VI REPORT OF BOARD OF CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PANAMA CANAL. depths in both approaches, because of the character of the bottom, can be easily and economically secured by dredging, when demanded by the needs of commerce.
 With the proposed sea-level canal conditions are different. The depth is but 2 feet greater than the draft of the ship, not sufficient to permit her to proceed under her own steam except at great risk; 21 miles of the canal-is not sufficiently wide for two such ships to pass; currents caused by the regulation of the Chagres and by the flow of other streams into the canal, and its many curves, combine to increase the difficulties and dangers of navigation. In short, the sea-level canal recommended is not "of sufficient capacity and depth" to "afford convenient passage for vessels of the largest tonnage and greatest depth," and can be made so only by materially increasing the depth and width, and at a considerable increase of time and money. If the suggested width of 150 to 200 feet is the greatest width economically permissible for a sea-level canal, the cost of the enlargement required must be prohibitive.
 It therefore follows that the high-level canal more fully meets the requirements of Congress.
 The majority of the Board makes objection that locks are unsafe for the passage of the great seagoing vessels contemplated by the act, due to the disastrous consequences that might result if the gates are injured by vessels entering; that the lifts- proposed are beyond the limit of prudent design for safe operation and administrative efficiency; that locks delay transit.
 Lock navigation is not an experiment. All the locks are duplicated, thereby minimizing such dangers, and experience shows that with proper appliances and regulations the dangers are more imaginary than real. The locks proposed have lifts of about 30 feet, or less than those heretofore advocated by engineers of such high standing that the objection is believed to be not well founded. The delays due to lockages are more than offset by the greater speed at which vessels can safely navigate the lakes formed by the dams than is possible in the sea-level canal, and the arguments on this point in the minority report seem to me to be the more weighty.
 The advocates of the sea-level canal express doubt as to the stability of the dams at Gatun and at La Boca, if founded on the natural soil, and advance the opinion that no such vast and doubtful experiment should be indulged in."
 It appears, however, that the dams proposed are to be founded on impervious materials, thereby conforming to the views of the majority, and are to have such ample dimensions as to insure the compression of the mud and clay rather than its displacement. Furthermore, the estimates include an allowance for additional safeguards against seepage if subsequent detailed investigations show the necessity for extra precautions. The construction of earth dams to retain water 85 feet deep is not experimental, and as the dams proposed have greater mass and stability than similarly constructed dams of greater heights, it appears that the apprehensions as to the safety of the dams are unnecessary.
 In the sea level-canal there are three stretches, aggregating 21 miles, out of about 43 miles between the shores of Limon Bay and Panama Bay, in which the bottom width is 150 feet; 19 miles have a bottom width of 200'feet; 1.5 miles near Panama have a width of 300 to 350 feet; the remainder, 1.5 miles near Mindi, has a bottom width of 500 feet.
 Between the Gatun dam and Sosa locks, a distance of 41 miles, the high-level canal has a minimum depth of 45 feet; for 19 miles of this distance the least bottom width is 1,000 feet; 4.7 miles have a width of 200 feet; the remaining 17.5 miles have widths varying from 300 to 800 feet.


 The sea-level canal gives tortuous navigation for the greater distance through a comparatively narrow gorge in which the largest vessels can not proceed under full headway, pass without risk,