PANAMA CANAL

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7024, 12 January 1910, Page 3

PANAMA CANAL

TO COST <£75,000,000. The announcement mn.de by Colonel Gortlials, the Government engineer, that the estimated cost of the Panama Canal must be increased to <£75,000,000, a clear jump of .£25,000.000 over the last estimate, and nearly double the cost of the original estimate upon which Congress authorised the construction of the canal, has (says the New York correspondent of the “Daily Telegraph”) caused a distinctly unpleasant feeling throughout the country. * Unexpected difficulties, the augmented cost of materials, and the price of labour are the chief reasons for the increase. It is part of the conditions that the materials must be American, and this adds to the enormous cost, because admittedly much that is necessary could, be secured cheaper outside the United States. The way in which the cost has increased by leaps and bounds reminds m© of a conversation which I had years ago in Paris with M. de Lesseps, who was then retired from business, and who remarked that, what with the growing cost of engineering works and unexpected difficulties, he would not be surprised if the Panama Canal cost .£100,000,000 before the finish. People laughed then at such a preposterous figure, but there is no assurance hero that the final cost will not exceed -275,000,000, and the prophecy of M. do Lesseps. and that, also, of Senator Teller, of Washington, who •predicted that -£100,000,000 will be the total, seem, according to many experts here, to stand a chance of literal fulfilment. A lock canal, with all its unexpected difficulties, was accepted as a makeshift for that sea-level canal which was recommended bv the best enginceers of the world, Americans thought the seaJevel plan too expensive, but already the supposed cost of the sea-level plan, <£53,000,000, has been left far behind, and. although it may be that a sealevel canal -would cost more than .£53,000,000, experience has amply shown that tho choice of the dangerous and. inadequate lock plan on mere grounds of economy was a prodigious blunder. This, at least, is the trend of the discussion one now hears in America, on all sides. Increased trade facilities with tho East, and the strategic advantages from the naval point of view of uniting the .Atlantic with the Pacific, are still arguments cited as warranting the enormous cost, but the prospect of <£100,000,000 by the time the job is finished and the locks are ready for business would have appalled people here when tho plans were first -discussed. It is now argued by many that there is still time to build a sea-level canal, and such a canal, being reasonably safe, satisfactory, and comparatively indestructible, would save money in the en<L