REPORT OF BOARD OF CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PANAMA CANAL.


canal with a depth of 40 feet, a width in rock of 200 feet, a minimum bottom width in earth of 150 feet, with a double tidal lock at Ancon whose usable dimensions shall be 1,000 feet in length and 100 feet in width, and with a dam at Gamboa for the control of the Chagres River.
 Before voting upon this resolution the members expressed their opinions as follows:
 Mr. GuE'RARD. I support in all particulars the proposition that has been submitted by Mr. Burr.
 Mr. QUELLENNEC. Mr. Chairman, it is undeniable that a sea-level canal is preferable to a high-level multilock canal, both with a view of safety and facility of operation. The conditions of transit through the Suez Canal have often proved to me the many great advantages offered by a sea-level canal. Therefore, in spite of difficulties in the construction of a sea-level canal, which I have already outlined in previous statements, in spite of greater time and cost, I believe that the sea-level plan must be recommended for the reasons stated in the motion.
 In stating that a sea-level canal is preferable to a lock canal I do not wish to say that a lock canal is not practicable; and, as during the discussion of the lock-canal project I have voted at times with the members of this Board who appeared to favor that plan, I request permission of the Board to justify, in a few words, my different votes and clearly explain my thoughts on the important subject submitted to us by the President of the United States.
 First. From a general point of view I think that a sea-level canal is preferable to a multilock canal, and must be recommended as giving greater safety of navigation and facility of operation. But in making such recommendation I feel the necessity of showing clearly to the United States Government the great difficulties which, in my opinion, will occur in the completion of the Culebra cut.
 Second. Although I recognize the dangers offered by the locks and dams in a multilock canal I am not disturbed by these dangers, which can be avoided or reduced to a minimum by both good construction and good management. Therefore I consider a multilock canal as practicable; however, I think that such a canal can be preferred only with a view of minimizing the cost and time of construction. It is for this reason that I voted for the 85-foot as preferable to the 60-foot summit level.
 Third. I think also that the transformation of a high-level lock canal into a sea-level canal is a feasible operation and not presenting great difficulties if certain measures are taken at the time of construction, especially with reference to the disposition of the upstream gates, and, in my judgment, the building of separate locks instead of flights of two or three locks. I think also that such transformation can be made at less cost than is shown by the estimates presented by the Lock-Canal Committee for such transformation.
 Fourth. To conclude, I prefer a sea-level canal, and I think that a lock canal should be considered only as a temporary o(ne, built in order to minimize the amount of immediate work and first cost, and so constructed that it may be easily turned into a sea-level canal.
 Consequently, in my judgment, if a lock canal should be constructed it should have separate locks and a summit level of 85 feet, obtained by adding to the 60-foot summit level plan one more lock of about 30 feet lift placed on each side of the Culebra cut near Obispo and Paraiso.
 These are the reasons justifying my different votes.
 Mr. TINCAUZER. I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, that my opinion has not been influenced by any person nor by the personal judgment of any person. When I vote for the sea-level canal project, and having in mind the words of the President, I vote not as I think the President of the United States may desire to have me vote, but as my best judgment causes me to vote.
 Mr. WELCKER. Mr. Chairman, I have only to say to the Board that I agree with Mr. Tincauzer. I came to America with not a single fixed idea of what had to be done, and have been here all the time above all influence whatever for one type of canal or the other. The studying of isthmian conditions and of the general projects that have been presented, combined with my knowledge, little as it may be, of sea navigation and of the wants of the great navigation that is to be expected between the Pacific and the Atlantic, have brought me, step by step, to the conviction that a sea-level canal is the only one that should be considered. I repeat, with Mr. Tincauzer, that this is not due in the least to the words the President used to us in his speech


139