there apprehension of difficulty in water control at Nicaragua. Nature has provided against this as any canal engineer who has examined the route can prove. _An abundance of fresh water under absolute control_ is the _striking advantage_ developed at Nicaragua, as against the Suez Canal built through an irreclaimable sand desert, constantly encroaching upon it and necessitating constant dredging. But I may remark that the Suez canal with an expensive staff expends only 8-1/2 per cent. of gross receipts for management while the cheapest and most efficient railway in the United States uses 47 per cent. of gross receipts for operating expenses, and many of our railways between 50 and 60 per cent. This is one of several reasons why a canal can afford to carry cheaper than any railway; it has practically _no wear and tear_, and _no depreciation_ to contend with. Examining carefully the animus of the paper I find only two main points to contest. First: The Nicaragua Canal will divert commerce from San Francisco and other Pacific Coast Ports. Second: It is "outrageous and inexcusable" that the Government shall create a competing route which will injure railways overland which it has already aided in construction. Having reasoned from a fallacious standpoint the conclusions are without foundation and the last one entirely regardless of the national and public interest. That the Nicaragua Canal will divert maritime commerce from San Francisco and other Pacific Coast Ports is a _fallacy_ based upon the proposition that, with the advantage of five thousand miles navigation and canal toll in their favor the merchants of Pacific Coast Ports will be unable to compete with their Atlantic Coast and European rivals. Such proposition implies an _incompetency_ which I am not disposed to admit. It is a fallacy for another reason connected with navigation. A steamship from Hong Kong to Western terminus of Nicaragua Canal, and vice versa, only increases her distance by calling at San Francisco _twenty_ miles: from Yokohama _ninety-one_ miles. The steam route from Yokohama to Brito (Western terminus of Canal) via Honolulu (practically on rhumb line) is _374 miles longer_ and from Hong Kong _367 miles longer_. These two most important ports illustrate the same fact as applicable to all other Asiatic Ports within the distance attraction of the Canal, the _divisional line_ of which from the United States Atlantic Coast is at _Singapore_. The carriage of fuel being a serious factor in steamship expense, and San Francisco being practically _a half-way port_ on a run