CANAL ON MARS

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 84, 7 January 1928, Page 22

CANAL ON MARS

If one accepts the theory that the Martian canals are not of natural formation it must of course be assumed that they are artificially macle. The natural question then arises, Why? Dr. Percival Lowell, the eminent United States astronomer, set about to discover a valid reason that would account for the necessity for so stupendous an undertaking (says ' Dearborn Independent”). lie found that necessity in the known fact of the light atmosphere of Mars, demonstrated by its almost complete lack of clouds. This, combined with other evidences, points to the highly probable conclusion that the planet possesses very little water, and that such water as exists is confined very largely to the polar regions. His deductions from this point are easy to follow. Water is a necessity of life as we know it; existence depends upon it.. where it is scarce the struggle for existence becomes. in effect, a struggle for water. "The study of planetary evolution in general,” writes Lowell, "shows that as a planet ages its surface water grows scarce. Its oceans dry up, rivers cease to flow, its lakes evaporate. This process, he argues, has'advanced much further on Mars than it has on the earth; to the point, indeed, where water becomes a very precious commodity, its proper conservation and distribution vitally necessary to all life on the planet. Here was an incentive, the motive of selfpreservation, that would snur the inhabitants of Mars to any effort, however great. It is on these grounds that he canal system; their purpose to carry water from the remote polar regions, to husband its precious streams and ration it out over the planet’s surface. Seen in the light of this theory, the' canals of Mars fake on a significant and sinister interest. Thcv become evidences, visible through millions of miles of space, of the tremendous struggle which the life of another planet is waging for its continued existence. Here is a theory intensely interesting, one believed to. be nrobable by many competent scientists. Is it true? Shall the ouestion ever be settled for certain? Will inference be replaced by certainty, theoretical belief superseded by scientific knoweldge? A statement by Dr. Tlobcrt G. Aitken, associate director of Lick Observatory, has a bearing on this question. "The largest telescope lens in existence to-day.” says he, "is one hundred inches in diameter. It cost one million dollars. With a lens three hundred inches in diameter, we might hope to learn if life exists on Mars. Such a lens, however, would cost, not lliree million dollars, but twentyfive millions. We are not likely to have it soon.”