It is amusing to review articles written during the years when the canal was first discussed as a possibility, then as an actual undertaking. The following lines have been taken from a magazine published in 1860: "We have once more to advert to the monster folly of the nineteenth century. It is now understood that our government perceives the wisdom of leaving a project so insane to the fate and ridicule which inevitably await it. It was their opposition alone that gave it any importance, and by exciting the national prejudices of France, enabled the projectors to raise funds which they never could have got without it.... "The project is to cut a ship canal three hundred feet wide and thirty feet deep over ninety miles of flat sand. As the level of the Mediterranean and the Red Sea are the same, the canal will be near thirty feet below the level of both, and hence it will be a stagnant and in all likelihood a pestilential ditch.... "The Suez Canal will be begun but never completed nor half completed. Its wreck, as useless as the Pyramids, but far less interesting, will like to be exhibited to posterity probably under the name of the 'French Folly.'"[A] [A] Living Age, December, 1860. England's appeal to the Sublime Porte to have the work upon the canal stopped brought to light the fact that the Sultan's sanction to the undertaking had never been procured. The work done so far had followed very primitive methods, peasants digging the sand up by handsful, putting it in palm-leaf baskets and carrying these up the steep bank to empty. France made great effort to obtain the Sultan's approval, for the situation was critical. His reply was that he confirmed the concession granted by Viceroy Saïd, but that the work henceforth should not be done by impressed peasants. The company's treasury was again empty; it chose to hold the viceroy responsible for the predicament caused by the withdrawal of the peasants and brought him a bill for damages. The claims made could not have been substantiated in any court, for there was no contract, and the concession distinctly stated that the canal was to cost Egypt nothing. However, the viceroy was peculiarly situated; he was dreaming of a day when he might shake off the suzerainty of Turkey and be recognized by the powers as a monarch of independent might. Moreover, he valued the friendship of France--which was to cost him dear. He had been educated in Paris and hoped to make Cairo the Paris of Egypt. Refusing to pay the damages asked, De Lesseps prevailed upon him to submit the matter for arbitration and--strange as it may seem--the emperor of France was agreed upon, his judgment to be final. Napoleon III ruled that the clause wherein the viceroy had agreed to provide peasant labor amounted to a contract; that by the decree of the Sultan this labor was now unavailable; hence the company had suffered severe loss. The fact that the water was already filtering in from the sea,