THE TYPE OF THE PANAMA CANAL 



437 



150,000. The cost of the government of the Canal Zone, estimated at 

 $100,000 is not included in these figures. Eelating to dimensions, and 

 other features of various canals, data were presented in tabular form, in 

 part as here reproduced. 



Existing and Proposed Canals 



Total length 



Straight portion 



Curved portion 



Curved portion 



Depth 



Least bottom width 

 Least bottom width 



in curves. 



Least cross-section. 



Total curvature 



Curves 



Locks 



Locks, length 



Locks, width 



Suez Now 



94.76 

 81.73 

 13.04 

 13.8 

 31.2 

 108.26 



131 



5,813 



6,025 



467 



15 







Suez 

 Enlarged 



94.76 

 81.73 

 13.03 

 13.8 

 34.4 

 14763 



160* 



7,741 



8,144 



467 



15 







Kiel 



57.89 



40.9 



29.52 



72.17 



75.2 

 4,444 



26 

 2 



492 



82 



* Approximate. 



The enlargement of the Suez Canal is not jet complete. The total 

 length of the Suez Canal is 104.8 statute miles, of which about 10 

 miles are in lake, leaving the length of the excavated channel 94.76 

 miles. 



The total length of the Kiel Canal is 60.89 miles, of which 3 miles 

 are in lakes. "Where two sets of figures are noted for the area of the 

 cross-section, one applies to low, the other to high water. 



General Davis shows that the proposed sea-level canal will not be 

 dangerous, narrow or contracted, because this is not true of the Suez 

 Canal, which is longer, narrower and shallower, and has more abrupt 

 bends than the canal proposed by the majority of the engineers. He 

 calls attention to the fact that in the opinion of very able engineers 

 the cost in time will be but slightly more for the channel at ocean level, 

 than for a canal with a summit level at 85 feet; and he says: 



It is certain that the cost in money of the simple low-level channel in 

 •which every existing and projected vessel would find convenient passage, will 

 cost some tens of millions more than the complicated high-level structures, but 

 the former will closely approach and ultimately result in the ideal, simple 

 natural waterway . , . while the latter will stand for the opposite until heroic 

 measures are resorted to and the objectionable structures are removed, for the 

 idea of transformability is eliminated by the majority. 



Col. Oswald H. Ernst, of the Engineer Corps, U. S. Army, a mem- 

 ber of the canal commission of 1905, said in part: 



I have made a very careful review of the arguments presented on both sides, 

 as exhibited in these two reports which you have before you — the majority and 

 the minority reports — and I am satisfied that the United States will get a 



