Page:The Pacific Monthly vol. 14.djvu/529



Volume XIV

(Editor's Note. — The Pacific Monthly takes pleasure in presenting the views of Hon. John Barrett on the condition of affairs at Panama. Mr. Barrett, besides being a rising diplomat, is one of the foremost citizens of the Pacific Coast. His successive positions as United States minister to Siam, Argentine Republic, Panama and the United States of Colombia have given him ample opportunity to obtain a grasp of the future commercial possibilities in the outlying portions of the world and he has studied them carefully. Moreover, he has perhaps a better working knowledge of present conditions than anyone in the public service today. As he is but recently come from Panama, he speaks with understanding, and his word on the subject of the canal carries weight.)

Sea Level or High Level Canal

HILE it is not possible for me to say which is better, a sea level or a high level lock canal across the Isthmus of Panama, I am aware that there are certain arguments in favor of both of these plans. The average student of the Isthmian canal project favors the sea level idea. There is reason for this. This canal is being constructed for all time. It therefore should be built in the right way at the first. There should be no necessity of reconstructing it later on. The importance and extent of the trade that will use the canal will not permit of any future stoppage for the purpose of widening or deepening the waterway. The whole world would suffer from putting the canal out of use after it had once become a great traveled route between the Atlantic and the Pacific.

The more the canal route from Colon to Panama or from the Caribbean to the Pacific is studied, the more is the average observer impressed with

Task Great but Possible

two facts. First, it is a gigantic undertaking, unparalleled in the history of the world; second, there is, however, no class of engineering involved which has not heretofore been utilized somewhere; that is, while the work may be greater than ever before done, it is only an extension of smaller efforts of the same kind. As a parallel case, up to a certain period there were no buildings in our great cities above eight or nine stories in height, and at that time it would have been considered foolish and impossible to have erected those of twenty stories. Such buildings are now common. In the same