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
There may be good reason why the delay incident to the
adoption of a plan for an ideal canal should be incurred;
but if there is not, then I hope to see the canal
constructed on a system which will bring to the nearest
possible date in the future the time when it is practicable
to take the first ship across the isthmus--that is, which
will in the shortest time possible secure a Panama waterway
between the oceans of such a character as to guarantee
permanent and ample communication for the greatest ships of
our navy and for the larger steamers on either the Atlantic
or the Pacific. The delay in transit of the vessels owing to
additional locks would be of small consequence when compared
with shortening the time for the construction of the canal
or diminishing the risks in its construction.
In short, I desire your best judgment on all the various
questions to be considered in choosing among the various
plans for a comparatively high-level multi-lock canal; for a
lower level, with fewer locks; and for a sea-level canal.
Finally, I urge upon you the necessity of as great
expedition in coming to a decision as is compatible with
thoroughness in considering the conditions.
The board went to the isthmus and investigated the subject with great
care. In January 1906 they issued three reports. A majority of eight to
five pronounced in favour of the sea-level scheme "as the only one
giving reasonable assurance of safe and uninterrupted navigation." "Such
a canal," it said, "can be constructed in twelve or thirteen years'
time; the cost will be less than $250,000,000; it will endure for all
time."
The minority were just as confidently in favour of a high-level canal.
They concluded:--
In view of the unquestioned fact that the lock canal herein
advocated will cost about $100,000,000 less than the
proposed sea-level canal; believing that it can be built in
much less time; that it will afford a better navigation;
that it will be adequate for all its uses for a longer time,
and can be enlarged, if need should arise, with greater
facility and less cost, we recommend the lock canal at
elevation 85 for adoption by the United States.
The third report was made by the chief engineer, Mr. Stevens, who, quite
apart from all considerations of expense, was strongly in favour of the
high-level plan.
The three reports were considered by the canal commissioners, a majority
of whom ultimately agreed with the minority of the advisory board. They
admitted that a sea-level canal was ideally the best, but considered
that the cost of making such a canal sufficiently wide would be
prohibitive. They declared therefore for a lock canal at an elevation of
85 feet above sea-level. They gave their decision thus:--