The Panama Canal: A history and description of the enterprise — John Stuart Mill — John Shaqi
The Panama Canal: A history and description of the enterprise
John Stuart Mill · en
The first of these undertakings presented, as it turned out, no great
difficulty. The New Panama Company had begun to despair of its own
ability to get a canal finished across the isthmus, and to realize that
their best course was to transfer the whole business to the United
States. This disposition had been greatly strengthened by the Report of
the Third Canal Commission, issued in December 1900. Probably the
members of the commission were convinced of the advantages of the Panama
route and the desirability of continuing the work of the French
engineers. But they were shrewd people. They dwelt in their report on
the improbability that the New Panama Company would sell its property to
the United States, and on the difficulty of getting the Colombian
concession transferred. They decided, therefore, that "the most
practicable and feasible route for an isthmian canal to be under the
control, management, and ownership of the United States is that known as
the Nicaraguan route."
The commission probably foresaw the effect such a decision was likely to
have on the directors and shareholders of the New Panama Company. If an
American canal were constructed at Nicaragua, all the property and work
of the company at Panama would be thrown on the scrap-heap. The company
estimated the value of its property at $109,141,500, a price which the
commission, representing the American government, declined to look at.
The commission thought $40,000,000 quite enough for the property, and so
completely were the Americans master of the situation that that price
was agreed upon in January 1902. The commission thereupon issued a
supplementary report, which reversed the former decision and recommended
the Panama route and the purchase of the French property.
Then arose in the Congress of the United States a tremendous conflict
between the Nicaraguans and the Panamanians, the champions of the two
routes which had so long been in rivalry. The former party insisted that
Panama was farther from the United States than Nicaragua, and therefore
the journey from the eastern to the western seaboard of the States
would be longer. They argued that Panama was unfavourable to sailing
vessels on account of the prevailing calms on that coast; that it would
be easier to deal with Costa Rica and Nicaragua than with Colombia; and
that Nicaragua was "the traditional American route" as compared with the
Frenchified Panama. The claims of the old Darien route were also
advanced. This was probably done by American railway people who were
against any canal, for the Darien route would have involved a rock
tunnel five miles long and three hundred feet broad, the attempt to
achieve which would probably have ended all canal adventures at the
isthmus.