CONGRESS. (THE ISTHMIAN CANAL.) 



191 





they have acted upon any other motive than a 

 desire to discharge their duty honestly and in- 

 telligently and in the public interest ; and nobody 

 can impeach them. They point out the ad- 

 vantages of one route over the other; this reduc- 

 tion in price of the Panama Canal property; and 

 they unanimously recommend the Panama route 

 as the route which should be secured. 



" Congress is asked to set aside incontinently 

 that report of distinguished experts and to act in 

 opposition to it in a way; to substitute the 

 judgment of lawyers and laymen; and those of us 

 who are sent here, most of us without experience 

 or skill in engineering, are asked to adopt the 

 plan, not which the commission recommends, but 

 which we think is better. 



" I have not been able although I want a 

 canal, and I want it under this bill, and if we 

 can not secure the Panama Canal I want the 

 Nicaragua route to cast aside the solemn report 

 and judgment of these experts chosen by Presi- 

 dent McKinley, carrying on their work under an 

 appropriation of $1,000.000, taking abundance of 

 time to do it, and making a report in such detail, 

 and to substitute my own judgment for it. Other 

 Senators may be willing to do that. 



" My judgment as a layman, although I would 

 not act upon that alone, commends the conclusion 

 of the commission to me. One thing of infinite 

 consequence, and you see it on that map, is the 

 difference in the length of the canals. A canal 

 49 miles long as against one 183 miles long. The 

 shorter the canal, every one can see, the better. A 

 canal through which a steamship can go in the 

 daytime, through which a sailing ship with a tug 

 can go in the daytime, between sunrise and sun- 

 set, as against one that will require thirty -two 

 hours! That is an incalculable advantage. It is 

 an advantage in the matter of safety, and be- 

 cause it is an advantage in the matter of safety 

 it is an advantage for all time, too, in the matter 

 of insurance. 



" Panama is farther from some of our -ports, 

 measured by miles, but measured by time, so far 

 as the steamship is considered, there is not an ap- 

 preciable difference. Taking it as an original 

 proposition, I think a man lawyer or layman 

 being interrogated as to which canal would be 

 preferable, one through which ships could pass 

 between sunrise and sunset, or one through which 

 it would take three days to pass in daylight, 

 would not hesitate long* to say that the former 

 possessed a tremendous advantage. 



" There is another thing, speaking only as 

 a layman, which has commended to me the 

 Panama route, since the report of the commission 

 as against the Nicaragua route, although I want 

 the canal built on that if we can not build it on 

 the other. That point is this: The Panama Canal, 

 however it is built now, the testimony shows, can 

 be made in the future a sea-level canal. The 

 Nicaragua Canal can not. It is a mere matter of 

 money. It is so stated in the report of the com- 

 mission. It is so stated in the testimony of the 



perts before the committee. 



" It may become of infinite importance to the 



;ople of the United States ' in the long reach of 

 time ' to make a sea-level canal of it. Is it worth 

 othing to adopt the shorter canal? Is it worth 

 othing to have the certainty that in the future, 

 ' the public interest and safety demand it, with 



e expenditure of the requisite money, this can 

 made a sea-level canal? I think it is worth a 

 great deal. Senators may think it is worth 

 nothing. 



" But given the practicability of it, Mr. Presi- 



:nt, in the long years to come, when our popula- 



tion has grown to 300,000,000, and our wealth in 

 proportion, and the commerce of the world, im- 

 measurably increased, is using this canal, as it 

 will do, who shall say that the people of the 

 United States would care whether it cost $200,- 

 000,000 or $500,000,000 to turn this canal into a 

 sea-level canal ? All I mean to say is this, and to 

 me it is entitled to great significance and in- 

 fluence in favor of the Panama Canal, with its 

 other advantages, that as to it in the time to 

 come, if our people want to make of it a sea-level 

 canal, they can do so, when as to the other, no 

 matter how much they want it, they can not do so. 



" There is another thing, Mr. President, which 

 has influenced me somewhat since I first began 

 to read about the Panama Canal within the last 

 two or three years. I think Gen. Abbot's article 

 was the first that led me to study the subject at 

 all. I refer to the fact that it is two-fifths com- 

 pleted, that it is a short canal, and that there is 

 a good harbor at either end of it. 



" I do not know that it is wise to say what I 

 intend to in the open Senate, and I would not be 

 governed by it if the Nicaragua route were clearly 

 preferable; but if we build the Nicaragua Canal, 

 making of it, as we have by our treaty with Eng- 

 land made it, in a sense, a provincial canal (in 

 other words, we are the sole guarantor of its 

 neutrality, with a right to close it against an 

 enemy), with this short, feasible, partly con- 

 structed canal, with the work of excavation easily 

 available at any time, in the ever-increasing 

 struggle between the commercial nations of the 

 earth for trade, in the jealousies which have 

 always existed and which always will exist be- 

 tween nations, I have feared that the time would 

 come when, not with private money, but through 

 governmental money placed perhaps in corporate 

 hands, this canal would be finished. It is lying 

 there two-fifths done, feasible, short. 



" It is a continuous invitation, Mr. President, 

 to any hostile influence or power which should 

 desire its construction. It lies there a constant 

 menace to the interests and to the safety in the 

 future of the United States. I have thought it 

 might be completed, and that the day might come 

 when our Oregon would go around the Horn again, 

 and an enemy's Oregon might go through this 

 short canal. It will be said that if we build the 

 Panama Canal some other government will prob- 

 ably build the Nicaragua Canal. I hope we will 

 get title to the Panama property and the neces- 

 sary concession from Colombia and will build the 

 Panama Canal, because, Mr. President, for rea- 

 sons which I have given, I think that is the safer 

 and better canal for the United States to build. 

 I am ' banking,' if I may use that word, on the 

 experts and on the recommendation of the com- 

 mission. 



" I could not persuade myself, Mr. President, in 

 the face of that report, to vote for the Nicaragua 

 Canal and against the Panama, and get $150,000,- 



000 or $200,000,000 or $300,000,000 invested in the 

 Nicaragua and have it prove to have been dis- 

 advantageous some day. I would hate to have my 

 people turn to me and say, ' Well, you put your 

 judgment as to the safer and better canal for the 

 United States against a great body of experts 

 chosen by President McKinley and sent over the 

 ground with adundance of money to investigate 

 with care and skill and report the better route/ 



1 am not willing to take that responsibility. 

 "One thing the Senator can be certain of. 



Every doubt as to that title would be resolved by 

 the President of the United States or any other 

 public officer against the vendor." 

 Mr. Morgan, of Alabama, argued that the Lib- 



