The Isthmus of Suez Question

by Ferdinand de Lesseps

Two tracks have been proposed: one direct, which is to unite the two Seas by a Canal in a straight line from Suez to Pelusium; the other indirect, which, starting from Suez, joins the Nile below Cairo, and terminates at the port of Alexandria.

In the eyes of all who are acquainted with Egypt the direct track alone appears practicable, the indirect track however has recently found its advocates in some European journals; the following particulars, collected on the spot, will enlighten public opinion upon this point.

In the first place there is a difference of length between the two tracks, which is not unimportant. The direct track being the shortest, would certainly not, of itself, be sufficient to give it the preference, especially if the other were both most economical and most advantageous; but it appears that besides having the advantage of being much shorter, the direct track also has the recommendations of being more economical, more advantageous, and more easy of execution.

1st. The indirect Canal has to cross the Nile, and this condition is almost impossible to be carried out. The crossings of rivers are attended, as is well known, with difficulties, even when there is only a draught of water of 2 to 3 met.: what would they be for a Canal which is to be 8 met. deep? And even one of the most decided partisans of the indirect track has not hesitated to declare frankly, considering this immense obstacle, which alarms but does not discourage him: “that the maintenance of such a depth presents difficulties which have never been surmounted nor even attempted.” It is true that at first the help of the barrage was reckoned upon in risking the crossing of the river; but this barrage can only serve at the low waters during four or five months of the year, at the time when the lands are irrigated to prepare for the summer crops; the reserved waters of the Nile will never, even at their maximum, be more than 4 to 4½ met., which is very far from 8 met. Above the barrage, at the point where the ships are to cross, the breadth is 2000 met. and if a transverse channel were dug there, how could it be prevented from filling with alluvium and mud? During the increase of the waters, how could a current of five miles an hour, be crossed by sailing vessels against the wind blowing from the east and south?

Against this formidable obstacle to the crossing which cannot be avoided, an expedient not less surprising, and still more impracticable, has been devised; the barrage is set aside, the employment of it being too hazardous, and the Nile is to be crossed by a bridge Canal. But can we form an idea of a Canal 8 met. deep crossing a river like the Nile above the barrage? According to the very calculations of those who propose such schemes, there would be required 1,213,147 met. cub. of water per diem to supply the upper basin, and as this enormous quantity of water would have to be raised thirty metres above the level of the two Seas; the engines required for this purpose must represent 5620 horse power by calculation, corresponding to 6000 horse power in those to be provided; not to speak of the obstacles that such a colossal work would oppose to the ordinary navigation, it would be an expense upon that point only of 50 to 60,000,000 francs. And the bridge Canal after all these sacrifices, would not be more firm or more durable than any construction of that kind. And moreover for this super elevation of level there would be required ten locks in addition to the fourteen already on the line.

2nd. The indirect Canal will be detrimental to the Canal works, so necessary to Lower Egypt, and will partly interfere with that admirable hydraulic system, which is at once the pride and the fertilization of the country. It will be in vain to make circuits to avoid the branchings of the network; as the termination is to be at the port of Alexandria, it will be absolutely necessary to pass between the Mahmoudieh Canal and Lake Mareotis; and then the flow of all the waters into the Lake which is destined to receive them will be prevented. Passing through the Lake, as the railway does, seas of mire will be met with, so much dreaded on the Pelusiac coast. It has already been necessary to raise again and again the embankment of the railway which was disappearing in the Lake, and for three years it has been necessary to labour unceasingly at the repairs which are continually required; what will it be when a dyke must be constructed at least 6000 metres in length, to heights of 7 to 8 metres, without knowing where to procure the necessary earth for these embankments?

3rd. The indirect Canal cannot terminate in the port of Alexandria without causing still greater confusion there than it causes in the Canal works. In the first place the port of Alexandria is not immutable, as has been supposed. It has not escaped the action of the ground swell, which has choked it with sand to a good third of its extent. The part of the port which has been selected is frequently agitated by the north-west winds, and the surf is then so violent in rough weather, that even small craft dare not approach it. The rock is found there at a small depth below the sea, and as it would be necessary to extend the dykes of the Canal to 250 metres into the harbour, to obtain a draught of water of 7 met., 50 to 8 met., the rock would have to be excavated under the water. Add to this that in this direction all the grand magazines and all the Government works would be encountered; there is not the least free space between the railway and the Mahmoudieh canal. But let us suppose all these difficulties overcome, there are others which the Canal raises, and which it multiplies the more it is employed. The port of Alexandria, the only military port of Egypt, is then besieged by hundreds of merchant vessels, and by the sailors of the whole of Europe. Let there be a contrary wind ever so slight, or some requisite repairs to the locks, and that the movement is arrested, just fancy the impediment, without taking into account the political dangers of such an accumulation. Moreover it is not only at Alexandria that this intolerable inconvenience would arise; it might happen, in consequence of accidents easily to be foreseen but impossible to be prevented, that Egypt should see all on a sudden 8 to 10,000 foreign sailors stationed on a point of her territory, because the forty vessels at least which traverse it every day have been forcibly detained at some part of the passage during twenty or five and twenty days consecutively.

To these conclusive reasons, it would not be difficult to add others; but these must be sufficient to warn unbiassed minds against the indirect passage.

The inconveniences, or rather the impossibilities of the indirect track, become more striking when compared with the conditions of the direct track and its incontestable advantages.