REPORT OF BOARD OF CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PANAMA CANAL.


 WASHINGTON, D. C., January 26, 1906.
 SIR: In reply to your request for a statement of my views on the question of a sea-level or a high-level canal, as *applicable to Panama, .and my conclusions as to the relative value of each type, as discussed in the reports of the Consulting Board of EngineersAs indicated in my letter of December 19, 1905, which was written prior to the receipt or inspection by myself of any report from the Consulting Board, my judgment was and is yet in favor of a high-level canal, and it has only been strengthened by the very able presentation of the facts and deductions made therefrom in the minority report.
 I can therefore conscientiously and fully approve the adoption of the high-level type, and strongly recommend that the Commission give its official voice in favor of such a type as is described in the minority report, and there seems to be nothing that I can add to such report, in view of its clearness and completeness, more than that I am heartily in favor of its adoption.
 As between a sea-level canal and any canal with a summit elevation of 30 feet or above, I decidedly prefer the high level, and believe the one with a summit level of 85 feet more fully meets the conditions and requirements than one at any lower level.
 In my letter of December 19, 1 disapproved of the suggestion to change the present alignment of the canal at either ocean terminal. In relation to the northern terminal, at Colon, I am free to say that I now believe that either plan as recommended by the Consulting Board of Engineers in covering this question is preferable to the present alignment, and that the abandonment of the proposed seawall from Colon to English Point and the adoption of a plan for breakwaters parallel, or nearly so, to the proposed entrance channel (if such breakwaters are found necessary) much simplifies the situation.
 I believe, however, that the construction of a large basin or inland harbor at or near Mindi, or at a convenient location which exists below the Gatun dam, such basin to be supplied with coaling.and other proper outfitting facilities, will be found advisable, the material excavated in the construction of such a basin to be used in the construction of the Gatun dam.
 As regards the plan and alignment of the canal at the Pacific end, I am still inclined to my former expressed opinion that, on account of the military and sanitary features, the location of all the locks at Miraflors and Pedro Miguel, instead of part of them at La Boca, with the necessary dam at the same place, will be found more satisfactory; but as the latter plan will cost about $6,000,000 less to construct than the former one, I am ready to waive my views in favor of the latter plan, although simply on account of the difference in the estimated cost.
 The minority report of the consulting board has discussed so fully the relative merit of the two types that it would seem entirely unnecessary for me to endeavor to extend the arguments.
 I will, however, express my belief that some of the estimates as to the length of time and cost, as set forth by the report in favor of the sea-level type, are hardly justified. I believe that the estimated cost of the auxiliary works, such as diversion channels, dams, and spillways, may very readily exceed by several times the amount allowed, and that the danger to the canal by the existence of such works would be much greater than apparently appreciated.
 It is perhaps possible that the unit price per yard allowed for the removal of material in the prism of a sea-level canal below +10 (40 feet of it being all rock and below sea level) is ample; but I seriously doubt it. This unit cost might easily be double the estimate as allowed, and such an increase alone would add $20,000,000 to the cost of the sea-level canal.
 A difference alone of $100,000,000 in the cost of the canal means, at 2 per cent interest, an addition of $2,000,000 per year to fixed charges, which sum, of course, must be added to the cost of carrying charges and operation in estimating the relative value of the two types of canal. I believe the excess cost of the sea-level type, instead of being $107,000,000, as indicated in the reports, would be at least $135,000,000, and it might be very much more.
 I also believe that the difference in the time required for the construction, as between the two types, will be much greater than reported, and I would not care to set a less time than eighteen or twenty years for the building of a sea-level canal, while I am firmly of the belief that the time, as shown in the minority report, for the construction of the high or 85-foot summit level is ample.


XX